Army of Milla: Resident Evil and Modern Auteurism

Part Two: On the Resident Evil Movies

Part One of Army of Milla looked at Vulgar Auteurism and some issues surrounding the current discourse on low-prestige action films. Here in Part Two I’ll take a general look at Paul WS Anderson’s Resident Evil series, in search of evidence that Anderson might rightfully be considered an auteur.

1. History
Resident Evilbegan life as a video game series produced by Capcom for the Sony PlayStation, initially premiering in 1996 and achieving both popular and critical success. The games are seminal in the “survival horror” genre, a subset of the action game wherein “the player is made to feel less powerful than in typical action games, because of limited ammunition, health, speed, or other limitations. The player is also challenged to find items that unlock the path to new areas, and solve puzzles at certain locations. Games make use of strong horror themes, and the player is often challenged to navigate dark maze-like environments, and react to unexpected attacks from enemies.” The process of adapting the games to film began in the late 1990s, with George Romero attached to write and direct. The producers were, however, unhappy with the script Romero produced and brought in Paul WS Anderson who wrote an entirely new script and signed to direct as well.
Anderson had experience with video game movies, as his 1995 film, the decent but more or less ludicrous Mortal Kombat (an adaptation of the popular fighting game) had turned out to be a surprise hit, despite all expectations and the presence of Talisa Soto, star of some of the most disastrous films of the last 25 years (even her best film, License to Kill, was the movie that nearly ended the James Bond franchise). His next couple of films (1997’s Event Horizon and 1998’s Soldier) had failed to capitalize on that success and Anderson found himself back in the video game ghetto, barely a step above direct-to-video land in the Hollywood prestige hierarchy. Things had gotten so bad for Anderson that he’d had to start crediting himself with his two middle initials to distinguish himself from the later-starting but now more famous writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson. The first Resident Evil movie was a hit, grossing just over $100 million, and Anderson went on to write the next four films in the series, each of which has been poorly reviewed (they range between 21% and 34% on rotten tomatoes) and commercially successful, with the last two films grossing over $200 million worldwide and the series as a whole approaching $1 billion in global box office. Anderson also directed the first, fourth and fifth films in the series, with the second and third films directed by Alexander Witt and Russell Mulcahy, respectively. Anderson passed on directing those to write and direct Alien Vs. Predator and Death Race. At present, Anderson is at work on the script for the sixth Resident Evil film, which he will also direct. Due to be released in 2014, this will reportedly be the final film in the series.
2. Structure and Setting
The five Resident Evilfilms each feature the same basic story structure. After an opening action/suspense sequence, there’s a long bit of exposition after which the plot proper begins. Each movie involves the main characters being trapped in a confined space from which they must escape while evading a variety of monsters. This escape takes up the bulk of the running time (so to speak), as the group is winnowed down to a few survivors left to face the film’s ultimate villain in a final battle. After the battle, there’s a short epilogue with a cliffhanger that sets up the next film in the series. This is a classic design, especially for action films, and you can find versions of it throughout film history, from Griffith shorts to Indiana Jones.
Anderson has suggested that his propensity for trapping his characters in small spaces may have something to do with his upbringing in coal-mining country, but I wouldn’t put too much stock in such biographizing as a general rule. Despite their confinement, Anderson often films his characters as dwarfed by the architecture that surrounds them, trapping them in another way within an immense space.
Each film is set in a unique environment: the first in an underground laboratory, the second in a city at night, the third in a Western desert, the fourth in an urban prison and the fifth in an undersea base which itself contains multiple unique environments. More on this later.
3. Characters
