The Worst Film of 2010 and its only January...

Thus far my weekend has been a weird one - starting on Thursday, as all weekends should I stayed up way too late, and at around 3AM was in a bar having a conversation with a friend who was telling me about his girlfriend whom was researching cures for Cancer while we were making films. I justify the arts as this: we’re tasked with preserving, observing and creating culture.

This spun me to later thinking about Hollow Spaces, a film that’s pretty much done. What have I done? I think I have preserved culture in some respects but it’s not a pure ethnographical work. Then I got to thinking, and I’m sure a smarter person that I has said this before: the problem with ethnography is that it assumes an outsiders position, it attempts to be objective and may succeed. The only problem is the first “documentary” that went there wasn’t objective, it was a staged entertainment film, Robert J. Flaherty’s Nanook of the North (1922). Hollow Spaces is a film from the inside out, attempting to preserve a long, hot summer in which the country was in a depression. Have I made a film as nobel as say the brilliant The Exiles, which was locked in a vault and only rediscovered a few years ago? No, but I have documented time and problems, emotional tonalities that were sincere at the time, perhaps Hollow Spaces like The Exiles will look better in time, it’s why I made it. New, now and cutting age is nice, but being forgotten about is deadly.

With this said the consequence of documenting culture through an outsiders perspective, particularly through a distorted lens of history is here, in the form of Veer, a new Bollywood film I had the displeasure of seeing last night. I should note, my evening started at the opening of Lectures on the Weather: John Cage in Buffalo, and while I was fascinated by the video instillation in the corner about Cage (I knew very little about him), in practice, particularly some of the tribute pieces - well let’s call them planned chaos. I admit I don’t know the difference between good sound art and bad sound art: bad sound art to me sounds like a moron throwing everything into a blender and annoying me. But then again there are a lot of annoying things that are brilliant, Pee Wee Herman may be a good example.

So, I’m not the best person to judge this, and I can’t review this exhibition, but I walked out hungry and with a headache, which led me to the Regal Cinemas on Elmwood Ave and the worst stomachache ever (do not eat the popcorn, especially as a meal substitute).

Veer is a Bollywood film that starts off with some great special effects, it’s production values are right up there (in the beginning anyway) with the biggest budget of Hollywood and it contains a spectacular opening. Then.....shit starts to go wrong.

The film is vintage Bollywood, not the new hip hop inspired Bollywood. It’s an angry film about British imperialism, but the Brits are fucking brain-dead, which from an ethnographical point of view is where the film looses credibility. This isn’t a film that researches, critiques or examines relationships using the tools of anthropology or sociology, that’s for sure. It’s an entertainment film but the British, speaking very slowly for a Hindu audience speak lines of dialogue that are flat out acquired.
I once proposed that porno has a lot in common with traditional bollywood - they involve a story and a break in the story, in porno it’s for explicit sex, in Bollywood it’s for singing and dancing. The acting here is probably as bad as it is in porno, with music that’s awful. We actually get a song repeated several times throughout the film that opens with “every time I look in your eyes, I see my paradise” - here’s a song that lacks the complexity of Cascada, who I also consider to be unlistenable: “Cause evertime we touch, I get that feeling, and every time we kiss I swear I can fly”. Yes, it’s that bad.

Veer glorifies a serial killer who is like Robin Hood, I suppose, fighting for love and country. Veer isn’t Nelson Mandela, he’s given a love interest, well because he has to. Salman Kham is Veer, who is like Stallone crossed with Javier Bardem, and he’s a one note kind of guy - angry, even bred to be a killer. The film is very violent, surely it would be rated R had it been rated, it passed the Indian censors (I know because all Bollywood films choose to show the actual certification, like Dogma 95). Nudity doesn’t fly but cutting off a guy’s hand does. As does throwing a spike in a guy’s boots, running up and twisting his head around his body (a gruesome image).

Veer doesn’t work, and that seems to be the general conscious, does not every element of Hollywood and Bollywood, a good film make. But back to the British, I hate this movie so much I’m almost on their side: Veer is one dimensional with endless actions scenes that make Peter Jackson look concise. The British are even worse: no discussion of the economics of imperialism are made, this is dumb even by elementary school standards (where they teach that Columbus was a hero).

Anil Sharma, Veer’s director had previously directed another war film about India, Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Saathiyo (no, spell checker, that’s correct). That film, which I saw at the dearly departed Showcase Cinemas East Hartford, with good popcorn, I recall was a decent film about India and Pakistan, which ended in piece. Veer ends in betrayal and bloodshed, it’s an angry film but like a teenager it’s anger is unfocused, turning Veer in a clumsy mess, and when it gets messy it reverts to a stock song.

Veer is so bad I’ll take five Squeakquels, and as bad as the Chipetts singing Beyonces’ already awful Single Ladies is, I might even take it over the music of Veer. I have a long standing love/hate relationship with Bollywood that’s very unfair to it, I admit: I keep going, keep seeing the new Bollywood film that comes out until one sucks and it turns me off to the genre for many months. Veer, you are that movie and an early candidate for the worst film of the year, if not the 10’s.

Good popcorn can often times save a bad movie experience. So I have to wonder, Regal Elmwood Center is sort of out of the way from where I live, and I’ve seen two films there since living in Buffalo- both were awful, both times I had popcorn. Still, I don’t think National Amusements popcorn could have turned Veer into a good, worth while film.

