Exit Through the Gift Shop

by: Scott Knopf

Modern street art and film have cooperated for decades now. Ever since people have been tagging walls, filmmakers have been there to chronicle their work. Graffiti documentaries such as Style Wars (1983) and Bomb It (2007) educate those who are interested in not only the artwork itself but also in the culture that produces this art. Narrative features such as Bomb the System (2002) illustrate the lifestyles of graffiti artists, often focusing on the rebelliousness and illegality of their art. Together, as a body of work, these films explore the global impact of graffiti and attempt to exemplify and validate the movement. As an addition to this canon, Exit Through the Gift Shop earns its place not only for the story it tells but also for who’s telling that story. Using one-of-a-kind hand-held footage and featuring exclusive interviews with the world’s most prolific and inexhaustible street artists, Gift Shop provides insights into the graffiti world like no other film before it. This first-person, undercover, sociologic, personal narrative not only provides an essential history of the movement but offers a unique perspective on a specific subset of that movement.

Exit Through the Gift Shop marks the directorial debut from prolific street artist Banksy. For those unfamiliar with Banksy, he hails from Britain and is responsible for countless iconographic art pieces around the world. His work includes stickers, murals, sculptures, and even installations. He often utilizes satirical imagery to speak on any number of topics from consumerism to living conditions to the idea of celebrity. Other than the work he produces, little is known about the mysterious artist. Banksy has gone to great lengths throughout his career to conceal his identity. A majority of his work is technically illegal as it’s constructed on public property and as street art laws continue to harshen, his decision to remain anonymous is easy to understand. His interviews in the film are done from behind shadows and through a voice-modification system. This is the first time Bansky has given video interviews for a film like this.

With his first feature-length documentary, Bansky decided to construct the project from the boxes of tapes stacked in his videographer’s garage. For years before Terry Guetta, an L.A. eccentric with a video camera permanently attached to his hand, began filming Banksy’s nighttime raids, he filmed a number of other infamous artists such as Shepard Fairey, Invader, and Ron English as they gave Los Angeles their own special brand of decoration. This massive collection of footage was originally turned into an “unwatchable” film (according to Banksy) called Life Remote Control. After realizing that this amazing footage shouldn’t go to such waste, he decided to make Gift Shop in an attempt to tell the story of a new age in street art through the life story of Guetta (a.k.a. Mr. Brainwash). The result is a must-see for anyone even remotely interested in art of any kind. It’ll be especially helpful for those wondering about Andre the Giant’s posse.

Directed by: Banksy
U.S./U.K., 87 min.

Blue Valentine

by: Scott Knopf

Blue Valentine is an affective film that uniquely tells a familiar Boy Meets Girl Then Loses Girl story. Director Derek Cianfrance (Brother Tied) supplies the viewer with two sections of his characters’ relationship: the hopeful beginnings and the beaten down endings. The years in the middle are left up to one’s imagination. At one time, Dean (Gosling) and Cindy (Williams) were a young, happy couple. As their lives progess, they aren’t as young and they definitely aren’t as happy. And so their story goes. The film cuts back and forth between two couples who, minus hairline recession and facial expressions, are seemingly the same people. But a lot has happened since the days of clever pickup lines and ukulele dance parties. Now there’s a child to raise, bills to pay, and a missing dog to find. Their bright eyes, the kind that are bron from naivety, are all but faded out by the time we meet up with them later on.

Both Gosling and Williams play their roles to perfection. Everything about their interactions, both physical and verbal, is completely believable. That's even more impressive considering that Dean and Cindy’s struggles are so relateable and painful that, for the viewer, poking holes in the performances might seem like a viable self-defense mechanism. But there aren’t any holes to poke. As conflicts arise, both characters continue to develop and their portrayals become well-rounded. The film’s nonlinear style is used to deliver new layers in Dean and Cindy and does so with effectively. Watching Dean's attempts at levity and Cindy's annoyed looks of disapproval is like a getting punched in the gut. Their actions never seem unnatural and that’s saying so much for a story whose content practically asks for melodrama.

Andrij Parekh’s (Half Nelson) cinematography is just as responsible as the writing and the performances for the frustration and agony illustrated onscreen. It’s easy to know which couple (past or present) is on screen just by paying attention to the use of contrasting colors. While it’d be simpler to say that Parekh uses brighter and happier colors during the couple’s brighter and happier years, that'd not only be inaccurate but also insulting to the work that went into creating Valentine’s visual makeup.

One of the film’s most insightful scenes takes place in a dingy, cheesy, science-fiction-themed hotel room. Parekh’s use of lighting and colors not only captures exactly what a room like that would look like but also comments on what would cause a good looking, non-trashy couple in their late-20s to book that room. The answer: desperation. Valentine seems to say that the hardest thing to fix is a marriage. And even with a clear image of what built that marriage’s foundation, it’s still difficult to see what should have been done differently.

Starring: Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams
Directed by: Derek Cianfrance
Written by: Derek Cianfrance, Joey Curtis, and Cami Delavigne
U.S.A., 120 min.

Sundance Film Festival Review: New Low

by Whitney Borup

This year the Sundance Film Festival included a category they called “Next.” The idea was to showcase some of the best films made with the lowest amount of money. Adam Bowers’ film “New Low” certainly qualifies as far as the budget is concerned. Shot on different pieces of borrowed equipment (whatever friend was around that day, he says), Bowers’ wrote, directed, and starred in the film. It’s hard not to root for a project like this. And, while Bowers as an actor is decent – his timing is always spot on, even if his performance gets a little repetitive – the rest of the film is dull in a predictable kind of way. If you’re going to the trouble of making a film for such a tiny amount of money, not knowing where it will end up, just for the love of filmmaking, it seems like you should try to do something a little bit different with the medium. “New Low” expands on the oft-repeated indie love triangle between a witty boy and the two very different girls that may or may not be interested in him. We’ve seen this before and we’ve seen it done better.

Wendell is balding, thin-lipped, and too skinny. Or, so says Vicky, his new girlfriend that derides him and then sleeps with him. Wendell would much rather be with Joanna, the environmentally conscious, Food Not Bombs organizing, volunteer that wants to shape Wendell into a better person. The problem is, does he deserve someone like Joanna? Or is he doomed to spend the rest of his life with assholes like Vicky.

All of the performances are much better than you’d expect from a plot like that. I especially enjoyed watching Jayme Ratzer manipulating Wendell at one moment and then being highly self-conscious the next. But, they needed more from the script to really break out in their roles. Bowers’ writing is full of funny one-liners, but everything in between is monotonously familiar. Small details, like the existence of a VHS rental store in 2009 are never addressed, and so come across as trendy anachronistic mistakes instead of adding texture to the story.

There have been a lot of historical films that have made the best of a tiny budget. Kevin Smith’s “Clerks” or Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs,” for example, created something new and different enough from the mainstream that they changed the way we think about independent film. When a film with a tiny budget attempts a very basic story like the one told in “New Low” without outstanding cinematography, style, or form, it just resonates as poorly made.

New Low
Directed and Written: Adam Bowers
Starring: Adam Bowers, Jayme Ratzer, Valerie Jones
USA, 82 min.

DVD Review: "An Englishman in New York"

Quality roles for John Hurt must be at a severe minimum if the greatly underutilized actor needs to revisit his 1975 triumph as gay icon Quentin Crisp in “The Naked Civil Servant.”

This much-belated and wholly unnecessary sequel follows Crisp’s relocation to New York in the early 1980s, where he established himself as a writer and the star in a popular Off-Broadway one-man show. Crisp’s gift for witty observations and his peerless command of the language secure him a cult following, although his popularity declines when he unwisely responds to early warnings of the AIDS pandemic by dismissing it as a “fad.” Eventually, he re-establishes his popularity as a public speaker and theatrical raconteur, and he even snags a film role playing Queen Elizabeth I.

Anyone who is familiar with Crisp’s life story will immediately recognize that “An Englishman in New York” severely abbreviates his later years, cutting out many of his accomplishments while overemphasizing the notion that he spent most of his New York years as a pariah among the gay community. Making matters worse are supporting actors who either try to steal the show through overacting (Swoosie Kurtz plays literary agent Connie Clausen as if she was channeling Ann Savage’s “Detour” character) or who underplay to the point of enervation (particularly Jonathan Tucker, in is excessively wistful interpretation of the AIDS-doomed artist Patrick Angus).

As for Hurt, he seems fairly bored to revisit the Crisp character, and most of the time it appears to rely on his campy wardrobe and heavy make-up to do his acting. This results in making Crisp something of an aphorism-spouting bore, which eventually makes the film a pointless exercise.

