I just read this article on Kaye, printed sometime before the release of American History X.
Not knowing much about him, other than having seen the film in question, I can’t honestly answer the question posed by the thread title. It specifically mentions that he’d done several commercial spots for, among other things, Partnership for a Drug-Free America. However, his listing on IMDB.com is pretty sparse.
Does anyone have any insight into his work, and/or a take on the American History X fiasco?
Pretentious nut. American History X was awful.
But that’s my point. Kaye contends that American History X would have been a phenomenal film, had it not been for New Line Cinema’s intervention and their allowing of Edward Norton to re-edit the movie to his liking. He also, it seems, filed a $275 million lawsuit again NLC for not allowing him to remove his name from the finished product.
So it’s not about whether or not you liked the film. Not liking the film puts you in the same boat as Kaye.
Since when are the two mutually exclusive?
I thought AHX was a very good film, but certainly not “revolutionary.”
Tony Kaye is indeed a pretentious nut, though.
I agree with friedo. Good movie, but certainly not groundbreaking.
Well, he blabbed about the fact that he was angry the film was changed, so that made an Alan Smithee credit impossible. And I think it’s good that his suggestion was overturned-“Directed by Humpty Dumpty” would be too obvious, in my opinion.
Hasn’t he pretty much ruined his career over this? Unless American History X, the Director’s Cut would have cured cancer, “pretentious nut” seems like a pretty good bet.
Those of you who answer the OP with an opinion based on having seen the film have missed the point: None of us have ever seen the film as Kaye would have released it, so having seen the released version is irrelevant to the OP.
From a documentary I saw about how Kaye was shut out of the process, his version sounded like it would have been a lot more interesting, but I guess we’ll never know.
I contend that it would not have been a phenomenal film in any cut. Cutting a mountain of shit into Rodin’s The Thinker doesn’t mean it doesn’t stink. We have seen, commonly with Orson Welles, what an intermediary editor can do to a film, witness Touch Of Evil, The Magnificent Ambersons and The Lady From Shanghai. Genius will always shine through.
The camerawork was amateurish; indicative of someone who produced TV commercials in the MTV generation. The naive moralizing and PC-humanizing of the lead characters, coupled with the poor character development and motivation produced a cartoonish film with a message that amounted to little more than “Racism is bad, mmmkay?” and a poor excuse to show skulls being crushed and Edward Norton’s ass. Although a great deal of this was due to Norton’s ego, the footage is Kaye’s. Inserting his penis in a few more shots doesn’t change the base content of the film.
The film was also hampered by the abrupt and pointless ending. This, I will admit, may have been one of the things changed from Kaye’s original vision of the film; the film would have been a great deal more palatable with a better ending.
Kaye’s since written a memorable, more recent account of the debacle and what he did afterwards. Stories about pissing off Marlon Brando by dressing as Osama bin Laden do tend to stick in one’s memory. Seems that even Kaye would now partially acknowledge the nutjob charge.
(Haven’t seen American History X, but he made some great commercials for British television before that.)
It’s a bit more than that. The film deals with where racism comes from as well as where it leads; it also carries a message of not letting other people do your thinking for you, which is the principal sin of all concerned.
… which happens off-camera …
The only scene I recall where Norton’s nethers were on display is the rape scene, which would definitely have been in Kaye’s cut as is.
From how Kaye described his cut, I’d say the ending is just how he wanted it; a perfect bookend with Derek’s murder of the black teenager.
No, that’s what it tried to do. What it ended up with was a cartoonish representation of racism and it’s roots; much like Schindler’s List failed to give an accurate depiction of the Holocaust, resorting instead to crude melodrama.
You mean by, surely.
Ah, never mind, I thought you were talking about Danny (they all have names starting with D).
I’d go more with “self-promoting asshole,” just judging by that article. Of course, I liked American History X as is, and don’t much like being called an “oaf” because of it*. I am curious how his version would have been different. Anyone know the details?
*That’s Kaye from the article, not from anyone in this thread.