Four Eyed Monsters was one of last year's best and most innovative films, and now you can watch the whole thing for FREE on Youtube! I highly suggest checking it out, it's only 71 minutes and well worth the time and admission. But catch it soon, it's only gonna be available for one week. Also, be a good sport and sign up for Spout.com. It's free and for each person who signs up, Arin and Susan each get $1 towards paying off their debt. So help these guys out!
Have you noticed it? You walk past the local movie theater and see an ad for that documentary or dumb comedy you’ve been waiting to see. You promise yourself that you’ll catch it in theaters but you can’t make time, and within two weeks it’s gone, no longer playing. Normally you’d expect to wait months for the video, but a trip to Blockbuster proves surprising – it’s already available on DVD.
Yes, the time frame between a film’s theatrical release and its appearance on video store shelves is getting smaller. Facing competition from Internet piracy and websites like Youtube.com, Hollywood distributors are starting to abandon the age-old tradition of staggered release dates for shorter time frames between theatrical and DVD distribution. In fact, some distributors are eliminating that window of time entirely. It’s a distribution move called simultaneous multi-platform release, and it’s coming to a theater, TV screen, and DVD player near you.
The concept is simple: instead of releasing a film in theaters and waiting months or even years for it to become available for home viewing, distributors are removing that time window by releasing films in theaters, on DVD, and through digital on-demand cable all on the same day. Though the technique has been used mostly on small budget, independent films that normally wouldn’t get distribution, the strategy challenges one of Hollywood’s most basic – and lucrative – traditions.
The idea for such a radical form of distribution stems from “the belief that the choice as to how consumers view films should rest with the consumer and that theatrical, DVD and Internet forms of distribution need not threaten each other, and may indeed be mutually complimentary,” says John Lentaigne, producer of the film EMR, a deft thriller about drug addiction and paranoia shot for under $100,000 in both the UK and the US by James Erskine and Danny Mccullough. Distributed simultaneously in theatres, on DVD and over the Internet on July 15th, 2005 by a fledgling independent company in the UK called Dogwoof Digital, EMR was the first film to ever to attempt the simultaneous release strategy.
“Our main belief is that simultaneous releasing gives opportunities to release small independent films that are otherwise uneconomical to release,” says Andy Whittaker, CEO of Dogwoof Digital. “We hope to build an audience and give the audience a choice of when, where, and how they watch the film.”
“One of our biggest challenges is distribution,” says Michelle Byrd, executive director of IFP’s New York chapter. IFP – or Independent Feature Project, as the acronym stands for – is a non-profit organization that works to help struggling independent filmmakers find a place for their films. Byrd, who has seen the difficulties of distribution firsthand, believes that simultaneous multiplatform release can do a lot of good for the independent community. “Once you’re done [with your film], how do you actually connect and engage with an audience? I feel that topic is so important,” she says. “Simultaneous release gives filmmakers a way to cover all their bases.”
That belief seems to have caught on. Since EMR’s first attempt at simultaneous release in 2005, three films have followed in its footsteps: A-list director Steven Soderbergh’s improvisational experiment Bubble, released January 27th 2006, Caveh Zahedi’s autobiographical meta-film I Am A Sex Addict on April 12th 2006, and Michael Winterbottom’s docudrama The Road to Guantanamo on June 23rd. They were joined by another, when director Brad Silberling’s 10 Items or Less comes out on December 1st. 10 Items was of particular interest because it was be the first major star vehicle (the film is a road trip buddy comedy featuring Morgan Freeman) to utilize the simultaneous release strategy.
In each of these instances, the simultaneous release strategy seems to have made sense. All were features whose directors felt deserved theatrical release, but for whom such distribution was simply not economically viable. Soderbergh’s Bubble cost a little over 1.5 million dollars, yet went on to gross a mere $145,000 in theaters. Likewise, according to Caveh Zahedi, I Am Sex Addict would have had to gross “one million [theatrically] to put me in the black.” The film performed amiably, but failed to yield much more than $112,000 in revenue. Zahedi says that simultaneous release allowed for his dream of seeing his film on the big screen come true, while also making sure the film turned a profit. “Theatrical distribution is so high a risk that video on demand suppresses it. It’s a way of [distributors] protecting themselves, I don’t think they would have released it otherwise.”
Zahedi’s distribution story is particularly interesting in that it exhibits some of the problems with simultaneous release, as well. Originally expecting to see his film in cities across the nation, Zahedi received word a week before release that Sex Addict was being pulled from fifteen Landmark Theaters across the country. Landmark Theaters chain owner Mark Cuban pulled the film after he discovered that it was going to be available for viewing on Comcast On Demand, a major competitor of Cuban’s own HDTV/HDNet Films brand. Cuban, as he notes in his blog, is a “full supporter of the simultaneous release platform,” as he believes “that Hollywood’s distribution system requires radical change”. However, his decision to pull the film from theaters exemplifies the reality of the business, and the tricky situations simultaneous release may create.
For now, it seems as though the simultaneous multiplatform release structure may be relegated as a solution for the independent community only. Hollywood won't know the impact of simultaneous release until a studio tries it with a big-budget picture. But staggering the release of a movie between various formats has been a huge source of revenue for many years, and it might not be easy to dislodge such a lucrative, antiquated model. The biggest chain theaters, including AMC Entertainment, Cinemark Entertainment and National Amusements, have openly said they have no interest in carrying a film with a model that could undercut their own business. “We choose films to show based on what we think will fill the seats,” says a manager at City Cinemas Village East. “I wouldn’t choose something that I knew people could see at home.”
