As long as there has been a film industry I think there is mad men running free, directing films. I believe to direct a film requires a bit of madness, at least it’s madness that makes things interesting. With that said, there are great mad filmmakers: Werner Herzog, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Lars Van Trier, Hans-Jurgen Syberberg, and Stanley Kubrick. Then there are the bad ones. Uwe Boll comes to mind first, but I sort of like Uwe Boll, in fact he reminds me a bit of Tommy Wiseau. Boll has figured out a way, within the German tax code to make his films, Wiseau is an independently wealthy importer who put 6 Million Dollars of his own money up to write, direct, producer, executive producer, and star in his very own creation: The Room.
If you’ve never seen or heard of The Room, your in for a treat. I saw the poster, which featured a deadpan Wiseau and thought it was some stupid horror movie, I was unmoved when it originally played in the Buffalo area. Cut to a few weeks later, I’m at the Village East Cinemas in New York with Beth seeing Lovely Bones and I see the poster again: okay, this wasn’t some local Western New York project that I didn’t have time for during finals week, what is it? Oh man.
The reviews on IMDB are hilarious but the best comes from a writer RCarstairs who writes: “You know that foreign exchange student from high school who used to creep our all the girls with his clumsy leering and broken-English pick up lines? Well he’s all grown up and somebody gave him money to make a film”. He goes on to call the film a “two-hour episode of “Red Shoe Diaries” written and directed by Balki from Perfect Strangers”.
It’s so bad it’s good, a terrible send up of the type of movie you’d watch on HBO at 3AM before high speed internet could show you virtually anything you wanted. As a kid going through puberty I’d probably watch it just for the sex scenes, I lived with my mom and didn’t have a dad to hand me down porno mags. The Room was made in 2003 on a budget of $6 million dollars, at least the cast and crew were well compensated for their troubles, the film looks like it should have cost $250,000.
The reason this budget it about 1000X higher than it should have been was that it Wiseau did not know the difference between 35MM and HD video and shot the film using both formats, side by side (I hope that’s an urban legend). The thing about it is where Wiseau wasn’t involved the performances are okay. You get the sense these actors might not be half bad had they had some direction. The camera work is okay but flat (you can tell the whole film was shot on a set).
The plot of the film is flat out weird involving hilarious soft core sex scenes and an awful lot of thrusting - it’s so poorly done you wonder if Wiseau has ever actually had sex before. Of coarse, in attempt to make it romantic Wiseau implores rose petals. His leading lady disturbingly has been described as a fresh off the bus 18 year old from Texas, Juliet Danielle who has only made one other film. The poor girl probably got scared off by creepy Hollywood types and went back home to teach Bible study.
There are some filmmakers you can tell are making films to get laid, luckily I’m not successful enough for that to ever be a factor and if you ask me that type of behavior will truly hurt your film in the long run, as well as your credibility. But it exists, and so it’s there - I don’t know Wiseau got laid, or if it would matter, he wouldn’t show excitement, here is a one note actor if ever there was one.
His performance is so distracting it becomes hilarious, he’s one note. Also the film introduces ideas and characters quickly with no pay off. I don’t mind it so much as it becomes disorienting. For example the mother of Lisa, the future wife of Johnny (Wiseau’s character) tells us she has breast cancer. It’s never mentioned again. In this moment we have to wonder: is she being truthful or is deceptive to build sympathy. These character dimensions don’t bother me, but the film’s lucid character approach with no justification, often characters walk in and out the unlocked front door, becomes like a sitcom.
Yet, I had a good time with The Room. Consider temporality of a different kind: the time of day you see the flick. At 4PM in the afternoon at your local multiplex this thing is shit. At midnight, after you’ve had a drink (more on that coming up next), it’s a fun time with the right audience. It has a cult following.
The theater that showed The Room was the Hamburg Palace, about 10 miles West of Buffalo, a beautifully maintained single screen movie house where they’ve removed rows of seats to provide leg room (something old theaters rarely have, making me wonder if people were smaller back in the day before GMOs invaded our food). Cultivating an audience is important, the right audience can turn any movie into a fun experience, and I’ve gotta hand it to owners and management of the Palace, while it wasn’t a packed house, it did pretty well I’d say and a good time was had by all, from the vintage sci-fi videos on screen before the show.
Had I not been in Buffalo seeing another work by film amateurs, and I say that kindly - amateurs if not competing with Hollywood have the ability to tell important, regional stories well - I would have been able to see The Big Lebowski at the Palace. That showing inspired the town’s local bars including the one at the local 8-lane bowling Alley next to the theater to offer drink specials inspired by the flick. Awesome idea - it’s this type of thinking that’s going to save the theater industry: Regal, AMC, and Cinemark - take notice.
The Room isn’t unlike Henry’s Fortune, the film I saw prior to this one. That film which deserves my silence because even though I paid $15 to see a “preview” screening is very much a work in progress and can and should be cut to 90 minutes from its 2 hour and 10 minute running time. I am also an amateur, but this frees me to move my camera in untraditional ways. The example I’ll give is a shot in Hollow Spaces where my camera is pointed out of the window of a moving car, and I come inside the car to document a screaming match. No professional DP would do this, it’s way too risky first of all, but fuck it - this is balls to the wall filmmaking, baby.
The Room isn’t that. It’s trying to be, as its tag line says “A film with the passion of Tennessee Williams” - it’s title of coarse is nonsense. The film’s most absurd moment is when Wiseau ease drops on his girlfriend telling her mother that she doesn’t love him.
He leaps on screen after there gone and says “I’ll show them, I’ll tape record everything” - and he removes a cassette tape from his pocket and plugs in a recorder - just in cause, you know, he’s prepared. The Room is pure cinema, focusing on what happens when everything goes wrong. I genuinely liked it at first thinking this is a brilliant stripping away at the layers of artificiality, the clearly faked sex scenes that go on for too long and are anything but erotic, in fact you can call them neurotic, to the dialogue.
In plays and cinema realism is hard. In revisiting Elizabethtown, a Cameron Crowe film I realize how mythological it is: it’s a beatiful film in a lot of ways, sentimental, reflective of an America that exists outside of major cities, like say Hamburg, NY which still has an 8-lane bowling alley downtown - how cool is that? That type of thing made me really happy to see, along with people downtown going to bars, sure they were all locals and all knew each other, but that happens even in major cities (especially Buffalo).
The Room never deserves comparison to Cameron Crowe, but it’s reflective of another reality that does exist - how stupid can these people be? Oh do we really want to go there. Wiseau did it all, including writing the checks, I can imagine if anybody said no, or maybe we should replace you with say Aaron Ekart, he would have them fired. Probably threaten them with “you’ll never work in this town again” or some stupid shit like that. “I’m Tommy Wiseau, bitch” he’d say in monotone.
The film’s relationships are so awkwardly drawn, conclusions arrive without feeling needed that one day I hope to teach a course on narrative filmmaking, I’d show this film as an example of what not to do. While simple it’s shows the importance of a strong script, good casting and good direction. While I’m sure good or even great films have been made by bad directors, and absent producers - the actors, are the variables.
Wiseau in the lead is hilarious: everyone in the film has movie star looks in one way or another - Wiseau is an odd ball, the creepy guy trying to get laid at that film festival party by telling you he’s a producer. But he did it, and the film has had a cult life.
Although a waste of time, any serious film fan must make time for a midnight screening of one of the worst films ever made. It’s up there with the Apple, one of the worst musicals ever made, but everyone there at least was coked out of their mind. (Best line from a song in The Apple: “it’s an natural, natural, natural desire - meet an actual, actual, actual Vampire”) Here I don’t know what the issue was - I think everyone was oblivious to reality and cinema. But you aren’t. And that’s where the fun happens.
With that said I will personally join you next time The Room is in town.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Faith Based Cinema In Flux: To Save A Life
As I get older the less cynical and hardened I become, is this growing up? I ask this because after reading a cynical review of a film that was at times amateurish I came the conclusion that I didn’t hate it, in fact while I can’t recommend it, it is a message film, but it’s not a bad one. Christian cinema has always tried to compete with Hollywood either by making melodrama (Fireproof) or action films (Left Behind, The Omega Code). The flaws of corse in the action films are the special effects and story: per IMDB the Omega code is about a guy who tries to change the world because of some loophole in the Torah or something, and Casper Van Dien is our only hope. This to me doesn’t sound like much fun, nor worth $12.00.