The main character of the Resident Evil films is Alice, played by Milla Jovovich. She’s a new character for the films, not appearing in any of the early video games. Alice is the only character to appear in all of the films, and we see almost everything through her eyes. In the first film, she’s suffering from amnesia, but eventually we learn that she was the head of security for a secret underground research laboratory run by the Umbrella Corporation. Umbrella is the primary villain of the series, though it’s incarnated differently in each film. In the first and fifth films, Alice is opposed by a homicidal computer system, the Red Queen. In the second film, as the zombie-creating T-Virus spreads through Raccoon City, the local military and government that has sealed the city off hoping to contain it, condemning millions to death. In the third film, the villain is a mad scientist, Dr. Isaacs, played by Game of Thrones’s Iain Glen. In the fourth film, it’s Umbrella CEO Albert Wesker (played by Shawn Roberts). The cliffhanger at the end of the fifth film has Alice joining forces with Wesker at the White House to fight both the computer and the zombies.
Alice is aided in each film by a rotating cast, most of whom are eaten by each film’s end. The major supporting characters include Michelle Rodriguez as Rain (first and fifth films), Ali Larter as Claire Redfield (third, fourth), Sienna Guillory as Jill Valentine (second, fifth), Oded Fehr as Carlos Olivera (second, third, fifth) and Mike Epps as LJ (second, third).
The characters are fungible. Death is not necessarily the end for them, as cloning plays a major part in the series. The fifth film is populated with evil versions of characters that had died in earlier movies. As well there is much genetic experimentation. At the end of the first film, Alice is taken captive by Umbrella and injected with the T-Virus, which we learn in the second film gives her superpowers while it turns her compatriot Matt Addison (played by Eric Mabius) into a monster (Nemesis). While fighting Wesker at the beginning of the fourth film, those superpowers are taken away, turning her back into an ordinary badass action hero. He returns them at the end of the fifth film.
This has a flattening effect on character psychology. The films place little emphasis on backstory or motivation. We know very little about Alice, and the supporting characters are as broad as possible. Like the story structure, the characters are literally generic. This particularly suits Jovovich’s strengths as an actress. Her appearance is vaguely alien, or at least superhuman, and her supermodelity makes her more expressive physically, with her body and with her face and eyes, than she is verbally. The films don’t require her to create a character with a complex psyche, rather she’s a perfect vehicle for plot delivery and audience identification (always based on fantasy).
(Not that Jovovich isn’t a good actress. I was a big fan of her performance in Luc Besson’s Joan of Arc movie The Messenger, though I think I might be the only one.)
4. Visual Style
There’s a bit more variation in visual style as you would expect from a series with multiple directors but only one writer. The three directed by Paul WS Anderson evince his clean, uncluttered approach to set design and action editing, with a clear focus on bodies moving in space. The fourth and fifth films especially make extensive use of slow-motion, the ‘bullet-time’ style popularized by the Matrixfilms. The second film, by longtime Ridley and Tony Scott assistant director Alexander Witt and the third, by Highlanderdirector Russell Mulcahy, are much more in the ‘intensive continuity’ style of modern Hollywood action films, which uses the kinetics of rapidly cut together shots of body fragments and empty space as a proxy for the intensity of physical action, and thus tends to create spatially incoherent fight scenes. The third film also uses a grainy, sepia-grey color palate similar to PWSA’s Death Race and Marc Neveldine & Brian Taylor’s Crank: High Voltagethat looks particularly ugly next to the sleek whites and blues of Anderson’s films.
The first film makes extensive use of security camera footage, motivated as the POV as the Red Queen computer system. Trevor Link makes a compelling case for this as a study of voyeurism and political power in an essay at his website. That thread isn’t much explored in the later films, though the concept of the Umbrella Corporation as an entity reaching into every aspect of our lives is somewhat there. Yau Nai-hoi’s Eye in the Sky from 2007, produced by Johnnie To, is I think more successful and nuanced at analyzing surveillance culture through use of different film stocks representing the various ways we are spied on in public.
5. Referentiality
