by Jon:
I'm going to skip the "Severed Thumbs" review on this one because my colleague Mr. Gattanella best summed up my thoughts on the movie in his review. This is more of a critique on what Aronofsky did effectively to utterly terrify me. Black Swan is the most effective psych. thriller that I have seen in a long time. This is not just the director's use of the visuals and effects but how it built up to that final clash of insanity that led me to think twice about turning off the lights before I went to sleep. In the movie there are very little touches that the viewer is introduced to that, if one blinks, will miss. Whenever the movie is from the point of view of Nina, the audience is slowly introduced to her madness which gives a much more visceral effect. In short, you are losing your mind at the same rate Nina is. The effects were second to the timing, when Nina is cutting her nails, you feel like you're cutting your nails too. When she slips and cuts her finger, you feel your finger getting cut, when Nina hallucinates you question your own view of reality. This causes the inevitability of the film's climax. The viewer saw it coming as Nina did, but there was nothing anyone could do about it, and that feeling of being utterly powerless is where the true terror comes from.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Black Swan, or long live the new feathers
Hey guys, Jack here:
"Just because you're a perfectionist doesn't mean your perfect."
(Jack Nicholson to Stanley Kubrick on the set of The Shining)
The world of the ballet is tough, hard and cruel to the body. It should be a given as soon as you hear the name Darren Aronofsky as director of this film Black Swan, and that his previous film was The Wrestler, that he would be obsessed with that aspect of it. Then again, obsession is one of the main deals to an Aronofsky movie: the perfect number in Pi, fame and achieving good life with no worries in Requiem for a Dream; finding a cure in The Fountain; one's identity in The Wrestler. Every character has a drive, usually towards self-destruction, and the body, the flesh and the spirit sometimes one or the other or both vying for attention, becomes an excrutating focual point.
But hey, you didn't come here to get a full-on breakdown of Aronofsky as auteur did you? No, maybe you did (sorry for the lapse into really addressing at *you* in this review, I'll stop now, maybe). In Black Swan we get Aronofsky's talents at a high peak. It's about a world where pressure cooks the soul and the drive has to be kept again (clap) again (clap) AGAIN (clap). The ballerina is no less an athlete or professional body-fucker-upper than a wrestler, only with this it's the feet, the toes, and the constitution of the body weight. Natalie Portman, for example for the role, lost twenty pounds off of her already skinny frame to play the role (it's not The Machinist but it'll do). And Aronofsky's aim is to explore the nature of a perfectionist in this realm, or someone driven to be one after so many years, and how it drives one mad. Kubrick might be proud.
What's fascinating about Nina Sayers (Portman) is how much she creates her own sense of must-be-perfect-self-worth once she gets the role of the black swan along with the white swan. The latter is just fine, she's a delicate flower of a young woman able to portray her fragile veneer. The former is more difficult, as she's not impulsive, or very sexual. If one reads into ber backstory she's probably like the result of a parent who drove her to this as a child, maybe a very young one, as Nina's mother (Barbara Hershey) tells her she's been at this ballet thing for a long time. She's not even thirty and already becoming an old-timer; she's replacing "The Dying Swan" herself, Beth McIntyre (Winona Ryder, one of her best performances, seriously, even in such a short capacity she amazes in a one 1/2 note performance).
(Oh, by the by, 'Dying Swan' isn't merely a reading-into kind of deal. On IMDb, unknown to me when I saw the movie, characters are listed with monikers; Nina is the "Swan Queen", her would-be friend and rival newcomer Lily (sexually charged and loosely played Mila Kunis) is the "Black Swan", and the trainer, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel, kind of sinisterly hamming it up as a descendant of a character originally played with more class by Anton Walbrook in The Red Shoes) is the "The Gentleman" weirdly (or ironically) enough. The mother is the "The Queen". Perphaps these are references to the Swan Lake ballet. Or maybe Aronofsky's just being cute, or having fun in his own diabolical-dark way).
What happens to Nina isn't quite so sudden; from the start of the movie there's a sense of paranoia to her, of a sound she may hear (thanks sound fx!) or a dark figure standing down a corridor at the ballet studio. Once she gets this dual role and is pushed on by her instructor/mentor/sexual-assaulter Thomas to dig deeper to find that wild-side for the black swan, which isn't easy to find, she goes deeper into a mania where it is hard to separate reality from fantasy. From nightmare, in fact. Compounding this are the diametrically opposed forces of Nina's Mother, who once had dreams of her own and failed to achieve them (like a lot of showbiz mums), and her equal love/disdain relationship with her. One of the more interesting scenes psychologically comes when after Nina got the two roles, and her mother gets her a cake. Nina turns it down, saying her stomach "is still in knots." Queen Sayers doesn't take this lightly and makes a dramatic pose to throw out the whole thing altogether. Nina relents, and has a piece. Whew.
One may think back for comparison to Aronofsky's own Requiem for a Dream, where we had a trippin-balls Ellen Burstyn imagining a living-bouncing refrigerator was coming her way in her apartment. I might think back more to classic-horror period Cronenberg, where one saw James Woods push a gun into his stomach and then attach itself to his hand in Videodrome. The flesh can be an icky, dicey and really squirm-worthy thing (one still can't quite get over the arm-off in 127 Hours last month), and Aronofsky pushes this right from the start.
When he shows these ballerinas working their toes into submission, and having to push their ankles and feet to a limit, it's not just a "showing the profession" kind of deal. It's connected to what Nina goes through later with her "other" condition, of an unusual mark on her back that goes in a straight line and is red, and perhaps scratched. Other people (at least Nina's mother) notice it on her, but Nina is the only one who sees it extend to its logical destination. When it gets there- and dear reader, you'll know where- its a transformation not unlike Mystique in the X-Men (side note, Aronofsky - The Wolverine - awesome).
A body can be a thing that can waste away, but the mind is a bit more complicated, and the subjective perspective is something Aronofsky is masterful at portraying here. I was completely caught up with Nina about midway through the film. Her mania became my mania in a way; Aronofsky's choices of close-ups on this woman falling apart is a distinct and maybe (only) brave choice to do. She has fear, anguish, pain, delirium, occasionally (when a 'substance' is put in her drink by Lily) euphoria, and finally full-on homicidal madness. I couldn't discern reality from fantasy in this film, which is something that excites me and surprises me. That it's also in the framework of a full-borne melodrama is something that excites further. No, it's not quite The Red Shoes. It's something different, adaptive, as if Stephen King with a refound lust for glory took the Red Shoes and doused it in kerosene and made it dance till it passed out. It's script, which deals in conventions, is deceptive once its truer purposes are revealed by its director (who, admittedly, rises it up from potential pitfalls that backstage-dramas can have).
Casting is so important though, outside of a director's vision, and Aronofsky has a lead here that could equal her previous Randy 'The Ram' from The Wrestler. Natalie Portman seems to find a really strong role every five years or so, and this is one of them. In Nina she finds darker countours than I've seen her play before, and as the filmmaking reaches a feverish pitch the actress is right there along for the ride. I mentioned close-ups before (as did Jim Emerson in his blurb, bless him), and Portman is game to fill up the frame with her availability and horror that she can give as an actress. It's a revelatory performance in that she runs a gamut of emotional notes from tender to sad to hysterical to mad to evil and just downright... determined. That she's also an amazing ballerina should be a given to be in this film, though her dedication to the role pays off in that climactic Swan Lake performance. It's not all visual fx up there and lighting daring-do. It's flesh and blood and eyes turned red and wings flapping like daggers.
Did I mention the music? Or the cinematography? Or any number of things? In short, it's one of the best of the year, do go see it if it's around the area or when it opens wider this Christmas. As far as head-trip mind-fuckers go, it's the director's finest and, within its cozy hand-held 16mm confines, most ambitious work.
"Just because you're a perfectionist doesn't mean your perfect."
(Jack Nicholson to Stanley Kubrick on the set of The Shining)
The world of the ballet is tough, hard and cruel to the body. It should be a given as soon as you hear the name Darren Aronofsky as director of this film Black Swan, and that his previous film was The Wrestler, that he would be obsessed with that aspect of it. Then again, obsession is one of the main deals to an Aronofsky movie: the perfect number in Pi, fame and achieving good life with no worries in Requiem for a Dream; finding a cure in The Fountain; one's identity in The Wrestler. Every character has a drive, usually towards self-destruction, and the body, the flesh and the spirit sometimes one or the other or both vying for attention, becomes an excrutating focual point.
But hey, you didn't come here to get a full-on breakdown of Aronofsky as auteur did you? No, maybe you did (sorry for the lapse into really addressing at *you* in this review, I'll stop now, maybe). In Black Swan we get Aronofsky's talents at a high peak. It's about a world where pressure cooks the soul and the drive has to be kept again (clap) again (clap) AGAIN (clap). The ballerina is no less an athlete or professional body-fucker-upper than a wrestler, only with this it's the feet, the toes, and the constitution of the body weight. Natalie Portman, for example for the role, lost twenty pounds off of her already skinny frame to play the role (it's not The Machinist but it'll do). And Aronofsky's aim is to explore the nature of a perfectionist in this realm, or someone driven to be one after so many years, and how it drives one mad. Kubrick might be proud.
What's fascinating about Nina Sayers (Portman) is how much she creates her own sense of must-be-perfect-self-worth once she gets the role of the black swan along with the white swan. The latter is just fine, she's a delicate flower of a young woman able to portray her fragile veneer. The former is more difficult, as she's not impulsive, or very sexual. If one reads into ber backstory she's probably like the result of a parent who drove her to this as a child, maybe a very young one, as Nina's mother (Barbara Hershey) tells her she's been at this ballet thing for a long time. She's not even thirty and already becoming an old-timer; she's replacing "The Dying Swan" herself, Beth McIntyre (Winona Ryder, one of her best performances, seriously, even in such a short capacity she amazes in a one 1/2 note performance).
(Oh, by the by, 'Dying Swan' isn't merely a reading-into kind of deal. On IMDb, unknown to me when I saw the movie, characters are listed with monikers; Nina is the "Swan Queen", her would-be friend and rival newcomer Lily (sexually charged and loosely played Mila Kunis) is the "Black Swan", and the trainer, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel, kind of sinisterly hamming it up as a descendant of a character originally played with more class by Anton Walbrook in The Red Shoes) is the "The Gentleman" weirdly (or ironically) enough. The mother is the "The Queen". Perphaps these are references to the Swan Lake ballet. Or maybe Aronofsky's just being cute, or having fun in his own diabolical-dark way).
What happens to Nina isn't quite so sudden; from the start of the movie there's a sense of paranoia to her, of a sound she may hear (thanks sound fx!) or a dark figure standing down a corridor at the ballet studio. Once she gets this dual role and is pushed on by her instructor/mentor/sexual-assaulter Thomas to dig deeper to find that wild-side for the black swan, which isn't easy to find, she goes deeper into a mania where it is hard to separate reality from fantasy. From nightmare, in fact. Compounding this are the diametrically opposed forces of Nina's Mother, who once had dreams of her own and failed to achieve them (like a lot of showbiz mums), and her equal love/disdain relationship with her. One of the more interesting scenes psychologically comes when after Nina got the two roles, and her mother gets her a cake. Nina turns it down, saying her stomach "is still in knots." Queen Sayers doesn't take this lightly and makes a dramatic pose to throw out the whole thing altogether. Nina relents, and has a piece. Whew.
One may think back for comparison to Aronofsky's own Requiem for a Dream, where we had a trippin-balls Ellen Burstyn imagining a living-bouncing refrigerator was coming her way in her apartment. I might think back more to classic-horror period Cronenberg, where one saw James Woods push a gun into his stomach and then attach itself to his hand in Videodrome. The flesh can be an icky, dicey and really squirm-worthy thing (one still can't quite get over the arm-off in 127 Hours last month), and Aronofsky pushes this right from the start.
When he shows these ballerinas working their toes into submission, and having to push their ankles and feet to a limit, it's not just a "showing the profession" kind of deal. It's connected to what Nina goes through later with her "other" condition, of an unusual mark on her back that goes in a straight line and is red, and perhaps scratched. Other people (at least Nina's mother) notice it on her, but Nina is the only one who sees it extend to its logical destination. When it gets there- and dear reader, you'll know where- its a transformation not unlike Mystique in the X-Men (side note, Aronofsky - The Wolverine - awesome).
A body can be a thing that can waste away, but the mind is a bit more complicated, and the subjective perspective is something Aronofsky is masterful at portraying here. I was completely caught up with Nina about midway through the film. Her mania became my mania in a way; Aronofsky's choices of close-ups on this woman falling apart is a distinct and maybe (only) brave choice to do. She has fear, anguish, pain, delirium, occasionally (when a 'substance' is put in her drink by Lily) euphoria, and finally full-on homicidal madness. I couldn't discern reality from fantasy in this film, which is something that excites me and surprises me. That it's also in the framework of a full-borne melodrama is something that excites further. No, it's not quite The Red Shoes. It's something different, adaptive, as if Stephen King with a refound lust for glory took the Red Shoes and doused it in kerosene and made it dance till it passed out. It's script, which deals in conventions, is deceptive once its truer purposes are revealed by its director (who, admittedly, rises it up from potential pitfalls that backstage-dramas can have).
Casting is so important though, outside of a director's vision, and Aronofsky has a lead here that could equal her previous Randy 'The Ram' from The Wrestler. Natalie Portman seems to find a really strong role every five years or so, and this is one of them. In Nina she finds darker countours than I've seen her play before, and as the filmmaking reaches a feverish pitch the actress is right there along for the ride. I mentioned close-ups before (as did Jim Emerson in his blurb, bless him), and Portman is game to fill up the frame with her availability and horror that she can give as an actress. It's a revelatory performance in that she runs a gamut of emotional notes from tender to sad to hysterical to mad to evil and just downright... determined. That she's also an amazing ballerina should be a given to be in this film, though her dedication to the role pays off in that climactic Swan Lake performance. It's not all visual fx up there and lighting daring-do. It's flesh and blood and eyes turned red and wings flapping like daggers.
