SPEED RACER: THE DOWNFALLS OF AN UNCOMPROMISING VISION

The Wachowskis were unwavering in their vision for Speed Racer, but is this the reason behind the film’s limited success?

Pretentious Film Club: The logo for Kieran Griffith's popular Instagram page

The Wachowskis’ 2008 sci-fi, action film Speed Racer is a film that was both a critical and commercial failure when it was released. Despite early success with The Matrix, the directors have never been able to replicate it, and some suggest it may be because they refuse to compromise their ideas.

University film graduate, Kieran Griffiths, believes that Speed Racer suffers because the Wachowskis’ style alienates people. They make films without taking into account how people will react, and although that is respectable, it doesn’t make the film automatically good.

“Auteurs are going to turn people off,” Griffiths said. “There’s not many, I think, who can make the films that they want to make consistently and also appeal to critical and commercial success … They’re (The Wachowskis) basically making big budget niche films. And that is a very dangerous game to play.”

Griffiths, who also runs the popular Instagram page Pretentious Film Club, says that the Wachowskis make films in which you are either tapped into their style or you completely don’t get it. And it is a risk you have to take to make these types of films.

“I think with the Wachowski’s films you have to sort of strap yourself in and go along for the ride and I think if you're willing to do that then you will have fun with their films … I think if it doesn’t grab you then you’ll just completely fall off,” said Griffiths.

One of the Wachowskis’ trademarks in their films is merging different genres, styles and ideas into one film (see Cloud Atlas) and Griffiths brought this up as an example of their vision influencing the film for the worse.

“The reason I think Speed Racer struggles so much is because it doesn't really know who its audience is,” said Griffiths. “It’s this sort of big budget sci fi fantasy film based on an anime, is it for kids? Is it for families? Is it for adults? And it just feels confused thematically and tonally.”

However, he doesn’t believe all filmmakers who make films this way are as alienating as the Wachowskis. He gave Quentin Tarantino, another director that makes movies with an uncompromising vision, as an example.

“I think Tarantino deals with perhaps more palatable themes for a mass audience. But even then you look at films like Django (Unchained) and Inglorious Basterds and they’re not traditionally films that would appeal to a wide audience. He just has a style that appeals to more people whereas the Wachowskis films are a bit more niche,” Griffiths said.

Below is a full transcript of Kieran Griffith’s interview with DirectedBy, and it sheds more light on his problems with Speed Racer, how you can succeed by making a film that is wholly your vision as well as the Star Wars prequels. You can also read the Speed Racer review here.

Have you seen the film before, and if so, what did you think of it?

This is actually my first time watching it. I was looking through the Wachowskis’ filmography and realised that this and the newest Matrix were the only ones I hadn’t seen. So I can almost tick them off.

Had you heard anything about it before, and what were your thoughts on the film?

Going into it I knew it was sort of maligned. I knew it flopped commercially and critically. And you kind of go into the film with these preconceived notions of what to expect. So I knew it was pretty iffy and I didnt sort of have any surprises. It was kind of about what I expected.

Are you a fan of the Wachowskis?

I think they’re (Wachowskis) are a little bit of a one hit wonder, which you don’t find too often in filmmaking, I mean you look at music and there's obviously a lot of bands and artists that release one big song and that’s it. You don’t see it in films because obviously films are so expensive, so not many people get many chances if they fail. I think The Matrix is a seminal piece of work, I think it’s incredibly important culturally and it’s just a great film on its own right. But you look at the rest of the Wachowskis films and there’s nothing there that makes me think that they warrant the hundreds of millions of budget that they’ve been given. It’s a bit controversial but I think other than The Matrix they’ve not done anything that has really impressed me.

Well, this is very interesting because most of the people I have talked to for Directedby have been big fans so it will be good to get the other side of the coin. I wanted to ask, when I first watched the film, and when I saw that first 30 minutes I was completely blown away. It was something I had never seen before. I felt like they packed a whole movie’s worth of information into the first 30 minutes whilst also making it visually interesting. What did you think of these first 30 minutes?

I will give the Wachowskis credit on that they do world building really well. You look at Cloud Atlas, The Matrix and Jupiter Ascending and you know all the information you need to know very quickly but they don’t do it in a super expository sort of way, they tell the story in a nice natural progression. While I wouldn’t say I was enjoying it all that much, I was relatively entertained especially by that first 30 minutes. It really does suck you in and I think with the Wachowski’s films you have to sort of strap yourself in and go along for the ride and I think if you’re willing to do that then you will have fun with their films.

