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.

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.

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).

(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.

Mary May's Suicide Letter at the Big Apple Film Festival

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)

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.