The Hughes Legend. . .Retold

304065 · 12-20-2004, 06:53 AM

Most people know something of the legend of Howard Robard Hughes, the aviator, industrialist and billionaire that earned fame and reputation for daring flying in his early years, and infamy for drug use and obsessive-compulsive disorder in his final years.

Scorsese's The Aviator is the tale of Hughes' early life, career as a filmmaker, aviation exploits, and battles for position in the airline industry, up until about 1947.

Unfortunately, there are a great many things wrong with this film that earn it a C- on my highly opinionated ranking scale.

First, and stop now if you plan on seeing this movie, the casting was entirely wrong. Just like in Gangs of New York, Scorsese has taken a basically credible plot premise and cast it with actors who are entirely incapable of provoking the "willing suspension of disbelief" that's necessary to convincingly portray the subject. Or put another way, Leo DiCaprio does not have the age, the facial appearance, or the screen presence to credibly portray Howard Hughes. His "Houston" accent is the worst on-screen since Kevin Costner's Robin Hood Prince of Thieves pseudo-nasal-anglo-speak. Nor does Cate Blanchett portray Katherine Hepburn with any real credibility: she looks nothing like her, and similarly accomplishes a butchery of Hepburn's accent.

It goes downhill from there. Alec Baldwin's portrayal of Juan Trippe, the president of Pan Am, is similarly wooden. One can't help thinking about Baldwin's outspoken liberalism the entire time he's onscreen portraying a ruthless capitalist. And he's a lot chubbier than Trippe ever was. To make matters worse on the burned-out-liberal-actor scale, Alan Alda plays Senator Ralph Owen Brewster, but he's been typecast as Hawkeye Pierce for so long, and reverts back into his old character from MASH so readily, that you can't take the portrayal seriously.

Why is Scorsese using these guys, are there no other actors in Hollywood?

Apart from the casting problems, the screenplay is also flawed. It's as though someone said, "Hmm. . . everyone knows Hughes as the drug-addicted, skinny, hairy freak from the late 1970's. Since that's the context in which Hughes is viewed, let's have the ENTIRE MOVIE foreshadow that outcome." As such, from the very first scene, the movie is focused on trying too hard to highlight the milestones of Hughes' insanity. Much license is taken with historical accuracy, as well: the piles of Kleenex, urination in bottles, and seclusion that were characteristic of Hughes' life in the 1970's are introduced some 30 years earlier, to more easily dovetail, one assumes, with the viewer's knowledge of his final days. Then again, historical accuracy was never Scorsese's strong suit: if it were up to him, Union Gunboats would have shelled Lower Manhattan during the Draft Riots in Gangs.

If there are any stars in this film, they are the airplanes. After a rough beginning, in which a German fighter that is obviously powered by a flat-four Lycoming rolls onscreen, viewers are treated to some impressive mockups of the H-1 racer.

I don't think the REAL H-1 (Serial No.2) was used in this film, maybe someone knows? The original is in the Smithsonian. Serial No. 2, which was in my opinion the most beautiful airplane, both in lines and craftsmanship, that I have ever seen, was destroyed on its way home from Oshkosh last year, and the Builder and Pilot, Jim Wright, tragically killed.

Also, there are some very cool scenes with a Sikorsky flying boat, I think it's an S-38? The movie is worth seeing for these alone. Dispensing yet again with any semblance of accuracy, Scorsese has DiCaprio and Blanchett having a romantic conversation in the cockpit, WITHOUT HEADSETS, in which DiCaprio WHISPERS into her ears! All the while about four feet away from a PAIR of radial engines with OPEN STACKS! Ha ha ha! In reality, he couldn't even SHOUT to be heard, he would have to hold up a SIGN to get fresh with her! But after all, it's only a movie, right?

The shots of the HK-1 Hercules (don't call it the "Spruce Goose") are somewhat interesting, but rely too heavily on the use of CGI. For a while, it looks like someone is holding a watercolor in front of the camera. Presumably they had access to the original HK-1 for filming, although I don't know whether it's the real deal or a mockup.

Hughes was a brilliant aviation pioneer who did more to advance the cause of aviation than anyone since the Wrights. His designs were way ahead of their time, and he deserves to be remembered for his personal heroism as a pilot and as a man. The Aviator comes up way short as a portrayal of that person, while making the most of his vices and shortcomings. Hughes' was always a bit of an outsider in Hollywood, insofar as he was not associated with a studio (until he later bought RKO). And it would seem that Hollywood has a long memory.

RickM · RickM's Garage

John , Great write-up. From the first commercial I winced when I heard DiCaprio was playing the lead role......What???

