So what were my choices for the best films of this year? Well, I will tell you:
First off, films made by people I actually know, which makes me biased:
-FEED A (dir. Clarke Mayer)
This is the best "found footage" film I've ever seen, mostly because it uses the technique intelligently and not as a gimmick. This horror film follows a SWAT team while investigating a house. The star of the film is really the presentation: the level of detail and authenticity for the SWAT members, the bodies, the practical effects, and how it ends will leave you talking for a while.
-A NEON LIFE: BERLIN (dir. Jack Feldstein)
I've raved about Feldstein's work before. This film, which is tecnically an episode in an ongoing web-series, goes in a different direction. Rather than his usual stream-of-conscious narrative using free-flowing dialog and imagery, A NEON LIFE is more of a documentary series, in which he speaks directly to us about exciting social events, interviewing others, and then "neon-izing" the footage. I had no real thoughts on the other episodes, but what made BERLIN stand out so much to me was how different it was, capturing the artistic vibe of a historic city that has had much trauma. In fact, I don't think any city in the world can honestly say it has succesfully overcome so many divergent traumas as Berlin has. This short film made me think about the reality of a place I've never been, while simultaneously depicting it in a fake, cartoonish way. It was a real return to form for this artist who I've been following for nearly two years now. Watch it here.
Okay, onto the best indie short films I saw:
-CAN'T DANCE (dir. Richard Uhlig)
A comedy about an old man and his dead wife's ghost. Very well directed. You can see the website here.
-ANDREW: STORY OF A CLOSET MONSTER (dir. Eliott Lobell)
A charming animated fable about a boy who becomes friends with the monster in his closet. None of the two lead characters have a single word of dialog, yet it touches you.
-SOMETHING LEFT, SOMETHING TAKEN (dir. Ru Kuwahata, Max Porter)
This is one of the funniest animated films I've ever seen, and I can't imagine what the budget on it was. Two kids take a ride from a stranger, who they begin to suspect is the Zodiac killer. I especially love how the two main characters are caricatures of the two directors. In fact, the sense of humor in general feels very PIXAR-ish. Check out this masterpiece here.
Okay, now, onto the main course. In my humble opinion, the ten biggest films of 2012:
10. SKYFALL (dir. Sam Mendes)
I'm not a James Bond fan, but this is the biggest film in their entire 50-year franchise and the first one to cross the one-billion dollar mark. So I HAD to include it.
9. AMOUR (dir. Michael Haneke)
Winner of the Palme d'Or, Haneke returns to a style of long character silences in hollow interiors in this Austrian film.
8. THE MASTER (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)
When I was making this list, I nearly forgot this film had come out this year. I can understand why this divided many, but any film that sticks it to Scientology is fine with me. Plus I just really love Anderson's work.
7. Tie between THE AVENGERS (dir. Joss Whedon)/THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (dir. Christopher Nolan)
These were the two top-grossers of the year and the two summer movies everyone was talking about, so I felt they should be ranked together. I personally thought TDKR was hurt by several factors, the biggest of which was that it felt like an inorganic ending to a story that was not meant to be a trilogy. But there is no denying that these two films not only represented the current Renaissance for comic book films, but also the best that both Marvel and DC have to offer. A lot is resting on next year's MAN OF STEEL.
6. THE HUNGER GAMES (dir. Gary Ross)
This was the biggest surprise of the year for me and I think for a lot of people. Many of us were thinking "Another book series that's popular with teens being turned into a big movie franchise; could this be another TWILIGHT?" What most of us discovered is "Hey, this series is actually pretty cool." THE HUNGER GAMES won me over with its fantastic premise and Jennifer Lawrence's leading lady presence. I do admit to disliking the shaky handheld work, and I've never liked Gary Ross as a director. Had David Fincher directed this film, it might even have been #1 for me. In any case, CATCHING FIRE is one of the few films I'm looking forward to in 2013.
5. A ROYAL AFFAIR (dir. Nikolaj Arcel)
I love any kind of BARRY LYNDON costume drama. This film from Denmark depicts the mental illness of Christian VII, and makes us all think about our own sanity.
4. ARGO (dir. Ben Affleck)
Although he directed two movies before, this seems to be Ben Affleck's official coming out as a director. Every single review is praising him as the new top filmmaker. This film manages to take a real-world event that is often forgotten today and not only dramatize it, but even throw in a little Hollywood satire on the side. The entire cast is great in a film that really makes you think. The only thing I didn't like was the retro '70's cinematography, which came off looking hokey.
3. THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (dir. Peter Jackson)
I already wrote a whole blog about this. I find it sad how people spent the better part of a decade going "We want more LORD OF THE RINGS movies! C'mon, make THE HOBBIT! C'mon, what's with all these development problems!" and now, when it's finally out, the response seems to be "Eh, it didn't need to be made." I personally really enjoyed this film, thought it felt like an organic continuation of the Holy Trilogy, and am looking forward to the sequels. Yes, it's more lighthearted than the previous films, but that was the point! As for the whole 48 fps scandal, let's just not go there.
2. ZERO DARK THIRTY (dir. Kathryn Bigelow)
I really love Bigelow as a director and the direction she is going in. I love all movies about the military, and I feel that only now are we truly coming to terms with the war(s) of the past decade. At first no one knew what this film was even about. Once it became clear it was about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, public opinion became divided! Mark my words, I predict this will win Best Picture.
and the winner is...
1. LES MISERABLES (dir. Tom Hooper)
Well, obviously the release of this movie was the second coming of Christ! Okay, I've done a lot of raving about this movie, yet the general public opinion seems to be a bit of disappointment, so I feel a lot of pressure to do some justifying. Well, here goes: Victor Hugo's novel, which happens to be my favorite book ever, is part narrative, part history lesson, part personal essay/editorial. Through the device of not one but several stories, the work is a critique of modern society, and continues to feel modern 150 years later. Hugo effortlessly shows poverty, exploitation, and degradation in all its forms. The stage musical retains this, but obviously must streamline events into a cohesive narrative, and it also has some kickass songs. Hooper's film melds these two approaches: presenting a heightened realism in a very gritty environment, while the script streamlines things even further, and those who don't like "sung-through" musicals or operas, won't go for it. I know many complained that all the singing prevented them from latching on to the characters; all I can say is that this isn't your typical movie where characters and plotpoints are presented via literal narrative. This is a new language of cinematic storytelling. For me, absorbing this long film all in one sitting was an experience, and one that I feel must be had again and again; I suspect others will gain more appreciation on repeat viewings as well.
and the worst is...
1000. RED TAILS (dir. Anthony Hemingway)
Not since Michael Bay's PEARL HARBOR has there been such a horrible, insulting, stupid film that tries to preserve history through shallow characterization dumbed down to Hollywood tropes. And at least PEARL HARBOR had the excuse that it was only dramatizing one historic event and not an entire war, but here the scope is much larger and the result is much more baffling. At least PEARL HARBOR could fall back on "Well, we chose to focus on a love story for most of the movie;" this one couldn't even get the love story right. You could argue that LES MIZ also recreates history, but at least that made some effort to depict any kind of complexity, be it personal, political, societal, etc. Red Tails was just "Racism is bad. Patriotism is good. Germans are stupid." Even though George Lucas didn't direct, this may be the worst film to ever have his name on it. It has all the problems of the STAR WARS prequels but without the novelty and a lot more self-importance, showing how out of touch he is.
And that was 2012!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Geek Supremacy
I've written several blog entries now about the changing face of cinema, but it's worth dedicating an entry to how much the rising technology has affected other forms of pop culture, in particular the rise of the podcast and the way it has replaced talk radio. If the medium of the podcast serves as a form of talk radio for the Internet-generation, then one podcast I've recently come across that best embodies this is THE GEEK SUPREMACY PROJECT, hosted and produced by Gregory Hall.
THE GEEK SUPREMACY PROJECT, which can be listened to here, is essentially a Comic-Con for the ears, dedicated to a discussion of all comics, movies, TV shows, and web-series, and further indicative of how we live in a society where Nerd has become the new Cool. The rise of the Internet gave a voice to every single cult fanbase, playing to their niche audiences. Today, a web-series like NIGHTWING: ESCALATION is just as accessible to audiences as any Hollywood blockbuster is, and this podcast treats both of these forms of media with equal attention. Indeed, there IS geek supremacy in our culture.
It also helps that Gregory is a very charismatic host. Whereas many podcasts suffer because they are hosted by celebrity-wannabes who show they know less about their subject of discussion than their audiences, Gregory's passion shines through and is in complete control of his show. Furthermore, since he develops a chemistry with the guest each week, no two shows are ever the same.
Gregory told me the following:
This background led Gregory to find himself as an artist, trying his hand at writing his first novel, which was, unsurprisingly, a horror story. But writer's block got in the way. And so, lo and behold, he founded a podcast with his sister as a creative outlet to get his juices flowing. You wouldn't think hosting a talkshow would be a creative endeavor on the same level as creating a work of art, but using the podcast forum, it is. Because a podcast is, oddly enough, more personal than any other type of show, and its content feels more raw, coming straight from the artist.
If there was ever one show I was a complete nerd for, it was MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000, which was cancelled in 1999. Then, a decade later, the show came back in the form of a podcast called RIFFTRAX. While both of these shows have the same basic premise -- voices riffing throughout an entire movie -- I find the concept works infinitely better in podcast form. Such is the power of this new forum.
In a previous entry, I wrote about James Rolfe and THE ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD going from fun videos on YouTube made by an amateur filmmaker to a full-blown media franchise and the first fan-funded feature film in history. If there was ever an example of geek supremacy in media, that was it! How fitting that the newest ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD episode should be released at the same time I write this article. Watch it here.
Gregory Hall and THE GEEK SUPREMACY PROJECT are emblems of the changing face of our culture's love for story. The nerdy kids who spent their youths eating pizza while watching BABYLON 5 and dreaming of the big stories they wanted to tell are today's intellectuals, turning Comic-Con into a profitable business and running websites like IMDb, Ain't It Cool News, and Rotten Tomatoes. I encourage my readers to listen to THE GEEK SUPREMACY PROJECT as the herald of change in our media. Keep up the good work, Gregory, and may the world supremacy of geeks begin!
THE GEEK SUPREMACY PROJECT, which can be listened to here, is essentially a Comic-Con for the ears, dedicated to a discussion of all comics, movies, TV shows, and web-series, and further indicative of how we live in a society where Nerd has become the new Cool. The rise of the Internet gave a voice to every single cult fanbase, playing to their niche audiences. Today, a web-series like NIGHTWING: ESCALATION is just as accessible to audiences as any Hollywood blockbuster is, and this podcast treats both of these forms of media with equal attention. Indeed, there IS geek supremacy in our culture.
It also helps that Gregory is a very charismatic host. Whereas many podcasts suffer because they are hosted by celebrity-wannabes who show they know less about their subject of discussion than their audiences, Gregory's passion shines through and is in complete control of his show. Furthermore, since he develops a chemistry with the guest each week, no two shows are ever the same.
Gregory told me the following:
Most kids bond with there parents with sports...I bonded with my parents with movies and comics. As a kid I started as a horror geek. My first horror film was A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET at the age of three and ever since then I was hooked.
I know what it's like to have a love for the arts that stems entirely from my experiences with my family. I learned about foreign films from my mother, and today I'm a huge consumer of nerd-culture!I got my love for horror/scifi from my mother she loved Stephen King, STAR WARS, and STAR TREK. My love for comics came from my dad. When I was a kid I would go with him go to this sports store where they sold sports memorabilia. There was a little section where sold comics so I would go over and read them and if I did good in school I could buy one.
This background led Gregory to find himself as an artist, trying his hand at writing his first novel, which was, unsurprisingly, a horror story. But writer's block got in the way. And so, lo and behold, he founded a podcast with his sister as a creative outlet to get his juices flowing. You wouldn't think hosting a talkshow would be a creative endeavor on the same level as creating a work of art, but using the podcast forum, it is. Because a podcast is, oddly enough, more personal than any other type of show, and its content feels more raw, coming straight from the artist.