Did I mention the music? Or the cinematography? Or any number of things? In short, it's one of the best of the year, do go see it if it's around the area or when it opens wider this Christmas. As far as head-trip mind-fuckers go, it's the director's finest and, within its cozy hand-held 16mm confines, most ambitious work.
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Disputed Truth: Inside Job
by Jack, Jon, & Matt
Jack and Jon have some things to say about Charles Ferguson financial expose Inside Job, and they aren't shy about saying them. Matt tries to keep the peace while they get to bottom of what the film does right and what it does wrong.
**CLARIFICATIONS & CORRECTIONS**
4:17 clarification: Glenn Hubbard was Chief Economics Advisor under George W. Bush, current Dean of Columbia Business School, and one of the masterminds behind Bush's controversial tax cuts. When director Charles Ferguson asks him to disclose some of the companies he's consulted with, in case of conflict of interest, he compares the line of questioning to a deposition, says agreeing to be interviewed was a mistake, and challenges Ferguson to “give it your best shot!”
4:59 clarification: Jack cites an NPR interview with Ferguson, which can be found here.
6:27 correction: Jon asserts that Ferguson cuts away from interviews throughout the film while his subjects are still formulating their answers. In fact, he only does this twice. He does, however, often include only incomplete answers, sometimes for the sake of brevity or apparently to prevent the subject from backing up their assertions. As Matt and Jack state later in the podcast, virtually all documentaries of this type do this to varying degrees. The same cannot be said for the multiple instances in which Ferguson gives himself the final word during the interviews, undercutting his subjects and not allowing them to rebut him.
7:29 clarification: Matt refers to an instance in Fahrenheit 9/11 in which director Michael Moore questions Representative Mark Kennedy on his way into the Capitol. Kennedy's entire response, during which he reveals information contrary to Moore's implication, is cut from the film. This is not an entirely valid analogy. To our [the Stumped staff's] knowledge, none of Ferguson's subjects have accused him of such a blatant misrepresentation (at least not publicly). Moore has since released a transcript of his response, which can be found here.
10:14 clarification: Jack asserts that Charles Ferguson has a background in government. Though he never held public office, he is a doctor of political science and has consulted with many federal offices, including the White House.
10:48 correction: Jon challenges Jack to name a single economist interviewed in the film, suggesting that the film's economic perspective comes from business professors and CEOs. Jack fails to do so, but in fact, most of the film's subjects have backgrounds involving economics. Examples include Daniel Alpert, Sigridur Benediktsdottir, Willem Buiter, John Campbell, Satyajit Das, Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard, Simon Johnson, Christine Lagarde, Andrew Lo, Frederic Mishkin, Charles Morris, Raghuram Rajam, Kenneth Rogoff, Nouriel Roubini, Paul Volckner, Martin Wolf, and Gylfi Zoega. All of these individuals (along with other of the film's subjects, to varying degrees) have had some involvement in the study of economics (which is a social science involving statistical analysis in the study of market trends and their effects over time), be it as a journalist, an advisor, a professor, a researcher, or a public official. The term might even apply to Ferguson himself, who has published papers, written books, given lectures, and now directed a feature film on economic subject matter. Jon is correct in his assertion that economics and business are distinct fields, but they are not mutually exclusive. Some of these economists have gone on to hold positions in business schools, which is probably where the confusion arose. The film itself also spends a great deal of time exposing how businessmen and CEOs have been afforded undeserved authority as economists by media, universities, and government officials, even discrediting some of its subjects by this principle.
14:18 clarification: Without access to the graphs themselves, we have so far been unable to judge the accuracy of Jon's statements on the film's use of graphs and their inclusion of inflation prices. Typically the farther back the data goes, the more necessary such adjustments become. Inside Job deals primarily with data from the past ten years, so inflation is a minor variable in most cases.
20:04 clarification: Matt cites similarities between Ferguson's directing style and that of fellow documentarian Alex Gibney. Fun fact: Gibney was a consultant on Ferguson's Oscar-nominated debut, No End in Sight.
22:07 clarification: Jon asserts that many companies require the use of private jets, so the film's criticism of AIG's jet fleet is unjustified. This is true of many companies, but AIG is not one of them. Since the bailout of the auto industry, use of private jets has gone down, and AIG has decreased its fleet. Despite their association with corporate decadence, private jets do serve many practical functions. For instance, they speed up transit by bypassing the convoluted process of commercial airlines, they guarantee the company control over the flight, and they act as a mobile office so executives don't lose any time from their busy schedules. This is at a much greater cost, so the worth of this trade-off is debatable.
22:50 clarification: Jon suggests that the film unduly criticizes Lehman Brothers for not notifying French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde about their impending collapse. This is a misunderstanding of that sequence. Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke were negotiating a deal for the takeover of Lehman Brothers, but neglected to inform other governments of the disaster on the horizon. They break no laws by their silence, but the shock expressed by Ferguson, Lagarde, and Jon's fellow viewers is very justifiable, given that her close associates failed to warn her of the meltdown (especially after she had personally voiced concerns to Paulson months earlier).
Jack and Jon have some things to say about Charles Ferguson financial expose Inside Job, and they aren't shy about saying them. Matt tries to keep the peace while they get to bottom of what the film does right and what it does wrong.
**CLARIFICATIONS & CORRECTIONS**
4:17 clarification: Glenn Hubbard was Chief Economics Advisor under George W. Bush, current Dean of Columbia Business School, and one of the masterminds behind Bush's controversial tax cuts. When director Charles Ferguson asks him to disclose some of the companies he's consulted with, in case of conflict of interest, he compares the line of questioning to a deposition, says agreeing to be interviewed was a mistake, and challenges Ferguson to “give it your best shot!”
4:59 clarification: Jack cites an NPR interview with Ferguson, which can be found here.
6:27 correction: Jon asserts that Ferguson cuts away from interviews throughout the film while his subjects are still formulating their answers. In fact, he only does this twice. He does, however, often include only incomplete answers, sometimes for the sake of brevity or apparently to prevent the subject from backing up their assertions. As Matt and Jack state later in the podcast, virtually all documentaries of this type do this to varying degrees. The same cannot be said for the multiple instances in which Ferguson gives himself the final word during the interviews, undercutting his subjects and not allowing them to rebut him.
7:29 clarification: Matt refers to an instance in Fahrenheit 9/11 in which director Michael Moore questions Representative Mark Kennedy on his way into the Capitol. Kennedy's entire response, during which he reveals information contrary to Moore's implication, is cut from the film. This is not an entirely valid analogy. To our [the Stumped staff's] knowledge, none of Ferguson's subjects have accused him of such a blatant misrepresentation (at least not publicly). Moore has since released a transcript of his response, which can be found here.
10:14 clarification: Jack asserts that Charles Ferguson has a background in government. Though he never held public office, he is a doctor of political science and has consulted with many federal offices, including the White House.
10:48 correction: Jon challenges Jack to name a single economist interviewed in the film, suggesting that the film's economic perspective comes from business professors and CEOs. Jack fails to do so, but in fact, most of the film's subjects have backgrounds involving economics. Examples include Daniel Alpert, Sigridur Benediktsdottir, Willem Buiter, John Campbell, Satyajit Das, Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard, Simon Johnson, Christine Lagarde, Andrew Lo, Frederic Mishkin, Charles Morris, Raghuram Rajam, Kenneth Rogoff, Nouriel Roubini, Paul Volckner, Martin Wolf, and Gylfi Zoega. All of these individuals (along with other of the film's subjects, to varying degrees) have had some involvement in the study of economics (which is a social science involving statistical analysis in the study of market trends and their effects over time), be it as a journalist, an advisor, a professor, a researcher, or a public official. The term might even apply to Ferguson himself, who has published papers, written books, given lectures, and now directed a feature film on economic subject matter. Jon is correct in his assertion that economics and business are distinct fields, but they are not mutually exclusive. Some of these economists have gone on to hold positions in business schools, which is probably where the confusion arose. The film itself also spends a great deal of time exposing how businessmen and CEOs have been afforded undeserved authority as economists by media, universities, and government officials, even discrediting some of its subjects by this principle.
14:18 clarification: Without access to the graphs themselves, we have so far been unable to judge the accuracy of Jon's statements on the film's use of graphs and their inclusion of inflation prices. Typically the farther back the data goes, the more necessary such adjustments become. Inside Job deals primarily with data from the past ten years, so inflation is a minor variable in most cases.
20:04 clarification: Matt cites similarities between Ferguson's directing style and that of fellow documentarian Alex Gibney. Fun fact: Gibney was a consultant on Ferguson's Oscar-nominated debut, No End in Sight.
22:07 clarification: Jon asserts that many companies require the use of private jets, so the film's criticism of AIG's jet fleet is unjustified. This is true of many companies, but AIG is not one of them. Since the bailout of the auto industry, use of private jets has gone down, and AIG has decreased its fleet. Despite their association with corporate decadence, private jets do serve many practical functions. For instance, they speed up transit by bypassing the convoluted process of commercial airlines, they guarantee the company control over the flight, and they act as a mobile office so executives don't lose any time from their busy schedules. This is at a much greater cost, so the worth of this trade-off is debatable.
22:50 clarification: Jon suggests that the film unduly criticizes Lehman Brothers for not notifying French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde about their impending collapse. This is a misunderstanding of that sequence. Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke were negotiating a deal for the takeover of Lehman Brothers, but neglected to inform other governments of the disaster on the horizon. They break no laws by their silence, but the shock expressed by Ferguson, Lagarde, and Jon's fellow viewers is very justifiable, given that her close associates failed to warn her of the meltdown (especially after she had personally voiced concerns to Paulson months earlier).
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Inside Job review
by Matt
Remember all that stuff I said about how difficult Disney writers have it? The same thing goes for feature-length documentary filmmakers, only double it. When it deals with politics, square it. When Michael Moore is involved, add another exponent for every year since Roger & Me.
You not only have to convey accurate, factual information which satisfies the critical viewers who will comprise much of your audience, but you must also make the information compelling, weaving it into the fabric of a story. If you fail at one, the other will suffer. I feel this is the case with Inside Job.
It should all be there: political and white-collar corruption, an industry whose success is based on the very source of its eventual downfall, larger-than-life personalities exploiting an establish they themselves control. Scorsese would have a field day.1 Instead, the film spends most of its time interrupting its uninteresting interview subjects so director Charles Ferguson can butt in with his two cents or Matt Damon can reiterate with intense narration.
The choice of Matt Damon as narrator puzzled me as I watched the film. I would never argue that Mr. Ripley isn't talented (badump tish!), but his voice doesn't carry the same fatherly authority as a Peter Coyote (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room) or Morgan Freeman (Morgan Freeman, duh!), nor the unassumingness of Josh Brolin (The Tillman Story). We recognize him immediately as the voice of countless spies, con men, and depressed mathematicians.
Usually, in a film like this, the narrator is the main drive with the interviews highlighting his points with details and anecdotes. Too often, the interviews simply reiterate Jason Bourne's previous statement or vice versa. What works in the trailer to Black Dynamite doesn't necessarily work everywhere else.
Come to think of it, much of the editing was pretty shoddy. The interview subjects always seem like they're being cut off in the middle of a thought. As I said to Jon during our podcast, it isn't uncommon for interviews to be truncated like this, but after seeing the film, I must concede that the cuts don't usually draw attention to themselves like they did here. The animations likewise tended to be very drab, simply sitting there on the screen with their smug little arrows and legends. On top of this, at least one of the interviews had a noisy lavalier microphone which kept shuffling against the subject's clothes. I can't help but resent a serious Oscar-contender that shows less attention to detail than most freshman film students.
These complaints might seem beside the point, but I don't think they are. The content of a film cannot be judged apart from its style. They are woven together. Individual elements might seem to play well enough (the heist movie opening credits sequence, the shocking congressional hearings, Elliot Spitzer's "Do I seriously have to talk about my affair again?" reaction, Ben Affleck's monologue about wanting a better life for Will), but if they can't form into a coherent whole, the film doesn't work.
Go back and listen to the podcast (we need the hits), and look at the clarifications page. The aesthetic mishandling of this information actually leads Jon to several erroneous conclusions about the truth of the film's claims. Had the film been directed with greater cohesion, had it a more focused point of view, had Ferguson actually demonstrated any interest in his subjects during the interviews, I doubt this would've been the case.
Inside Job has probably had more universal renown than any other non-fiction film in a year dominated by documentary masterpieces. It is well-researched, hard-hitting, and will be an eye-opener to most of its viewers. I dispute neither its facts, figures, or conclusions. I only wish I had gotten them from a more compelling film.
1 - Marty, if you're reading, make it happen! You can put Matt Damon in it!
P.S. Matt Damon, if you're reading this, please don't take it too personally. I really do enjoy your work. You were great in Inception.
Remember all that stuff I said about how difficult Disney writers have it? The same thing goes for feature-length documentary filmmakers, only double it. When it deals with politics, square it. When Michael Moore is involved, add another exponent for every year since Roger & Me.
You not only have to convey accurate, factual information which satisfies the critical viewers who will comprise much of your audience, but you must also make the information compelling, weaving it into the fabric of a story. If you fail at one, the other will suffer. I feel this is the case with Inside Job.
It should all be there: political and white-collar corruption, an industry whose success is based on the very source of its eventual downfall, larger-than-life personalities exploiting an establish they themselves control. Scorsese would have a field day.1 Instead, the film spends most of its time interrupting its uninteresting interview subjects so director Charles Ferguson can butt in with his two cents or Matt Damon can reiterate with intense narration.
The choice of Matt Damon as narrator puzzled me as I watched the film. I would never argue that Mr. Ripley isn't talented (badump tish!), but his voice doesn't carry the same fatherly authority as a Peter Coyote (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room) or Morgan Freeman (Morgan Freeman, duh!), nor the unassumingness of Josh Brolin (The Tillman Story). We recognize him immediately as the voice of countless spies, con men, and depressed mathematicians.
Mark Whitacre records his narration for Inside Job
Usually, in a film like this, the narrator is the main drive with the interviews highlighting his points with details and anecdotes. Too often, the interviews simply reiterate Jason Bourne's previous statement or vice versa. What works in the trailer to Black Dynamite doesn't necessarily work everywhere else.