"An Englishman in New York"
2009, Drama, 75 minutes
Starring John Hurt, directed by Richard Laxton
Released by QC Cinema

The Perfect Host

by: Scott Knopf.

It’s wonderful when talented actors take roles in projects they really believe in rather than aiming for the biggest box office dollars or guaranteed Oscar nominations. Robin Williams has World’s Greatest Dad. Nicole Kidman has Birth. Even James Franco has “General Hospital.” When these world-famous celebrities and gifted performers take a chance on a smaller project (or a forty-seven-year-old soap), that’s when real film fans start to get excited. They get excited because they know that whatever these projects are, they must be special because convincing actors to turn down millions of dollars for a mainstream blockbuster can’t be easy.

And aside from the occasional disaster (Hounddog, anyone?), a lot of these projects turn out to be successes, some monetarily, others in fan and critic praise. But what they all do is remind the world that mainstream Hollywood isn’t the only moviemaking game in town, even if they are reminding us from the Wal-Mart bargain bin. Effective storytelling is what it’s all about and the last time I checked, it doesn’t take 20 million dollars to tell a story.

David Hyde Pierce, who is best known for his work on TV’s “Frasier” and more recently in Guillermo Del Toro’s Hellboy in which he performed the voice work for a blue, sea-dwelling creature named Abe Sapien, takes on a more intimate roll in Nick Tomnay’s The Perfect Host. Pierce plays Warwick Wilson, a mild-mannered L.A. resident who has his home invaded by John Taylor, a clever bank robber (Clayne Crawford).

Expecting guests for a dinner party, Warwick allows the fast-talking scam artist into his house only to find himself at the wrong end of a long knife. Without wanting to give anything away, it should just be said that of all films that are labeled as “psychological thrillers,” The Perfect Host is one of the most deserving. The film evolves into a clever cat-and-mouse game between Warick, his captor, and a police detective (Nathaniel Parker) who’s closing in on solving that bank robbery. Tomnay, who wrote and directed both this film and the short it was based on, really gets into his characters’ heads and brings the viewer along for the ride.

A unique twist on the home invasion genre, Host starts out and ends a little rocky but the movie’s delicious creamy center completely makes up for it. Warwick Wilson is not a character you’ll easily forget. From his distinctive walk to his unique friendships, Warwick illuminates the screen, even when he’s not on it. Sure to make a number of Cult Classics lists, The Perfect Host is the best kind of project for big-name actors looking for something different. Host is different and in all the best ways.

Winter's Bone

by: Scott Knopf.

Deep in the Ozark Mountains, there’s a culture that’s often misrepresented in film, if represented at all. Countless films feature Backwoods Hillbilly characters that are known more for their empty brains and chainsaw massacres than for anything that accurately represents the culture that they’re supposed to hail from. With Winter’s Bone, Debra Granik (Down to the Bone, 2004) set out to capture the people portrayed in Daniel Woodrell’s novel of the same name. Of Woodrell’s novel, Granik has been quoted as saying that “we had something really beautiful to start with.”

The film crew set up in Southern Missouri and immediately went to work getting to know the locals. They studied Ozark linguistics, music, dress, hunting techniques, food preparation, and other elements of their cultural composition. The result of their preparation is a vigorous film with many strengths and very few weaknesses. The portrayals of its subjects are well developed, balanced, and far from Backwoods Hillbilly. It’s clear that filmmakers paid attention to even the area’s smallest details and carefully molded each one into the film. If they started out with something beautiful, rest assured that they ended up with something even more beautiful.

Casting was held both locally and around the country until the production team decided a unique blend of professional and non-professional actors to make up the cast. Professional actress, Jennifer Lawrence, who will appear next in Jodie Foster’s The Beaver, landed the lead role of Ree Dolly, a seventeen-year-old who’s forced to take care of her mentally-ill mother and two younger siblings when her meth-baking father, Jessup, goes missing before his court date. Ree later finds out that her father has put up their house as bond collateral and that she’s got to find him before their home is taken away. Standing in Ree’s way is the community that surrounds her. In a population where everyone seems to know each one another, either through business or blood relation, lips remain sealed and tensions stay high when Ree starts asking all the questions that no one wants asked.

Ree’s determination serves as the film’s driving force and draws its strength from the intensity of the conflict. Lawrence’s performance as the unapologetic teen is undeniably forceful. Through her own determination, she encapsulates the multi-faceted character and seamlessly transforms back and forth between Caring Sister/Daughter and Relentless Woman on a Mission. The film features a number of noteworthy performances but another that really stands out is Dale Dickey’s (Domino) exceptional depiction of Merab, the female ringleader who warns Ree of the danger that comes from uprooting other people’s business. The scenes which Lawrence and Dickey share together are electrifying. All at once, these scenes highlight the strengths of Woodrell’s writing, Granik’s directing, and the capabilities of both actresses.

Winter’s Bone should not be missed. Just ask Parker Posey, who presented the Granik with the Sundance Grand Jury Prize for U.S. Dramatic Films. At the ceremony, Posey said, “If [Winter’s Bone] doesn’t get the respect it deserves, I’m going to stab myself.” So, if for no other reason than Parker Posey’s well-being, watch Winter’s Bone.

Directed by: Debra Granik
Written by: Debra Granik and Anna Rosellini
Adapted from: "Winter's Bone" by Daniel Woodrell
U.S.A., 100 min.

Sundance Film Festival Review: Space Tourists

by Whitney Borup

If you were born post-1969, it’s hard to imagine what all the hubbub surrounding space travel was about. These days information from NASA is rarely seen in the newspapers, much less the front page. Apparently we’re going to Mars….or have we been to Mars? Were there Martians there? In Christian Frei’s newest documentary, “Space Tourists” we are reintroduced to the excitement of space travel. Only this time he’s exploring the industry from the other side of the world, the side whose achievements we like to limit to Sputnik: The Soviet Union.

Anousheh Ansari is a rich woman with a dream: to go into space. And by paying $20 million she’s going to be the first female space tourist. Russian has been allowing space tourists to tag along on flights to the international space station as a way to fund their continued research. Ansari’s $20 million will cover over half the cost of the mission. She gets to spend 8 days in space, Russia gets to send rockets to their station; everyone wins. Even the people left on the ground, who you would think have nothing to do with astronautics, are able to benefit from the industry, collecting the scrap metal that falls from the sky after each launch. From the extremely rich, to the extremely poor, these missions can be beneficial to many people.

Frei uses Jonas Bendiksen, a Magnum photographer, as the glue to hold each side of the story together. Bendiksen travels around Kazakhstan photographing decrepit space stations and the futuristic art in the towns surrounding them. These cities that once thrived, are now ghost towns full of bricked up housing complexes and empty gas stations. Bendiksen captures the hope that once existed there in eerie, barren still photographs while narrating the history of the USSR’s space program.

The film manages to feel both whimsical and realistic as it darts between the stories of Ansari and the men who harvest scrap metal. At times absurd and at times very beautiful, we root for everyone in the film as they attempt to achieve their dreams. While the narrative gets a little muddled at times when Frei tries to incorporate other aspects of space travel (for example, he follows the X-Prize hopefuls as they try to get to the moon), its tone remains consistent. “Space Tourists” is an informative and hopeful documentary that might make you revert back to your 7-year-old self that dreamed of being an astronaut.

Space Tourists
Directed: Christian Frei
Switzerland, 98 min.

HIGH School

by: Scott Knopf


When a straight-A student named Henry (Matt Bush) smokes his first doobie only to find out that his school’s starting mandatory drug testing the next day, he’s left with only one choice: to get the entire school to fail that test.

When you go see a movie with a really ‘pitchable’ premise, you always run the risk of watching something that doesn’t live up to its potential. Perhaps the filmmaker just rested on his laurels or maybe investors paid for the film without bothering to read the script. I’m positive that most teen slasher flicks fall into this category. That’s why it was a relief when John Stalberg’s soon to be stoner-classic turned out to be funny, really funny.

According to the director, the script’s jokes were enough to hook Academy Award-winner Adrien Brody (The Pianist) to immediately sign on. Brody plays Psycho Ed, a tattoo-covered drug dealer who, along with his friends Hippie Dude and Paranoid, serves as one half of the film’s antagonistic force. I’m not giving anything away by saying that when you take something from Psycho Ed, Psycho Ed’s going to want it back.

The other half comes from Henry’s school principal, Mr. Gordon (who’s played by an almost unrecognizable Michael Chiklis), who instates the drug tests as a way to weed out the miscreants. So with a disgruntled drug dealer and a pissed off principal coming after him, Henry and Travis (Sean Marquette), his back-in-the-day buddy who gets him into this whole mess, have to act fast to avoid getting murdered, or even worse, expelled.