If there was ever one show I was a complete nerd for, it was MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000, which was cancelled in 1999. Then, a decade later, the show came back in the form of a podcast called RIFFTRAX. While both of these shows have the same basic premise -- voices riffing throughout an entire movie -- I find the concept works infinitely better in podcast form. Such is the power of this new forum.
In a previous entry, I wrote about James Rolfe and THE ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD going from fun videos on YouTube made by an amateur filmmaker to a full-blown media franchise and the first fan-funded feature film in history. If there was ever an example of geek supremacy in media, that was it! How fitting that the newest ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD episode should be released at the same time I write this article. Watch it here.
Gregory Hall and THE GEEK SUPREMACY PROJECT are emblems of the changing face of our culture's love for story. The nerdy kids who spent their youths eating pizza while watching BABYLON 5 and dreaming of the big stories they wanted to tell are today's intellectuals, turning Comic-Con into a profitable business and running websites like IMDb, Ain't It Cool News, and Rotten Tomatoes. I encourage my readers to listen to THE GEEK SUPREMACY PROJECT as the herald of change in our media. Keep up the good work, Gregory, and may the world supremacy of geeks begin!
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Ten Years Later: LORD OF THE RINGS and THE HOBBIT
With the release of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, I thought it was a good time to write a little post about the legacy of this film franchise.
Young people of today who barely remember a decade ago and think of SPIDER-MAN as an "old movie" may not be able to fully appreciate the full impact THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy had. It was rightfully labeled as the STAR WARS of our generation, and not only on the obvious level that it was an action/adventure trilogy, but in the way it was a benchmark that sparked imaginations and inspired the emerging group of filmmakers. If you're a filmmaker and were a child of the 1970's, you remember the release of STAR WARS damned well! LORD OF THE RINGS served that same purpose for my colleagues. Recently I've been hearing people refer to Nolan's BATMAN trilogy as their generation's STAR WARS; sorry, but as good as those films may have been, I simply don't think that's true at all; if it is, it may be a few years before it becomes apparent with today's youth.
LORD OF THE RINGS was seen as the answer to THE PHANTOM MENACE and the two Chris Columbus-directed HARRY POTTER films: it showed modern technology could create wonderful vistas never seen before while ALSO making an engaging film and a modern epic. A few years earlier TITANIC had been a mega-hit sensation, but LORD OF THE RINGS was able to do the same while sustaining it over two sequels. The remaining HARRY POTTER films would draw heavily on the model LORD OF THE RINGS had set, as would the NARNIA films, THE GOLDEN COMPASS, and AVATAR. Even PAN'S LABYRINTH, though an entirely original (and in my opinion superior) fantasy film was marketed to remind audiences of LORD OF THE RINGS.
During the release of LORD OF THE RINGS, I was finishing high school and starting college, which I feel was the ideal age to experience this event. Even more ideal was being in film school and learning the craft of filmmaking in the immediate aftermath of this release, when everyone was talking about these movies. Furthermore, LORD OF THE RINGS became one of the first movies to really utilize the innovation of the DVD. DVD's had started to replace VHS tapes around 1997 and were catching on by 2000. "Collector's Sets" with hours upon hours of making-of material were beginning to emerge, but FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING was one of the first times I saw a movie truly make use of the Extended Edition format. Perhaps what says the most is that in 2001 DVD's and VHS were still about comparable to one another on the market, while by 2004 VHS was semi-obsolete. What happened during that interim? The trilogy happened!
In college, we were all learning what visual effects were from looking at the behind-the-scenes of LORD OF THE RINGS, the DVD's of which I guarantee could be found in at least 65% of the students' dorm rooms. I learned what color-correction and color-grading are because of LORD OF THE RINGS. I learned that you do your picture-editing first, then visual effects, then scoring, and finally sound-mixing, in that order, all because of LORD OF THE RINGS.
Now at this point in the blog, you might be rolling your eyes at me and telling me I need to stop "fanboy-ing," so let me be the first to point out that the movies are not perfect at all. Rewatching the trilogy recently, I noticed how Hollywood they are, and how many cliched action and horror movie tropes Peter Jackson relies on in his storytelling. Yes, it's dumbed down from Tolkein's writing (by the way, I happen to like Tolkein's books a lot and feel the films compliment the source material well. There are some elements in the story done better in the film than they were in the book. But, on the whole, if I had to choose one, then the books are the superior versions). Merry and Pippin make lame jokes, and the scene where they agree to join the Fellowship only to then reveal they don't even know where they're going completely undermines the integrity of the characters. Finally, the worst moment in the entire trilogy is Galadriel's weird freak-out when she's offered the ring and her voice gets all fucked up! I hate that scene; it belongs in a B-movie of lesser quality, and I felt that way when I first saw it eleven years ago.
But all of this aside, the trilogy was still a remarkable achievement in the scale of its production, especially when looked at as one long film. When I learned how big the set was and all the details of the shooting schedule, there was a time when I considered it the single most ambitious production in all of cinematic history [knowing what I do today, I might say CLEOPATRA (1963, dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz) or WAR AND PEACE (1966-68, dir. Sergei Bondarchuk) might be more deserving of that distinction]. It also helped that Peter Jackson was an incredibly charismatic person that audiences loved from the start. Here was a true guerrilla filmmaker with a genuine love for the art-form and immense passion for the material. As my dad put it: "No wonder these hobbits are all so dirty; the director of these movies looks like a homeless person!"
So now we come to THE HOBBIT, a prequel that has spent the better part of a decade in development hell. I won't go into all the controversies; anyone who knows me knows that I disapprove of 3D, and while the radical idea to project at 48 frames per second could potentially have made this film just as much of a game-changer as LORD OF THE RINGS was with the DVD format, the public backlash suggests this won't be the case. But I have now seen AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, the first of the new trilogy, and I have to say, Jackson did the impossible. He has created a film that feels like an organic continuation of the saga, despite the time discrepancy between productions!
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is a very fun and charming film with moments that show a larger scope. Yes, the tone is much more juvenile and lighthearted than the previous films, but that is fitting of the book. Is it as good as LORD OF THE RINGS? Simply-put, I don't think it could possibly have the ground-breaking effect the trilogy had ten years ago; that was just pure lightening in a bottle, whereas this time we all knew what to expect. This film won't sweep the Oscars as its predecessors did. But as a continuation that manages to successfully feel like the first new LORD OF THE RINGS film in a decade, it's a success that leaves me wanting to see the sequels, and better yet, it's a fun time at the movies.
LORD OF THE RINGS was certainly not the best movie I saw during my college years, but regardless it was the movie of my college years. Maybe I'm letting the nostalgia take over, but that was just such an exciting time for movies, and we all sensed they were changing forever. As 2012 comes to an end, the future looks grim for Hollywood movies. With indie cinema on the rise and the entire model of distribution being revolutionized, not to mention public dissatisfaction with so many films, the entire Hollywood system might soon be obsolete. But at least knowing that there are two HOBBIT sequels on the horizon has filled me with some comfort. And if a film can make you want to come back, continue the story, and be fulfilled, then it is doing what the movies are all about. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY has opened a new door on a new Hobbit-hole, and that door to Bag End will never be closed again.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Film Review: RETURN TO OZ (1985, dir. Walter Murch)
If you're reading this, you already know about this movie, so I won't
waste time telling you what it is, how dark/somber it is, how it isn't
for everyone, how some WIZARD OF OZ fans hate it, how unique its
backstory was, how its director never directed a single other film, or how
strange it is to see electric shock treatment in a film with a talking
chicken. All I will say is that I simply adore it.
-I love the haunting look on Fairuza's face as the camera pans to her in the opening shot, and the heartfelt gravity in Piper Laurie's voice when she says "It's past one in the morning."
-I love the way mirrors are a reoccurring symbol throughout the film.
-I love the strange sadness I feel as Fairuza speaks solemnly to the adults that tower over her.
-I love the moment of hesitation Aunt Em shows before she leaves Dorothy at the clinic, and doesn't even turn around.
-I love when Dr. Worley asks Dorothy how she's doing, and she responds "I wish I wasn't tied down."
-I love when Dorothy and Billina first arrive in the Deadly Desert, and as she balances her way on the giant boulders, a claymation eye on the rock pops open.
-I love when she pulls down the lunch pail, the reaction of the strange face floating on the rock, and the face reporting the news to unseen Nome King.
-I love the fun turn-of-the-century music playing during this whole sequence.
-I love the moment when, trapped by the Wheelers, Dorothy finds Tik Tok, and the wonderful moment they share.
-I love the moment when Mombi first removes her head.
-I love that wonderful/creepy Neil Gaiman/Coraline moment when Dorothy reaches for the Powder of Life and wakes up the disembodied head that screams her name.
-I love the flight of the Gump, the feeling of escape, David Shire's wondrous score, and that moment when Dorothy says "I'm awfully sleepy, but I'm glad I have my own head to be sleepy with."
-I love how in that moment when Dorothy cries in the Nome King's lap, in a cold stone hall that seems like it must be infinitely lonely, he pats her shoulder, and strangely, cries himself. Are these crocodile tears? Does he have some second personality that does care? We'll never know.
-I love the scene when Dorothy eats the rock cakes and melted silver, the gravity in her voice when, talking about Jack, says with little hope "Maybe he'll be lucky," and the intimate moment she shares with Tik Tok as she winds his thinking.
-I love the creepy bewilderment felt in the ornament room, Tik Tok's green tears, and the moment she hugs him.
-I love the restoration of Oz, when she tells the crowd they're the best friends anyone could have, and when they say they understand, I love the pure heartbreak in her voice as she asks "Do you?"
-I love and feel infinitely sad for Dorothy as she rushes to say goodbye to her friends, not able to fully do so as the screen turns white, then we see shots of the clouds, and finally the camera pulls back on Fairuza's gorgeous eye, already open, as her voice, filled with melancholy, murmurs a quiet "Goodbye."
-Finally, I love the final scene, as Dorothy sees Ozma in the mirror, her reflection, so she can finally live in both worlds, and finally she runs outside with Toto, and David Shire's score reaches its crescendo.
This is how RETURN TO OZ has touched me, and why it will always be one of my favorite films.
-I love the haunting look on Fairuza's face as the camera pans to her in the opening shot, and the heartfelt gravity in Piper Laurie's voice when she says "It's past one in the morning."
-I love the way mirrors are a reoccurring symbol throughout the film.
-I love the strange sadness I feel as Fairuza speaks solemnly to the adults that tower over her.
-I love the moment of hesitation Aunt Em shows before she leaves Dorothy at the clinic, and doesn't even turn around.
-I love when Dr. Worley asks Dorothy how she's doing, and she responds "I wish I wasn't tied down."
-I love when Dorothy and Billina first arrive in the Deadly Desert, and as she balances her way on the giant boulders, a claymation eye on the rock pops open.
-I love when she pulls down the lunch pail, the reaction of the strange face floating on the rock, and the face reporting the news to unseen Nome King.
-I love the fun turn-of-the-century music playing during this whole sequence.
-I love the moment when, trapped by the Wheelers, Dorothy finds Tik Tok, and the wonderful moment they share.
-I love the moment when Mombi first removes her head.
-I love that wonderful/creepy Neil Gaiman/Coraline moment when Dorothy reaches for the Powder of Life and wakes up the disembodied head that screams her name.
-I love the flight of the Gump, the feeling of escape, David Shire's wondrous score, and that moment when Dorothy says "I'm awfully sleepy, but I'm glad I have my own head to be sleepy with."
-I love how in that moment when Dorothy cries in the Nome King's lap, in a cold stone hall that seems like it must be infinitely lonely, he pats her shoulder, and strangely, cries himself. Are these crocodile tears? Does he have some second personality that does care? We'll never know.
-I love the scene when Dorothy eats the rock cakes and melted silver, the gravity in her voice when, talking about Jack, says with little hope "Maybe he'll be lucky," and the intimate moment she shares with Tik Tok as she winds his thinking.
-I love the creepy bewilderment felt in the ornament room, Tik Tok's green tears, and the moment she hugs him.