Isabo · 12-20-2004, 08:05 AM

Sounds like the film of The Carpetbaggers by Harold Robbins was closer to the mark

tabs · 12-20-2004, 12:58 PM

syphillis is what ultimately did H H in....

Milu · 12-20-2004, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
syphillis is what ultimately did H H in....

But so many great men, including statesmen, musicians, poets and artists had syphilis. Penicillin has a lot to answer for

304065 · 12-20-2004, 01:10 PM

Tabdula, given your Vegas connection I would not be at all surprised if you had some "inside info" WRT HRH's demise. . . the conventional wisdom, as expressed in Empire: The Life, Legend and Madness of Howard Hughes is that it was the plane crash which resulted in HRH being in the hospital for 37 days, with resultant addition to codeine, that ultimately started him down. the "daily log" lists an intake of valium tablets, Emparin tablets, and codeine injections, that would kill a normal person.

Given HRH's interest in women I would not at all be surprised if he was exposed to STD's along the way: but considering also the battery of doctors he had in the wings, I would have thought he would have received a penicllin injection.

KNS · 12-20-2004, 09:04 PM

Have not seen the movie yet but I also think Leo is a little young for the role. I thought Tommy Lee Jones did an okay job with HRH back in the 70's although that movie needed a bigger budget. I have to agree with you John, I have always thought that the H-1 was one of the best looking designs, even today. I was shocked to hear about the crash of Mr. Wright's H-1 right after he finished it. Tragic.

MFAFF · 12-21-2004, 12:12 AM

John,

The real Racer as in the one at NASM, wasn't used in the film AFAIK. The replica was used as was a modified Harvard. It was mooded from the front cockpoit bak to look like the Racer for all the cockpit shots.

There was a good write up about the flying stuff for the film in Flypast a few months ago...

304065 · 12-22-2004, 11:44 AM

Thanks MFAFF, I'll look for it.

Here's a shot of H-1 Serial No.2 before the crash. It's breathtaking.

More at: http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/

Joeaksa · 12-26-2004, 05:12 PM

John,

Good writeup and agree. Will not see this movie, nor the remade "Flight of the Phoenix" either after seeing the previews.

Was really sorry to see Jim and the replica H-1 go down during his cross country flight to OSH. It was Jim's baby and he put his heart and soul into the plane.

Joe A

Isabo · 12-27-2004, 01:18 AM

That plane is beautiful.
I saw "Rocketeer" on tv the other night where the figure of HH had a role. That might have been the plane used at the end, (nb I know nothing about planes). Although this was styled after a 1930s style comic strip (I love the genre and old aviation films), the larger than life HH figure was perhaps closer to what we would like to see. A pity about the Aviator, I would love to see a modern period aviation film done properly but I'll buy the dvd anyway.

304065 · 01-01-2005, 09:20 PM

Isabo, there's more HRH connection in "The Rocketeer" than first appears. In one of the opening scenes on the airfield there is a monohull amphibian with a single radial engine mounted over the fuselage. This is the "Sea Bird," which Hughes flew to the Bahamas from Miami once, and reported that he liked it, but that it needed a Pratt & Whitney, not a Jacobs engine.

Joe, the movie is worth watching if only for the Sikorsky footage.

Jason Porter · 01-02-2005, 01:38 AM

First of all, if you don't think DiCaprio did a good job with his Houston accent, then you weren't listening. All my buddies are from Houston, Dalls/F.W., Austin etc, and they were all amazed, as was I, at how well he carries a typical Texan twang.

I agree about Blanchett, there aren't words to describe how much she annoyed me in this movie, but thankfully she and Hughes parted ways around half way through.

BTW, whoever played Ms. Gardner was extremely hot, I had to adjust myself once or ttwice because of her.

The planes were awesome, the costumes and sets were very nicely detailed (love the Art-Deco), and the cinematography was great. The music was good, and overall, it was a great movie.

However, to truly detail the life of a guy like Hughes, you would need a LOTR-type trilogy, a plethora of actors that all look alike of varying ages, and a host of other small things.

But when was the last time...make that anytime a "feature film", of the non-documentary variety was entirely accurate in terms of chronology or events. It just doesn't happen in Hollywood. Honesty is mostly dead here, and even the most honest attempts at cinema now are still lightly laced with at least the unintended misleadingness(word?) of the town that makes the film.

I know a lot of Hollywood people, and they can't help themselves...LA forced them to acclimate...

Jason Porter · 01-02-2005, 01:45 AM

One more thing...this movie wasn't really for you, or people your age.

