Tony Scott (1944 - 2012)

Python wrote:

Moved all the non-RIP posts into this thread. It can just be the Tony Scott thread if having one for two is too much.

Just a thread for Tony would probably do for now, including the obituaries if possible, just to give some of the comments included here some context. Maybe call the thread Tony Scott 194?-2012.

Thoughtful interview with Ridley Scott in the current Variety. Memories of his brother Tony:

Quote :

In 1962, Ridley set to work on “Boy and Bicycle,” a semi-autobiographical, impressionistic short film about a lad from the dreary industrial North who plays hooky from school and escapes into Joycean, stream-of-consciousness reveries as he pedals his bike around the Teesside coast. For his lead actor and equipment-carrying lackey, Scott chose his teenage brother, Tony, who would eventually follow him into the film business, where he would rival Ridley’s box office success. For visual inspiration, he turned to David Lean’s 1946 film version of “Great Expectations,” a movie that had a profound impact on Scott, as Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” would later in ’62. “It was two brothers together all day for six weeks, and you could see it sinking in,” he remembers of the experience. “It was an education for Tony. Suddenly, he had a direction in life.”

If “Exodus” is, at its core, very much the story of two brothers, then so is the life of Ridley Scott. Around the time of “Boy and Bicycle,” he recalls, Tony, an avid mountain climber, invited him on an expedition in the nearby Cleveland Hills. It was a foggy day, and within moments of setting out, Tony had easily scaled a 200-foot cliff face and disappeared into the mist. “Then a rope came down, and I could hear his voice saying, ‘Tie it ’round, up you come,’ ” Scott remembers. He began the ascent but quickly felt his elbows going numb. “I said, ‘I think I’m going to peel off.’ ” He did, at about 100 feet, flipping backward and getting entangled in the rope like a fly in a spider web. “I could hear Tony at the top saying, ‘I think I’ve got you.’ He lowered me to the ground, and he had burn marks on his hands.”

That, says Scott, was the last of his own mountaineering adventures. But his brother kept climbing, including three summits of El Capitan peak in Yosemite National Park. Then, on a Sunday afternoon in August 2012, Tony climbed to the top of the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles and leapt to his death. Ridley was at his home in France’s Luberon Valley when he first received a panic-stricken phone call from Tony’s wife, Donna, reporting that his brother was missing — the start of what he calls “the worst weekend of my life.”

Speaking publicly about those events for the first time, Scott calls his brother’s death “inexplicable,” while acknowledging that Tony had been fighting a lengthy battle with cancer — a diagnosis the family elected to keep private during his treatments and in the immediate wake of his death. (Scott previously lost his elder brother, Frank, to skin cancer in 1980, at age 45.) “Tony had been very unwell, actually, and that’s the moment I realized I had to get very close to him again, though we were always close,” says Scott, who ends “Exodus” with an onscreen dedication to his younger brother. Most of all, he says, “I miss a friend. I’d go to him even when he was doing his recovery, and I’d say, ‘F— the chemo, have a vodka martini,’ and he and I would go out.”

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/ridley-scott-exodus-gods-and-kings-christian-bale-1201363668/

I would actually argue that Tony had the better career in the past two and a half decades.
"Man on Fire", "Crimson Tide" and "True Romance" are three movies I enjoyed to varying degrees.

I can't say there is much in Ridley's oeuvre since the early 80s that I find all that interesting.

Agree with Salomé. I even enjoyed UNSTOPPABLE—an unpretentious but enjoyable thrill ride.

Ridley has made two great films. That's two more than Tony.

...

Erica Ambler wrote:

Ridley has made two great films. That's two more than Tony.

I wouldn't dispute that. Blade Runner and Alien are far better than anything Tony ever made.
Having said that, since then Ridley hasn't made one feature I'd deem even half-decent.

...

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Ridley has made two great films. That's two more than Tony.

I wouldn't dispute that. Blade Runner and Alien are far better than anything Tony ever made.
Having said that, since then Ridley hasn't made one feature I'd deem even half-decent.

Well, I'd say Gladiator is half decent, but I take your point. My favourite working directors all share that problem whatever that means. I do admire Ridley's work ethic - 12 films in 14 years is astonishing. Though I suppose this thread has gone off-topic

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Ridley has made two great films. That's two more than Tony.