Stuffed with a talented ensemble cast (Julia Ling, Colin Hanks, and Andrew Wilson, just to name a few), HIGH School heads out of the gate at full speed with a Phucing funny opening scene and doesn’t stop making the audience laugh until half way through the ending credits. This movie isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even Rocket Science. It’s an over-the-top stoner comedy that would probably be even funnier after a few bong hits. I mean, come on, it’s called HIGH School.

Directed by: John Stalberg
Written by: John Stalberg, Erik Linthorst, and Stephen Susco
U.S.A.

Sundance Film Festival Review: Splice

by Whitney Borup

“There are some things you do not do!” This should be the tagline for “Splice,” director Vincenzo Natali’s genetic splicing sci-fi-horror film. Scientist couple Clive and Elsa never seem to accept any moral boundaries, though, and end up with an human hybrid on their hands that they don’t quite know what to do with. Or rather, they both have ideas about what to do with their new pet, and none of them are palatable.

After successfully splicing the genetics of a cluster of random animals, Elsa and Clive realize that they can go further with their new technology. Splicing the DNA of a human with God-knows what else, they make a creature they affectionately call “DREN.” Natali affectively uses both CGI and makeup to create a monstrous female, with equally monstrous desires. What exactly is DREN? What will she become? And how will her adoptive parents manage to control her??

“Splice” starts off strong. There are some fantastically gory moments early on that drag you into the plot and leave you suspended for the rest of the film. There are also some genuinely funny jokes early in the film delivered by Brody and Polley playing it deadpan. The problem is, the film only gets funnier…and I don’t know if it’s meant to. Things get too disturbing. Things get too insane. And whether or not Natali intended us to, the audience was rolling on the floor laughing during the most pivotal scenes.

This is a film that has to be seen to be believed. I think it might obtain instant cult status upon its release, despite – or maybe because – of the tone confusion. Whatever ideological problems the film possesses at its core (particularly, what it ultimately has to say about the inherent nature of gender), it’s quite an experience.

Splice

Directed: Vincenzo Natali

Written: Vincenzo Natali, Antoinette Terry Bryant and Doug Taylor

Starring: Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley

Canada, 100 min.

Sundance Film Festival Review: The Killer Inside Me

by Whitney Borup

Your enjoyment of “The Killer Inside Me” will probably largely depend on whether or not you’ve read the book. Apparently, the book reveals character traits and intricacies of Lou Ford (Casey Affleck) that can only be understood in the film when you have that previous experience with the subject. I wouldn’t know, because I haven’t read it. And after seeing this film, I don’t know if I could stomach revisiting the narrative.

Lou Ford is, on the surface, an honest, hardworking, congenial Texan working for the Sheriff’s department. But underneath his public demeanor, Lou is a violent, kinky, misogynist, murderous bastard, just waiting for a chance to act out. That chance comes in the form of a prostitute (Jessica Alba) and one of her clients. In short, Ford beats the shit out of her, shoots him a few times, and spends the rest of the movie trying to cover it up by committing a few more murders.

Affleck is perfect for this role. His calm, boyish good looks create an ironic cover to the insanity lurking just under the surface. Occasionally he’ll break out a creepy, sadistic smile that reminds you just how awful a human being Lou Ford is. And then he beats the shit out of the women he loves.

“The Killer Inside Me” is hard to watch. Not just because of the violence (which is appropriately realistic), but because of how muddled the narrative gets in a film oozing with style. From the opening titles, which scream film noir grind house flick, I wanted to love this film. The West Texas setting is bone-dry and unnerving, while the costumes are deliciously campy. But as the story gets under way, important character developments are lost in the confusion. Who is Lou Ford? What made him the way he is? The film, I think unintentionally, leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

And just when you think the film couldn’t get more confusing, Bill Pullman shows up as an outraged, tobacco-chewing lawyer with loads of metaphorical wisdom to impart.

As I said, I was ready to love this film. Affleck is one of my favorite actors, and I was excited to see Kate Hudson try something other than rom-com. Not to mention Michael Winterbottom, who excels in almost every diverse genre he attempts. Sadly, “The Killer Inside Me” seems unfinished, and despite the extreme violence and graphic sex: boring.

The Killer Inside Me

Directed: Michael Winterbottom

Written: Michael Winterbottom, John Curran, and Jim Thompson (novel)

Starring: Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson

USA

Short Film Review: "Brooklyn Force"

By: Jessica Baxter

So there’s this obscure series of sci-fi films with a bit of a cult following. It’s about a small faction of religious types who rise up against all odds to defeat an evil empire. It’s a six part-series. The first three are kind of terrible with really stiff acting, terrible dialogue, some irritating characters and too much of a focus on this silly little made-up religion. But then they get it together for the next three. The writing gets way better, the bad guy acts more badass, the special effects are less green-screen heavy and the actors are much more natural. One actor, who plays a smuggler initially caught up in the war by accident, is even pretty sexy. I heard he adlibbed several of his cooler lines. Anyway, you probably haven’t heard of these movies but they apparently heavily influenced a few filmmakers out there. People like Kevin Smith, Edgar Wright and Adam Bertocci.

Now Smith and Wright understood the obscurity of these films and therefore used a light touch when referencing them in their stories. But Bertocci, the writer, director, editor and star of “Brooklyn Force”, took it all the way. What’s the point of a light reference when you can make nearly all your dialogue into a paraphrase of “Star Wars”? I theorize that, when coming up with the idea for the film, his thought process was thus:

It could be like those quote-athons you have with your buddies, only recorded on film. You could make other people watch it and they would be super impressed with your powers of recollection. Better still, you could use all those light sabers you have laying around your studio apartment and show off your After Effects skills by making them look like real, working light sabers! All those “Star Wars” sound effects you’ve been storing on your hard drive could really come in handy here too. Now all we need is a plot…it doesn’t have to be a very strong plot. Just some good vs. evil story that will make it seem like the references are completely fitting and not just an excuse to show off how much you love “Star Wars”. Something about the gentrification of Williamsburg and an indie record store to give it some hipster cred. Also, you can ask that cute girl from work to be in it. Didn’t she say she was an actress? Maybe it will give you a chance to get to know her better.

I know there are things called “fan films” and that this probably falls into that category. But I guess I don’t see the point in the fan film. Look, I love Star Wars like every other cinephile born in the late seventies. But when I have a jones for it, I’ll watch the original movies. Not some nerd’s love letter to them. “Brooklyn Force” is a tedious little movie, even at a mere 13 minutes. Or maybe I’m just bitter because Bertocci’s film erroneously claims, “Episode 3 is underrated”.

Brooklyn Force (2008)
Written & Directed by Adam Bertocci
Cast: Carolyn Siegel, Adam Bertocci, Dana Silver, Lisa Snyder
13 min
Guy in His Basement Productions

Sundance Film Festival Review: Grown Up Movie Star

By Whitney Borup

The first thing we hear in the film “Grown Up Movie Star” is that Ruby is selfish. These words are spoken by her mother who is in the midst of running away to Hollywood, leaving her family behind because she doesn’t want to waste her life on motherhood. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. But, as Ruby, her little sister, Rose, and her dad try to make it through the next few months together, she does make some wildly selfish decisions. After all, she’s a teenager. Isn’t that was growing up is all about?

Ruby is obsessed with Hollywood and fame. She loves the United States and anyone from there. So it’s only natural that she develops a crush on Will, a boy from Colorado. She just doesn’t quite know what to do with that crush, and her father seems to be deathly afraid of anything having to do with sex. Maybe that’s because he’s dealing with his own sexual identity, which becomes obvious when Ruby catches him getting a blow j. from her male gym teacher.

“Grown Up Movie Star” is full of characters making bad decisions. Ruby is a lost adolescent without a confident parental figure to guide her. Her dad feels guilty and confused about being a father. And Rose is just struggling to stay afloat. Each conflicted character is portrayed with love and understanding and even as they falter, viewers will latch on to everyone in the film.

Tatiana Maslany is adorable. She captures the false confidence of her age perfectly. Her interactions with her family are perfectly scripted. It’s rare in the independent film world to find a young character depicted with realism. They are often either too shy or awkward to express themselves, or too quirky to function in normal society. Ruby is neither. She goes about her life in ways that everyone can relate to. You might have been like Ruby in Jr. high school, or else you’ll certainly remember girls that were.

“Grown Up Movie Star” was a complete delight. It’s small and contained, but seems professionally made. A Newfoundland winter complements the characters’ hard edges and brings out the seemingly hopelessness of their situations. It’s hard to believe that this is Adriana Maggs first film. I hope she has a long, long career ahead of her.