Come to think of it, much of the editing was pretty shoddy. The interview subjects always seem like they're being cut off in the middle of a thought. As I said to Jon during our podcast, it isn't uncommon for interviews to be truncated like this, but after seeing the film, I must concede that the cuts don't usually draw attention to themselves like they did here. The animations likewise tended to be very drab, simply sitting there on the screen with their smug little arrows and legends. On top of this, at least one of the interviews had a noisy lavalier microphone which kept shuffling against the subject's clothes. I can't help but resent a serious Oscar-contender that shows less attention to detail than most freshman film students.
These complaints might seem beside the point, but I don't think they are. The content of a film cannot be judged apart from its style. They are woven together. Individual elements might seem to play well enough (the heist movie opening credits sequence, the shocking congressional hearings, Elliot Spitzer's "Do I seriously have to talk about my affair again?" reaction, Ben Affleck's monologue about wanting a better life for Will), but if they can't form into a coherent whole, the film doesn't work.
Go back and listen to the podcast (we need the hits), and look at the clarifications page. The aesthetic mishandling of this information actually leads Jon to several erroneous conclusions about the truth of the film's claims. Had the film been directed with greater cohesion, had it a more focused point of view, had Ferguson actually demonstrated any interest in his subjects during the interviews, I doubt this would've been the case.
Inside Job has probably had more universal renown than any other non-fiction film in a year dominated by documentary masterpieces. It is well-researched, hard-hitting, and will be an eye-opener to most of its viewers. I dispute neither its facts, figures, or conclusions. I only wish I had gotten them from a more compelling film.
1 - Marty, if you're reading, make it happen! You can put Matt Damon in it!
P.S. Matt Damon, if you're reading this, please don't take it too personally. I really do enjoy your work. You were great in Inception.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
127 Hours and Danny Boyle in general
Hola, Jack here,
here is my take on Danny Boyle's latest film, his follow-up to the Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours, based on the true story of Aron Ralston.
Meanwhile, I'll be nightclubbing...
here is my take on Danny Boyle's latest film, his follow-up to the Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours, based on the true story of Aron Ralston.
Meanwhile, I'll be nightclubbing...
Tangled review
by Matt
It must be very difficult to be a Disney writer. On the one hand, you have to make films that will appeal to a modern audience, create engaging characters, and place them in a adventurous story that will allow for outrageous spectacle. On the other, you have the legacy, one which ignores many of those elements for outdated and often politically incorrect archetypes.
Don't get me wrong, I love golden-age Disney, and like everyone else, hold it as the standard-bearer for all animation since. Films like Pinocchio and Fantasia have been among my favorite films since childhood, but the Princess (TM) films always felt like they were missing something critical. Until the early nineties, there was a definite Mary Sue complex that held them back, a blankness that let young girls place their own personalities onto the protagonists, but robbed those characters of any real personality.
Disney's new film Tangled does a terrific job of balancing these seemingly incompatible standards. Repunzel is as sunny and alive as the legend that bred her. She's charismatic, adventurous if a little timid, positive if a little moody, and she has magical hair that glows when she sings! That hair alone is a work of art; it really does seem to be without end. She can climb on it, use it to swing from rafters, restrain intruders with it, use it as a whip and -- ahem, anyway...
Actually, the film isn't nearly as kinky as the teaser trailer suggests, and as much as I was interested in seeing a Disneyfied Black Snake Moan this is really more in the tradition of classic Disney animation.
Knowing this, I might be tempted to criticize the use of computer-generated imagery, but the animators seem to have no difficulty translating the textures, the movement, the magic of the Disney Princess (TM) genre to these new tools. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the soundtrack, which features traditional show tunes alongside some very annoying bubblegum pop songs, an upsetting tendency in many recent animated films.
Of course, it wouldn't be a proper Disney film without a proper Disney villain. Here we have Mother Gothel, who steals Repunzel from her crib. Gothel locks her in a tower to gain eternal youth from the power of her hair. She warns Repunzel against venturing into the dangerous outside world, an element that reminded me of Judge Frollo of the The Hunchback of Notre Dame with a pinch of the Wicked Stepmother of Cinderella. In a way, though, Gothel is a much more sinister creation. She actually pretends to care.
She dotes on Repunzel, embraces her like a loving mother, and only occasionally lets a slip a demeaning comment before covering herself with a casual "I'm just teasing." I found the ease of her ruse and the extent of her manipulation downright terrifying. I can't help but wonder how many children will see a parallel with their own parents, and whether those parents will appreciate being made into the villains of their children's fantasies. As much as I appreciate the nuance of their relationship in a Shadow of a Doubt sort of way, I'm not sure everyone will feel likewise.
Though it might not have the same mystique and wonder of some earlier Disney films, I'll defend its place among the canon. It's a film with some genuine personality and superb animation. It does very little wrong (some crappy songs, clunky exposition, and an ending that lacks credibility even in its own fantasy universe), but it may not have lasting power of its predecessors or even some of its contemporaries. Then again, I can think of a few worse ways to spend an afternoon.
Did I say worse? I meant amazing!
It must be very difficult to be a Disney writer. On the one hand, you have to make films that will appeal to a modern audience, create engaging characters, and place them in a adventurous story that will allow for outrageous spectacle. On the other, you have the legacy, one which ignores many of those elements for outdated and often politically incorrect archetypes.
Don't get me wrong, I love golden-age Disney, and like everyone else, hold it as the standard-bearer for all animation since. Films like Pinocchio and Fantasia have been among my favorite films since childhood, but the Princess (TM) films always felt like they were missing something critical. Until the early nineties, there was a definite Mary Sue complex that held them back, a blankness that let young girls place their own personalities onto the protagonists, but robbed those characters of any real personality.
Disney's new film Tangled does a terrific job of balancing these seemingly incompatible standards. Repunzel is as sunny and alive as the legend that bred her. She's charismatic, adventurous if a little timid, positive if a little moody, and she has magical hair that glows when she sings! That hair alone is a work of art; it really does seem to be without end. She can climb on it, use it to swing from rafters, restrain intruders with it, use it as a whip and -- ahem, anyway...
Actually, the film isn't nearly as kinky as the teaser trailer suggests, and as much as I was interested in seeing a Disneyfied Black Snake Moan this is really more in the tradition of classic Disney animation.
Knowing this, I might be tempted to criticize the use of computer-generated imagery, but the animators seem to have no difficulty translating the textures, the movement, the magic of the Disney Princess (TM) genre to these new tools. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the soundtrack, which features traditional show tunes alongside some very annoying bubblegum pop songs, an upsetting tendency in many recent animated films.
Of course, it wouldn't be a proper Disney film without a proper Disney villain. Here we have Mother Gothel, who steals Repunzel from her crib. Gothel locks her in a tower to gain eternal youth from the power of her hair. She warns Repunzel against venturing into the dangerous outside world, an element that reminded me of Judge Frollo of the The Hunchback of Notre Dame with a pinch of the Wicked Stepmother of Cinderella. In a way, though, Gothel is a much more sinister creation. She actually pretends to care.
She dotes on Repunzel, embraces her like a loving mother, and only occasionally lets a slip a demeaning comment before covering herself with a casual "I'm just teasing." I found the ease of her ruse and the extent of her manipulation downright terrifying. I can't help but wonder how many children will see a parallel with their own parents, and whether those parents will appreciate being made into the villains of their children's fantasies. As much as I appreciate the nuance of their relationship in a Shadow of a Doubt sort of way, I'm not sure everyone will feel likewise.
Though it might not have the same mystique and wonder of some earlier Disney films, I'll defend its place among the canon. It's a film with some genuine personality and superb animation. It does very little wrong (some crappy songs, clunky exposition, and an ending that lacks credibility even in its own fantasy universe), but it may not have lasting power of its predecessors or even some of its contemporaries. Then again, I can think of a few worse ways to spend an afternoon.
Did I say worse? I meant amazing!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Alex Gibney: A Year in Pictures
by Matt
In 2005, director Alex Gibney released what might be the best expose ever put to film. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room tamed the convoluted technical data of the Enron collapse and painted a detailed portrait of corruption run rampant in a deregulated economy. It was nominated for an Oscar, is required viewing in most business schools, and is pretty much the only thing on CNBC anymore.1 In 2008, he continued his legacy for political muckraking with the Oscar-winning Taxi to the Dark Side, which explored torture policies of POWs, and Gonzo, a biography of controversial writer Hunter Thompson. Gibney's films combine an investigative journalist's attention to detail with the frenetic energy and great storytelling sensibilities of someone like Martin Scorsese.
Flash forward another two years to the present day. 2010 is a year of severe political unrest in the United States. Citizens are furious to find themselves at the mercy of gamblers on Wall Street and twice as furious that politicians seek to put a stop to this. Campaign ads rule the airways, 3D rules the theaters, and Gibney returns to the screens with enough great films to populate the entire filmography of a great documentarian, all in the span of a few months.
Casino Jack & The United States of Money
------Original Message------
From: Jack Abramoff (Dir-DC-GOV)
Subject: re
...
Why would you want to make a documentary?
No one watches documentaries. You should make an action film!
These opening titles from Gibney's biography of the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff are not only wise words (are more people going to see Superman Returnsor Waiting for Superman?), but they tie together many themes and motifs in the film. Abramoff used to produce films to promote African rebel groups, starting with documentaries before abandoning them in favor of action-packed morality tales starring Dolph Lundgren. He incriminated himself with snarky emails about his exploitation of Indian reservations. Wearing a black trench coat and fedora to his indictment, he seemed to eagerly assume the role of villain in the ensuing media frenzy. The hearing was conducted by many of the legislators he'd personally gotten elected.
Casino Jack shines a powerful spotlight into the shadowy realities of so-called "free markets." Libertarian ideals are personified by the island commonwealth of Saipan, whose paper-thin economy Abramoff helped establish. As the film recounts the email exchanges between Abramoff and his associates, I couldn't help but think back to the traders' shocking candor about robbing elderly Californians in The Smartest Guys in the Room.
Casino Jack is equal parts political muckraking and character study, but Abramoff is only a part of that character. Gibney places the entire Reagan-era politic under scrutiny, considering its roots as a rebellion against rebellion following 1960s hippie counterculture. Gibney utilizes an upbeat soundtrack and old movie clips to build his trademark energy, which makes the film play like... well, an action movie.
My Trip to Al-Qaeda
They say hindsight is 20-20. It's easy to look back over the past decade and spot mistakes and warnings of government corruption, but I think journalist Lawrence Wright earned the right to shoot off his mouth. "It was all so predictable," he disdainfully remarks about American use of torture in the wake of terrorist attacks. He penned the 1998 Edward Zwick thriller The Siege, about American human rights violations in the wake of terrorist attacks.
With the possible exception of Robert MacNamera in The Fog of War, I don't think I've ever seen a more fascinating subject of a documentary. Rather than a standard interview format, Wright tells his story via a one-man show. He stands in a dark room, empty save for a cluttered office desk and video screen, which shows illustrative footage such as news clips and interviews. This format achieves an intimacy rare to film, as if we're watching the world from a Cartesian control room within his brain.
He talks about how The Siege sparked controversy in the Muslim world which led to the bombing of a Planet Hollywood in South Africa, and he talks about the book it inspired him to write. "I'm not responsible for the terror; I know that. But people perished who would be alive if I had not written that movie. A little girl would be skipping down the sidewalk in Kensington. That bomb in Cape Town was really aimed at me, at my imagination. And I needed to know why."
His research leads him to the Middle East, where he meets terrorists and befriends Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. It pays off, winning him a Pulitzer Prize, but it puts him in an uneasy place, torn between ideals journalistic objectivity and his hatred for the jihadists. How would you act during an interview with bin Laden?
During his travels, though, an even more sinister tower looms. The hypothetical martial law policies of The Siege begin to come to fruition. Suspects are captured and tortured without trial. Wright himself becomes victim of an illegal wiretapping. And worst of all, this was exactly what Al-Qaeda had planned, to drive a wedge between Islam and the West and exploit it in a public relations war most Americans didn't even know was being waged.
Freakonomics: "Pure Corruption"
Freakonomics isn't a very good film. I'd probably describe it as the Four Rooms of non-fiction, but the typical problems with anthologies are actually severely aggravated here. The four films not only cover the an entire spectrum of quality, but there is absolutely no attempt to reconcile these diverse creative visions. Four Rooms was at least cohesive, and it built up momentum as it went along. Freakonomics, despite some good installments and interesting topics, feels haphazardly pasted together.
It's almost a shame that anthology films often house some of the best short films around, and this one is no exception. The cream of the crop, as you might have predicted, is Gibney's film "Pure Corruption," which offers a cursory study of cheaters at sumo wrestling.
It shouldn't happen. Sumo is a sacred ritual within the Shinto faith, a means to cleanse oneself of evil (or something like that; I said it was cursory), practiced in one of the least corrupt nations in the developed world, yet Gibney's film reveals some shocking info about what goes on behind the scenes, typifying a pattern of repression in many parts of Japanese society, leaving wounds to fester away at the inside. As always, incentives play an important role, and I find it somewhat gratuitous that Gibney felt the need to spell out its economic allegory.
But this isn't just a film about profit margins. It's big picture about big men in loincloths, both mentally and physically. The sumo footage used to highlight the talking heads brings a visceral quality to this tale of dishonesty and murder.
Client 9: The Rise of Eliot Spitzer
There seem to be two key virtues to most of Gibney's work. First, his ability to distill complex chains of causation (money-laundering, covert torture, or the birth of a social movement) to a simple essence, so that laymen like myself can actually make sense of them. Second, his Errol-Morris-esque combination of interviews, imagery, and music to create an intimate sense of his subject's worldview. These skill sets are perfectly suited to the story of Eliot Spitzer's fall from grace, which makes it all the more disappointing that Client 9 seems so uneven.
