Hard Eight (1996)

QFS No. 140 - The invitation for May 15, 2024
This is our first QFS selection of a Paul Thomas Anderson film. You know him from all of his great work over the last 25 years but Hard Eight was his first feature. I’ve seen so many of his films but I’ve never seen the first one so this week’s selection addresses that to remedy that shortcoming.

PT Anderson made Hard Eight when he was about 26 years old. What’s almost as infuriating as that is the next year, in 1997, he makes Boogie Nights and then two years later makes Magnolia (1999). By my count, that’s three major motion pictures before he was 30 – including two of those films, Magnolia and Boogie Nights I’d put up there as downright modern auteurist classics. The amount of stars he directed before 30 years old rivals any of the great filmmakers of all time.

Now, whether you enjoy his films or not is a matter of opinion of course. Although he has been Oscar-nominated eleven (11!) times for screenplay (5), directing (3) and best picture (3), he has never won one. This is probably bad luck and circumstance, but it also could be an indication of how people have mixed opinions on PT Anderson’s work.

For example, if you’re a fan of “The Rewatchables” podcast like I am, you probably know that they consider Boogie Nights one of the greatest films ever made. Personally, I enjoyed Magnolia more than Boogie Nights as a film, but even Magnolia is ripe for criticism – frogs and Aimee Mann and whatnot – and is not universally loved. PT Anderson has the young pre-fame filmmaking pedigree of Steven Spielberg in a way, but Anderson’s films are not mainstream nor are they small artistic and abstract explorations of the soul. He’s Martin Scorsese with less benefit of the doubt from critics. Both of them make movies lauded for artistry even though the narrative may not be so clean, but it feels like Scorsese’s long life as a dedicated artist gives him leeway with the public in ways that Anderson may not.

Of course, there is no perfect film devoid of criticism. For me his greatest achievement is There Will Be Blood (2012) one of three of his films nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture along with Phantom Thread (2018) and Licorice Pizza (2022). There Will Be Blood is a singular accomplishment of filmmaking in terms of its scope and its exploration of power, ambition, religion and will. Not to mention the sheer production feat of making a period film with an oil well explosion.

Apparently, PT Anderson’s next film will be released in 2025. All I know is that it’s his first film with Leonardo DiCaprio, which feels like a good fit when making the comparison with Scorsese. Scorsese is undoubtedly one of the greatest filmmakers of the second-half of the 20th Century, and continued on into this one. When we look back in a couple of decades about the greatest filmmakers at the start of the 21st Century, it’s hard to debate PT Anderson including at or near the top of the list. I’m looking forward to finally seeing his first one.

 Join me in seeing Hard Eight (1996) and discuss with us!

Hard Eight (1996) Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Reactions and Analyses:
When is it too late to reveal a major story point? The end of Planet of the Apes (1968) or Citizen Kane (1941) suggest that it’s never too late. Citizen Kane of course makes sense because that’s the conclusion of the hunt, whereas the why the world exists the way it does isn’t revealed until the last image, but it’s not the central driving why of the film. In Hard Eight (1996), our QFS discussion centered around the revelation of Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) and the central why motivation – why he’s behaving like the guardian angel or savior of man-child John (John C. Reilly).

The movie begins with Sydney taking in what appears to be a perfect stranger and offering him coffee and a smoke. It feels like Sydney knows something about John but it’s very cryptic. And for some reason, John goes on a road trip with Sydney and becomes his Players Card-scheme protégé. John does not ask why Sydney is being so kind to him.

Sydney picks up a “stranger” kicking off the question why in Hard Eight (1996).

And Sydney seems like he knows about John.

This sets off a really strange road trip.

Sydney teaches John how to get a room through Players Card scheme.

And as the film continues – even bridging two years over a first-act title card that advances time – we still don’t know why Sydney keeps being John’s angel. We get some hints about Sydney not having a connection with his own children, so the story evolves to suggest that John and Clementine (Gwyneth Paltrow) are becoming surrogate children for him.

About halfway through the film, the question of why is still not resolved. It’s at this point that nearly all of the QFS members (myself included) started to sense that the film is meandering without a real sense of purpose or direction. To me and several of us, Hard Eight suffers from hiding the ball too long. We know so little about the characters except that John’s mother had died and he lost his money trying to win enough to pay for her funeral. The opening Players Card scam is so inspired and memorable, but then the film relies upon more mood and style rather than versus substance.

Even the revelation, finally when it happens, is not done visually or through some action by our main character. A supporting character, Jimmy (Samuel L Jackson), knows the truth – Sydney was a gangster who shot and killed John’s father – and he blackmails Sydney. Now that Syndey has taken John in as a son, there are personal stakes that we as an audience understand now.

Ohhhhh… that’s why. Samuel L Jackson (as “Jimmy”) tell us. But is it too late in the story to reveal that? Several us felt that yes, it’s too late.