Grown Up Movie Star

Directed and Written: Adriana Maggs

Starring: Tatiana Maslany, Shawn Doyle, and Jonny Harris

Canada, 95 min.

Review: "Word Is Out"

“Word Is Out: Stories Of Some Of Our Lives” made an unusual impact when it was first released in 1978. This documentary, helmed by six directors working as Mariposa Film Group, consisted of interviews with 26 gay men and women about their respective experiences in a less-than-tolerant American society. As a milestone in LGBT cinema, the film made a positive impression on wider audiences that only knew of gay life through sourish films like “Boys in the Band” or “The Killing of Sister George.”


In its time, “Word Is Out” was remarkable in presenting a variety of successful, well-adjusted adults who spoke cogently about their homosexuality – no mean feat in an era when being openly gay was none too common.

But as with many breakthrough achievements that shook up the status quo of their day, “Word Is Out” did not age well. Its theatrical re-release in a newly restored edition finds a stodgy and often stagnant film that is difficult to endure for all the wrong reasons.

Quite frankly, the film runs far too long (133 minutes) and represents something of a low in bad filmmaking – an endless skein of poorly framed close-ups of individuals who are almost never allowed to identify themselves properly. The interviews crisscross each other recklessly – there is no rhyme or reason regarding who is going to talk or why, and after a while it is easy to forget the back story connected to the person on screen.

But even if one were to excuse the film’s style problems, there is also the question of substance. The quantity of input weighs down the emotional impact – not everyone here is a gifted raconteur and many of the life stories are, quite frankly, too similar. The fact that almost everyone in the film is blasé about their sexuality only serves to enhance the basic monotony of the presentation.

Admittedly, this is a very important piece of film history. “Word Is Out” emerged at a pause in the nascent gay rights movement – one decade after Stonewall, a few years before the first wave of AIDS devastation and during a brief period when the biggest foe to equal rights was orange juice shill Anita Bryant. The fact that 26 adults were able to appear on camera and speak frankly about their sex lives was a remarkable feat for its time.

Thus, “Word Is Out” occupies a curious niche: a landmark, but not a classic.

“Word Is Out: Stories Of Some Of Our Lives”
1978 (re-released in 2010), Documentary, 133 minutes
Directed by the Mariposa Film Group
Distributed by Millarium Zero

The Extra Man

by Scott Knopf.

Kevin Kline is one of Hollywood’s most talented actors and Paul Dano is on his way towards becoming one as well. Both of these statements are wholly supported by their performances in The Extra Man, an enthralling feature from co-directors Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Bergman (American Splendor). Set in present day New York, the film centers around two men who seem out of place in their time periods. The first, Louis (Dano), is a young literature teacher and struggling writer who dreams of a life in the days of “The Great Gatsby” but copes with being stuck in the 21st century by throwing himself into books. Henry (Kline) is an unknown playwright and lower-level socialite who positions himself as Louis’ mentor when Louis rents a spare room in his apartment. His selfish motives are more than slightly obvious. While Henry gets along alright in the two-thousand-aughts, it’s his ideals which conflict with present day society. He’s an open sexist, racist, and classist whose opinions on just about everything, including literature, have been unpopular for decades.

Together, these two gentlemen impose themselves on New York’s upper class society, either by sneaking into the opera or performing favors in return for allowed attendance as gallery openings or fancy dinner parties. Henry teaches Louis about the life of an Extra Man (or “gigolo,” as they’re more commonly referred as) even though the young writer’s interests lie elsewhere, more specifically, in wearing women’s lingerie and dating an environmentalist (Katie Holmes).

The Extra Man certainly bears substance but where the film really stands out is in its style. It’s dripping in style; it oozes style, from the dress of the gentlemen to the bowl of shiny Christmas balls prominently displayed in their apartment’s living room. Everything to see in The Extra Man is a little bit different from everything you’ve ever seen before. The wallpaper, the city streets, they all contribute to this world where inhabitants are stuck between classes, stuck between ages, and at times, stuck in their own bodies. Even the film’s use of irises serves to speak to this notion of claustrophobia. And if the visuals weren’t enough, in keeping with his everyday struggle of not living within the pages of a classic novel, Louis has his very own narrator who dictates the inner thoughts of the film’s timid protagonist. Stylistically, Pulcini and Bergman left nothing up to chance and the result is a well-crafted film that’s thoroughly enjoyable and serves as a strong vehicle for the two exceptional performers.

Directed by: Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Bergman
Written by: Robert Pulcini, Shari Springer Bergman, and Johnathan Ames
Starring: Kevin Kline, Paul Dano, John C. Reilly, and Katie Holmes
U.S.A., 108 min.

Cyrus

by Scott Knopf.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or just watching mainstream fare) for the past five years than name “Duplass” probably sounds familiar. Mark and Jay Duplass have spent the last half a decade directing and acting in high-quality films with rather low budgets. Involved in the mumblecore movement, their films The Puffy Chair (2005) and Baghead (2008) were shot on handheld digital cameras and featured non-actors who improvised most of their dialogue. Word quickly spread that the Duplass Brothers were two filmmakers to watch. Mark’s leading role in Lynn Shelton’s Humpday, which won a Special Jury Prize at Sundance, didn’t hurt their cause either. When word was released that The Duplass Brothers were making a film with John C. Riley and Jonah Hill, both of whom have a history in mainstream comedies such as Talladega Nights: The Story of Ricky Bobby and Superbad, respectively, the question as to whether the indie filmmakers would stay true to their low-budget aesthetic or would they transform their style into something mainstream audiences were used to seeing?

Cyrus tells the story of a man named John who’s still struggling with his 7-year divorce to Jamie (Catherine Keener) who recently announced that she’s getting remarried. And while she doesn’t want to be with John anymore, she does want him to be happy. So she forces him to put on pants (a chore for any depressed divorcee) and drags him to a party. There, he discovers Vodka and Red Bull, champions The Human League, and meets a beautiful 40-something named Molly (Marisa Tomei). Things heat up between John and Molly, as things often do in movies like this, and just as John’s world starts to look a little less bleak, Cyrus (Jonah Hill) enters the picture.

There’s nothing that’ll cramp a man’s style a 22-year-old kid still living at home. That’s exactly what John finds himself up against. Cyrus is a seemingly mature product of a broken home whose bond with his mother is not to be tested. As John tries to move things forward with Molly it becomes increasingly aware to John (and, of course, not to Molly who believes John’s imagining things, as characters often do in movies like these) that there are going to be problems getting past her kin.

So, with a mainstream premise, mainstream actors, and a mainstream budget (as least compared to their previous work), have the Duplass brothers created a “mainstream movie?” Are there any signs of the style, humor, and charm that made The Puffy Chair and Baghead must-see films for Indy Cine lovers? The answer to both questions is “yes.” They’ve done both. Each and every performance is wonderful. The comedy is spot-on. Even the handheld cinema-verite style is intact. As if by magic, the two writers/directors have done what so many independent filmmakers before them have tried to do: they’ve crossed over while maintaining exactly what made them unique. Wherever Mark and Jay are right now, be sure that they’re having their cake and eating it too, maybe literally.

While Cyrus has a lot of great aspects worth noting, one technique that’s sure to be “borrowed” for years to come is its voiceover/montage work. John and Molly fall in love on camera. They laugh, they cuddle, and they say all of the sappy things people say to one another when love happens to them. But instead of having to watch the actors declare these cheesy lines to one another (as audiences usually have to do when watching movies like this) the lucky viewers are treated to an engaging series of shots with overlying dialogue that’s much more effective than clichéd “close-up; overdramatic line delivery; reaction shot” formula. This technique is just one part of the most refreshing romantic comedy in years. And that’s exactly what Cyrus is, refreshing.

Directed by: Mark and Jay Duplass
Written by: Mark and Jay Duplass
Starring: John C. Reilly, Marisa Tomei, Jonah Hill, Catherine Keener
U.S.A., 92 min.

Sundance Film Festival Review: Howl

by Whitney Borup

In 1955, Allen Ginsberg wrote his most famous poem, “Howl,” about…well…there are a lot of differing opinions of what “Howl” is really about. Is it about homosexuality in 1950s America? Is it about the social disillusionment of the Beat culture? Or is it just about saying dirty words and talking about wieners? Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman’s film, Howl, uses this famous poem, Ginsberg’s recorded interviews, and the transcripts of an obscenity trial to explore the meaning of the poem. At times presented as a conventional bio-pic, and at other times coming across as a more obscure art film, Howl utilizes a lot of interesting approaches. But it never takes full advantage of its unique form.