-I love the restoration of Oz, when she tells the crowd they're the best friends anyone could have, and when they say they understand, I love the pure heartbreak in her voice as she asks "Do you?"
-I love and feel infinitely sad for Dorothy as she rushes to say goodbye to her friends, not able to fully do so as the screen turns white, then we see shots of the clouds, and finally the camera pulls back on Fairuza's gorgeous eye, already open, as her voice, filled with melancholy, murmurs a quiet "Goodbye."
-Finally, I love the final scene, as Dorothy sees Ozma in the mirror, her reflection, so she can finally live in both worlds, and finally she runs outside with Toto, and David Shire's score reaches its crescendo.
This is how RETURN TO OZ has touched me, and why it will always be one of my favorite films.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
CITIZEN KANE: The Great American Film
Why would I ever write any kind of essay on CITIZEN KANE, a film that’s been analyzed to death and is considered to film what Shakespeare is considered to literature? I actually have a good reason: in recent years, I’ve noticed more and more people seem to dislike the film, mostly because of its hype. Supposedly Ingmar Bergman called it boring. Now I happen to be a Bergman fan, but considering the dude made some pretty slow-paced movies, those are strong words! I can understand why many might feel let down by the story. The hype “Greatest Movie of All Time” implies that you are in for a great, sweeping GONE WITH THE WIND-style epic. Instead it’s a smaller film about an unsavory character. It also focuses a lot on the newspaper business, which may not seem very relevant to modern audiences. My friend Zelda summed it up quite well:
This is a fair point, so here is what I propose. I will write a blog about Kane where I will not ONCE mention the technical breakthroughs of the film. Forget about the cinematography, score, editing, etc. I will simply analyze the film’s Story and why I feel that it is actually a very powerful and heartbreaking story.
[I'm not going to waste time summarizing the film. I assume you know the story if you're reading this]
CITIZEN KANE can be summed up easily: it’s the story of a man who can never get over having been rejected by his mother and is incapable of feeling love.
This point might only be fully clear on repeat viewings. Mrs. Kane only has one scene in the movie, but we linger on her a bit, allowing her to dominate the scene. After that she is only mentioned in passing. Kane talks about her death on the same night that he meets Susan for the first time. We never know exactly how Kane feels about her, and what exactly he is thinking when he tears the room apart is left to our imaginations, but we feel the weight of it. We observe him cheat on one wife with the next and we’re not told why. Yet when analyzing the facts, we do know why. We also see him observe him alienate his friends. On the surface this may seem to just be a petty drama, but only after we get the full story are we able to understand why this man so desperately needed to be loved.
Kane remains elusive; he is ultimately the protagonist of the Story, but he is always a mystery to us, and he is portrayed both positively and negatively. This moral ambiguity applies to most of the supporting the characters as well. If you notice, we remain on a last-name basis with almost every character in the film: Kane, Leland, Bernstein, Thatcher, and Thompson. With Thompson it is taken a step further in that we never even see his face properly, making it clear that although we are following this reporter around, he is more a symbol than a character, and it is Kane’s story that should be our focus. Developing the characters in this way makes them seem like regular people, occupying a story rather than starring in it.
Finally, there’s the issue of the ending. Rosebud is obviously a MacGuffin and perhaps people were expecting some sort of big reveal. The film has the confidence to end on a puzzle; Rosebud is revealed not in the style of a detective solving the case with a big “Aha!“ gimmick, but as a subtle artifact that rewards us for paying attention and makes us think about how it fits in. Had the film ended in a different way, perhaps we wouldn’t be talking about it today, but the fact that only moments after Rosebud is revealed it is then destroyed are perhaps the saddest moments of the story and what have caused the tale to resonate.
I don’t think any film deserves the title “greatest ever made” because that’s obviously going to be subjective. Here it is has perhaps done more harm than good. If CITIZEN KANE were a novel, it would not be a great sweeping epic like War and Peace, which is perhaps what too many people expect. It would be a very short and quiet novel. It is about a person’s life, but it only observes it rather than embellishes it. It is not a melodrama but a voyeuristic study. At the end of the film, we see Kane’s entire lifetime reduced to boxes and boxes of scrap, and we are asked whether or not a man’s life can be summed up so simply. Or maybe we know that such a collection of junk is all any of us will ever have.
“I think that at this point, the film is more appreciated by directors than it is by general audiences. I know that what Orson Welles was doing with the camera, with angles, lighting, whatnot, was revolutionary - but I know this because I've been told this. As a plebian when it comes to such things, those aspects don't stand out for me as much, and I understand they're big factors in what make that movie a classic. Instead what I have is a puzzle of a story, which, while interesting, is not compelling emotionally enough for me to place it in my top films list.”
This is a fair point, so here is what I propose. I will write a blog about Kane where I will not ONCE mention the technical breakthroughs of the film. Forget about the cinematography, score, editing, etc. I will simply analyze the film’s Story and why I feel that it is actually a very powerful and heartbreaking story.
[I'm not going to waste time summarizing the film. I assume you know the story if you're reading this]
CITIZEN KANE can be summed up easily: it’s the story of a man who can never get over having been rejected by his mother and is incapable of feeling love.
This point might only be fully clear on repeat viewings. Mrs. Kane only has one scene in the movie, but we linger on her a bit, allowing her to dominate the scene. After that she is only mentioned in passing. Kane talks about her death on the same night that he meets Susan for the first time. We never know exactly how Kane feels about her, and what exactly he is thinking when he tears the room apart is left to our imaginations, but we feel the weight of it. We observe him cheat on one wife with the next and we’re not told why. Yet when analyzing the facts, we do know why. We also see him observe him alienate his friends. On the surface this may seem to just be a petty drama, but only after we get the full story are we able to understand why this man so desperately needed to be loved.
Kane remains elusive; he is ultimately the protagonist of the Story, but he is always a mystery to us, and he is portrayed both positively and negatively. This moral ambiguity applies to most of the supporting the characters as well. If you notice, we remain on a last-name basis with almost every character in the film: Kane, Leland, Bernstein, Thatcher, and Thompson. With Thompson it is taken a step further in that we never even see his face properly, making it clear that although we are following this reporter around, he is more a symbol than a character, and it is Kane’s story that should be our focus. Developing the characters in this way makes them seem like regular people, occupying a story rather than starring in it.
Finally, there’s the issue of the ending. Rosebud is obviously a MacGuffin and perhaps people were expecting some sort of big reveal. The film has the confidence to end on a puzzle; Rosebud is revealed not in the style of a detective solving the case with a big “Aha!“ gimmick, but as a subtle artifact that rewards us for paying attention and makes us think about how it fits in. Had the film ended in a different way, perhaps we wouldn’t be talking about it today, but the fact that only moments after Rosebud is revealed it is then destroyed are perhaps the saddest moments of the story and what have caused the tale to resonate.
I don’t think any film deserves the title “greatest ever made” because that’s obviously going to be subjective. Here it is has perhaps done more harm than good. If CITIZEN KANE were a novel, it would not be a great sweeping epic like War and Peace, which is perhaps what too many people expect. It would be a very short and quiet novel. It is about a person’s life, but it only observes it rather than embellishes it. It is not a melodrama but a voyeuristic study. At the end of the film, we see Kane’s entire lifetime reduced to boxes and boxes of scrap, and we are asked whether or not a man’s life can be summed up so simply. Or maybe we know that such a collection of junk is all any of us will ever have.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
"And That's For My Old Gaffer!"
Have you ever noticed how, in a film’s credits, the cinematographer is given a major billing while a gaffer is listed all the way near the bottom? It made me realize that while most any cinematography-enthusiast in the world can easily tell you that the DP on APOCALYPSE NOW, one of the most visually interesting films ever made, was Vittorio Storaro, I don’t think any of them would know the name of the film’s gaffer!! (Incidentally, it‘s Luciano Galli, who also gaffed LAST TANGO IN PARIS, and was a chief electrician on NOVECENTO).
I bring this up because in working on my new film HAVANA IN BUSHWICK, I’ve come to see the role a gaffer plays in a film‘s overall cinematography. The use (or, in some cases, absence) of lighting plays such a key role in the shot composition and image clarity that, in truth, I feel that a camera operator and gaffer share equal importance in the role of Cinematographer. And one thing a gaffer needs is breathing space to be his own artist!
I’ve always been open about the fact that I’m a writer more than I am a director and not really a visual stylist. My first film, FIGHTING NIRVANA, is a very visually boring film. Of course I want to improve and learn how to do everything, but I'm not there yet. I just automatically tend to think of a script in terms of the story, not how to make it visually interesting. My advice to any novice filmmaker out there is to give your crew semi-complete creative freedom in order for you to learn. Of course, there are exceptions: your DP may not have talent worth shit and, without being given direction, will give you a film that looks like a badly-shot reality show (I‘ve been there). But, assuming you have a crew with talent, as I would say for my team, give them room to shoot interestingly, make their own decisions, and experiment. In a sense, they are actors too, and they are doing a little bit of improvising.
Both CITIZEN KANE and THE GODFATHER, two indisputable masterpieces, are notable in that their respective directors gave their cinematographers complete carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted. Gordon Willis has claimed full authorship for the visual structure of THE GODFATHER TRILOGY, and Coppola confirmed this, saying the only creative input he had on the cinematography was just hiring Willis. And Welles of course has cited his own ignorance in filmmaking as being what allowed him to discard conventions and do new things with Gregg Toland.
In my own experience, you can have a film shoot where the director doesn’t get along with the cast, or with the producers, or with the composer, and still they somehow forge a masterpiece. But the relationship between the director and the cinematographer MUST be good or a film will suffer. And having a DP who will give you amazing shots, and a gaffer who’ll say “Hey, you know what, let me use a different color gel than I’ve used before” will strengthen your masterpiece all the more. In the end, the quality of a film’s look is a reflection on its direction.
I bring this up because in working on my new film HAVANA IN BUSHWICK, I’ve come to see the role a gaffer plays in a film‘s overall cinematography. The use (or, in some cases, absence) of lighting plays such a key role in the shot composition and image clarity that, in truth, I feel that a camera operator and gaffer share equal importance in the role of Cinematographer. And one thing a gaffer needs is breathing space to be his own artist!
I’ve always been open about the fact that I’m a writer more than I am a director and not really a visual stylist. My first film, FIGHTING NIRVANA, is a very visually boring film. Of course I want to improve and learn how to do everything, but I'm not there yet. I just automatically tend to think of a script in terms of the story, not how to make it visually interesting. My advice to any novice filmmaker out there is to give your crew semi-complete creative freedom in order for you to learn. Of course, there are exceptions: your DP may not have talent worth shit and, without being given direction, will give you a film that looks like a badly-shot reality show (I‘ve been there). But, assuming you have a crew with talent, as I would say for my team, give them room to shoot interestingly, make their own decisions, and experiment. In a sense, they are actors too, and they are doing a little bit of improvising.
Both CITIZEN KANE and THE GODFATHER, two indisputable masterpieces, are notable in that their respective directors gave their cinematographers complete carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted. Gordon Willis has claimed full authorship for the visual structure of THE GODFATHER TRILOGY, and Coppola confirmed this, saying the only creative input he had on the cinematography was just hiring Willis. And Welles of course has cited his own ignorance in filmmaking as being what allowed him to discard conventions and do new things with Gregg Toland.
In my own experience, you can have a film shoot where the director doesn’t get along with the cast, or with the producers, or with the composer, and still they somehow forge a masterpiece. But the relationship between the director and the cinematographer MUST be good or a film will suffer. And having a DP who will give you amazing shots, and a gaffer who’ll say “Hey, you know what, let me use a different color gel than I’ve used before” will strengthen your masterpiece all the more. In the end, the quality of a film’s look is a reflection on its direction.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The Work of Jack Feldstein
For over a year now, I’ve been good friends with filmmaker Jack Feldstein, who I consider a true artist with integrity. I first met Jack at a film festival where he mentioned he had a film playing that was a “neon animation.” I had no idea what that meant, and so as I sat through the block of short films featuring his work. Every time an animated film came on, I wondered if this was the “neon animation.” Then, finally, when his film started, I had zero doubt in my mind that this was it. You could not mistake the neon look! The film was THE ECSTASY OF GARY GREEN, which tells a story about a young man who finds himself in the world. The visuals of the film consisted of pre-existing bits of animation that had been manipulated and “diluted” to have a neon-sign look, and been put together to form a new narrative, narrated to us by a Woody Allen-esque stream-of-conscious voice (Jack himself) that gives the whole film a “free-flowing” feel. I interpreted the film as being a celebration of life, but underneath all that, a celebration of animation. Since then, I have seen several of Jack’s films and I recommend them to everyone.