I wouldn't dispute that. Blade Runner and Alien are far better than anything Tony ever made.
Having said that, since then Ridley hasn't made one feature I'd deem even half-decent.

Well, I'd say Gladiator is half decent, but I take your point. My favourite working directors all share that problem whatever that means. I do admire Ridley's work ethic - 12 films in 14 years is astonishing. Though I suppose this thread has gone off-topic

Well Scorsese never quite hit the same heights after "Goodfellas", but he still made a handful of enjoyable features after that.
Scotts (semi-)recent output is just so far removed from the quality of "Alien" that it's depressing.

Even Friedkin made something of a worthy return with "Killer Joe". I would love for Scott to have his own "Killer Joe", but I doubt it'll happen at this stage of his career.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Ridley has made two great films. That's two more than Tony.

I wouldn't dispute that. Blade Runner and Alien are far better than anything Tony ever made.

Having said that, since then Ridley hasn't made one feature I'd deem even half-decent.

Which one's that?

I said he hasn't made one feature I'd deem half-decent. :)

Salomé wrote:

Scotts (semi-)recent output is just so far removed from the quality of "Alien" that it's depressing.

Ridley Scott started his film career as an artist and become an industry. Perhaps that's inevitable when billions of dollars are involved. His products are still well-crafted (though not necessarily the ingredients), but the personal touch seems to have deserted him. I think Brian De Palma still has that artistic edge, but he doesn't have Scott's financial clout or wider appeal so his output is low. That said, Passion was a chance to reestablish his career, but is a very disappointing film. Meanwhile, Dario Argento hasn't made a satisfying film in more than 30 years. I can't decide whether this artistic collapse is a problem with the industry or the individuals involved. Occasionally, I think it's simply that artists do their best work when they're less than 40, but then I think of Hitchcock. Maybe he's the exception to the rule or maybe it's just not something one can generalise about.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Scotts (semi-)recent output is just so far removed from the quality of "Alien" that it's depressing.

 Occasionally, I think it's simply that artists do their best work when they're less than 40, but then I think of Hitchcock. Maybe he's the exception to the rule or maybe it's just not something one can generalise about.

I think that is certainly part of it.
I remember reading an interview with Scorsese after the release of "Hugo" in which he marveled at how much he enjoyed discovering the possibilities of 3D.
Which he related to the feeling he had when he just started out as a director. I suspect that once they have made the medium theirs, they get set in their ways and perhaps are less likely to surprise?

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Scotts (semi-)recent output is just so far removed from the quality of "Alien" that it's depressing.

 Occasionally, I think it's simply that artists do their best work when they're less than 40, but then I think of Hitchcock. Maybe he's the exception to the rule or maybe it's just not something one can generalise about.

I think that is certainly part of it.
I remember reading an interview with Scorsese after the release of "Hugo" in which he marveled at how much he enjoyed discovering the possibilities of 3D.
Which he related to the feeling he had when he just started out as a director. I suspect that once they have made the medium theirs, they get set in their ways and perhaps are less likely to surprise?

Personally I think its more to do with what happens when directors take too much control upon themselves, when starting out there is a need to be creative and think around problems - you simply can't have it all your own way - so films become more gestalt products with diverse artists having to work together. Ridley Scott, Lucas, Cameron and even Spielberg are all victims of this imo. In Ridley's particular case his ego seemingly wont allow for his films to be seen in anything other than the way he alone intended....the final cuts of Blade Runner and Alien or contrast Alien with Prometheus and it really demonstrates the way he has lost the ability to be subtle (the very thing that made his early work so engaging and immersive)....some directors really need to be reigned in. The ultimate extreme is Lucas who can deliver good stuff when kept on a leash but eventually ends up surrounded by yes men - He clearly needs someone at his side in the Sergeant Wilson role (Dad's Army reference) of constantly questioning 'do you really think that's wise sir'.

I do love Ridley's early work way more than anything by Tony However Blade Runner, Alien, The Duellists...even the flawed Black Rain.. thereafter he loses something significant for me.

Well "Alien" was certainly partially an instance of catching lightning in a bottle by the merging of several very talented individuals and some fortuitous decisions.