While Ginsberg (James Franco) reads the poem, “Howl,” in its entirety, animated sequences illustrate the poem’s meaning. It is as though, because of its ability to depict what cannot be shown in live action, animation is the filmic form of poetry. There are no visual boundaries in animation, and the choice to use this form was appropriate. Unfortunately, the execution didn’t live up to the idea. The animation is conventional and boring. Epstein and Friedman use computer generated images when they should have branched out into other styles of animation that match Ginsberg’s original intentions. As it stands, the animated sequences are too sleek, too character driven, and too limited.

The obscenity trial that questioned whether the poem could be published for the general public was an interesting aspect of the film. Big character actors like Mary Louise Parker and Jeff Daniels make short appearances as narrow-minded literary critics. But there was also an emotional aspect to the trial that seemed forced. Without any character background of the key players (this trial did not concern Ginsberg directly) it’s hard to care about them, personally. By adding bio-pic characteristics (like newspaper headlines and a crawl at the end describing the future of everyone involved) the emotional distance the film creates comes across as a mistake.

Allen Ginsberg was quite a character. Which means that James Franco has a great subject to impersonate. As good looking as always (though a terrible fake beard hinders his babe-itude), Franco has the inflection and gestures of Ginsberg down pat. His reading of “Howl” is, at times, funny and at other times heartbreaking. He is confident and charming. It’s just too bad that the film he’s in doesn’t back him up.

Howl

Directed and Written: Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman

Starring: James Franco

USA, 90 min.

Waiting for Superman

by Scott Knopf.



Hollywood loves them some ghetto school movies. Ever since Blackboard Jungle introduced white American moviegoers to rock ‘n’ roll and urban education, they haven’t been able to get enough of either. Films like Dangerous Minds, Stand and Deliver, and Up the Down Staircase have celebrated the struggle and triumphs of inner city teachers dealing with all that the roughest cities have to offer. Many of these movies are based on real-life teachers and while it’s great that praise has been given to these select few, there are so many other great teachers waiting for any form of extolment from the school system hierarchy. The same lack of attention that good teachers must deal with is the same force that allows subpar teachers to stay in classrooms.

Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) has known about the country’s failing public schools system for a while now. In 2001, he directed a film named The First Year which followed five teachers for one school year. Each of these teachers were new to the field and all found out, firsthand, just what kinds of hardships both educators and their students have to deal with. Almost a decade later, Guggenheim returns to subject of public education in an attempt to get at the root of whatever it was that was turning schools into “dropout factories” and leaving many students without viable options for their futures.

Instead of following five teachers, the director follows five students as they and their parents fight to get them the best public education possible. And they definitely have to fight because there’s a lot standing in their way, especially for students from lower-income neighborhoods. The film sheds a lot of light on issues such as teacher unions, tenure, and how money and geography limit educational opportunities for students. The five young subjects are vying for spots in charter schools, which receive government money but are allowed to function outside of the unions that leave bad teachers immune from being fired. These charter schools have been proven to raise test scores in mathematics, reading, science, and every other subject but what keeps students like Anthony, Bianca, Daisy, Emily, and Francisco in failing schools is a limited number of spots in each program.

While the students certainly give a face to the statistics, Guggenheim spends a great deal of time with the statistics themselves. Waiting for Superman traces the problems plaguing public education from the bottom to the top. And while it’s possible to learn a lot from Guggenheim’s film, the film misses its mark by labeling its Lex Luthor (the unions) too soon and displaying a one-sided argument without letting the alleged supervillains tell their sides of the story. Then the film plays the sympathy card by spending its last twenty minutes covering charter school lottos in which the five children, whose stories we’ve been following up to this point, are assigned random numbers and watch as bingo balls decide their fate. The film ends on a down note, an uninspiring note, in fact, which plays off of the titular metaphor (one of the film’s many unnecessary metaphors) where America’s children are still waiting for someone to save them. And if Guggenheim’s conclusion is accurate, Superman’s not coming. A solution for public schools still hasn’t been found and finding one looks just as hopeless as the schools themselves. The only hope seems to be that if enough people begin to demand change, then maybe, someday, someone will figure out how to get change.

Directed by: Davis Guggenheim
Written by: Davis Guggenheim and Billy Kimball
U.S.A., 102 min.

Sundance Film Festival Review: Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil

by Whitney Borup

“Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil” has everything you could want in a good slasher film: gruesome deaths, insane back stories, hot blonde babes, and big boobies. But “Tucker and Dale” is a little more than a good, conventional slasher film; it’s also a hilarious comedy of errors.

Tucker and his best friend Dale are just a couple of hillbillies trying to have fun on vacation. Staying in their newly purchased summer home – which is a creepy, deteriorating cabin in the woods – they have the weekend mapped out for drinkin’ PBRs and fishin’. Unfortunately for Tucker and Dale, they’re not the only ones in these here woods. After a series of Moliere-style misunderstandings, Tucker and Dale become the victims of a bunch of college kids set on misguided revenge.

The clear villains in the film are the frat and sorority house douche bags who are quick to judge any country bumpkin they see. They dress for camping in the style we’re used to seeing in this kind of film: tiny white tank tops, short cutoffs, and muscle shirts. Of course one of them is named “Chad” and of course all the trouble starts when they decide to go skinny-dipping. As an audience, we are immediately aligned with the hillbillies, who, despite their dirty flannel and overalls, appear to be much smarter and are certainly much nicer to each other.

Every gruesome death scene is clever and delightful (and, don’t worry, they start off with a lot of college kids to kill off!), and in a film that could have easily gotten heavy-handed, “Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil” remains light hearted throughout. This isn’t a nail biter. You’re more likely to say “awwww” than “AHHH!” and that’s why it works as a great horror-comedy.

Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil

Directed and Written: Eli Craig

Starring: Tyler Labine, Alan Tudyk, Katrina Bowden

Canada, 86 min.

Kick in Iran

by Scott Knopf.



Sara Khoshjamal qualified to compete in the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. Her sport: kickboxing. Her country: Iran. Her “something extra”: she was the first to ever do it.

Following Khoshjamal from her training sessions until her post-Games homeland reception, this enlightening documentary says a lot about its subject and tries to give context as to her position within her country. The nineteen year old athlete follows the laws of her country and competes wearing her hijab (head scarf). Uniform regulations aren’t the only difference between Khoshjamal and her opponents. For example, in Iran, female athletes aren’t allowed male coaches, while in most other countries, most female kickboxers are trained by men. Khoshjamal’s trainer, who the girls respectively call “Master,” comes across as a stern yet knowledgeable coach. After the revolution, she and a small group of women were trained in Tae Kwon Do by male relatives (which is allowed) and once travelling abroad for sporting competitions was allowed, she pushed her pupils towards earning medals.

Making a documentary in Iran requires a lot of patience and even more paperwork. Getting permits and clearances to shoot Kick in Iran in its titular country would be an overwhelming job even for those experienced in the processes. That being said, one of the film’s major weaknesses is its incessant need to include unnatural scenes in which the subjects perform everyday tasks or have ordinary conversations which were clearly staged and performed for the rolling camera. Examples include Khoshjamal walking into the house and checking her answering machine to find that the only message is from an adorable little girl who would like to read her a message. Another sits the athlete and her coach in a collection of bright red chairs while they have a seemingly normal conversation about training schedules. These attempts at outside style are distracting and don’t make the film any more intriguing.

In the end, Kick in Iran is effective as a chronicle of Khoshjamal’s journey through her first Olympic Games but examinations of bigger picture issues in Iran trickle out past the first twenty minutes. The result is a simple documentary about a female pioneer. By the film’s end, Khoshjamal’s athletic career will be well documented but the treatment of Iran and its treatment of women will be lacking any substantial weight.

Directed and Written by: Fatima Geza Abdollahyan
Germany, 2009, 82 min.

Frozen

by Scott Knopf.



It’s hard to watch someone fight for something that you know is going to turn out badly. In Frozen, which hits theaters in February, three mid-twentians (handsome boy, hot girlfriend, and equally handsome best friend) bribe their way on a ski lift.

Before I get too far, there’s something I have to ask you, readers. Does it cost $250 dollars to ride a ski lift? That’s what they pay. Even split three ways, that’s far more than I’d ever pay to fall down a mountain. So either skiing prices have gone up since my last time on the slopes (which was never) or this was some special mountain that was actually covered with pure, Columbian nosecandy. Either way, they overpaid.

Back to my original point. Watching someone push, shove, sneak, overpay, or flirt their way into danger is borderline infuriating. That’s exactly what happens to these three. For those who haven’t seen the trailer, heard about the plot from a friend, or couldn’t picture what could possibly go wrong on a ski lift, they get stuck. For a week.

