Ivansxtc

The film begins with Ivan Beckman's death. He says, in a phone call heard as we see various hazy images of Los Angeles, that the pain was so great that he took every pill in the house. He also says that he tried to think of one image that could help him get through it.

He does *not* get through it. So next we see his funeral, at which a fight breaks out between a screenwriter, who has recently been fired from his film, and the star of the film. We also hear people questioning the cause of death. They have been told that Ivan died of lung cancer, but they all assume that it was really drugs that brought him down.

And then suddenly we have jumped back in time, to the last part of Ivan's life. Ivan (played by Danny Huston, son of John Huston) is a Hollywood agent. He's trying to make a movie happen and to land the star, Don West (Peter Weller), as a client. The actual content of the script isn't important to Ivan, but the deal is. Other significant characters include the screenwriter Danny McTeague (played by James Merendino, who really is a writer) and Ivan's girlfriend Charlotte White (Lisa Enos, who also helped write and produce the film).

This is not a Hollywood film. It was shot on high definition video and doesn't look as good as some other high definition films I've seen. This plus the so-so acting of some of the minor character actors made the film feel amateurish at first, but after a while I was able to forget about the mechanics and get inside the story.

It is also clearly not a Hollywood film because of its very negative portrayal of the people in show business. Ivan is seen as a heavy drug user who doesn't really care about the film, and Don West (the star) is even less likable.

But while the characters may not be likable, they are all quite interesting. And the lessons about life and death and what happens in between also make this a film I was glad to have seen.

Credits: There's a new trend these days of saving all of the credits for the end, including the names of the stars and even the title. This film is the complete opposite - all of the credits are at the beginning of the film, leaving only the soundtrack credits for the end. I don't think this means anything, unless the filmmakers thought people would be walking out early, but it seemed worth mentioning. The credits do affect the feel of a film.

Seen on 8/21/2002.

Again, we have a literary masterpiece "adapted" to the big screen (e.g., the recent "Bartleby"). Not a total success, in my opinion. First of all its transformed setting...the Hollywood scene...while the film creates its reality fairly well...is far from the original characterization of a public servant (a magistrate) and his powerful, reflective downward path to death. Secondly, the depiction of the movie business as superficial and full of back=slapping and phony relationships is a rehash to the point of cliche.

That said, Danny Huston's performance as the high-living Hollywood agent, facing his imminent death is very convincing and even moving at times...and creates sympathy for an otherwise vacuous character. We are spared none of the grim details of his last days on earth...so be warned.

I saw this movie without any real knowledge of what it was about (other than some vague memory of having read a good review and quick peruse of the cover at the rental store).

The use of video tape (rather than conventional film), hand held work, some rough cuts and supports acting that treads a fine line between jarring and being naturalistic all took soem time to tune in to (too used to slick Hollywood narrative style!).

But it was certainly worth the effort.

Partly an acidic take on the Hollywood machine (cynicism, drug abuse,deference) but also a film about a man (Ivan) desperately seeking meaning in a world where he can find none. The final scenes, where Ivan seems to come to terms with his end take on a strange beauty.

The decision to run all the credits up front, save for the music and an 'in memory of' add to the final poignancy.

Rule #645: All films made in Hollywood, by Hollywood, about Hollywood, must be seedy. I should probably add ‘for Hollywood' to the above list, as the film is more or less a home movie. Like The Player, Sunset Boulevard and countless others before it, it is a film that has been made by locals and just happened to have been given a world-wide release; seemingly by accident. It also takes great delight in detailing what a dreadful, decadency, drug and sex-fuelled level of hell it is. Personally, I can't wait to go there.

Although based on an original novel, its structure is different and only the central idea has been ‘borrowed.' Danny Huston plays (and rather well) an agent who manages to land a big, starry client and discover that he has cancer, all in the space of a few days. It's all downhill from then on as he begins to reassess his life, realises his girlfriend is just after his business connections and that he has barely achieved anything of worth in his short life. To be honest, that really doesn't come through in the film and feels as if it could have done with a few more scenes and some sharper editing. Despite some excellent scenes, the characters seem too much like improvised teaching studies and not well-written, three-dimensional people. Only Ivan manages to leap from the screen, and that is largely because of Danny Huston's Jack Nicholson-like presence.

Another thing to note is that the film was shot with digital cameras, although the sound seems to have been recorded with a Dictaphone. The photography is good, but is soft and jittery. This is because it was shot interlaced and not in progressive scan. Given the quality of the cameras available, and its inevitable transfer to film, I'm not quite sure why. Techno-bore detail, I know, but still distracting.

A good effort, but a home movie: 6/10

Hmm, what a fab. movie. Just caught this flick at a film festival and let me tell you it is one dame fine movie.

Sitting thru the opening scenes I must admit that I thought that it was going to be total @#!&*, but it soon got going. Being involved in the "entertainment" industry I did feel a connection with this film. The acting was superb, the general production values good, although the hand-held camera work did occasionally get on my nerves.

It was quite strange actually, the start of the movie (opening credit sequences) seemed to go on for ever, and the credits that would normally be put at the end were put at the start. Anyway, I think if people can get thru the first 15 minutes, they will see the film for what it is.

Great character performances, great story and subject matter. Think an "arthouse" version of "The Player.

Just ordered this on DVD from the UK. MUST SEE!