Of the ones that are narrated by Jack himself, these are the essentials:
-THE ECSTASY OF GARY GREEN
-A WONDROUS FILM ABOUT EMMA BROOKS
-THE LOSER WHO WON
-RESCUING OEDIPUS REX
-THE FANTASTICAL WORLD OF SCRIPTWRITING
Of those featuring voice-work by other actors, these are my favorite
-HOW TO BE ROMANTIC IN NEW YORK
-MANAHATTA
Jack doesn’t need me to promote his work; he has played in festivals all over the world, especially in his native Australia, and here in New York he’s been screened at different film forums at the Bowery Poetry Club, Millennium Workshop, and FilmWax. He’s also a playwright and does a lot of videos for the fashion world.
It was Jack who helped develop The Subway Film Series and brought it to my attention. While I made Q TO THE 6 TRAIN, based on a poem by Cheryl Dumesnil, he made SUBWAY SERVICES, based on a poem by Philip Dacey. What an honor that one year after we meet, we are standing on stage together, having our films play side-by-side! There are so many short films out there, but I find the collective neon animations of Jack Feldstein to be among my favorites. Jack has invented a new language of cinema, and that takes talent!
Of the ones that are narrated by Jack himself, these are the essentials:
-THE ECSTASY OF GARY GREEN
-A WONDROUS FILM ABOUT EMMA BROOKS
-THE LOSER WHO WON
-RESCUING OEDIPUS REX
-THE FANTASTICAL WORLD OF SCRIPTWRITING
Of those featuring voice-work by other actors, these are my favorite
-HOW TO BE ROMANTIC IN NEW YORK
-MANAHATTA
Jack doesn’t need me to promote his work; he has played in festivals all over the world, especially in his native Australia, and here in New York he’s been screened at different film forums at the Bowery Poetry Club, Millennium Workshop, and FilmWax. He’s also a playwright and does a lot of videos for the fashion world.
It was Jack who helped develop The Subway Film Series and brought it to my attention. While I made Q TO THE 6 TRAIN, based on a poem by Cheryl Dumesnil, he made SUBWAY SERVICES, based on a poem by Philip Dacey. What an honor that one year after we meet, we are standing on stage together, having our films play side-by-side! There are so many short films out there, but I find the collective neon animations of Jack Feldstein to be among my favorites. Jack has invented a new language of cinema, and that takes talent!
Friday, April 6, 2012
Looking At Cinema As Art
Most of us have an art that we connect the most to. For example, while I may enjoy listening to poetry and looking at paintings, I have to admit I’m not someone who spends his free time going to poetry readings or new museum exhibits. Now I know a lot of people who love going to museums and make it a regular hobby. That’s fine; I’m just not someone who connects with that art-form as much or can explain what I like or dislike about it. On the other hand, I absolutely love to go to a block of short films! Living in New York and knowing of different film forums, I am happy to spend two hours just sitting back and watching eight short films, followed by Q&A’s given by the filmmakers. And I realize this doesn’t appeal to everyone. Some people just go to the movies as simple distraction and have no interest in this artistic element. But to me, film was always my dominant interest.
It really is amazing to think how young this art is and how it came about. Prior to the birth of Cinema, you had the art of Photography and the art of Theatre, which were two very separate art forms, but had both existed for centuries. And suddenly, they were fused together. And by editing images together, you could manipulate the impression of sequences occurring in a narrative. Audiences were initially just satisfied to see anything be filmed, but before long, Cinema became a storytelling device, which says a lot about the human condition. Consider the fact that cinema is a combination of several other art forms, in particular:
-Storytelling, which has obviously existed for centuries,
-Cinematography, which follows the principals of Photography
-Acting, which overlaps with the theatre, but is slightly different.
-Musical Score, a humongous part of experience, which sadly many amateur filmmakers ignore.
-Costumes, Set Design, etc
-Editing, which is an original creation and only exists within the greater art of Cinema.
Of course now we begin to split hairs over what art is. Does Sound Mixing count as an art? You might not think so, yet it’s one of the most vital things in the film; a movie that looks great but has horrible sound will be a failure, while a film that’s shot horribly but has clear audio will still hold an audience’s attention. So perhaps the answer is that the art is only in the final product and what the film itself has to say. And in that case, I do believe that it all comes down to Story.
Consider the television production I, CLAUDIUS, which is generally regarded as a masterpiece and the single finest of BBC productions. The low budget shows as the scenes are cheaply shot and almost every single scene is just dialog. There’s not a single sweeping shot of Rome. Yet the story still feels epic, because our minds are engrossed in the sweep of the story and fill in the gaps on their own. The bottom-line is this: no one may ever talk about the shot composition, sound mixing, or even the directing of I, CLAUDIUS, but you can bet they talk about the writing and the acting! Because when film conveys a story properly, then it succeeds!
That’s why all that really matters is what’s up on the screen. THERE WILL BE BLOOD, for example, is a great movie not because of what went on on set, what time the call sheets went out, what kind of catering they had for the crew, if the gaffer was union or not, how much the actors were paid, or how many production assistants got up at 5AM. It’s a great movie because of what we see on the screen. The combination of visuals, performances, music, and, of course, writing, all come together to offer a Storytelling experience that is very effective.
And sometimes, only at special screenings or film forums do you see filmmaking at its most raw and get that experience of art!
It really is amazing to think how young this art is and how it came about. Prior to the birth of Cinema, you had the art of Photography and the art of Theatre, which were two very separate art forms, but had both existed for centuries. And suddenly, they were fused together. And by editing images together, you could manipulate the impression of sequences occurring in a narrative. Audiences were initially just satisfied to see anything be filmed, but before long, Cinema became a storytelling device, which says a lot about the human condition. Consider the fact that cinema is a combination of several other art forms, in particular:
-Storytelling, which has obviously existed for centuries,
-Cinematography, which follows the principals of Photography
-Acting, which overlaps with the theatre, but is slightly different.
-Musical Score, a humongous part of experience, which sadly many amateur filmmakers ignore.
-Costumes, Set Design, etc
-Editing, which is an original creation and only exists within the greater art of Cinema.
Of course now we begin to split hairs over what art is. Does Sound Mixing count as an art? You might not think so, yet it’s one of the most vital things in the film; a movie that looks great but has horrible sound will be a failure, while a film that’s shot horribly but has clear audio will still hold an audience’s attention. So perhaps the answer is that the art is only in the final product and what the film itself has to say. And in that case, I do believe that it all comes down to Story.
Consider the television production I, CLAUDIUS, which is generally regarded as a masterpiece and the single finest of BBC productions. The low budget shows as the scenes are cheaply shot and almost every single scene is just dialog. There’s not a single sweeping shot of Rome. Yet the story still feels epic, because our minds are engrossed in the sweep of the story and fill in the gaps on their own. The bottom-line is this: no one may ever talk about the shot composition, sound mixing, or even the directing of I, CLAUDIUS, but you can bet they talk about the writing and the acting! Because when film conveys a story properly, then it succeeds!
That’s why all that really matters is what’s up on the screen. THERE WILL BE BLOOD, for example, is a great movie not because of what went on on set, what time the call sheets went out, what kind of catering they had for the crew, if the gaffer was union or not, how much the actors were paid, or how many production assistants got up at 5AM. It’s a great movie because of what we see on the screen. The combination of visuals, performances, music, and, of course, writing, all come together to offer a Storytelling experience that is very effective.
And sometimes, only at special screenings or film forums do you see filmmaking at its most raw and get that experience of art!
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Film Review: ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984, dir. Sergio Leone)
So after reviewing the worst film I've ever seen, PROBLEM CHILD 2, it seems only natural I should discuss my favorite film of all time!
The first time I saw ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, I thought it was just okay. The childhood sequences were great, but the story was long, and I guess I felt it lost its way as it went on.
A year passed before I saw it again. I had only meant to watch a little bit, and soon found myself sucked into watching the whole thing again. Something just clicked that second time, and the first 40 minutes in particular held a lot more weight. That is why I feel this film, more than any other, NEEDS to be seen multiple times to be understood.
This movie is not really about gangsters, or prohibition, or unions. This is all the window-dressing. This movie is about three characters: Noodles, Max, and Deborah. Or rather, it is about one man's life, the two people he loves, and the choices he makes. It is one of the few films that really seems to capture an entire life on screen. And, while this may sound clichéd, it's a story of the American dream, of wasted potential, of the mistakes we make in our lives, of what it is to be an old man. It tells an interesting story in its flashbacks, but then wraps a "modern-day" story around it that is built on its own mystery. Indeed, the movie is one big puzzle; it's probably the best example of flashback structure ever done on film. Yes, even better than CITIZEN KANE.
The movie has some flaws, mostly because it was conceived on such a vast scale. As you watch it, you definitely get the sense some scenes are missing, and that some characters (Patsy, Cockeye, and Eve, in particular) feel underdeveloped. However, the movie is able to get away with this because what it DOES offer is so strong, and Robert DeNiro's performance, so unstated, is so good. Despite its long run-time, it's actually a very tight story; nearly every scene is about Noodles, and that's why it is so intimate a portrait.
From a technical standpoint, you also have excellent art direction, costumes, and Ennio Morricone's best score. "Deborah's Theme" is one of the finest pieces ever composed. Also, no one ever mentions the cinematography, which is so rich, particularly in the childhood scenes.
It's interesting that I've never been a fan of Sergio Leone's westerns. Here is a film so different from most of his main body of work, not only in physical setting, but in structure and tone. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, along with FANNY AND ALEXANDER, is one of the few films that truly makes me think of a novel in film form.
The first time I saw ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, I thought it was just okay. The childhood sequences were great, but the story was long, and I guess I felt it lost its way as it went on.
A year passed before I saw it again. I had only meant to watch a little bit, and soon found myself sucked into watching the whole thing again. Something just clicked that second time, and the first 40 minutes in particular held a lot more weight. That is why I feel this film, more than any other, NEEDS to be seen multiple times to be understood.
This movie is not really about gangsters, or prohibition, or unions. This is all the window-dressing. This movie is about three characters: Noodles, Max, and Deborah. Or rather, it is about one man's life, the two people he loves, and the choices he makes. It is one of the few films that really seems to capture an entire life on screen. And, while this may sound clichéd, it's a story of the American dream, of wasted potential, of the mistakes we make in our lives, of what it is to be an old man. It tells an interesting story in its flashbacks, but then wraps a "modern-day" story around it that is built on its own mystery. Indeed, the movie is one big puzzle; it's probably the best example of flashback structure ever done on film. Yes, even better than CITIZEN KANE.
The movie has some flaws, mostly because it was conceived on such a vast scale. As you watch it, you definitely get the sense some scenes are missing, and that some characters (Patsy, Cockeye, and Eve, in particular) feel underdeveloped. However, the movie is able to get away with this because what it DOES offer is so strong, and Robert DeNiro's performance, so unstated, is so good. Despite its long run-time, it's actually a very tight story; nearly every scene is about Noodles, and that's why it is so intimate a portrait.
From a technical standpoint, you also have excellent art direction, costumes, and Ennio Morricone's best score. "Deborah's Theme" is one of the finest pieces ever composed. Also, no one ever mentions the cinematography, which is so rich, particularly in the childhood scenes.
It's interesting that I've never been a fan of Sergio Leone's westerns. Here is a film so different from most of his main body of work, not only in physical setting, but in structure and tone. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, along with FANNY AND ALEXANDER, is one of the few films that truly makes me think of a novel in film form.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
My Top Ten Favorite Comedies
Comedy is the most subjective genre; everyone's list is always so different, and obviously they tend to go with sentimental choices or comedies they grew up. Also, it's hard to decide what defines comedy. I only wanted to include films that are purely comedies, so that means I'm not counting romantic comedies (so no MOONSTRUCK or ANNIE HALL) or fantasy comedies (so no PRINCESS BRIDE). So what does that leave us with? Let's see...