This late revelation backloads the action and drama. Suddenly, there is plot and stakes. But since this happens late in the narrative arc, everything is crammed together as the film builds to a somewhat obvious conclusion: when you threaten a former gangster with blackmail, you’re probably going to get yourself killed.

And that’s exactly what happens. Sydney breaks into Jimmy’s home and shoots him as he’s coming home from a date. We get a simple glimpse of what a young Sydney must’ve been once like – cold, professional, efficient, and compassionate (he lets the date go home). There’s something fun about watching an aged gangster, living with regret, coming to terms with his past and trying to make up for something he’s done. But if we don’t know why he’s doing it, does that take away from our feelings about it? Everything does click a little bit better, but there are a lot of aspects of the story unsaid.

You threatened a former gangster with blackmail - what did you expect would happen?

Sydney comes to help out Clementine and John at a hotel room where a semi-conscious man lies handcuffed and beaten up. We are given bits of information as to what happened, but John and Clementine are so unreliable and distraught that it’s still unclear what happened in what is, up to this point, the only dramatic scene more than an hour into the movie. We learn that Clementine and John were married that day … and yet Clementine is still continuing work as a prostitute? Or is John (and maybe Jimmy?) acting as a pimp in an ill-conceived scheme for money?

The first really dramatic thing in Hard Eight happens about an hour into the movie and introduces a lot of questions.

Questions include - how doomed is this marriage?

Also – had Sydney been keeping tabs on John throughout his life, like Obi-wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker? Was John’s father a gangster too, because why else would Sydney feel so distraught? And why is Sydney in Reno or does he live there because he finds John somehow who doesn’t live there but then…

I’m not bringing up these holes specifically to attack the plot or premise. It’s more a reflection of the filmmaking here. The filmmaker is relying on style and not substance for so long, so then when we get some substance but not enough of it, we start reaching for more substance, as opposed to being brought along with the narrative. There is no obligation for a movie to explain everything; obfuscation can be a useful narrative tool especially in a movie. But Hard Eight keeps the audience in the dark in a way that seems to do a disservice to the storytelling.

Speaking of the filmmaker – of course, we selected this film as it’s Paul Thomas Anderson’s first movie. The next two he makes, Boogie Nights (1997) and Magnolia (1999) cement him as the next great director of a generation. Our conversation, however, helped illustrate how that’s a contentious claim on greatness. I pointed out in the QFS discussion that Hard Eight has a tonal issue. Are some of these scenes and situations supposed to be played for laughs? Are Jon and Clementine fun doofuses in the Coen Brothers mold? It’s hard to tell, but that balance comes through a little more in Boogie Nights and Magnolia. Others in the group feel that PT Anderson never ever quite gets tone right in any of his movies, as if the director enjoys turning a “tone dial”from one end to the other without any balance. I can see that – Magnolia swings from poignant moments between Frank Mackey (Tom Cruise) and his catatonic dying father to an infamous breaking-the-fourth-wall singing sequence to Aimee Mann’s “Save Me.” It’s bold, but for me personally, PT Anderson can pull off the tonal shifts with a few missteps here and there (the end of There Will Be Blood, 2009, is an example for me where the ending has a really whimsical tune followed by a goofy final line by Daniel Day-Lewis’ Daniel Planview into the end credits).

In the end, we were interested in discerning what from this movie convinces producers, studios, and star cast to be in his next films? One benefit PT Anderson gets in the 1990s is that Hard Eight was made during the golden age of independent cinema. What probably didn’t hurt is that this is also the golden age of ample funding of music videos – a medium in which PT Anderson truly excelled. As far as films, there are a lot of 1990s studios willing to take risks on a fledgling filmmaker with a voice. For me, just seeing Hard Eight that voice isn’t totally clear – or rather, it isn’t totally clear to me what signaled to producers that this filmmaker has something unique that cannot be suppressed and has the instinct if not skill to tell a story expertly. It’s likely that the very real documented problems PT Anderson had in making Hard Eight – in which the studio attempted to recut it – prevented him from making a film fully of his desire.

Yet, his directing is confident, the command of the camera is elegant but at times more sizzle than steak. Comparing this to, say, Quentin Tarantino four years earlier in Reservoir Dogs (1992) or Wes Anderson three years earlier with Bottle Rocket (1993) with their first films, PT Anderson is harder to get a grasp of in terms of what convinced producers and studios of his greatness. One can easily see Reservoir Dogs showcases a writer-director of the highest order and Bottle Rocket suggests the quirkiness that will characterize all of Wes Anderson’s future work. But Hard Eight is harder to pin down. In three short years after Hard Eight releases, PT Anderson directs Mark Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Burt Reynolds, Luis Guzman, Don Cheadle, William H Macy, Heather Graham, Jason Robards, and of course Tom Cruise in a role that very nearly won him what would have been his only Oscar, across two landmark films.

