And so it’s inevitable: the top 10 films of the naughts. The last movie I saw of the 90’s was Gavin O’Conner’s The Tumbleweeds, the last film I’ll see in 2009 I think will be yet another film named Nine (the musical this time). A lot has changed, too much to detail here. The official tally assuming I don’t go to the movies tonight (I have plans for tomorrow and Thursday) will be 2428, or 242 films a year, not bad - just over the average of 4 a week I tell average people I see (the real average is between 4 and 5 and probably growing).
A top ten list is cruel, but if your forcing me here goes (in reverse order to build suspense, of coarse):
10.- Goodbye Dragon Inn (2003, Ming-liang Tsai) - An atmospheric work, a study of color, mood, done with humor and insight, at the end of a decade when film might be dying I couldn’t resist kicking off the list with a film about a theater’s closing night. As a sucker for time and place films, this will be a repeated theme here (proving how subjective such a list is). This is a wonderful architecture study with some incredible compositions, hypnotic and nostalgic.
9.-Almost Famous (2000, Cameron Crowe) - Yet another nostalgia trip, perhaps the most entertaining film of the decade, it comes in two flavors - seek out the “director’s cut”, running 3 hours I still want more.
8.-Somers town (2009, Shane Meadows) - A coming of age story, told in London as a study of time and place - two boys living in a housing project fall for the same women, a beatiful Polish immigrant. A great social comment in the form of a sweet and entertaining film about the joys of childhood, wherever you are.
7.-Three Times (2005, Hou Hsiao-hsien) - The story is the same, the politics aren’t and therefore neither are the emotions. Two lovers, played by the same actors are shown in three time period: 1911, 1966, and 2005. You can call this the Hou Hsiao-hsien “sampler” - each period has its own style, each his own style as seen in his other films.
6.-Talk to Her (2002, Pedro Almodovar) - Every Almodovar film is a mini-masterpiece, this is a perfect blend of dark humor and romance - discover it, I won’t ruin it for you.
5.-Vera Drake (2004, Mike Leigh) - Leigh’s best since his masterpiece, 1996’s Secrets and Lies. A period piece about an abortion provider and mother, Vera Drake.
4.-Touch The Sound (2004, Thomas Riedelsheimer) From the director of Rivers and Ties, this documentary follows Evelyn Glennie, a deaf musician and attempts to put us in her shoes. A powerful soundscape.
3.-Wendy & Lucy (2008, Kelly Reichardt) An edge of your seat thriller without violence, Michelle Williams is charged with atomic energy in a Pacific Northwest drama about Wendy, a young women running away from something. That thing is not important, we know so little about her but we know so much about her. This is one of the best films of all times.
2.-The Piano Teacher (2001, Michael Haneke) An instant classic - I remember being a 17 year old scared shitless, driving home, not sure what I just saw - it shook me in a way horror films cannot. A few days later I processed it and realized it was one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Since then I’ve been brave enough to revisit this brutal and painful fantasy - much has been written academically about the film, which is easier to watch for upon review, but the film is best experienced cold, of coarse - see it and be prepared.
1.-Syndromes and a Century (2006, Apichatpong Weerasethakul) A film of the century: two stories, 10 years apart set in a Thailand hospital. Weerasethakul’s films are pure joy, and this is no exception, a light hearted political love story, warm, beatiful and simple.
Runners up:
11.-Beau Travail
12.-Up
13.-Head On
14.-Slumdog Millionaire
15.-The Departed
16.-Since Otar Left
17.-Time to Leave
18.-United 93
19.-ATL
20.-Rocky Balboa
21.-Into the Wild
22.-The Princess and the Worrior
23.-This is England
24.-The Dreamers
25.-In America
26.-Ghostworld
27.-American Psycho
28.-Mysterious Skin
29.-The Circle
30.-Bad Education
31.-Million Dollar Baby
32.-City of God
33.-Nowhere in Africa
34.-Redacted
35.-I’m Not There
36.-Junebug
37.-Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son about His Father
38.-Chop Shop
39.-Nobody Knows
40.-Of Time and City
41.-RR
42.-Our Song
43.-A Searious Man
44.-Stevie
45.-Lost in Translation
46.-There Will Be Blood
47.-Paranoid Park
48.-Palindromes
49.-Downfall
50.-Operation Filmmaker
There are sadly many great films that made the short list - some 200. Enjoy these films with this disclaimer: I could spend years on this list, rewatching, evolving and changing my point of view. I like to think the fact I’ve sent two nights and a few hours on it and no more proves I’m going from the gut. All films are not for all people: but they were for John Fink. I regret the fact that there are no true Bollywood films on this list and not many documentaries (my 2009 list contains documentaries such as Beaches of Agnes, Anvil, La Danse, The Windmill Movie, Carcasses, and The Garden, the shortlist contains the likes of Capturing the Freedmans, Jesus Camp, Standard Operating Procedure, After Innocence, Tupac: Resurrection and Street Fight).
If anything I’m going off memory - some films on here I’ve seen only once, others I’ve relived or written about many times. Even as I write I regret this. Hit - Publish Post - No Turning Back - done.
Let’s meet back here in 10 years.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Top 10 Primer (no actual listings here yet, just some rambling)
The problem with a 10 ten list of the decade is that this is the first whole decade where I was adult, or concious enough to enjoy films although still growing. It’s been a wild ride, “the naughts” - we had the war on terror, the election of the first black president, and a boom and bust economy that I think in retrospect was more of a problem of perception than anything else, but I’m no student of economy, I’ve been a film student. I still am - when does one stop? Certainly the images aren’t going stop.
As for a top 10 I also face enough problem, I have a short list of 200 films, saw roughly about 1500 or so over 10 years (150 a year, light, sure but remember I got a driver’s license towards the end of 2000 and hadn’t gone to my first film festival until 2003). It’s been a wild ride, some films get better with age, others get tainted by reviews I’ve read. Perhaps the gut reaction is the best, but it’s possible to get caught up with a good audience in a movie that might be crap because your in the mood for that sort of thing. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If I were to define the films of the zeitgeist, three easy ones that summarize the aforementioned themes of the naughts would be: Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Chris Rock’s Head of State, and Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. It’s more complicated than that (It’s Complicated won’t be one, I assure you).
We saw films that were escapist, played on our fears, or provided escape in the form of social commentary. Nothing is new, films have always reflected directly or indirectly the spirit of the times, should a top ten list? I suppose no film is divorced for the environment it’s produced in, smarter scholars than I have been providing readings since Cahiers Du Cinema examined John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln.
My reading of a whole century is subjective, how can it not be. I didn’t see everything, there’s a good deal I can’t see. More movies come out now because there are more screens: just look at New York City. IFC Center even added to add two pathetic new theaters (one is a classroom projector sandwiched on a beam above the first row of seats in a theater that sits 35). Now we’re on the subject of IFC we should talk about “day and date” releasing, a strategy I don’t disagree with on principal - show indie films to everyone at the same time national reviewers are buzzing. This worked this summer for Summer Hours, but countless other films are lost at the IFC Center, they come and go, even with 5 screens, and worse when they do play they’re shown on a cheap-o digital projector (I saw noticeable artificating in Ricky, Francis Ozon’s latest family drama which is like the kindler, gentler version of his first feature - Sitcom, don’t worry, it didn’t make the top 10 of year let alone decade, other Ozon film(s) will be there). For $12.50 audiences should demand a pristine, sparkling print (unless the film originated on digital).
It’s been 4 years since digital proved its worth with 3-D. I’m still not a digital convert and I’m young. I like the flexibility but I don’t think multiplexes are harnessing the digital flexibility that is to show a more diverse slate of films. IFC Center does, but a cynic could look at what the theater is doing as Cablevision trying to compete with Film Forum. The newest multiplex to open in New Jersey, Kerasotes Showplace Secacus is 100% digital, while projection is sharp, in focus, some spots looked a little hot to me when we saw Sherlock Holmes on Christmas day. (Fun but a flick that didn’t make the either top ten). Now why can’t IFC team up with Kerasotes and show an indie film a week, one show, say Tuesday nights, 7PM, you show up, pay full price, and you’ll see a new indie film. If it works, great, maybe it can get a booking there or at another art theater, if not, oh well, only one show wasted. They do this with some classics (why anybody would want to see a Classic deserved to be seen on 35MM, projected digitally is beyond me - do they think we’re idiots, that we droll when the letters “HD” are mentioned).
Another flaw of the a top ten list is that I can’t re-watch everything. Were there some movies I wasn’t ready for? You betcha. Were there others that I remember fondly because I saw them on a date, had a great time, was caught up in the energy of the moment, sure. Were there others that age worse? Sure. There were films I remember seeing when younger that I wished would end, some foreign, I admit. These are films that are acquired tastes, tastes acquired through scholarship, repeating viewing and maturity.
I don’t feel bad - Roger Ebert is an idol of mine, the finest critic in the nation but his early reviews reflect the experience of a younger Mr. Ebert and we’re all in flux. This is to say his quality has improved over the years. Same for filmmakers. Atom Egoyan’s earlier work is risky, too ambitious, somewhat lacking focus - then he made two masterpieces back to back: Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter.
Alanis Morissette is right: You Live, You Learn. Film has opened my eyes to the world, permitted me to live 1500+ lives in 10 years. You will have to forgive me when I get defensive of film and critical of theaters that are entrusted to carry on the fine tradition of projecting film. Yes, they are businesses, they sell snacks, ect - but for top dollar ($12.50 in New York) we should demand the best, what the filmmakers intended. Some chains and theaters are better than others: some markets just lost the finest chain in America - National Amusements, half the theaters in its network were acquired by Rave Motion Pictures. In Buffalo, Dipson Theaters is the finest and most reliable theaters for presentation (despite the uncomfortable seats at the North Park - Market Arcade and McKinnely Mall are great mainstream multiplexes). The one AMC in town is also fine, and Regal isn’t bad as well (Dipson has the best popcorn, a deciding factor of coarse). In New Jersey: Clearview is a mixed bag some sites are told notch (SOPAC), others were constructed cheap and major problems never addressed (Kinneleon, Tenafly). AMC is decent, no perfect, neither is Regal. The new Kerasotes and Edgewater Multiplex (one National Amusements sites staying with the company) are both top notch in terms of customer service, seating comfort, projection (although Edgewater has the better snack bar, in fact a full food court, as well as 35MM projection, so they win out).
As for New York City: Film Forum should be declared a national landmark, the premiere art theater in the country (despite small screens and no leg room), IFC Center was pretty good but one senses the standards are slipping with the expansion (avoid theater 5, I think I’ve seen better digital projection with one of those annoying NCM pre-shows), Angelika has its flaws (sound, leg room, high prices), and Landmark Theaters is usually very good.
I fear IFC and Magnolia’s day and date strategy may lead to the end of a traditional theatrical release, further stressing art theaters that are starving for content. I don’t like this idea, an art house in middle america has enough of a hard time surviving, and shouldn’t film be seen in a theater? I know it’s a gamble.
Hopefully the movies will learn from TV: make a better product, people will come. Pixar is a prime example, they tell great stories that create strong emotional connections in viewers. The best commercial films do that, isn’t that “branding 101”. That’s the secret, you make films that good and you’ll have lines around the block - like a soul saving rock concert, good films can change lives. It was film, still images flickering past at 24 frames per second that brought me to this point in my life, had I not gone to Toronto in 2008 and “gotten saved” by Slumdog Millionaire, Adoration, Me and Orson Wells, The Terrance Davies Trilogy (and 20 other films I saw there that week) I might still be in banking instead in an MFA program. Crazy to think about that.
As for a top 10 I also face enough problem, I have a short list of 200 films, saw roughly about 1500 or so over 10 years (150 a year, light, sure but remember I got a driver’s license towards the end of 2000 and hadn’t gone to my first film festival until 2003). It’s been a wild ride, some films get better with age, others get tainted by reviews I’ve read. Perhaps the gut reaction is the best, but it’s possible to get caught up with a good audience in a movie that might be crap because your in the mood for that sort of thing. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If I were to define the films of the zeitgeist, three easy ones that summarize the aforementioned themes of the naughts would be: Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Chris Rock’s Head of State, and Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. It’s more complicated than that (It’s Complicated won’t be one, I assure you).
We saw films that were escapist, played on our fears, or provided escape in the form of social commentary. Nothing is new, films have always reflected directly or indirectly the spirit of the times, should a top ten list? I suppose no film is divorced for the environment it’s produced in, smarter scholars than I have been providing readings since Cahiers Du Cinema examined John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln.
My reading of a whole century is subjective, how can it not be. I didn’t see everything, there’s a good deal I can’t see. More movies come out now because there are more screens: just look at New York City. IFC Center even added to add two pathetic new theaters (one is a classroom projector sandwiched on a beam above the first row of seats in a theater that sits 35). Now we’re on the subject of IFC we should talk about “day and date” releasing, a strategy I don’t disagree with on principal - show indie films to everyone at the same time national reviewers are buzzing. This worked this summer for Summer Hours, but countless other films are lost at the IFC Center, they come and go, even with 5 screens, and worse when they do play they’re shown on a cheap-o digital projector (I saw noticeable artificating in Ricky, Francis Ozon’s latest family drama which is like the kindler, gentler version of his first feature - Sitcom, don’t worry, it didn’t make the top 10 of year let alone decade, other Ozon film(s) will be there). For $12.50 audiences should demand a pristine, sparkling print (unless the film originated on digital).
It’s been 4 years since digital proved its worth with 3-D. I’m still not a digital convert and I’m young. I like the flexibility but I don’t think multiplexes are harnessing the digital flexibility that is to show a more diverse slate of films. IFC Center does, but a cynic could look at what the theater is doing as Cablevision trying to compete with Film Forum. The newest multiplex to open in New Jersey, Kerasotes Showplace Secacus is 100% digital, while projection is sharp, in focus, some spots looked a little hot to me when we saw Sherlock Holmes on Christmas day. (Fun but a flick that didn’t make the either top ten). Now why can’t IFC team up with Kerasotes and show an indie film a week, one show, say Tuesday nights, 7PM, you show up, pay full price, and you’ll see a new indie film. If it works, great, maybe it can get a booking there or at another art theater, if not, oh well, only one show wasted. They do this with some classics (why anybody would want to see a Classic deserved to be seen on 35MM, projected digitally is beyond me - do they think we’re idiots, that we droll when the letters “HD” are mentioned).