10. THE PRODUCERS (1968, dir. Mel Brooks)
Actually, I like both versions! The musical version did a pretty decent job at streamlining the story, taking out all the beatnik material that was dated to the '60's, and added some funny songs. But still, the original is just such a dark, enjoyable bleak film, and Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder had a chemistry with one another that was never duplicated. What makes this a great comedy is all the stuff in there. The central premise of dishonest producers wanting to put on a flop is already amusing. Then a subplot about romancing little old ladies is thrown in there. Then Nazis join the party. Then cross-dressers. It's really a very creative screenplay, albeit a little weak in the third act. You could argue that there are other Mel Brooks films that are better in quality, but I find this to be his most original comedy.
Interestingly, the next film on our list is ALSO a 1960's film that was turned into a stage musical and then remade on film...
9. LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960, dir. Roger Corman)
Unlike THE PRODUCERS, where both versions had the same basic story, the two versions of LITTLE SHOP are so different starring radically different characters that they really are two entirely different works. As much as I enjoy the Howard Ashman musical, and the 1986 film version directed by Frank Oz, the original Corman film is such a unique beast. The comedy is so dark and original for 1960. Dead prostitutes, a mother addicted to prescription drugs, a woman who's relatives keep dying...I was amazed at how much I laughed at this film. The original Seymour and Audrey are nothing like their later interpretations. I knew as soon as I saw this movie that it had to be one of the most unique works I had ever seen.
8. MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
A lot of people my generation list this among their favorite family comedies. This is one of those movies everyone loves and that still gets quoted often. I think a major reason for its success is that, despite having just about every negative stereotype of the south and of Italian New Yorkers, the script really likes its characters and treats the situation seriously. The movie is actually quite education in showing how the legal process works. Vinny is the classic fish out of water as the lawyer in a murder trial...where his cousin's life is at stake. Maris Tomei deservedly won an Oscar as his wise-cracking girlfriend; she could have just been a caricature, but she turns out to be the smartest person in the film. Fred Gwynne is also given some great moments as the judge. The movie also features so many great character actors, including Lane Smith, Austin Pendleton, and Bruce McGill. The best moments of course are the "Imagine you're a deer" and "Biological clock" monologues. Oh, and by the way, LEGALLY BLONDE, despite having a very different kind of humor, clearly drew a lot from this film's premise.
7. THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
This frequently gets cited on a lot of people's favorite comedies ever list, so I don't think I need to elaborate why. The many iconic moments in this (mostly improvised) film and classic lines still resonate to this day. I often think Christopher Guest and Michael McKean do not get enough credit for their performances; watch the film again and you'll see little subtleties you didn't see before.
6. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Stoller)
I know I said "No romantic comedies" but I debated whether or not this even qualifies as one. To me, this is by far the best of the Judd Apatow movies, and one with a lot of heart. Jason Segel gives us a very heartfelt screenplay where he, both literally and figuratively, becomes naked before us. What I like best about this film is that it is told from a male point of view, yet portrays its female characters very sympathetically. In fact, some people even criticized that Kristen Bell's character was TOO well-developed, to the extent that she was too sympathetic for a "villain." Of course that's exactly the point! This is a lighthearted film that loves its characters, even the wacky side ones played by Russel Brand, Jonah Hill, and Paul Rudd. The best scene is when Peter performs his Dracula musical, which is funny, bizarre, and touching. There is such pathos in that scene. When we see the full musical performed at the end of the film, we finally "get" it, and it's very rewarding.
5. A FISH CALLED WANDA (1988, dir. Charles Chrichton)
This is just a perfect movie! It's so funny, so well-written, so filled with little moments. Who can forget Kevin Kline's orgasm-face? Or the way he keeps yelling "Asshole!" Or Michael Palin (in a very underrated performance) accidentally killing the old lady's dogs? This is a movie that, much like LITTLE SHOP, really has no shame and just goes out there. For any fans of FAWLTY TOWERS, this movie was the closest thing to a film version of that show we could ever have gotten. It's a film that finds the humor in anything, and then blows it up!
4. VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
The Griswalds are going to Walley World! There is something so endearing about this film that it's no wonder it turned into a long-running franchise, though none of the sequels were ever able to match this original. I first saw this with my own parents when I was the same age as the kids in this film, and it REALLY hit close to home. Chevy Chase is so great as a father who really does genuinely love his family and really wants what he thinks is best for them, but is just such a dope that he fails. Bevery D'Angelo is great as the supportive but frustrated wife who has her own dorky moments. I love Anthony Michael Hall, especially in the scene with his first beer (which he chugs down). The dialog is brilliant, especially in any scene with Aunt Edna, who's ultimate fate is so brilliantly dark. Some people have claimed they are disappointed by what happens when we finally get to Walley World, but looking back on it, I don't think there was any other way to end it!
3. WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar)
So not only is this the only foreign film on my list, but it's one of the most iconic films of Spanish cinema. Almodovar's screwball comedy with its flaring melodrama, bright colors, mambo cabdrivers, Muslim terrorists, and gazpacho resonates with many today. At a time when Madrid was recovering from the repression of Franco, the arts really began to emerge. This movie is crazy and shows all kinds of women at all stages of sanity. It also uses brilliant devices, such as having the womanizing man be a voiceover artist, thus featuring films within the film. Antonio Banderas, Rossy DePalma, and Carmen Maura are all ideally cast. And on a final note, I seem to be the only person alive who actually enjoyed the Broadway musical adaptation, which did so badly that is closed almost immediately. Glad I saw it when I did.
2. DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Often cited as the greatest of all American comedies, or at least the most important one. Of course this movie is a masterpiece that also happens to be shot excellently and features so many great moments. I've always loved that it starts out serious and then only gradually becomes a comedy. It's easy to praise Peter Sellers in his three performances, but I actually think George C. Scott gives the best one. Slim Pickens is also great, as is Peter Bull, and then there's Tracy Reed, the only woman in the film, as the sexy secretary. Her scene may actually be the funniest in the film. Oh, yeah, and this also happens to be James Earl Jones's debut! This movie is so funny because it reminds us how much power we have places at the hands of our government politicians, who are very flawed people, and that we all do juvenile things. Consider the way Keenan Wynn's character keeps mispronouncing the word "preverts." It's a simple little touch, but it shows the incompetence of those in charge. To see this scene during the years of the Bush presidency was actually quite chilling.
...and the winner is...
1. CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
As with MY COUSIN VINNY, also directed by Lynn, this is a movie that many of my generation grew up watching and think of as a family favorite. Why is this my all-time favorite comedy? I think because it really does have everything: slapstick, double entendre, political commentary. Although Tim Curry definitely steals the film, everyone else is so well-cast: Eileen Brennan, Martin Mull, Madeline Kahn, Leslie Ann Warren, and then there's Michael McKean again. My one criticism is that, on first viewing, the way that Mr. Green is presented might come off as homophobic, but if you watch it to the end then it's no longer an issue. Then there's Christopher Lloyd, who I sometimes call "the American Tim Curry." Ironically the one movie they do together is the one where he's so low-key that you almost don't recognize him. There are so many great lines, from "Communism is just a red herring" to "Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage" to "Ah, he wasn't a very good illusionist" to "Can I interest you in fruit or desert?" to "I'm gonna go home and sleep with my wife!" And what a brilliant screenplay (co-written by John Landis) that manages to simultaneously be based off a classic board game, make commentary on McCarthyism and blackmail, and also have three different endings, all of which are compatible! CLUE is just my favorite comedy ever!
10. THE PRODUCERS (1968, dir. Mel Brooks)
Actually, I like both versions! The musical version did a pretty decent job at streamlining the story, taking out all the beatnik material that was dated to the '60's, and added some funny songs. But still, the original is just such a dark, enjoyable bleak film, and Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder had a chemistry with one another that was never duplicated. What makes this a great comedy is all the stuff in there. The central premise of dishonest producers wanting to put on a flop is already amusing. Then a subplot about romancing little old ladies is thrown in there. Then Nazis join the party. Then cross-dressers. It's really a very creative screenplay, albeit a little weak in the third act. You could argue that there are other Mel Brooks films that are better in quality, but I find this to be his most original comedy.
Interestingly, the next film on our list is ALSO a 1960's film that was turned into a stage musical and then remade on film...
9. LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960, dir. Roger Corman)
Unlike THE PRODUCERS, where both versions had the same basic story, the two versions of LITTLE SHOP are so different starring radically different characters that they really are two entirely different works. As much as I enjoy the Howard Ashman musical, and the 1986 film version directed by Frank Oz, the original Corman film is such a unique beast. The comedy is so dark and original for 1960. Dead prostitutes, a mother addicted to prescription drugs, a woman who's relatives keep dying...I was amazed at how much I laughed at this film. The original Seymour and Audrey are nothing like their later interpretations. I knew as soon as I saw this movie that it had to be one of the most unique works I had ever seen.
8. MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
A lot of people my generation list this among their favorite family comedies. This is one of those movies everyone loves and that still gets quoted often. I think a major reason for its success is that, despite having just about every negative stereotype of the south and of Italian New Yorkers, the script really likes its characters and treats the situation seriously. The movie is actually quite education in showing how the legal process works. Vinny is the classic fish out of water as the lawyer in a murder trial...where his cousin's life is at stake. Maris Tomei deservedly won an Oscar as his wise-cracking girlfriend; she could have just been a caricature, but she turns out to be the smartest person in the film. Fred Gwynne is also given some great moments as the judge. The movie also features so many great character actors, including Lane Smith, Austin Pendleton, and Bruce McGill. The best moments of course are the "Imagine you're a deer" and "Biological clock" monologues. Oh, and by the way, LEGALLY BLONDE, despite having a very different kind of humor, clearly drew a lot from this film's premise.
7. THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
This frequently gets cited on a lot of people's favorite comedies ever list, so I don't think I need to elaborate why. The many iconic moments in this (mostly improvised) film and classic lines still resonate to this day. I often think Christopher Guest and Michael McKean do not get enough credit for their performances; watch the film again and you'll see little subtleties you didn't see before.
6. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Stoller)
I know I said "No romantic comedies" but I debated whether or not this even qualifies as one. To me, this is by far the best of the Judd Apatow movies, and one with a lot of heart. Jason Segel gives us a very heartfelt screenplay where he, both literally and figuratively, becomes naked before us. What I like best about this film is that it is told from a male point of view, yet portrays its female characters very sympathetically. In fact, some people even criticized that Kristen Bell's character was TOO well-developed, to the extent that she was too sympathetic for a "villain." Of course that's exactly the point! This is a lighthearted film that loves its characters, even the wacky side ones played by Russel Brand, Jonah Hill, and Paul Rudd. The best scene is when Peter performs his Dracula musical, which is funny, bizarre, and touching. There is such pathos in that scene. When we see the full musical performed at the end of the film, we finally "get" it, and it's very rewarding.
5. A FISH CALLED WANDA (1988, dir. Charles Chrichton)
This is just a perfect movie! It's so funny, so well-written, so filled with little moments. Who can forget Kevin Kline's orgasm-face? Or the way he keeps yelling "Asshole!" Or Michael Palin (in a very underrated performance) accidentally killing the old lady's dogs? This is a movie that, much like LITTLE SHOP, really has no shame and just goes out there. For any fans of FAWLTY TOWERS, this movie was the closest thing to a film version of that show we could ever have gotten. It's a film that finds the humor in anything, and then blows it up!
4. VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
The Griswalds are going to Walley World! There is something so endearing about this film that it's no wonder it turned into a long-running franchise, though none of the sequels were ever able to match this original. I first saw this with my own parents when I was the same age as the kids in this film, and it REALLY hit close to home. Chevy Chase is so great as a father who really does genuinely love his family and really wants what he thinks is best for them, but is just such a dope that he fails. Bevery D'Angelo is great as the supportive but frustrated wife who has her own dorky moments. I love Anthony Michael Hall, especially in the scene with his first beer (which he chugs down). The dialog is brilliant, especially in any scene with Aunt Edna, who's ultimate fate is so brilliantly dark. Some people have claimed they are disappointed by what happens when we finally get to Walley World, but looking back on it, I don't think there was any other way to end it!
3. WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar)
So not only is this the only foreign film on my list, but it's one of the most iconic films of Spanish cinema. Almodovar's screwball comedy with its flaring melodrama, bright colors, mambo cabdrivers, Muslim terrorists, and gazpacho resonates with many today. At a time when Madrid was recovering from the repression of Franco, the arts really began to emerge. This movie is crazy and shows all kinds of women at all stages of sanity. It also uses brilliant devices, such as having the womanizing man be a voiceover artist, thus featuring films within the film. Antonio Banderas, Rossy DePalma, and Carmen Maura are all ideally cast. And on a final note, I seem to be the only person alive who actually enjoyed the Broadway musical adaptation, which did so badly that is closed almost immediately. Glad I saw it when I did.
2. DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Often cited as the greatest of all American comedies, or at least the most important one. Of course this movie is a masterpiece that also happens to be shot excellently and features so many great moments. I've always loved that it starts out serious and then only gradually becomes a comedy. It's easy to praise Peter Sellers in his three performances, but I actually think George C. Scott gives the best one. Slim Pickens is also great, as is Peter Bull, and then there's Tracy Reed, the only woman in the film, as the sexy secretary. Her scene may actually be the funniest in the film. Oh, yeah, and this also happens to be James Earl Jones's debut! This movie is so funny because it reminds us how much power we have places at the hands of our government politicians, who are very flawed people, and that we all do juvenile things. Consider the way Keenan Wynn's character keeps mispronouncing the word "preverts." It's a simple little touch, but it shows the incompetence of those in charge. To see this scene during the years of the Bush presidency was actually quite chilling.
...and the winner is...
1. CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
As with MY COUSIN VINNY, also directed by Lynn, this is a movie that many of my generation grew up watching and think of as a family favorite. Why is this my all-time favorite comedy? I think because it really does have everything: slapstick, double entendre, political commentary. Although Tim Curry definitely steals the film, everyone else is so well-cast: Eileen Brennan, Martin Mull, Madeline Kahn, Leslie Ann Warren, and then there's Michael McKean again. My one criticism is that, on first viewing, the way that Mr. Green is presented might come off as homophobic, but if you watch it to the end then it's no longer an issue. Then there's Christopher Lloyd, who I sometimes call "the American Tim Curry." Ironically the one movie they do together is the one where he's so low-key that you almost don't recognize him. There are so many great lines, from "Communism is just a red herring" to "Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage" to "Ah, he wasn't a very good illusionist" to "Can I interest you in fruit or desert?" to "I'm gonna go home and sleep with my wife!" And what a brilliant screenplay (co-written by John Landis) that manages to simultaneously be based off a classic board game, make commentary on McCarthyism and blackmail, and also have three different endings, all of which are compatible! CLUE is just my favorite comedy ever!
Friday, February 3, 2012
Film Review: PROBLEM CHILD 2 (1991, dir. Brian Levant)
For God so hated the world that he sent down this film, and those who watched it would not experience the joy of art, but perish in self-indulgent flatulence.
-John 3:16, really loosely translated.Everyone has their choice for "worst movie they've ever seen." Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and all these years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not "one of the worst," it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.
How much farting, shitting, pissing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other dickheads and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: "I guess I should fart in more people's offices."
What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles?
However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: "I'm gonna puke," opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that.
I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.
You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!
Film Review: DOGMA (1999, dir. Kevin Smith)
I've always had mixed feelings about Dogma, and I feel that the best
way to sum it up is as follows:
As a comedy, the movie is hysterical! It has some incredibly funny dialog, mostly delivered by Alan Rickman, Jason Lee, and Jason Mewes's characters. As an adventure movie, it has a very creative plot and keeps you hooked throughout its journey to its epic and apocalyptic conclusion.
Where the movie fails and fails miserably is at being any sort of actual commentary on religion. Despite the many conversations about religion and dogmas held throughout the film...nothing all that "deep" is ever really said. The movie ultimately has a shallow message of "God is cool. Just have a sense of humor and an open mind." And this is a shame because Kevin Smith is clearly a bright guy who knows a lot about church history; he even claims in the closing credits that the film represents his lifetime's worth of religious reflection. You'd think he'd have said something a little more sophisticated.
In fact, despite being somewhat controversial when it came out, the movie never really is all that shocking. Yes, I realize there are religious zealots out there who get "offended" by even the slightest things (Angels and prophets using curse words! Jesus having a 13th apostle! Jesus being black! God being a woman!). But with all due respect, none of those things are REALLY controversial. I would have liked the movie to have been deeper and delved into greater issues like: the possibility of God not existing, or Jesus having been an invented character, or exposing the corruption of the Catholic Church, or what about the role of Judaism and Islam? That would have given the film a lot more weight in my opinion.
Fortunately, as I said, the movie is a lot of fun, and so I am able to sit back and laugh at what it offers. Rickman, Lee, and Salma Hayek all give the best performances. I do feel Linda Fiorentino is somewhat underwhelming; despite being the lead character, she frequently seems like the dullest thing in the film. I have heard that she and Smith did not get along, and maybe that affected why there seems to be so little to Bethany.
Dogma is a very fun and entertaining movie, but alas, it's not very deep, despite what the director seemed to think of it. Listening to Kevin Smith on the DVD commentary track is almost sad; he talks about how he was disappointed the movie didn't get Oscar nominations. Well, here's why: BECAUSE YOUR MOVIE HAS A SCENE WITH A SHIT MONSTER! Smith could have made a stronger, deeper film if he had really tried. Instead he just made a little comedy, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a very good movie to laugh with; it's just not good for much more than that.
As a comedy, the movie is hysterical! It has some incredibly funny dialog, mostly delivered by Alan Rickman, Jason Lee, and Jason Mewes's characters. As an adventure movie, it has a very creative plot and keeps you hooked throughout its journey to its epic and apocalyptic conclusion.
Where the movie fails and fails miserably is at being any sort of actual commentary on religion. Despite the many conversations about religion and dogmas held throughout the film...nothing all that "deep" is ever really said. The movie ultimately has a shallow message of "God is cool. Just have a sense of humor and an open mind." And this is a shame because Kevin Smith is clearly a bright guy who knows a lot about church history; he even claims in the closing credits that the film represents his lifetime's worth of religious reflection. You'd think he'd have said something a little more sophisticated.
In fact, despite being somewhat controversial when it came out, the movie never really is all that shocking. Yes, I realize there are religious zealots out there who get "offended" by even the slightest things (Angels and prophets using curse words! Jesus having a 13th apostle! Jesus being black! God being a woman!). But with all due respect, none of those things are REALLY controversial. I would have liked the movie to have been deeper and delved into greater issues like: the possibility of God not existing, or Jesus having been an invented character, or exposing the corruption of the Catholic Church, or what about the role of Judaism and Islam? That would have given the film a lot more weight in my opinion.
Fortunately, as I said, the movie is a lot of fun, and so I am able to sit back and laugh at what it offers. Rickman, Lee, and Salma Hayek all give the best performances. I do feel Linda Fiorentino is somewhat underwhelming; despite being the lead character, she frequently seems like the dullest thing in the film. I have heard that she and Smith did not get along, and maybe that affected why there seems to be so little to Bethany.
Dogma is a very fun and entertaining movie, but alas, it's not very deep, despite what the director seemed to think of it. Listening to Kevin Smith on the DVD commentary track is almost sad; he talks about how he was disappointed the movie didn't get Oscar nominations. Well, here's why: BECAUSE YOUR MOVIE HAS A SCENE WITH A SHIT MONSTER! Smith could have made a stronger, deeper film if he had really tried. Instead he just made a little comedy, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a very good movie to laugh with; it's just not good for much more than that.
Film Review: MATILDA (1996, dir. Danny DeVito)
The summer of 1996 was an exciting time. Despite being one of the most popular children's authors of the modern era, very few films adaptations had been made of Roald Dahl's work, and now all of a sudden, two were coming out in the same year. Of the two, I was much more excited for JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH, a classic of my childhood. To my surprise, MATILDA ended up being the stronger film, and a movie that's endured with many children who grew up in the late '90's. I appreciated MATILDA when it came out, and over the years it's really grown on me. Even as an adult, it's a movie I love and remember very well.
What I love about this story, both in the book and in the movie, is that it empowers children to be independent and not rely on parents and educators, who are portrayed as far from perfect but very flawed. Matilda is a gifted, resourceful, and kindhearted little girl. Yet her parents are self-absorbed, ignorant buffoons who barely know how old she is, and her principal is an abusive tyrant. Only in her teacher does she finally find someone who supports her. I think this rings true to a lot of children. Miss Trunchbull, while obviously exaggerated for comedic effect, represents a problem that I think exists in many schools: educators are more concerned with discipline and authority than they are with actually helping students.
What makes this movie so great is how much heart it has. A lot of Dahl's writing is so wacky and grotesque that I don't think it works on film (THE WITCHES had that problem). MATILDA tells a very human story, even when it does get grotesque. Mara Wilson and Embeth Davidtz both do an excellent job and carry the weight of the film. Danny DeVito's direction also deserves credit. DeVito seems to really "get" Dahl's writing; I especially love the way he directs the "chocolate cake" scene. Another director would've had a difficult time making chocolate cake seem like a punishment, but DeVito sets up and shoots the scene in a way that gets under your skin. I love the way he manages to make the cake look disgusting and the Cook look a little creepy. It's little touches like that that make the film great. I also admire DeVito's decision to play dual roles: he plays Matilda's unpleasant father and he is also the story's narrator. This makes the story seem very personal and his narration truly captures the heart of the tale.
The movie is not 100% faithful to the book. Yes, the story is Americanized (though Miss Trunchbull remains British), and some new material is added probably to make the story more commercial (such as a subplot with two bumbling FBI agents, and a thrilling scene where Matilda returns to Miss Trunchbull's house at night). However, these additions do not hurt the story at all, but actually flesh it out. In my opinion, a lot of Dahl's books suffered from weak climaxes, but this film gets it right, while at the same time retaining everything that made Dahl's writing shine.
Dahl and DeVito clearly remember that being a child can be a very scary time. Adults tower over you and have the power to bully you. This film captures that, and its power continue to live on as children continue to embrace it.
Gabe's 100 Favorite Films!
I last made a list like this when I was a kid so I wanted to update.
I don't like to rank films opposite each other, so although I do have a
Top 5, I listed the rest in alphabetical order. Is US/UK unless
otherwise indicated:
1. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984, dir. Sergio Leone, US & ITALY)
2. FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
3. RETURN TO OZ (1985, dir. Walter Murch)
4. NETWORK (1976, dir. Sidney Lumet)
5. SUNSET BLVD (1950, dir. Billy Wilder)
12 ANGRY MEN (1957, dir. Sidney Lumet)
1776 (1972, dir. Peter H. Hunt)
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
8½ (1963, dir. Federico Fellini, ITALY)
AFTER LIFE (1998, dir. Hirukazu Koreeda, JAPAN)
ALADDIN (1992, dir. John Musker & Ron Clements)
ALIENS (1986, dir. James Cameron)
ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER (1999, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930, dir. Lewis Milestone)
AMERICAN MOVIE (1999, dir. Chris Smith, DOCUMENTARY )
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (1979 & 2001, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
BAD EDUCATION (2004, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
BARAKA (1992, dir. Ron Fricke, DOCUMENTARY)
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN (1969, dir. Bill Melendez)
BRAZIL (1985, dir. Terry Gilliam)
BROKEN EMBRACES (2009, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
CINEMA PARADISO (1988, dir. Guiseppe Tornatore, ITALY)
CITIZEN KANE (1941, dir. Orson Welles)
CLERKS (1994, dir. Kevin Smith)
CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
COME AND SEE (1985, dir. Elem Klimov, USSR)
CRIES AND WHISPERS (1973, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (1989, dir. Woody Allen)
THE DARK KNIGHT (2008, dir. Christopher Nolan)
DAY FOR NIGHT (1973, dir. Francois Truffaut, FRANCE)
THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (2001, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
DOWNFALL (2004, dir. Oliver Hirschbiegel, GERMANY)
DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL (1982, dir. Steven Spielberg)
ED WOOD (1994, dir. Tim Burton)
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980, dir. Irvin Kershner)
EVITA (1996, dir. Alan Parker)
EYES WIDE SHUT (1999, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
FANTASIA (1940, dir. Walt Disney)
FARGO (1996, dir. The Coen Brothers)
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Staller)
FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (1994, dir. Mike Newell)
THE GODFATHER (1972, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
THE GODFATHER: PART II (1974, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors, REALLY directed by David O. Selznick)
GOODFELLAS (1990, dir. Martin Scorsese)
THE GREEN MILE (1999, dir. Frank Darabont)
HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986, dir. Woody Allen)
HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007, dir. David Yates) [NOTE: This is really a stand-in for the series in general, but this is the entry that I enjoy the most].