Opening image of Hard Eight mirrors one of the final images.

What I’m trying to get at here is – how. Very much in line with the why we tried to address in Hard Eight. Not that it wasn’t ultimately correct to support this filmmaker at this stage of his fledgling career. However it ended up happening, the American film landscape is lucky someone saw whatever greatness lay in store for PT Anderson and gave him a chance to flourish. Without it, we wouldn’t have some of the more iconic films of the last 25 years.

Rushmore (1998)

QFS No. 120 - The invitation for August 30, 2023
We return to Wes Anderson, he of the recent Asteroid City (2023) and of QFS No. 59, The Darjeeling Limited (2007), making this the second of his films to be selected for QFS. Which is among the highest honors of cinema.

Rushmore is Anderson’s second film and I’d argue this is the one that really planted his flag on the film world’s map. His first film Bottle Rocket (1996) is terrific, was an indie darling, and introduced him and Luke and Owen Wilson to the world. But Rushmore gets a bigger cast, a wider release, and is a stronger film in many ways.

I saw Rushmore at the State Theater in Ann Arbor when it first came out while I was in college, and I remember really liking it but also being slightly puzzled about why I liked it. This was the first movie by this new filmmaker that I’d seen, and I vividly remember the marketing attempting to portray this as a comedy. It’s funny, for sure, but it’s not the kind of humor that plays well in short television spots.

On future viewings, I realized that this wasn’t intended to be funny or conventional and I started to understand more about the unique voice and style of Wes Anderson – who I’ve grown to love as a filmmaker. The other day I was saying that I can’t remember when was the last time I’ve seen Rushmore and lo and behold! It’s playing in Greater Los Angeles! In Eagle Rock, and to be exact at the new Vidiots.

A brief word about Vidiots. Vidiots was a beloved DVD rental store in Santa Monica near Santa Monica High School – the kind of store that both filmmakers and non-filmmakers could love. Mainstream titles next to obscure movies. New releases and films divided by director instead of only by subject. Truly a film lover’s place run by film lovers – the place LA deserved as the world’s movie capital. Vidiots suffered financial difficulties like all rental places did with the advent of streaming and converted to a nonprofit foundation model to stay alive. They still ended up having to close up the Santa Monica shop. But with financial help they kept their video stock in storage and the foundation kept the Vidiots spirit alive.

Like a proper Hollywood zombie, they rose from the dead, took over an old theater in a suburb on the complete other side of Los Angeles from Santa Monica, and opened their doors earlier this year. Not only do they rent movies, but they now screen them as well. They’ve just utterly exploded in popularity this year – every single screening is sold out before an enthusiastic crowd and they’ve revitalized a commercial section of Eagle Rock just in the few months they’ve been open. There are scant few good stories about the theater going experience and the motion picture industry in general these days, but this is truly a happy one. I stopped by the new spot a little while ago just to check it out, but this will be my first time seeing a film in person at the resurrected theater attached to the resurrected video store.

I think seeing Rushmore at Vidiots is a perfect way to start watching films at this new venue. Watch Rushmore however you can we’ll discuss next week!

Rushmore (1998) Directed by Wes Anderson

Reactions and Analyses:
Since Rushmore (1998) came out, we’ve had more than two decades of films by Wes Anderson. This, perhaps, set my expectations in a particular way. Anderson’s style has been parodied and mimicked, a style that seemingly has always been defined as “quirky.” His use of flat space, center-framed, direct-to-the-camera looks from his characters and their manner of speaking, the editing - all that artifice can have the effect of keeping a viewer at arm’s length. Something to admire, but rarely to connect on an emotional level.

I say this because I was surprised at my reaction to watching Rushmore for the first time in at least a decade. For me, Anderson’s work has recently favored style over substance and it’s hard to remember that this wasn’t always the case, that his filmmaking was once new and novel. Rushmore moved me in a way I had not expected or had remembered from the times I watched before. Perhaps it has been overshadowed in my mind by The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) where we see the director’s style blossom full scale and continue onward. I’d argue that The Royal Tenenbaums is the first real “Wes Anderson Film” where he’s unshackled, has a large budget, and no one is impeding his directing.

Rushmore is much more sweet than I remember and has something to say about loss, about loneliness and dealing with both of those without healthy tools to do so. There’s a sweetness to it - bittersweetness, even - that I hadn’t remember and didn’t give Anderson credit for at the time. Of his live action films, it’s a contest between Rushmore and Moonrise Kingdom (2012) to be his most poignant and sweet. There’s a somewhat happy ending, after all - Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) dances with Rosemary (Olivia Williams) and has an actual girlfriend (Sara Tanaka as “Margaret Yang”).