What do you think didn’t work about that first 30 minutes?

Well, I think it’s the other side of the same coin in that it is a lot. I think if it doesn’t grab you then you’ll just completely fall off. I think if you don’t get grabbed by that initial first act then it's not going to bring you back and for me that’s where it didn't work because I didn't quite get that investment like I did with that first scene in The Matrix.

I know a lot of people struggle with the CGI mixed with the real, how did you feel about that?

It’s very much a product of its time. Mid 2000’s, late 2000’s CGI hasn’t aged particularly well. You only have to go and look at even some of the bigger films from that era like the Star Wars prequels. I recently rewatched them because I hate myself and I’d forgotten about how bad some of those films look in terms of the CGI elements and I think Speed Racer suffers from that too. And I think when they’re so heavily reliant on it, then it can be so distracting.

But even the Star Wars films, people are coming around to them these days.

Maybe it’s the cynic in me but I do think there’s an element of contrarianism to it. People going It’s not I like it despite it being unpopular, its I like it because it is unpopular. So I think there is an element of people liking the Star Wars prequels because it is fashionable to go against the grain with them. But I say that as someone who thinks Revenge of the Sith is an underappreciated gem in the Star Wars franchise.

I think both, the Star Wars prequels and Speed Racer, are examples of films in which the artist has truly just done what they wanted without thinking about the expectations of the fans and society.

Auteurs are going to turn people off. There’s not many, I think, who can make the films that they want to make consistently and also appeal to critical and commercial success. You look at someone like Quentin Tarantino, he is an exception to the rule. He makes films for himself that are incredibly idiosyncratic. You can watch a Tarantino film and know straight away that it is a Tarantino film and it's the same with the Wachowskis. They're basically making big budget niche films. And that is a very dangerous game to play. And sci fi and fantasy are not genres that are going to have mass appeal. I will give them credit though, they make films wholly for themselves and I like that and appreciate that.

The editing is also very strange, and something I have never seen done often. What did you think of it?

It caught me off guard a bit. Again, it’s just those little stylistic things that I don’t think work for me on a personal level. But everything in that film feels deliberate, nothing feels like it was put there unintentionally or without care or thought. It didn’t work for me, but I can see why they did it and I feel that it works for the film, but just doesn't work for me if that makes sense.

One of my favourite scenes from the film is when Royalton is explaining how racing works and he kind of shits on Speed’s memory of the Grand Prix. This is where I feel the film gets its depth with comments on capitalism and also just personally how they found the film business to be. What do you think of this and what do you think the film is trying to say?

Capitalism is obviously a big theme in the Wachowskis work, I mean The Matrix is the obvious one that makes some very broad and general statements about feeling like a cog in the machine type of thing. And Speed Racer touches on them. I don’t have an issue with the ideas or the way they are presented. I just don’t think they belong in the film because the reason I think Speed Racer struggles so much is because it doesn't really know who its audience is. It’s this sort of big budget sci-fi fantasy film based on an anime, is it for kids? Is it for families? Is it for adults? And it just feels confused thematically and tonally.

Do you think a film needs to pick that market and head for that? Or do you think you can make a film that has a little bit for everybody?

I think you can make a film that is for everyone and that it is very hard to do well. And I think they’re very rare. I’m in my office as I’m talking to you and I’m looking at my shelf of movies and I’m looking at movies that tick that box of mass appeal. And you’re looking at your Star Wars and your Indiana Jones. Even Pixar and Studio Ghibli. I just think Speed Racer is trying to be two different films at once and it is sort of worse off for that.

You said before that you think Quentin Tarantino can pull this kind of thing off. Where he can make a film that is purely his vision and everyone will come around to it. Why do you think he succeeds and the Wachowskis don’t?

I think Tarantino deals with perhaps more palatable themes for a mass audience. But even then you look at films like Django (Unchained) and Inglorious Basterds and they’re not traditionally films that would appeal to a wide audience. I think it’s just that he has a style that appeals to more people whereas the Wachowskis films are a bit more niche. I’d probably put them more in line with someone like David Lynch, not that they’re similar in style and tone, but just that they’re artists in the same way, they have a very specific niche that people are either gonna like or really dislike.