HEARTS OF DARKNESS: A FILMMAKER'S APOCALYPSE (1991, dir. Fax Bahr & George Hickenlooper, DOCUMENTARY)
HIROSHIMA, MON AMOUR (1959, dir. Alain Resnais, FRANCE)
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (1997, dir. Curtis Hanson)
THE LAST EMPEROR (1987, dir. Bernardo Bertolucci, UK/CHINA/ITALY)
THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001, 2002, 2003, dir. Peter Jackson)
MANHATTAN (1979, dir. Woody Allen)
MARY POPPINS (1964, dir. Robert Stevenson)
MATILDA (1996, dir. Danny DeVito)
THE MIGHTY (1998, dir. Peter Chelsom)
MOONSTRUCK (1987, dir. Norman Jewison)
MOULIN ROUGE (2001, dir. Baz Luhrmann)
MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001, dir. David Lynch)
MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
OLDBOY (2003, dir. Chan-wook Park, SOUTH KOREA)
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968, dir. Sergio Leone, USA & ITALY)
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975, dir. Milos Foreman)
PAN'S LABYRINTH (2006, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987, dir. Rob Reiner)
PRINCESS MONONOKE (1997, dir. Hayao Miyazaki, JAPAN)
PULP FICTION (1994, dir. Quentin Tarantino)
RAGING BULL (1980, dir. Martin Scorsese)
RAN (1985, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975, dir. Jim Sharman)
ROME: OPEN CITY (1945, dir. Roberto Rossellini, ITALY)
ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968, dir. Roman Polanski)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998, dir. Steven Spielberg)
THE SEARCHERS (1956, dir. John Ford)
THE SECRET GARDEN (1993, dir. Agnieszka Holland)
SE7EN (1995, dir. David Fincher)
THE SEVEN SAMURAI (1954, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994, dir. Frank Darabont)
SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959, dir. Walt Disney)
THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965, dir. Robert Wise)
STAND BY ME (1986, dir. Rob Reiner)
STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982, dir. Nicholas Meyer)
TALK TO HER (2002, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
TASTE OF CHERRY (1997, dir. Abbas Kiarostami, IRAN)
THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007, dir. Paul Thomas Andersen)
THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962, dir. Robert Mulligan)
TREKKIES (1997, dir. Roger Nygard, DOCUMENTARY)
UMBERTO D. (1952, dir. Vittoria De Sica, ITALY)
VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
VERTIGO (1958, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors)
WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT (1988, dir. Robert Zemickas)
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966, dir. Mike Nichols)
1. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984, dir. Sergio Leone, US & ITALY)
2. FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
3. RETURN TO OZ (1985, dir. Walter Murch)
4. NETWORK (1976, dir. Sidney Lumet)
5. SUNSET BLVD (1950, dir. Billy Wilder)
12 ANGRY MEN (1957, dir. Sidney Lumet)
1776 (1972, dir. Peter H. Hunt)
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
8½ (1963, dir. Federico Fellini, ITALY)
AFTER LIFE (1998, dir. Hirukazu Koreeda, JAPAN)
ALADDIN (1992, dir. John Musker & Ron Clements)
ALIENS (1986, dir. James Cameron)
ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER (1999, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930, dir. Lewis Milestone)
AMERICAN MOVIE (1999, dir. Chris Smith, DOCUMENTARY )
APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX (1979 & 2001, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
BAD EDUCATION (2004, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
BARAKA (1992, dir. Ron Fricke, DOCUMENTARY)
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN (1969, dir. Bill Melendez)
BRAZIL (1985, dir. Terry Gilliam)
BROKEN EMBRACES (2009, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
CINEMA PARADISO (1988, dir. Guiseppe Tornatore, ITALY)
CITIZEN KANE (1941, dir. Orson Welles)
CLERKS (1994, dir. Kevin Smith)
CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
COME AND SEE (1985, dir. Elem Klimov, USSR)
CRIES AND WHISPERS (1973, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (1989, dir. Woody Allen)
THE DARK KNIGHT (2008, dir. Christopher Nolan)
DAY FOR NIGHT (1973, dir. Francois Truffaut, FRANCE)
THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (2001, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
DOWNFALL (2004, dir. Oliver Hirschbiegel, GERMANY)
DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL (1982, dir. Steven Spielberg)
ED WOOD (1994, dir. Tim Burton)
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980, dir. Irvin Kershner)
EVITA (1996, dir. Alan Parker)
EYES WIDE SHUT (1999, dir. Stanley Kubrick)
FANTASIA (1940, dir. Walt Disney)
FARGO (1996, dir. The Coen Brothers)
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Staller)
FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL (1994, dir. Mike Newell)
THE GODFATHER (1972, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
THE GODFATHER: PART II (1974, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors, REALLY directed by David O. Selznick)
GOODFELLAS (1990, dir. Martin Scorsese)
THE GREEN MILE (1999, dir. Frank Darabont)
HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986, dir. Woody Allen)
HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007, dir. David Yates) [NOTE: This is really a stand-in for the series in general, but this is the entry that I enjoy the most].
HEARTS OF DARKNESS: A FILMMAKER'S APOCALYPSE (1991, dir. Fax Bahr & George Hickenlooper, DOCUMENTARY)
HIROSHIMA, MON AMOUR (1959, dir. Alain Resnais, FRANCE)
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996, dir. Gary Trousald & Kirk Wise)
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (1997, dir. Curtis Hanson)
THE LAST EMPEROR (1987, dir. Bernardo Bertolucci, UK/CHINA/ITALY)
THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001, 2002, 2003, dir. Peter Jackson)
MANHATTAN (1979, dir. Woody Allen)
MARY POPPINS (1964, dir. Robert Stevenson)
MATILDA (1996, dir. Danny DeVito)
THE MIGHTY (1998, dir. Peter Chelsom)
MOONSTRUCK (1987, dir. Norman Jewison)
MOULIN ROUGE (2001, dir. Baz Luhrmann)
MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001, dir. David Lynch)
MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)
OLDBOY (2003, dir. Chan-wook Park, SOUTH KOREA)
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968, dir. Sergio Leone, USA & ITALY)
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975, dir. Milos Foreman)
PAN'S LABYRINTH (2006, dir. Guillermo Del Toro, MEXICO & SPAIN)
THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987, dir. Rob Reiner)
PRINCESS MONONOKE (1997, dir. Hayao Miyazaki, JAPAN)
PULP FICTION (1994, dir. Quentin Tarantino)
RAGING BULL (1980, dir. Martin Scorsese)
RAN (1985, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975, dir. Jim Sharman)
ROME: OPEN CITY (1945, dir. Roberto Rossellini, ITALY)
ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968, dir. Roman Polanski)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998, dir. Steven Spielberg)
THE SEARCHERS (1956, dir. John Ford)
THE SECRET GARDEN (1993, dir. Agnieszka Holland)
SE7EN (1995, dir. David Fincher)
THE SEVEN SAMURAI (1954, dir. Akira Kurosawa, JAPAN)
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994, dir. Frank Darabont)
SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959, dir. Walt Disney)
THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965, dir. Robert Wise)
STAND BY ME (1986, dir. Rob Reiner)
STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982, dir. Nicholas Meyer)
TALK TO HER (2002, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
TASTE OF CHERRY (1997, dir. Abbas Kiarostami, IRAN)
THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007, dir. Paul Thomas Andersen)
THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)
THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961, dir. Ingmar Bergman, SWEDEN)
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962, dir. Robert Mulligan)
TREKKIES (1997, dir. Roger Nygard, DOCUMENTARY)
UMBERTO D. (1952, dir. Vittoria De Sica, ITALY)
VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)
VERTIGO (1958, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939, dir. Victor Fleming & other directors)
WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar, SPAIN)
WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT (1988, dir. Robert Zemickas)
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966, dir. Mike Nichols)
What is a Truly "Feminist Flick?"
I was recently tagged in
a discussion asking this question, and now's the first time in a week
I've been able to sit down and write anything. So here goes. Now,
there's two ways to go about answering this:
IN TERMS OF STORYTELLING: This would come down to how women are literally represented as characters, who the protagonist is, does the story have a misogynist or misandric message, etc.
IN TERMS OF FILMMAKING: Do things like shot composition and cinematic language relate to gender? Is there a more "feminine" way to shoot a film? I don't feel we really know this because of the overwhelming lack of female DP's! A bit ironic as there are so many female photographers, but I find so few women in the cinematography field. When Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director, everyone made such a big deal. She was the first woman to win and only the fourth to ever be nominated. But no one has addressed the fact that not a single female DP has EVER been nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar.
So I can only give my own experiences here:
Ever since college, I started writing scripts that focused more on women not for any of my personal politics, but for economic reasons: the Drama department consisted mostly of girls and the female roles in scripts were always the easiest to cast. Yet the majority of mainstream plays and musicals had predominantly male casts (DAMN YANKEES in particular is criticized for having virtually no female roles) and here my school was struggling to cast it when it had a pool of actors consisting mostly of women. So I went in a different direction. The first feature screenplay I ever wrote was about a female filmmaker named Sara, who was adequately described as a portrait of myself with a vagina. It also seemed to me that female characters allowed for more complexity, plus women make MUCH better villains. From Lady Macbeth to the Wicked Witch of the West, women play evil better than me. Is that a sexist attitude? I don't know; I just always felt that Darth Vader was a great badass, but he didn't scare me. Witches did!
Having written a few LGBT characters, I think that area tends to be slanted as well. In high school, when WILL & GRACE was at the peak of its popularity, I noticed that there were tons of gay men characters on TV, but lesbian characters were marginalized. Movies with transgendered characters are almost always about men-turned-women, and never the vice versa; I guess the former is "funnier." My first film is about a lesbian, but it's not about lesbianism. I wanted to do a character, where character and emotions came first, and gender and sexuality are only enhancements of this character, not definers.
One thing that Feminists often bring up is how many men have a misunderstanding of the term and assume it to simply mean misandry. I'll admit to feeling that way for the early years of my life, but I think that once again, the movies have constructed this fake definition. I am turned off by is the standard "chick flick" and the stereotype of what this. This is Faux Feminism; something that panders and puts artifice and occasional misandry over quality storytelling or filmmaking. [Furthermore, why are they always associated with sappy titles? Ever see MUSIC OF THE HEART with Meryl Streep? It's actually a good movie, but why in the fuck did Wes Craven choose a title that no self-respecting man would ever go for?] I remember seeing FRIED GREEN TOMATOES (a movie often cited as a textbook example of a chick flick) with my first girlfriend. It's been many years so my memory may not be fair to the film, but I felt it was so artificial in its Feminism. The Abusive Husband felt phoned-in, abusing his wife in a cartoonish way that seemed to say to the audience "There! Have we made it clear that this guy is bad?" Most of all, it bothered me that Kathy Bates's character went from being bossed around by her husband to bossing him around by the end. I found the movie hypocritical, while my then-girlfriend happened to love it. Now maybe I missed something, but the movie has never really called me back. The majority of "chick flick" and made-for-Lifetime movies I've seen seem to be in the same vein.