Maybe this is one case where reality is blander than fiction, but I still have no sense of why Spitzer - a vigilante attorney general and governor, notorious for his intolerance for corruption - would so betray his own virtues and destroy his political career for the sake of chasing tail. Despite his use of interrotron in the Spitzer interviews (a new technique for Gibney), the disgraced politician remains at a distance. Instead of a straightforward telling of his experiences, it becomes a convoluted web of prostitution business models and conspiracy theories.2 When films like The Smartest Guys in the Room and Casino Jack balance the technical and personal elements with grace and ease, Client 9 seems much too grounded in hard data.
But don't get the wrong idea. This is still a worthy addition to any filmmaker's canon. Despite never really cracking Spitzer's surface, his interviews are weirdly fascinating. The interrotron offers a greater appreciation for his vulnerability speaking about his periods of weakness. He tries to frame his story as a Hollywood cliche and repeats the word "hubrus" like a broken record. He wants to be forthright, but he navigates the waters carefully. Can't say I blame him, after what he went through. When you can't even justify your actions to yourself, it's difficult to do so to strangers.
The supporting cast is another story entirely. Spitzer's enemies take great joy in sharing their deep-seeded hatred for him. Their rhetoric transcends exaggeration into downright eccentricity, not unlike the subject of a previous Gibney biography, Hunter S. Thompson. (A PR man hired to discredit Spitzer even invokes the "gonzo brand of journalism.") Spitzer apparently had his own brand of extreme rhetoric when speaking privately, recalling the aggressive banter of cowboy and cop movies.
His associates in the sex industry tell a different story, largely apathetic to his policies. (Perhaps they don't know about the prostitution rings he'd personally busted as attorney general.) His most frequent companion wished to remain anonymous. Rather than just place her in silhouette or blur out her face, Gibney transcribed her interview and hired an actress to recite it. It's an inspired gimmick, one of many touches that give the film a more playful quality, even as it weighs itself down by trying to about more than it is.
The Takeaway
Alex Gibney might be the first auteur of journalism. More than simple education, he's one of a few voices in modern non-fiction to see facts as a tool for deeper truths. Be it about economics, politics, crime, or all of the above, he trains his lens on individuals who define themselves and the world through the media's skewed reflection. It shapes nations and consumes those who gaze too hard.
As the polls close and the new generation of campaigns begin, you might find a little perspective from his films. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I can think of few greater authors on the subject. In a year when documentaries are flourishing in all the theaters no one attends, Gibney has shown himself a cut above most of the competition.
1 It also was one of the principle sources in college paper which I wrote. The teacher noted that mine was the best in the class. My mother was so proud as, I'm sure, was Gibney's.
2 I'm not disputing that there was a political element to the Spitzer investigation (the circumstantial evidence is persuasive, though not enough to draw any definite conclusions), but considering that Spitzer admits to everything, I think the film ascribes too much relevance to it.
Did I mention his films feature music from Tom Waits and Gorillaz?
In 2005, director Alex Gibney released what might be the best expose ever put to film. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room tamed the convoluted technical data of the Enron collapse and painted a detailed portrait of corruption run rampant in a deregulated economy. It was nominated for an Oscar, is required viewing in most business schools, and is pretty much the only thing on CNBC anymore.1 In 2008, he continued his legacy for political muckraking with the Oscar-winning Taxi to the Dark Side, which explored torture policies of POWs, and Gonzo, a biography of controversial writer Hunter Thompson. Gibney's films combine an investigative journalist's attention to detail with the frenetic energy and great storytelling sensibilities of someone like Martin Scorsese.
Flash forward another two years to the present day. 2010 is a year of severe political unrest in the United States. Citizens are furious to find themselves at the mercy of gamblers on Wall Street and twice as furious that politicians seek to put a stop to this. Campaign ads rule the airways, 3D rules the theaters, and Gibney returns to the screens with enough great films to populate the entire filmography of a great documentarian, all in the span of a few months.
Casino Jack & The United States of Money
------Original Message------
From: Jack Abramoff (Dir-DC-GOV)
Subject: re
...
Why would you want to make a documentary?
No one watches documentaries. You should make an action film!
These opening titles from Gibney's biography of the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff are not only wise words (are more people going to see Superman Returnsor Waiting for Superman?), but they tie together many themes and motifs in the film. Abramoff used to produce films to promote African rebel groups, starting with documentaries before abandoning them in favor of action-packed morality tales starring Dolph Lundgren. He incriminated himself with snarky emails about his exploitation of Indian reservations. Wearing a black trench coat and fedora to his indictment, he seemed to eagerly assume the role of villain in the ensuing media frenzy. The hearing was conducted by many of the legislators he'd personally gotten elected.Casino Jack shines a powerful spotlight into the shadowy realities of so-called "free markets." Libertarian ideals are personified by the island commonwealth of Saipan, whose paper-thin economy Abramoff helped establish. As the film recounts the email exchanges between Abramoff and his associates, I couldn't help but think back to the traders' shocking candor about robbing elderly Californians in The Smartest Guys in the Room.
Casino Jack is equal parts political muckraking and character study, but Abramoff is only a part of that character. Gibney places the entire Reagan-era politic under scrutiny, considering its roots as a rebellion against rebellion following 1960s hippie counterculture. Gibney utilizes an upbeat soundtrack and old movie clips to build his trademark energy, which makes the film play like... well, an action movie.
My Trip to Al-Qaeda
They say hindsight is 20-20. It's easy to look back over the past decade and spot mistakes and warnings of government corruption, but I think journalist Lawrence Wright earned the right to shoot off his mouth. "It was all so predictable," he disdainfully remarks about American use of torture in the wake of terrorist attacks. He penned the 1998 Edward Zwick thriller The Siege, about American human rights violations in the wake of terrorist attacks.
With the possible exception of Robert MacNamera in The Fog of War, I don't think I've ever seen a more fascinating subject of a documentary. Rather than a standard interview format, Wright tells his story via a one-man show. He stands in a dark room, empty save for a cluttered office desk and video screen, which shows illustrative footage such as news clips and interviews. This format achieves an intimacy rare to film, as if we're watching the world from a Cartesian control room within his brain.He talks about how The Siege sparked controversy in the Muslim world which led to the bombing of a Planet Hollywood in South Africa, and he talks about the book it inspired him to write. "I'm not responsible for the terror; I know that. But people perished who would be alive if I had not written that movie. A little girl would be skipping down the sidewalk in Kensington. That bomb in Cape Town was really aimed at me, at my imagination. And I needed to know why."
His research leads him to the Middle East, where he meets terrorists and befriends Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. It pays off, winning him a Pulitzer Prize, but it puts him in an uneasy place, torn between ideals journalistic objectivity and his hatred for the jihadists. How would you act during an interview with bin Laden?
During his travels, though, an even more sinister tower looms. The hypothetical martial law policies of The Siege begin to come to fruition. Suspects are captured and tortured without trial. Wright himself becomes victim of an illegal wiretapping. And worst of all, this was exactly what Al-Qaeda had planned, to drive a wedge between Islam and the West and exploit it in a public relations war most Americans didn't even know was being waged.
Freakonomics: "Pure Corruption"
Freakonomics isn't a very good film. I'd probably describe it as the Four Rooms of non-fiction, but the typical problems with anthologies are actually severely aggravated here. The four films not only cover the an entire spectrum of quality, but there is absolutely no attempt to reconcile these diverse creative visions. Four Rooms was at least cohesive, and it built up momentum as it went along. Freakonomics, despite some good installments and interesting topics, feels haphazardly pasted together.
It's almost a shame that anthology films often house some of the best short films around, and this one is no exception. The cream of the crop, as you might have predicted, is Gibney's film "Pure Corruption," which offers a cursory study of cheaters at sumo wrestling.
It shouldn't happen. Sumo is a sacred ritual within the Shinto faith, a means to cleanse oneself of evil (or something like that; I said it was cursory), practiced in one of the least corrupt nations in the developed world, yet Gibney's film reveals some shocking info about what goes on behind the scenes, typifying a pattern of repression in many parts of Japanese society, leaving wounds to fester away at the inside. As always, incentives play an important role, and I find it somewhat gratuitous that Gibney felt the need to spell out its economic allegory.But this isn't just a film about profit margins. It's big picture about big men in loincloths, both mentally and physically. The sumo footage used to highlight the talking heads brings a visceral quality to this tale of dishonesty and murder.
Client 9: The Rise of Eliot Spitzer
There seem to be two key virtues to most of Gibney's work. First, his ability to distill complex chains of causation (money-laundering, covert torture, or the birth of a social movement) to a simple essence, so that laymen like myself can actually make sense of them. Second, his Errol-Morris-esque combination of interviews, imagery, and music to create an intimate sense of his subject's worldview. These skill sets are perfectly suited to the story of Eliot Spitzer's fall from grace, which makes it all the more disappointing that Client 9 seems so uneven.
Maybe this is one case where reality is blander than fiction, but I still have no sense of why Spitzer - a vigilante attorney general and governor, notorious for his intolerance for corruption - would so betray his own virtues and destroy his political career for the sake of chasing tail. Despite his use of interrotron in the Spitzer interviews (a new technique for Gibney), the disgraced politician remains at a distance. Instead of a straightforward telling of his experiences, it becomes a convoluted web of prostitution business models and conspiracy theories.2 When films like The Smartest Guys in the Room and Casino Jack balance the technical and personal elements with grace and ease, Client 9 seems much too grounded in hard data.
But don't get the wrong idea. This is still a worthy addition to any filmmaker's canon. Despite never really cracking Spitzer's surface, his interviews are weirdly fascinating. The interrotron offers a greater appreciation for his vulnerability speaking about his periods of weakness. He tries to frame his story as a Hollywood cliche and repeats the word "hubrus" like a broken record. He wants to be forthright, but he navigates the waters carefully. Can't say I blame him, after what he went through. When you can't even justify your actions to yourself, it's difficult to do so to strangers.The supporting cast is another story entirely. Spitzer's enemies take great joy in sharing their deep-seeded hatred for him. Their rhetoric transcends exaggeration into downright eccentricity, not unlike the subject of a previous Gibney biography, Hunter S. Thompson. (A PR man hired to discredit Spitzer even invokes the "gonzo brand of journalism.") Spitzer apparently had his own brand of extreme rhetoric when speaking privately, recalling the aggressive banter of cowboy and cop movies.
His associates in the sex industry tell a different story, largely apathetic to his policies. (Perhaps they don't know about the prostitution rings he'd personally busted as attorney general.) His most frequent companion wished to remain anonymous. Rather than just place her in silhouette or blur out her face, Gibney transcribed her interview and hired an actress to recite it. It's an inspired gimmick, one of many touches that give the film a more playful quality, even as it weighs itself down by trying to about more than it is.
The Takeaway
Alex Gibney might be the first auteur of journalism. More than simple education, he's one of a few voices in modern non-fiction to see facts as a tool for deeper truths. Be it about economics, politics, crime, or all of the above, he trains his lens on individuals who define themselves and the world through the media's skewed reflection. It shapes nations and consumes those who gaze too hard.
As the polls close and the new generation of campaigns begin, you might find a little perspective from his films. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I can think of few greater authors on the subject. In a year when documentaries are flourishing in all the theaters no one attends, Gibney has shown himself a cut above most of the competition.
1 It also was one of the principle sources in college paper which I wrote. The teacher noted that mine was the best in the class. My mother was so proud as, I'm sure, was Gibney's.
2 I'm not disputing that there was a political element to the Spitzer investigation (the circumstantial evidence is persuasive, though not enough to draw any definite conclusions), but considering that Spitzer admits to everything, I think the film ascribes too much relevance to it.
Did I mention his films feature music from Tom Waits and Gorillaz?
Sunday, October 10, 2010
a few brief notes, maybe more, and maybe SPOILERS, on CATFISH
Hey guys, Jack here.
Ok, so I just went through three days at Comic-Con, and I'm near ready to drop the noggin on the keyboard, but my mind keep racing around about something that I need to get out. Luckily my fingers type fast enough that I can keep going in time.
So what is this all about? Ah yes, one of the current talks of the (sorta) independent movie scene: the documentary(?) Catfish. Some of you may have heard of it, possibly from trailers shown at cineplexes. I mention the 'sorta' before as it's released by Universal pictures (albeit not yet really wide as one might think, and it hasn't made the extraordinary Paranormal Activity numbers as a micro-budgeted movie so go figure). And I add the question mark there as there is some question- not least of which by good friend and fellow Creatively Stumped podcaster Matt- that the whole thing was staged, everybody was actors, and that the website the directors have, which primarily focuses on commercials, indicates they have the technical know-how and efficiency to pull this off. This, though it should be noted, despite the fact that it's their first feature film (co-directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, the former has some jazz piece done more recently than Catfish, the latter a comedy short), and that in interviews, such as the one HERE, they say It's All True, and weren't thinking about it while making it.
I should note up front that the film is enormously absorbing as a tale of human connectivity in the modern world. This, I should also add, reveals misdirection (intentional or not) on the end of the studio with its ads and approach hyping up the surprise reveal of the two directors and Schulman's brother, Yanev, the main "character", going up to the farm house that they've tracked down where Yanev's facebook girlfriend Meg is supposedly at. I have to think this was purely marketing, or at the least that the filmmakers wanted to get the film sold best way they could even if that meant adding a "The Best Hitchcock Film Hitchcock Never Made" moniker on the front (and really, that's such an over-done kind of critical praise - and if they had to do that for any movie out now, why not Buried, another Sundance favorite?)
Perhaps there is something askew with my cognitive capabilities, or perhaps there is something about me that is easily deceivable if the material is emotionally resonant and true enough. But the way the film is presented, along with the interviews with the directors, give me the impression that it did all happen the way it did. There's the speculation (again, Matt) that it was acted and staged, and meant to look like a Doc. Maybe he, like I, should know this well; the both of us have worked in various capacities as camera-people, crew, and directors on a feature film, Zack and Michael, and Lines of Glory, a short film, both toying with the idea of the actors as "actors" and not playing themselves. What's tricky is how Catfish falls into another kind of category along the lines of the "fake"documentary that Joost refers to in the interview. Catfish may, to the doubters, be more in line with other movies that have come out this year: Exit Through the Gift Shop, where one doubts if Thierry Guetta even exists as an artist and is a hoax by the graffiti maker and jolly prankster Banksy, and I'm Still Here, the volatile tome of celebrity gone awry by Joaqun Phoenix and Casey Affleck.