The Resident Evilfilms, with their schematic plot structures and generic characters are the perfect vehicles for movie references. The structure allows the films to be set in almost any kind of environment, and Anderson utilizes them to essentially chronicle the last 50 years or so of action and suspense cinema. The references begin with the first shot (repeated in each of the first three films), an extreme close-up of Milla Jovovich’s eyeball, from which the camera slowly pulls away reveling her collapsed body in a bathtub, shower curtain draped around her. It’s the inverse of one of the concluding shots from the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. Where that camera spirals into Janet Leigh’s dead eye, Anderson spirals out. What we’ll get is a story of life after death: literally as the dead come back to life but also life after the death of civilization, the twisted clone lives of the dead side characters, and the indestructibility of Alice herself, never more evident than in the beginning of the fourth film, when she storms Umbrella Headquarters backed by an army of Alice-clones. We see Alice die again and again and again.
Each film in the series has a specific model from genre film history. The first is a variation on Alien, with a small group of people trapped in a confined space against an enemy they don’t understand being manipulated by a shadowy corporation and a computer that doesn’t place much value on human life. The second film recalls Escape from New York, where Alice and her companions must traverse an overrun and locked-down metropolis to rescue someone (in this case the daughter of an Umbrella scientist as opposed to the President in John Carpenter’s film). There are also hints of George Romero’s Land of the Dead, with the city walled off from the zombie hordes while the elites escape. The third film takes place after the virus has spread, destroying civilization and much of the planet itself. It’s a desert world where fuel is the most important currency and gangs of survivors attempt to caravan to a promised land. In other words: it’s The Road Warrior. The fourth film begins with the attack of the Alice-clones, shot in a cleanly digital bullet-time with the Alices dressed in the all-black cat-suit Carrie-Anne Moss sports in The Matrix. The film’s middle section takes place in a prison where a group of survivors is surrounded by zombies, recalling Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13. The fifth film presents the most complex set of references: it’s based on the Resident Evil series itself, going about as far as sustainable down its own rabbit-hole.
Opening with a gorgeous action sequence played in slow motion and backwards as the credits role, then replayed forwards, the film quickly plunges Alice into a massive undersea Umbrella base. Within that base are the aforementioned clones of the characters from previous films, as well as a series of unique environments: the Raccoon City of the first film, a sequence set in Tokyo (replayed and expanded from the fourth film), and the ultra-white Umbrella hallways seen in most of the other films. Unique to this film is a normal suburban world, complete with an Alice clone who thinks she’s a typical housewife with husband (a Carlos clone) and daughter. This world is then ravaged by zombies in an experiment run by the Red Queen. This is the only time we ever get to see Alice leading anything like a normal life. The plot of the film more or less follows that of Aliens, with Alice joined by a team of soldiers to rescue a little girl, her clone child from the suburban simulation. It ends with a confrontation straight out of Ice Station Zebra, with each side facing off in an Arctic wilderness: Alice and the surviving soldiers vs. a now super-powered and evil Michelle Rodriguez clone and a brainwashed Jill Valentine.
Watching most of Paul WS Anderson’s films, this kind of referentiality is what strikes me as his most distinctive trait. Almost all of his films are based on an existing, and very popular, property of some kind: Death Race is a straight remake of the 70s cult classic Death Race 2000, The Three Musketeers is a reasonably faithful adaptation of the Dumas novel, albeit with a wildly anachronistic twist, Alien Vs. Predator is a movie based on a game based on two series of movies. The latter I think gives a clue as to Anderson’s approach to genre and story, as the mythologies of these sci-fi classics are melded with actual historical mythology and some contemporary conspiracy theories about ancient history. The film posits that the pyramids built in Egypt and Central America were built by aliens, and that humanity participated in ceremonial sacrifices there. These aliens were the Predators and the sacrifices involved the Aliens. There’s a seamlessness to the way Anderson passes from one mythology to the other, with the way he adapts and bends previously created material to build his own unique mythological world. It’s somewhat akin to the way a backwoods preacher has a limitless supply of bible verses at his disposal for use in any situation. Except for Anderson, the bible is genre cinema.
The question remains though, is there enough evidence to call Paul WS Anderson an auteur? He has a unique approach to story and character, with a distinctive visual style and appears to be exploring interesting and personal thematic territory. But is it art? I’ll attempt to answer that in the next and final installment of this series, Resident Evil and Classical Auteurism.