But the problems I had with To Save A Life, a new Catholic themed film are problems I have with most teen films: how artificial they are. If you’ve seen Kevin Smith live he’ll probably go on about Degrassi Junior High - a show that he claims was realistic in its portrayal of youth - no one was perfectly flawless looking. Teen films of coarse offer escape - but the problem I have with To Save A Life is that it confronts real issues while offering escape.
It takes place in California. The two leads in the film are older than me and they’re playing 18 year olds (I’m 26). It provides the high school clique montage where everyone is hanging out before class outdoors, some even playing guitar. This has all been done before and was played out 11 years ago when She’s All That was out. Of coarse the audience for this movie were in Pre-K when that film was out...I know, indulge me.
Of coarse the outcasts wear black, they always do. They always play video games. High school is a polarizing environment which leads to a suicide early on of a young overweight African American kid. Our star, Jake Taylor (that’s a more boring white guy name than John Fink!) tries to save him, after all this kid saved Jake’s life, and Jake dissed him - forgetting the rules: bros. before hoes. Jake looses his virginity (I assume) and has ben with the very beatiful Amy (played by Deja Kreutzberg, I can write she’s very beatiful without feeling weird for looking at an 18 year old girl that way because - she’s 3 years older than I, playing an 18 year old).
She isn’t very supportive of Jake at first, and this led me to thinking about popularity and groups in high school: they actually don’t matter. Like a Bruce Springsteen song when I’m back home I see and talk to everybody, then again I went to a tiny school. It’s like “Glory Days” - then again these may be the glory days, adulthood sounds a little grim, that whole being with one person for the rest of your life and having kids business. Glory Days, yeah, they’ll pass you by.
To Save A Life offers two groups to us: those that find God through the New Song Ministry (who also produced this flick) or those that are popular, play beer pong, do stupid shit and are in general kind of one dimensional. On the other side, getting away from Amy (who doesn’t seem to really have any female friends oddly enough yet she’s the “hottest girl in school”) - we get the “youth group” kids. Some are weird like the funky but cute hipster Andrea Stevens (boring white girl name - played by Kim Hidalgo, no age given on IMDB, she looks about 20), and her BFFs whom are a bit homely and don’t get much screen time. After all, even though this deals with realistic themes, we can’t have real people in it.
To Save A Life dives into religious themes, although it doesn’t alienate all, it just suggests some odd things: granted there is some diversity between races in this school - but where’s the Jewish kid? The Muslim? Do they have to find God to fit in? The more I think of this film the more deceptive a propaganda film I suppose it could be. I will give the film the benefit of the doubt, while coded it doesn’t go to those extremes, although it suggests tensions within the church.
After a character gets another character pregnant the priest leading the parish discusses virtual excommunication from the youth group. What? The flick’s hero, the youth pastor Chris comes to his aid offering good advice, although he does so with the skill of an army recruiter.
Perhaps theoretically directed filmmakers such as Atom Egoyan have made us cynical. When you have a scene in which one character asks another information they already know just to hear from them, in this case to heal the information giver, verses the asker. In Egoyan it’s often the one asking the question that is trying to uncover a mystery through confession and/or a re-imagining of the answer to find a truth buried within.
The problem is To Save A Life isn’t theoretical, it keeps plot points coming, it contains deception, one character is down right evil here. It’s cut and dry, often we don’t know the real reasons people commit suicide. We have all probably thought about suicide at one point - I once wrote a note as a way of clearing my head. I had no intention nor idea of how I would do it, or desire, it was a passing thing. Teenhood isn’t like it is in the cinema, life isn’t that simple, adults think it is and as we grow up we remember the good times and not so much the pain.
I say this because I’ve written and revisited a script called Football Town, which examines these ideas without the artifice of the montage, it contains the pain, suffering and drama, it takes place in a small town. I didn’t go to a large regional high school in California where its sunny all the time.
Yet, with this said, I don’t hate To Save A Life. I hope it does what its title suggests actually, but those that should see it will resist it. Sure its inspiring but its preaching to those that are in church on Sunday. Too often high school movies dream of breaking down class structure: it can’t happen. The lines in this film don’t even really reflect the fault of the kids: the jocks come from wealthy families, including Jake, the nerds, not so much (one lives in a trailer park).
Of coarse appearance matters: the Asian kid who cuts his wrists doesn’t wear black anymore once he’s “accepted” - he’s rockin’ a yellow polo shirt. Then again he’s trying to get with the cute hipster girl. While one doesn’t have to dress like a preppy moron, why does one have to wear black and be all dark and mysterious. It’s off putting, to say the least. Perhaps their local mall only has Hot Topic and not Urban Outfitters.
As I talk this out, I’m not so sure anymore about To Save A Life. I’m not against this message, but I think as the Futurists, a movement I’m learning about in my Sources of Modern Theater class though: why do something in two yours you can do in 10 minutes. So I’ll point you to the lyrics to the Foo Fighter’s Wheels - we live in cycles, like wheels - when the wheels come down (life is hard), you get another go around. Hold on. I really wanted to end Hollow Spaces with this song, unfortunately I can’t imagine what that would cost. The cords are uplifting while the song isn’t deceptive, it deals with dark themes optimistically - it mourns something that didn’t happen, it creates a nostalgic feeling, as if you were giving this advise to someone in the past, having lived through the cycle.
I write this and think how arrogant I am. I was never going to kill myself - I’m a pussy. And I can’t imagine what it’s like to seriously think about it, and I mean no disrespect to families coping with the loss of a loved one.
As a film: How to Save A Life suffers shortcomings that films of this genre and market are bound to suffer. I believe film and music have the power to save lives, often they are made by artists that attempt to do so, listen to the rage in a Limp Bizkit or Lincoln Park song. How to Save A Life is restricted, I wish it wasn’t. Of coarse the tragic thing is that had it been real it would have gotten an R-rating, something we still need to address. Work that could inspire a 16-year old is kept from them, unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, and theater chains should take a stance that offers more flexibility than the MPAA’s black and white guidelines.
When I make Football Town, which on its own is a problem, it’s a film that takes place in a time before kids widely had cell phones and we were still on Web 1.0 (IM-ing which no one does anymore was in, now everyone uses Facebook chat*) - it will have an R, or even NC-17 rating. It’ll be the truth. How To Save A Life doesn’t really need an R rating, we get it, the two leads aren’t practicing abstinence, in fact (SPOILER) there’s a consequence to it.
*Showing the fact the film was made in 2008 the hero reaches out to people on Myspace.
How can the film be more credible? Well it is a sincere film, although its been funded by the Catholic church the only people that wouldn’t agree with its message are suicide bombers and their fucking assholes anyway. I wish it didn’t limit itself to being Catholic. One can be good while not being Catholic, why should God, if there is one not embrace them as a wonderful human being. The film never explores that one can find salvation outside of the church - that we can be good people, give to our communities and make a positive impact while not being religious.
The film pits two closed societies against each other: the inclusive religious youth group which turns into a high school clique and the cool kids who drink, party and play sports. Of coarse the lead changes, even saying like: “I don’t even like that Jake anymore” and Amy only comes around after she learns something life changing, for a time I thought she was like Snookie from MTV’s The Jersey Shore - she wanted Jake as an accessory, like a new Louis Vuitton bag.
Catholic film has come of age, a long way from the Omega Code. It hasn’t crossed into and merged with film to the point where non-catholics will not be alienated by these church funded message films. There are of coarse examples of good Catholic films with generous spirits, one made by a warped filmmaker who in real life seems like a heck of a nice guy, Danny Boyle, his family film - Millions.