Finally, there's the issue of sex in cinema. While many, many, MANY movies have featured sex scene with female nudity (whether or not this is misogyny or exploitative is a whole other issue), there never seemed to be many scenes in mainstream movies where the female characters just TALKED about sex. I love writing dialog about sex; having women discuss desire and admit to pleasure. I think this shines the most interesting light on characters. As a kid, I realized that indie and foreign films focused so much more on discussions about sex, and I was hooked. Perhaps the single best example of this is Almodovar's ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER, which may well be the most feminine film ever made, a movie that celebrates Woman as an Actress, Mother, Lover, Nun, Drag Queen, or Transsexual. But for a more mainstream example, I think there's a strong reason why SEX AND THE CITY became the hit it did. The show focused on two things: sororal relationships and TALKING about sex. The result wasn't just that women loved the show, but that they loved watching it with other women! When the 2008 film adaptation came out, there was talk of women buying out entire cinema showings so that they could pack the place with all of their girlfriends and watch it together. My girlfriend at that time mentioned she wanted to see it and when I offered to take her she said, "No, that's a movie that girls have to see with other girls." Watching films is just as communal an experience as the process of making films is, and if SEX AND THE CITY was able to affect that communal experience, that might be making a stronger statement than we realize.
So is SEX AND THE CITY a truly feminist work? It's a show that has always had male fans, and while I personally didn't watch it enough to follow it, I could tell from the few episodes I've seen that the writing was very good and treated its characters intelligently. I think good storytelling is universal, and all I can do is write as I find interesting. You may think differently: perhaps male characters are more interesting to you than women; that's fine. But I feel this little editorial has left me with the following conclusions: 1. Story comes before Political Message, 2. Characterization comes before Gender, 3. Intelligent Writing is inclusive of everyone, and 4. Sexuality is just plain interesting, especially about women.
Dang, I wrote a lot. I didn't even get to talk about LITTLE WOMEN, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE, ANIMAL HOUSE, or FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, all of which relate to this subject. But I hope I gave an interesting answer to the question...
IN TERMS OF STORYTELLING: This would come down to how women are literally represented as characters, who the protagonist is, does the story have a misogynist or misandric message, etc.
IN TERMS OF FILMMAKING: Do things like shot composition and cinematic language relate to gender? Is there a more "feminine" way to shoot a film? I don't feel we really know this because of the overwhelming lack of female DP's! A bit ironic as there are so many female photographers, but I find so few women in the cinematography field. When Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director, everyone made such a big deal. She was the first woman to win and only the fourth to ever be nominated. But no one has addressed the fact that not a single female DP has EVER been nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar.
So I can only give my own experiences here:
Ever since college, I started writing scripts that focused more on women not for any of my personal politics, but for economic reasons: the Drama department consisted mostly of girls and the female roles in scripts were always the easiest to cast. Yet the majority of mainstream plays and musicals had predominantly male casts (DAMN YANKEES in particular is criticized for having virtually no female roles) and here my school was struggling to cast it when it had a pool of actors consisting mostly of women. So I went in a different direction. The first feature screenplay I ever wrote was about a female filmmaker named Sara, who was adequately described as a portrait of myself with a vagina. It also seemed to me that female characters allowed for more complexity, plus women make MUCH better villains. From Lady Macbeth to the Wicked Witch of the West, women play evil better than me. Is that a sexist attitude? I don't know; I just always felt that Darth Vader was a great badass, but he didn't scare me. Witches did!
Having written a few LGBT characters, I think that area tends to be slanted as well. In high school, when WILL & GRACE was at the peak of its popularity, I noticed that there were tons of gay men characters on TV, but lesbian characters were marginalized. Movies with transgendered characters are almost always about men-turned-women, and never the vice versa; I guess the former is "funnier." My first film is about a lesbian, but it's not about lesbianism. I wanted to do a character, where character and emotions came first, and gender and sexuality are only enhancements of this character, not definers.
One thing that Feminists often bring up is how many men have a misunderstanding of the term and assume it to simply mean misandry. I'll admit to feeling that way for the early years of my life, but I think that once again, the movies have constructed this fake definition. I am turned off by is the standard "chick flick" and the stereotype of what this. This is Faux Feminism; something that panders and puts artifice and occasional misandry over quality storytelling or filmmaking. [Furthermore, why are they always associated with sappy titles? Ever see MUSIC OF THE HEART with Meryl Streep? It's actually a good movie, but why in the fuck did Wes Craven choose a title that no self-respecting man would ever go for?] I remember seeing FRIED GREEN TOMATOES (a movie often cited as a textbook example of a chick flick) with my first girlfriend. It's been many years so my memory may not be fair to the film, but I felt it was so artificial in its Feminism. The Abusive Husband felt phoned-in, abusing his wife in a cartoonish way that seemed to say to the audience "There! Have we made it clear that this guy is bad?" Most of all, it bothered me that Kathy Bates's character went from being bossed around by her husband to bossing him around by the end. I found the movie hypocritical, while my then-girlfriend happened to love it. Now maybe I missed something, but the movie has never really called me back. The majority of "chick flick" and made-for-Lifetime movies I've seen seem to be in the same vein.
Finally, there's the issue of sex in cinema. While many, many, MANY movies have featured sex scene with female nudity (whether or not this is misogyny or exploitative is a whole other issue), there never seemed to be many scenes in mainstream movies where the female characters just TALKED about sex. I love writing dialog about sex; having women discuss desire and admit to pleasure. I think this shines the most interesting light on characters. As a kid, I realized that indie and foreign films focused so much more on discussions about sex, and I was hooked. Perhaps the single best example of this is Almodovar's ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER, which may well be the most feminine film ever made, a movie that celebrates Woman as an Actress, Mother, Lover, Nun, Drag Queen, or Transsexual. But for a more mainstream example, I think there's a strong reason why SEX AND THE CITY became the hit it did. The show focused on two things: sororal relationships and TALKING about sex. The result wasn't just that women loved the show, but that they loved watching it with other women! When the 2008 film adaptation came out, there was talk of women buying out entire cinema showings so that they could pack the place with all of their girlfriends and watch it together. My girlfriend at that time mentioned she wanted to see it and when I offered to take her she said, "No, that's a movie that girls have to see with other girls." Watching films is just as communal an experience as the process of making films is, and if SEX AND THE CITY was able to affect that communal experience, that might be making a stronger statement than we realize.
So is SEX AND THE CITY a truly feminist work? It's a show that has always had male fans, and while I personally didn't watch it enough to follow it, I could tell from the few episodes I've seen that the writing was very good and treated its characters intelligently. I think good storytelling is universal, and all I can do is write as I find interesting. You may think differently: perhaps male characters are more interesting to you than women; that's fine. But I feel this little editorial has left me with the following conclusions: 1. Story comes before Political Message, 2. Characterization comes before Gender, 3. Intelligent Writing is inclusive of everyone, and 4. Sexuality is just plain interesting, especially about women.
Dang, I wrote a lot. I didn't even get to talk about LITTLE WOMEN, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE, ANIMAL HOUSE, or FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, all of which relate to this subject. But I hope I gave an interesting answer to the question...
Loreanism and the Changing Face of Cinema
"And sometimes at the cinema, in the midst of its immense dexterity and enormous technical proficiency, the curtain parts and we behold, far off, some unknown and unexpected beauty. But it is for a moment only.
For a strange thing has happened -- while all the other arts were born naked, this, the youngest, has been born fully clothed. It can say everything before it has anything to say.
It is as if the savage tribe, instead of finding two bars of iron to play with, had found, scattering the seashore, fiddles, flutes, saxophones, trumpets, grand pianos … had begun with incredible energy, but without knowing a note of music, to hammer and thump upon them all at the same time."
-Virginia Woolf
1926
In the past month or so, I’ve found myself contemplative about the future of cinema, which is indeed a young art. At the time of Virginia Woolf’s critique of the medium during the height of the silent era, film might have seemed bombastic and pantomime. In 2012, cinema has changed considerably, become disciplined, and produced content of great artistic merit…but it’s still a young art. The DSLR camera is cheap and available for any would-be maker of film--and maybe film is only now starting to reach its Renaissance.
At a recent New Year’s Eve party, artist and filmmaker Audrey Lorea propositioned to me that cinema is currently in a state of revolution. The disconnect between mainstream audiences and Hollywood movies grows stronger, while a vibrant scene of indie filmmakers on local screens is growing and on the move, suggesting that the old system is dead. Audiences no longer respond to the artifice of Hollywood movies but instead to the emotional rawness of new artists. According to Lorea, in the next three to four years, Hollywood will change and the indie filmmaker will grow in prominence. This means the popularization of the short film, and the rise of an experimental approach. If Lorea’s upcoming indie film HEAVEN IS NOW, which I am highly anticipating, lives up to its hype, it could well be one of the films that heralds this revolution.
This Lorean Revolution is not necessarily without precedent. The rise of the music video in the 1980’s was similarly Lorean, and it led to the career of David Fincher. The independent film movement of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, made in response to the growing audience fatigue with studio blockbusters, and which gave us the careers of Spike Lee, John Singleton, and Tarantino, was also Lorean. And of course, the biggest one of all, the New Hollywood movement of the late ‘60’s and ‘70’s, where the old studio system was replaced with a new generation of independent-minded filmmakers like Scorsese, Arthur Penn, William Friedkin, and Terrence Malick, was absolutely Lorean in its scope. Yet, all of these movements, while breaking away from a traditional studio/box office mentality, were not completely naked of studio interference. At the end of the day, Malick’s work, as artistic and abstract and un-Hollywood as it may seem, still consists of content produced with studio money and released by traditional film distributors.
And yet, a glimmer of the Lorean model can still be observed, though, to quote Virginia Woolf, it is for a moment only. At the end of the classic documentary HEARTS OF DARKNESS, Francis Ford Coppola comments that with the rising technology and accessibility of filmmaking tools he hopes that “a little fat girl in Ohio will be the new Mozart…And for once, the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever, and it will really be an art form.”
Imagine that! Cinema created by the people, not the businessmen! The problem with films is that they are monetized. But if we abolish the box office, and people start making films for the sake of making them, then it will be art! Hearing Coppola propose this idea seems ironic. It’s almost as if he is stating the mission statement of the New Hollywood movement, yet he was not able to accomplish it. The movement was cut short and Coppola’s career would have major setbacks.
And now, this is where indie filmmakers are today. No studios! No box office! No corporate motivations! The cinema of the DSLR camera is free--free to experiment and change things forever.
The Revolution is starting, but why isn’t it in full swing yet? Presumably, Hollywood has yet to notice how much potential there truly is in indie cinema. This is changing though. Last year I discovered an experimental film entitled ZENITH, directed by “Anonymous,” that is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my life, and had the production value of a Hollywood film. It is on its way to becoming a cult classic. Consider the campaign occurring right now with THE ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD film. Internet celebrity James Rolfe has produced hundred upon hundreds of videos for the web, all self-produced, shot, and edited, and met with a great cult following, with no corporate interference, aside from website hosting. When he announced he was going to be turning his ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD web-series into a feature film, he surprisingly raised over a quarter-million dollars on IndieGoGo (I am happy to say I donated to the film)! He is starting production right now in California! I for one am greatly looking forward to this indie film when it is finished; considering the large following he has, I have a hard time imagining it wouldn’t be a huge success! This movie could very well be the final nail in the coffin: the film that makes audiences realize that Hollywood is obsolete! Rolfe and his fans are the new studio system, and he is the true Lorean figure!
The question is, will cinema be all the better for this revolution? The content will change, but will the quality? Box office will be less of a concern, but will artistic merit rise? What would Virginia Woolf have to say about all this? Personally, with medium-altering experiments like ZENITH and HEAVEN IS NOW on the horizon, as well as industry-altering productions like THE ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD movie, I for one think that Loreanism will be a good thing. After a century of struggling, and attempts by previous generations, cinema finally reaches its “zenith.”
Let the Lorean Revolution come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)