1939 Endy Awards

It’s been a few months, so it feels like time to hand out some more awards. 1939 is generally considered one of the greatest film years ever. The Hollywood studio system was at its peak and the French, British, Soviet, Italian and Japanese film industries were yet to be entirely devastated by war. I don’t know that it’s my favorite year, 1932 and 1937 might even be the best years of the 1930s. I do think that eventually 2012 will be remembered among the great years in movie history.
Here are my fake awards for 1939. In the Endy Awards Index you can find entries for 2011, 1932, 1964, 1957 and 1994, as well as posts for the awards I made several years ago. Eligibility is determined by imdb date and by whether or not I’ve seen the movie in question. Nominees are listed in alphabetical order and the winners are bolded. And the Endy goes to. . .

Best Picture:

1. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
2. Only Angels Have Wings
3. The Rules of the Game
4. Stagecoach
5. Young Mr. Lincoln

Best Director:

1. John Ford, Stagecoach
2. Howard Hawks, Only Angels Have Wings
3. Kenji Mizoguchi, The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums
4. Jean Renoir, The Rules of the Game
5. John Ford, Young mr. Lincoln

I don’t think that any director has ever had a better year than John Ford did in 1939, but Renoir made one of the very best films of all-time this year.

Best Actor:

1. Clark Gable, Gone with the Wind
2. Robert Donat, Goodbye Mr. Chips
3. James Stewart, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
4. Cary Grant, Only Angels Have Wings
5. Henry Fonda, Young Mr. Lincoln

My favorite performance from the greatest actor in movie history gets the win here, against a very strong field. Donat won the Oscar, with Stewart getting the make-up prize the next year for The Philadelphia Story. His co-star in that film, Cary Grant, would probably be my pick that year instead, on the strength of His Girl Friday. Although, Stewart was also in my favorite film from 1940, The Shop Around the Corner. We’ll see what happens when I get around to giving out those awards.

Best Actress:

1. Claudette Colbert, Midnight
2. Bette Davis, Dark Victory
3. Greta Garbo, Ninotchka
4. Judy Garland, The Wizard of Oz
5. Vivien Leigh, Gone with the Wind

Supporting Actor:

1. Harry Carey, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
2. Marcel Dalio, The Rules of the Game
3. Jean Renoir, The Rules of the Game
4. Thomas Mitchell, Stagecoach
5. John Wayne, Stagecoach

If John Ford had the best director year ever in 1939, Thomas Mitchell may have had the best year for a supporting actor. Standout performances in five great movies (Stagecoach, Only Angels Have Wings, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone with the Wind & The Hunchback of Notre Dame)? Can anyone top that? Tough to leave out Claude Rains in Mr. Smith and Humphrey Bogart in The Roaring Twenties here. I suspect they’ll be getting some Endy-love in the 1940s.

Supporting Actress:

1. Jean Arthur, Only Angels Have Wings
2. Olivia DeHaviland, Gone with the Wind
3. Marjorie Main, The Women
4. Maureen O’Hara, The Hunchback of Notre Dame
5. Maria Ouspenskaya, Love Affair

Original Screenplay:

1. Jacques Viot & Jacques Prévert, Le jour se lève
2. Charles Brackett & Billy Wilder, Midnight
3. Sidney Buchman, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
4. Jean Renoir & Carl Koch, The Rules of the Game
5. Lamar Trotti, Young Mr. Lincoln

Adapted Screenplay:

1. Joel Sayre & Fred Guiol, Gunga Din
2. Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder & Walter Reisch, Ninotchka
3. Jules Furthman, Only Angels Have Wings
4. Dudley Nichols, Stagecoach
5. Matsutarô Kawaguchi & Yoshikata Yoda, The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums

Impressive for Brackett & Wilder getting nominated in both screenplay categories. They didn’t win (tough to beat out two of the most perfect screenplays in film history), but I expect we’ll be seeing more of these guys.

Non-English Language Film:

1. The Rules of the Game
2. The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums
3. Le jour se lève

Unseen Film:

1. Each Dawn I Die (William Keighley)
2. Sincerity (Mikio Naruse)
3. The Spy in Black (Michael Powell)
4. St. Louis Blues (Raoul Walsh)
5. Union Pacific (Cecil B. DeMille)

I’m actually surprised there aren’t more of these, especially with my having seen only three non-English language films. But looking through imdb’s database, these were the best I could come up with. There’s another Naruse from this year, but Sincerity sounded better.