In short - the film is actually upfront about what it is, I suppose. It’s a Catholic film, and it’s a decent one if you don’t count its conventions against it, entertaining as it is manipulative but it shows great promise. As soon as independent filmmakers free themselves from the chains of trying to make Hollywood style products and bring an original voice to the table, we’ll be set. This is also a trend in what I call “regional” filmmaking - and its what makes them regional, they feature local casts and try to do what Hollywood does.
Hollow Spaces is trying to do what Egoyan does, it’s an attempt at building emotional energy no through music and over acting, but subtle sound effects and a non-linear narrative. I feel as if a certain type of independent filmmaking is stuck in a matrix, if you don’t have a star in your film, why play by the rules of star driven flicks? The voice of a filmmaker is always more interesting to me, provided the aren’t showing off. Your taking me on a journey, I want you to take my hand and lead me along, I don’t want to be pushed along (Tom Ford’s A Single Man is an example of being pushed, beatiful but overly done). So that’s my challenge - bring it.
But the problems I had with To Save A Life, a new Catholic themed film are problems I have with most teen films: how artificial they are. If you’ve seen Kevin Smith live he’ll probably go on about Degrassi Junior High - a show that he claims was realistic in its portrayal of youth - no one was perfectly flawless looking. Teen films of coarse offer escape - but the problem I have with To Save A Life is that it confronts real issues while offering escape.
It takes place in California. The two leads in the film are older than me and they’re playing 18 year olds (I’m 26). It provides the high school clique montage where everyone is hanging out before class outdoors, some even playing guitar. This has all been done before and was played out 11 years ago when She’s All That was out. Of coarse the audience for this movie were in Pre-K when that film was out...I know, indulge me.
Of coarse the outcasts wear black, they always do. They always play video games. High school is a polarizing environment which leads to a suicide early on of a young overweight African American kid. Our star, Jake Taylor (that’s a more boring white guy name than John Fink!) tries to save him, after all this kid saved Jake’s life, and Jake dissed him - forgetting the rules: bros. before hoes. Jake looses his virginity (I assume) and has ben with the very beatiful Amy (played by Deja Kreutzberg, I can write she’s very beatiful without feeling weird for looking at an 18 year old girl that way because - she’s 3 years older than I, playing an 18 year old).
She isn’t very supportive of Jake at first, and this led me to thinking about popularity and groups in high school: they actually don’t matter. Like a Bruce Springsteen song when I’m back home I see and talk to everybody, then again I went to a tiny school. It’s like “Glory Days” - then again these may be the glory days, adulthood sounds a little grim, that whole being with one person for the rest of your life and having kids business. Glory Days, yeah, they’ll pass you by.
To Save A Life offers two groups to us: those that find God through the New Song Ministry (who also produced this flick) or those that are popular, play beer pong, do stupid shit and are in general kind of one dimensional. On the other side, getting away from Amy (who doesn’t seem to really have any female friends oddly enough yet she’s the “hottest girl in school”) - we get the “youth group” kids. Some are weird like the funky but cute hipster Andrea Stevens (boring white girl name - played by Kim Hidalgo, no age given on IMDB, she looks about 20), and her BFFs whom are a bit homely and don’t get much screen time. After all, even though this deals with realistic themes, we can’t have real people in it.
To Save A Life dives into religious themes, although it doesn’t alienate all, it just suggests some odd things: granted there is some diversity between races in this school - but where’s the Jewish kid? The Muslim? Do they have to find God to fit in? The more I think of this film the more deceptive a propaganda film I suppose it could be. I will give the film the benefit of the doubt, while coded it doesn’t go to those extremes, although it suggests tensions within the church.
After a character gets another character pregnant the priest leading the parish discusses virtual excommunication from the youth group. What? The flick’s hero, the youth pastor Chris comes to his aid offering good advice, although he does so with the skill of an army recruiter.
Perhaps theoretically directed filmmakers such as Atom Egoyan have made us cynical. When you have a scene in which one character asks another information they already know just to hear from them, in this case to heal the information giver, verses the asker. In Egoyan it’s often the one asking the question that is trying to uncover a mystery through confession and/or a re-imagining of the answer to find a truth buried within.
The problem is To Save A Life isn’t theoretical, it keeps plot points coming, it contains deception, one character is down right evil here. It’s cut and dry, often we don’t know the real reasons people commit suicide. We have all probably thought about suicide at one point - I once wrote a note as a way of clearing my head. I had no intention nor idea of how I would do it, or desire, it was a passing thing. Teenhood isn’t like it is in the cinema, life isn’t that simple, adults think it is and as we grow up we remember the good times and not so much the pain.
I say this because I’ve written and revisited a script called Football Town, which examines these ideas without the artifice of the montage, it contains the pain, suffering and drama, it takes place in a small town. I didn’t go to a large regional high school in California where its sunny all the time.
Yet, with this said, I don’t hate To Save A Life. I hope it does what its title suggests actually, but those that should see it will resist it. Sure its inspiring but its preaching to those that are in church on Sunday. Too often high school movies dream of breaking down class structure: it can’t happen. The lines in this film don’t even really reflect the fault of the kids: the jocks come from wealthy families, including Jake, the nerds, not so much (one lives in a trailer park).
Of coarse appearance matters: the Asian kid who cuts his wrists doesn’t wear black anymore once he’s “accepted” - he’s rockin’ a yellow polo shirt. Then again he’s trying to get with the cute hipster girl. While one doesn’t have to dress like a preppy moron, why does one have to wear black and be all dark and mysterious. It’s off putting, to say the least. Perhaps their local mall only has Hot Topic and not Urban Outfitters.
As I talk this out, I’m not so sure anymore about To Save A Life. I’m not against this message, but I think as the Futurists, a movement I’m learning about in my Sources of Modern Theater class though: why do something in two yours you can do in 10 minutes. So I’ll point you to the lyrics to the Foo Fighter’s Wheels - we live in cycles, like wheels - when the wheels come down (life is hard), you get another go around. Hold on. I really wanted to end Hollow Spaces with this song, unfortunately I can’t imagine what that would cost. The cords are uplifting while the song isn’t deceptive, it deals with dark themes optimistically - it mourns something that didn’t happen, it creates a nostalgic feeling, as if you were giving this advise to someone in the past, having lived through the cycle.
I write this and think how arrogant I am. I was never going to kill myself - I’m a pussy. And I can’t imagine what it’s like to seriously think about it, and I mean no disrespect to families coping with the loss of a loved one.
As a film: How to Save A Life suffers shortcomings that films of this genre and market are bound to suffer. I believe film and music have the power to save lives, often they are made by artists that attempt to do so, listen to the rage in a Limp Bizkit or Lincoln Park song. How to Save A Life is restricted, I wish it wasn’t. Of coarse the tragic thing is that had it been real it would have gotten an R-rating, something we still need to address. Work that could inspire a 16-year old is kept from them, unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, and theater chains should take a stance that offers more flexibility than the MPAA’s black and white guidelines.
When I make Football Town, which on its own is a problem, it’s a film that takes place in a time before kids widely had cell phones and we were still on Web 1.0 (IM-ing which no one does anymore was in, now everyone uses Facebook chat*) - it will have an R, or even NC-17 rating. It’ll be the truth. How To Save A Life doesn’t really need an R rating, we get it, the two leads aren’t practicing abstinence, in fact (SPOILER) there’s a consequence to it.
*Showing the fact the film was made in 2008 the hero reaches out to people on Myspace.
How can the film be more credible? Well it is a sincere film, although its been funded by the Catholic church the only people that wouldn’t agree with its message are suicide bombers and their fucking assholes anyway. I wish it didn’t limit itself to being Catholic. One can be good while not being Catholic, why should God, if there is one not embrace them as a wonderful human being. The film never explores that one can find salvation outside of the church - that we can be good people, give to our communities and make a positive impact while not being religious.
The film pits two closed societies against each other: the inclusive religious youth group which turns into a high school clique and the cool kids who drink, party and play sports. Of coarse the lead changes, even saying like: “I don’t even like that Jake anymore” and Amy only comes around after she learns something life changing, for a time I thought she was like Snookie from MTV’s The Jersey Shore - she wanted Jake as an accessory, like a new Louis Vuitton bag.
