Auto Focus

source: Auto Focus

Spoilers herein. Paul Schrader simultaneously fascinates and repels me. That's because he has such intelligent ideas for films, and then makes then in such a pedestrian fashion the inspiration is all but trod away. And his ideas are so very clever in addition to being intelligently cinematic. Here's the notion behind this one: America is a synthetic nation and has depended heavily on film to define itself since World War II. The trunk of this tree is the war picture, in particular the character of American soldiers, and - even more pointed - situations that place them in context with those of other nations. This trunk includes such stalwarts as the Americans in `Great Escape' and `Kwai,' where they were notably more independent and plucky than others. Antiauthoritarian, interested in `girls.' More universally moral but reluctantly so. Wherever there is a strain of films defining archetypes, there is a countering strain to subvert or exploit the archetype. So we had TeeVee shows like `You'll never Get Rich' (55) where Sgt Bilko took all the positives and made fun of them. `Hogan's Heros' was an extension, more abstract and internationally conscious. But there was a subversion of THAT: the revelation that Crane was inordinately, openly promiscuous, even by Hollywood standards. That was news because we already had `moved the fold.' By that I mean that the point before was in defining what Americans were by straight depiction. With these TeeVee shows (enormously popular) there was a shift: the American was defined as this sophisticated being that was sufficiently self-aware and confident that they could make fun of the `old' selves. In other words, the definition moved to the actor, who embodied a charm and clean humor. Crane and others had dual jobs: they were as much personalities as characters, and those personalities helped us in making up who we were. The subversion, therefore, was this character full of charm looking us straight in the eye and telling us that opportunistic sex was not only good, but a key component of American charm. All of a sudden, the backlog of film double entendres - all those Cary Grant-like seductions - made this make sense. This stuff is what contributed to the crisis of the late sixties, the invention of a media-led counterculture of folding, and the sex-drugs part of the trinity. All well and fine. Schrader knows the Crane story is not a simple thread of `boy gets success and the excess destroys him.' Those stories are tired , and in this case just wasn't true anyway. Schrader turns this into an examination of examining, a film about filming, a peek at peeking. The devil in this somewhat fictitious version of the story is not someone with sex or drugs, but with video technology. The enticement here is not the sex - Crane was already well into that in the radio days - but the act of filming. The act of charming people into being filmed and sitting around a TeeVee, transfixed in *. Schrader is always best with these types of complexities. A film about film in film, corrupting everything ON the film and making its point by that same, self-corrupting mechanism. It is where the name comes from. Long time collaborator DaFoe understands this. The obvious strategy was that the Crane character be completely unaware of any of these mechanics, a real gamble. So far, a work of genius. But then he gets behind the camera. His actual execution is so concerned with making things `work' he loses sight of what he is about. What we end up is mechanically competent, but lifeless, the genius is bleached away. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

I grew up with Bob Crane and Hogan. I'm a big fan of Defoe and Kinnear. So, naturally, I expected to like this movie. What a shock to see something so boring and shallow from such a famous writer/director. It was essentially a "made for TV movie." No depth, edginess or sordid roughness that you would expect from the world they had drifted to.

The film deals about Bob Crane(Kinnear), he's happily married (to Rita Wilson), he's posteriorly divorced and will meet various women(Maria Bello and others) in a troublesome activity. He obtained a lot of success with ¨Hogan's heroes¨ television series. His easy life falls apart as he becomes literally addicted to sex. The picture narrates the relationship with John Carpenter(Willem Dafoe)a video technician who would open him a new life style continuing a spiral of failures and sex towards the downfall . It's based on real deeds about the authentic existence and death of Bob Crane. At the flick there are comedy,drama,love,humor,sex,tongue in cheek and a little bit of violence. Runtime movie is adjusted ,the run is approximately two hours . However is almost tiring but happen numerous scabrous and disagreeable events. This interesting story is basically a drama of one man's ruination. The picture is classified ¨R¨ because of crude and harsh scenes,sex,nudism, besides of a violent and cruel murder. The film attained limited box office and was a flop but the issues narrated are embarrassing and unpleasant for the great public. The motion picture is a slightly slow moving and for that reason is a bit boring , furthermore is mainly developed on interior scenarios. Greg Kinnear interpretation is excellent, he's sympathetic,memorable,comic, but also greedy and vulnerable. Willem Dafoe is very fine and Maria Bello is enjoyable and attractive. The soundtrack is well composed and conducted by Angel Badalamenti(Twin Peaks) and Fred Murphy cinematography is nice. This well-told movie is rightly directed by Paul Schrader. Rating: Good but with disagreeable moments.

This is a movie about a man's downfall; in this case, sex. I saw this right after 'Requiem for a Dream'(I guess I was in an addictive mood). This is a sad movie, but not on par with 'Requiem'. I never knew the sordid details about 'Col. Hogan', but this movie laid it out for me. The acting is very good. As other's viewers have noticed, the cinematography and music matches the decline of Crane's life. I was very depressed near the end. There is an obvious implication of his friend Carpenter in his murder, and outside of a court of law, many people would believe it. It's like a weak Oliver Stone/JFK, but still believable. Kind of like a required homework assignment that they may never get credit for, yet execute at 100 percent and show their merit. It wasn't a box office movie, but I believe it's worth watching, and it is exemplarary work by the actors. Maybe it needed more supporting character development, maybe longer screen shots.