However, the consumer will ultimately make the decision. With new video technology appearing on the net each day, and home theater system quality improving, theatrical distribution faces a major threat. But for some, nothing can replace the magic of the theater. “I think it’s cool but it’s not for me,” says Paul Walker, a senior cinema studies student at NYU and employee at Focus Features. “I’m a theater man. I prefer to see films in theaters. But I could see its appeal for others.”
A Warner Brothers release 2006
Directed by Jay Chandrasekhar
Written by Broken Lizard
Two brothers travel to Germany for Oktoberfest, only to stumble upon secret, centuries-old competition described as a "Fight Club" with beer games.
Broken Lizard are kind of funny, I guess. Super Troopers was kind of funny. Beerfest was kind of funny. Mostly it's funny that these movies even get made.
The Reeler is one of my favorite film blogs, mostly because it keeps tabs on everything in New York City. If I want New York-based film news, reviews, or event listings, The Reeler basically has it covered. I was lucky enough to be able to sit down for a cup of coffee with Stu VanAirsdale, the man behind the site, one day last year.
It was late, and though the sun had set beyond the top of the Sixth Ave. skyline, Washington Sq. Park was brighter than day. Humongous lights hung off cranes connected to thick bundles of wire that lined the curb where people stopped to stare as the production commenced. Stu VanAirsdale moved briskly through the crowd, his wire-thin frame slipping between hard suitcases full of equipment scattered carelessly about the trailers and trucks and moving vans that occupied the better half of the park street. “I wonder what they’re shooting,” he asked. He wouldn’t get to find out; a nippy woman wearing a headset forced all the onlookers to walk around the opposite way. “That’s bullshit, I hate that,” grumbled Stu, “It’s our city too. Like when they put up those signs that say you have to move your car or else it’ll get towed. I remember they were doing a shoot up where I live and all these cars got towed, just so they could bring on prop cars! I hate that… Let the people watch, let them be part of it.”
In a town where dozens of films are being shot and screened everyday, it’s difficult to keep abreast of the latest events in cinema culture. Enter Stu VanAirsdale: a slim but broad shouldered man with slender framed glasses and a red coif, the kind of pasty flecked character you’d expect to see standing in line at the Angelika or waiting at the bar of the IFC Center. VanAirsdale is the creator and operator of TheReeler.com, a website devoted to the New York City film world. Everyday, VanAirsdale updates TheReeler with coverage from major premieres, special screenings, Q&A’s, and other unique-to-New York film events. His goal is to provide New Yorkers with an up-to-date, easy-to-access forum for New York film. “I’m not quite there yet,” he says, “but I’m in a position where I’m about to achieve [my goal].”
The website, which started as a blog, has been embraced by local industry insiders, and has positioned VanAirsdale as a reputable force in the New York film circuit. His writing has since appeared in The New York Times, the New York Daily News, Newsday and Filmmaker Magazine. Likewise, VanAirsdale was invited to speak at the 2006 IFP Market, and is now host to his own panel discussions titled The Reeler Screening Series, which is holding a Q&A with director Stanley Nelson on October 16th.
A native of Sacramento, VanAirsdale moved to Manhattan after leaving the Chapman Film School in California. Like many film-school drop outs, VanAirsdale says, “I learned more spending a day on set than in four days at film school.” He has made his share of short films – including a self-financed project based on the true story of an Australian man who murdered his manipulative mother that he shot in 2000 – but VanAirsdale has no plans of making any more in the future. A journalist at heart, VanAirsdale doesn’t view himself so much as a filmmaker or critic, but rather a purveyor of film culture. “I thought, writing – this is what I know I’m good at,” he says. He enrolled at NYU in June of 2004 looking to complete his masters in Journalism. “Looking back,” he says, “it was a mistake to get my masters at NYU. Not to say that NYU was a bad school or anything, but you get to a point where you just need to stop with school and go to the stories.”
After spending some time interning for the online independent film source indiewire.com, VanAirsdale was invited to participate on their blog page, where he found himself writing on a daily basis. “I’m generally a slow writer, so it helped me find discipline,” he says.
Eventually, VanAirsdale found himself speaking to a specific New York audience. Even though he’s not a native, VanAirsdale feels he’s the perfect voice for New York. “I’m just high strung enough, ambitious enough, disinterested in bullshit and excuses for this city,” he says. At the time, there was no real online source specific to New York film culture. “There was film criticism online, and there was film culture,” he says, “but no one was writing in the context that I was.” VanAirsdale split from indiewire and founded his own blog, The Reeler, in June of 2005, with hopes to fill that void.
Stu with producer Bingham Ray
But building an audience and a successful blog isn’t that easy. The site is largely operated solely by VanAirsdale, with the exception of three critics he enlisted to handle reviews and the occasional guest writer. A typical Reeler blog post usually revolves around a specific event, with background information, event details, VanAirsdale’s perspective, and quotes from the event itself. But with news feeds, events listings, reviews and the blog to update, it’s a big undertaking. “I drink a lot of coffee,” says VanAirsdale. “Probably too much.”
VanAirsdale works what he calls an “impossible work day”, often waking at 6am, writing until the afternoon, and then dealing with “bullshit business” while juggling events coverage. While the site’s increasing reputation has made gaining entry to exclusive events a bit easier, VanAirsdale still occasionally finds himself struggling to get on top of the latest news. “Last night I had to jump through a shitload of hoops to get into the premiere of Infamous. And when I finally did get in, they stuck me in a corner where I couldn’t see. I was pretty vexed,” he says.