Catholic film has come of age, a long way from the Omega Code. It hasn’t crossed into and merged with film to the point where non-catholics will not be alienated by these church funded message films. There are of coarse examples of good Catholic films with generous spirits, one made by a warped filmmaker who in real life seems like a heck of a nice guy, Danny Boyle, his family film - Millions.
In short - the film is actually upfront about what it is, I suppose. It’s a Catholic film, and it’s a decent one if you don’t count its conventions against it, entertaining as it is manipulative but it shows great promise. As soon as independent filmmakers free themselves from the chains of trying to make Hollywood style products and bring an original voice to the table, we’ll be set. This is also a trend in what I call “regional” filmmaking - and its what makes them regional, they feature local casts and try to do what Hollywood does.
Hollow Spaces is trying to do what Egoyan does, it’s an attempt at building emotional energy no through music and over acting, but subtle sound effects and a non-linear narrative. I feel as if a certain type of independent filmmaking is stuck in a matrix, if you don’t have a star in your film, why play by the rules of star driven flicks? The voice of a filmmaker is always more interesting to me, provided the aren’t showing off. Your taking me on a journey, I want you to take my hand and lead me along, I don’t want to be pushed along (Tom Ford’s A Single Man is an example of being pushed, beatiful but overly done). So that’s my challenge - bring it.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Worst Film of 2010 and its only January...
Thus far my weekend has been a weird one - starting on Thursday, as all weekends should I stayed up way too late, and at around 3AM was in a bar having a conversation with a friend who was telling me about his girlfriend whom was researching cures for Cancer while we were making films. I justify the arts as this: we’re tasked with preserving, observing and creating culture.
This spun me to later thinking about Hollow Spaces, a film that’s pretty much done. What have I done? I think I have preserved culture in some respects but it’s not a pure ethnographical work. Then I got to thinking, and I’m sure a smarter person that I has said this before: the problem with ethnography is that it assumes an outsiders position, it attempts to be objective and may succeed. The only problem is the first “documentary” that went there wasn’t objective, it was a staged entertainment film, Robert J. Flaherty’s Nanook of the North (1922). Hollow Spaces is a film from the inside out, attempting to preserve a long, hot summer in which the country was in a depression. Have I made a film as nobel as say the brilliant The Exiles, which was locked in a vault and only rediscovered a few years ago? No, but I have documented time and problems, emotional tonalities that were sincere at the time, perhaps Hollow Spaces like The Exiles will look better in time, it’s why I made it. New, now and cutting age is nice, but being forgotten about is deadly.
With this said the consequence of documenting culture through an outsiders perspective, particularly through a distorted lens of history is here, in the form of Veer, a new Bollywood film I had the displeasure of seeing last night. I should note, my evening started at the opening of Lectures on the Weather: John Cage in Buffalo, and while I was fascinated by the video instillation in the corner about Cage (I knew very little about him), in practice, particularly some of the tribute pieces - well let’s call them planned chaos. I admit I don’t know the difference between good sound art and bad sound art: bad sound art to me sounds like a moron throwing everything into a blender and annoying me. But then again there are a lot of annoying things that are brilliant, Pee Wee Herman may be a good example.
So, I’m not the best person to judge this, and I can’t review this exhibition, but I walked out hungry and with a headache, which led me to the Regal Cinemas on Elmwood Ave and the worst stomachache ever (do not eat the popcorn, especially as a meal substitute).
Veer is a Bollywood film that starts off with some great special effects, it’s production values are right up there (in the beginning anyway) with the biggest budget of Hollywood and it contains a spectacular opening. Then.....shit starts to go wrong.
The film is vintage Bollywood, not the new hip hop inspired Bollywood. It’s an angry film about British imperialism, but the Brits are fucking brain-dead, which from an ethnographical point of view is where the film looses credibility. This isn’t a film that researches, critiques or examines relationships using the tools of anthropology or sociology, that’s for sure. It’s an entertainment film but the British, speaking very slowly for a Hindu audience speak lines of dialogue that are flat out acquired.
I once proposed that porno has a lot in common with traditional bollywood - they involve a story and a break in the story, in porno it’s for explicit sex, in Bollywood it’s for singing and dancing. The acting here is probably as bad as it is in porno, with music that’s awful. We actually get a song repeated several times throughout the film that opens with “every time I look in your eyes, I see my paradise” - here’s a song that lacks the complexity of Cascada, who I also consider to be unlistenable: “Cause evertime we touch, I get that feeling, and every time we kiss I swear I can fly”. Yes, it’s that bad.
Veer glorifies a serial killer who is like Robin Hood, I suppose, fighting for love and country. Veer isn’t Nelson Mandela, he’s given a love interest, well because he has to. Salman Kham is Veer, who is like Stallone crossed with Javier Bardem, and he’s a one note kind of guy - angry, even bred to be a killer. The film is very violent, surely it would be rated R had it been rated, it passed the Indian censors (I know because all Bollywood films choose to show the actual certification, like Dogma 95). Nudity doesn’t fly but cutting off a guy’s hand does. As does throwing a spike in a guy’s boots, running up and twisting his head around his body (a gruesome image).
Veer doesn’t work, and that seems to be the general conscious, does not every element of Hollywood and Bollywood, a good film make. But back to the British, I hate this movie so much I’m almost on their side: Veer is one dimensional with endless actions scenes that make Peter Jackson look concise. The British are even worse: no discussion of the economics of imperialism are made, this is dumb even by elementary school standards (where they teach that Columbus was a hero).
Anil Sharma, Veer’s director had previously directed another war film about India, Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Saathiyo (no, spell checker, that’s correct). That film, which I saw at the dearly departed Showcase Cinemas East Hartford, with good popcorn, I recall was a decent film about India and Pakistan, which ended in piece. Veer ends in betrayal and bloodshed, it’s an angry film but like a teenager it’s anger is unfocused, turning Veer in a clumsy mess, and when it gets messy it reverts to a stock song.
Veer is so bad I’ll take five Squeakquels, and as bad as the Chipetts singing Beyonces’ already awful Single Ladies is, I might even take it over the music of Veer. I have a long standing love/hate relationship with Bollywood that’s very unfair to it, I admit: I keep going, keep seeing the new Bollywood film that comes out until one sucks and it turns me off to the genre for many months. Veer, you are that movie and an early candidate for the worst film of the year, if not the 10’s.
Good popcorn can often times save a bad movie experience. So I have to wonder, Regal Elmwood Center is sort of out of the way from where I live, and I’ve seen two films there since living in Buffalo- both were awful, both times I had popcorn. Still, I don’t think National Amusements popcorn could have turned Veer into a good, worth while film.
On the flip side, if 3 Idiots is still playing in a theater near you, it’s worth checking out - a fun contemporary Bollywood flick about friendship and a different kind of imperialism, of the cultural and technological variety, but imperialism none the less. Perhaps there is a good film to be made about these things, certain the most interesting are films of the time confronting deep rooted issues, and thus is the power of film. If Bollywood is importing Hollywood formulas, then Veer is a brainless work like Ninja Assassin with paint by the numbers villains. Just listen to the way the British girls talk in “background noise” in one scene, NO NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER TALKS LIKE THAT. It reaches the level of awkwardness in another barely watchable Bollywood film No Entry, when a song about sexual penetration is sung by the women “no entry” - then the men go “yes entry”. Mother fucking creepiness.
If your going to have cultural villains in scenes taking place in London, why not take the time to actually get it right, when you’ve taken the time to craft an excellent action center piece about 20 minutes in to the film? The answer: this is careless, awful filmmaking at its worst.
This spun me to later thinking about Hollow Spaces, a film that’s pretty much done. What have I done? I think I have preserved culture in some respects but it’s not a pure ethnographical work. Then I got to thinking, and I’m sure a smarter person that I has said this before: the problem with ethnography is that it assumes an outsiders position, it attempts to be objective and may succeed. The only problem is the first “documentary” that went there wasn’t objective, it was a staged entertainment film, Robert J. Flaherty’s Nanook of the North (1922). Hollow Spaces is a film from the inside out, attempting to preserve a long, hot summer in which the country was in a depression. Have I made a film as nobel as say the brilliant The Exiles, which was locked in a vault and only rediscovered a few years ago? No, but I have documented time and problems, emotional tonalities that were sincere at the time, perhaps Hollow Spaces like The Exiles will look better in time, it’s why I made it. New, now and cutting age is nice, but being forgotten about is deadly.