Another flaw of the a top ten list is that I can’t re-watch everything. Were there some movies I wasn’t ready for? You betcha. Were there others that I remember fondly because I saw them on a date, had a great time, was caught up in the energy of the moment, sure. Were there others that age worse? Sure. There were films I remember seeing when younger that I wished would end, some foreign, I admit. These are films that are acquired tastes, tastes acquired through scholarship, repeating viewing and maturity.
I don’t feel bad - Roger Ebert is an idol of mine, the finest critic in the nation but his early reviews reflect the experience of a younger Mr. Ebert and we’re all in flux. This is to say his quality has improved over the years. Same for filmmakers. Atom Egoyan’s earlier work is risky, too ambitious, somewhat lacking focus - then he made two masterpieces back to back: Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter.
Alanis Morissette is right: You Live, You Learn. Film has opened my eyes to the world, permitted me to live 1500+ lives in 10 years. You will have to forgive me when I get defensive of film and critical of theaters that are entrusted to carry on the fine tradition of projecting film. Yes, they are businesses, they sell snacks, ect - but for top dollar ($12.50 in New York) we should demand the best, what the filmmakers intended. Some chains and theaters are better than others: some markets just lost the finest chain in America - National Amusements, half the theaters in its network were acquired by Rave Motion Pictures. In Buffalo, Dipson Theaters is the finest and most reliable theaters for presentation (despite the uncomfortable seats at the North Park - Market Arcade and McKinnely Mall are great mainstream multiplexes). The one AMC in town is also fine, and Regal isn’t bad as well (Dipson has the best popcorn, a deciding factor of coarse). In New Jersey: Clearview is a mixed bag some sites are told notch (SOPAC), others were constructed cheap and major problems never addressed (Kinneleon, Tenafly). AMC is decent, no perfect, neither is Regal. The new Kerasotes and Edgewater Multiplex (one National Amusements sites staying with the company) are both top notch in terms of customer service, seating comfort, projection (although Edgewater has the better snack bar, in fact a full food court, as well as 35MM projection, so they win out).
As for New York City: Film Forum should be declared a national landmark, the premiere art theater in the country (despite small screens and no leg room), IFC Center was pretty good but one senses the standards are slipping with the expansion (avoid theater 5, I think I’ve seen better digital projection with one of those annoying NCM pre-shows), Angelika has its flaws (sound, leg room, high prices), and Landmark Theaters is usually very good.
I fear IFC and Magnolia’s day and date strategy may lead to the end of a traditional theatrical release, further stressing art theaters that are starving for content. I don’t like this idea, an art house in middle america has enough of a hard time surviving, and shouldn’t film be seen in a theater? I know it’s a gamble.
Hopefully the movies will learn from TV: make a better product, people will come. Pixar is a prime example, they tell great stories that create strong emotional connections in viewers. The best commercial films do that, isn’t that “branding 101”. That’s the secret, you make films that good and you’ll have lines around the block - like a soul saving rock concert, good films can change lives. It was film, still images flickering past at 24 frames per second that brought me to this point in my life, had I not gone to Toronto in 2008 and “gotten saved” by Slumdog Millionaire, Adoration, Me and Orson Wells, The Terrance Davies Trilogy (and 20 other films I saw there that week) I might still be in banking instead in an MFA program. Crazy to think about that.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Brief Notes on My 25th Year of Life and First Semester of Grad School
Yesterday I completed my 25th go around at a full year of life. A year ago I had been depressed about turning 25, entering my “mid 20’s” feeling beaten, defeated, and mostly bored with life. Now a days, I feel like I’m 19 again, I’m a “freshman” in college in a new city so to speak, except this time around I’m legally allowed to drink and I appreciate it more, the last three years, spent working in banking seem like a distant memory.
This is not to say it was all bad, or even a little bad, a year ago faced with the prospects of an industry that need heavy government support it seemed like a good time to reconsider life: I wasn’t going to get ahead in this storm. Living in New Jersey/the NYC area I feel that it’s either sink or swim, luckily Buffalo has a lot of people floating by, making art and media with the intention of exhibiting it, not to get rich but just to show it and exchange ideas. This sounds ideal but it, like most things is also a bit flawed.
So in my 25th year of life I recall having two lives: well two professional lives that overlapped for a brief period that was the production phase of Hollow Spaces, which was hellish (given how little time we had and other obligations to work around, making a movie would be great if time wasn’t a factor), but then again having a day that the shoot needed to be done by was motivating to say the least, not only was it done but reshoots would be hard to grab living some 350 miles away (Ercan to his credit volunteered to shoot second unit in New Jersey if it didn’t get finished).
25 was a pretty good year in retrospect. I sensed in middle school I was forming an identity that’s still shifting and changing. After the first day of grad school, where I felt maybe a little intimidated I realized something: I had to continue to do what I do, not in a bubble but I had to continue to work on my ideas, techniques, skills, and abilities with the input of like-minded people. The issue I think in the first semester I had was that the DMS MFA program is so diverse, so wide a net of students, some working on projects that I’m not sure I truly understand the value of at all times, others engaging in behavior that scares the shit out of me (legally I’m not sure I can talk about our studio opening).
If anything unlike a traditional film school environment where everyone is competing to be selected to direct a thesis film produced by the school, or to be “the best” or “most well connected” - UB is anything but that. If anything it’s perhaps too academic at times, cynics can chalk film studies up to Grade A B.S. - at times it can be, sure. The work I’ve always been interested in connects the academics and the general audience: I’m interested in getting an emotional reaction out of anybody and everyone - from the guy with the PhD in film to the women with a GED. This isn’t to say that all film or media should do this, play it safe, dumb itself down.
I very much like the philosophy of Participant Media: they make genre films with a social change point of view - studio features with established actors and talent that aren’t Lifetime-style movies or After School Specials, but entertainment films that sneak in a message. Granted one can make heavily experimental work with no entry for non academics to prove a point about structure or form, I’m not dismissing those films. But I’d take a teen comedy over a dry documentary if they’re both asking the same questions and opening my eyes to the same issue (look at ATL, it’s a wonderful film confronts identity, race, and power).
These were nothing new, but at UB I’m learning and am challenged to make work - I needed this even if I feel too old sometimes. I have yet to re-calcuate my “real age” as I had done when I turned 25, but based on my life style I had the body age of a 17 year old. If I’ve aged a year (although I’ve taken the recommended steps of eating less red meat and flossing daily), then I’m really only 18: a college freshman, living the life style of a college freshman. While I’ll avoid the binge drinking, but I’ll gladly partake in the spirt of adventure that comes with the age*.
*Meanwhile everyone else is getting married, having kids, growing up, being adults. Fuck that shit.
This is not to say it was all bad, or even a little bad, a year ago faced with the prospects of an industry that need heavy government support it seemed like a good time to reconsider life: I wasn’t going to get ahead in this storm. Living in New Jersey/the NYC area I feel that it’s either sink or swim, luckily Buffalo has a lot of people floating by, making art and media with the intention of exhibiting it, not to get rich but just to show it and exchange ideas. This sounds ideal but it, like most things is also a bit flawed.
So in my 25th year of life I recall having two lives: well two professional lives that overlapped for a brief period that was the production phase of Hollow Spaces, which was hellish (given how little time we had and other obligations to work around, making a movie would be great if time wasn’t a factor), but then again having a day that the shoot needed to be done by was motivating to say the least, not only was it done but reshoots would be hard to grab living some 350 miles away (Ercan to his credit volunteered to shoot second unit in New Jersey if it didn’t get finished).
25 was a pretty good year in retrospect. I sensed in middle school I was forming an identity that’s still shifting and changing. After the first day of grad school, where I felt maybe a little intimidated I realized something: I had to continue to do what I do, not in a bubble but I had to continue to work on my ideas, techniques, skills, and abilities with the input of like-minded people. The issue I think in the first semester I had was that the DMS MFA program is so diverse, so wide a net of students, some working on projects that I’m not sure I truly understand the value of at all times, others engaging in behavior that scares the shit out of me (legally I’m not sure I can talk about our studio opening).
If anything unlike a traditional film school environment where everyone is competing to be selected to direct a thesis film produced by the school, or to be “the best” or “most well connected” - UB is anything but that. If anything it’s perhaps too academic at times, cynics can chalk film studies up to Grade A B.S. - at times it can be, sure. The work I’ve always been interested in connects the academics and the general audience: I’m interested in getting an emotional reaction out of anybody and everyone - from the guy with the PhD in film to the women with a GED. This isn’t to say that all film or media should do this, play it safe, dumb itself down.
I very much like the philosophy of Participant Media: they make genre films with a social change point of view - studio features with established actors and talent that aren’t Lifetime-style movies or After School Specials, but entertainment films that sneak in a message. Granted one can make heavily experimental work with no entry for non academics to prove a point about structure or form, I’m not dismissing those films. But I’d take a teen comedy over a dry documentary if they’re both asking the same questions and opening my eyes to the same issue (look at ATL, it’s a wonderful film confronts identity, race, and power).
These were nothing new, but at UB I’m learning and am challenged to make work - I needed this even if I feel too old sometimes. I have yet to re-calcuate my “real age” as I had done when I turned 25, but based on my life style I had the body age of a 17 year old. If I’ve aged a year (although I’ve taken the recommended steps of eating less red meat and flossing daily), then I’m really only 18: a college freshman, living the life style of a college freshman. While I’ll avoid the binge drinking, but I’ll gladly partake in the spirt of adventure that comes with the age*.
*Meanwhile everyone else is getting married, having kids, growing up, being adults. Fuck that shit.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
D-ball and D-bags: MTV goes returns to Seaside Heights
“Well at least I’m not from New Jersey where you have douche bags that walk around with spiked hair, fake tans and popped collars” -Josh Parkins, Media Study MFA Candidate (raised in Kansas City, MO)
-----
And it was on this note of random bickering in our the Media Study Graduate Studio that my friend Josh reminded me that MTV’s controversial new series Jersey Shore was bowing tonight. I’ve never been an MTV fan, but the station serves it’s purpose (as Sumner Redstone called it in his book “it has the power to be the voice of a generation”). Ionically enough isn’t really Music Television.
Regarding the new show Jersey Shore - first off, it is awful. It falls into the so bad, it might be good - but good for whom? At a certain point you feel bad, but these people rise to a new level of self centered douche bag, leading to behavior that they write off as being acceptable because they’re young. Sure they are - but I get the sense that the cast members will not be changed by this summer, aside from their new found celebrity. They of coarse will on the final episode cry about leaving and talk about how this summer changed me, then right back into the slutty, high risk patterns you had before you came to Seaside.
While I was never a fan of The Real World, but that show offered up diversity - here the show contains all Italian American cast members, which call each other ‘guido’ and ‘guidette’. This outraged the likes of UNICO - according to New Jersey’s statewide paper The Star Ledger, it’s president “objected to the generous use of the term “guido,” both by MTV’s promotional gurus and the cast members themselves”.
Unlike my pal Josh Parkins, mentioned above - who I don’t think has been to the fine state that brought the world Bruce Springsteen - these stereotypes are all too real. This is a closed society: as one of the girls states Sammi Sweetheart states “if your not a guido then get the fuck out of my face.” She’s like a white girl that only dates black guys.
The show is cold to me, I think because it lacks a perspective while not exactly taking the Cinema Verite high road. This is a fantasy setting, no The Real World. Granted, The Real World, was not all that real either: maybe college is remotely like that, but probably not.
The new show replicates this formula: strangers live together, hook up - there is little diversity that leads to conflicts as in the earlier show - nobody here is gay or has HIV (yet anyway). There is hope for real drama in the form of a positive STD or pregnancy test after random drunk post club sexual encounters Skin Cancerous girls or juice heads. A sure fire risk factor is that “Jenny Jwwan” hooks up with (after promising the same day to not cheat on her boyfriend), he apparently has a Prince Albert (thankfully not shown). (Wait, one character ends up with Pink Eye!)
Further evidence this isn’t The Real World is the environment they’re in: Seaside Heights while sleazy isn’t cheap - if memory serves me a concrete-walled flee bag motel in the high of August goes for the same day rate the Ritz Carlton in a civilized city, and they may not even provide you with fresh towels daily. Therefore these kids, most likely rich kids anyway are living an experience that the middle class can afford once in a while (then again isn’t that most TV shows).
Most to be fair to my home state are imports, including the most obnoxious and narcissistic cast member Mike “The Situation” (“The Situation” is the name for his abs). He goes so far over the top it’s amazing anyone could take him seriously, but drunken slutty girls like that I suppose, and he’s in it to have a good time.
The show is anything but a good time, granted if the whole season just showed the fist pumping, techno-throbing club scene it would essentially be a 200 minute vodka commercial. The drama seems rather natural although clearly performed, it’s the type of drama that you’d laugh at if you were also drunk, but pathetic to watch play out sober. MTV has essentially given a series of obnoxious people their own platform - one even confesses she’s starved for attention, Nicole “Snookie”.
As part of the trade off for an amazing house the group is required to work at a T-shirt shop on the boardwalk (the house is on the street, around back), prime, million dollar property even in a shit hole like Seaside Heights. The most sympathetic I think and prone to corruption is Vinny, a 21 year old from Staten Island who until he starts fist pumping seems the relatable.
So who is this show for? Following Facebook a few friends seem to be watching it, or at least seem aware of it (for my friends in Buffalo it seems like a non-event, then again why watch dumb, boring, tan people have fun when you could go out and have fun on a Thursday night). Here in lies the paradox of the show: it’s not very fun, it’s characters are self centered and not terribly amusing unless in satire. Should we feel bad for these morons? Probably not, they seem to be doing something right, even if it’s staged, but I think this culture as I said is a closed culture, I could go on the D-ball, start tanning, get my hair permed, buy an Ed Hardy t-shirt, ect and it probably wouldn’t really matter.