But the frustrations appear to be worth it. On September 29th, the website re-launched with several new features, including web forums and a new layout. The product is getting closer and closer to VanAirsdale’s original vision. “Now that I’ve got it, I don’t know what to do with it,” he laughs. Future plans involve a book, the premise of which VanAirsdale is keeping under wraps, but involves “a collection of ideas originally on the website.”
For now, VanAirsdale feels fortunate to have made it as far as he has. “I’m lucky that I’m married,” he says, “that I have another insurance provider in the house.” In many ways, his site is like the indie films that get their weeks due at the Pioneer or Landmark Sunshine – a diamond amidst a boundary less, oversaturated market. “Everyone bitches about studios and indies, but I don’t care,” he says. “I’m just glad Gondry can get a film like The Science of Sleep released. If you have good work, it’ll be seen.”
And the Oscar goes to:
Performance by an actor in a leading role
Forest Whitaker in “The Last King of Scotland” (Fox Searchlight)
Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Alan Arkin in “Little Miss Sunshine” (Fox Searchlight)
Performance by an actress in a leading role
Helen Mirren in “The Queen” (Miramax, Pathé and Granada)
Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Jennifer Hudson in “Dreamgirls” (DreamWorks and Paramount)
Best animated feature film of the year
“Happy Feet” (Warner Bros.) George Miller
Achievement in art direction
“Pan’s Labyrinth” (Picturehouse)
Art Direction: Eugenio Caballero
Set Decoration: Pilar Revuelta
Achievement in cinematography
“Pan’s Labyrinth” (Picturehouse) Guillermo Navarro
Achievement in costume design
“Marie Antoinette” (Sony Pictures Releasing) Milena Canonero
Achievement in directing
“The Departed” (Warner Bros.) Martin Scorsese
Best documentary feature
“An Inconvenient Truth” (Paramount Classics and Participant Productions)
A Lawrence Bender/Laurie David Production
Davis Guggenheim
Best documentary short subject
“The Blood of Yingzhou District”
A Thomas Lennon Films Production
Ruby Yang and Thomas Lennon
Achievement in film editing
“The Departed” (Warner Bros.)
Thelma Schoonmaker
Best foreign language film of the year
“The Lives of Others” A Wiedemann & Berg Production
Germany
Achievement in makeup
“Pan’s Labyrinth” (Picturehouse) David Martí and Montse Ribé
Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)
“I Need to Wake Up” from “An Inconvenient Truth”
(Paramount Classics and Participant Productions)
Music and Lyric by Melissa Etheridge
Best motion picture of the year
“The Departed” (Warner Bros.)
A Warner Bros. Pictures Production
Graham King, Producer
Best animated short film
“The Danish Poet” (National Film Board of Canada)
A Mikrofilm and National Film Board of Canada Production
Torill Kove
Best live action short film
“West Bank Story”
An Ari Sandel, Pascal Vaguelsy, Amy Kim, Ravi Malhotra and Ashley Jordan Production
Ari Sandel
Achievement in sound editing
“Letters from Iwo Jima” (Warner Bros.)
Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman
Achievement in visual effects
“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (Buena Vista)
John Knoll, Hal Hickel, Charles Gibson and Allen Hall
Adapted screenplay
“The Departed” (Warner Bros.)
Screenplay by William Monahan
Original screenplay
“Little Miss Sunshine” (Fox Searchlight)
Written by Michael Arndt
All in all a pretty inoffensive night. Not too many surprises this year, the biggest probably being Pans Lab losing over The Lives of Others, which I hear may be the best movie of last year so my fault for not getting on top of that. Congrats to Lab's three wins - that film truly deserves the recognition.
Alan Arkin's win was an interesting choice, but not exactly an upset. Sunshine won in all the right places, focusing on the performances and the writing. In terms of Marty, I'm glad to see the man finally get some due, but The Departed? Best Picture? Seriously? I guess it's cool that he's going to be remembered as the guy who directed that sweet gangster movie they show ad nauseum on TNT. The Departed is the perfect movie for cable TV - fast, loud, and nasty without ever being offensive. It's bittersweet to see such an iconic figure (as much as I hate to admit it) as Marty win for such a minor picture. I rather would have seen him go without best director and just get the lifetime achievement.
Ellen did an all right job as host; she butchered the monlogues, but did a good job interacting with the crowd. Very warm. The whole 'international'/'gone green' thing was a nice theme. No complaints there. They need to cut out a lot of that montage/interpretive dance crap though. No one cares about any of it, it's not entertaining, and it just makes the show that much longer. Get rid of it!
Well the Spirit Awards aired tonight on IFC and the results are in.
Best Feature: Little Miss Sunshine
Best Female Lead: Shareeka Epps (Half Nelson)
Best Male Lead: Ryan Gosling (Half Nelson)
Best Female Supporting: Frances McDormand (Friends with Money)
Best Male Supporting: Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Best Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine)
Best Screenplay: Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking)
Best First Screenplay: Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine)
Best Cinematography: Guillermo Navarro (Pans Labyrinth)
Best First Feature: Sweet Land
Best Documentary: The Road to Guantanamo
Best Foriegn Film: The Lives of Others
John Cassavettes Award: Quinceañera
Truer Than Fiction Award: P.O.V.: The Tailenders (#19.5)
I'm glad to see that many of the films I voted for won awards, although I am disappointed at Little Miss Sunshine's semi-sweep. Sarah Silverman hosted again this year, and the vibe was pretty much the same - a bit dirty, a bit sexy, and a lot more informal than most other award shows. Here's a clip from last year, to give you an idea.