Minimalist thrillers like Open Water, The Blair Witch Project, and Open Water 2: Adrift have gained enough popularity over the last few years to pave the way for flicks like Frozen. This second generation (see also: Buried) have larger budgets, bigger stars, and in this film’s case, more gruesome deaths. What’s great about these lost/stuck thrillers is how their premises alone automatically get you thinking of how you’d get out were you to find yourself in that situation. And you speak with such confidence! I’d tie my clothes together and make a rope. I’d repel across the wire. I’d just jump. But don’t think for a minute that the filmmakers didn’t think of all of these options before principle photography began. That wire is sharp! That ski lift is high! They cover them all. And did I mention that there are wolves? Mean ones!

Being stuck on a ski lift in the middle of winter with no one coming to save you is a terrifying concept by itself. The wolves aren’t necessary and in Frozen they distract from just how messed up the situation is. If you jump down, the wolves will eat you. At least it’s quick. But what about jumping down, hurting yourself, and then dying slowly in the snow? That’s messed up.

Overall, the film serves its purpose. You won’t ever look at ski lifts in the same way. The dialogue is just as sloppy, clichéd, and poorly delivered as you’d expect it to be but the frostbite scenes are even grosser than you imagined. You know why you want to see Frozen. So go see Frozen.

Directed by: Adam Green
Written by: Adam Green
Starring: Shawn Ashmore, Emma Bell, and Kevin Zegers.
U.S.A., 93 min.

Jack Goes Boating

by Scott Knopf.



Philip Seymour Hoffman debuts his directing skills with a story about a limo driver whose life isn’t as prosperous as it should be. Hoffman also performs in the film’s lead role, the titular Jack. Jack doesn’t have a bad life but it’s obvious to everyone around him that it could be better. When he’s introduced to a peculiar but sweet woman named Connie (Amy Ryan), the drive he otherwise lacked gets put into motion. He learns how to swim, how to cook, and even how to date for her. And while he remains the same man he was before, by the end, he’s exactly what he set out to be: a better version of himself.

When every single character wishes Jack success and happiness in life, it’s hard not to want the same for him. His friends, his boss, strangers, acquaintances, and even his best friend’s enemy all do whatever they can to help Jack succeed. Somehow, this slovenly slug has formed a world around himself which, in every respect, wishes to help him out. However, what’s unclear is how Jack, with this colossal support system, ended up living in his uncle’s basement without ever learning how to swim, cook, or date. Did the world suddenly decide to go easy on Jack just because he meets a nice girl? What’s more probable is that Jack decided to go easy on himself, stepped out of his own way, and allowed himself to finally see the version of Jack that his friends had been seeing all along. The story’s been told before but where Boating really succeeds is in the characters the story is being told about.

Jack has two friends, Clyde and Lucy, a childless couple with a beat up marriage. Jack’s blooming connection with Connie is mirrored by their maturely fucked-up view of relationships. Clyde is also a limo driver whose persistent smile serves a shield for life’s shit. Clyde’s the leader of Jack’s morale boosters. Always willing to sacrifice his own wants and needs for his friend, Clyde does all he can to help his friend. While each performance in Boating is noteworthy, John Ortiz, who plays Clyde, steals the show each time he’s on screen. Ortiz emanates an energy and a likability that shines through his dreary surroundings and situations. Daphne-Rubin Vega holds her own as Lucy, a complex character who tries to prepare Jack for the less glamorous things that relationships will bring.

There are a lot of things to like about Jack Goes Boating. The performances are strong, the depiction of New York City shows a whole different New York than audiences will be used to seeing, and the music (mostly performed by indie rock group Grizzly Bear) holds all of the pieces together. Having performed in Bob Glaudini’s play, which Glaudini later adapted for the screen, Hoffman and his cohorts arrived to the film with a deep understanding of the material. This preparation is visible on-screen. Boating is a well-constructed film with a lot of heart. Its sympathetic characters and commanding performances make up for its worn-out story.

Directed: Philip Seymour Hoffman
Written: Bob Glaudini
Starring: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Ryan, John Ortiz, Daphne Rubin-Vega
U.S.A., 89 min.

Retro Cinema: "Georgia O'Keeffe" (1977)

It is a major shame that Perry Miller Adato’s 1977 documentary “Georgia O’Keeffe” is no longer in circulation. An award magnet when it was first released – including a history-making Directors Guild of America Award for Adato, the first female filmmaker to win the honor – this production has yet to find its way onto DVD, although copies of a 2000 VHS issue can be located online.

“Georgia O’Keeffe” presents the iconic and iconoclastic artist in her own words. Her raconteur skills mirror her genius with the paintbrush – she is unpretentious, colorful, often playful and truly original in recalling her life and career. She speaks frankly and vividly about the unique environmental influences over the years, from the dusty Texas plains in her early work to the soaring metropolitan towers of her Manhattan residential years to the stunning New Mexico desert landscapes that ultimately defined her later life. She also casually reveals the very basic inspirations of her work: she began painting skulls, she explains, because there were no flowers to gather in the New Mexican desert, while she later explored floral shapes with intense magnification because she felt their beauty would be lost if they were painted as measured in their natural smallish sizes.

“Georgia O’Keeffe” has no narration, and the artist is occasionally prompted with cameras asked off-camera by Adato or Juan Hamilton, a sculptor who was her assistant in her later years. She is disarming in recalling critical consternation to her work. She calmly states that the animal skulls used in her work were never meant to symbolize death, and that she actually found their designs to be very lively. When inquired about the possibility that her floral paintings has sexual connotations, she barely conceals amusement in saying that people making such comments are talking about themselves and not her work.

O’Keeffe is also memorable in recalling her professional and personal relationship with Alfred Stieglitz. She notes that Stieglitz first put her work on display at his Fifth Avenue gallery without her knowledge (a friend who had possession to some of O’Keeffe’s drawings showed them to Stieglitz). O’Keeffe recalls that she wanted them removed, but was rebuffed. When asked by Adato why Stieglitz refused, she looks sternly at the filmmaker and replies, “You try arguing with him – and see where it gets you!”

O’Keeffe, who was pushing 90 when the film was shot, was a physical marvel on camera – at one point, she climbs a ladder to a rooftop. The film details her work in planning a book of her artwork, and the film is rich in offering as many of her classic paintings as possible.

Art critic Barbara Rose wisely points out that O’Keeffe represented the American spirit in her work – her paintings, with their bold approach to color and spatial perspective, have no stylistic precedent in any European school of art. Yet her personality is also fiercely American in the most positive concept of the American ideal – rugged, individualistic, focused, unpredictable and more than a little sexy. (Yes, even close to 90, O’Keeffe was more captivating and enchanting than women young enough to be her granddaughter.)

“Georgia O’Keeffe” is a wonderful documentary and it deserves to be revisited. Let’s hope some fine DVD label remembers this title and brings it back for another appearance.

“Georgia O’Keeffe”
1977, Documentary, 60 minutes
Directed by Perry Miller Adato

Sundance Film Festival Review: Bran Nue Day

by Whitney Borup

“Bran Nue Dae” might make for a great, campy musical, but it doesn’t translate to the big screen. The story centers on Willie, an aborigine living in Broome, Australia. Willie’s mother wants him to be a priest and sends him to Catholic boarding school (run by an insane priest played by Geoffrey Rush) but all Willie really wants to do with his life is shag his childhood friend Rosie. So, inspired by racist remarks made by the priest, Willie runs away from boarding school, back to Broome to be with the girl he loves. Along the way he runs into his Uncle Tadpole, two hippies, and a chubby horny lady. Despite setbacks, the group manages to sing and dance their way back to Broome to face the friends and family that await them.

While the music is delightfully catchy, “Bran Nue Dae” falls short in most other filmmaking categories. Using actors with beautiful voices (like Jessica Mauboy from “Australian Idol”) the film sacrifices the believability of performance that makes musicals work. The characters in this film seem to be acting on the surface, going through the motions but not the emotions. How can an audience be expected to swallow spontaneous song and dance numbers from a character whose feelings seem forced? The film relies on glossy close-ups and wind-blown hair to produce drama, rather than the real-life emotions we should see in the performances themselves.

But the film’s failures cannot be placed solely on the actors’ shoulders. They seem to be doing the best they can with a script that asks their characters to make radical changes within seconds. Why, for example, is the priest gregarious and magnanimous at one moment, only to beat children and deride their race at the next? The style of the film feels equally forced, with funky sound effects sporadically cropping up, and awkwardly mixed musical genres. Cheap jokes (the priest pooping on the side of the road) are paired with intense, racially charged jail scenes. Each scene feels like it could belong to a different film, with the sole connection being intense cheesiness.