On Letterboxd, I read Sean Fennessey of The Ringer call Rushmore “the best movie about a sociopath.” This is entirely possible. A QFSer added to that, saying Max is “Ferris Bueller but a dick.”

Perhaps Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) was under-appreciated at Rushmore Academy? From Rushmore (1998) Directed by Wes Anderson.

However true this might be, it’s also entirely possible that Rushmore Academy was not the perfect school of Max. I know for a fact that there are schools on the Westside of Los Angeles that encourage ambitious, driven students who may not succeed in academics but flourish in project-based learning. (I’m not saying these schools would necessarily approve the building of a research aquarium on its grounds, but they probably wouldn’t have kicked out Max for that level of ambition.) The editorial cut from Dr. Guggenheim (Brian Cox) saying “He’s one of the worst students we’ve got” and then it goes into the montage of all the things Max does at school - it shows what’s valued in this academic environment. He might be full of crazy leadership energy, but he’s failing all the learning from books. (He even dreams that his skill in calculus is on par with his extra-curricular ambitions.)

Speaking of montages, it’s time to honor Wes Anderson as one of the true masters of montages. He’s in a category all his own. Between the Max’s clubs-and-groups montage that introduce the character and the montage where Max and Herman Blume (Bill Murray) are battling each other and it escalates - truly fantastic. There’s a real art to getting the montage right and Anderson does do it a lot in all his films. But in Rushmore, they are masterful. Funny, advancing the plot or character development, spot-on music choices. Having put together montages myself I can tell you there’s definitely an art to them. They can go on too long or feel frivolous or have the wrong music choice. There are so many ways to abuse them, but Anderson uses them to near perfection.

It’s no wonder that one of Anderson’s inspirations is The Graduate (1967). Mike Nichols has a montage of Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) having an affair with Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) that spans time and space, editing from one location into another, all to the music of Simon and Garfunkel. Anderson undoubtedly studied this extensively. Throw in Hal Ashby’s offbeat humor and relationship in Harold and Maude (1971) and the student journey in 400 Blows (1959) and you get the origins of Rushmore and the mind at its helm.

Max’s journey is pretty fascinating in the film, both in its content and its structure. He goes from an ambitious student who, except for his grades, is an ideal representative of Rushmore Academy. He loves the school and gives it all of his time, falls in love with the new teacher Rosemary Cross (Olivia Wilde), befriends Blume a wealthy parent, inadvertently starting a rivalry over Rosemary’s affection. He gets kicked out of the one place he loves and then, finally, resurrects himself - both emotionally and academically at the public school - at least enough to use his ambition to produce a massive stage production at his new school that helps bring Rosemary and Blume together.

Max and Blume (Bill Murray) watching wrestling at Rushmore Academy.

What’s there to make of a journey like this? It’s not rooted in realism, but there’s an emotional core in Rushmore. He lies about his sexual exploits with a parent, he hides the fact that his mother’s died, he lies about his father’s profession and that he has simple, middle class home and life outside of Rushmore. So he’s a sociopath, sure. But he’s lonely and his primary existential crisis, I believe, is that he’s ordinary. So he does whatever he can to be extraordinary (other than study, apparently). It’s teenage melancholy, not angst, that Anderson concerns himself with. And boy, is that refreshing.

Anderson benefitted for coming up through the golden age of independent film in the 1990s. Bottle Rocket (1996), though excellent, does not necessarily suggest giving someone enough money to make Rushmore. But this was an odd blip in the long history of the American film industry where money to finance small, personal independent films was actually out there. Perhaps not on par with the 1970s, and not that it was easy, but there were some great character driven, auteurist fare being produced by mainstream studios and their offshoots. (Personal note - I started my career at the tail end of this era when money for indie films was drying up everywhere so I know this time period first hand.)

In our QFS discussion, I asked whether people think Rushmore is a landmark film. By that I meant - is this a film that you can say demarks a change in either the film industry, directing, the visual medium, etc? One way to tell is by copycats. In the era this film came out, I consider Pulp Fiction (1994) in that category. Not a year went by for a long time where there weren’t a dozen other movies with smart-talkin’ pop-culture quoting hitmen or unnerving violence in a mainstream film or something that played with structure and time the way that movie does.

By that definition, Rushmore might be in the “landmark” category, though QFSers were mixed on that point. There were certainly spoofs and mimics and perhaps a handful of copycats. I remember one brutal review of Napoleon Dynamite (2004), calling it “a Wes Anderson cover band.” I’m not sure if there was a wave other than that of knockoffs. He’s one of a kind - one of the only people working today who you can say “a Wes Anderson Film” and you have a genre unto itself.

And while The Royal Tenenbaums sprouted into the first of this singular genre, Bottle Rocket was its seed and Rushmore its seedling. It was a joy to rewatch that seedingling again and know that a bright future was ahead for one of the true auteurs in American cinema.