At time of this blog going live, Banksy hasn't revealed either way (I can only imagine Banksy, ala Machete, saying "Banksy don't interview" and leaving the mystery, if there even is a mystery, at that), and Phoenix and Affleck, perhaps too soon, have shown their hand, ironically after so much time where most of the people going into seeing the film already *knew* that it wasn't for real. Maybe there's a whole new sub-category to be put in this year: the "Faux-Real" movie (to sort of borrow a movie title from a trailer done by my friend Fred Henry). In these terms, I'm Still Here is the least of the lot, having some amazing moments but flailing as a satire as it's not very funny, more of a "performance art" piece. Bansky's film is the most entertaining, maybe the one I look forward to most rewatching again and again on DVD, as it works as a kind of triumph-of-the-will (not to be confused with Hitler) story of art and ego and the process itself becoming a kind of too-good-to-not-be-true saga. But Catfish is a little trickier. So tricky that I have to go out on the limb I am going on and considering, if only on a first glance, that the only things "staged" are the graphics and some close-ups, which are done on most documentaries.
One could go on and on about what is actually "real" in any documentary really; certainly no two directors have challenged that methodology like Werner Herzog and Errol Morris, who take real people and situations and leap off into other plateaus. With Catfish it's a tale of human beings caught up in the realm of technology. As a personal aside I know this kind of thing first-hand as in the years, eons ago it seems before I met my wife, I had an internet-based relationship where I didn't even see a picture of my supposed girlfriend. Finally meeting it was a disappointment, though we still went out for two more years until I fully realized the situation that we really had nothing in common and I wasn't attracted to her. There wasn't a facade, except, perhaps, the one I put up for so long caring about this unnamed woman (perhaps if you are reading this you know who you are). As I can also relate to a specific moment in the film, writing out something by hand- as I did, ultimately, as a break-up letter- takes on a whole new significance.
But where was I? The film, right right. These filmmakers start innocently enough charting what's going on with Schulman's almost-all-smiles brother 'Nev', who takes a picture of two dancers in a dramatic pose and then a painter does a recreation of it and mails it to Nev. This strikes up a facebook friendship, and she seems amiable enough. Then Nev 'friends' daughters Abby and Megan, the latter of which Nev becomes a little more closer with, both on facebook and on the phone. They send message after message to one another, and Meg sends Nev some songs she sings. Abby is the one, supposedly, doing these paintings, and is something of a child prodigy (maybe not My Kid Could Paint That, but close enough). But then something strikes up Nev's curiosity - a song Megan sends, a cover of a 'horse' song Tennessee Stud, sounds a little too familiar. Turns out it's really just a song she got off of youtube. This after she received the compliments from him.
Something's not right in Denmark and, ultimately, after realizing so much adds up as bullshit (i.e. the gallery where Abby's paintings are being put up is really an empty warehouse, and Abby doesn't have any paintings online). Finally the Schulman brothers and Joost go off to Michigan to find the real details - that it's really (spoiler) one woman behind the whole shebang, Abby isn't a painter, and the woman, Angela, admits with some embarassment that, yes, it was mostly all lies, and that the various facebook profiles of OTHER people that Nev saw corresponding as sort of side-friends were also made-up or make-ups of other people. The pictures of Megan, as a kind of creative-artistic trick, are of a model from Vancouver.
Have I said too much? Maybe. And maybe not enough. The big "secret" that the film has been hyped up to have is, in retrospect, only fitting if you're ignorant as to what the set-up entails. It's current genre on IMDb is only that of a "thriller" (Ebert's review, on the other hand, says simply "a documentary"), but even if it is fake I don't see really where the thrills are. Some suspense is to be had, to be certain, at what the guys will come across when they get to Michigan, as is the moment as they come up to Angela's house. What it comes down to is being about the mystery of the human condition, to get all pretentious about it. The film is intimate in scope, though complicated by how facebook and social networking mucks up common human interaction. I was involved with the parts of uncracking the sort of web-of-lies made up around Angela, Megan and Abby and so on, some of this done in such a style as intricate though unassuming. It also by the time it got to Angela made me wonder if she was like a Mark Whitacre ala The Informant! character, who makes up so many lies that it becomes the truth of the matter, or spoken so simply as if it is all true (i.e. "My parents died and I was raised an orphan, caught a big break").
But it didn't take long for me to be sucked in completely by just how painfully normal everything is about the family. And this, coupled with Angela on screen, her actual talent as a painter on display and what her family life is really like, connected me ever so much more to the characters. This is somewhat a tragedy, but I can't say quite if it is on either side. No one gets into shouting matches, and no one ever raises their voices. Both parties care too much about the other, even as so much un-truthiness floats in the air. The human souls of Angela, and even Nev to a degree, are opened up bare and wide open by the last ten to fifteen minutes by what is said and by what is shown. We, or at least I, more than understood what she did: this was her escapism, the cross between reality and fantasy by way of the distance and illusion capable by facebook and the like. Maybe I was saddened by the awful side Facebook has done to this relationship. On the other hand, they wouldn't have met in the manner they had- or gotten so intimate, maybe too much so- via the website that allows for friendships to be made and maintained and grow so easily. There's even, just slightly, a small bit of paranoia one takes away from the film about how those of us who make friendships on such sites, the risk that is taken with really connecting.
But what is friendship anyway, on the human level? Trust? Respect? Does Angela show these by film's end? I'm not sure; in the final title card it's stated Nev and Angela are still 'facebook friends' (and certainly, if the film is all real, she gave her consent as the family did to be in it). The layers of what it is to just live and be connected to one another or how to survive are really what's at stake here. In those terms it may be just as or more important than Exit Through the Gift Shop, if one would try to compare. But, again, at the moment I want to try to think in terms of the content of its people, the heart of the matter.
This, I should add, should go without saying how I've kind of skipped over the technical aspects (this, as Matt has pointed out, shouldn't be disregarded). Why shoot on such a camera, for example, that Lynch didn't even use for Inland Empire? The most sophisticated these guys get- and these dudes have professional equipment and have made commercials for people as high-up as NIKE- are wireless lav-mics used for when Nev and the other first go to Angela's house without the camera meant to be there. As a stylistic choice, if it is staged, it is rather creative as a way to make it a "home-movie" in a full kind of way. Though my instinct would tell me that this was more of a coincidence, that the film was shot the way it was as a kind of side-project, and by the time it picked up the urgency of the narrative they had been filming the way they had for so long as to not go any other way. I've never felt closer to the rough format of a consumer-camera in a majorly released motion picture as I have here.
In short, Catfish carries a lot of weight, thematically, emotionally, as a punch to the gut and the intellect. How did they pull it off? I think they were just there. Maybe I'm too trusting, or not skeptical enough. I usually think I have a good handle on these things. But at the least, in 80 minutes, I felt I got to know Nev, how he viewed the situation, and how Angela did as well. No one's really a "bad" person, and at worst Angela is just a messed-up gal with too much time on Facebook when not in the dregs of her everyday life. Roger Ebert sums it up best: "Let's agree on this: We deserve to share happiness in this world, and if we supply it in the way it's sought and nobody gets hurt, is that a bad thing?"
If it is all staged, then, un-sarcastically, you guys are the "best writers in Hollywood."
PS: This is a perfect compendium, and maybe even more about Facebook, with The Social Network.
PPS: Being that it's Halloween season as well, here's a song from the Muppet Show that kind of sums up a lot of what I've been writing about.... Okay, not really, but it's a fun song anyway!
Ok, so I just went through three days at Comic-Con, and I'm near ready to drop the noggin on the keyboard, but my mind keep racing around about something that I need to get out. Luckily my fingers type fast enough that I can keep going in time.
So what is this all about? Ah yes, one of the current talks of the (sorta) independent movie scene: the documentary(?) Catfish. Some of you may have heard of it, possibly from trailers shown at cineplexes. I mention the 'sorta' before as it's released by Universal pictures (albeit not yet really wide as one might think, and it hasn't made the extraordinary Paranormal Activity numbers as a micro-budgeted movie so go figure). And I add the question mark there as there is some question- not least of which by good friend and fellow Creatively Stumped podcaster Matt- that the whole thing was staged, everybody was actors, and that the website the directors have, which primarily focuses on commercials, indicates they have the technical know-how and efficiency to pull this off. This, though it should be noted, despite the fact that it's their first feature film (co-directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, the former has some jazz piece done more recently than Catfish, the latter a comedy short), and that in interviews, such as the one HERE, they say It's All True, and weren't thinking about it while making it.
I should note up front that the film is enormously absorbing as a tale of human connectivity in the modern world. This, I should also add, reveals misdirection (intentional or not) on the end of the studio with its ads and approach hyping up the surprise reveal of the two directors and Schulman's brother, Yanev, the main "character", going up to the farm house that they've tracked down where Yanev's facebook girlfriend Meg is supposedly at. I have to think this was purely marketing, or at the least that the filmmakers wanted to get the film sold best way they could even if that meant adding a "The Best Hitchcock Film Hitchcock Never Made" moniker on the front (and really, that's such an over-done kind of critical praise - and if they had to do that for any movie out now, why not Buried, another Sundance favorite?)
Perhaps there is something askew with my cognitive capabilities, or perhaps there is something about me that is easily deceivable if the material is emotionally resonant and true enough. But the way the film is presented, along with the interviews with the directors, give me the impression that it did all happen the way it did. There's the speculation (again, Matt) that it was acted and staged, and meant to look like a Doc. Maybe he, like I, should know this well; the both of us have worked in various capacities as camera-people, crew, and directors on a feature film, Zack and Michael, and Lines of Glory, a short film, both toying with the idea of the actors as "actors" and not playing themselves. What's tricky is how Catfish falls into another kind of category along the lines of the "fake"documentary that Joost refers to in the interview. Catfish may, to the doubters, be more in line with other movies that have come out this year: Exit Through the Gift Shop, where one doubts if Thierry Guetta even exists as an artist and is a hoax by the graffiti maker and jolly prankster Banksy, and I'm Still Here, the volatile tome of celebrity gone awry by Joaqun Phoenix and Casey Affleck.
At time of this blog going live, Banksy hasn't revealed either way (I can only imagine Banksy, ala Machete, saying "Banksy don't interview" and leaving the mystery, if there even is a mystery, at that), and Phoenix and Affleck, perhaps too soon, have shown their hand, ironically after so much time where most of the people going into seeing the film already *knew* that it wasn't for real. Maybe there's a whole new sub-category to be put in this year: the "Faux-Real" movie (to sort of borrow a movie title from a trailer done by my friend Fred Henry). In these terms, I'm Still Here is the least of the lot, having some amazing moments but flailing as a satire as it's not very funny, more of a "performance art" piece. Bansky's film is the most entertaining, maybe the one I look forward to most rewatching again and again on DVD, as it works as a kind of triumph-of-the-will (not to be confused with Hitler) story of art and ego and the process itself becoming a kind of too-good-to-not-be-true saga. But Catfish is a little trickier. So tricky that I have to go out on the limb I am going on and considering, if only on a first glance, that the only things "staged" are the graphics and some close-ups, which are done on most documentaries.
One could go on and on about what is actually "real" in any documentary really; certainly no two directors have challenged that methodology like Werner Herzog and Errol Morris, who take real people and situations and leap off into other plateaus. With Catfish it's a tale of human beings caught up in the realm of technology. As a personal aside I know this kind of thing first-hand as in the years, eons ago it seems before I met my wife, I had an internet-based relationship where I didn't even see a picture of my supposed girlfriend. Finally meeting it was a disappointment, though we still went out for two more years until I fully realized the situation that we really had nothing in common and I wasn't attracted to her. There wasn't a facade, except, perhaps, the one I put up for so long caring about this unnamed woman (perhaps if you are reading this you know who you are). As I can also relate to a specific moment in the film, writing out something by hand- as I did, ultimately, as a break-up letter- takes on a whole new significance.
But where was I? The film, right right. These filmmakers start innocently enough charting what's going on with Schulman's almost-all-smiles brother 'Nev', who takes a picture of two dancers in a dramatic pose and then a painter does a recreation of it and mails it to Nev. This strikes up a facebook friendship, and she seems amiable enough. Then Nev 'friends' daughters Abby and Megan, the latter of which Nev becomes a little more closer with, both on facebook and on the phone. They send message after message to one another, and Meg sends Nev some songs she sings. Abby is the one, supposedly, doing these paintings, and is something of a child prodigy (maybe not My Kid Could Paint That, but close enough). But then something strikes up Nev's curiosity - a song Megan sends, a cover of a 'horse' song Tennessee Stud, sounds a little too familiar. Turns out it's really just a song she got off of youtube. This after she received the compliments from him.
Something's not right in Denmark and, ultimately, after realizing so much adds up as bullshit (i.e. the gallery where Abby's paintings are being put up is really an empty warehouse, and Abby doesn't have any paintings online). Finally the Schulman brothers and Joost go off to Michigan to find the real details - that it's really (spoiler) one woman behind the whole shebang, Abby isn't a painter, and the woman, Angela, admits with some embarassment that, yes, it was mostly all lies, and that the various facebook profiles of OTHER people that Nev saw corresponding as sort of side-friends were also made-up or make-ups of other people. The pictures of Megan, as a kind of creative-artistic trick, are of a model from Vancouver.
Have I said too much? Maybe. And maybe not enough. The big "secret" that the film has been hyped up to have is, in retrospect, only fitting if you're ignorant as to what the set-up entails. It's current genre on IMDb is only that of a "thriller" (Ebert's review, on the other hand, says simply "a documentary"), but even if it is fake I don't see really where the thrills are. Some suspense is to be had, to be certain, at what the guys will come across when they get to Michigan, as is the moment as they come up to Angela's house. What it comes down to is being about the mystery of the human condition, to get all pretentious about it. The film is intimate in scope, though complicated by how facebook and social networking mucks up common human interaction. I was involved with the parts of uncracking the sort of web-of-lies made up around Angela, Megan and Abby and so on, some of this done in such a style as intricate though unassuming. It also by the time it got to Angela made me wonder if she was like a Mark Whitacre ala The Informant! character, who makes up so many lies that it becomes the truth of the matter, or spoken so simply as if it is all true (i.e. "My parents died and I was raised an orphan, caught a big break").