With this said the consequence of documenting culture through an outsiders perspective, particularly through a distorted lens of history is here, in the form of Veer, a new Bollywood film I had the displeasure of seeing last night. I should note, my evening started at the opening of Lectures on the Weather: John Cage in Buffalo, and while I was fascinated by the video instillation in the corner about Cage (I knew very little about him), in practice, particularly some of the tribute pieces - well let’s call them planned chaos. I admit I don’t know the difference between good sound art and bad sound art: bad sound art to me sounds like a moron throwing everything into a blender and annoying me. But then again there are a lot of annoying things that are brilliant, Pee Wee Herman may be a good example.
So, I’m not the best person to judge this, and I can’t review this exhibition, but I walked out hungry and with a headache, which led me to the Regal Cinemas on Elmwood Ave and the worst stomachache ever (do not eat the popcorn, especially as a meal substitute).
Veer is a Bollywood film that starts off with some great special effects, it’s production values are right up there (in the beginning anyway) with the biggest budget of Hollywood and it contains a spectacular opening. Then.....shit starts to go wrong.
The film is vintage Bollywood, not the new hip hop inspired Bollywood. It’s an angry film about British imperialism, but the Brits are fucking brain-dead, which from an ethnographical point of view is where the film looses credibility. This isn’t a film that researches, critiques or examines relationships using the tools of anthropology or sociology, that’s for sure. It’s an entertainment film but the British, speaking very slowly for a Hindu audience speak lines of dialogue that are flat out acquired.
I once proposed that porno has a lot in common with traditional bollywood - they involve a story and a break in the story, in porno it’s for explicit sex, in Bollywood it’s for singing and dancing. The acting here is probably as bad as it is in porno, with music that’s awful. We actually get a song repeated several times throughout the film that opens with “every time I look in your eyes, I see my paradise” - here’s a song that lacks the complexity of Cascada, who I also consider to be unlistenable: “Cause evertime we touch, I get that feeling, and every time we kiss I swear I can fly”. Yes, it’s that bad.
Veer glorifies a serial killer who is like Robin Hood, I suppose, fighting for love and country. Veer isn’t Nelson Mandela, he’s given a love interest, well because he has to. Salman Kham is Veer, who is like Stallone crossed with Javier Bardem, and he’s a one note kind of guy - angry, even bred to be a killer. The film is very violent, surely it would be rated R had it been rated, it passed the Indian censors (I know because all Bollywood films choose to show the actual certification, like Dogma 95). Nudity doesn’t fly but cutting off a guy’s hand does. As does throwing a spike in a guy’s boots, running up and twisting his head around his body (a gruesome image).
Veer doesn’t work, and that seems to be the general conscious, does not every element of Hollywood and Bollywood, a good film make. But back to the British, I hate this movie so much I’m almost on their side: Veer is one dimensional with endless actions scenes that make Peter Jackson look concise. The British are even worse: no discussion of the economics of imperialism are made, this is dumb even by elementary school standards (where they teach that Columbus was a hero).
Anil Sharma, Veer’s director had previously directed another war film about India, Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Saathiyo (no, spell checker, that’s correct). That film, which I saw at the dearly departed Showcase Cinemas East Hartford, with good popcorn, I recall was a decent film about India and Pakistan, which ended in piece. Veer ends in betrayal and bloodshed, it’s an angry film but like a teenager it’s anger is unfocused, turning Veer in a clumsy mess, and when it gets messy it reverts to a stock song.
Veer is so bad I’ll take five Squeakquels, and as bad as the Chipetts singing Beyonces’ already awful Single Ladies is, I might even take it over the music of Veer. I have a long standing love/hate relationship with Bollywood that’s very unfair to it, I admit: I keep going, keep seeing the new Bollywood film that comes out until one sucks and it turns me off to the genre for many months. Veer, you are that movie and an early candidate for the worst film of the year, if not the 10’s.
Good popcorn can often times save a bad movie experience. So I have to wonder, Regal Elmwood Center is sort of out of the way from where I live, and I’ve seen two films there since living in Buffalo- both were awful, both times I had popcorn. Still, I don’t think National Amusements popcorn could have turned Veer into a good, worth while film.
On the flip side, if 3 Idiots is still playing in a theater near you, it’s worth checking out - a fun contemporary Bollywood flick about friendship and a different kind of imperialism, of the cultural and technological variety, but imperialism none the less. Perhaps there is a good film to be made about these things, certain the most interesting are films of the time confronting deep rooted issues, and thus is the power of film. If Bollywood is importing Hollywood formulas, then Veer is a brainless work like Ninja Assassin with paint by the numbers villains. Just listen to the way the British girls talk in “background noise” in one scene, NO NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER TALKS LIKE THAT. It reaches the level of awkwardness in another barely watchable Bollywood film No Entry, when a song about sexual penetration is sung by the women “no entry” - then the men go “yes entry”. Mother fucking creepiness.
If your going to have cultural villains in scenes taking place in London, why not take the time to actually get it right, when you’ve taken the time to craft an excellent action center piece about 20 minutes in to the film? The answer: this is careless, awful filmmaking at its worst.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Certain Tendencies in the Movie Business as of Today 1/19/2010: A Rant
From a film business point of view today was a weird day, or maybe I’m shot out from having sat in classes for 7+ hours today. (I have classes from 12:30-3:10 and 6:00-9:40)
First I got a bad piece of information personally, I won’t bore you with the details.
Second: AMC is buying Kerasotes Showplace Theaters LLC, or most of it. The Kerasotes family who have been in film exhibition since 1909 are selling all but 3 theaters to AMC, apparently their partner Providence Equity Partners wants out while film exhibition is on the up and up. The only Kerasotes in NJ, which ironically enough replaced two AMC/Loews sites is staying with the family as is their luxury concept Showplace Icon, which fine by me: they have good popcorn.
This means AMC is now the second largest theater in the nation (they always were by screen count, Cinemark owned one more site then they after buying Century Theaters). Regal Entertainment Group, the most homogenized of the chains will still have 1000+ more screens than AMC.
A brief note: I didn’t see this coming, I knew AMC was hungry to expand and heard roomers for years they were buying this theater or another theater. I think like banks they’ll be national chains (AMC, Regal, Cinemark) and smaller regionals. Regionals will know their own markets better and be more efficient at serving them, and when one gets national ambition and private capital funding to get big, they’ll be next in line to be acquired). I’m not sure this is a bad thing, for one we’re insuring film exhibition continues, and that’s what’s important. Some chains get it, others are slow to adopt new designs and features such as bars and expanded food courts that will save their industry. While they’re not doing anything for indie film they are at least showing films and standing their ground in favor of continuing to show films to a live, gathered audience in single auditoriums......
Which leads me to the third piece of information I found out about exhibition and film: IFC Films has acquired the new Gasper Noe film, Enter the Void, which I was looking forward to. That means good luck seeing it in a theater aside from the one they own. Filmmakers working with IFC have sold their soul if you ask me. Sure you hear the douchebags like Joe Swanberg talk about how the festival run is the theatrical release - fine, nobody wants to see your pussy ass movies Swanberg. But I do want to see the new Gasper Noe film, which will run exclusively at the IFC Center maybe a venue in LA, after it’s on the IFC on demand station.
This pisses me off. Granted IFC Films isn’t the bread and butter of the big chains and in theory I’m all for getting indie films out to a wider audience, but by burying films with a token release at a theater YOU own? IFC has made it impossible for these features to open wider. In a normal scenario a film would be given a run at a theater, let’s say the good old independent Quad Cinema. Full run, one week - it does well, it gets another week and so forth. If it does really well, maybe it’ll come to the suburbs.