A Fox Searchlight release 2006
Directed by
Jonathan Dayton
Valerie Faris
Written by Michael Arndt
A family determined to get their young daughter into the finals of a beauty pageant take a cross-country trip in their VW bus.
I avoided this film when it came out in theaters because it was hyped as the indie movie of the year and everyone told me I would love it. My friends told me I would love it. My parents told me I would love it. My grandparents told me I would love it, even though they didn't understand it and we never like the same movies anyway, unless they were made before 1965. So, I decided not to see it; nary a dissenting word makes nervous.
Little Miss Sunshine is the product of a post-Napoleon Dynamite world, a world with a pastel colors and where Sufjan Stevens is the soundtrack to our lives. Even though it took five years to make, the film seems like a pretty safe bet; the characters are likeable despite their nasty tics, and the script is critical of our success driven society while remaining supportive of the core American values of family and togetherness. The performances here are what really sell it. Nearly everyone in this film is film is on target, delivering top-notch characterizations that are effectingly real. All in all, it's a likeable film despite its somewhat heavy tone and is certainly refreshing compared to typical Hollywood fare.
But there are a few things about Little Miss Sunshine that bother me and I really wished they'd go away. Take a look at this clip:
Notice anything? Let your eyes focus on the right hand side of the screen. Nearly every single shot features the exact same composition: a horizonal plane somewhere in the middle with a vertical line split at the center off to the right. That vertical line drives me nuts. It's comes in the form of telephone poles, trees, stoplights, character placement, you name it. It was either a conscious decision by the directors or is simply a sign of poor visual construction, but it's always there. And such a limited visual vocabulary is extremely detrimental not only to a film, but future films as well. The static shots somewhat work here but I forsee many knock-offs of this in the future, and that is not good.
Also, why can't anyone make a dark indie comedy that doesn't have an ironic dance sequence at the end? 
This movie is going to win a ton of awards and that is fine, if people take it's screenwriting and performances as serious examples and not the limited visual scope or kitchy direction. While certainly enjoyable, it's probably not something I would want to sit through again, but I may be alone on that. Either way, it's refreshing when a film from outside of Hollywood that at least does something right gets a little recognition. Hopefully it will result in the mainstream's realization that characters - not special effects or crazy storylines - make a movie.
With the winter award season well on its way and the summer blockbuster stretch just around the corner, I think now is as good a time as ever to reward those filmmakers who understand that you don't need a ninety million dollar budget to make that epic gangster remake you've always been talking about. After all, with YouTube and Final Cut and all that digital crap, it's like pretty much anybody can make a movie nowadays. Right?
The theme for this post is Do It Yourself (DIY) Filmmaking. I’ve rounded up a selection of films released this past year that embody the DIY attitude. The quotes are all real and, yes, I've seen them all. They're great. Most of them can now be found on DVD. Check 'em out:
The Guatemalan Handshake
Dir. Todd Rohal
96 minute DV Narrative
A mysterious power failure in a small mountain town coincides with the disappearance of one of its most eccentric young residents. Mystery piles upon mystery as his family and friends search for him, fail, and ultimately try to forget about him, an undertaking that results in many unexpected, and in some cases bizarre, effects on the town's already peculiar community.
At age 19, Rohal was nominated for a Student Academy Award and he is a recipient of a Princess Grace Foundation grant. Guatemalan Handshake features actor/musician Will Oldham and was the winner of the Special Jury Prize at the 2006 Slamdance Film Festival.
Head Trauma
Dir. Lance Weiler
84 minute HD Narrative
After a 20 year absence, drifter, George Walker, returns home to settle his grandmother's estate. As if awakening from a long dream, he finds his childhood home condemned and littered with the remnants of squatters. In the midst of trying to save his past, George falls and strikes his head, triggering an onslaught of vivid nightmares and waking visions. As the horror intrudes on George's reality, his conviction grows that someone or something is trying to kill him.
Weiler made cinema history in 1998 when his directorial debut The Last Broadcast became the first all digital release of a feature film via satellite. His follow up, the psychological horror film Head Trauma, makes use of a digital cinema solution called IndEx that allows Weiler to carry an HD digital version of the film where ever he goes. A near perfect example of DIY, Weiler says the film was “shot, converted to HD, self-distributed, and pressed to mass-market DVD for about $125,000” - pretty impressive.
Four Eyed Monsters
Dir. Susan Buice & Arin Crumley
71 minute DV Narrative
The autobiographical Four Eyed Monsters didn't really break through until the directors created a video podcast documenting their journey creating and promoting the film. Thanks to a powerful MySpace community, the 17 videos posted on their iTunes feed over the past 9 months that each have received an average of 75,000 downloads. I got the chance to sit down with the directors of this wonderful film a couple of months ago - I'll post the interview in a few days. If you're interested in how new media is going to change the world SEE THIS FILM!
Mutual Appreciation
Dir. Andrew Bujalski
110 minutes
Goodbye Cruel Releasing
A musician (Justin Rice) comes between his best friend (Bujalski) and his best friend’s girl (Rachel Clift). Director Andrew Bujalski, a local filmmaker fresh of his first release, Funny Ha-Ha, follows in the Cassavetes tradition, casting non-actors and promoting improvisation that results in a slice of life, rather than a constructed film. Self produced and distributed, Bujalski is a complete DIY-er; “I make films for myself, that I want to see,” he says. “If other people like them – that’s great.”