But it didn't take long for me to be sucked in completely by just how painfully normal everything is about the family. And this, coupled with Angela on screen, her actual talent as a painter on display and what her family life is really like, connected me ever so much more to the characters. This is somewhat a tragedy, but I can't say quite if it is on either side. No one gets into shouting matches, and no one ever raises their voices. Both parties care too much about the other, even as so much un-truthiness floats in the air. The human souls of Angela, and even Nev to a degree, are opened up bare and wide open by the last ten to fifteen minutes by what is said and by what is shown. We, or at least I, more than understood what she did: this was her escapism, the cross between reality and fantasy by way of the distance and illusion capable by facebook and the like. Maybe I was saddened by the awful side Facebook has done to this relationship. On the other hand, they wouldn't have met in the manner they had- or gotten so intimate, maybe too much so- via the website that allows for friendships to be made and maintained and grow so easily. There's even, just slightly, a small bit of paranoia one takes away from the film about how those of us who make friendships on such sites, the risk that is taken with really connecting.
But what is friendship anyway, on the human level? Trust? Respect? Does Angela show these by film's end? I'm not sure; in the final title card it's stated Nev and Angela are still 'facebook friends' (and certainly, if the film is all real, she gave her consent as the family did to be in it). The layers of what it is to just live and be connected to one another or how to survive are really what's at stake here. In those terms it may be just as or more important than Exit Through the Gift Shop, if one would try to compare. But, again, at the moment I want to try to think in terms of the content of its people, the heart of the matter.
This, I should add, should go without saying how I've kind of skipped over the technical aspects (this, as Matt has pointed out, shouldn't be disregarded). Why shoot on such a camera, for example, that Lynch didn't even use for Inland Empire? The most sophisticated these guys get- and these dudes have professional equipment and have made commercials for people as high-up as NIKE- are wireless lav-mics used for when Nev and the other first go to Angela's house without the camera meant to be there. As a stylistic choice, if it is staged, it is rather creative as a way to make it a "home-movie" in a full kind of way. Though my instinct would tell me that this was more of a coincidence, that the film was shot the way it was as a kind of side-project, and by the time it picked up the urgency of the narrative they had been filming the way they had for so long as to not go any other way. I've never felt closer to the rough format of a consumer-camera in a majorly released motion picture as I have here.
In short, Catfish carries a lot of weight, thematically, emotionally, as a punch to the gut and the intellect. How did they pull it off? I think they were just there. Maybe I'm too trusting, or not skeptical enough. I usually think I have a good handle on these things. But at the least, in 80 minutes, I felt I got to know Nev, how he viewed the situation, and how Angela did as well. No one's really a "bad" person, and at worst Angela is just a messed-up gal with too much time on Facebook when not in the dregs of her everyday life. Roger Ebert sums it up best: "Let's agree on this: We deserve to share happiness in this world, and if we supply it in the way it's sought and nobody gets hurt, is that a bad thing?"
If it is all staged, then, un-sarcastically, you guys are the "best writers in Hollywood."
PS: This is a perfect compendium, and maybe even more about Facebook, with The Social Network.
PPS: Being that it's Halloween season as well, here's a song from the Muppet Show that kind of sums up a lot of what I've been writing about.... Okay, not really, but it's a fun song anyway!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Social Network Review
by Matt
There's a lot of ego floating around a film set. Let people work in collaboration on a creative venture and, sooner or later, sensibilities are going to clash. Discussions cross a blurry line into insults, you say things you later regret, and at some point, someone's vision gets left in the dust. I don't think I've ever been on a shoot where this wasn't the case (some more notably than others).
More than a thesis on new media culture, I feel this theme takes the forefront of The Social Network. I felt very personally connected to this film, because at some point I've been in the shoes of every character. I've been the impatient whiz kid, the arrogant voice of little experience, the associate who got less than he bargained for, or the close friend who has to say something painfully frank because it just has to be said. (That last one isn't related to creative ventures in my case or the film's.)
Of course, The Social Network isn't about a film set, but rather the creation of the internet giant Facebook. The film has been a jumping off point for many viewers to discuss Facebook's impact on culture and interpersonal communication at its most basic level. It's trailer features a montage of profile picture and status updates set to a melancholy choir-version of the song "Creep" and enjoys a huge renown by its own merits.
For a film that has so many people talking about the social media, the film itself shows very little interest. It could just as easily have been about a film production, a stage play, or a rock group. The only thing that really separates The Social Network from these examples is its lack of reverence, or even interest, in its characters' creation.
I've noticed a tendency for David Fincher to sidestep more conventional screenplays for ones which ignore catharsis in favor of more mundane, realistic through-lines. Whether it's Benjamin Button shrinking back into the womb or Robert Graysmith devoting 25 years (and nearly three hours of screen-time) to a still-unsolved murder mystery, his films are often about conflicts failing to resolve. The Social Network definitely fits this mold, but it sometimes clumsily draws too much attention to this. Eisenberg's Zuckerberg is most fascinating when seen from afar, successfully clashing wits from behind a face totally bankrupt of personality.
I'm being a little hard on this film, but it shouldn't deter you from seeing it. The dialog has the pace and wit of a 1940s screwball masterpiece, and the performances are so intense that you may find it difficult to keep up. If you're expecting a film about Facebook or the Internet or the Matrix, however, you won't find it here (but Catfish might be playing next door). I just want to make sure you get it down in writing before committing to it. If you know what to expect, you might save yourself a whole mess of stress down the line. ;)
There's a lot of ego floating around a film set. Let people work in collaboration on a creative venture and, sooner or later, sensibilities are going to clash. Discussions cross a blurry line into insults, you say things you later regret, and at some point, someone's vision gets left in the dust. I don't think I've ever been on a shoot where this wasn't the case (some more notably than others).
More than a thesis on new media culture, I feel this theme takes the forefront of The Social Network. I felt very personally connected to this film, because at some point I've been in the shoes of every character. I've been the impatient whiz kid, the arrogant voice of little experience, the associate who got less than he bargained for, or the close friend who has to say something painfully frank because it just has to be said. (That last one isn't related to creative ventures in my case or the film's.)
Of course, The Social Network isn't about a film set, but rather the creation of the internet giant Facebook. The film has been a jumping off point for many viewers to discuss Facebook's impact on culture and interpersonal communication at its most basic level. It's trailer features a montage of profile picture and status updates set to a melancholy choir-version of the song "Creep" and enjoys a huge renown by its own merits.
For a film that has so many people talking about the social media, the film itself shows very little interest. It could just as easily have been about a film production, a stage play, or a rock group. The only thing that really separates The Social Network from these examples is its lack of reverence, or even interest, in its characters' creation.
I've noticed a tendency for David Fincher to sidestep more conventional screenplays for ones which ignore catharsis in favor of more mundane, realistic through-lines. Whether it's Benjamin Button shrinking back into the womb or Robert Graysmith devoting 25 years (and nearly three hours of screen-time) to a still-unsolved murder mystery, his films are often about conflicts failing to resolve. The Social Network definitely fits this mold, but it sometimes clumsily draws too much attention to this. Eisenberg's Zuckerberg is most fascinating when seen from afar, successfully clashing wits from behind a face totally bankrupt of personality.
I'm being a little hard on this film, but it shouldn't deter you from seeing it. The dialog has the pace and wit of a 1940s screwball masterpiece, and the performances are so intense that you may find it difficult to keep up. If you're expecting a film about Facebook or the Internet or the Matrix, however, you won't find it here (but Catfish might be playing next door). I just want to make sure you get it down in writing before committing to it. If you know what to expect, you might save yourself a whole mess of stress down the line. ;)
Severed Thumbs: Let Me In
by: Jon
I'm drunk, let's do this. First, a quick back story. In 2004 a Swedish writer by the name of John Ajvide Lindqvist wrote a vampire novel called Låt den rätte komma in translated, Let the Right One In.
It was a new spin on the vampire genre that intertwined several separate stories but focused on a boy named Oskar who is regularly bullied at school and a "girl" named Eli, the vampire who befriends him. It was dark, it was sweet, it made me say "what the fuck?" a couple times, and, in 2008, it was made into a Swedish movie of the same name.
When the movie premiered stateside it received a lot of acclaim from genre fans, movie buffs, and critics alike. It was still in a niche though, not that many people saw it. So, as is the increasingly common case, in 2010 there was an American remake made called Let Me In
directed by Matt Reeves and staring Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass) as "Abby" and some kid I know I've seen him in stuff but can't seem to put my finger on as "Owen" (obviously, just like on Ellis Island names have to be Americanized too). Oh, and it also stars Casey Jones. With a relatively weak opening weekend this film probably isn't going to be around much longer so I saw it today. Now, this review is difficult. Because it is a remake, I naturally have to try to break it up into two reviews. One as a stand alone film, the other as what it is, a remake.
First up, let's get all biases out of the way and review it as a remake. This is difficult because, to paraphrase a friend, it's like reviewing Jesus's son, no matter how good the kid is, his father is fucking Jesus. Though not as terrible as I expected there was a lot lacking. The pacing was completely off, the extra graphics were wanton, and it was noticeably dumbed down. My friend and I kept on joking that there should be a pop up video version of it. In the original story, Eli writes Oskar a note which simply is a Romeo and Juliet reference "I must be gone and live, or stay and die.". It's used in the movie, but not before the repetitive showing of Romeo and Juliet cramming down the viewers' collective throats and identifying that that is a reference to Romeo and Juliet. My other complaints are there was no real showing of the relationship of Abby (Eli) and "The Father" (Hakan). The side characters are also glanced over such as Eli's one victim Virginia who becomes a vampire herself. In the original it's very touching to see her realize what she has become and, knowing it's going to incinerate her, telling the nurse to open the curtains to her hospital room. My final complaint is "The Father" (played by Richard Jenkins) is the most bumbling serial killer ever. His first scene killing someone shows him stepping through ice and spilling a jug of blood. He had about as much screen time in the original Swedish film but the viewer was able to sympathize with him more because one could tell he has been doing this for a while, and when he finally gets caught it's one simple mistake that does him in. He was thrown into this relationship and role and is just starting to get tired and sloppy. The Americanized version uses him as comic relief, not as a character one can get behind and feel sorry for. I understand what they were doing and I'm all for being the first person to say "most Americans are dumb" but that doesn't mean you need to rip out the soul of a picture to make it more palatable. The movie was so stripped down for American audiences that it turned into Cliff Notes. Complaints aside, they still managed to keep at least some semblance of the relationship between Eli and Oskar, for the most part, in tact. Despite the computer generated effects, they also were able to show the dichotomy of Abby and what she really is.
as a remake 2 out of 6
Now that my ranting is done and over with, as a stand alone piece, it really wasn't that bad. There were a couple shots in the movie that really stood out. The first that comes to mind is when "The Father" is trying to speed away after killing his last victim. Most of the shot is from his point of view and you really get the feeling of anxiety as he's trying to pull this off. Yes, it is a Charlie Brown act because everything goes comically wrong (nothing goes together quite like homicide and slapstick kids) but the scene is intense. It's confusing, it's dizzying, it made my heart beat a bit faster. Another scene I utterly love besides the car accident is when Casey Jones/Elias Koteas/The Police Officer, is killed by Abby and he is reaching out to Owen to help him. That was a much appreciated addition because you really saw the horror of this beast and Owen just closes the door on this dying man. You could tell at this moment he not only accepts what kind of animal Abby is but what humanity he has to sacrifice to be with her.
On that note I mentioned in the previous section the relationship between Abby and Owen is, while not as deep as it was in the original, very much real. These were two star crossed lovers who relied on one another for comfort. The addition of the drunk, Jesus freak mother was also a nice touch and the pacing, while not nearly as fantastic as the original, was still slow enough to actually build to something.
Stand Alone movie 3 out of 6
I'm drunk, let's do this. First, a quick back story. In 2004 a Swedish writer by the name of John Ajvide Lindqvist wrote a vampire novel called Låt den rätte komma in translated, Let the Right One In.
It was a new spin on the vampire genre that intertwined several separate stories but focused on a boy named Oskar who is regularly bullied at school and a "girl" named Eli, the vampire who befriends him. It was dark, it was sweet, it made me say "what the fuck?" a couple times, and, in 2008, it was made into a Swedish movie of the same name.
When the movie premiered stateside it received a lot of acclaim from genre fans, movie buffs, and critics alike. It was still in a niche though, not that many people saw it. So, as is the increasingly common case, in 2010 there was an American remake made called Let Me In
directed by Matt Reeves and staring Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass) as "Abby" and some kid I know I've seen him in stuff but can't seem to put my finger on as "Owen" (obviously, just like on Ellis Island names have to be Americanized too). Oh, and it also stars Casey Jones. With a relatively weak opening weekend this film probably isn't going to be around much longer so I saw it today. Now, this review is difficult. Because it is a remake, I naturally have to try to break it up into two reviews. One as a stand alone film, the other as what it is, a remake.
