Epic proportions - Hollywood gets it wrong

Colin Farrell's Alexander has been dubbed 'the Ishtar of epics'.

Epic is a movie industry buzzword without a clear definition. The dictionary says one thing (or in this case, several things), while Hollywood think-tanks say another.

In Hollywood-speak, epic is a generic phrase for any movie with a $US100-million-plus ($139 million) budget whose creative team has a nodding acquaintance with historical data and/or popular lore.

With some exceptions, it has also come to mean a box-office and critical stiff.

Alexander, which opened last week in the United States, is already being pegged "the Ishtar of epics". Troy didn't perform as anticipated, and both King Arthur and The Alamo tanked.

Can't Hollywood take a hint?

A hint came last year in the form of Cold Mountain. The public turned out, but not in the expected droves. The official industry excuse for the Civil War romance, based on Charles Frazier's best-seller, was that the story's conceit, a couple falling passionately in love after sharing only a few conversations, worked better in print than on the screen.

So Hollywood forged ahead, and the mixed results of the studios' epics are not easily explained.

Troy was the least unsuccessful of the brew. It cost $US200 million to make, and the studio spent many millions more to promote it, but it took in only $US133 million in the United States and did only slightly better overseas. Miscasting seems its most obvious problem, and director Wolfgang Petersen tops the list.

Petersen lacks the necessary panoramic eye. His most impressive films, Das Boot and In the Line of Fire, dealt with confined settings. The screenplay took a pseudo-majestic overview of the legendary Trojan War, but such intentions created a void between film and filmgoers, who didn't know who to root for. A Hollywood ending, in which both Paris and Helen escape the wrath of the Trojan Horse marauders, offended even those who had not brushed up on their Homer.

Brad Pitt's Achilles is not a major catastrophe, but he still resembles a high-school bully instead of a mythical warrior. Worse miscasting has left us with John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror and Richard Gere as the diaper-dancing ruler in King David. Colin Farrell's Alexander is a prime candidate to join the Epic Hall of Shame. He plays the admittedly troubled conqueror as a little boy lost.

King Arthur can only wish for Troy's modest gains.

The revisionist retelling of the Round Table's origins allegedly emphasised reality over mythology, with a sombre Arthur, an athletic Guinevere and an ambivalent Lancelot. Audience response was on the minus side of ambivalence, leading to a paltry $US52 million US intake compared to a $US130 million price tag.

The year's most successful epic was an intimate one, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Made on a minuscule budget of $US30 million, it appealed to audiences on a fundamental love-or-hate basis. That's the kind of passion that consumes millions of ticket-buyers, equating to more than $US370 million in US ticket sales alone.

Of course, we should never underestimate the passion of Tolkien fanatics. Kiwi director Peter Jackson brought operatic grandeur and cinematic skill to all three Lord of the Rings episodes, reaching a peak with The Return of the King. It remains the standard by which all computer graphic-imaging live action is judged, not to mention a money magnet. 
 
The Aviator, Martin Scorsese's biopic of Howard Hughes, has been kept under wraps. The few drips of advance buzz rave about Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn.

Director Ridley Scott, whose Gladiator re-ignited epics in 2000, will return in 2005 with a revisionist view of the Crusades called Kingdom of Heaven. Orlando Bloom, who survived The Lord of the Rings and evacuated Troy, will play a blacksmith engulfed in the 12th century tumult.

Scott is also unveiling Mary, Queen of Scots in the not-so-distant future. Bryce Dallas Howard, one of the few strong points of M. Night Shyamalan's The Village and daughter of Ron Howard, will possibly play Mary Stuart.

Even more intriguing is Sofia Coppola's decision to film Marie Antoinette. The success of Lost in Translation established Coppola as a priestess of minimalism, but there's probably no way to film the French Revolution in minimalist fashion. The casting also bears scrutiny. Kirsten Dunst will play the let-them-eat-cake queen, while indie prince (and Coppola cousin) Jason Schwartzman is her similarly ill-fated husband, Louis XVI.

Female monarchs are obviously in fashion. Angelina Jolie gives a rattled performance as Colin Farrell's insanely ambitious mum in Alexander. Yet she's director Randall Wallace's first choice to play Russian Empress Catherine the Great in Love and Honour. Maybe her Alexander accent was an introduction to Catherine.

Kevin Reynolds, whose epic endeavours consist of The Count of Monte Cristo, Waterworld and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, will re-imagine Tristan & Isolde, with Spider-Man's tormented crony James Franco and young British actress Sophia Myles as the woebegone lovers.

To all these film-makers, we wish Godspeed, tight budgets and may the force be with them. Just don't bother asking for an explanation of the force.

- NZPA