Whjile laid up with a bum foot the last few days, I watched a lot of movies, one of which was Magnolia--again--by Paul Thomas Anderson. In its aftermatfch, I realize I have never seen Hard Eight. Can I get some of you folks to weigh in on this one for me? What can I expect from the director who later made Boogie Nights and Magnolia?

Thanks

More broken people, as you'd expect from Anderson. Smaller in scope and quieter than any of his other pictures. Still, with the storylines involving an apprentice gambler/ petty scammer and cocktail waitress waiting for a ticket out, you might expect to feel like you've seen the film before. P.B. Hall adds a great performance, but I generally found the film to be forgettable. Not a bad first film, but if you haven't seen Punch-Drunk Love yet, that's the one to get.

I have watched Hard Eight a few times; I found it more watchable than Magnolia (which I found a bit self-indulgent), but not quite as good as either Boogie Nights or Punch Drunk Love. Philip Baker Hall has his best performance in this film.

It's a wonderful, watchable, great first film.

Equal parts Melville and Demme. Definitely see it.

Hey thom_ and j_, welcome!

Several years since I saw HARD EIGHT, but I liked it. More straightforward than MAGNOLIA or PUNCH-DRUNK love? There's a sort of mentoring thing going on that I found fascinating. Part of what I liked about the film, which also distracted me from the film - there's an odd combination of responses, eh? - was the fact that the setting, story, characters and especially dialogue were so very like the work of a playwright friend of mine I became preoccupied with spotting the similarities, and trying to figure out if there was any possible way J.P. could have been involved in the writing. He wasn't, of course, but...

I have a movie watching buddy who has urged me to go back to the film and look for what he feels are strongly redemptive themes. I'll see if I can find out from him something more specific on that. (What I really want to do now is go watch the film, but I don't think I'll be able to steal the time in the next few days. That's both the great delight and the terrible danger of hanging around this board - so many movies, so little time!)

Just a note to the effect that, according to the IMDB at least, the real title for this film is Sydney -- I'm guessing the studio changed it.

Rysher thought "Hard Eight" would sell better, PTA knew that "Sydney" more accurately reflected the focus of the movie. They fought, PTA lost. He continues to this day to be glad that Rysher went out of business. He even had to send his own cut to Cannes, and when it got accepted, he was able to protect against further tampering.

PTA fanboys always call this Sydney, but Paul himself has stated that that is kinda creepy...

Spent a little time on IMDB looking at PTA's career track, nothing except Boogie Nights recouped it's cost at the box office. While I would be the last to say that box office is indicative of director talent (inversely proportional in the case of Micheal Bay, Roland Emmerich), one wonders why PTA's box office isn't any better. Particularly with a film like Punch Drunk Love (say what you will, Sandler is a marketable property). Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love...all of these films were on the average movie goer's radar thanks to the Hollywood marketing machine. What happened? Will PTA become like Cronenburg and Lynch...too eclectic for mainstream releases?

HARD EIGHT's a pretty good title, though, don't you think?

Ron

P.S. I understand the original title of MAGNOLIA was FRANK LINDA DONNIE PHIL CLAUDIA JIMMY ROSE EARL JIM, but they changed it for similar reasons. Sounded too much like the end of Romper Room or something....

Har har

Magnolia's the most perfect title ever.

But seriously, when I was younger, and rented Hard Eight, I thought it was gonna be a gambling/casino/crime film. As a filmmaker, I don't think you wanna misrepresent what your film's about. Seeing as how it's a slow moving character piece with Sydney being the main character, it seems like that would be the better title.

However, Hard Eight does sound cool, I agree. It's foreign title was Last Exit Reno, or something like that, if I remember correctly...

SoNowThen wrote:
: He even had to send his own cut to Cannes, and when it got accepted, he
: was able to protect against further tampering.

Wait a minute, are you saying there are different CUTS of this film? Or do you just mean that he sent them a print that used his preferred title?