You wanted to see that new film that you missed at Cannes and Toronto - sorry it’s only at 2:40 or 9:35PM, one week only. Be grateful we exist, or it’s direct to video for this flick. Often these are films by established, world class filmmakers, not some guy like me. This is why exhibition and distribution must be kept apart for the sake of filmmakers, audiences and the future of cinema. Major studios may own theaters indirectly, (or in the case of National Amusements - it’s a theater chain that owns two studios) but there is a conflict when the same division of a company is engaged in distribution and exhibition. There is a lot of consolidation in the distribution industry with a lot of passionate companies dormant compared to where they were years ago.
Price isn’t really an issue here in that anticompetitive price structures inevitably lead to paying more for less (then again we could talk about theater 5 at IFC Center, 30 seats and a digital projection from a pre-show projector). The quality of the experience as decreased, the films are projected digitally, some are made from poor files (Ricky, Francois Ozon’s latest had noticeable pixillation - the only time I’ve seen this on a digital print, was IFC streaming it from its on demand station?). Sure for a Joe Swanberg/Greta Gerwig collaboration shot on a cell phone camera this is less of an issue, but we’re talking world class directors here, and the consolidation of “indiewood” and the consolidation of the indie film market has screwed us all over.
I’m all for putting things on On Demand, yes, but with a delay so that films that were meant to be seen, discovered and enjoyed on a big screen can be if they do well in larger markets. The model allows one to watch a movie at the same time, neglecting the premium pricing involved in seeing a film over watching it on demand. With that extra price we expect a good quality picture. While IFC has picked up and distributed a lot of good films that may have never seen the light of day in the United States (I’m thinking of Hou Hsiao-hsien’s films as well as low budget indies that deserved wider recognition such as Joshua Safdie’s The Pleasure of Being Robbed).
Of coarse the only reason IFC can exist is because studios are playing it too safe these days. Although I’m curious to see what can come out of Paramount’s attempt to moving into Swanberg territory with a micro-budget division, the flaw I see there is as filmmakers we work on a microbudget because we have to. We don’t pay ourselves, we do it as a labor of love. Knowing your labor of love is owned outright by a major corporation are you going to get the actors to work just by feeding them? They may work with you on a passion project but does having a big studio in the picture change that? You bet it will, but I’m hoping for the best. Theoretically a great movie can be made on a cheap and talent like Joshua Safdie and Aaron Katz should be given a wide release. The problem of coarse is Paramount is looking for the next Paranormal Activity, not the next Wes Anderson or even Paul Thomas Anderson. Still I’m hoping for the best and understand that for an indie filmmaker like myself, online distribution is fine. As an audience member and film scholar I hate to see established world class filmmakers given relegated to a fate that’s worse than direct to video, still some IFC Films do break out, Summer Hours had a nice release despite also showing on demand simultaneously.
Last piece of news in Indiewood is that Marc Webber is directing the relaunch of Spiderman. Why does Spiderman need to be rebooted. I also hear they’re rebooting The Fantastic Four as well. I’m not sure what a Spiderman reboot can/will do. Perhaps the objective is to truly serialize the films so that they become individual stand-alone adventures like a comic book and not one narrative told in linear order. Sure we’ve seen prequels, sequels and even one squeakquel: I’m not sure where they’re going with this one but I’m interested.
Webber previously directed the wonderful (500) Days of Summer, an indie film with big stars that was given a wide release by Fox Searchlight. Another movie staring the same leading actor was later released by IFC and relegated to a one week token release at the evil for-profit that might fool you in that it almost functions like a non-for-profit (even selling memberships), IFC Center. Luckily, living closer to Toronto these days than New York, I will hopefully get to see Gasper Noe’s latest on a big screen at the Cineplex Varsity or Cumberland, and not in the extra space IFC Center had when their cafe/bar failed to work out.
As for the reboots and retreads I always hope for something new and different. Webb I know very little about aside from the fact he made a movie that I enjoyed so much I saw it in theaters twice, because after all theaters are where movies should be seen, with an audience, not at home and on demand. Judging by the little I know about his career I’m not sure what type of action movie director he’d made, he certain has a good sense of pacing, mood, and humor, reminding me of another filmmaker who went on to create the hip adaptation of Iron Man.
First I got a bad piece of information personally, I won’t bore you with the details.
Second: AMC is buying Kerasotes Showplace Theaters LLC, or most of it. The Kerasotes family who have been in film exhibition since 1909 are selling all but 3 theaters to AMC, apparently their partner Providence Equity Partners wants out while film exhibition is on the up and up. The only Kerasotes in NJ, which ironically enough replaced two AMC/Loews sites is staying with the family as is their luxury concept Showplace Icon, which fine by me: they have good popcorn.
This means AMC is now the second largest theater in the nation (they always were by screen count, Cinemark owned one more site then they after buying Century Theaters). Regal Entertainment Group, the most homogenized of the chains will still have 1000+ more screens than AMC.
A brief note: I didn’t see this coming, I knew AMC was hungry to expand and heard roomers for years they were buying this theater or another theater. I think like banks they’ll be national chains (AMC, Regal, Cinemark) and smaller regionals. Regionals will know their own markets better and be more efficient at serving them, and when one gets national ambition and private capital funding to get big, they’ll be next in line to be acquired). I’m not sure this is a bad thing, for one we’re insuring film exhibition continues, and that’s what’s important. Some chains get it, others are slow to adopt new designs and features such as bars and expanded food courts that will save their industry. While they’re not doing anything for indie film they are at least showing films and standing their ground in favor of continuing to show films to a live, gathered audience in single auditoriums......
Which leads me to the third piece of information I found out about exhibition and film: IFC Films has acquired the new Gasper Noe film, Enter the Void, which I was looking forward to. That means good luck seeing it in a theater aside from the one they own. Filmmakers working with IFC have sold their soul if you ask me. Sure you hear the douchebags like Joe Swanberg talk about how the festival run is the theatrical release - fine, nobody wants to see your pussy ass movies Swanberg. But I do want to see the new Gasper Noe film, which will run exclusively at the IFC Center maybe a venue in LA, after it’s on the IFC on demand station.
This pisses me off. Granted IFC Films isn’t the bread and butter of the big chains and in theory I’m all for getting indie films out to a wider audience, but by burying films with a token release at a theater YOU own? IFC has made it impossible for these features to open wider. In a normal scenario a film would be given a run at a theater, let’s say the good old independent Quad Cinema. Full run, one week - it does well, it gets another week and so forth. If it does really well, maybe it’ll come to the suburbs.
You wanted to see that new film that you missed at Cannes and Toronto - sorry it’s only at 2:40 or 9:35PM, one week only. Be grateful we exist, or it’s direct to video for this flick. Often these are films by established, world class filmmakers, not some guy like me. This is why exhibition and distribution must be kept apart for the sake of filmmakers, audiences and the future of cinema. Major studios may own theaters indirectly, (or in the case of National Amusements - it’s a theater chain that owns two studios) but there is a conflict when the same division of a company is engaged in distribution and exhibition. There is a lot of consolidation in the distribution industry with a lot of passionate companies dormant compared to where they were years ago.
Price isn’t really an issue here in that anticompetitive price structures inevitably lead to paying more for less (then again we could talk about theater 5 at IFC Center, 30 seats and a digital projection from a pre-show projector). The quality of the experience as decreased, the films are projected digitally, some are made from poor files (Ricky, Francois Ozon’s latest had noticeable pixillation - the only time I’ve seen this on a digital print, was IFC streaming it from its on demand station?). Sure for a Joe Swanberg/Greta Gerwig collaboration shot on a cell phone camera this is less of an issue, but we’re talking world class directors here, and the consolidation of “indiewood” and the consolidation of the indie film market has screwed us all over.
I’m all for putting things on On Demand, yes, but with a delay so that films that were meant to be seen, discovered and enjoyed on a big screen can be if they do well in larger markets. The model allows one to watch a movie at the same time, neglecting the premium pricing involved in seeing a film over watching it on demand. With that extra price we expect a good quality picture. While IFC has picked up and distributed a lot of good films that may have never seen the light of day in the United States (I’m thinking of Hou Hsiao-hsien’s films as well as low budget indies that deserved wider recognition such as Joshua Safdie’s The Pleasure of Being Robbed).
