Apparently there are now three, yes three, Dali biopics in the works. One has Al Pacino which is likely to be ridiculous. But the other has Antonio Banderas which seems just as absurd. These two films are about the end of Dali’s life. The third is about his youth. Given that Dali was pop figure and arguably presaged Warhol (see e.g., melting Coke bottles in Dali), maybe a wild world of conflicting films about him fits his world view. He did write two life stories, so three films may be too few for all I know.
Still the Banderas film may surpass even Dali’s view of himself. The film will be directed by Simon West who directed Con Air. Yes, Con Air, Nick Cage and a host of miscreants on a plane enjoy a bumpy ride and some blow ups. Maybe the Banderas film which it is claimed “will blend music with CGI sequences in an effort to capture the inventiveness and color of the painter. Story will explore how Dali conquered America and the world with sex, sin and surrealism only to succumb later to worldwide scandal and misfortune” is a perfect match for Dali’s spirit.
If you loved Antonio Banderas in Desperado, you will love him as Dali. His passion was his art and so was his weapon.
I envison Banderas whipping out paint brushes. Oil flies. The blob of paint is a clock! It lands on someone’s head and melts! The bad guy is now captured in a most surreal way and ponders whether time in prison matters once clocks melt. And all of this with cool CGI and a hip Los Lobos/Ottmar Leibert soundtrack.
The funny IP part of having three films in the works is that all the claims about copyright is needed to alllow exclusive rights and protect the large investment in a film are undercut by these competing projects. And competing projects occur often enough that one has to wonder are the Hollywood execs stupid? Do they lack information (not likely given how fast people know who is in or out and what project if approved or not in Hollywood)? OR is it that exclusivity simply does not tell the full story. As you can guess, I suggest the last explanation is correct. More on that later.