Scripts don't seem to be my immediate ambition, as they result in planning and complications and I'm not sure I've written anything that's worth the social agony and natural forcefulness required to complete a satisfactory artistic expression of ideas. So, what I am doing now, and what I did for a year and half until my camera broke, is create short films out of essentially nothing. I'm filming when I "intuitively" feel that I can capture "useful" images. By collecting this images, I can later fashion an, if not compelling, interesting or entertaining presentation, often set to music (although I'm trying to rely more on the natural sounds I'm picking up that diagetic sound, it'll likely be a mix of both). Since the images are basically nothing special, rather ordinary images that could have been taken by anyone, the possibilities are endless, and the result will be purely dictated by the time and manner in which I construct the images. This in the past has either resulted in spontaneous, alive filmmaking, or repetative, uninspired cliches. Hopefully something will result more in the fashion of the former, but thus is the nature of such a venture, the results are unpredictable.

Mini-Reviews of some of the films I've seen theatrically since March 05, 2006.

Note: The "reviews" are conversational because they were written for discussion, there are also likely to be "spoilers" in them.

American Dreamz

There was a preview screening as part of a local film festival, and what struck me most was how much it seemed like it was edited down from a longer version. I read a feature about the movie last summer and Paul Weitz talked a lot about what he was satirizing and what he wanted to make points of with that comedy, and none of it really registered in this version that I saw. The comedy is quite broad, but that's not the problem. The performances, for the most part, fail to either evoke the characters that they are satirizing, and bring out the comedy and absurdity in those characters. Willem Defoe easily gives the best performance because he plays his character straight, as seriously as drama, which makes it funny when he toys with Quad's Bushesque president. It seems like some stuff was cut for time, and it hurt the movie. The only other good performance was...Mandy Moore who I think is proving to have much more substance as a comedic actress than she did as a pop star.

And why the hell is Chris Klien in movies still.

Tsotsi

What was weak about the screenplay? I thought the screenplay serviced the story fully, and the dialogue never seemed out of place or anything. You're right about the uniqueness of the setting elevating the film though. If they had adapted the script to New York let's say, I doubt it would be as emotionally effective. The slums that many of the main characters live in, and the deep divide between between the rich and the (extremely) poor is something wouldn't be prevalent in different areas. The actor who played Tsotsi was very good, and normally I don't really like the when directors use childhood flashbacks to explain the characters motives, but in this instance I think it worked.

What I'm saying is, I recognize those things which you had a problem with in the script, but am willing to either overlook or make excuses for them because I think the movie is emotionally powerful. In South Africa, the slums are closer to the Gated Homes than you'd think. Also, Tsotsi always takes the train to get there, so it's not like he's walking across a field and he's in the neighborhood. As far as the time issues, I never had a problem understanding whether it was a new day, or how quick recoveries were, ect. The guy Tsotsi beats up in the begining is having trouble recovering because he wasn't being taken care of. The people around him were more concerned with playing cards than with getting him help. He probably broke some bones, and left untouched, would be in great pain far longer than a woman who had a clean-bullet wound, and was taken to the hospital immediatly. As for the subtitles, I never have a problem taking in the images and reading the subtitles, though obviously it would be preferable to not need them, and especially for films that are composed carefully and deliberately they can get in the way, but it's a much better solution than dubbing of course.

United 93

It's intense. Nothing in the movie is unconvincing, it's powerful and extremely well crafted. The passengers don't know who Osama Bin Laden is, what Al-Queda is, the air traffic controllers don't know what is happening, no one in the movie knows any more than they would have known. It's a great movie, but it's not something I'll ever need to see again.* I want to discuss certain cinematic choices that I absolutely applaud, but I don't want to ruin anything for anyone seeing this. The suspence and intensity I think not only lies in the actions in the movie, but the filmmaking choices that Greengrass and his team made. Powerful, intense.

I was looking through NPR, and Bob Mondello's review (here), says everything I attempted to say above, but more eloquently.

[*I've since seen it again.]

Art School Confidential

I disagree with Bert, I don't think it was stupid. It was silly, but I don't think it was stupid. I don't know, maybe I just love the Clowes/Zwiggoff world so much I'm willing to look past it's flaws, but I thought it was funny, and enjoyable. There's so many actors in it I like (Max Minghella, John Malkovich, Anjelica Huston, Steve Buscemi, Jim Broadbent, etc.) that I couldn't not like it. The stranger subplot holds the movie back yes, and the ending is kind of a half-thought out reference to Pickpocket, but nonetheless I did enjoy it, especially the stuff with the roomate/director, and from the three movies he's been in I really enjoy Minghella.

