Page 1 of 6
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 5:40 pm
by Antoine Doinel
I've been looking forward to this film, and I remember a trailer surfacing last fall (if you have iTunes, you can still search and find it) but then the release date was pushed. The LA Times is now
reporting that the studio is still trying to get a final edit put together:
Brad Pitt's 'Jesse James' comes under fire
Early cuts of Brad Pitt's 'Jesse James' have tested poorly, but Warner Bros. is sticking to its guns.
By John Horn, Times Staff Writer
Every great western has a duel, and there's a showdown at the center of Brad Pitt's new movie about gunslinger Jesse James. The struggle hinged on the film's tone and length — at one point its running time was more than three hours — according to several people close to the production.
But running time wasn't the main issue. The thornier challenge was to come up with a cut of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" that satisfied audiences and Warner Bros., the studio making and distributing the film. At one point there were competing versions — one from writer-director Andrew Dominik and another from producer and star Pitt, according to a person familiar with the making of the movie. It's unclear which version of the film will be released.
Warner Bros. only recently announced a Sept. 21 release date for "Jesse James," about two years after it was filmed. (In the time since, Pitt has had daughter Shiloh Nouvel and completed two other movies, "Ocean's 13" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." "Ocean's" will be in theaters more than three months before "Jesse James.")
Adapted from the novel by Ron Hansen, the film follows the last heist committed by James (Pitt), and Ford's (Casey Affleck) devoted and then vengeful relationship with the legendary outlaw.
Dominik, a New Zealand filmmaker who rose to prominence with the 2000 crime drama "Chopper" starring Eric Bana, wanted to deliver a dark, contemplative examination of fame and infamy, in the spirit of director Terrence Malick ("The New World"), according to several people familiar with the production. The studio, on the other hand, wanted less contemplation and more action, closer to Clint Eastwood's filmmaking style, sources said. (Dominik, Pitt and Affleck declined interview requests.)
Various versions of the film were assembled and tested, with Pitt, producer Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") and editor Michael Kahn ("Saving Private Ryan") either overseeing new cuts of the film or suggesting revisions, according to people familiar with the process.
Early test scores were poor, but some who have seen the film say the performances by Pitt and especially Affleck are among the best in their careers.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:11 pm
by John Cope
Yeah, I'm excited to see this too, but with reservations. For one thing, the thought of Pitt or Ridley Scott having any say over the final edit is dispiriting. Scott's worst quality has always been his lack of self-confidence and his susceptibility to persuasion or pressure (at the time, after all, he did actually buy the idea of the wretched studio edit on Legend as an improvement); also, as his current drive to be a slightly more "arty" Michael Bay seems to attest, I wouldn't trust his judgment. On a side note, this is why the rumor of Scott directing Blood Meridian is depressing as well. Maybe he thinks he's got a flair for Westerns now.
Anyway, as much as I want to see Dominik's original cut, we shouldn't forget that Malick like aspirations do not always ensure a great film--Ned Kelly seems to be a case in point. I liked it well enough at the time but I've almost completely forgotten it.
Why couldn't this have Cimino like aspirations? I suppose that's out of fashion but I'd respond to it just as positively.
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:29 pm
by tavernier
John Cope wrote:Why couldn't this have Cimino like aspirations?
Cimino? Who dat?
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:41 pm
by domino harvey
I hope they keep the full title
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:54 pm
by Jeff
domino harvey wrote:I hope they keep the full title
Me too, but I suspect that by the time Scott & Co. are done with it, it will be titled
Jesse! and have a giant Brad Pitt face on the poster.
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:31 pm
by ranaing83
Full Trailer in HD.
Wow. This just shot to the top of my must see list for this fall.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:01 am
by miless
ranaing83 wrote:Full Trailer in HD.
Wow. This just shot to the top of my must see list for this fall.
It looks a lot like a Malick film, to me... I'm so excited.
I'm also reminded of the trailer for There Will Be Blood.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:08 am
by ranaing83
I'm really hoping that WB decides to go with the longer, more languid cut of the film. Even based on just the trailer, this seems like a film that could actually support a 3 hour runtime, and I certainly won't have a problem watching it if the entire film is able to maintain the painterly, Malick-esque visual design the trailer promises.
edit: the final runtime of the film appears to be 155 minutes, as supported by the official website of the Venice Film Festival, where the film is playing in competition. Maybe the 3 plus hour director's cut will surface on home video?
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:46 am
by flyonthewall2983
The new trailer steals an obvious shot from Gladiator, but it definitely got me intrigued.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:34 am
by Antoine Doinel
Beautiful trailer - I'm glad to see Sam Rockwell in the cast too.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:55 am
by Hrossa
Let's hope we get the director's cut of this at some point down the line. There are some stunningly beautiful shots in this trailer and some nice moments (e.g. Casey Affleck's blink after being photographed) and it will take a lot of convincing to make me believe that something cobbled together by Pitt and WB will be superior to Dominik's cut.