These characters are mostly young (one I learn from the Star Ledger, Mike “The Situation” is 27 - perhaps a little too old for this shit, one hopes he brings home a 15 year old girl from a club who got in with a fake ID and finds himself in jail). A more interesting show would be cops - how do you regulate this environment with people that aren’t terribly bright for starts, high on ecstasy, drunk and full of roid rage?
With characters claiming “I’m hot, I’m natural” and the like, it’s great that they have confidence (some of the girls aren’t in fact that hot, they’re tan beyond any reasonable measure and have beer guts which flop out of their tight Ed Hardy shirts), but it’s off putting. And just when your thinking that you get the argument about “being a hater” - a morons defense for what could be legit criticism.
Am I hater for this show? Yes and no, I watched it as a sociological experiment hoping to learn something, instead I came to the conclusion that this aspect of American Life (one that would make for a boring ass version of This American Life) is a closed, close-knit community. Everyone in it might know Mike “The Situation” (as he claims) but to those outside of this booze, fake fan, and jacked up subculture he’s unknown.
The drama is forced, based on hormonal interactions, girls calling each other slut, fighting over men, ect. The most curious line of the evening was uttered by Angelina, a girl from Staten Island who leaves her boyfriend for the summer to come to Jersey (poor guy for dating such a stupid girl) - I can’t be sure but I think she said “if a girl’s being a slut - she should be abused.”
And there’s the line that should piss people off more than anything else. Granted girls who call other girls sluts are often times sluts themselves, it’s the “takes one to know one” defense, and I don’t feel sorry for anybody. Her comment though has broader and more disturbing implications, like Precious which Lee Daniels is criticized for showing what some call a “poverty porn” - the Jersey Shore shows what happens when dumb people get drunk and don’t pair up with whom they wished they would.
I’d say the drama is unnessisary, a creation of editing, pop music, and bad performances, the cast members are fully aware of the camera and are performing for it, almost shoving it our faces (after all I’m watching this in the middle of winter in Buffalo).
Yes, they have the right to go have fun, party and hook up - people do these things, as a result I’m thinking of opening a Plato’s Retreat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_YJP0YaGs ) franchise at Seaside, complete with heated swimming pool and that great disco beat*.
(*Plato’s Retreat was an infamous Swingers Club that existed in the late 70’s - just right after AIDS hit, as chronicled in American Swing, a documentary so disturbing it made me want to become a priest, and spawned my idea for a Zac Effron/Ben Affleck road trip comedy called You Were Conceived at Plato’s Retreat)
If I’m cynical about the show it’s because the show itself is cynical about it’s subject. It brings back memories that only exist in Seaside Heights (I haven’t been back since 2003). Perhaps I’m being too rough on it, the show most certainly is crap - where one town becomes like Plato’s Retreat, it tracks a culture of material excess - this is why other countries hate us.
Being a closed society, based sadly mostly in Italian American Communities and areas with night life districts, I don’t think it’ll catch on and these roles will be emulated because these characters are so self-centered they are nearly impossible to identify with or like beyond the surface. Sure they may be attractive, but they speak their own language (I didn’t count the amount of times “vibing out” was spoken) and that creates a disconnect between mainstream viewers and those that fit this stereotype. It’s a stereotype they are glad to live, and live it up they should. If Snookie wants to marry a “tan juice head” as she fantasizes about then she gets what she deserves, and if she’s a slut...well you know what Angelina says she deserves.
(Update: 12/28 - a few weeks after writing this post I received an e-mail from Dave, whose website recalls the memories I had growing up and going to Seaside, with a lot of current information and history, it's the side that MTV isn't showing: http://www.discoverseasideheights.com/about )
-----
And it was on this note of random bickering in our the Media Study Graduate Studio that my friend Josh reminded me that MTV’s controversial new series Jersey Shore was bowing tonight. I’ve never been an MTV fan, but the station serves it’s purpose (as Sumner Redstone called it in his book “it has the power to be the voice of a generation”). Ionically enough isn’t really Music Television.
Regarding the new show Jersey Shore - first off, it is awful. It falls into the so bad, it might be good - but good for whom? At a certain point you feel bad, but these people rise to a new level of self centered douche bag, leading to behavior that they write off as being acceptable because they’re young. Sure they are - but I get the sense that the cast members will not be changed by this summer, aside from their new found celebrity. They of coarse will on the final episode cry about leaving and talk about how this summer changed me, then right back into the slutty, high risk patterns you had before you came to Seaside.
While I was never a fan of The Real World, but that show offered up diversity - here the show contains all Italian American cast members, which call each other ‘guido’ and ‘guidette’. This outraged the likes of UNICO - according to New Jersey’s statewide paper The Star Ledger, it’s president “objected to the generous use of the term “guido,” both by MTV’s promotional gurus and the cast members themselves”.
Unlike my pal Josh Parkins, mentioned above - who I don’t think has been to the fine state that brought the world Bruce Springsteen - these stereotypes are all too real. This is a closed society: as one of the girls states Sammi Sweetheart states “if your not a guido then get the fuck out of my face.” She’s like a white girl that only dates black guys.
The show is cold to me, I think because it lacks a perspective while not exactly taking the Cinema Verite high road. This is a fantasy setting, no The Real World. Granted, The Real World, was not all that real either: maybe college is remotely like that, but probably not.
The new show replicates this formula: strangers live together, hook up - there is little diversity that leads to conflicts as in the earlier show - nobody here is gay or has HIV (yet anyway). There is hope for real drama in the form of a positive STD or pregnancy test after random drunk post club sexual encounters Skin Cancerous girls or juice heads. A sure fire risk factor is that “Jenny Jwwan” hooks up with (after promising the same day to not cheat on her boyfriend), he apparently has a Prince Albert (thankfully not shown). (Wait, one character ends up with Pink Eye!)
Further evidence this isn’t The Real World is the environment they’re in: Seaside Heights while sleazy isn’t cheap - if memory serves me a concrete-walled flee bag motel in the high of August goes for the same day rate the Ritz Carlton in a civilized city, and they may not even provide you with fresh towels daily. Therefore these kids, most likely rich kids anyway are living an experience that the middle class can afford once in a while (then again isn’t that most TV shows).
Most to be fair to my home state are imports, including the most obnoxious and narcissistic cast member Mike “The Situation” (“The Situation” is the name for his abs). He goes so far over the top it’s amazing anyone could take him seriously, but drunken slutty girls like that I suppose, and he’s in it to have a good time.
The show is anything but a good time, granted if the whole season just showed the fist pumping, techno-throbing club scene it would essentially be a 200 minute vodka commercial. The drama seems rather natural although clearly performed, it’s the type of drama that you’d laugh at if you were also drunk, but pathetic to watch play out sober. MTV has essentially given a series of obnoxious people their own platform - one even confesses she’s starved for attention, Nicole “Snookie”.
As part of the trade off for an amazing house the group is required to work at a T-shirt shop on the boardwalk (the house is on the street, around back), prime, million dollar property even in a shit hole like Seaside Heights. The most sympathetic I think and prone to corruption is Vinny, a 21 year old from Staten Island who until he starts fist pumping seems the relatable.
So who is this show for? Following Facebook a few friends seem to be watching it, or at least seem aware of it (for my friends in Buffalo it seems like a non-event, then again why watch dumb, boring, tan people have fun when you could go out and have fun on a Thursday night). Here in lies the paradox of the show: it’s not very fun, it’s characters are self centered and not terribly amusing unless in satire. Should we feel bad for these morons? Probably not, they seem to be doing something right, even if it’s staged, but I think this culture as I said is a closed culture, I could go on the D-ball, start tanning, get my hair permed, buy an Ed Hardy t-shirt, ect and it probably wouldn’t really matter.
These characters are mostly young (one I learn from the Star Ledger, Mike “The Situation” is 27 - perhaps a little too old for this shit, one hopes he brings home a 15 year old girl from a club who got in with a fake ID and finds himself in jail). A more interesting show would be cops - how do you regulate this environment with people that aren’t terribly bright for starts, high on ecstasy, drunk and full of roid rage?
With characters claiming “I’m hot, I’m natural” and the like, it’s great that they have confidence (some of the girls aren’t in fact that hot, they’re tan beyond any reasonable measure and have beer guts which flop out of their tight Ed Hardy shirts), but it’s off putting. And just when your thinking that you get the argument about “being a hater” - a morons defense for what could be legit criticism.
Am I hater for this show? Yes and no, I watched it as a sociological experiment hoping to learn something, instead I came to the conclusion that this aspect of American Life (one that would make for a boring ass version of This American Life) is a closed, close-knit community. Everyone in it might know Mike “The Situation” (as he claims) but to those outside of this booze, fake fan, and jacked up subculture he’s unknown.
The drama is forced, based on hormonal interactions, girls calling each other slut, fighting over men, ect. The most curious line of the evening was uttered by Angelina, a girl from Staten Island who leaves her boyfriend for the summer to come to Jersey (poor guy for dating such a stupid girl) - I can’t be sure but I think she said “if a girl’s being a slut - she should be abused.”
And there’s the line that should piss people off more than anything else. Granted girls who call other girls sluts are often times sluts themselves, it’s the “takes one to know one” defense, and I don’t feel sorry for anybody. Her comment though has broader and more disturbing implications, like Precious which Lee Daniels is criticized for showing what some call a “poverty porn” - the Jersey Shore shows what happens when dumb people get drunk and don’t pair up with whom they wished they would.
I’d say the drama is unnessisary, a creation of editing, pop music, and bad performances, the cast members are fully aware of the camera and are performing for it, almost shoving it our faces (after all I’m watching this in the middle of winter in Buffalo).
Yes, they have the right to go have fun, party and hook up - people do these things, as a result I’m thinking of opening a Plato’s Retreat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_YJP0YaGs ) franchise at Seaside, complete with heated swimming pool and that great disco beat*.
(*Plato’s Retreat was an infamous Swingers Club that existed in the late 70’s - just right after AIDS hit, as chronicled in American Swing, a documentary so disturbing it made me want to become a priest, and spawned my idea for a Zac Effron/Ben Affleck road trip comedy called You Were Conceived at Plato’s Retreat)
If I’m cynical about the show it’s because the show itself is cynical about it’s subject. It brings back memories that only exist in Seaside Heights (I haven’t been back since 2003). Perhaps I’m being too rough on it, the show most certainly is crap - where one town becomes like Plato’s Retreat, it tracks a culture of material excess - this is why other countries hate us.
Being a closed society, based sadly mostly in Italian American Communities and areas with night life districts, I don’t think it’ll catch on and these roles will be emulated because these characters are so self-centered they are nearly impossible to identify with or like beyond the surface. Sure they may be attractive, but they speak their own language (I didn’t count the amount of times “vibing out” was spoken) and that creates a disconnect between mainstream viewers and those that fit this stereotype. It’s a stereotype they are glad to live, and live it up they should. If Snookie wants to marry a “tan juice head” as she fantasizes about then she gets what she deserves, and if she’s a slut...well you know what Angelina says she deserves.
(Update: 12/28 - a few weeks after writing this post I received an e-mail from Dave, whose website recalls the memories I had growing up and going to Seaside, with a lot of current information and history, it's the side that MTV isn't showing: http://www.discoverseasideheights.com/about )
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
In The Company of Men: Homoerotics in Boondock Saints
Until today I had never seen the Boondock Saints, now I’ve seen not one but both films. Watching the first on Netflix (a distracting environment, in which I folded laundry and cleaned up a bit while it was on), I saw why the film inspired a cult following: it’s a low budget, shoot-em-up with a few funny moments, nothing groundbreaking but it’s Boston location is also I think part of what makes it original and the city was well used. (Predating The Departed, of coarse).
Boondock Saints is a classic good verses evil story and a reluctant super hero story: alone one brother could not pull off the crime or become an iconic vigilante - they need each other. This conclusion was of coarse drawn by Capote in In Cold Blood. Like Capote, (and I base my observations of that of Bennett Miller’s film), he begins to develop a close relationship with the subject he’s investigating, that being one of the suspects, Perry Smith. Now consider Willem Dafoe’s Paul Smecker of the Boondock Saints series - he's a homosexual. While I couldn’t find evidence as to why that was relevant to the first film aside from a few jokes and a cross-dressing stunt, it dawned on me while watching the second film - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day - which contains an overwhelmingly gay subtext.
Consider it’s leads: Roger Ebert observes they are unmarried, they live in Ireland with their father. They also show no sexual preference. The films don't help with a curious shortage of women in this world. Throughout the film jokes are made involving prison rape, gay sex, “getting fucked up the ass with an elephant dick” and so forth. Consider the gangsters: there are no token “video ho” type of women hanging around in bars and clubs that add nothing but eye candy to the film, in fact the pubs they hang out in are a strictly male domain - from the corner bar to an elegant gay bar Paul Smecker goes to unwind after a day at the office in the first feature.
Another gangster picture that commented on the abserdity of women that added nothing except for eye candy in these back rooms and VIP lounge where gangster transactions occur was the Vin Diesel action film XXX - where after a deal is settled, a Russian mobster exclaims "Now that business if finished, we party - Bitches, come!" (signaling the entrance of several knockouts).
The lack of sexual preference leads to Boondock Saints II oddest, darkest and most confused passage: an musical montage about masculinity - one might think that if such a conversation needs to be had, doubt about one's identity exists, especially if one is actively aware they are performing their identify. The film contains a Mexican side kick trying to find his way in the world, especially in the dark world inhabited by the Saints - whose masculinity is called in to question when he's given an almost ineffectively small gun. Once can consider for the Saints giving death is linked to giving sexual pleasure, or a substitute for it: they rome around looking to start fights after nights of drinking, instead of hoping to go home with a pretty women they picked up in a bar.