It’s a shame that the filmmaking falls so short, because the setting is perfect for a musical. Full of color and drama, the Australian coast tries to make up for the lack of charm in any of the film’s characters, but never succeeds.

Bran Nue Dae

Directed: Rachel Perkins

Written: Rachel Perkins, Reg Cribb, Jimmy Chi

Starring: Geoffrey Rush, Jessica Mauboy, Rocky McKenzie, Ernie Dingo

Australia, 88 min.

Sundance Film Festival Review: Hesher

by Whitney Borup

Life has been pretty hard for T.J. Forney (Devin Brochu). He’s pushed around at school, ignored at home, gets into a whole slew of bike accidents, and, to top it all off, his mom was recently killed in a car crash. Then Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) enters the picture and things just get worse. A violent, calloused anarchist, Hesher decides to move into T.J.’s grandma’s house and there doesn’t seem to be anything anyone can do to stop him – not that they would even try. Ever since his wife’s death T.J.s dad (Rainn Wilson) has been slumped over on the couch, staring into space. We start to look to Hesher, the only active and charismatic person in the house, to pull this family together. But he just doesn’t give a shit.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt looks incredible as Hesher. He’s covered in crudely drawn tattoos, goes shirtless and pantless for most of the film, and sports long, tangled hair that menacingly falls in front of his face. His performance is equally charming. No matter how violent or unreasonable Hesher gets, he still seems like someone you’d like to know…from a distance. Excellently placed metal music emphasizes his every decisive action. His metaphoric stories are long and pointless, but when he snips your nose off with hedge trimmers, he’s short and to the point.

If only the magnetism of Hesher could expand to the other characters in the film. Because as sympathetic as a struggling Jr. Highschooler like T.J. is, he’s not all that interesting. It seems as though the script were written with little confidence in a child actor, who was, therefore, given very few lines to work with. T.J. bumbles and struggles along, and the only word he can find to express himself is “um…” While realistic to his age, T.J.’s ineffectualness competes with Hesher’s unique competence and as a result the movie feels uneven. Every scene without Hesher is a drag. Even Natalie Portman, playing an older grocery store clerk who befriends T.J., struggles with the material, which feels very scripted. The only character who can hold her own against Gordon-Levitt’s performance is Piper Laurie’s equally quirky aging grandmother, who also doesn’t get enough screen time.

As a character study, “Hesher” succeeds admirably. As a coming of age in a time of grief story, the film fails to connect to its main protagonist, forcing us to cheer for his nemesis.

Hesher

Directed and written: Spencer Susser

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Natalie Portman, Rainn Wilson, Piper Laurie, and Devin Brochu

100 min., USA

An "Extraordinary" Journey for Brendan Fraser

You really can't blame the guy: when asked about his career, Brendan Fraser ducks the question like “Encino Man” diving into the nearest cave. “The science of chaos rules [my] decisions,” the 41-year-old actor remarked, when the question surfaced during a recent Philadelphia round table. Showing a knack for low comedy as early as “Encino,” Fraser returned to the genre while expanding in old fashioned-style dramas, like “School Ties,” “Mrs. Winterbourne,” and “With Honors.” His ease blending the serious (“Gods and Monsters” and “The Quiet American”) and comic left the TLA Video Guide, in a review of the forgotten by delightful “Blast from the Past,” calling him the new Cary Grant in the making.

But, as we now know, the comical won out. Ever since starring in “The Mummy,” his ease with physical gags lead to a career in cartoonish roles, many of which are successful fantastic children's journeys, even if the actor would rather not go there (for long) in interviews. In his latest role in the new film, “Extraordinary Measures,” he drops the comical for the stern when playing real life hero, John Crowley, in a competent take on the old fashioned issues film. “This is something that I had never seen before,” Fraser said, referring to the project. “I don’t know when again I’ll have an opportunity to portray a living, breathing person, who is easily one of the most principled people that I have ever known.”

Crowley himself, also present at the round table, holds a strong, if smaller frame than Fraser's. While Fraser was soft spoken, if eager, Crowley spoke in direct statements, which reflect years of negotiating deals to save his two children, sick with Pompe Disease (which creates sugars in joints and around organs to eventually render both useless). Crowley is genial, yet unwavering, until he discusses his children, when he can barely hold back tears.

Fraser brings much energy on screen, acting opposite Harrison Ford, who plays Dr. Robert Stonehill, a composite of many doctors whom Crowley hired to turn research into medicine. Ford brings more energy than he has in years, releasing barks as his Dr. Stonehill refuses to bend for others, be it Crowley or moneymen on some board. During the interview, Fraser showed his fandom for Ford, while not skimping on some challenges of playing opposite him.

Yet, this Ford fan didn't hang onto him for long in conversation. Forget me, Fraser as much as said out loud, how about Crowley? The actor couldn't stop talking about the man who's achieved more than almost anyone in show business. Thankfully, the film reflects this best, and its principal player shows it throughout.

On the "Weak Species": An Interview with Filmmaker Dan Faltz

by Amy R. Handler

In 1859, British naturalist Charles Darwin wrote about evolution through “natural selection” in his On the Origin of Species. Dan Faltz offers a surprising twist on the old theory in his disturbing, often farcical psychological thriller, "Weak Species" (2009), which has screened at the Rhode Island International Film Festival, the Stuttgarter Filmwinter, and other prestigious festivals. Based upon the edgy writings of poet/novelist Dennis Cooper, Faltz's film leads us into the conflicted minds of two seemingly different high school students. Steve, an aspiring artist, uses his good looks and brilliant mind in Nietzschean ways, to gain power over other gay men more sensitive than he. Steve particularly enjoys toying with George, a frail boy from a troubled home. It is what happens outside of the cloistered world of school that defines George and leads to the film’s shocking conclusion. Dan Faltz checked in with me to discuss his film.

Who are the weak species in your film and in our larger society?

The title comes from a line in one of Dennis’ poems – in his poetry he describes how he and his gay classmates view themselves as weak in comparison to the straight athletes. But these characters are confident in their pursuit of sex, and able to withstand torment and even torture – so much stronger than they give themselves credit for. Kids can treat each other pretty terribly, can't they? I think we all feel misunderstood as teenagers, no matter who we are--- like we don't belong.

What is your agenda in exploring what some would call beyond-deviant activity?

Hmm. I guess the sex interested me in what it revealed about the characters--what characters communicated to each other, and what it told the audience about their self-worth or need for love. People act differently during sex; they work things out, communicate to their partners, let off steam. We see different sides to people during sex. It's a private place that reveals things about us.

What attracted you to build a film from poetry, and particularly the poetry of Dennis Cooper?

Dennis' prose is very minimal, like poetry - he gives information with few words that are choice and descriptive. That seemed to suggest filmmaking - revealing only details of the larger picture; bits of streetlamps or suburban rooftops, school lockers. And I loved these characters and wanted to audiences to see them.

Tell me more about Dennis Cooper's recurring themes and how you manipulated these?

Closer, concentrates a lot on the idea of knowing someone from the inside out vs. knowing someone on the surface level. Steve thinks he knows Cliff, then realizes he only knew Cliff's physical beauty, his surface. In the book, the sexual acts are more scatological, the evidence of what's inside a person. Dennis' characters are very blunt in their desire to cause pain and receive it, so I re-purposed the sex to be more of a power dynamic - being in control vs. giving up control. Fisting occurs in the novel, and seemed like a good way to show just how willingly George makes himself vulnerable to absolute strangers.

Is "Weak Species" an adaptation of Cooper’s work or more personal in nature?

There were parts of his novel and poems that I wanted to integrate; I had to find a way to link characters and situations - Steve's dialogue is largely Dennis' poetry - the idea of a secret species became the through-line. I came out very early; I'm sure my experiences are all over the film in ways I don't notice.

How did you find such exceptionally believable actors for such disturbing roles?

I had an amazing casting team, who were into the project completely. I was lucky to find such talented actors willing to go to these scary places, and with sincerity and real commitment. I think they were able to take this material and find the truth is each character. Paul Tigue (Phillip) and Hugo Armstrong (Tom) say and do such horrible things and make them seem reasonable and realistic. And the kids make us care about them from the start.

Describe your direction of the actors. For example, did you use method acting techniques, or something else?

The goal was to make each actor feel safe enough to get their hands and hearts dirty. And they just blew me away each time. I'm certainly still learning how to direct for sure, and this was an opportunity to use techniques I'd learned from the late Nina Foch and my other fearless mentors from USC. I was lucky to meet with Allen Coulter, who gave me lots of advice and encouragement, and corresponded with other film and TV directors. Everyone was into it and completely committed, which was humbling and rewarding.