Film Editing:

1. Only Angels Have Wings
2. The Roaring Twenties
3. The Rules of the Game
4. Stagecoach
5. The Wizard of Oz

Cinematography:

1. Ernest Haller, Gone with the Wind
2. Philippe Agostini, André Bac & Albert Viguier, Le jour se lève
3. Jean-Paul Alphen, Jean Bachelet, Jacques Lemare & Alain Renoir, The Rules of the Game
4. Bert Glennon, Stagecoach
5. Yozô Fuji & Shigeto Miki, The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums

Original Score:

1. Gone with the Wind
3. Le jour se lève
5. The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums
2. The Wizard of Oz
4. Young Mr. Lincoln

Adapted Score:

1. Babes in Arms
2. The Rules of the Game
3. Stagecoach

Original Song:

1. “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”, The Wizard of Oz
2. “Good Morning”, Babes in Arms
3. “If I Only Had a Brain”, The Wizard of Oz
4. “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”, The Wizard of Oz
5. “We’re Off to See the Wizard”, The Wizard of Oz

These soundtrack awards are pretty much no-brainers. Or if I only had a brainers.

Art Direction:

1. Drums Along the Mohawk
2. Gone with the Wind
3. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
4. The Rules of the Game
5. The Wizard of Oz

Costume Design:

1. Gone with the Wind
2. The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex
3. The Rules of the Game
4. The Wizard of Oz
5. Young Mr. Lincoln

Make-up:

1. Goodbye, Mr. Chips
2. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
3. The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex
4. The Wizard of Oz
5. Young Mr. Lincoln

Sound Mixing:

1. Gone with the Wind
2. Gunga Din
3. Only Angels Have Wings
4. Stagecoach
5. The Wizard of Oz

Sound Editing:

1. Beau Geste
2. Gone With the Wind
3. Gunga Din
4. Only Angels Have Wings
5. Stagecoach

Visual Effects:

1. Gone with the Wind
2. Only Angels Have Wings
3. The Wizard of Oz

This Week in Rankings

This week I finished up my run through the action films of the 2000s and I’m about to start research for my next They Shot Pictures episode, on Akira Kurosawa. In the meantime I spent three days getting lost in the NFL Draft (go hawks) and Gilmore Girls (oh when will Bunheads get renewed??) and not watching any movies at all.

I made a ranked list of movies written and/or directed by Paul WS Anderson (the Resident Evil/Auteurism project is still in progress) as well as updated my list of John Ford movies (I’ve picked up Joseph McBride’s Ford biography again after losing track of it for the first month of Henry).

Night Across the Street, the last film by Chilean director Raúl Ruiz, and one of my favorite movies of 2012, opened this week at the Northwest Film Forum. Also playing there is the documentary Leviathan, which I hear is very good but haven’t had a chance to get to yet. And Terrence Malick’s To the Wonder is still playing as well. So there’s no excuse for going to see the new Michael Bay movie.

These are the movies I’ve watched and rewatched over the last week, along with where they place in my year-by-year rankings, with links to my letterboxd comments. Another revision this week is that Spencer Tracy knocks Lowell Sherman off the nominee list for Best Actor in the 1932 Endy Awards.

Me and My Gal (Raoul Walsh) – 6, 1932
The Gay Falcon (Irving Reis) – 25, 1941
The Muppet Movie (James Frawley) – 6, 1979
Event Horizon (Paul WS Anderson) – 53, 1997

Domino (Tony Scott) – 9, 2005
Hitman (Xavier Gens) – 71, 2007
Gamer (Neveldine/Taylor) – 41, 2009
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning (John Hyams) – 21, 2012

This Week in Rankings

Continued with my project catching up on the action movies of the 2000s this week, and actually managed to write something other than a list as well. It was originally just going to be a single post about Paul WS Anderson’s Resident Evil movies, but my introduction about Vulgar Auteurism got out of hand and became its own post. Now the Resident Evil thing will be a series, the next part of which I’ll be writing whenever I can find another few hours of baby-free time.