However, there is one female, central to the story, an FBI agent. Although she's introduced in a series of slow tilts upwards, showing her legs and "fuck me boots" - the image of desire quickly fades after this brief sexualized moment, which independent of the narrative feels arbitrary. She's played by the normally very sexy Julie Benz. Recently her career, it suggests has gravitated towards material like this: B-grade action and horror flicks such as Saw V, Punisher: War Zone, and Rambo. I remember her as a high school student in Jawbreaker, and as the “crazy white girl”/personal trainer in the African American centered comedy The Brothers. Here she uses her gender to get her way, but it is clearly performance of gender, aside from flirting required at times, she state no sexual preference as well.
Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day contains no sexual content: that is there is on screen sexualized images, aside from a curious amount of male nudity which seems a bit unnecessary. The film would suggest that “Boston” is a city of male gangsters who have no wives, mistresses (although one goes to a message parlor) - luckily for Boston, a city that was once shut down by light brights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) the film was shot in Toronto which explains it’s bland visual cityscapes.
I really hate that Boston, as a character itself in the Boondock Saints films (and the first was filmed in Boston) is replaced by Toronto, normally I say (as I did in Hulk) why not have the fucking movie take place in Toronto, why does New York always have to get destroyed, Toronto is a worthy world class city.
The problem is architecturally: as the character’s sexuality is an autopilot so is its backdrops - it’s generic. Boston is a city of brick, while Toronto has these neighborhoods they are underused. While it’s a well shot film, it lacks a Boston authenticity that the first flick had. Much like the Rock Hudson melodramas made by Douglas Sirk in the 1950-60’s - this film felt like it was shot on a soundstage, in addition to having its characters hide their sexuality.
Most filmmakers would introduce a gay character in the second film, if comments like this were made about their first film. Troy Duffy does it in reverse, spawning this reading, I suppose (that and the aforementioned dialogue relating to gay sex acts). Ebert, again observes Duffy did it in reverse, I had seen the hilarious documentary Overnight about the making of Boondock Saints, showing Duffy as an out of control, alcoholic hell bent on taking over the world from the outside, after Miramax gives him a deal to make Boondock Saints. Things go downhill from there, Duffy is exsactly the most likable character you could have in a film.
As it would turn out Troy Duffy is a skilled director, sure his films have many flaws, but he’s only made two so far, both the same story, in the same comic book style. Boondock Saints II is a purist action flick: it’s just that - gun fights, a bit of plot, character development that arrives just at the right moments. It’s all thrown together - a bit messy but the Saints are in a messy business, and business is booming, even in a down economy.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not bothered by the Saints being gay, or even asexual - I think it adds an interesting demention to the what could be perceived as a lack of character development. If one gets into patterns: gets married, has children, ect - they will chose to fight for the betterment of their communities not with guns but by running for town council or to an officer position in the development/condo development. With this being said, and the fact that (SPOILER) they’re in jail at the end of II (come to think of it, that’s also the ending of the 4th installment of the Fast and the Furious series - the-dumb-as-it’s-name: Fast and Furious). Let’s see what happens in Boondock Saint’s III.
Boondock Saints is a classic good verses evil story and a reluctant super hero story: alone one brother could not pull off the crime or become an iconic vigilante - they need each other. This conclusion was of coarse drawn by Capote in In Cold Blood. Like Capote, (and I base my observations of that of Bennett Miller’s film), he begins to develop a close relationship with the subject he’s investigating, that being one of the suspects, Perry Smith. Now consider Willem Dafoe’s Paul Smecker of the Boondock Saints series - he's a homosexual. While I couldn’t find evidence as to why that was relevant to the first film aside from a few jokes and a cross-dressing stunt, it dawned on me while watching the second film - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day - which contains an overwhelmingly gay subtext.
Consider it’s leads: Roger Ebert observes they are unmarried, they live in Ireland with their father. They also show no sexual preference. The films don't help with a curious shortage of women in this world. Throughout the film jokes are made involving prison rape, gay sex, “getting fucked up the ass with an elephant dick” and so forth. Consider the gangsters: there are no token “video ho” type of women hanging around in bars and clubs that add nothing but eye candy to the film, in fact the pubs they hang out in are a strictly male domain - from the corner bar to an elegant gay bar Paul Smecker goes to unwind after a day at the office in the first feature.
Another gangster picture that commented on the abserdity of women that added nothing except for eye candy in these back rooms and VIP lounge where gangster transactions occur was the Vin Diesel action film XXX - where after a deal is settled, a Russian mobster exclaims "Now that business if finished, we party - Bitches, come!" (signaling the entrance of several knockouts).
The lack of sexual preference leads to Boondock Saints II oddest, darkest and most confused passage: an musical montage about masculinity - one might think that if such a conversation needs to be had, doubt about one's identity exists, especially if one is actively aware they are performing their identify. The film contains a Mexican side kick trying to find his way in the world, especially in the dark world inhabited by the Saints - whose masculinity is called in to question when he's given an almost ineffectively small gun. Once can consider for the Saints giving death is linked to giving sexual pleasure, or a substitute for it: they rome around looking to start fights after nights of drinking, instead of hoping to go home with a pretty women they picked up in a bar.
However, there is one female, central to the story, an FBI agent. Although she's introduced in a series of slow tilts upwards, showing her legs and "fuck me boots" - the image of desire quickly fades after this brief sexualized moment, which independent of the narrative feels arbitrary. She's played by the normally very sexy Julie Benz. Recently her career, it suggests has gravitated towards material like this: B-grade action and horror flicks such as Saw V, Punisher: War Zone, and Rambo. I remember her as a high school student in Jawbreaker, and as the “crazy white girl”/personal trainer in the African American centered comedy The Brothers. Here she uses her gender to get her way, but it is clearly performance of gender, aside from flirting required at times, she state no sexual preference as well.
Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day contains no sexual content: that is there is on screen sexualized images, aside from a curious amount of male nudity which seems a bit unnecessary. The film would suggest that “Boston” is a city of male gangsters who have no wives, mistresses (although one goes to a message parlor) - luckily for Boston, a city that was once shut down by light brights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) the film was shot in Toronto which explains it’s bland visual cityscapes.
I really hate that Boston, as a character itself in the Boondock Saints films (and the first was filmed in Boston) is replaced by Toronto, normally I say (as I did in Hulk) why not have the fucking movie take place in Toronto, why does New York always have to get destroyed, Toronto is a worthy world class city.
The problem is architecturally: as the character’s sexuality is an autopilot so is its backdrops - it’s generic. Boston is a city of brick, while Toronto has these neighborhoods they are underused. While it’s a well shot film, it lacks a Boston authenticity that the first flick had. Much like the Rock Hudson melodramas made by Douglas Sirk in the 1950-60’s - this film felt like it was shot on a soundstage, in addition to having its characters hide their sexuality.
Most filmmakers would introduce a gay character in the second film, if comments like this were made about their first film. Troy Duffy does it in reverse, spawning this reading, I suppose (that and the aforementioned dialogue relating to gay sex acts). Ebert, again observes Duffy did it in reverse, I had seen the hilarious documentary Overnight about the making of Boondock Saints, showing Duffy as an out of control, alcoholic hell bent on taking over the world from the outside, after Miramax gives him a deal to make Boondock Saints. Things go downhill from there, Duffy is exsactly the most likable character you could have in a film.
As it would turn out Troy Duffy is a skilled director, sure his films have many flaws, but he’s only made two so far, both the same story, in the same comic book style. Boondock Saints II is a purist action flick: it’s just that - gun fights, a bit of plot, character development that arrives just at the right moments. It’s all thrown together - a bit messy but the Saints are in a messy business, and business is booming, even in a down economy.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not bothered by the Saints being gay, or even asexual - I think it adds an interesting demention to the what could be perceived as a lack of character development. If one gets into patterns: gets married, has children, ect - they will chose to fight for the betterment of their communities not with guns but by running for town council or to an officer position in the development/condo development. With this being said, and the fact that (SPOILER) they’re in jail at the end of II (come to think of it, that’s also the ending of the 4th installment of the Fast and the Furious series - the-dumb-as-it’s-name: Fast and Furious). Let’s see what happens in Boondock Saint’s III.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
IMAX: The Downfall of a (once) great format
It’s ironic that Cinemark is now suing IMAX over claims by IMAX that Cinemark stole stealing trade secrets the firm openly reveals in it’s rapid retrofit expansion. IMAX once meant “giant ass screen”, the firm now says they want to be known for providing an “immersive viewing experience”. Okay, okay, sure - IMAX is just that but the new retrofits? Unless it’s in 3-D, which IMAX does better than anyone else (although I haven’t seen a digital IMAX 3-D flick yet, perhaps Aviator), but a 2-D feature? I felt ripped off when I saw Robots at Showcase Cinemas Buckland Hills (Manchester, CT), an early retrofit. Buckland Hills, while a great theater never had giant screens, they took one of their large theaters, shoved in a wall to wall screen, removed two rows of seats, and upgrade the sound - bam, they’re hanging a banner for the grand opening of a new IMAX screen.
AMC and Regal jumped on the retrofit bandwagon and its spawned some outrage online amongst bloggers and twitters, most famously Parks and Recreation star Aziz Ansari. To be fair - IMAX should have done some research into what people commonly think of as the IMAX experience. Moving a screen closer to an audience doesn’t seem to qualify to me - first and foremost, the IMAX frame has a distinctive shape: the new retrofits, don’t.
As for traditional films “blow up” to IMAX: a letter box effect occurs - shouldn’t film loyalists insist on masking for IMAX? Maybe that negates its intent, but it was fun seeing Batman: The Dark Knight open up to a full IMAX frame, I don’t know if the new digital systems and screen configurations do it.
Further cheapening the IMAX experience, which has been hit over the head, again and again: I thought like 3-D, there could be a new language surrounding IMAX. Thinking of the works of indigenous national cinema that appears from the Middle East, former Soviet nations, Africa, and other far flung corners of the world - you have a lot of new space and no rules. How does one compose a shot for IMAX verses traditional 16:9? Filmmakers were answering these questions, but IMAX like all good things, like film, actually, is now being taken over by Hollywood storytellers.
IMAX’s beginnings mirror that of early cinema. Once upon a time Auguste and Louis Lumiere used the moving image as a spectacle: it was special, photographing mundane activities such as a train arriving at a platform or works leaving a factory. IMAX started with nature documentaries, using it’s large screens as a spectacle, often at museums, amusement parks, World’s Fairs, and other special tourist events. It wasn’t till Sony Theaters opened their Lincoln Square Theatre in 1995 that IMAX started looking towards Hollywood. Lincoln Square opened with 12 screens of Hollywood and indie-wood flicks, and an IMAX that was showing 3-D features, one about fish, and the other was the stunning ethnographic and lyrical documentary The Last Buffalo.
There were filmmakers exploring IMAX, including Greg MacGillivray (a nature and sometimes ethnographical documentarian), Jean-Jacques Annaud (director of Wings of Courage, per IMDB the first “dramatic IMAX feature”), and Steven Low (Low has created commissioned art pieces in the format, as well as directed an early dramatic IMAX narrative, Across the Sea of Time). Stan Brackhage even hand painted an IMAX film, Night Music (although never shown in IMAX sadly, I learn). It’s no wonder Brackhage would have been attracted to IMAX, it was a powerful new medium of cinematic expression.
This is not to say Hollywood ruins everything. IMAX is a public traded company, they have shareholders and they grew their brand while ruining their quality - in fact that’s the key - they are a brand. I heard they wanted to be thought of as a brand worth paying extra for, like Starbucks. Sure you can grab a 75 cent cup of coffee or a sweet-ass $4 latte. But IMAX unlike Starbucks doesn’t insure you’re experience will be identical from Manchester, CT to Manchester, England - and here is lies my objectives to what it’s become - often made clear by other smarter people: it used to mean a giant ass screen, now it means an immersive experience. The films used to be “special” and “educational”, now when you get to your local theater that has an IMAX screen you have the option to see the film projected in a traditional theater or IMAX.
What is worse I think is that new constructions are being retrofitted, IMAX should be a star attraction, it should be a giant theater, larger than the rest of the complex - you should be able to see it from the outside and say “hey - that’s the IMAX screen.” For those reading this in the Buffalo area the Regal Cinemas on Transit Road in Williamsville is just that: it’s a real big screen IMAX.
Because this is a premium brand IMAX gives rights to certain territories to operators. That is AMC, Regal and a few one-off operators have IMAX screens. Apparently Cinemark, pissed that their competitors locked up key markets rebelled and copied the idea, creating XD: Extreme Digital.
Extreme Digital from the photos I’ve seen is a similar format and good for them. IMAX uses two digital projects, a slightly larger screen and better sound. IMAX can only show films that studios make available to them, meanwhile XD, virtually the same thing can show Real D 3-D films and any digital film out there: virtually anything. IMAX at this point looks like a middleman.
They’ve sold out alright, the differences are so subtle I’m not sure untrained audience members will notice the difference (but they’ll shell out an additional $4-5 for the experience). There have always been IMAX imitations out there, iWerks built “extreme screens”, other theater chains have big screen theaters they play up: Harkins Theaters Cine Capri, Marcus Theaters Ultra Screen (in some markets larger than IMAX retrofits), and Crown Theaters Odyssey Screen (one still open at Bow Tie Palace in Hartford, which is larger than the Buckland Hills IMAX 10 miles east).
AMC, IMAX’s number one customer, the first to commit to 100+ new digital IMAX screens even created their own screen. When they couldn’t put an IMAX in their brand new Younge & Dundas 24 in Toronto they created EXT: Enhanced Theatre Experience. I was in this auditorium for the Toronto Film Festival and the experience was unremarkable, especially in digital (might have been the film I saw, a lower budget indie named Passenger Side). The sight lines weren’t great, neither as the sound (then again, this wasn’t an action flick), and the picture didn’t “take up” the whole screen, it seemed picture size equaled that of a non-EXT auditorium.
What Cinemark is doing is pretty brilliant: they’re exposing IMAX as a scam, if they and AMC can do it, then every theater operator can. At this point IMAX ceases to be a premium, and like various wide screen branded formats they will get lost in the fray.