First up, let's get all biases out of the way and review it as a remake. This is difficult because, to paraphrase a friend, it's like reviewing Jesus's son, no matter how good the kid is, his father is fucking Jesus. Though not as terrible as I expected there was a lot lacking. The pacing was completely off, the extra graphics were wanton, and it was noticeably dumbed down. My friend and I kept on joking that there should be a pop up video version of it. In the original story, Eli writes Oskar a note which simply is a Romeo and Juliet reference "I must be gone and live, or stay and die.". It's used in the movie, but not before the repetitive showing of Romeo and Juliet cramming down the viewers' collective throats and identifying that that is a reference to Romeo and Juliet. My other complaints are there was no real showing of the relationship of Abby (Eli) and "The Father" (Hakan). The side characters are also glanced over such as Eli's one victim Virginia who becomes a vampire herself. In the original it's very touching to see her realize what she has become and, knowing it's going to incinerate her, telling the nurse to open the curtains to her hospital room. My final complaint is "The Father" (played by Richard Jenkins) is the most bumbling serial killer ever. His first scene killing someone shows him stepping through ice and spilling a jug of blood. He had about as much screen time in the original Swedish film but the viewer was able to sympathize with him more because one could tell he has been doing this for a while, and when he finally gets caught it's one simple mistake that does him in. He was thrown into this relationship and role and is just starting to get tired and sloppy. The Americanized version uses him as comic relief, not as a character one can get behind and feel sorry for. I understand what they were doing and I'm all for being the first person to say "most Americans are dumb" but that doesn't mean you need to rip out the soul of a picture to make it more palatable. The movie was so stripped down for American audiences that it turned into Cliff Notes. Complaints aside, they still managed to keep at least some semblance of the relationship between Eli and Oskar, for the most part, in tact. Despite the computer generated effects, they also were able to show the dichotomy of Abby and what she really is.
as a remake 2 out of 6
Now that my ranting is done and over with, as a stand alone piece, it really wasn't that bad. There were a couple shots in the movie that really stood out. The first that comes to mind is when "The Father" is trying to speed away after killing his last victim. Most of the shot is from his point of view and you really get the feeling of anxiety as he's trying to pull this off. Yes, it is a Charlie Brown act because everything goes comically wrong (nothing goes together quite like homicide and slapstick kids) but the scene is intense. It's confusing, it's dizzying, it made my heart beat a bit faster. Another scene I utterly love besides the car accident is when Casey Jones/Elias Koteas/The Police Officer, is killed by Abby and he is reaching out to Owen to help him. That was a much appreciated addition because you really saw the horror of this beast and Owen just closes the door on this dying man. You could tell at this moment he not only accepts what kind of animal Abby is but what humanity he has to sacrifice to be with her.
On that note I mentioned in the previous section the relationship between Abby and Owen is, while not as deep as it was in the original, very much real. These were two star crossed lovers who relied on one another for comfort. The addition of the drunk, Jesus freak mother was also a nice touch and the pacing, while not nearly as fantastic as the original, was still slow enough to actually build to something.
Stand Alone movie 3 out of 6
Monday, October 4, 2010
My screenplay "The Men and the Damnation" is now on Moviehatch!
Hey everyone, Jack here. I need your help if you're reading this.
This is moviehatch.com - this is a competition where the screenwriters get a chance to have their feature script see the light of day with producers and people who can get shit made. There's are a bunch of entries in their contest section where people can vote on projects- some have "fake" trailers, and some only have posters.
My entry for my crime-drama script, The Men and the Damnation, is up on the site now, and if you have literally two seconds to spare, come over and vote for it and maybe something will happen. You can just click RIGHT HERE and vote today! If you vote a 1, I know where you live....
This is moviehatch.com - this is a competition where the screenwriters get a chance to have their feature script see the light of day with producers and people who can get shit made. There's are a bunch of entries in their contest section where people can vote on projects- some have "fake" trailers, and some only have posters.
My entry for my crime-drama script, The Men and the Damnation, is up on the site now, and if you have literally two seconds to spare, come over and vote for it and maybe something will happen. You can just click RIGHT HERE and vote today! If you vote a 1, I know where you live....
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
RIP Sally Menke
Jack here
On my blog I put up a post about Sally Menke, Quentin Tarantino's editor since he started professionally making movies. I analyzed her work on Pulp Fiction, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990), Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill Vol. 1. Check it here.
On my blog I put up a post about Sally Menke, Quentin Tarantino's editor since he started professionally making movies. I analyzed her work on Pulp Fiction, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990), Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill Vol. 1. Check it here.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Let Me In Review
by Matt
Remakes are tough. They're tough to make, and they're tough to watch. They have to strike a delicate balance between keeping true to the spirit of the original while at the same time bringing something new to the table (otherwise what's the point?). Fewer critics comment on this than on the difficulty of watching a remake and keeping an open mind. I certainly had difficulty with this when I saw Let Me In tonight.
I was ambivalent about the prospect of an American remake from the start. (Let the Right One In listed as an honorable mention for both mine and Jon's best films of the decade) Yet as I sat watching the unassuming opening titles (simple red text against a black screen), I started to feel at ease. Until the first thumps of the soundtrack.
Let Me In is clearly aiming at a more visceral experience than its Scandinavian predecessor, and I have to wonder if it gets in its own way at times. The score is loud, and the sound effects are abrupt. This is a huge departure from the original which quietly let the terrible realities speak for themselves.
Yet as the film went on, something happened. I stopped worrying about the original. I found myself swimming in Greig Fraser's gorgeous cinematography, reveling in the performances of Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee (two of the best child actors this side of Spielberg). Despite my misgivings about the soundtrack, I found myself being pulled in to the story. I was involved as if seeing the material for the first time.
This is a very good film, as good as one could've expected under the circumstances, but it's no masterpiece. As much as Reagan-era plays nicely off the morally ambiguous themes, the 80s music and references sometimes get a bit much. The sequences often felt a bit rushed, although editor Stan Salfas usually had the insight to let the individual shots linger (a rare treat).
There is one scene from the original which is as perfect as any I've ever seen and features one of the most terrifying shots in horror film history. (Those who have seen it should know the one I mean.) Reeves and Salfas took a different approach, using quick cuts and dull camera angles, completely killing its impact. I might've let this go, if it wasn't such a departure from the style of the entire rest of the film. I guess they were trying to emphasize the impact of this scene by this sudden aesthetic change, but it failed miserably.
Does it hold up to the original? Not by a long shot. Should that dissuade you from seeing it? Not by a long shot. Like a great cover song, it offers a fresh new perspective on familiar material, but let's face it. You can't beat the classics.
Remakes are tough. They're tough to make, and they're tough to watch. They have to strike a delicate balance between keeping true to the spirit of the original while at the same time bringing something new to the table (otherwise what's the point?). Fewer critics comment on this than on the difficulty of watching a remake and keeping an open mind. I certainly had difficulty with this when I saw Let Me In tonight.
I was ambivalent about the prospect of an American remake from the start. (Let the Right One In listed as an honorable mention for both mine and Jon's best films of the decade) Yet as I sat watching the unassuming opening titles (simple red text against a black screen), I started to feel at ease. Until the first thumps of the soundtrack.
Let Me In is clearly aiming at a more visceral experience than its Scandinavian predecessor, and I have to wonder if it gets in its own way at times. The score is loud, and the sound effects are abrupt. This is a huge departure from the original which quietly let the terrible realities speak for themselves.
Yet as the film went on, something happened. I stopped worrying about the original. I found myself swimming in Greig Fraser's gorgeous cinematography, reveling in the performances of Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee (two of the best child actors this side of Spielberg). Despite my misgivings about the soundtrack, I found myself being pulled in to the story. I was involved as if seeing the material for the first time.
This is a very good film, as good as one could've expected under the circumstances, but it's no masterpiece. As much as Reagan-era plays nicely off the morally ambiguous themes, the 80s music and references sometimes get a bit much. The sequences often felt a bit rushed, although editor Stan Salfas usually had the insight to let the individual shots linger (a rare treat).
There is one scene from the original which is as perfect as any I've ever seen and features one of the most terrifying shots in horror film history. (Those who have seen it should know the one I mean.) Reeves and Salfas took a different approach, using quick cuts and dull camera angles, completely killing its impact. I might've let this go, if it wasn't such a departure from the style of the entire rest of the film. I guess they were trying to emphasize the impact of this scene by this sudden aesthetic change, but it failed miserably.
Does it hold up to the original? Not by a long shot. Should that dissuade you from seeing it? Not by a long shot. Like a great cover song, it offers a fresh new perspective on familiar material, but let's face it. You can't beat the classics.
Friday, September 10, 2010
My new blog!
by Jack
So... after some pondering (and not what Brain or Pinky were pondering though maybe closer to Brain), I have decided to start an official blog. This 'official'-ness will mostly concern my adventures in movie-going, movie-writing, and filmmaking, plus other odd-sorts of interests like certain videos that catch my fancy, politics, music, sex, drugs, sports, whatever, but mostly on movies as it is called the CINETARIUM (or as South Park might say, the Cine-arium). I already have a few posts up and will be hoping to post consistently there from now on. So help me dog.
And HERE IT IS! Hope you enjoy.
So... after some pondering (and not what Brain or Pinky were pondering though maybe closer to Brain), I have decided to start an official blog. This 'official'-ness will mostly concern my adventures in movie-going, movie-writing, and filmmaking, plus other odd-sorts of interests like certain videos that catch my fancy, politics, music, sex, drugs, sports, whatever, but mostly on movies as it is called the CINETARIUM (or as South Park might say, the Cine-arium). I already have a few posts up and will be hoping to post consistently there from now on. So help me dog.
And HERE IT IS! Hope you enjoy.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Inception Spoiler Talk: Celluloid Dreams
by Jack, Jon, Karl, & Matt
Stumped goes international for its discussion of Christopher Nolan's latest mind-bender. We introduce a new guest, and Jack graces us with a theme song.
Listen here.
Stumped goes international for its discussion of Christopher Nolan's latest mind-bender. We introduce a new guest, and Jack graces us with a theme song.
Listen here.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
WE'S GOTS AN EMAIL!
by Jon:
Matt has hired me to be email liaison. Whether or not the email will be used for actual questions or as a spam dumpster (coughcoughMarkcoughbastardcough) is up to you.
that said I give you c-stumpers@gmx.com. We'll be recording again soon folks so keep ears tuned and eyes opened.
Matt has hired me to be email liaison. Whether or not the email will be used for actual questions or as a spam dumpster (coughcoughMarkcoughbastardcough) is up to you.
that said I give you c-stumpers@gmx.com. We'll be recording again soon folks so keep ears tuned and eyes opened.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Main Stream Producers and Filmmakers Change Strategies
by Jon:
LOS ANGELES - Hollywood has decided to change its strategy to disenfranchise America's younger population. A current trend in movies, as many casual and critical film goers know, has been live action reboots and reinterpretations of familiar and well loved pop culture icons such as The Transformers and GI:Joe. Though monetary gain from these franchises has been great, Hollywood producers and studio executives feel "unfulfilled" as one source, a producer who has demanded to remain anonymous, has claimed. The source went on to say, "The problem with the 21-30 demographic, the kids who remember and care about these franchises, is by the time the average American is eighteen or twenty, he or she has most likely graduated High School and/or college and is already jaded and disenfranchised with the world. As businessmen, we need to start the process at a younger age, we need to start showing younger kids that the world is a harsh place but there is nothing they can do about it. That early complacency is key to future economic stability."
The most recent film to capitalize on this idea has been M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender a live action remake of the now famous cartoon Avatar:The Last Airbender which aired on Nickelodeon from 2005 to 2008. With its balance of dense narrative, darker themes, rich character development, martial arts action, and comedy, the cartoon has received high praise from critics, parents, and children alike and quickly became one of Nickelodeon, and it's parent company Viacom's, most successful franchises to date.
"[Avatar]has made us a ton of money in merchandise and viewership." said a representative from Viacom, "The problem was the show was too good. It blurred the lines of good and evil, black and white, and just made kids think too much. We received calls and emails from teachers and parents complaining that their children and students started asking too many questions. Take this scenario for instance. A third grade teacher in Arkansas wrote us an email in 2006 complaining that her student, an avid fan of Avatar:The Last Airbender, started questioning Columbus's discovery of America. He equated the idea of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marina landing in the West Indes to an early episode of the show where Prince Zuko and a Fire Nation ship land on the shores of the Southern Water Tribe demanding the tribe bring him the Avatar. In that first season Zuko is the main bad guy! We can't have our children thinking Columbus was a bad guy. That would undermine the very fabric of this country. Imagine what that student thought, a couple years later, when he saw Zuko become a good guy. He must have been so confused. The gray areas in this series are catastrophic to the fragile psyche of the American Youth. That's where M. Night came in."
M. Night Shyamalan has admitted in interviews to be a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender because his children, also avid fans, watched the show religiously. Though Shyamalan has seen success with his movies and was nominated for Best Original Screenplay for his 1999 film The Sixth Sense his later and most recent works have often been ridiculed by movie goers and critics. The Viacom representative said this "When we heard Shemelon was a fan of the show, it was like a gigantic weight lifted off our shoulders. "Let's have HIM make a movie out of it! Surely if anyone can screw this franchise up it's him." I heard one of the execs say at one of quarterly meetings. On a slightly related note, that same exec just watched Lady in the Water the night prior. So we pushed Bryan [Konietzko] and Michael [DiMartino], the creators, to let Shamalama make the movie and the rest is history. We didn't need to do anything, we just let M. Night have full control and we knew it would be just what the doctor ordered.
Four years later The Last Airbender has hit theaters with much criticism. Critics such as Robert Ebert are already calling it "an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented." While still others say "it is a new low for Shyamalan."
"We know its crap, plain and simple, but we also know that these kids we're trying to set right are going to make their parents buy tickets and give us money so it's a win-win situation no matter how poor the movie is." said the Viacom representative.
How does it fit into Hollywood's new plan though? To find out just how effective this new direction is in creating apathy and complacency in younger children, Paramount Pictures, the studio who released this movie and another subsidiary of Viacom interviewed parents and children after a surprise, early screening of The Last Airbender at the Bridge Theater in Shyamalan's home city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A parent who took her child to the screening was quoted in saying "I don't understand it, my seven year old son was so energetic and happy to see this movie, now he's just confused and sad. It's like he's a whole other person." Another parent said "My ten year old daughter just loves the character of Katara [one of the protagonists in the show and movie], she thinks she is such a strong and motherly character, always looking after Aang [the main protagonist]and the other down and out characters. She liked Katara so much that after the episode when Katara learns she has healing abilities, my girl went up to me and said "Mommy, I want to be a doctor, so I can heal and help people just like Katara does." but after the movie, her eyes were glossed over and glassy and she just stared in the middle darkness. When I asked if she wanted her doll to play doctor with, she just snatched the doll out of my hand and threw it into the street.I've never seen anything like it." One of our own reporters, also at the screening, was able to get permission to ask one of the children what they thought of the movie but all the child said was "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
"Mission Accomplished!" said the anonymous producer from Hollywood,"This is fantastic news. We have many more movies in the works. 80s nostalgia is old hat, those kids are lost causes. It's time we set our sights to the 90s and the Aughts. I overheard a guy from Time-Warner talking about a gritty Freakazoid reboot at a Starbucks but I didn't think it would fly. "Too recent" I thought. Jokes on me, hell, Avatar:The Last Airbender is just two years old. New episodes were being made when the movie script was being written. This is a great day for all of us."