Of coarse the only reason IFC can exist is because studios are playing it too safe these days. Although I’m curious to see what can come out of Paramount’s attempt to moving into Swanberg territory with a micro-budget division, the flaw I see there is as filmmakers we work on a microbudget because we have to. We don’t pay ourselves, we do it as a labor of love. Knowing your labor of love is owned outright by a major corporation are you going to get the actors to work just by feeding them? They may work with you on a passion project but does having a big studio in the picture change that? You bet it will, but I’m hoping for the best. Theoretically a great movie can be made on a cheap and talent like Joshua Safdie and Aaron Katz should be given a wide release. The problem of coarse is Paramount is looking for the next Paranormal Activity, not the next Wes Anderson or even Paul Thomas Anderson. Still I’m hoping for the best and understand that for an indie filmmaker like myself, online distribution is fine. As an audience member and film scholar I hate to see established world class filmmakers given relegated to a fate that’s worse than direct to video, still some IFC Films do break out, Summer Hours had a nice release despite also showing on demand simultaneously.
Last piece of news in Indiewood is that Marc Webber is directing the relaunch of Spiderman. Why does Spiderman need to be rebooted. I also hear they’re rebooting The Fantastic Four as well. I’m not sure what a Spiderman reboot can/will do. Perhaps the objective is to truly serialize the films so that they become individual stand-alone adventures like a comic book and not one narrative told in linear order. Sure we’ve seen prequels, sequels and even one squeakquel: I’m not sure where they’re going with this one but I’m interested.
Webber previously directed the wonderful (500) Days of Summer, an indie film with big stars that was given a wide release by Fox Searchlight. Another movie staring the same leading actor was later released by IFC and relegated to a one week token release at the evil for-profit that might fool you in that it almost functions like a non-for-profit (even selling memberships), IFC Center. Luckily, living closer to Toronto these days than New York, I will hopefully get to see Gasper Noe’s latest on a big screen at the Cineplex Varsity or Cumberland, and not in the extra space IFC Center had when their cafe/bar failed to work out.
As for the reboots and retreads I always hope for something new and different. Webb I know very little about aside from the fact he made a movie that I enjoyed so much I saw it in theaters twice, because after all theaters are where movies should be seen, with an audience, not at home and on demand. Judging by the little I know about his career I’m not sure what type of action movie director he’d made, he certain has a good sense of pacing, mood, and humor, reminding me of another filmmaker who went on to create the hip adaptation of Iron Man.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
New Year, New Blog, New Direction: The John/Rachel Project
So it’s a new year and I’m proud to announce a new direction for my blog. I’ve decided to shy away from film reviews, ramblings and become more focused - and that starts today with the renaming of this blog to the “John/Rachel Project”. Yes, I’ve decided to cook a new meal from Rachel Ray’s 365 Days, No Repeats cook book and blog about it, every night.
The Hows and Wherefores...
For the moment, I will not tackle the existential query, "Why, John? Why Rachel? Why now?" Instead, I shall stick to explicating the rules of engagement.
Initially, I had thought to work through the book front to back. This quickly was declared impracticable. So I decided to work through each chapter, beginning to end. This is advantageous because the ten chapters of recipes conveniently add up to 10 recipes per week, roughly equivalent to the pace I need to set to get through the thing in a year. Also, there is the suspense factor. Because the book is structured like a classic cooking lesson, building up from basic techniques, the going will get gradually tougher as times goes on.
Those who are following far too closely should know that the vegetable chapter is an exception, being organized alphabetically. I will be skipping through from time to time according to availability.
Enough of these technicalities. Let us begin!
*****
Those readers who are staying tuned to snicker at my ignonimous defeat will have to wait another day. Similarly those who plan to drool voyeuristically over my improbable triumphs. The first meal of the John/Rachel Project was:
Balsamic-Glazed Pork Chops with Arugula-Basil Rice Pilaf
And it was okay.
The pork was quite good. Pan-fried, as I said, which was a nice change from the usual stick-the-hunk-of-meat-under-a-broiler routine, especially with a nice buttery jus on top.
Nothing went wrong. It was good, though after one meal we're already feeling the buttery side effects. I cooked Rachel and lived to tell the tale. It was easy.
Too easy.
The Hows and Wherefores...
For the moment, I will not tackle the existential query, "Why, John? Why Rachel? Why now?" Instead, I shall stick to explicating the rules of engagement.
Initially, I had thought to work through the book front to back. This quickly was declared impracticable. So I decided to work through each chapter, beginning to end. This is advantageous because the ten chapters of recipes conveniently add up to 10 recipes per week, roughly equivalent to the pace I need to set to get through the thing in a year. Also, there is the suspense factor. Because the book is structured like a classic cooking lesson, building up from basic techniques, the going will get gradually tougher as times goes on.
Those who are following far too closely should know that the vegetable chapter is an exception, being organized alphabetically. I will be skipping through from time to time according to availability.
Enough of these technicalities. Let us begin!
*****
Those readers who are staying tuned to snicker at my ignonimous defeat will have to wait another day. Similarly those who plan to drool voyeuristically over my improbable triumphs. The first meal of the John/Rachel Project was:
Balsamic-Glazed Pork Chops with Arugula-Basil Rice Pilaf
And it was okay.
The pork was quite good. Pan-fried, as I said, which was a nice change from the usual stick-the-hunk-of-meat-under-a-broiler routine, especially with a nice buttery jus on top.
Nothing went wrong. It was good, though after one meal we're already feeling the buttery side effects. I cooked Rachel and lived to tell the tale. It was easy.
Too easy.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Top 10 of 2009
A confession: I didn’t see every film in 2009. I feel bad about this. Particular-ally this list doesn’t include the likes of Werner Herzog’s second 2009 film My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? What have me done? Again I retreat these lists, but it is reassuring when Oscar bait fails: not that I hate Hollywood. I hate that films are financed to win awards and like when they don’t/won’t. These include recent disappointments including: Nine (an incoherent remake of a brilliant yet incoherent film, 8 1/2), A Single Man (great performance by Colin Firth, pretentiously directed in a way that made it look like an ad for designer clothing, hey it was directed by a fashion designer), The Lovely Bones (the mix of realism and fantasy didn’t work on the same emotional level as say Avatar), Invictus (a ruby film that sadly was pretty uninteresting) and Amelia (a paint by the numbers bio-pic).
So if I were handing out the 10 oscar nominations this year, I’d give a nom to this group - one of which doesn’t qualify because it never got a theatrical run, it may never get one (or more likely it’ll get picked up by IFC and given a token release at their theater and on cable). I know, I know, stop being hard on IFC, after all they are picking up a lot of obscure films you saw at festivals and enjoyed (IFC Center opens A Film With Me In It today, a quirky little Irish picture I saw at Toronto in 2008). I know, but I worry it’s cheapening the experience of seeing a new film by a world master, and also hindering the business model of more traditional distributers that seem dormant lately (I don’t recall seeing much of the Strand Releasing logo lately, for example).
As for the ten - here goes (in reverse, of coarse):
10.-Of Time and City (Terrance Davies) A personal essay film by Davies on growing up in Manchester, haunted by the past he super imposes stock footage over newly shot footage, using his voice over to tell his story of growing up Catholic and gay. A haunting, powerful, personal picture.
9.-Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Warner Herzog) Along with Whip It, we have the most entertaining film of the year - Herzog and Nick Cage are firing on all cylinders, it goes over the top, then into outer space. A brilliant dark comedy on par with the likes of American Psycho.
8.-Ponyo (Hayao Miyazaki) A children’s film directed towards younger children then most Miyazaki, lovely re-dubbed by Disney with the voice talents of Tina Fey. It’s a well imagined story meant to be seen on a big screen.
7.-The Messenger (Oren Moverman) Influenced by the Maysles Brothers Salesmen, Moverman has crafted a raw and emotional story about military life. Ben Foster comes back from the war and is assigned to the causality notification service with Woody Haroldson in a film that’s as humorous as it as painful.