Jackass 2
Dir. Jeff Tremaine
95 min
Paramount Pictures
Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Bam and the gang are back in another gross-out stunt fest with no holds barred. Based off the popular ‘Jackass’ television series that aired on MTV, the film may be the most mainstream on this list – the only with major studio backing – but nothing shows the DIY aesthetic in its most extreme than an hour and a half of self-inflicted sadomasochism. Count on plenty of piss, puke, poop, and semen – the surrealists would have loved these guys.
American Hardcore
Dir. Paul Rachman
100 min
Sony Picture Classics
Inspired by Steven Blush's book "American Hardcore: A Tribal History", Paul Rachman's feature documentary debut is a chronicle of the underground hardcore punk scene, where DIY was pioneered, from 1979 to 1986. The film includes interviews and rare live footage from artists such as Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat, SS Decontrol and the Dead Kennedys. The definitive film about an amazing movement.
A Lakeshore Entertainment/Pitbull Pictures/First Look International release 2006
Written & Directed by Karen Moncrieff
The clues to a young woman's death come together as the lives of seemingly unrelated people begin to intersect.
Karen Moncrieff's second feature film (following 2002's Blue Car, which I've never seen but hear is pretty good) attempts to piece together the tragic story of a murdered hooker (played with ease by Brittany Murphy) through seven separate mini-shorts. Each short follows a different character who is somehow connected to the dead girl - the woman who discovers the body, the coroner, the dead girl's mother, etc. Running about twenty minutes each, the stories are contained in terms of their protagonists, but each reveal something new about the girl who was murdered. That is, until the end, when we are given the dead girls story in it's revealed glory.
It's very difficult to make a movie that has seven different protagonists. First, you have to make sure each character is believable, or you'll lose the audience right away. Then you have to give them each a story purpose, and that also has to be believable or once again you'll find yourself without an audience. In the case of The Dead Girl, Moncrieff and her actors treat the subject with such emotional flair that it's hard not to feel empathy for her characters. However, the seriousness of Moncrieff's tone and tendancy towards exploiting the emotional punch makes the film strangely unpalatable. Some of the stories follow such obvious tracks that it turns the premise into something almost laughable - take, for example, the story of the coronary student (Rose Byrne) who, upon examining the body, imagines that it's her long lost sister who's disappearance has caused her and her family grief for over a decade. Others simply lack focus or any clear direction - the story of the recluse (Toni Collette) with the abusive mother (Piper Laurie), who has to confront death up close before she can 'really live' (which apparently means having rape-like sex). While these short sections certainly work to give small clues to piece together the story of the dead girl, they don't exactly work as their own contained storylines. They're boring, and the movie suffers for it.
That said, the middle section following the wife of the murderer features a stellar performance by Mary Beth Hurt and is easily the most interesting. It runs on the idea that sometimes the things we love most are also the things we hate (pretty obvious), but the way the characters interact is covered in layers, and it works suprisingly well. From a technical end, the film is quite pretty. Nothing too impressive, but well handled and visually compelling. Likewise, it features performances by some of today's best actresses, including Mary Beth Hurt, Marcia Gay Harden, and Mary Steenburgen.
All in all, The Dead Girl comes across as a high concept Lifetime movie of the week with a slightly larger budget. Mostly it's because the mini-narratives are simply unfufilling. I don't know what Moncrieff could have done differently, because the film is anchored in the individual stories, but I guess she could have been more adventurous in her writing, instead of relying on usual murder-aftermath story cliches. See it on video for the performances.
The Dead Girl is nominated for three Indie Spirit Awards, including Best Feature, Best Director, and Best Supporting Female for Mary Beth Hurt.
An IFC Films/Film Four release 2006
Directed by:
Keith Fulton
Louis Pepe
Writing credits:
Brian Aldiss (novel)
Tony Grisoni (screenplay)
In the 1970s a music promoter plucks Siamese twins from obscurity and grooms them into a freakish rock'n'roll act. A dark tale of sex, strangeness and rock music.
Some movies are made simply to look cool; I think Brothers of the Head is one of those films. Set up as a sort of emphatic mockumentary about a band fronted by Siamese twins, the film has a rich visual aesthetic, full of warped colors, gothic imagery, and slick editing. It's a well assembled piece of cinema, but it lacks one thing - purpose. At the end of the day, the Howe brothers story isn't one that is particularly too enlightening or original; the film follows the typical rocker rise and fall story we've seen and heard a hundred times before, sex/drugs included. Of course the narrative is complicated by the fact that we're watching conjoined twins, but it doesn't really explore that idea in a way that couldn't have been done with a single character. For example, one brother is presented as the quiet, artistic type while the other is aggressive, and in your face. If the brothers are supposed to represent a personality split in two, why not keep them a single character? In the end, their condition comes off more as a strange quirk than story tool, and the film suffers for it. The real question here is how much of the source text is accurately represented; I've never read Brian Aldiss's novel, so I can't really make a comparison.
Directors Fulton & Pepe's previous feature was Lost in La Mancha, an actual documentary following the trials and tribulations surrounding Terry Gilliam's failed production of Don Quixote. Likewise, screenwriter Grisoni drafted Gilliam's version of Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. Gilliam's quirky influence and interest in the bizarre seems to have rubbed off on these filmmakers, but it takes more than strange imagery and sadistic humor to make a great movie. I have faith that they will one day make a great picture - they certainly have the visual editing chops - but Brothers of the Head is too innocuous to be the one.