LOS ANGELES - Hollywood has decided to change its strategy to disenfranchise America's younger population. A current trend in movies, as many casual and critical film goers know, has been live action reboots and reinterpretations of familiar and well loved pop culture icons such as The Transformers and GI:Joe. Though monetary gain from these franchises has been great, Hollywood producers and studio executives feel "unfulfilled" as one source, a producer who has demanded to remain anonymous, has claimed. The source went on to say, "The problem with the 21-30 demographic, the kids who remember and care about these franchises, is by the time the average American is eighteen or twenty, he or she has most likely graduated High School and/or college and is already jaded and disenfranchised with the world. As businessmen, we need to start the process at a younger age, we need to start showing younger kids that the world is a harsh place but there is nothing they can do about it. That early complacency is key to future economic stability."
The most recent film to capitalize on this idea has been M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender a live action remake of the now famous cartoon Avatar:The Last Airbender which aired on Nickelodeon from 2005 to 2008. With its balance of dense narrative, darker themes, rich character development, martial arts action, and comedy, the cartoon has received high praise from critics, parents, and children alike and quickly became one of Nickelodeon, and it's parent company Viacom's, most successful franchises to date.
"[Avatar]has made us a ton of money in merchandise and viewership." said a representative from Viacom, "The problem was the show was too good. It blurred the lines of good and evil, black and white, and just made kids think too much. We received calls and emails from teachers and parents complaining that their children and students started asking too many questions. Take this scenario for instance. A third grade teacher in Arkansas wrote us an email in 2006 complaining that her student, an avid fan of Avatar:The Last Airbender, started questioning Columbus's discovery of America. He equated the idea of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marina landing in the West Indes to an early episode of the show where Prince Zuko and a Fire Nation ship land on the shores of the Southern Water Tribe demanding the tribe bring him the Avatar. In that first season Zuko is the main bad guy! We can't have our children thinking Columbus was a bad guy. That would undermine the very fabric of this country. Imagine what that student thought, a couple years later, when he saw Zuko become a good guy. He must have been so confused. The gray areas in this series are catastrophic to the fragile psyche of the American Youth. That's where M. Night came in."
M. Night Shyamalan has admitted in interviews to be a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender because his children, also avid fans, watched the show religiously. Though Shyamalan has seen success with his movies and was nominated for Best Original Screenplay for his 1999 film The Sixth Sense his later and most recent works have often been ridiculed by movie goers and critics. The Viacom representative said this "When we heard Shemelon was a fan of the show, it was like a gigantic weight lifted off our shoulders. "Let's have HIM make a movie out of it! Surely if anyone can screw this franchise up it's him." I heard one of the execs say at one of quarterly meetings. On a slightly related note, that same exec just watched Lady in the Water the night prior. So we pushed Bryan [Konietzko] and Michael [DiMartino], the creators, to let Shamalama make the movie and the rest is history. We didn't need to do anything, we just let M. Night have full control and we knew it would be just what the doctor ordered.
Four years later The Last Airbender has hit theaters with much criticism. Critics such as Robert Ebert are already calling it "an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented." While still others say "it is a new low for Shyamalan."
"We know its crap, plain and simple, but we also know that these kids we're trying to set right are going to make their parents buy tickets and give us money so it's a win-win situation no matter how poor the movie is." said the Viacom representative.
How does it fit into Hollywood's new plan though? To find out just how effective this new direction is in creating apathy and complacency in younger children, Paramount Pictures, the studio who released this movie and another subsidiary of Viacom interviewed parents and children after a surprise, early screening of The Last Airbender at the Bridge Theater in Shyamalan's home city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A parent who took her child to the screening was quoted in saying "I don't understand it, my seven year old son was so energetic and happy to see this movie, now he's just confused and sad. It's like he's a whole other person." Another parent said "My ten year old daughter just loves the character of Katara [one of the protagonists in the show and movie], she thinks she is such a strong and motherly character, always looking after Aang [the main protagonist]and the other down and out characters. She liked Katara so much that after the episode when Katara learns she has healing abilities, my girl went up to me and said "Mommy, I want to be a doctor, so I can heal and help people just like Katara does." but after the movie, her eyes were glossed over and glassy and she just stared in the middle darkness. When I asked if she wanted her doll to play doctor with, she just snatched the doll out of my hand and threw it into the street.I've never seen anything like it." One of our own reporters, also at the screening, was able to get permission to ask one of the children what they thought of the movie but all the child said was "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
"Mission Accomplished!" said the anonymous producer from Hollywood,"This is fantastic news. We have many more movies in the works. 80s nostalgia is old hat, those kids are lost causes. It's time we set our sights to the 90s and the Aughts. I overheard a guy from Time-Warner talking about a gritty Freakazoid reboot at a Starbucks but I didn't think it would fly. "Too recent" I thought. Jokes on me, hell, Avatar:The Last Airbender is just two years old. New episodes were being made when the movie script was being written. This is a great day for all of us."
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Spill.com Fan Film: "Who's Your Father?"
by Jack and Matt
Another piece of cinematic wonderment by Jack and Matt, brought to you by Jack's production company Whiplash Films in collaboration with Filler Theatre, "Who's Your Father?" premieres today at the first annual (and yes, that is grammatically correct) Spill.com Film Festival at Spill-dot-Con in Austin, Republic of Texas.
Jack and Matt co-wrote the film with friend-of-the-Stump Andrew Birchenough. Jack directed, and Matt did cinematography.
The Texas Board of Education will probably try to deny its existence in another 30 years, so watch it while you can!
Disclaimer: Non-Spillios might not understand the character references.
Another piece of cinematic wonderment by Jack and Matt, brought to you by Jack's production company Whiplash Films in collaboration with Filler Theatre, "Who's Your Father?" premieres today at the first annual (and yes, that is grammatically correct) Spill.com Film Festival at Spill-dot-Con in Austin, Republic of Texas.
Jack and Matt co-wrote the film with friend-of-the-Stump Andrew Birchenough. Jack directed, and Matt did cinematography.
The Texas Board of Education will probably try to deny its existence in another 30 years, so watch it while you can!
Disclaimer: Non-Spillios might not understand the character references.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
"Jealous Jerzy" trailer is up
by Jack & Matt
Your two favorite C-Stumpers (Jon who?) collaborated several months ago on a short-format drama about a man's suspicions about his girlfriend. It's trippy and erotic, so considering our viewership is comprised of drug-addled sex maniacs, you might enjoy it.
It should be touring festivals before long, so keep an eye open. We'll be posting updates here and at whiplashfilm.com.
Your two favorite C-Stumpers (Jon who?) collaborated several months ago on a short-format drama about a man's suspicions about his girlfriend. It's trippy and erotic, so considering our viewership is comprised of drug-addled sex maniacs, you might enjoy it.
Jealous Jerzy Trailer from Jack Gattanella on Vimeo.
It should be touring festivals before long, so keep an eye open. We'll be posting updates here and at whiplashfilm.com.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day submission
by Matt
Well, the day has finally come, and it's time to let your craft flow.
Now, if I could draw worth two shits, then I'd definitely be involved in animation. Instead I paint with light: the world is my canvas and the silver screen my gallery. Nevertheless, I'd like to make clear that my EDMD submission should in no way reflect my aptitude for graphic design. I may be unskilled, but I'm not fucking unskilled.
Let me explain my intent. I'm not at all shy about criticizing people's religious convictions, however, this is not a action I take as likely as some. Religious faith is an important character trait of those who experience it. To assault it is to play the schoolyard bully. You can't attack a person's beliefs without attacking the person, and I have no desire to alienate some of my best friends nor go out of my way to offend people who would be my allies.
Therefore, I think Everybody Draw Mohammed Day should not be about insulting anyone or alienating them. If you want to depict a religious leader in a piss-filled jar and call it art, then I want nothing to do with you. There's a difference between being critical and being a troll.
What I sought to do was show this controversy for how harmless it truly is. So I put myself in the place of my prepubescent self, discovering the worlds opening up before me by the latest technology, Microsoft Paint. I wanted to draw something innocent yet still badass. If I am murdered by an extremist over this picture, it will totally be worth it.
So there it is. Simple, sloppy, and tasteful. Fun for the whole family. If you have a submission, feel free to post it in the comments, but I request you remain civil about it.
We will not cower in fear, but we refuse to lower ourselves to the level of our aggressors.
Well, the day has finally come, and it's time to let your craft flow.
Now, if I could draw worth two shits, then I'd definitely be involved in animation. Instead I paint with light: the world is my canvas and the silver screen my gallery. Nevertheless, I'd like to make clear that my EDMD submission should in no way reflect my aptitude for graphic design. I may be unskilled, but I'm not fucking unskilled.
Let me explain my intent. I'm not at all shy about criticizing people's religious convictions, however, this is not a action I take as likely as some. Religious faith is an important character trait of those who experience it. To assault it is to play the schoolyard bully. You can't attack a person's beliefs without attacking the person, and I have no desire to alienate some of my best friends nor go out of my way to offend people who would be my allies.
Therefore, I think Everybody Draw Mohammed Day should not be about insulting anyone or alienating them. If you want to depict a religious leader in a piss-filled jar and call it art, then I want nothing to do with you. There's a difference between being critical and being a troll.
What I sought to do was show this controversy for how harmless it truly is. So I put myself in the place of my prepubescent self, discovering the worlds opening up before me by the latest technology, Microsoft Paint. I wanted to draw something innocent yet still badass. If I am murdered by an extremist over this picture, it will totally be worth it.
So there it is. Simple, sloppy, and tasteful. Fun for the whole family. If you have a submission, feel free to post it in the comments, but I request you remain civil about it.
We will not cower in fear, but we refuse to lower ourselves to the level of our aggressors.
Friday, May 7, 2010
BEAR ANNOUNCEMENT
via Matt
Though I have graduated from William Paterson University, I still receive email announcements their email announcements from time to time. Here is a recent one I'm sure you'll enjoy.
TIMELY WARNING
BEAR ANNOUNCEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
May 6, 2010
On May 6, 2010, at 7:47 a.m. University Police took a report of a small bear sighting in the woods by Hillside Hall heading towards the soccer field. New Jersey Fish and Game have been notified. We would like to remind everyone of procedures to follow involving bears. First, to decrease the likelihood of a bear being attracted to campus, everyone should properly dispose of garbage and should never leave food out for animals or birds.
Please note that bears are dangerous wild animals and female bears are extremely dangerous when they believe their cubs are at risk of being injured. Under no circumstances should you attempt to photograph or approach a bear in any way.
If you should encounter a bear at a distance, please respond to the presence of the bear in the following manner:
o Do not approach the bear.
o Make the bear aware of your presence by making noise.
o Call Campus Police (xxx-xxx-xxxx) and report the bear as soon as possible.
o If you encounter the bear at close range, please respond to the bear in the following manner:
§ Remain standing,
§ Avoid direct eye contact,
§ Back up SLOWLY,
§ Speak aloud in a calm yet assertive voice, and
§ Call Campus Police (xxx-xxx-xxxx) and report the bear as soon as possible.
§ If you are inside a vehicle and observe a bear, please remain in the vehicle, sound your horn, and contact Campus Police if possible. Keep in mind that the noise from your horn may scare the bear away but it also alerts other people to the presence of the bear.
In addition, everyone should comply with the following five rules:
1. Never follow a bear, or encourage others to form a group to follow a bear.
2. Never leave food out in the open or in your vehicle.
3. Never hike alone in the adjacent wooded areas.
4. Never provoke the bear.
5. Never feed the bear. It is illegal in New Jersey to do so.
For additional information about bears in New Jersey, please refer to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife website at: www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts.htm
Though I have graduated from William Paterson University, I still receive email announcements their email announcements from time to time. Here is a recent one I'm sure you'll enjoy.
TIMELY WARNING
BEAR ANNOUNCEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
May 6, 2010
On May 6, 2010, at 7:47 a.m. University Police took a report of a small bear sighting in the woods by Hillside Hall heading towards the soccer field. New Jersey Fish and Game have been notified. We would like to remind everyone of procedures to follow involving bears. First, to decrease the likelihood of a bear being attracted to campus, everyone should properly dispose of garbage and should never leave food out for animals or birds.
Please note that bears are dangerous wild animals and female bears are extremely dangerous when they believe their cubs are at risk of being injured. Under no circumstances should you attempt to photograph or approach a bear in any way.
If you should encounter a bear at a distance, please respond to the presence of the bear in the following manner:
o Do not approach the bear.
o Make the bear aware of your presence by making noise.
o Call Campus Police (xxx-xxx-xxxx) and report the bear as soon as possible.
o If you encounter the bear at close range, please respond to the bear in the following manner:
§ Remain standing,
§ Avoid direct eye contact,
§ Back up SLOWLY,
§ Speak aloud in a calm yet assertive voice, and
§ Call Campus Police (xxx-xxx-xxxx) and report the bear as soon as possible.
§ If you are inside a vehicle and observe a bear, please remain in the vehicle, sound your horn, and contact Campus Police if possible. Keep in mind that the noise from your horn may scare the bear away but it also alerts other people to the presence of the bear.
In addition, everyone should comply with the following five rules:
1. Never follow a bear, or encourage others to form a group to follow a bear.
2. Never leave food out in the open or in your vehicle.
3. Never hike alone in the adjacent wooded areas.
4. Never provoke the bear.
5. Never feed the bear. It is illegal in New Jersey to do so.
For additional information about bears in New Jersey, please refer to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife website at: www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bearfacts.htm
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Craziest F#?king Thing I've Ever Heard - Bear Wrestling | ||||
| ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