A very boring film. I think that I missed out on the delight of watching the downfall of Bob Crane because I wasn't around when it really happened. I just wasn't interested in the slightest, and never got involved. There were a couple of interesting moments, but this is a film for people who were interested in the Crane Debacle when it first happened, or people who are Schrader fans. Not recommended.

I've noted my problems with Paul Schrader's films before (too many beautiful compositions, too much arranging the posture of depth without being deep) but this is his biggest embarrassment to date. No one should have given it any rating but "total bomb." I can only hazard a guess that Schrader's Calvinist upbringing, left him with a lifelong obsession with morality and the punishment of sexual transgressions (Taxi Driver, American Gigolo, Comfort of Strangers, Mishima, Hardcore, this). All of his movies could be called The Scarlet Letter: Part 11, 12, 13, etc. He wants to show us people boning on film, but figures he can't without the free pass of a simpleton moral message. So this timorous man continually seeks out stories about salacious or tawdry lives. He does it to underscore morality, but after so many of these teasing films, one also gets a clear picture that Schrader is endlessly horny & envious of his subjects. So what's worse; a character-ruining obsession with *, or a similarly obsessed director leering at these people? This movie is the Hollywood version of an after-school special. It's "Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Drug Abuser" with sexual addiction swapped in as the issue. It's construction is absolutely shallow. Schrader never gets around to anything BUT the moral message. There is nothing else to it. The point is so utterly obvious the movie is craving other activities to enrich it. Kinnear is miscast as are others (Has the actor playing Richard Dawson viewed even a frame of him in action? Bea Arthur is more like Dawson) and one gets the sense that Schrader wants to revisit the era, mood and accolades of Boogie Nights, but he can't orchestrate anything as complex. If I had one wish for Paul Schrader it would be that he'd have mind-blowing, bone-shaking sex without a shred of guilt about a hundred times in the next few months. Maybe then he'd stop pounding viewers over the head about temperance and restraint. He's not developing an oeuvre, he's just beating a dead horse. There probably was an interesting, thoughtful movie to make about Bob Crane. This ain't it. This is the dumbest, most artless film I've seen in about a year. A special pan goes to the graphic designer who came up with the humorous retro 50's DVD menus. I can't think of less fitting or appropriate visuals for this movie. I'm finished now ...but I think we all learned a valuable lesson. (< sarcasm)

"Auto Focus" is a biopic/drama which explores the career and life of Bob Crane, sexaholic and star of the late 60's sitcom "Hogan's Heros". A highly sanitized drama with a la-de-da milieu and the look and feel of a sitcom, "Auto Focus" deals only superficially with the neurotic protag's preoccupation with sex while failing to dig deep into his aberrant psychodynamics and the seedy subculture he inhabited by night. A solid production in all respects, "Auto Focus" will most likely be of interest to those who remember Crane while younger viewers may find the film somewhat unsatisfying. (B-)

This is NOT a good movie. I don't know what you people are being fooled by. Is it all the breasts? Is it because it's dark subject matter that Paul Schrader is directing? I really don't get it, 'cause this is a bad movie. It's a boring story, that is not worth telling. It is not well acted, written, or directed. So, please, everyone remove your head from your posterior and realize that this is not a great, or even good film. It's mock-intellectual. That is all.

Wow, is Greg Kinnear nothing short of amazing in this film or what! An incredible performance as Bob Crane, seriously virtuoso. When, towards the end, he visits his agent and is all messed up, and starts saying "sex is normal. I'm normal" - Kinnear reaches a pinnacle in his young film acting career. I have always felt that actors ascend to the next level of craft and stardom when they breakthrough with a biographical role; see - Denzel Washington in Malcom X, Ben Kingsley in Ghandi, Robert Downey Jr in Chaplin, Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia. And now Greg Kinnear has made that leap with Auto Focus, a well-crafted and seductive film by Paul Schrader, Hollywood's last bastion of non-sugar coated filmmakers. Basically the story of Hollywood's most intriguing unsolved murder, Auto Focus also pulls back the curtain on "good guy" Bob Crane's lecherous and painfully discombobulated private and secret life. What is also amazing about this film is how is records the birth of video and the VCR. Bob Crane turns out to be one of the pioneer "users" of this technology. When we see or hear video, video cameras, or VCRs, we probably automatically think of home movies, recording episodes of Star Trek, or the Star Wars prequels' lack of cinematic quality. When Bob Crane heard about video cameras and VCRs, he automatically thought of sex. Though the film makes no mention of it, it is quite prophetic in showing us how the technology of video created hard-core * and turned it into a billion dollar industry. If you think about it, nothing has profited more from video than porno, and nothing ever relied so dearly on video like porno. Bob Crane instinctively felt this, though he never was a pornographer, so to speak; he knew that sex and video can go hand in hand. Unfortunately, this was also his downfall. Like most Paul Schrader writ or directed films, by the end you get that queasy feeling, the feeling you get at the end of Goodfellas, the feeling of sadness that this great ride is over and the feeling of emptiness and loss that all that greatness came crashing down. Bob Crane's descent into moral madness can be sickening, especially when juxtaposed with Hogan's Heroes. I almost felt the desire to shower, to cleanse myself after viewing this film. I love movies that produce reactions from me, movies that linger for days. This is one of them.