Also, Paul Schneider, Zooey Deschanel and Michael Parks are all in the cast.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:56 am
by flyonthewall2983
Mary Louise-Parker as well, I believe.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:06 am
by Hrossa
flyonthewall2983 wrote:Mary Louise-Parker as well, I believe.
Yeah, I didn't mention her because I generally find her sort of annoying. Hopefully she's not in this, since she's playing Jesse's wife and will probably have a lot of screen time.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:09 am
by flyonthewall2983
She's too cute to be annoying.
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:11 pm
by miless
I heard (about a year, or so, ago) that there might even be cameos from Nick Cave and Tom Waits... how great would that be?
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:47 pm
by jbeall
Hrossa wrote: There are some stunningly beautiful shots in this trailer and some nice moments (e.g. Casey Affleck's blink after being photographed)
Really? I agree with the first part of that--there
are some beautiful shots--but I thought the blink looked formulaic and predictable. I still want to see the film, but now I'm a little worried about Bob Ford turning into something of a caricature.
Off-topic: I received
I Shot Jesse James from netflix today. I was reading Sam Fuller's story about the making of this film in his autobiography, and Ford is an interesting (and complicated) subject. I hope
both films do justice to him!
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:28 am
by Hrossa
Speaking of J. James films, there's also Walter Hill's The Long Riders, which I saw just recently and am pretty fond of.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:35 am
by Jeff
Apparently the
poster designers went to the same "awkwardly Photoshop characters into the foreground" school of design as the creators of the
Days of Heaven cover. A part of me would enjoy seeing "Tiny Brooding Casey Affleck in a Top Hat" lurking in the background of every poster though.
EDIT: Apparently, Coming Soon took down the large version of the poster, but I've found a smaller version and updated the link.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:54 am
by souvenir
I'm very anxious to see this. In Friday's USA Today Brad Pitt remarked "I hesitate to even call this a Western. This is a psychological dissection of people at this time in history."
I am afraid it'll be a box office flop though. It has all the ingredients - difficult, delayed film with a questionably bankable movie star and a genre no one goes to the theater for anymore.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:41 am
by Cold Bishop
souvenir wrote:I'm very anxious to see this. In Friday's USA Today Brad Pitt remarked "I hesitate to even call this a Western. This is a psychological dissection of people at this time in history."
And then he sides with the studio in creating an alternate cut to create a more Eastwood-action film?
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:26 pm
by miless
souvenir wrote:I am afraid it'll be a box office flop though. It has all the ingredients - difficult, delayed film with a questionably bankable movie star and a genre no one goes to the theater for anymore.
well, flop is a relative term... seeming as how the film was made for $30 million (tiny for a studio financed film starring Brad Pitt) It will probably make its money back in four weeks at the box-office just because Brad Pitt is in it... granted, most people will hate it (as most people hated The New World), but that's their problem.
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:47 pm
by John Cope
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:38 pm
by Jeff
There have been lots of raves (
Emmanuel Levy compares it to
Bonnie and Clyde,
McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid;
Pop Syndicate says it is an "outstanding film that should, by all rights, take its place in the pantheon of great Westerns"). From what I'm hearing, you will be seeing this film on lots of top ten lists this year.
I'm also somewhat relieved to hear that the final cut is 160 minutes. Supposedly Pitt, Tony Scott, and the suits at Warner figured out that they couldn't cut it to 120 and still make it work. Perhaps Dominik was smart enough to film it in such a way that he protected himself from studio meddling. Hopefully Dominik's three-hour cut will see the light of day eventually, but it sounds like the release print is a lot closer to his version than Scott and Pitt's.
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:20 pm
by Via_Chicago
Jeff wrote:I'm also somewhat relieved to hear that the final cut is 160 minutes. Supposedly Pitt, Tony Scott, and the suits at Warner figured out that they couldn't cut it to 120 and still make it work. Perhaps Dominik was smart enough to film it in such a way that he protected himself from studio meddling. Hopefully Dominik's three-hour cut will see the light of day eventually, but it sounds like the release print is a lot closer to his version than Scott and Pitt's.
Wasn't it Ridley Scott who was involved in the cutting?
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:14 pm
by Jeff
Via_Chicago wrote:Wasn't it Ridley Scott who was involved in the cutting?
You're right. Ridley was the one mentioned by the L.A. times. I suspect that to some degree, both Scotts were involved. Ridley produced and Tony executive-produced.