The film was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for Best Cinematography.
Well the Oscar nominations were announced this morning, and while none of them were particularly too surprising, there are definitely some interesting choices in there. Here's a rundown with some predicitions:
Best Supporting Actress
Adriana Barraza for Babel (2006)
Cate Blanchett for Notes on a Scandal (2006)
Abigail Breslin for Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls (2006)
Rinko Kikuchi for Babel (2006)
Who Should Win: Jennifer Hudson
Who Will Win: Jennifer Hudson
This newcomer gave a career-making performance in Dreamgirls and by all means deserves this award. Not only is she a fan favorite, but her win at the Golden Globes basically secured her win here. Kudos to Barraza and Breslin for scoring nods.
Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin for Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Jackie Earle Haley for Little Children (2006)
Djimon Hounsou for Blood Diamond (2006)
Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls (2006)
Mark Wahlberg for The Departed (2006)
Who Should Win: Eddie Murphy
Who Will Win: Eddie Murphy
The only other good thing about Dreamgirls, aside from Hudson, was Murphy's performance as James "Thunder" Early. The two of them made that watered-down ball of cliches watchable, and will be rewarded for it. It's interesting to see Whalberg up there, though...
Best Acress
Penélope Cruz for Volver (2006/I)
Judi Dench for Notes on a Scandal (2006)
Helen Mirren for The Queen (2006)
Meryl Streep for The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
Kate Winslet for Little Children (2006)
Who Should Win: Penelope Cruz
Who Will Win: Helen Mirren
Mirren's performance in The Queen is all the rage lately and her double win at the Golden Globes is a good indication that she's gonna score gold come Oscar time. Unfortunately I haven't seen the flick yet. But I have seen Volver - which was one of the best films of the year, hands down - and Cruz was a revelation in that film. While I'd love to see the gold go to her, it will probably go to Mirren.
Best Actor
Leonardo DiCaprio for Blood Diamond (2006)
Ryan Gosling for Half Nelson (2006)
Peter O'Toole for Venus (2006/I)
Will Smith for The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)
Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland (2006)
Who Should Win: Ryan Gosling
Who Will Win: Forest Whitaker
I've got one question - where's Borat? While I haven't seen any of the films in this category, Whitaker's role in Scotland has Oscar written all over it, so I'd expect this to be a good year for African American performers. From what I've heard, though, Gosling gives one heck of a performance in Half Nelson. It's nominated for a Spirit, so I'll let you know what I think soon...
Best Director
Clint Eastwood for Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
Stephen Frears for The Queen (2006)
Paul Greengrass for United 93 (2006)
Alejandro González Iñárritu for Babel (2006)
Martin Scorsese for The Departed (2006)
Who Should Win: Iñárritu
Who Will Win: Scorsese
This is the most disappointing category of the year. I've only seen three of these films (Iwo Jima, Departed, Babel) and all three were mild achievements for their helmers; lukewarm films that showcase steady, if only competent direction. Departed was such an exercise in genre it looked like a walk in the park for Scorsese, and the only thing that was good about Babel were those moments in the script that allowed Iñárritu to stretch out a little bit, but these two are poised at the top of this list. I'd prefer it go to Iñárritu; I like to be able to make jokes about the Academy always stiffs the Scor-miester. But if Eastwood wins again this year, I swear I'll fucking shoot somebody. He's a good director, but christ - stop giving him awards for such bland cinema!
Best Picture
Babel (2006): Alejandro González Iñárritu, Steve Golin, Jon Kilik
The Departed (2006): Nominees to be determined
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006): Clint Eastwood, Steven Spielberg, Robert Lorenz
Little Miss Sunshine (2006): Nominees to be determined
The Queen (2006): Andy Harries, Christine Langan, Tracey Seaward
Who Should Win: Pan's Labarynth
Who Will Win: Babel
Socio-political concious coincidence based films are all the rage - anybody remember Crash? naw, me neither - so expect Babel to take the top prize. Which is disappointing, considering it was nowhere near as good as Iñárritu's Amores Perros and was basically a convoluted, trite piece of crap. Pan's Lab was way better than all of these films combined, but it's lumped into the Foriegn Language category. Oh well..
Well, those are my predictions for this year. Some interesting nominees - particularly in the acting categories - but overall I think we all saw this coming. The Oscars are mostly about politics, so keep that in mind when making your own predictions, people. Last years winners are the best example of that - I mean, c'mon, Crash over Brokeback? Really?
Oscars make me sick.
Razzies Get Back to Basics with 2006 Nominees
In this wonderful season of self-congratulatory awards hype, the crew behind the Razzies have one of the hardest jobs in Hollywood - narrowing down the year's worst releases and choosing the most heinous of the bunch. Past Razzie winners include Jenny Mcarthy's hilariously unfunny Dirty Love, Tom Green's surreal Freddy Got Fingered, and the misunderstood J-Lo/Affleck disaster remake Gigli. This year the Wayan's Brothers Little Man and the totally unnecessary Basic Instinct sequel are leading the pack with 7 nominatious each, including one for "Sharon Stone's lopsided boobs" in the Worst Screen Couple category.
These are probably the only awards worth following, as they are incredibly tongue-in-cheek and have been getting more attention from the industry in the following years (Halle Berry actually picked up her award in person for worst actress for last years Catwoman). Check out the press release and full list of nominees here.