The Death of Mr. Lazarescu

Very similar to the Dardenne's movies (aesthetically and content wise). It takes place from about 6pm I suppose to around 4am, following an old, sick man named Mr. Lazarescu, and the people around him after he calls an ambulance. Very objective, very sparse, all handheld, no music, no exposition, just following these characters in near-real time. The most shocking thing which I guess I knew but never actually saw a physical manifestation of it, was the extremely poor quality of a lot of countries healthcare systems (in this case Romania). Completely naturalistic, objective, and rivetting really.

Sympathy for Lady Vengeance & Army of Shadows

Two of the very best movies I've seen this year. A lot of the criticisms I've read about Lady Vengeance argue that it's very shallow and there's no real conflict or drama, just style, and I think that's perhaps because it's far less graphic than Chan Wook's previous two movies. The movie is wall to wall with great performances, a lot of it is darkly funny, and the later part of the last hour is very tense and very interesting. The movie almost has a kind of libretarian moral stance on justice and on revenge. There's some similarities to the Kill Bill movies, but with all of it's stylization and aesthetic beauty, Lady V feels far more realistic and dramatic.

Army of Shadows aswell is very tense, and it's very econimical in it's story telling. I love Lino Ventura and Simone Signoret together. Everything seems completely plausible and it's a great movie.

A Prarie Home Companion

Such a lovely, good film. It's really lighter Altman, still slightly ambiguous and fluid, but just wonderfully alive. It's so different from anything else out there, every single actor (Lohan included) is fantastic, the songs are good, the jokes are funny, and the camera is a floating. Great, great film.

A Scanner Darkly

The rotoscoping works for the story, but it's not as beautiful or dream-like as it was in Waking Life. A lot of the movie is very funny, with Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson and Rory Cochrane delivering paranoid/drug endused dialogue that works really well. The plot is a little convoluted and doesn't come to any kind of real conclusions. I don't know, perhaps it could have been a little longer or maybe just more dense with some expository dialogue. I liked a lot of it, but it doesn't add up to anything great, just a good stylish hour and forty five minutes.

Strangers With Candy

A lot of it is hit and miss, but more often than not it's very funny. I like the movie more than any of the episodes I've seen thus far (i'm mid-way through season 2), and I think part of that is to do with the comparably higher production values in the movie as compared with the series. Everyone is really funny in the movie (save for the Guy Blank replacment), but Colbert is especially fantastic. Very funny.

Scoop

I liked it, but I have a cold and the medicine i'm on kind of made me a little light-headed so I wasn't thinking as clearly as I normally am during a movie. Well-written comic dialogue, the characters were a little broadly drawn, but it's one of the darker Allen comedies I've seen. Some nice Bergman-esque imagery made it's way into the movie too, which was suprising, but welcome. I love Woody, and I like his schtick when it's good, but it can be the most pathetic thing in a movie when it's bad, and luckily it only ducks into that second category once of twice, and even then it's forgivable because the moviess so snappy and moves quickly enough that you're already on to another joke or set up before you can sigh in disapproval. I think i'm still a little woozy from the medecine, but it's the best comedy Allen's made in at least eight years.

Miami Vice

 I think Michael Mann can do no wrong. Very entertaining, good performances all around, no cheesy references to the 80s or the show, realistic as can be with this kind of movie, very good solid drama with some action. Mann's use of HD and consumer DV is unparralled. The last five or so minutes were absolutely perfect. I loved it.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Leagues above Anchorman. Well developed characters, hilarious, and well plotted. It pretty much follows the bio-pic conventions, and plays them for laughs. Ferrel is great, Reilly is great, Sascha Baron Cohen, Michael Clark Duncan, Jane Lynch, Gary Cole, and especially Amy Adams are all fantastic aswell (she had two of the funniest little bits in the film). Well made, some what broad comedy.

The Descent

This, and Hostel (horrible, horrible) are the only two new horror movies I've seen in the past 5 years, and this is the best use of modern horror techniques I've seen. It plays on so many fears and phobias, it's dense with referential imagery, and it's actually scary. With so many disposable horror movies coming out, this one's got some weight behind it. (For some reason Lionsgate cut the ending short, the rest of which can be seen here. Don't watch it if you haven't seen the movie obviously.)