When I first heard about digital IMAX I had to check to see it was April 1. I think the museum IMAX locations will always exist, but retrofitting existing auditoriums and digital 3-D isn’t the answer to get people back out to the movies. “Alternative content” maybe be one route, as the Opera seem to do well, but what about the basics. Creating excitement is something that needs to happen more often, event films are exciting, getting there, lining up - it’s like going to a rock show, they are far and few between.
AMC and Regal jumped on the retrofit bandwagon and its spawned some outrage online amongst bloggers and twitters, most famously Parks and Recreation star Aziz Ansari. To be fair - IMAX should have done some research into what people commonly think of as the IMAX experience. Moving a screen closer to an audience doesn’t seem to qualify to me - first and foremost, the IMAX frame has a distinctive shape: the new retrofits, don’t.
As for traditional films “blow up” to IMAX: a letter box effect occurs - shouldn’t film loyalists insist on masking for IMAX? Maybe that negates its intent, but it was fun seeing Batman: The Dark Knight open up to a full IMAX frame, I don’t know if the new digital systems and screen configurations do it.
Further cheapening the IMAX experience, which has been hit over the head, again and again: I thought like 3-D, there could be a new language surrounding IMAX. Thinking of the works of indigenous national cinema that appears from the Middle East, former Soviet nations, Africa, and other far flung corners of the world - you have a lot of new space and no rules. How does one compose a shot for IMAX verses traditional 16:9? Filmmakers were answering these questions, but IMAX like all good things, like film, actually, is now being taken over by Hollywood storytellers.
IMAX’s beginnings mirror that of early cinema. Once upon a time Auguste and Louis Lumiere used the moving image as a spectacle: it was special, photographing mundane activities such as a train arriving at a platform or works leaving a factory. IMAX started with nature documentaries, using it’s large screens as a spectacle, often at museums, amusement parks, World’s Fairs, and other special tourist events. It wasn’t till Sony Theaters opened their Lincoln Square Theatre in 1995 that IMAX started looking towards Hollywood. Lincoln Square opened with 12 screens of Hollywood and indie-wood flicks, and an IMAX that was showing 3-D features, one about fish, and the other was the stunning ethnographic and lyrical documentary The Last Buffalo.
There were filmmakers exploring IMAX, including Greg MacGillivray (a nature and sometimes ethnographical documentarian), Jean-Jacques Annaud (director of Wings of Courage, per IMDB the first “dramatic IMAX feature”), and Steven Low (Low has created commissioned art pieces in the format, as well as directed an early dramatic IMAX narrative, Across the Sea of Time). Stan Brackhage even hand painted an IMAX film, Night Music (although never shown in IMAX sadly, I learn). It’s no wonder Brackhage would have been attracted to IMAX, it was a powerful new medium of cinematic expression.
This is not to say Hollywood ruins everything. IMAX is a public traded company, they have shareholders and they grew their brand while ruining their quality - in fact that’s the key - they are a brand. I heard they wanted to be thought of as a brand worth paying extra for, like Starbucks. Sure you can grab a 75 cent cup of coffee or a sweet-ass $4 latte. But IMAX unlike Starbucks doesn’t insure you’re experience will be identical from Manchester, CT to Manchester, England - and here is lies my objectives to what it’s become - often made clear by other smarter people: it used to mean a giant ass screen, now it means an immersive experience. The films used to be “special” and “educational”, now when you get to your local theater that has an IMAX screen you have the option to see the film projected in a traditional theater or IMAX.
What is worse I think is that new constructions are being retrofitted, IMAX should be a star attraction, it should be a giant theater, larger than the rest of the complex - you should be able to see it from the outside and say “hey - that’s the IMAX screen.” For those reading this in the Buffalo area the Regal Cinemas on Transit Road in Williamsville is just that: it’s a real big screen IMAX.
Because this is a premium brand IMAX gives rights to certain territories to operators. That is AMC, Regal and a few one-off operators have IMAX screens. Apparently Cinemark, pissed that their competitors locked up key markets rebelled and copied the idea, creating XD: Extreme Digital.
Extreme Digital from the photos I’ve seen is a similar format and good for them. IMAX uses two digital projects, a slightly larger screen and better sound. IMAX can only show films that studios make available to them, meanwhile XD, virtually the same thing can show Real D 3-D films and any digital film out there: virtually anything. IMAX at this point looks like a middleman.
They’ve sold out alright, the differences are so subtle I’m not sure untrained audience members will notice the difference (but they’ll shell out an additional $4-5 for the experience). There have always been IMAX imitations out there, iWerks built “extreme screens”, other theater chains have big screen theaters they play up: Harkins Theaters Cine Capri, Marcus Theaters Ultra Screen (in some markets larger than IMAX retrofits), and Crown Theaters Odyssey Screen (one still open at Bow Tie Palace in Hartford, which is larger than the Buckland Hills IMAX 10 miles east).
AMC, IMAX’s number one customer, the first to commit to 100+ new digital IMAX screens even created their own screen. When they couldn’t put an IMAX in their brand new Younge & Dundas 24 in Toronto they created EXT: Enhanced Theatre Experience. I was in this auditorium for the Toronto Film Festival and the experience was unremarkable, especially in digital (might have been the film I saw, a lower budget indie named Passenger Side). The sight lines weren’t great, neither as the sound (then again, this wasn’t an action flick), and the picture didn’t “take up” the whole screen, it seemed picture size equaled that of a non-EXT auditorium.
What Cinemark is doing is pretty brilliant: they’re exposing IMAX as a scam, if they and AMC can do it, then every theater operator can. At this point IMAX ceases to be a premium, and like various wide screen branded formats they will get lost in the fray.
When I first heard about digital IMAX I had to check to see it was April 1. I think the museum IMAX locations will always exist, but retrofitting existing auditoriums and digital 3-D isn’t the answer to get people back out to the movies. “Alternative content” maybe be one route, as the Opera seem to do well, but what about the basics. Creating excitement is something that needs to happen more often, event films are exciting, getting there, lining up - it’s like going to a rock show, they are far and few between.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Status of Stuff: Hollow Spaces/Post Production
Once in a while a blog is a place not to analyze films you’ve seen recently but to chat about what the hell you’ve been up to. This is one such “update”. Over the summer I stopped updating a blog for fear I had nothing interesting to say out of fear that I was just an aggregator and not an actual content provider, I still don’t know, but this at least will be somewhat original.
What have I been up to lately, then? Glad you asked.
I’ve been working through post-production on Hollow Spaces and found I accidently made a longer film than I intended, it’s still the movie I intended to make, but it’s hard to put it in a box: is a long short or a short feature. I was depressed but it’s for all purposes the film I intended and hoped to make, not 100% of coarse, nothing ever is, but I’m stuck with a challenge. There’s not much to cut, but there’s more that could be fleshed out, there’s also the question of the ending - which I think could be enhanced - without saying much.
There’s the basic technical elements that need correction (sound, fine edits, music score, ect.) so I’m going to finish those over the next month. There’s nothing that needs to be reshot from what I see so far, but there’s a lot of work in melding what’s already shot into a film that has the emotional impact I hoped for when scripting and shooting it. Obviously along the way compromises are made, we shot it quickly, cheaply, but I think what we lacked in money and time is there in passion - there are some scenes that give me goosebumps to watch, they are that raw and well acted.
I suppose it’s important to be proud of what you do - I just want this to be a masterpiece in terms of tone, mood and performance. Technically it’s not 100% because for a good period in the shoot it was me and my HDV camera and the actors, a few lights but a very light crew, I like to think that worked to our advantage in terms of getting natural performances, of coarse I could always use a person or two to keep me in check - but maybe I’m being overly critical.
Of coarse post production is in full swing and I haven’t gotten it to the point where I’m anxious to show it off and run test screenings (I will most likely do that perhaps both in my apartment complex and with UB’s Media Study department). DMS is full of generous and smart people who hopefully tell it like it is.
As for other things going on Mary May’s Suicide Letter is screening in two film festivals: it’s playing before the opening night feature at the Big Apple Film Festival (tomorrow at 6:30PM) and again on Saturday night at the Hartford International Film Festival at 11:30PM. Hopefully this time next year Hollow Spaces will be having it’s film festival life - although I’m not sure what category it’ll be slotted into (short or feature).
I am encouraged to learn that while I’ve always said content should dictate running time and a film should be only as long as it has to be (advice I wish Michael Bay would follow) - some of my favorite filmmakers have been in the same boat (making 45-60 minute mini-features) including Kelly Reichardt and Francois Ozon. Therefore if anything I should work on making the film better, not worry about classification and accept it. There are festivals that do show “mini-features” so perhaps Hollow Spaces will have a life there, I’d like to think it just might.
What have I been up to lately, then? Glad you asked.
I’ve been working through post-production on Hollow Spaces and found I accidently made a longer film than I intended, it’s still the movie I intended to make, but it’s hard to put it in a box: is a long short or a short feature. I was depressed but it’s for all purposes the film I intended and hoped to make, not 100% of coarse, nothing ever is, but I’m stuck with a challenge. There’s not much to cut, but there’s more that could be fleshed out, there’s also the question of the ending - which I think could be enhanced - without saying much.
There’s the basic technical elements that need correction (sound, fine edits, music score, ect.) so I’m going to finish those over the next month. There’s nothing that needs to be reshot from what I see so far, but there’s a lot of work in melding what’s already shot into a film that has the emotional impact I hoped for when scripting and shooting it. Obviously along the way compromises are made, we shot it quickly, cheaply, but I think what we lacked in money and time is there in passion - there are some scenes that give me goosebumps to watch, they are that raw and well acted.
I suppose it’s important to be proud of what you do - I just want this to be a masterpiece in terms of tone, mood and performance. Technically it’s not 100% because for a good period in the shoot it was me and my HDV camera and the actors, a few lights but a very light crew, I like to think that worked to our advantage in terms of getting natural performances, of coarse I could always use a person or two to keep me in check - but maybe I’m being overly critical.
Of coarse post production is in full swing and I haven’t gotten it to the point where I’m anxious to show it off and run test screenings (I will most likely do that perhaps both in my apartment complex and with UB’s Media Study department). DMS is full of generous and smart people who hopefully tell it like it is.
As for other things going on Mary May’s Suicide Letter is screening in two film festivals: it’s playing before the opening night feature at the Big Apple Film Festival (tomorrow at 6:30PM) and again on Saturday night at the Hartford International Film Festival at 11:30PM. Hopefully this time next year Hollow Spaces will be having it’s film festival life - although I’m not sure what category it’ll be slotted into (short or feature).
I am encouraged to learn that while I’ve always said content should dictate running time and a film should be only as long as it has to be (advice I wish Michael Bay would follow) - some of my favorite filmmakers have been in the same boat (making 45-60 minute mini-features) including Kelly Reichardt and Francois Ozon. Therefore if anything I should work on making the film better, not worry about classification and accept it. There are festivals that do show “mini-features” so perhaps Hollow Spaces will have a life there, I’d like to think it just might.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A SAW You Can Believe In - or - Jigsaw Has Pre-Existing Condition
Full disclosure: this essay will contain spoilers.
I didn’t like Saw 5 - perhaps because I was tired, had to wait till 10:30PM to see it (all the previous times were sold out), and it required thinking when I wasn’t expecting it and didn’t think thinking was worth it.
That being said I saw Saw 6 because I was expecting to see something that’s pretty rare: an audience at the Market Arcade Theater downtown (still I counted about 50 people, better than the prior show I attended Walt and El Grupo at the North Park, which saw an audience of about 12). Long and uninteresting story short: I am a “season pass” holder for the chain that operates both, which is the perfect gift for someone like me who would probably go anyway at full price if I had to.
Now to the film: the Saw franchise has been cranking out a new film every October for the past 6 years which like South Park allows the team a great deal of power: they can actually be relevant to the zeitgeist. The films of the past dealt with drug users (perhaps an allegory to excess in good times - not only do you own that BMW you don’t need but you also have a coke habit and as Robin Williams said “cocaine is god’s way of telling you that you make too much.”)
The last film dealt with the police - and as I said I don’t remember Saw 5 except for the fact I didn’t really like it. Here Mark Hoffman is back and Jigsaw is more of a conceptual artist - (spoiler) - he’s still not dead. Jigsaw has been dying of cancer and can’t get his insurance company to cover an experimental treatment. He then proceeds to give a speech worthy of Alan Grayson - blasting the whole system. Although bipartisan and even seemingly apolitical this is the first time a Saw film addresses a current issue head-on. (Then again I could have told you the lobbyists, republicans and Obama would drag this on a year ago, it’s a sad fact of life).
Saw 6 takes perhaps can be somewhat cathartic for it’s core audience which seems to be frustrated apolitical people that may have been energized by the promises of Obama, I know I was - and still am for the most part - but please, deliver on that change that was promised.
For the start this is clear: this is a new Saw for a post TARP era - it’s pissed that wall street was bailed out and millions of Americans who were not financially literature were connected with 50-page credit card agreements and tricky predatory lending practices. While banks are never taken to task here (perhaps that’s Saw 7) - two mortgage brokers are pinned against each other in what is an awfully angry Saw film that proves to be more disturbing than others. While certain moments are tame, there is one image concerning the number 6 that is truly frightening and disturbing in the way that seems to throw it back at us: I didn’t get any pleasure out of watching it.
But do we get any pleasure out of watching the Saw films period? I don’t know - this time it seemed more frightening, whereas you might be let down by someone who is a drug addict who you’ve tried to help - the prospect of people with families killing in the name of revenge (not “curing”) seems to tint this entry into the genre a shade darker than the others.
Still, not a lot of films have taken the heath insurance industry to task and here is a film that is oversimplified for a midnight madness and urban crowd that has a certain amount of power. It hates the “hooray for me and fuck you” politics that flourished under George Bush and even earlier under that jerk-off Ronald Reagan (where as corporations got richer and richer because they found ways of screwing and squeezing the middle class).