Opening today in Seattle at the Grand Illusion is Brandon Cronenberg’s Antiviral, an interesting movie I saw and reviewed way back in September (someday I will finish my last three VIFF 2012 reviews, hopefully before VIFF 2013). The best movie in theatres now though is Terrence Malick’s To the Wonder, the first movie I’ve been able to see in a theatre in a couple of months. Like all Malick films, there’s a lot of disagreement and dismissal following in the wake of its release, but I’m sure that in time it will find its place amongst the director’s other great recent works. I don’t know that I’ll be writing much about it: there’s already so much great stuff out there on it and I have so little time, but I loved it.

These are the movies I watched and rewatched over the last week, along with where they place on my year-by-year rankings. Links are to my letterboxd comments, where available.

The Musketeers of Pig-Alley (DW Griffith) – 1, 1912
Man on Fire (Tony Scott) – 9, 2004
Alien vs. Predator (Paul WS Anderson) – 24, 2004
Crank (Neveldine/Taylor) – 8, 2006
Déjà Vu (Tony Scott) – 10, 2006
Death Race (Paul WS Anderson) – 49, 2008

Universal Soldier: Regeneration (John Hyams) – 22, 2009
The Taking of Pelham 123 (Tony Scott) – 31, 2009
Crank: High Voltage (Neveldine/Taylor) – 46, 2009
The Three Musketeers (Paul WS Anderson) – 35, 2011
To the Wonder (Terrence Malick) – 6, 2012
Bachelorette (Leslye Headland) – 25, 2012

Paul WS Anderson-Related Exchange of the Day

Dave Kehr and R. Emmet Sweeney discussing Paul WS Anderson at Movie Morlocks last September: 

DK: It’s not like that audience is going to respond, “hey, this got a great review in the Times! Let’s go see Resident Evil 5!” It’s funny how people get that label of being schlock directors. I don’t know what he did to deserve that.
RES: It’s just received wisdom. His name has become shorthand for schlock.
DK: Yeah, but is he Uwe Boll or something?
RES: It’s the subject matter.
DK: But Christopher Nolan became an international star directing comic book movies.
RES: Yeah, but Anderson does video game adaptations, there is a difference. Comic books have risen in cultural capital the last couple of decades. Not so for video games. Roger Ebert says video games are not art, so Paul W.S. Anderson is out. He’s out. People always forget how Hawks and Hitchcock were regarded as vulgar entertainers in their day.
DK: It seems like that lesson never gets learned. Each generation of critics blows it in their own way.
RES: Not that I’m saying Paul W.S. Anderson should be compared to Hitchcock…
DK: Well, he’s at least Far Side of Paradise at this point. [laughs] Maybe he’s Gordon Douglas.

Army of Milla: Resident Evil and Modern Auteurism

 
Part One: On Vulgar Auteurism
 
In recent weeks I’ve been trying to catch up with the works of a number of contemporary action film directors, filmmakers who’ve been labeled by a small subset of the critical world as ‘vulgar auteurs’ for the quality of their movies and the low repute of the genres they work in. The main text for Vulgar Auteurism appears to be this post from mubi.com, which consists of a rough categorization of the filmmakers (inspired by Andrew Sarris’s lists in The American Cinema), followed by links to some writing about some of their films (the links only show up as exclamation points whenever I look at it, not sure if that’s my computer error, their internet error or entirely intentional for some reason that escapes me)[Note: Since this was written, the mubi folks have responded to some of the criticisms of Vulgar Auteurism by revising this post, adding a definition, readable links and revising the proposed list of directors. Here is a web archive link to the original post.]. There’s also a Vulgar Auteurism tumblrthat is pretty much nothing but screen captures, making the non-verbal argument that within these genre films lies a genuine (visual) artistry. As yet there doesn’t appear to be all that much writing about these directors in general, in even the short form that follows the lists in Sarris’s book. Mostly the arguments for their auteur status can be found within reviews for individual films. These arguments tend to focus on the artistry of the filmmakers’ image-construction over their thematic content (philosophical, political, etc) or narrative qualities (story, plot, character, dialogue, etc). This Formalist focus somewhat undermines the VA critics polemical stance in favor of makers of low genre film: auteur status comes from the high art sheen (the techniques of mise-en-scene) the directors impose on low material while the actual content of the films is ignored or even ridiculed, thus accepting the art-mainstream-vulgar division the movement is ostensibly opposing. See for example the review of Paul W. S. Anderson’s 2012 film Resident Evil: Retribution by Ignatiy Vishnevetsy:
 