Winter Light

Just incredible. I have trouble sometimes watching and enjoying movies that center around religious, Christian/Catholic characters (Flowers of St. Francis for example), but it didn't bother me here. One because I know Bergman hated his Lutheran upbringing, and is now an Athiest, but also because there were some strong criticisms within the film. It's so well made, and well shot, and well acted, that the setting is transcended I suppose. I somehow feel at home in movies that are kind of smaller scale. I'm lost in car chases, but six minutes close ups I feel in tune with.

The Silence

Again, extremely well made, but I don't know what I got out of it. I enjoyed watching it, and it's certainly daring for the time (nudity, incest, exhibitionism, etc.). I liked the use of the boy's perspective in the shots and the rear projection on the train. I was afriad Bergman was going to venture into self parody when the Dwarves showed up, but their scenes are probably the best in the movie. Good, but it didn't have the same visceral emotional impact as Winter Light.

Snakes on a Plane

I wish it wasn't called that, but it is. The movie itsself, which I saw solely because of David R. Ellis (I enjoyed Cellular), is not great. It's not terrible thought either. I liked Cellular because it was a good, funny, thriller, and William H. Macy was in it. This is kind of similar, in that it has an opening scene that lays out a flimsy set up, and then gets to the actioning and thrilling. Some of the scenes are kind of laughable. Some of the scenes are unexpectadly strong. It's not a movie I'd seek out, but if you're going with friends who are riding the irony train, i'm sorry, plane, then you'll get pretty much what you expected. It uses a lot of the Plane-disaster movie cliches, but they don't really feel all that cliched oddly. There are a few nice kill scenes early on, but the snake attack gets old pretty fast. That's when it turns on Plane landing mode. The re-filmed parts feel like they've been added, and there's no reason there should be a music video playing in the credits. If you're going, you won't hate your hour and a half, but as I said before, nothing to seek out.

Idiocracy

Yes Mike Judge's long delayed, for some widely anticipated follow-up to Office Space. Released with no advertising (save for a poster that got pulled from most theatres), no reviews, in six cities, away from anywhere any critic could find it. But forget the release, the movie itself is what's important. I like Mike Judge. Not as much as some others, but I've liked everthing he's put out. Througout the movie I tried to make excuses (this must not be his cut, the studio probably added the narration, and the swelling music, etc.), but none of them explain the many, many, many, many faults, and bad decisions that this movie contains. From the story, to the sets, to the costumes, to the actors, to the cinematography, to the lighting, the effects, nearly everything is bad. I just came out of it feeling badly for Mike Judge. I feel like I want to sit down with him and just talk through what happened, what he was trying to do, why he made the decisions he made, just try and understand how someone so clearly talented, and funny, could make such an ugly mess. I was upset that Fox wasn't marketing it, and pretty much making sure no one saw it (three people in the theatre besides me and a friend), but after seeing it, there's no way any footage from that movie could be cut together into an appealing trailer or tv spot, or any clip could be shown on a talk show and look good. I'd say it might be worth a watch out of curiosity, when/if it comes out on dvd, but only to satisfy that curiosity. What happened Mike?

Side Note: Bob Musgrave (Bottle Rocket), has a small scene near the begining of the movie with Wilson. I didn't recognize him at first because he's aged a bit (it has been ten years since Bottle Rocket), and gained a little weight, but his texas drawl is still somewhat there.

Conversations with Other Women

Really good, I enjoyed listening to these people, I enjoyed the peformances of the two leads (Aaron Eckhart, Helena Bonham Carter), I enjoyed the split-screen device, which allowed you to see both actors at the same time, or see things they were talking about, I love how the true nature of their relationship unfolds slowly in bits, a very good film.

Little Miss Sunshine

I had promised a friend i'd see it with him again a month or so ago, and the he went on vacation, and I couldn't wait so I saw it while he was gone and thought he'd forgotten about seeing it again, but I enjoy the movie and it was a double feature so I didn't mind. One thing I noticed this time was the linking of characters in the opening scenes through their clothing, Abigail Breslin and Alan Arkin both wear two shirts, one with no sleeves, and one with sleeves under that, Steve Carell and Paul Dano both wear white, and Greg Kinnear and Toni Collete wear the same colour (turqouise) shirt. This continues into the first couple of scenes in the VW, but with different clothing and matches.