Unfortunately the health care industry has not been taken to task by anybody who would get credit in a bipartisan fashion, that is it’s just Saw and Michael Moore’s Sicko. Sicko is pretty brilliant on its own terms, but Saw, for the folks that wouldn’t see a documentary has a certain amount of power to make points and I’m glad the series is finally getting political even if it doesn’t name names.
Here is the situation as I understand it: the US leads the development of new drugs, treatments, ect that are not shared for the greater good. I understand the motivation to innovate, invest and develop - maybe it’s not even the researcher’s fault. Profit is a strong motivation - perhaps I’m rare but I just want to live comfortably, I have no desire to be rich (think back to the Robin Williams quote earlier), but at the same time I understand the concept of being paid fairly for the work that you do - why should your CEO get rich on the backs of employees working, producing and delivering?
The fear is if governmental “public option” health care was introduced, of coarse it would cause the quality of health care to decline for everyone else that has it, even if it’s as mediocre as Jigsaw’s. There is too much misinformation on it, the debate, which I’ve been following has become cloudy thanks to the uninformed radical morons who still believe Obama was born in Kenya. What’s wrong with this country?
I’m excited to see what Saw does next, while it’s as oversimplified as the liars who spread roomers about “death panels” - surely Jigsaw is not an example to be followed (although here with Detective Hoffman carrying out Jigsaw’s orders - it appears the film is more brutal, perhaps another point).
I remember reading an interview with Eli Roth who made Hostel, an over the top, almost pornographic film involving torture. As the studio was releasing Hostel II (which I didn’t see) he was discussing his inspirations including videos of beheadings in Iraq. The torture-porn movement was born out of something political itself. Perhaps national embarrassment Lynndie England is partly responsible for these films, although when it comes to torture, she argues in Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure “I didn’t do it, I just took a picture of it”. These films reflect a disturbing American truth, I think - born out of the last few years. I hope the Saw films will become more interesting (and better - Saw 6 is not a terribly good film although I admire what it achieves in its narrative).
I didn’t like Saw 5 - perhaps because I was tired, had to wait till 10:30PM to see it (all the previous times were sold out), and it required thinking when I wasn’t expecting it and didn’t think thinking was worth it.
That being said I saw Saw 6 because I was expecting to see something that’s pretty rare: an audience at the Market Arcade Theater downtown (still I counted about 50 people, better than the prior show I attended Walt and El Grupo at the North Park, which saw an audience of about 12). Long and uninteresting story short: I am a “season pass” holder for the chain that operates both, which is the perfect gift for someone like me who would probably go anyway at full price if I had to.
Now to the film: the Saw franchise has been cranking out a new film every October for the past 6 years which like South Park allows the team a great deal of power: they can actually be relevant to the zeitgeist. The films of the past dealt with drug users (perhaps an allegory to excess in good times - not only do you own that BMW you don’t need but you also have a coke habit and as Robin Williams said “cocaine is god’s way of telling you that you make too much.”)
The last film dealt with the police - and as I said I don’t remember Saw 5 except for the fact I didn’t really like it. Here Mark Hoffman is back and Jigsaw is more of a conceptual artist - (spoiler) - he’s still not dead. Jigsaw has been dying of cancer and can’t get his insurance company to cover an experimental treatment. He then proceeds to give a speech worthy of Alan Grayson - blasting the whole system. Although bipartisan and even seemingly apolitical this is the first time a Saw film addresses a current issue head-on. (Then again I could have told you the lobbyists, republicans and Obama would drag this on a year ago, it’s a sad fact of life).
Saw 6 takes perhaps can be somewhat cathartic for it’s core audience which seems to be frustrated apolitical people that may have been energized by the promises of Obama, I know I was - and still am for the most part - but please, deliver on that change that was promised.
For the start this is clear: this is a new Saw for a post TARP era - it’s pissed that wall street was bailed out and millions of Americans who were not financially literature were connected with 50-page credit card agreements and tricky predatory lending practices. While banks are never taken to task here (perhaps that’s Saw 7) - two mortgage brokers are pinned against each other in what is an awfully angry Saw film that proves to be more disturbing than others. While certain moments are tame, there is one image concerning the number 6 that is truly frightening and disturbing in the way that seems to throw it back at us: I didn’t get any pleasure out of watching it.
But do we get any pleasure out of watching the Saw films period? I don’t know - this time it seemed more frightening, whereas you might be let down by someone who is a drug addict who you’ve tried to help - the prospect of people with families killing in the name of revenge (not “curing”) seems to tint this entry into the genre a shade darker than the others.
Still, not a lot of films have taken the heath insurance industry to task and here is a film that is oversimplified for a midnight madness and urban crowd that has a certain amount of power. It hates the “hooray for me and fuck you” politics that flourished under George Bush and even earlier under that jerk-off Ronald Reagan (where as corporations got richer and richer because they found ways of screwing and squeezing the middle class).
Unfortunately the health care industry has not been taken to task by anybody who would get credit in a bipartisan fashion, that is it’s just Saw and Michael Moore’s Sicko. Sicko is pretty brilliant on its own terms, but Saw, for the folks that wouldn’t see a documentary has a certain amount of power to make points and I’m glad the series is finally getting political even if it doesn’t name names.
Here is the situation as I understand it: the US leads the development of new drugs, treatments, ect that are not shared for the greater good. I understand the motivation to innovate, invest and develop - maybe it’s not even the researcher’s fault. Profit is a strong motivation - perhaps I’m rare but I just want to live comfortably, I have no desire to be rich (think back to the Robin Williams quote earlier), but at the same time I understand the concept of being paid fairly for the work that you do - why should your CEO get rich on the backs of employees working, producing and delivering?
The fear is if governmental “public option” health care was introduced, of coarse it would cause the quality of health care to decline for everyone else that has it, even if it’s as mediocre as Jigsaw’s. There is too much misinformation on it, the debate, which I’ve been following has become cloudy thanks to the uninformed radical morons who still believe Obama was born in Kenya. What’s wrong with this country?
I’m excited to see what Saw does next, while it’s as oversimplified as the liars who spread roomers about “death panels” - surely Jigsaw is not an example to be followed (although here with Detective Hoffman carrying out Jigsaw’s orders - it appears the film is more brutal, perhaps another point).
I remember reading an interview with Eli Roth who made Hostel, an over the top, almost pornographic film involving torture. As the studio was releasing Hostel II (which I didn’t see) he was discussing his inspirations including videos of beheadings in Iraq. The torture-porn movement was born out of something political itself. Perhaps national embarrassment Lynndie England is partly responsible for these films, although when it comes to torture, she argues in Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure “I didn’t do it, I just took a picture of it”. These films reflect a disturbing American truth, I think - born out of the last few years. I hope the Saw films will become more interesting (and better - Saw 6 is not a terribly good film although I admire what it achieves in its narrative).
Monday, October 19, 2009
(500) Days of Summer - visited and revisited
This summer I was consumed by Hollow Spaces, a film I’m extremely proud of mostly because of all my films it is the best acted (no offense to people from Hartford, but this time around I hired professionals). In the time spent prepping the film, from pre-production to casting, filming and now I’m coming towards the end of post-production I had taken the time to move from Pompton Lakes to Amherst NY, quitting what was a steady, if somewhat dangerously dead end day job. This still has yet to hit me, and I’m thinking one weekend (perhaps in two weeks when I’m home for the first time in a long time to present Mary May’s Suicide Letter at two festivals - the Big Apple Film Festival and the Hartford International Film Festival) - I will end up in tears.
Unexpected things, perhaps preordained by some higher power happen for better or worse if you choose to look at things that way. (500) Days of Summer, although not reflective of my summer, is a pretty wonderful, life affirming film. Perhaps I’m taking it too far, but to call it a romantic comedy seems to be an over generalization based on a simple way of marketing a film. The film opens with no surprises, we know the ending - or do we. Roger Ebert wisely observes in his review that we never remember things in chronological order. We remember relationships and the moments that comprise these relationships in an emotional hierarchy that exists when we trace back through the remains of what was, filtering out data we deem irrelevant. That is, of coarse until Tom, the hero of the film thinks back on the small moments he didn’t observe when his relationship with Summer starts to run off the tracks.
Much of a relationship can be based on first meetings. If your a jerk, or not in the right frame of mind you might miss that chance. Hell, that girl behind you in line at Starbucks may indeed be the one, but if your having a bad day, she’s having a bad day - then maybe it’s not meant to be. It’s getting past the first meeting that builds a relationship of coarse - but that first meeting is critical. My theory on finding love (which I’ve written about extensively over the years) or even dating is visually displayed beautifully in the video to Seether’s song Fine Again - a pretty girl stands in the middle of a carnival holding a sign “I will change your life” - perhaps, if I’m in the right place, right time and in the right mind frame that might happen - and there begins the maddening complexities of love. Then again (500) Days of Summer doesn’t contain the obligatory meet cute of the romantic comedy - Summer and Tom meet rather boringly at the office, more on that later.
Women have a certain power - often without even knowing the power they have, to drive guys crazy. Tom becomes a stalker, not dangerously so but developing a work place crush. She might like him back - or at least she’s willing to give it a try. I’ve had these, sitting around hoping that a certain someone would call, sure - but never had the opportunity nor did I work in an industry that would have allowed this. Tom studied architecture but is working beneath him, illustrating and writing greeting cards for a firm with the name New Hampshire Greetings (based in LA, the film’s setting). In a creative setting openly dating in the work place may be acceptable, working for an organization in which the HR department has a tendency to overstep ethical and potentially legal boundaries, this is a bad idea.
Manufacturing tools of love is one of many lies Tom points out about this firm, citing the contemporary literature we have on issues of love (mostly popular music - a theory proposed in Whit Stillman’s equally wonderful romantic comedy Barcelona) never tells us that it never works out in the end. Greeting cards are perhaps artifacts of how we are suppose to feel in a perfect world which is sort of why I dislike them. Then again I try to develop special relationships with people that I would give a card to - and thus I’ve had blank cards printed with my name for hand written notes for such an occasion. My theory is my good friends, family and acquaintances are far too important to me to get off-the-rack language.
But so much of our daily life is crafted from Tom’s walk to work (listening to his iPod) that one might suppose we’re programed how to feel in some way. Enter free spirit Summer played by the very lovely Zooey Deschanel - who we learn in voice over is cynical while not believing she has an effect on me. She does find love, Tom doesn’t - and so starts the cycle, this time perhaps with a very lovely women named Autumn (sure it’s a silly joke but why not leave the audience smiling).
(500) Days of Summer (I learn from an interview with the filmmaker that 500 is punctuated in parenthesizes to mimic pop song titles) - is as rich as a great mixed tape. While all the usual markings of narrative cinema exist (plot - check, character - check) - the film functions as a friendly mind-fuck. It is not a mind-bender (it’s coherent because the film provides useful tags labeling the days - an idiots guide to the film - shit hits the fan at about day 275).
So what we have is about a year with Summer and about half the time getting over her. Tom is a victim of his own idealism - falling in love with April and imaging happiness while dancing in an imagined but fun sequence to Hall and Oats. Summer is easy to fall in love with: a strong women, she knows what she wants or so she thinks - the film makes a complex case for love. She doesn’t leave Tom to have a series of trysts with other men - but at the same time one could argue her omission of finding a new lover and her engagement until Tom finds out in public is either cruel and or necessary.
But trauma inspires one to go out, not just to find a beatiful women but to reassess one’s own life: Tom does this. To quote Bill Maher: America we can either die in bed hopped up on drugs like Michael Jackson, or we can be like Brittany - but on our circus outfit and go out there and show the world we still got it.
And there in lies the charm of (500) Days of Summer, a romantic comedy that I think guys will enjoy more than women: haven’t we all been there before? Tom’s own reactions mirror mine - I was young, stupid and optimistic once (optimistic for what - I don’t know, hell in retrospect I wish I could talk to little John Fink and tell him if you end up with THAT girl you’d be bored out of your fucking mind). What I learned is to become more like what Summer is: someone who doesn’t believe in being tied down. Then again if the right women comes along.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt I think walks a fine line in approaching Tom. He’s not pathetic the way that Michael Cera might have played the role (to me he continues to play George Michael, and while it’s funny sometimes, it’s growing old). Gordon-Levitt walks a fine line and nails it: here is a guy who’s a product of his experience, he loves British pop songs. I should note I write this while listening to Pete Yorn’s remake of New Order’s Bizarre Love Triangle.
Yorn doesn’t contribute to what is a solid soundtrack here, opening with the haunting Regina Spektor track Us - but I thought of his music throughout the film. Obviously Last Summer comes to mind first (“we were great last summer - we were fresh as the ocean”) but, perhaps because of the chronology Crystal Village comes to mind first (“we were good in the beginning”). Yorn like Tom is a fan of British popular music of the same era (the late 80’s), and like his contemporaries is creating work that continues in that vain without really cracking the hip-hop, younger pop music sound of the Top 20 (or iTunes’ top 100 for that matter). We shall the discussion regarding Mily Circus’ Party in the USA at a later date. (a quick look at iTunes shows me Mily’s grip on the top spot has slipped to Fireflies by Owl City - which I’m less impressed with by listening to 30-second sound clip).
But back to the subject at hand: (500) Days of Summer is an example of great cinema in that it hits all the right notes and works as both a comedy, drama and romance. There are some films that perhaps don’t work in execution: here Zooey Deschanel is perfectly cast and its nearly impossible to Summer played by anyone else. One particularly beatiful moment played perfectly is where she cries while at a screening of The Graduate, for reasons we, and she probably cannot fully comprehend. Moments like this are truly rare in romantic comedies - moments of deep self realization. Often in romantic comedy two opposites become attracted to each other quickly and spend the rest of the film sorting the matter out, ultimately to come together in some form, and thus some realization occurs - the characters are changed, often simplistically by the other person. Often this requires both people to change, while both characters change, swapping ideologies on love even (although Tom’s period of cynicism is brief, dark but also pretty funny) - neither changes to accommodate each other. Rare, indeed.
