WARNING: SPOILERS!

(5/10/01)

NOTE: The screenplays we review are often in development and may experience many rewrites, some could end up being completely different than what is reviewed here. It is our hope that our reviews generate more interest in the film. Thank you.

If youre a reader of my script reviews, then you know my feelings about Andrew Niccol. Ive unabashedly called him a genius screenwriter in the past. After seeing GATTACA and reading his version of THE TRUMAN SHOW I assumed we were dealing with a man whose mind worked on the upper reaches of our artistic intelligence. Then came his follow-up, RIVER ROAD (which I reviewed). It was an okay read, but possessed nothing that made his previous two films so exquisite. Now we have SIMONE, his latest (shot and waiting to be released), and it, too, doesnt live up to his previous work. When I pictured Niccol as a second coming of a paranoid Oliver Stone -- did I make up my mind too fast?

The story of SIMONE is audaciously piquant. When you sit down to read this script, and realize, right away, where Niccol is going, youre struck by the notion and acknowledge its a story worth telling. Its curious that SIMONE is a letdown. Considering that Niccol took a nightmare-fantasy weve all had -- being watched; our lives not being real -- and created something that outdid all of our fears. Writer-producer-director Viktor Taransky is in trouble: his last movie bombed and now his lead actress is walking off his current film. This means his movie death. The film was only made because of her involvement. Taransky is a frustrated midlevel director: beholden to his stars and their whims and unable to make a creatively satisfying movie. Hes being held hostage by his childish actors. His A-list star is leaving him, hes angry to note, because she doesnt have the largest trailer on the set.

With his actress gone, the studio wants nothing to do with Viktor. To keep from insulting the Big Star, they are going to shelf the film. As for Viktor: they sever his contract. His career is essentially over.

His ex-wife, now a studio head, is the one that has to tell him the news: he is yesterdays trash.

While cleaning out his office Viktor runs into a man who tells him he agrees wholeheartedly with Viktors assessment of petulant stars and has solved the problem. Viktor takes him for a pervert and goes on his way. A few months later Viktor receives a package from the man (who has passed on): a hard drive and a computer program. On it Victor finds CGI actors that look, move and sound absolutely real. Viktor chooses "simulation one" -- Simone -- and replaces his A-list actress with the ethereally beautiful CGI Simone.

Viktor is able to open his movie in one theater. The premiere is not exactly topnotch: no press, no celebes, no big lights. Just a bunch of bored people given free tickets.

The movie starts: and something odd happens. The audience is enraptured by Simone. It is as if she is an angel beamed down straight from heaven. The audience is in awe. Theyve never seen such beauty and grace.

Simone becomes an instant megastar. Requests come pouring in. She is instantly the It-girl of the moment. Viktor claims she is morbidly press-shy and does all her talking for her. This leads to the inevitable: Viktor going to great lengths to cover the fact that Simone is not real.

This may or may not sound to you like a great idea for a movie. I personally think it sounds like a stupendous way to skewer Hollywood. But Niccol goes off in a slightly different direction, and it makes me wonder if SIMONEs story doesnt work better as a pitch then a full-length film.

Niccol is an idea-man. You cant take that away from him. (He has a fascinating mind.) And some of the ideas in this script are entrancing. I find the outrageous notion of being able to take Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, a pinch of Julia Ormond, a dash of Renee Zellweger, set it to whirl, and produce The Greatest Actress Ever intoxicating. Niccol has fun with his impossibly cutesy gadgets and their abilities, but once hes beyond that, in our "story," things go awry.

Niccol, like most filmmakers nowadays, yearns for the Hollywood of yesteryear. When it was "only about the movie." Its a good point, too: with twenty-million-dollar paychecks and multimillion-dollar perks, with blind star worship making it necessary for a film to have an A-list actor to "open," movies are being cobbled together for maximum appeal -- not artistic value. When Grace and Audrey were making flicks there was no such thing as an actors paycheck being the same as the films budget, no peevishness of whose trailer had the nicest Jacuzzi. Actors wanted good material, to work with good directors, and to leave behind the best catalog of films they could. It was about the movies. With Simone, Viktor thinks, he will give Hollywood back to the artist. Its a ballsy attitude for Niccol. Hes a mainstream director and he has to work with mainstream actors. I cant imagine theyre going to like an entire movie saying they are ruining the creative process. (To be fair to actors, they also help: you always hear stories about how actors improve scripts they eventually dont even appear in; such as Harrison Ford and TRAFFIC.)

SIMONE also says something about the worlds scary one-sided star worship. How people build odd attachments for actors theyve never met, will never meet, and dont know. Niccol knows its not just about losers living vicariously or some pitiful overweight slob dreaming of marrying Julia Roberts. Its the all-encompassing media. The tube and magazine rack is so saturated with celebrity info-slash-crap that one cant escape hating/loving a star if one wants to. You have no choice but to welcome them into your life. They are there -- twenty-four hours a day. When an actor promotes a film he or she is living with you for two weeks. Every channel: same thing: their smiling face. In this case its the ultimate lopsided, baseless lovefest: fans feel close to Simone, shes changed their lives, men want to marry her -- and shes not real! Shes a computer program. (Is it that we fall in love with anyone on the big screen? Do we fall in love with what actors are rather than who they are?)

Niccol, in his cascade of points, brings into focus -- as do shows like MAKING THE BAND -- that in todays market you can "make" a star. The right hairdo, the right role, the right appearance on a talk show, the right scripted lines, the right photo shoot, the right word-of-mouth telling people youre the Next Big Thing -- and you can make the public love anyone. Its a form of brainwashing, and Hollywood is a master at it. They can give the CIA a run for its money, I can tell you that. When they want to anoint someone -- they do. And all we can do is sit back and suck on it. The only one who can stop the onrushing tide is the actor him- or herself.