Murmur of the Heart

More Malle, more brilliance, disturbing, but at the same time somewhat understandable (almost), because of the way Malle builds the main character through his experiences. I also love the look of the Malle movies of this time, the colours are nearly all earth tones, but they're so rich.

Half Nelson

I think I said to myself several times during the movie "oh my god." The filmmaking on display here is awe-inspriing. I don't want to oversell it too much, but I'm thoroughly impressed. The Brando comparisons Gosling is getting are apt, because it's that quality of performance. Shareeka Epps is likewise fantastic, and it's the kind of performance that just seems like it has to come from something inside the actor, not neccesarily something that could even be taught or culled from her. (She's thirteen). One of the very best movies of of the year thus far.

Syndromes and a Century

Such a beautiful, rich, transcendent piece of filmmaking. I saw it at the Chicago International Film Festival, where I saw Apichatpong Weerasethakul's last film Tropical Malady. I went with a friend who hated it, which I still don't understand. Every frame is so dense and interesting. It's a terrific film.

Babel

I'll say this a lot, but fantastic. You really get a sense of the characters through the few lines and the cross cutting of the stories, and it's such a fundementally visual film, nearly no exposition, beautiful, great film.

The Queen

Mirren is astounding, as is Michael Sheen who plays Blair, Stephen Frears does wonders with editing between news footage of Diana and the film's footage. There's a wonderful side-plot metaphor with a Buck, and it's just so good.

The Fountain

Probably the best movie of the year. Even if that innocuous distinction doesn't hold up, it's a visual masterpiece. There's literally nothing out there like this. Aronofsky spoke before the film, and he was really intelligent, and articulate, which I'd gotten from interviews, and dvd stuff, but it was nice to hear it in person. The film is magnificent, and definately deserves to be seen on a big screen (don't all good movies?). It's different from his other two features, and again, as much as I love those two, this is his best film, and probably my favorite this year.

I'm going to continue to post capsule reviews of films, albeit more formal than what's above, I wanted to post these to kick it off. I'll be writing about Half Nelson, Babel, and The Fountain, in more depth, the latter two when they're released and I have a chance to see them again, this is great american cinema.

Sven Nykvist

1922-2006

IMDb

Wikipedia

I think child abuse is funny.

Below are the two instances I have seen that lead me to believe the previous statement. The first is from Charlie Chaplin's The Kid. In it, Charlie's standby character "The Tramp," unintentionally adopts a young boy abandoned by his mother on the street. This is a scene in which The Tramp and the kid, played by Jackie Coogan, pull a con on a neighbor, where Coogan throws a rock through the neighbor's window, and The Tramp convenientally walks by immediately after with a new window and tools for installation.

The funniest part of the scene, maybe the whole movie, to me is the way Chaplin kicks Coogan once they're found out. It's unexpected, it's great physical comedy, and I think it's very funny.

The second scene is from Woody Allen's great Manhattan. This scene takes places immediately after an arugment Woody's character Isaac, has had with his ex-wife (played by Meryl Streep) who's now living with a woman who Isaac "accidentally" tried to run over with his car. This short scene is the only time in the film we see their son, and in it, like in The Kid, the kid gets shoved, and I find it hilarious.

It's likely this is an homage to the scene in the Chaplin film, as Chaplin is a favorite of Allen's, and it's also silent (save the Gershwin score), in black and white, and shown in one take.

The aspect ratio is incorrect here because windows movie maker only goes as wide as 16:9, while the true ratio for this film is 2:35:1.

What I think it comes down to is that no matter how much intellectually driven comedy you throw out there, nothing will beat someone falling, or getting hit...preferably in the groin.

AESTHETICS OF CINEMA

Part 1: Title Sequences

With the following series of essays, I hope to explore the relationship between stylistic choices in film, and their impact and meaning to an audience. These choices are sometimes subtle, and other times overt. A film is a collection of these choices; I think it is important to recognize how dependent a film's entertainment, emotional impact, and artistic quality are on the aesthetic choices I will explore. These essays are not scientific, and are solely based on my reading of film essays, and largely my own observations.

Defenders of the Faith

[T]he lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism....

While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the [Danish newspaper] Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.

What, however, about submitting Islam together with all other religions to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.

Slavoj Zizek  March 12, 2006

The New York Times