Equally as rare is a picture that hits these notes so well leaving one fulfilled and eager to take the trip again: classic Bollywood attempts this, but the long running times can be off-putting, I think. Pixar also does this time and time again, whereas their works are both technical masterpieces, as well as solid storytelling. Good storytelling offers an emotional experience for all viewers - I may be alone in my love for (500) Days of Summer, but it hits all targets and is funny, tragic, and as fulfilling as one of those British-pop inspired Pete Yorn CDs (that’s high praise from me). It’s also well directed from a technical point of view by Marc Webb although it’s an easy criticism to call it too stylish. Style gets boring fast if substance is lacking (I find the movie to be satisfying on all grounds, notwithstanding there are a few moments that don’t work as well as others). The narration is tricky - who’s story is it? Tom’s remembrance or the narrator who aids us in tracking Tom’s frame of mind - the film is as temporal as it is lucid - in one sequence Tom’s expectations are shown in a split frame from the actual reality of the situation. Not confusing, sure, but slightly disorienting without having it explained. Still the storytelling is strong.
To be fair all great movies have small flaws, don’t let that stop you.
** I originally saw (500) Days of Summer the weekend before I went into production on Hollow Spaces. If you’re in the greater Buffalo area it’s currently at the Moveland 8, where I revisted it. The theater is a pretty good cheapo-plex ($1.50 shows on Tuesdays - but trust me, this one was well worth the $12.50 ticket price I paid at the Empire in New York). It’s also scheduled to come out on video in January, although I wish the studio would make a push for a few Oscars, at least in the screenwriting category.
Unexpected things, perhaps preordained by some higher power happen for better or worse if you choose to look at things that way. (500) Days of Summer, although not reflective of my summer, is a pretty wonderful, life affirming film. Perhaps I’m taking it too far, but to call it a romantic comedy seems to be an over generalization based on a simple way of marketing a film. The film opens with no surprises, we know the ending - or do we. Roger Ebert wisely observes in his review that we never remember things in chronological order. We remember relationships and the moments that comprise these relationships in an emotional hierarchy that exists when we trace back through the remains of what was, filtering out data we deem irrelevant. That is, of coarse until Tom, the hero of the film thinks back on the small moments he didn’t observe when his relationship with Summer starts to run off the tracks.
Much of a relationship can be based on first meetings. If your a jerk, or not in the right frame of mind you might miss that chance. Hell, that girl behind you in line at Starbucks may indeed be the one, but if your having a bad day, she’s having a bad day - then maybe it’s not meant to be. It’s getting past the first meeting that builds a relationship of coarse - but that first meeting is critical. My theory on finding love (which I’ve written about extensively over the years) or even dating is visually displayed beautifully in the video to Seether’s song Fine Again - a pretty girl stands in the middle of a carnival holding a sign “I will change your life” - perhaps, if I’m in the right place, right time and in the right mind frame that might happen - and there begins the maddening complexities of love. Then again (500) Days of Summer doesn’t contain the obligatory meet cute of the romantic comedy - Summer and Tom meet rather boringly at the office, more on that later.
Women have a certain power - often without even knowing the power they have, to drive guys crazy. Tom becomes a stalker, not dangerously so but developing a work place crush. She might like him back - or at least she’s willing to give it a try. I’ve had these, sitting around hoping that a certain someone would call, sure - but never had the opportunity nor did I work in an industry that would have allowed this. Tom studied architecture but is working beneath him, illustrating and writing greeting cards for a firm with the name New Hampshire Greetings (based in LA, the film’s setting). In a creative setting openly dating in the work place may be acceptable, working for an organization in which the HR department has a tendency to overstep ethical and potentially legal boundaries, this is a bad idea.
Manufacturing tools of love is one of many lies Tom points out about this firm, citing the contemporary literature we have on issues of love (mostly popular music - a theory proposed in Whit Stillman’s equally wonderful romantic comedy Barcelona) never tells us that it never works out in the end. Greeting cards are perhaps artifacts of how we are suppose to feel in a perfect world which is sort of why I dislike them. Then again I try to develop special relationships with people that I would give a card to - and thus I’ve had blank cards printed with my name for hand written notes for such an occasion. My theory is my good friends, family and acquaintances are far too important to me to get off-the-rack language.
But so much of our daily life is crafted from Tom’s walk to work (listening to his iPod) that one might suppose we’re programed how to feel in some way. Enter free spirit Summer played by the very lovely Zooey Deschanel - who we learn in voice over is cynical while not believing she has an effect on me. She does find love, Tom doesn’t - and so starts the cycle, this time perhaps with a very lovely women named Autumn (sure it’s a silly joke but why not leave the audience smiling).
(500) Days of Summer (I learn from an interview with the filmmaker that 500 is punctuated in parenthesizes to mimic pop song titles) - is as rich as a great mixed tape. While all the usual markings of narrative cinema exist (plot - check, character - check) - the film functions as a friendly mind-fuck. It is not a mind-bender (it’s coherent because the film provides useful tags labeling the days - an idiots guide to the film - shit hits the fan at about day 275).
So what we have is about a year with Summer and about half the time getting over her. Tom is a victim of his own idealism - falling in love with April and imaging happiness while dancing in an imagined but fun sequence to Hall and Oats. Summer is easy to fall in love with: a strong women, she knows what she wants or so she thinks - the film makes a complex case for love. She doesn’t leave Tom to have a series of trysts with other men - but at the same time one could argue her omission of finding a new lover and her engagement until Tom finds out in public is either cruel and or necessary.
But trauma inspires one to go out, not just to find a beatiful women but to reassess one’s own life: Tom does this. To quote Bill Maher: America we can either die in bed hopped up on drugs like Michael Jackson, or we can be like Brittany - but on our circus outfit and go out there and show the world we still got it.
And there in lies the charm of (500) Days of Summer, a romantic comedy that I think guys will enjoy more than women: haven’t we all been there before? Tom’s own reactions mirror mine - I was young, stupid and optimistic once (optimistic for what - I don’t know, hell in retrospect I wish I could talk to little John Fink and tell him if you end up with THAT girl you’d be bored out of your fucking mind). What I learned is to become more like what Summer is: someone who doesn’t believe in being tied down. Then again if the right women comes along.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt I think walks a fine line in approaching Tom. He’s not pathetic the way that Michael Cera might have played the role (to me he continues to play George Michael, and while it’s funny sometimes, it’s growing old). Gordon-Levitt walks a fine line and nails it: here is a guy who’s a product of his experience, he loves British pop songs. I should note I write this while listening to Pete Yorn’s remake of New Order’s Bizarre Love Triangle.
Yorn doesn’t contribute to what is a solid soundtrack here, opening with the haunting Regina Spektor track Us - but I thought of his music throughout the film. Obviously Last Summer comes to mind first (“we were great last summer - we were fresh as the ocean”) but, perhaps because of the chronology Crystal Village comes to mind first (“we were good in the beginning”). Yorn like Tom is a fan of British popular music of the same era (the late 80’s), and like his contemporaries is creating work that continues in that vain without really cracking the hip-hop, younger pop music sound of the Top 20 (or iTunes’ top 100 for that matter). We shall the discussion regarding Mily Circus’ Party in the USA at a later date. (a quick look at iTunes shows me Mily’s grip on the top spot has slipped to Fireflies by Owl City - which I’m less impressed with by listening to 30-second sound clip).
But back to the subject at hand: (500) Days of Summer is an example of great cinema in that it hits all the right notes and works as both a comedy, drama and romance. There are some films that perhaps don’t work in execution: here Zooey Deschanel is perfectly cast and its nearly impossible to Summer played by anyone else. One particularly beatiful moment played perfectly is where she cries while at a screening of The Graduate, for reasons we, and she probably cannot fully comprehend. Moments like this are truly rare in romantic comedies - moments of deep self realization. Often in romantic comedy two opposites become attracted to each other quickly and spend the rest of the film sorting the matter out, ultimately to come together in some form, and thus some realization occurs - the characters are changed, often simplistically by the other person. Often this requires both people to change, while both characters change, swapping ideologies on love even (although Tom’s period of cynicism is brief, dark but also pretty funny) - neither changes to accommodate each other. Rare, indeed.
Equally as rare is a picture that hits these notes so well leaving one fulfilled and eager to take the trip again: classic Bollywood attempts this, but the long running times can be off-putting, I think. Pixar also does this time and time again, whereas their works are both technical masterpieces, as well as solid storytelling. Good storytelling offers an emotional experience for all viewers - I may be alone in my love for (500) Days of Summer, but it hits all targets and is funny, tragic, and as fulfilling as one of those British-pop inspired Pete Yorn CDs (that’s high praise from me). It’s also well directed from a technical point of view by Marc Webb although it’s an easy criticism to call it too stylish. Style gets boring fast if substance is lacking (I find the movie to be satisfying on all grounds, notwithstanding there are a few moments that don’t work as well as others). The narration is tricky - who’s story is it? Tom’s remembrance or the narrator who aids us in tracking Tom’s frame of mind - the film is as temporal as it is lucid - in one sequence Tom’s expectations are shown in a split frame from the actual reality of the situation. Not confusing, sure, but slightly disorienting without having it explained. Still the storytelling is strong.
To be fair all great movies have small flaws, don’t let that stop you.
** I originally saw (500) Days of Summer the weekend before I went into production on Hollow Spaces. If you’re in the greater Buffalo area it’s currently at the Moveland 8, where I revisted it. The theater is a pretty good cheapo-plex ($1.50 shows on Tuesdays - but trust me, this one was well worth the $12.50 ticket price I paid at the Empire in New York). It’s also scheduled to come out on video in January, although I wish the studio would make a push for a few Oscars, at least in the screenwriting category.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
It's a Love Story, Baby Just Say "Yes" - Capitalism: A Love Story
---
After slacking-off on the blog and a lot of other things that I consider to be important (school work always comes first), I’m actually returning to my occasional series of reviews.
---
Michael Moore is at it again, and when I think the film scholar in me can resist, he doesn’t. This is not to say I disagree with Michael Moore or the sentiments of his latest, Capitalism: A Love Story, to disagree would make me a Glen Beck-sized douche bag. Roger Ebert’s law of film criticism is that a film is not what it’s about but how it is about - in that the construction of a film, skillful or otherwise is what decides if a film is “good” or “not good” - simply put.
Michael Moore is manipulative. I’m a liberal and I admit it, and yet this is the second film of his that had my in tears and strangely simultaneously proud to be an American. Capitalism: A Love Story is a pro-America film, it stands in defiance of profit makers who reap large benefits by cutting costs, overhead and making complex bets and hedges. It feels wrong to see it at Regal Cinemas, the largest theater chain in America (I didn’t, by the way - opting to go to Dipson instead).
I once was a banker, coming from an institution that I don’t believe to be inherently evil and short-sided the way that some where (being a community bank they didn’t make high risk bets the way that WaMu and Countrywide did, they never made a sub-prime loan, however they did take TARP money). This, unnamed bank, of coarse being what it is, is a small fish in a large pond did not garner national attention the way Citi, Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo did. The two former institutions don’t look so good through Michael Moore’s lens, nor does Goldman Sacks. Chase and Wells Fargo are nearly absent from the dialogue, along with a handful of larger corporations. Wells Fargo was targeted - perhaps fairly for lending practices in Baltimore (“reverse redlining”) that lead to the destruction of neighborhoods in the other crisis doc out now, American Casino (more on that later). Foreign owned banks, who did not take TARP funds are left out (unlike in Sicko Moore doesn’t explore how other countries regulate banks - Canada is one such heavily regulated example which has caused its stronger banks to branch out beyond Canada).
I’d be interested to see a narrative film on Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis, I can’t wait for his memoirs which will hopefully provide more interesting insight than Bill Clinton’s did. And perhaps a great deal more intelligence than the upcoming Going Rouge...
But back to Moore. He makes propaganda. As a supporter of his, and I enjoy his films (I’ve been there opening weekend for everyone since Bowling for Columbine) - he makes entertaining films that aim to inspire, move, and motivate audiences. If anything they serve as time capsules of emotional energy: his Captain Mike Across America (later Slacker Uprising) which I saw at Toronto in 2007 - is a painful reminder of the Summer of 2004- when we were all so optimistic and John Kerry for lack of a better word, proved to be a pussy. Hey, you went to war, the other guy didn’t and has the balls to start conflicts that essentially lead to massive profits for major corporations, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but come the fuck on.
My gripes with Capitalism: A Love Story is in the documentation. He shows memos from Citibank and highlights the key points, I tried to read what else was being said. I’m sure I could find it somewhere, but that requires digging. Moore’s films usually are released in conjunction with a companion reader that will contain such information, I’m not sure if one is out yet. Other gripes I have is with the theatrics of his presentations at times, here it feels like he’s trying to hard, an animation (you’ll know the one) representing a Bush speech is over the top and embarrassing. We’re smart enough to get what’s going on without the computer graphics. That’s like something Morgan Spurlock would have done.
But what he gets right is pulling at the emotional cords. The Republic Windows and Siding folks make me proud to be an American, proud to be middle class and fighting for the betterment of the middle class. Capitalism is fine - we need people to play a role in society but poverty, joblessness - all for short term profits, stock options, yachts - that’s pretty evil. The material addictions.
Granted I own stock, sure I’d like explosive growth but not at the sake of the middle class. I may never be rich, that’s fine by me - I’d sleep better at night doing an honest day’s work and living comfortably, I don’t need five high end cars like the rappers on MTV cribs, I’m fine driving a Passat. But I do see the hardcore capitalists point of view: without incentives we can’t encourage breakthroughs, but what are we encouraging now?
Interestingly enough the film makes a great point about the top students in science and math. Some don’t take jobs improving the lives of others, they go to work on Wall Street building derivatives, credit default swaps and other products that the film tries to make sense of. A lot of these instruments seem ludicrous when explained, sure - additional security. As does the insurance policies which I knew about from my undergraduate minor (I won’t blow all of Mr. Moore’s surprises for you).
