A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
|
|
|
World of Westfahl |
Encyclopedia Introduction |
All Entries |
Acknowledgements
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |
(1916–2006). American director.
Creative Consultant: Betty Boop's Hollywood Mystery (animated
short) (George Evelyn 1989).
Appeared in
documentaries: A Look at the World of Soylent Green (1973); A History
of the SF Film (Thys Ockersen 1982); The Making of 20,000 Leagues Under
the Sea (Mark Young 2003).
Special Thanks: Who
Framed Roger Rabbit? (George ZEMECKIS 1988); You Will Believe: The
Cinematic Saga of Superman (2006).
So, if you hired Richard Fleischer to direct your science fiction
film—not always an easy task, since for much of his career he was eagerly sought
out by high-paying producers for more conventional fare—what would you get?
Color—lots of bright, sparkling color; superb special effects; a fast-moving
story; and actors performing to the very best of their abilities. It all sounds
very appealing, seemingly enough to lay the groundwork for an argument that
Fleischer was an underappreciated master of science fiction film. And
yet—there are some stories that are diminished, not improved, by lots of bright,
sparkling color; superb special effects and a fast-moving story, in themselves,
cannot completely compensate for a deeply flawed script; and poorly chosen
actors, even performing to the very best of their abilities, can be very poor
actors indeed. Perhaps, then, Fleischer has been properly underappreciated.
Certainly, nothing about his background suggested that Fleischer was
destined for greatness. The son of famed animator Max Fleischer (who may have
provided some unacknowledged assistance on some of his father's cartoons),
Flesicher clearly relied upon industry connections to land his first credited
jobs in the 1940s: directing a series of compilations of recycled footage from
old silent films that cost little but earned enough money to justify their
cost. From these humble beginnings he then moved up to directing low-budget
crime dramas which have been celebrated in some quarters as classic film
noir but have generally been overlooked. Still, canny old Walt DISNEY must
have seen some genuine talent in Fleischer's work and hired him to oversee the
Disney studio's spectacular plunge into big-budget science fiction film, an
adaptation of Jules VERNE's Twenty Thousand Years Under the Sea. Over a
half century later, despite many other subsequent efforts (including remakes of
Fleischer's film), this remains the best VERNE movie of them all, energized by
Kirk DOUGLAS's and James MASON's delightful performances, fine (and colorful)
production values, and yes, now that you mention it, a giant squid for the
ages.
His reputation now established, Fleischer devoted the next decade to
respectable if unmemorable efforts, including an obligatory biblical epic, Barabbas,
before returning to science fiction with another, um, Fantastic Voyage,
this one through the human bloodstream in a miniaturized submarine. Literally
Fleischer's most dazzling effort, the film's Day-Glo visualization of human
anatomy makes for compelling viewers and burns itself into one's memory, even
decades after one has watched the film. Yet the film also displays Fleischer's
weaknesses: the script is so scientifically senseless as to drive science
fiction author Isaac ASIMOV, who wrote its novelization, to desperate
contortions in order to make it all seem reasonable. And having Douglas
and Mason act to the very best of their abilities is one thing; choosing the likes
of Stephen Boyd and Raquel Welch to do their very best is quite another thing.
In sum, if Fleischer had arranged for one more revision of the script, and
insisted upon some strategic recasting, Fantastic Voyage might have been
his second classic; instead, we are left to await the emergence from
Development Hell of its long-contemplated sequel/remake to see if someone else
can bring this story to its full potential.
Fleischer moved on to direct a musical version of Doctor Dolittle,
which despite widespread criticism is actually a decent piece of entertainment
(color, special effects, a decent actor doing the best he can with the
material, etc.) as long as one has never read any of the books which it is
purportedly adapting. Its disappointing performance at the box office did not
in itself ruin Fleischer's career; that task was accomplished by two more
conspicuous bombs, Che! (1969) and Tora Tora Tora (1970), the
dissection of which thankfully falls outside my responsibility. As his offers
grew less attractive, Fleischer next agreed to direct a project he could not
have regarded as promising, a future dystopia starring Charlton HESTON. Now, I
am completely sympathetic to efforts to promote Soylent Green as an
overlooked classic and an anticipation of Blade Runner, and especially
appreciate small touches like the sight of Edward G. Robinson riding a bicycle
to generate a little energy to get by in his nightmarish world. But why, oh
why, is the film so darn colorful? Perhaps the secret to getting
audiences to appreciate this film would be to de-colorize it and re-release it
as a black-and-white film.
Fleischer continued to work into his sixties, but the last decade of
his career does not make for pleasant viewing, with lowlights including Neil
Diamond's laughable reinterpretation of The Jazz Singer (1980), the
third Amityville film, and two sword-and-sorcery epics featuring an
inexperienced Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER. Perhaps the kindest way to sum up his career
would be to say that he added a great deal of color to the history of science
fiction film, and leave listeners to interpret that statement in the most
positive way.
|
||||||||
To contact us about encyclopedia matters, send an email to Gary Westfahl. Hosted & Designed By:
If you find any Web site errors, typos or other stuff worth mentioning,
please send it to our Webmaster.
Copyright © 1999–2018 Gary Westfahl All Rights Reserved Worldwide
