Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and the Rise and Fall of Hollywood’s Happiest Couple by Matthew Dessem at The Dissolve
This is a great piece of writing – well-researched, sourced, informative, interesting, and highly readable. I’ve long wondered if the increase in cynicism in Wilder’s work coincided closely with his switch in writing partners from Brackett to Diamond for a reason, and it looks like it did. I’m pretty interested to read Brackett’s journals when they’re published this fall.
Brackett emerges from his own pages as a sort of platonic ideal of WASPishness: observant, hyperliterate, reserved, snobbish, fiercely loyal. And on almost every page is Wilder, Wilder, Wilder, Brackett’s collaborator, rival, friend, and opponent. His day-by-day account of their work together gives a fascinating portrait of their partnership, at least from Brackett’s perspective, and one of the most detailed accounts of any artistic partnership ever. Wilder once told biographer Charlotte Chandler that “a good writing collaboration is more difficult to achieve than a good marriage. And it’s more intimate.” Brackett’s diaries reveal just how apt that comparison was. Over the years the two men worked together, they came to know each other better than anyone else ever would. And when the end came for Brackett and Wilder, it came with guilt and recrimination, jealousy and betrayal.
Can Indie Directors Avoid Disappearing Into the Studio System? by Landon Palmer at Film School Rejects
Rian Johnson landing the gig as director of Star Wars Episode VIII is pretty awesome on two levels – it’s validation for his skill and great for his exposure (and bankability) as a director, and it means that Star Wars VIII will hopefully be solid – and less exciting on a third: it means he likely won’t have time to do more quirky, idiosyncratic films like Brick, The Brothers Bloom or Looper for a while at least. Or maybe ever. Landon’s observation here is that these days it seems that indie directors who hit it big and start making big studio films end up never returning to smaller films (the “one for them, one for me” mentality of Steven Soderbergh and others seems to be fading). Now, he’s ignoring the one-two punch of Whedon’s Avengers and Much Ado About Nothing, but he’s spot on about one thing, at least, and that’s the way filmmaking is splitting into two tracks – megabudgeted Hollywood blockbusters and microbudgeted indies. The mid-range non-franchised studio-supported film is dying out.
I am by no means saying that such directors are selling out, or that any of these filmmakers have some sort of prescribed duty to take on more personal and riskier projects. They aren’t and they don’t. But it is notable that directors who make a mark upon the independent scene rarely show evidence of “cashing out” after directing hugely successful studio projects. Instead, they dig their heels deeper into the studio machine, and not only stand to benefit greatly from it, but seek to become major players within it by seating themselves as a major source of direction for these franchises’ greater futures. [...] Perhaps this widespread practice more generally speaks to studios’ continued devotion towards franchising at the expense of all other different types of filmmaking. Where it seemed for years that indies and mainstream films were blending to the point of being indistinguishable, now it seems that two rigidly distinct tiers of filmmaking exists, separated by a canyon of monetary and institutional resources.