Anderson’s work may not have a lot of narrative substance, but his visual sensibility is so well-developed that it often doesn’t matter; form is substituted for theme. Composed in crisp visual shorthand, Anderson’s movies are about images: strong, stoic-faced women meting out violence; characters executing somersaults through the air; tiny figures venturing into vast, foreboding spaces.
It’s certainly a lot of fun, though not exactly profound. A lot in the way of characterization and development gets sacrificed to make Anderson’s style work; his movies tend to be about stock characters talking in clichés in familiar situations—and, unlike the work of a Pop / camp fetishist like Roland Emmerich, it’s all done with a completely straight face. Anderson’s latest, Resident Evil: Retribution 3D, takes this even further: it’s his most generic movie, in every sense of the term. In certain ways, it’s also his ballsiest and most playful.



There’s nothing particularly new about critics finding art in disreputable places. The first generation of Auteurists made compelling arguments for the artistry of filmmakers working in such vulgar genres as the musical, the Western, the war movie, ‘women’s pictures’ and the crime melodrama (gangster films, police procedurals and films noirs). And often those arguments rested on the director’s creative use of filmmaking techniques in order to convey ideas about the world and about cinema itself (think Fritz Lang’s geometric compositions, Douglas Sirk’s mirrors, Josef von Sternberg’s otherworldly clutter, Vincente Minnelli’s reds, Howard Hawks’s medium shots and so on). But rarely did those arguments rest on the complete dismissal of the ‘content’ of the films. In fact, the autuerists took the radically egalitarian stance of treating low content exactly the same as high, and were therefore open to finding profound insights in the most vulgar places (John Ford’s vision of American history in all its sweep and contradiction or Charlie Chapin’s melancholy humanism). The ideal is for the auteur to have a complete artistic personality, where the form and content of their films combines to express a unique and compelling vision of the world. The classical auteurist project continues today as film and television work by directors like Joseph H. Lewis or Edgar G. Ulmer continue to be unearthed and re-examined. (This is the kind of analysis we were attempting on the They Shot Pictures Johnnie To podcast, To being a director who would certainly be categorized as a Vulgar Auteur if that group wasn’t (for some unknown reason complaining about which is beyond the scope of this essay) confined merely to filmmakers working in Hollywood). In all but a few rare cases, form without content is just as incomplete as content without form. I’ve yet to see this kind of comprehensive study of most of the filmmakers Vulgar Auteurism champions.
 
I don’t want to overstate this complaint. I haven’t read close to everything put out by the VA critics, so it’s certainly possible I’m misreading them or just missing the pieces where they make exactly the arguments I’m looking for. It’s also true that analysis of visual style is woefully rare in film culture, so the fact that they focus on it at the expense of plot-and-theme analysis has value in and of itself by helping to turn the conversation toward unexamined possibilities in film criticism. Beyond that, it may be the case that these directors just don’t have much going for them aside from their images: that the texts of their films really are empty and the only way they have of expressing an artistic vision is through their images (‘form is substituted for theme’), that they are simply not complete auteurs in the sense Ford and Lang were. It’s also the case that the most under covered filmmakers are also the ones with the smallest body of work: it’s simply too early in his career for a comprehensive analysis of John Hyams, for example, whereas there have been lengthy studies of VA favorites like Michael Mann and Paul Veerhoeven.
 