The film is worth seeing. I blast the parts of it that seem fluffed up, done for entertainment, even guerrilla theater. The film is so good on its own. Granted, if you wanted to see the bland, boring version of this I could point you to Leslie Cockburn’s American Casino, which I saw at Tribeca last year. As part of the post-screening panel a discussion was moderated by Alex Blumberg from NPR, who’s reporting on This American Life remains the best journalism on the financial (or perceived) crisis of 2008. But we aren’t out of it yet.
Moore remains optimistic on Obama, not so much on Timothy Geithner. Perhaps it’s too early to judge Obama, and I’m still hopeful he’ll deliver what he promised, and what I and the majority of Americans voted for last November: change, accountability and affordable healthcare for all.
I learn Capitalism: A Love Story started as a follow up to Fahrenheit 9/11. Perhaps Sicko II can be made in the event the health care industry continues to reap record profits while millions of American go bankrupt over health care costs. Health care isn’t cheap, and if I could continue to pay what I paid while employed to insure all Americans had the same coverage I had, I’d be glad to. Of coarse there are other issues at hand (i.e.: it shouldn’t cost more to eat poorly that it does to eat well - yes - Whole Foods, why can’t you be as cheap as Burger King).
I think the reason I despise Moore’s theatrical antics are two fold: the content is entertaining enough on its own, his voice is genuine - using crime scene tape to tape-up Wall Street buildings and banks seems unnecessary. Secondly, they make it easier for the people seeking to discredit his films to attack and dismiss him as an entertainer. The film also dives into a strange examination of religion and capitalism, it works, but only as a critique of Bush and his moron followers on the religious right. Moore for the first time in his career tries to win them over, I hope it’ll work, shall we call Samuel Wurzelbacher.
Still, if you want the boring, emotionless, but highly credible flip side to this picture: American Casino may still be playing at Film Forum.
(Note: Capitalism, I saw in the end credits was was co-produced by Carl Deal whom I met at a Q & A at IFC Center a few years ago and I remember he was kind of a dick)
Friday, September 18, 2009
In the words of Stained: "It's Been a While"
This is the longest I’ve gone without blogging and I’ve finally decided to break the silence. The silence hasn’t been by choice, there’s lot of things I wish I could do but as Darris Rucker of Hootie and the Blowfish says “Time you ain’t no friend of mine”.
But a lot’s happened. I left off blabbing about pre-production on Hollow Spaces and rambling on about the flick The Ugly Truth. Now two whole months later (almost to the day) - an actual update on stuff.
In short: I quit my job, went to grad school, finished Hollow Spaces (we wrapped at 9PM on a Wednesday night, the next morning at 9AM I was on the road and in route to Buffalo to start an MFA program at UB). Editing has been going slow thanks to a few other projects, school work, the move, and the Toronto International Film Festival. I couldn’t be happier actually.
I have much to blog about and this time I promise to keep up the pace I had back in the day when I had my Live Journal. So consider this a reactivation of sorts. An actual set of updates in graphic, explicit, full details to come.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The Ugly Truth about The Ugly Truth
Last night I caught a screening of The Ugly Truth and this morning I’m going to spoil it. You may want to revisit this essay after you’ve had a chance to see it (it opens wide on Friday). I’m not sure I can totally recommend it, but will say that it has its moments - I think most people will actually kind of enjoy it - so make of that what you will.
The Ugly Truth starts with some hard hitting observations - I liked it. It was more like Neil Strauss’ The Game than He’s Just Not That In To You - then (spoiler, but you knew it) it goes soft. Granted it make some excellent points, that would negate the value of The Game, here is a self help guy that dismisses all other self help guys - with a point. No offense to anybody, but there is a multimillion dollar industry with these self help books and dating websites out there. Some work, perhaps - others seem like a waste.
Now for a full on disclosure: I am single. It is by choice, soon there will be a life circumstance change I will have that will allow me to look for something more serious but until then I like my life style. What men want, as the film would agree I think, is freedom with the ability to have sex any time you want. Of coarse the reality, and (I don’t disagree, it only seems fair) is that real relationships require investment, some times sacrifice to make sure it works. It may be small things, like going to see The Proposal with your girl - or going to some party thing that you really don’t want to go to. I spoke to a friend the other day who was on vacation with his girl, he sounded miserable. The things we do for beatiful women.
Of coarse there are women that put up with a lot of shit from guys. Too much. They are are looking for that perfect guy and end up staying in a relationship they are ultimately unhappy with because they don’t want to risk the social implications of walking away from this person. Or they have a kid with him. The Ugly Truth assumes everyone is 30, good looking and single. Most people I know are pretty average looking, but the film’s softness towards the end negates its message in the beginning.
I often know being burned by love can lead one to dismiss it, often for years at a time. After all in Neil Strauss’ The Game, the whole “pick up artist” culture was born out of rejection: the men weren’t traditionally handsome or athletic, never dated the hot girls, now they’re out to bang as many as they can, at first by rejecting them. Gerard Butler’s Billy Mays look alike Mike isn’t a terrible guy- he claims the rejection advise isn’t for girls in puberty, but “hot 25-year olds that can get any guy they wanted”. Still does it work, it assumes using the technique will get you attention, but perhaps of the wrong kind. I would illustrate an example I once observed out, some times harsh techniques like being a jerk will lead the girl to hook up with a guy who isn’t a jerk, say someone like yours truly.
As far as I’m concerned I’m not taking these things too seriously. After all movies, books, television, music effect how our culture behaves. Some reflect really dark places (ie: Lil’ Wayne and Young Money who are the rap game’s equivalent to R. Crumb: they go places that are too clinical for the average person, but then again Lil’ Wayne has his own women probables, he’s knocked up 3 so far. Then again why would any self respecting women sleep with a guy who sings “I wish I could fuck every girl in the world”? I’ll let somebody out there answer that - and trust me there some girls I wouldn’t go near).
The Ugly Truth has the power to make some hard hitting social observations, it seems fresh for the first 20-minutes, I had thought I got a more upbeat, less mean spirited version of In The Company of Men. Neil Labute’s In The Company of Men is brilliant but harsh, it’s the ugly truth - we know more men like Aaron Eckhart’s Chad in that film than like Gerard Butler’s Mike or even Eric Winter’s Colin, the young/handsome doctor from next door in Ugly Truth.
Then again one of the things I deal with, especially with my producer is the fact you don’t go to the movies to see people you know on screen, you go to see an escapist fantasy. You want the guy to get there girl at the end, even if its not the point of the film. I remember when the virtually unwatchable The Break Up came out, everyone hated it. I hated it because it was boring and a lot like a sitcom. Everyone else hated it because the couple didn’t get together - those dumb bastards: it’s called The Break Up. Right?
So why was I pissed when opposites attracted at the end of The Ugly Truth. I agree - Katherine Heigl is a lovely women, but the control freak aspect of her is off putting. For example she’s goes out on a dates prepared with talking points and the guy’s background check. Scary stuff.
But think about this: eHarmony, JDate, Plenty of Fish, Match.com - and so on - are good in that you wouldn’t have to settle for the luck of the draw you get in real life- there are plenty of fish out there, all presumably single. You can filter out the guy that watches NASCAR obsessively - unless you like that sort of thing.
But doesn’t it take some of the fun out of the searching? Maybe I’m young and optimistic but I try to find women when I’m out, interesting. I’m not looking for a random hook-up that night, I’m looking for somebody who I could potentially hang out with again. The sites take the fun out of asking the right questions by listing essentially what their favorite music, movies and TV shows are. If I were to go out on a date with someone from a site like that I would have this preconceived notion of the person knowing they love the show Hells Kitchen and their favorite song is awful one where they sing ‘shush girl, do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips”. That doesn’t sound like somebody I’d ever be interested in, but if I’m out talking to her and this doesn’t come up, it’ll help me to build a good impression.
My friend Ercan Bas gave me some advise: you should always appear to be mysterious. Same for a women, The Ugly Truth builds an ideal women out of the modest Katherine Heigl who is beatiful but dresses for comfort and efficiency. One of the film’s best exchanges goes like this:
“What’s wrong with comfort and efficiency?”
“Nothing, but who wants to fuck it?”
This was the movie that He’s Just Not That In To You should have been - that film, was desperate while only flirting with observing normal human behavior. The main character really felt creepy without really having to be: as I said I would have enjoyed having dinner with her, but I wouldn’t have enjoyed the 15 follow up calls that would have come along with it. The Ugly Truth starts off with a theory: men are programed a certain way, then it reverts to being a formula romantic comedy. Yes, I should have known it’s a slightly more edgy date movie from the trailers and it’s going to work out, but the R-rating gave me hope. If your restricting admission to those under 17 why shader a bubble or two. Why can’t she choose someone all together different and Mike go on as a motivational speaker. Is romance the real end to the hunt? I suppose, after all a film needs a conclusion (except Matrix: Reloaded).
The film, rancher than most ends in orgasm which is a subtle nod to a women taking back the power. The power shifts all of the place here and that’s interest to watch as a tennis match of sorts. The pursuit I suppose ends with fulfillment, but why should it? Chasing Amy ended in heartbreak and it was brilliant, smart and sharply observed, while presenting all sorts of impossibilities (like a beatiful lesbian falling in love with Ben Affleck).
The first half of The Ugly Truth is useful, more so than the self help books. I like Billy Bob Thoroton’s quote in the otherwise unmemorable School for Scoundrels “How can you help yourself, when yourself sucks”. Good point. Most of the modern literature we have about love comes in the form of pop songs, most give us templates for how to live, love or get over love. Just look at the iTunes top 10:
I Got A Feeling by the Black Eyed Peas - this sounds like it could be an ad for alcohol, I keep expecting to hear a bland announcer come on towards the end of the song and say “Hennessy - 40% alcohol by volume, drink responsibly”.
Fire Burning by Sean Kingston - not about the Station night club fire in West Warwick, RI but about a crazy night at a club - I had one of those at the Borgata last fall while out in AC on business.
You Belong With Me by Taylor Swift - a vivid, well told story about small town life and telling yourself: soon you’ll see... you belong with me.
Boom Boom Pow by the Black Eyed Peas - more of the same, damn The Black Eyed Peas are loosing their edge and getting too commercial sounding. Not commercial as in selling a lot of records, but commercial as in they sound like they’re making radio jingles, I keep thinking an announcer is going to tell me about Verizon’s latest service break through at some during the song.
Good Girls Go Bad by Cobra Starship - need I say more - “I make them good girls go bad”. Fantasy, sure.
Here We Go Again by Demi Lovato - don’t know it as well as the rest but it sounds like from the sample a women is dealing with the same shit from her “unforgettable” and “addictive” man. Hopefully he doesn’t beat her.
Best I Ever Had by Drake - a template for telling a girl who wonderful she is, even if gross he claims he can make her vagina whistle like the Andy Griffith Theme Song. I’m not making this up, I feel dirty for observing that. See isn’t Lil Wayne and his Young Money crew just a tad too clinical for the mainstream. Am I the only one that thinks being made uncomfortable doesn’t necessarily mean its good - and I’m no prude.
LoveGame by Lady Gaga - She’s the new Michael Jackson, this one is pure fun. Deal with it.
He Could Be The One by Hannah Montana - need i say more.
Use Somebody by Kings of Leon - I can explain their sudden popularity - look at the rest of the top 10, here we have a band that’s still pretty young (their mean age is 27) that appeal to everyone who feels alienated by the rest of the top 10. I feel most of it is for “kids” - where as Kings of Leon are dealing with things the same way that a real human being does, not some character on the Disney channel. I can’t say the same for Jordin Sparks, Kristinia DeBarge, Soulja Boy, and Beyonce. That and their music is good, I’ve been a fan since the McFearless days, nice to see you’re finally on board.
As for films that offer templates for how to live, there are many in the top 10 (none of which last weekend were I Love You Beth Cooper, speaking of Disney channel charactures) but they’re hard to really talk about since can be more complex then music, you can think of a film like reviewing a whole album. This was my review of The Ugly Truth, so for all the women looking for guys out there - don’t just like what in the top 10, we’ve been there and done that.
Meeting someone is often destiny. I still contend and you can find it fully explored in the Fink archives that meeting someone you like is best explained by the music video Fine Again. A pretty girl in the middle of a crowded carnival holds a sign reading “I Will Change Your Life” - but if you don’t notice her, don’t strike up a conversation, don’t find her interesting, had a bad day and be a dick to her - she may not change your life. Everyone has potential, it’s just unlocking that potential. Isn’t that part of the fun along the way? Why rush it?
Now I’m off to write my self help book.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Hollow Spaces - Casting / Pre-production + other crap
So I figure its time for a few updates about stuff - the first is my summer project Hollow Spaces, which is moving at full speed now, and I’m involved in post-production stuff (budgets, casting, ect), it’s coming together, all thanks to my producer Ercan Bas, who I bother at least 5 times a day with stupid random questions and concerns. Those that know me, now I freak out before hand - which I guess isn’t a horrible thing, as long as I don’t freak out with the actors.
I’m in this stage of my life right now where everything feels pretty good - it’s pretty exciting to be me, and I’ve decided as a result of seeing The Windmill Movie last night to step backwards. I will blog about reading my own journals, a record for every day since October 2003 that I’ve kept. Now as I’ve told you before, these journals are pretty boring as a read for anyone that isn’t me, but as evidence of certain things - they’re bleeping golden.
How so? Remember the time when your roommate got drunk and did something really stupid - if it amused me it’s probably there. Now most of it is pretty boring (i.e.: my Friday night - “Today I went to work, then the gym. I had dinner with mom at CPK and saw My Sister’s Keeper at GSP”. Totally unexciting. Well there are more exciting days, I assure you. I hope to blog month by month as I read these memories, of coarse names will be changed to protect certain people.
I still have other blogs and ideas floating around, including an idea for a feature film that I want to shoot in like East Bumble fuck Upstate New York. More on that when the time comes.
For now, Hollow Spaces, a film that’ll be shot in and around the fine town of Pompton Lakes, NJ is my focus, and locations are probably my biggest concern right now. Any help would be amazing.
(Headshots for a chance to audition are also great too over at hollowspacescasting@gmail.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