An HDNet Films release 2006
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Written by Coleman Hough
Set against the backdrop of a decaying Midwestern town, a murder becomes the focal point of three people who work in a doll factory.
Soderbergh found his roots in independent cinema, producing a decade's worth of low-budget, high-concept films before settling into the studio system with star-riddled affairs like Erin Brokovitch, Traffic, and Ocean's Eleven. Bubble, billed as the latest "Soderbergh experience", is a bi-product of his studio works; a pet project that was funded by his big budget efforts. It is of some note because it was the first film to employ the simultaneous multiple distribution platform, a unique way of mass-releasing a film through theatrical, DVD, and cable on-demand all on the same date. Whether that business tactic has paid off is yet to be seen; only a handful of other films (including Caveh Zahedi's autobiographical I Am A Sex Addict and Winterbottom's docu-drama The Road to Guantanamo) have followed suit, and frankly I don't know too many people who have seen (or heard of) any of them. However, as a film, Bubble is an experiment that falls short of the mark in many ways.
Set in a decrepit West Virginia town, the film follows three dirt poor employees of a doll factory who become involved in a murder. The story is simple, and handled in a simple way - shot on DV, the film has this average, everyday life aesthetic. Following with that aesthetic, Soderbergh decided to cast non-actors in the roles, adding a (somewhat) refreshing sense of realism. The actors are fine, and actually give pretty solid performances, however one can't but feel that Soderbergh spent a lot of his time worrying about their chops than about his camera. For DV, the film looks great, but the camera work is insipid and uninspired. There are many flat, stoic shots, and some minor attempts at Godardian style pans that don't really work.
The title, Bubble, has many implications that go unrecognized throughout the film. A bubble, of course, is an enclosure, and the story presents multiple layers of contextualized 'bubbles', from the settings to the characters states of being. Soderbergh recognizes the themes, but refuses to work with them, focusing rather on the simplicity of the story and it's averageness. This is fine, but it makes for a very average movie. The main point of conflict doesn't come until near the end, and it's hard to take it seriously because the characters are presently so flatly.
Soderbergh is nominated for a Spirit Award in the category of Best Director for this film. Frankly, I think Soderbergh is the reason this film doesn't work. I have to commend him for his inspiring business tactics and indie aesthetic, but over-simplification can be a bad thing. Ultimately, the film has some fleeting moments of greatness (when Martha is inside the large home, for example) but over all it is a dulled down affair.
Clint Eastwood's new film: Toilet Paper from Sulfur Island
Actually, it's fitting. Was I the only one who thought this film wasn't that great?
A 20th Century Fox Production 1999
Written and Directed by Mike Judge
Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston), thanks to a hypnotic suggestion, decides not to go to work at the same time his company is laying people off. When layoffs affect his two best friends (David Herman, Ajay Naidu), they conspire to plant a virus that will embezzle money from the company into their account.
A 20th Century Fox Production 2006
Writing Credits: Mike Judge & Etan Cohen
Directed by Mike Judge
Private Joe Bowers (Luke Wilson) and Rita (Maya Rudolph), a prostitute, the definition of "average Americans", are selected by the Pentagon to be guinea pigs for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, they awakes 500 years in the future, where they discover a society so incredibly dumbed-down that they are easily the most intelligent people alive.
Office Space was virtually ignored when it was first dumped into theaters by 20th Century fox in 1999, but has since become a cult favorite on DVD. And by 'cult' I mean one of those movies that pretty much everyone everywhere has seen a hundred times. It's basically a comedy classic for the slacker generation, a sincere satire of the drudgeries of modern labor. It's even got that sweet Geto Boys in there.
Since then, Judge has released a new film, the little seen sci-fi based Idiocrachasy, which Fox dumped in a couple of cities back in September. Many theories about why that happened, from rumors about Mike Judge ripping the plot of a short story titled "The Marching Morons" by Cyril M. Kornbluth, copywright 1951, to Fox feeling threatened by Judge's clear satire of their key demographic. Whatever the case, the film is pretty entertaining and furthers many of Judge's familiar motif's in a new and interesting way.
The films have distinct narrative similarities, with blue collar male protagonists who prefer to "sit on their ass" rather than work and then find their way to jail, only to be rewarded for their averageness. But as a sci-fi film, Idiocracy has the added bonus of creating a new version of earth. Idiocracy takes place 500 years into the future, when the human race has gotten so dumb it forgot plants needed water to grow. Judge creates a race of people consumed by violence and perversion, bad advertising and sugar; they speak a mix of ebonics, southern twang and valley girl. While the satire is perhaps not as biting as in Office Space, it's quite funny and has some interesting visuals.
What impressed me most about this film was the art direction. That pic is a bad example, and I don't imagine it had a very large budget, but Judge effectively creates some stellar backgrounds. In one scene, miles of fallen highway sit in a huge desert; mountains of trash in another.
The Golden Globes have been, in more recent years, a pretty good gauge in terms of how the Oscars will play out - seven of the ten past Globe winners for best picture have taken home the Oscar. This year's ceremony offered some surprises, but was pretty flaccid over all. Dreamgirls won for Best Comedy/Musical, which is lame, but who cares, really. Babel was the Globe winner for Best Drama, and if it takes home the Oscar, I'll be pissed. Not only was it far from being this year's best drama, it wasn't even collaborators Alejandro González Iñárritu (dir) and Guillermo Arriaga's (writer) best film. In fact, it was their worst - a poorly written, unbelievably sordid mess that takes coincidence way too seriously. I have to give Iñárritu some credit: his camera use was occasionally inventive and he managed to make lingering moments between dialogue haunting and emotional, but the film was an over-wrought piece of crap. Please don't make the same mistake you did with Crash, dear Academy.