That said, I think the world needs a more comprehensive look at Paul W. S. Anderson’s Resident Evil films, one that recognizes not only the artistry of Anderson’s image-creation, but also the unique qualities of the world he’s constructed over ten years and five movies, a hyper-cinematic world where genre film tropes are given mythological status and ingeniously reworked and varied, a paranoid world of shifting surfaces, mad scientists, homicidal computers and omnipotent corporations, grounded only by the implacable presence of Milla Jovovich. They amount to a remarkable cinematic achievement, regardless of their dubious generic and source material, but is that enough to call Anderson an auteur and if so, does that make his movies, for lack of a better word, good? These are the questions I’ll try to answer in the next parts of this series.
 

This Week In Rankings

I watched a lot of movies over the last week, but have had no opportunity as yet to write more than a few lines on letterboxd about them as a very small grumpy old man takes up most of my free time. I hope to coordinate things better in the next week so I can write something about Paul WS Anderson’s Resident Evil movies at least, and maybe some other things as well. In the meantime I’ve been tweeting out some links to older content: this week saw a review of The Poor Little Rich Girl for Mary Pickford’s birthday and a They Shot Pictures episode for Hou Hsiao-hsien’s birthday. Also one of my favorite movies from last year is now available on Instant Netflix: Hong Sangsoo’s In Another Country. You can check out more in my Review Index or my Essay & Podcast Index.

These are the movies I’ve watched and rewatched over the past week, along with where they place on my year-by-year rankings. I’ve linked to my letterboxd comments where applicable.
Duel (Steven Spielberg) – 11, 1971
Modern Romance (Albert Brooks) – 3, 1981
Thief (Michael Mann) – 6, 1981
Something Wild (Jonathan Demme) – 6, 1986
Prince of Darkness (John Carpenter) – 19, 1987
The ‘Burbs (Joe Dante) – 14, 1989
Resident Evil: Extinction (Russell Mulcahy) – 16, 2007
Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Steven Spielberg) – 39, 2008
Resident Evil: Afterlife (Paul WS Anderson) – 23, 2010
The Cabin in the Woods (Drew Goddard) – 8, 2011
Resident Evil: Retribution (Paul WS Anderson) – 27, 2012

This Week in Rankings

One week ago marked the arrival of Baby #2, Henry, and so for the next few weeks at least I won’t have all that much time for writing about movies. I’ll still be watching them of course, but now at much weirder hours of the night (4 to 7 am has been prime movie-watching time over the past couple of days). If you’ve a hankering to read some of my writing, you can check out my Review Index, full of capsule and longer reviews from the past several years.

My next They Shot Pictures episode will be in May, discussing the non-samural films of Akira Kurosawa. Until then I’m hoping to dive into films from Paul WS Anderson, John Hyams, Tony Scott and Neveldine & Taylor. As I noted in this essay a few weeks ago, there’s nothing especially new about the “vulgar auteurism” that champions these directors, but it is a catchy name.

These are the movies I’ve watched and rewatched in the last week, and where they place on my year-by-year rankings. I’ve linked each to my letterboxd comments, which range in length from one-liners to capsule reviews.

Gremlins – 10, 1984
Peking Opera Blues – 12, 1986
Gremlins 2: The New Batch – 10, 1990
Hard Target – 48,1993
Resident Evil – 15, 2002
Resident Evil: Apocalypse – 20, 2004
Damsels in Distress – 2, 2011

This Week in Rankings

This week we finally recorded the Johnnie To They Shot Pictures episode, you can read about it, download and listen by following the links in this post. Next up for me on the podcast will be the first of two shows on Akira Kurosawa, focusing on his more modern-day films. We’re thinking No Regrets for Our Youth, The Idiot and Red Beard right now, but that’s subject to change. I’ll be watching as many of them as I can in the next few weeks anyway. Look for that to appear on an internet near you sometime in May. I also made a list of the Best Movies of the 1990s over at Letterboxd.

Here are the movies I watched and rewatched over the past week, and where they place on my year-by-year rankings. I’ve linked to my Letterboxd notes where applicable.

Le Doulos – 9, 1962
Dragon Gate Inn – 4, 1967
My Left Eye Sees Ghosts – 11, 2002
Throw Down – 2, 2004

Yesterday Once More – 12, 2004
Exiled – 3, 2006
Eye in the Sky – 12, 2007
Romancing in Thin Air – 8, 2012