The notion of a real CGI actor opens up a million questions. On the writers side that question can be, Is an actor really nothing more than a pretty dispenser for my words? Since actors are not technically "creating" anything, can what they do therefore be replicated and improved by a machine that can give a director -- down to the wink of an eye -- exactly what he saw in his head? The days of bad casting, lousy takes, violent set eruptions, "creative differences" would all be gone. Another question: Would this really save Hollywood? Think about it: No more high salaries. No more perks. Hell, you dont even have to feed these people. What is now a hundred-million-dollar movie could be made for half that (that is, if this program ran as flawlessly and cheaply as it does in the script). Niccol sets up all these questions with his intriguing premise, but, unlike in GATTACA, he doesnt seem concerned with answering them. (For my money: the answer is no. You need actors. And they do create. Ive read scripts where the character did nothing for me and then saw an excellent actor, not changing a word, make the role something special.)

What SIMONE unfortunately becomes is the story of the creator behind his creation. The cloaked-in-shadow genius growing bitter because no one will acknowledge his greatness. (The story is this plus Viktors near-slapstick ways of going about making it appear as though Simone is real and alive.)

By keeping SIMONE realistic (the computer program isnt far off), Niccol makes the script more prosaic. Viktor runs Simone by speaking her lines into a computer. Essentially, he is Simone. She is a blank slate. I know Niccol made her this way so its even more ironic that she is so adored. But wouldnt it have been more interesting to have Simone be a sort of HAL 9000 -- an A.I.? That way she could gain her own consciousness, fooling even herself into believing that shes real. It would be the irony of ironies: even Viktors CGI woman leaves him. (Im not saying this is desideratum -- its just my take on the material, and its not a critics job to rewrite the story. Still, though, a more chimerical spin on the material seems ideal.)

Ultimately, Niccol contradicts himself. If the Hollywood people are as shallow as he makes them out to be, why would he have to hide Simone from them? They would love it: a superstar who costs nothing! Bye, bye, prima donnas! Viktor would be a hero.

Niccol loves writing characters that have to scheme. In GATTACA Ethan Hawke must go to great lengths not to be detected as "not genetically perfect." In RIVER ROAD Myler Kline risks his life again and again to cross the river to what he hopes is freedom. Viktor is just like these men, only his battle is one of trivia, not of life or death. His mad-dashing can be seen as funny (not that SIMONE is ever a comedy). Whats different about Viktor is that, unlike his two counterparts, he needs to find out something about himself and this Simone situation is going to be the catalyst. Niccol gives Viktor great speeches about why Simone is nothing new -- athletes are on steroids, singers lip-sync, models have surgery -- but I never fully believed Viktors character: his motivations, his self-disgust, his reversal.

Like RIVER ROAD, while not totally satisfying, SIMONE is still packed with meritorious material. Niccols mind works in bright technicolor swirls. He has that same devious sense you find in Roald Dahl. And the scenes of Viktor scamming his way along are fiendish good fun. Niccol is a young talent -- no doubt about it -- hell be winning plenty of Oscars before he retires. SIMONE just shows itself to be an idea that needed a different spin -- one Niccol wasnt interested in telling.

Niccol isnt a parsimonious storyteller. If anything, hes too giving. The story travels halfway across the world and back home. We have the story of schlub Viktor, his CGI woman, the implications of that, her megastar status, the love he has for his ex-wife, the relationship Viktor has with his precocious daughter, a reporter and his assistant trying to track Simone down, the idea that Viktors wife rediscovers her love for her husband only through her love for Simone. None of these threads come to a fulfilling end. The Viktor/ex-wife bit is especially humdrum. The ending, too, is too pat and quickly tied up. The creepy-smile, it-never-really-ends finale doesnt have enough kick -- or even a simple reaction from Viktor -- to work.

Making a movie about Hollywood is pretty easy. Theyre not always art, but they usually string us along. The reason is obvious: Hollywood, to most of us, is a far-off land filled with gorgeous women and smart guys and million-dollar deals over breakfast. We want to see how the other side lives, basically, to correct are hopes and dreams.

If youre like me (and you probably are if youre reading this) -- a movie about Hollywood is preaching to the choir. It already has me at the start because its going to be about one of my favorite topics: movies.

Great flicks have been made about the business -- THE PLAYER and STATE AND MAIN to name two -- and they worked because they either took us deep inside or stood outside and showed us how absurd it gets in the loony bin.

SIMONE isnt a satire on Hollywood and media; its not the story of a mans personal journey; its not a commentary of current affairs -- its a lot of things. And while Niccol has plenty to say and the means to say it, he doesnt bring it together for the entertainment it should have been.

Dont let this deter you from seeing the film when it comes out. SIMONE will be, at the very least, an interesting film. Im dying to see what Simone will look like (I assume its part CGI, part real woman). Theres also the cast: Al Pacino (Viktor), Catherine Keener (his ex-wife), Pruitt Taylor Vince (more or less playing the same character he did in NURSE BETTY), Jason Schwartzman. At its best, SIMONE could shock-wave Hollywood into a listening position. Are we seeing the techno-millennium evolution from silent films to talkies?

Maybe. Maybe.

If anyone was going to do it -- it figures it was Niccol (next guess: James Cameron). Im certainly going to eager-beaver it over to a theater when the film arrives and make my own decision. You should do the same. You dont want to be told what the future holds; you should determine it yourself.

-- Darwin Mayflower.