Most of the other categories were predictable. Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson took home prizes for Dreamgirls (they were the only decent part of that movie so I won't argue it), Borat won for Borat, Meryl Streep was handed another shiny trophy for her mantle piece. The big race here was for best actor/actress in a drama, with Helen Mirren and Forest Witaker winning those, respectively. I haven't seen either The Queen or Last King of Scotland, nor do I think anyone else in America has, so once again I am at a loss for giving a shit. Marty won best director for The Departed, but then again he also won for Gangs of New York and we all know how that turned out come Oscar time. I hope they stiff him again this year too so I can keep making jokes about how Three Six Mafia has an Oscar and he doesn't. Also, I'm bitter than Pan's Labarynth (and Volver, even) lost out to Letters From Iwo Jima for best foriegn language film. Iwo Jima was good and all, but once you get past the whole OMFG THE JAPS ARE THE GOOD GUYS!!!!1! thing it's pretty much your basic war film. Both Pan's Lab and Volver were infinitely more imaginative and entertaining films.
Overall, it's important to remember that these awards are simply a set-up for famous people to give other famous people shiny pieces of shit that grant them status to quit caring about their work and simply make films for the money. (The Oscar curse is REAL people!). Like the obligitory annual critics top ten lists, awards season is more politics than it is progress towards advancing the cinema. It's fodder for gossip, and for making fun of Scorsese for sucking so much. The Academy is pretty predictable in terms of how they make their decision (take Crash, for example - sure it was an upset, but why would they give the big award to a film solely about gay people when they could give it to one that generalized racism all across the board?). It's crucial to remember that the Academy is a specific group of people with specific politics, and that their views don't accurately represent the cinema as a whole but rather the politics of that specific group. So, in conclusion, FUCK AWARDS SEASON and just go see movies on your own. Make your own decisions on the best movie of the year - don't let awards season dictate what you should watch.
Here are links to some of the better/more humorous reviews of this year's Globes:
NY Times
Defamer
Variety
Also, a note about the blog:
Sorry about the slow posts, but my computer is broke and so am I, so I've had to resort to posting at work/school and from the wii (which is a bitch). I should have it all sorted out later this week, so look forward to a more regular posting schedule. I've seen a good 10-15 movies in the past few days and have a lot to talk about, so it should be good.
A Universal Pictures release 2006
Directed by Alfonso Cuarón
Writing credits:
Alfonso Cuarón (screenplay)
Timothy J. Sexton (screenplay)
David Arata (screenplay)
Mark Fergus (screenplay)
Hawk Ostby (screenplay)
P.D. James (novel The Children of Men)
In 2027, as humankind faces the likelihood of its own extinction, a disillusioned government agent (Clive Owen) agrees to help transport and protect a miraculously pregnant woman (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to a sanctuary at sea where her child's birth may help scientists to save the future of mankind.
Children of Men is easily the best science fiction film of the past year. As director Cuarón's follow up to Harry Potter 3, the film is expertly handled, convincingly portraying a dying world some twenty years into the future. What makes this film work is the use of a 3rd person style hand-held camera - it follows the characters around, immersing the viewer in the world as if they were running with Clive Owen. Quick pans and sweeping camera moves allow for a rich, realized atmosphere that is grounded in realism. That said, the story has some holes and could have been stronger, particularly in terms of characterization. While none of the performances are bad here, the characters simply feel like sci-fi stock. But if you're looking for the cinematic equivalent of a roller coaster ride, this may be as good as it gets.
This one's been out for a while but I figured I'd post the review anyway...
When I was in high school I sat next to the captain of the football team in home room. He was a jock, for sure - stocky, with broad shoulders and little brains - but a nice guy, jovial and very easy-going. We'd talk from time to time, sharing quick conversations before class began. He was just friendly enough to keep it from being awkward, just funny enough to keep things interesting. When Christmas time rolled around our sophomore year, he wore a big Santa hat that pushed his red hair out at all different ends and matched the color of his freckles. He turned to me and asked, "Did you put up your tree yet?" No, I replied. I'm a jew. He looked at me puzzled, his right eyebrow cocked as if he didn't know what I had meant. "So you don't have a tree?" Nope, I responded cooly. "What about lights, do you put up any lights?" No, I repeated. Jews don't put up lights. "You gotta have lights," he said, "for Santa!" No, I said a forth time, wondering if he was just pulling my leg or if he was actually being serious. Jews don't put up lights. "Well how do you celebrate the birth of the lord Jesus Christ, then?" he asked. I sat there a bit stunned for a second before replying, I go to the movies.
I saw this film right outside of Asbury Park, New Jersey. The theater was absolutely filled with black people, and it was great. It was like going to church in Alabama; everyone was hootin' and hollerin' and cheerin' along, singing the songs with the film. For all the movie's faults, this seemed to make it a bit more palatable. I can't say I reccomend it - there are a million better musicals out there, with better songs and better performances. But if you absolutely love Broadway and can't make the trek out to NYC, maybe this film is for you. It's got lots of bright lights and sequin dresses, and it certainly captures the shallowness of 42nd Street, but it lacks the heart and soul of the music it supposedly represents. Let's just thank god it wasn't a biopic. 