6.-Beaches of Agnes (Agnes Varda) Another personal documentary, Varda reflects on her life and the filmmakers that meant so much to her (Chris Marker is played by an animated cat). A beatiful reflection on filmmaking and life.
5.-A Serious Man (Coen Brothers) The Coens have done it again: a personal journey of Larry Gopnik, a university professor on the verge of a midlife crisis sit early in the era of the Cold War. Darkly funny with a perfect ending.
4.-Vegas: Based on a True Story (Amir Naderi) Taking place barely in Vegas, this official selection from Tribeca (of all festivals!) by master filmmaker Amir Naderi who observes as a family unit destroys itself by destroying its home, in the shadow of the strip.
3.- Adventureland (Greg Mottola) Okay number 3 on my list for enjoyment factor: Mattola has taken us back in time and told us the story of real teenagers - rare but brilliant. It captures the joy of one of those Rush songs.
2.- Up (Peter Docker) Pixar does it again - the formula is simple: tell a good story. They’ve mastered technical, hell they invented computer animation, and as such they are 20-years ahead of what anyone else is doing. Up contains an opening montage that will go down as one of the best in film history, it’s at its core an adventure story, but so much more.
1 - Somerstown (Shane Meadows) A beatiful study of urban London, two boys become friends, gain a crush on a beatiful women and they get drunk after they think they’ve lost her. Why am I sucker for this movie? It’s beautifully shot and powerful, a strong and short film (its running time is just over an hour), but leaves a lasting impression, sure it’s a film where kids hang out (like Adventureland), but there’s something so optimistic in it, especially the film’s closing scenes which had me smiling. Shouldn’t cinema be about joy? (Not if you’re Lars Van Trier)
and....as for the runners-up - it pains me to say this but here goes:
11.-Inglorious Bastards
12.-(500) Days of Summer
13.-Everlasting Moments
14.-Crazy Heart
15.-Anvil: The Story of Anvil!
16.-Public Enemies
17.-Departures
18.-La Danse: The Paris Opera Ballet
19.-In The Loop
20.-Avatar
21.-The Garden
22.-Katyn
23.-The Hurt Locker
24.-The Windmill Movie
25.-Broken Embraces
26.-Goodbye Solo
27.-Every Little Step
28.-An Education
29.-Carcasses
30.-Precious
31.-Whip It
32.-Severe Clear
33.-Bandslam
34.-Racing Dreams
35.-Sugar
36.-Treeless Mountain
37.-Bright Star
38.-Fish Tank
39.-The Garden
40.-Memorial Day
41-Watchmen
42.-The Talented Mr. Fox
43.-Carcasses
44.-Serpahane
45.-The Road
46.-The Class
47.-Antoine
48.-Hunger
49.-Coco Before Chanel
50.-Yoo Hoo Mrs. Goldberg
Wondering about the year’s worst? Glad you asked:
1.-The Forth Kind
2.-Obsessed
3.-Push
4.-Fast & Furious
5.-Monsters Vs. Aliens
6.-Sorority Row
7.-Adam
8.-Twilight: New Moon
9.-The Final Destination
10-I Love You, Beth Cooper
11.-Dance Flick
12.-Ninja Assassin
13.-Year One
14.-Revolutionary Road
15.-The Informers
So if I were handing out the 10 oscar nominations this year, I’d give a nom to this group - one of which doesn’t qualify because it never got a theatrical run, it may never get one (or more likely it’ll get picked up by IFC and given a token release at their theater and on cable). I know, I know, stop being hard on IFC, after all they are picking up a lot of obscure films you saw at festivals and enjoyed (IFC Center opens A Film With Me In It today, a quirky little Irish picture I saw at Toronto in 2008). I know, but I worry it’s cheapening the experience of seeing a new film by a world master, and also hindering the business model of more traditional distributers that seem dormant lately (I don’t recall seeing much of the Strand Releasing logo lately, for example).
As for the ten - here goes (in reverse, of coarse):
10.-Of Time and City (Terrance Davies) A personal essay film by Davies on growing up in Manchester, haunted by the past he super imposes stock footage over newly shot footage, using his voice over to tell his story of growing up Catholic and gay. A haunting, powerful, personal picture.
9.-Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Warner Herzog) Along with Whip It, we have the most entertaining film of the year - Herzog and Nick Cage are firing on all cylinders, it goes over the top, then into outer space. A brilliant dark comedy on par with the likes of American Psycho.
8.-Ponyo (Hayao Miyazaki) A children’s film directed towards younger children then most Miyazaki, lovely re-dubbed by Disney with the voice talents of Tina Fey. It’s a well imagined story meant to be seen on a big screen.
7.-The Messenger (Oren Moverman) Influenced by the Maysles Brothers Salesmen, Moverman has crafted a raw and emotional story about military life. Ben Foster comes back from the war and is assigned to the causality notification service with Woody Haroldson in a film that’s as humorous as it as painful.
6.-Beaches of Agnes (Agnes Varda) Another personal documentary, Varda reflects on her life and the filmmakers that meant so much to her (Chris Marker is played by an animated cat). A beatiful reflection on filmmaking and life.
5.-A Serious Man (Coen Brothers) The Coens have done it again: a personal journey of Larry Gopnik, a university professor on the verge of a midlife crisis sit early in the era of the Cold War. Darkly funny with a perfect ending.
4.-Vegas: Based on a True Story (Amir Naderi) Taking place barely in Vegas, this official selection from Tribeca (of all festivals!) by master filmmaker Amir Naderi who observes as a family unit destroys itself by destroying its home, in the shadow of the strip.
3.- Adventureland (Greg Mottola) Okay number 3 on my list for enjoyment factor: Mattola has taken us back in time and told us the story of real teenagers - rare but brilliant. It captures the joy of one of those Rush songs.
2.- Up (Peter Docker) Pixar does it again - the formula is simple: tell a good story. They’ve mastered technical, hell they invented computer animation, and as such they are 20-years ahead of what anyone else is doing. Up contains an opening montage that will go down as one of the best in film history, it’s at its core an adventure story, but so much more.
1 - Somerstown (Shane Meadows) A beatiful study of urban London, two boys become friends, gain a crush on a beatiful women and they get drunk after they think they’ve lost her. Why am I sucker for this movie? It’s beautifully shot and powerful, a strong and short film (its running time is just over an hour), but leaves a lasting impression, sure it’s a film where kids hang out (like Adventureland), but there’s something so optimistic in it, especially the film’s closing scenes which had me smiling. Shouldn’t cinema be about joy? (Not if you’re Lars Van Trier)
and....as for the runners-up - it pains me to say this but here goes:
11.-Inglorious Bastards
12.-(500) Days of Summer
13.-Everlasting Moments
14.-Crazy Heart
15.-Anvil: The Story of Anvil!
16.-Public Enemies
17.-Departures
18.-La Danse: The Paris Opera Ballet
19.-In The Loop
20.-Avatar
21.-The Garden
22.-Katyn
23.-The Hurt Locker
24.-The Windmill Movie
25.-Broken Embraces
26.-Goodbye Solo
27.-Every Little Step
28.-An Education
29.-Carcasses
30.-Precious
31.-Whip It
32.-Severe Clear
33.-Bandslam
34.-Racing Dreams
35.-Sugar
36.-Treeless Mountain
37.-Bright Star
38.-Fish Tank
39.-The Garden
40.-Memorial Day
41-Watchmen
42.-The Talented Mr. Fox
43.-Carcasses
44.-Serpahane
45.-The Road
46.-The Class
47.-Antoine
48.-Hunger
49.-Coco Before Chanel
50.-Yoo Hoo Mrs. Goldberg
Wondering about the year’s worst? Glad you asked:
1.-The Forth Kind
2.-Obsessed
3.-Push
4.-Fast & Furious
5.-Monsters Vs. Aliens
6.-Sorority Row
7.-Adam
8.-Twilight: New Moon
9.-The Final Destination
10-I Love You, Beth Cooper
11.-Dance Flick
12.-Ninja Assassin
13.-Year One
14.-Revolutionary Road
15.-The Informers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