***

**oops**

admins, delete post please

sorry

No, apparently Rysher tried to lock him out of the editing room and change a bunch of stuff (I know the script ending was different, can't remember if he shot it or not, but there was another scene after the last one we see in the movie now). He had to steal the print and re-cut on film, and he says in the commentary that if you watch real close you can see that each edit is two frames off, because of the overlap and the seal on the print he had to reassemble from. So he finished cutting the movie himself (with financial assistance from Paltrow and others), sent his cut off to Cannes, it got in, and then Rysher had to accept it as the final cut, because of course it was getting decent buzz. I don't think there's an actual alternate cut out there though. But he still had to make some concessions, and they had to do with the title, and having the credits at the start of the film.

QUOTE

Spent a little time on IMDB looking at PTA's career track, nothing except Boogie Nights recouped it's cost at the box office. While I would be the last to say that box office is indicative of director talent (inversely proportional in the case of Micheal Bay, Roland Emmerich), one wonders why PTA's box office isn't any better. Particularly with a film like Punch Drunk Love (say what you will, Sandler is a marketable property). Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love...all of these films were on the average movie goer's radar thanks to the Hollywood marketing machine. What happened? Will PTA become like Cronenburg and Lynch...too eclectic for mainstream releases?

OK, I'm a cynic and a little more sympathetic to popular taste than many around here. I'd say that PTA was lucky to recoup Boogie Nights at all and primarily from subject matter. Though I own Hard Eight, it is the only of these that I haven't seen. I would say that he seems always to confound and possibly frustrate an average audience's expectations, thereby suffering from word of mouth that contradicts marketing and critical acclaim. Thus the lack of box office stayiing power. I'll bet that Sandler couldn't reel in the second wave of his traditional fans because of the disappointment of the first wave. Magnolia is my favorite of these, though it is not something I automatically reach for. I should pull out Hard Eight just to round out my opinion. The descriptions above make it sound potentially like a favorite of the list for me. I'd say that his work would be too personal for mainstream tastes.

Watched this again tonight, going to write it up. Mostly because of Sidney's relentless intention to bless John and Clementine, there's a tough grace there that speaks to me. Some skewed similarities to LES MISERABLES, perhaps, with Sidney both a Bishop figure and a Valjean figure - anybody see what I'm driving at?

Lots of things I'm curious about. The Christmas music in the background, the closing Aimee Mann song about Christmas. The name Clementine - unusual choice, eh? What do the revelation about Sidney's motivation and the ending of the film do to my idea that he's acting out of grace (I'm carefully avoiding spoilers, but I'd love people to get more specific about how they read that: just be sure to warn folks!).

What resonances are there with the subsequent PTA movies, particularly MAGNOLIA and PDL? Apart from personnel.

Even on this modest scale, some great visual stuff. John in the backseat, John in the front seat, near the beginning of the show: what a jump cut! Signature sequence shot wonderful, not just for length but for the way the "eye" shifts focus suddenly, drawn by motion, to settle on a new object. Late in the film, Sidney at the wheel, something like a pan to Clementine in the passenger seat, then pan (?) back to John at the wheel. The three times we approach the diner out in the desert.

Hall's delivery very odd: I'm not sure he could hear the lines the way Anderson heard them when he wrote them. But that lends a kind of formality and otherness to his speech that works brilliantly. His character's endowed with such a strange saintliness, nobility, honour - yet not sentimentalized, not simply the "hood with a heart of gold." Which reminds me of Clementine - the Vegas girl humanized but not sanitized or sentimentalized.

And how refreshing is that when the characters (won't say which ones) head away from Vegas at one point, head out on the road - almost like an exodus to a promised land of some sort.

Interesting that Seymour doesn't want John to call him "Captain."

What do you make of the title? Even though it wasn't Anderson's choice. Or should we avoid making much of it, since it was imposed by the studio? But there's no denying the "hard eight" plays some sort of structural / thematic role in the story. Interesting that the very controlled Seymour has an almost legendary status because of his very risky bet on the hard eight. interesting where that recurs, and where it recurs again.

The last of the violent scenes is intercut with other action, which certainly informs the violent event. (Being evasive again, to protect against spoilers. No need to be so delicate if you comment: just use the old spoiler masking, yeah?)

"You humble yourself." Huh?

Sort of liked this okay on first viewing, a couple years back. Really liked it a lot this time around, so many subtleties and questions.

Hope somebody's got it fresh enough in mind to lend me some of their thoughts.