It is for people my age, 16-30, which is why DiCaprio was cast. And Alda for that matter. We know he was Pierce in MASH, but that isn't necessarily the first thing we think of when we see him, because that was kinda before our time.

And DiCaprio, Mel Gibson and Daniel Day-Lewis are some of the greatest actors of our generation, and people in our demographic, the target demographic BTW, respond to these guys.

This film is to teach OUR generation about a legend, an innovator, a genius, a madman, a mogul, that we never would have maybe even cared about otherwise... Hell, I looked up alot of info about the guy after I got home from the movie, because I wanted to know more, and because I know that movies aren't reality, but someone's interpretation of reality. That's why at the beginning it says "based" on a true story.

The movie was very fun...

304065 · 01-02-2005, 11:25 AM

Interesting perspective, Mr. Porter.

Actually, I was listening, and have had the pleasure of being in Houston, Dallas, and Austin many times. That's not the point. The point is that DiCaprio's accent comes and goes, and sounds NOTHING like Hughes. Hughes did NOT have a "Houston" accent, and if you don't believe me, click on the link I posted above, go to the Wright Tools website, and listen to the .wav files of Hughes actually testifiying before Congress.

I agree with you about the sets and the cinematography, though. Very nicely researched and executed.

I appreciate also your observations about the Death of Honesty in Hollywood. However, just because Hollywood plays fast and loose with the facts in order to tell a story doesn't mean we have to like it. One wonders whether Scorsese will come out with a sequel detailing HRH's involvement with the CIA. . .I would suppose NOT, as he's already used much of the shock of HRH's later life to work in the first film.

Hmmm. . . not sure where you derive the factual basis for your assertion that "this movie is not for . . . people [y]our age . . ." in the absence of our biographical information here. . .nor am I sure that I agree anyway: more people outside of the 16-30 demographic know who Hughes was, and therefore would be more likely interested than folks going to the "DiCaprio Movie."

Now, I agree with you, that Daniel Day-Lewis (who was, by the way, born in 1957, and could hardly be characterized as an actor for Generation Y, unlike Mr. DiCaprio, who was born in 1974, and who could be), is an OUTSTANDING actor, and he completely stole the show in "Gangs of New York" despite being cast as "William Cutting" even though the real "Bill The Butcher" was "William Poole" and he lived 30 years earlier.

Mel Gibson, some love him, some hate him. I personally enjoyed the hell out of "Payback."

But really now, Leo as one of the "greatest actors of [y]our generation?" I don't disagree in the slightest that he brings in ticket sales. But seriously, Bogart, Wayne, Brando, De Niro, Nicholson, DiCaprio?

But hey, just like Gangs, if this movie stimulates interest in actually learning what happened, it can't be all bad. Check out that "Empire: The Life, Legend and Madness of Howard Hughes" book, it's got some great information. No longer in print but check www.alibris.com.

tabs · 01-02-2005, 12:48 PM

The other Howard Hughs legend that comes to mind is the tale ole Melvin told...and to this day he claims it's true...

Dantilla · 01-02-2005, 09:55 PM

I saw the movie. Won't see it again.

For both the above reasons, and for the typical phony computer graphics.

There is no way the Hercules had water spraying all the way up to the engines at take-off power. And there would be very little vibration in the cabin. They were shaking the cameras as if in a violent earthquake. When an airplane's wing meets the side of a house, the house will win. Every time. A wing will NOT make a clean slice through a wall.

On the record breaking H-1 scene, all the close-ups had no canopy, while all the distance shots were clearly an enclosed cockpit. And they kept going back and forth!

Most of the flying was well done, but overall the film was a downer. It cast Mr. Hughes much more negatively than I would have thought appropriate

thamlin000 · thamlin000's Garage

Easily, the worst Texas accent I've ever heard. Leo tried way too hard with the twang.

BGCarrera32 · 01-03-2005, 07:11 PM

John, you are my favorite poster on these forums. Thanks for the write up. Sounds like one to catch on DVD...

BTW, didn't HRH invent the underwire bra? Cool...

Superman · 10-02-2006, 04:21 PM

You are right, John, about a great many things. The H-1 is breattaking. The Aviator is a sorry excuse for a movie, let alone an historially accurate one. And your legal analyses are extraordinarily insightful, to say the least. The "color" with which you paint would not be so disappointing, were it not for this brilliance. Brilliant but sadly self-limited. Would you be so disappointed if Heston had played the part of a known (I know this word is obscene, but I'll use it anyway for the shock value) LIBERAL? Or would that be alright?

Still, I will continue to read your posts eagerly. And for good reason. And I expect my comments to be ignored, of course. For the reason outlined herein.