On the flip side, if 3 Idiots is still playing in a theater near you, it’s worth checking out - a fun contemporary Bollywood flick about friendship and a different kind of imperialism, of the cultural and technological variety, but imperialism none the less. Perhaps there is a good film to be made about these things, certain the most interesting are films of the time confronting deep rooted issues, and thus is the power of film. If Bollywood is importing Hollywood formulas, then Veer is a brainless work like Ninja Assassin with paint by the numbers villains. Just listen to the way the British girls talk in “background noise” in one scene, NO NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER TALKS LIKE THAT. It reaches the level of awkwardness in another barely watchable Bollywood film No Entry, when a song about sexual penetration is sung by the women “no entry” - then the men go “yes entry”. Mother fucking creepiness.

If your going to have cultural villains in scenes taking place in London, why not take the time to actually get it right, when you’ve taken the time to craft an excellent action center piece about 20 minutes in to the film? The answer: this is careless, awful filmmaking at its worst.

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.

Designer Labels - with a designer price

I know I’m joining the fray late but I just saw Star Trek in a digital IMAX venue and I have to say – digital IMAX is nothing special. It’s 2K digital, nothing more, nothing less – on a larger screen than some. The picture actually didn’t fill up the entire screen either, but that’s probably a problem with the construction of the theater. Digital IMAX combined with smaller, retrofitted screens, while offering good sound, will be the death of IMAX unless more 3-D features are produced in the format. 3-D is a justification to spend more money, sure, but the IMAX part, not so much.

 

Digital 3-D of coarse has been done well in certain cases, but it’s not the greatest thing ever, there is still a loss of light. The best use of it I think was in an awfully sub-par (and would have been bad in 2-D flick My Bloody Valentine where a packed house jumped at the horror/slasher images – and had a great time). However, some films don’t work no matter how they’re shown (Monsters Vs. Aliens would have been awful in any format). Star Trek is an engaging film, but I have a feeling I could have the same experience seeing it in a non-IMAX theater.

 

And here’s where I add something new to the conversation: at one point I thought IMAX at one point was going to change cinematic storytelling. The large screen could allow you to do much more and some filmmakers were using 3-D to create experimental works, documentaries and short narratives. Stan Brakhage even made a film on the IMAX format (I would love to see it on a real IMAX screen, but haven’t had the chance).

 

I knew it was only a matter of time before a feature film was made in that format, and one that would play with the confines of what you could do on a much larger canvas. We did get that – Fantasia 2000, which combined live action, animation and restored classic animation into a visual tapestry that created an emotional and visceral experience.

 

The next one we got was The Matrix Reloaded, a good movie, but a movie-movie. The IMAX presentation was an afterthought. It would continue to be as such in the entertainment film arena, save for a few large format documentaries but no new visual ground in the format has really been broken since MacGillvray Freeman pioneered the large format documentary. A few experiments have come from major studios, including Warner Brothers who made short subject documentaries on a variety of subjects including space, underwater and NASCAR, but these were fillers until the studio product dominated the weekend. These films because they are special to see in IMAX and are intended to be exhibited in the format, have a much longer shelf-life than the studio features.

 

This is not to say studio product is bad, but the fake IMAX digital set-ups are basically to push only studio product. The Omimax domes at the science museums will probably continue to show the science documentaries and specialty programs; perhaps with the studio films at night once the museum closes (perhaps the new Night at the Museum can play there).

 

There is so much product now on the IMAX screens that the traditional focus on the new cheapo-fake IMAX retrofitted sites is a second screen for its regular product. Now with digital IMAX it’ll become more accessible to any major studio film, even independent film – which would be nice for certain documentaries (think how cool it would be to see a Matthew Barney film in IMAX), but I doubt they’ll get to play on the multiplex screens. The real issue is how small the screens are and how poor quality the digital experience is. I can tell digital apart from film most times, here it was a dead give away from frame one. The image lacked the depth and grain of film, you might not like film grain – but then again you’re an idiot. The image, like early digital lacks life.

 

I don’t mind seeing a documentary produced on a shoe-string budget on video at the Quad Cinema, I understand that (most of the time those films are shot in DV anyway), but this is IMAX, come on. IMAX is the gold standard for presentation and digital isn’t ready for prime time yet. 4K digital is an improvement over 2K digital IMAX, why not wait until the technology is ready and you can do amazing things in digital, you could see details and clarity you could never see in film. Instead they’ve chose the cheap option, they’re charging you more for a sub-par experience, I doubt, however there will be wide spread outrage over this practice.

 

What I really think is a horrible practice is new theaters opening retrofitted IMAX auditoriums, this is a terrible way to build credibility when a major attraction to your complex is an afterthought. I’d be curious to see if an “original” sized, large IMAX screen could be digital, even on a retrofitted screen like the one at City Center in White Plains, the image wasn’t that great. It’s a shame, when I saw The Dark Knight here, on film, it was nearly perfect. Now a days, it’s just a bigger than average screen with a digital picture.

 

It’s a shame AMC and Regal have really committed to this new format, and hopefully it’ll be a regrettable one. IMAX hasn’t addressed the issue of small screen size, citing numbers. They are a brand now more than an experience. They’ve compared themselves to Starbucks, which offers both an experience and a high quality product. The junior IMAX, in 2D is just offering a brand, no experience and product that’s comparable to any screen in a large auditorium, it barely caries the excitement of seeing a film at a major film festival. Theaters would be better equip to figure out how to bottle the energy and excitement of a film festival – get em’ hooked by giving them a great experience instead of selling them a brand name that means virtually nothing, like THX.

 

Chains departed from THX because people don’t care about a certification, in fact most auditoriums are probably well designed anyway in that they qualify for certification, why pay George Lucus for nothing but a brand with minimal value? Same thing with IMAX – retrofit a theater with giant screen and digital projection and call it something else – oh wait, Cinemark and AMC have started doing that too, already. (And charging more for the “experience”) If they get away with it, I blame all of you, John Q Public.