Was the film strongly scripted or did you allow a good deal of improvisation?

We stuck to the script, but let actors make changes when they felt things didn't sound natural. Dennis' dialogue writing is very poetic, which can sound unrealistic when spoken. We had to find a balance.

You explore the world of gay males, but could your characters just as easily be heterosexual?

I wasn’t surprised when Dennis told me that most of his fans are straight guys – his teen characters, their alienation, cruelty and loyalty are very universal. I think he gets kids’ voices very accurately; I wanted to stay true to that. These kids are in charge of their sexuality in a way I think we don't see often.

Do you have trouble speaking from the heterosexual viewpoint in the film---as for example, when you show us Cliff’s friends when they discover Steve’s journal?

In other projects I've identified mostly with female characters. I think this film comes from the viewpoint of these particular characters, who are gay teens. At one point I discussed obscuring the women in the school scenes - to show the way Steve and George only see who they can sexualize. In other books, the characters are more pansexual or even straight. But this story and these characters warranted a certain viewpoint.

I think Cliff's friends are very realistic, at least from my memory of high school. With Cliff and his friends, I had the guys improvise or embellish their lines; I wanted them to be as real as possible - their dialogue is a stark contrast to the way Steve communicates. Zane in particular, is very funny.

Can you talk about Cliff, the popular football star who dies so dramatically and abruptly? What type of person is he?

Cliff is just a regular kid; a popular football player with a girlfriend and a good group of friends. He’s certainly nicer to Steve than his buddies, until Steve begins to push him and make him uncomfortable. He discovers a side to himself he didn't know before. And Steve becomes something dangerous to avoid. Dennis makes a point of killing this beautiful object of obsession, which leaves Steve without an idol to project upon.

Steve, the protagonist/narrator is very complex. Do you see him as a good or bad person?

He's certainly cruel in the way he treats others, but he's just trying to feel good about himself in lieu of his family. I think we identify with him at first, then see how he hurts those around him. He's in a state of emergency, like George, so he re-imagines his life the way he wants it to be. For his obsessing over perfection, he learns the beauty in others' flaws. Audiences seem to enjoy when George knocks him down a peg; it's fun to see that.

Who do you see as the most dangerous character in the film and why?

Phillip is probably the most dangerous character. Unlike Tom, who makes clear his intentions from the get-go, Phillip is a sadist disguised as an innocuous neighbor. He coldly refers George to Tom for disposal once their affair is over, immediately after their touching break-up - we how easily he can turn off his emotions.

As a filmmaker, do you consider yourself dangerous?

I'm a very happy person, but seem to be drawn to authors and stories that present the world as I see it - gritty, flawed and beautiful nonetheless. I was very involved in ACT UP in San Francisco when I was 19. I think with my creative work, I go back to those first exposures to so much death, such anger and sadness, people in such states of emergency - and try to sort all that out. Make sense of it. And I still think that there is an uplifting message; how lucky these two are are to have found each other. They're on their way to getting better, perhaps.

Is George a victim, manipulator or person of courage?

Well, he's self-destructive, suicidal, but he also has a lot of agency - he knows what he wants and makes an effort to find it. But what he wants ultimately, is to feel, and at his darkest moment, he feels things - fear and pain - but is able to value himself and his life for the first time. He becomes strong enough to take care of someone else as well as himself.

How would you define love in this film and in general?

Love is a mystery to these characters; they are desperately in need of it, but are chasing something other than love. They end up feeling what could be love for the first time - huge, scary, beautiful feelings. I think love is a bottomless, scary and huge-feeling.

Both kids are desperate for love, but each is unaware that love is what they're after - at the end, each is finally more capable of loving, perhaps.

Do you relate to any specific character in the film?

Hmm. I suppose I relate to several; I definitely relate to being seized with desire, and to being self-destructive in my youth - being hurt and hurting others in order to feel better. But I also relate to the growing up, becoming capable of taking care of myself and others.

You choose to base your movie in a High School. Do you feel that the cruelty among students toward each other is indicative of the outside world?

I think high school is a particularly cruel place; maybe it prepares you for the life as an adult. In that environment, though, it seems so normal, doesn't it; Folks are just mean and that's how it is. My adult life certainly hasn't seen that kind of cruelty since; maybe we learn how to treat each other better by going through that trauma.

I notice there are no maternal figures in the film---other than a fast cut of George’s hospitalized mother. Can you speak about this?

There is a maternal figure, in George’s counselor; she becomes the voice of his missing mother. Lynn is an amazing actor and does so much with so little. And when she offers him understanding, he goes far the other way, as teenagers often do.

All male adults, with the possible exception of the man who entices George into his car, are shown as cold sadists. Why is George attracted to such adults?

I don't think George's dad is a sadist, I think he is struggling with a son he doesn't understand. But George wants to be cared for, payed attention to. So he finds men who will dote over him sexually; concentrate on him and take him over. He equates that force with being loved, feeling protected. He is very pro-active about finding dangerous candidates for sex, a whole secret life he hides from his father.

I think George's dad and Steve's parents are simply struggling with children they don't understand and want to protect. Certainly the acts between George and the men he picks up are very meaningful to these characters - they make an effort to find others willing to participate.

I do love the extremes showcased in your film. Can you speak about those pertaining to sex bordering on rape, and of course, the agenda of the sadistic "anatomist" who almost kills George?

George's arc with Tom is almost unchanged from the novel. Tom is consistent; he's death, really, on a mission to take people apart. He's the furthest extreme of Phillip's fascination with knowing someone inside-out. Someone can only die once, and once it's over, Tom can't repeat it with the same person. We see how special he feels it is, and how much he wants his 'partners' to be willing and involved in this once-only experience. And he is absolutely in control.

Do you think most people are attracted to those who can manipulate them in some way?

I'm not sure; I think we choose different partners for all sorts of complicated reasons, realistic or fantasies.

I think these kids are attracted to danger, not manipulation. And I think that’s a very realistic detail on Dennis’ part. I think George's attraction to being dominated is the feeling of being taken care of, being cared for.

The final scene feels a bit comic, as do portions of the preceding scene when George almost loses his life to a deranged experimenter. Can you speak about comedy in this seemingly tragic tale?

Dennis puts humor in the darkest or most inappropriate places; you want to cover your eyes and laugh at the same time.

Is "Weak Species" moralistic, a love story, or something else?

I think my story is more moralistic than Dennis' original material; it's his characters through my filter. In Buddhism, to suffer is the human condition; I this is a story about learning to take care of ourselves and each other; Steve isn't sure if what he feels for George is love, but he has found he actually cares for someone, a scary, new feeling he likes and wants more of.

What type of project will you tackle next?

I'm developing a feature film version of "Weak Species," which is much closer to Dennis' novel - I think it's richer, funnier and scarier - parts of the book I couldn't put in the short. I'm hoping to find some fearless producers and financing. I think it's a scary, sexy film, and can't wait to take audiences there. I also have a project based on the murder of transgender Gwen Araujo, and a violent Noir script I'm kicking into shape. I can't wait to make another film - it's just the thing I love most; makes me fizz.

Review: "UB40 - Food For Thought"

By: Jessica Baxter

Apart from actual taste, there is nothing more subjective than musical taste. One man’s auditory honey is the most annoying sound in the world to someone else. In the mid-eighties, I thought I hated UB40. I cringed whenever they came on the radio. That said, sometimes a band, known primarily for their album of covers, can surprise you.

UB40 formed in Birmingham, England in 1978. Named after a document issued to people filing for unemployment benefits, they were among a number of pasty white Brit musicians getting into reggae at that point. They were drawn to the political messages, feeling a kinship to the problems of unemployment in Jamaica and, yes, they were probably also smoking some ganja.

Shot on a hot summer night in Cologne, Germany in 1981, “Food For Thought” captures the early days of the band, just after the release of their second album. Like their first record, it was a hit in their native country. They were riding high on success (and other things), spreading their appropriation of the reggae sound to guilty white folks across Europe. They weren’t exactly the Clash, but they weren’t incomparable. They wouldn’t be noticed by the Yanks for another 3 years. And sadly their original work would never chart in the U.S.

For that reason, it’s hard for a Yank like me to watch “Food For Thought” without that American stigma attached to it. The “Sliver” soundtrack doesn’t even exist yet in this snapshot of UB40’s career, but it was always in the back of my mind as I watched the Campbell brothers sweat and bop on stage among a bevy of trumpet players and a real live, bona fide Jamaican called Astro. It doesn’t help that the audience consists of mostly white, mustachioed Germans with dubious hair. These people take songs like “The Earth Dies Screaming” very seriously. They also recall the inevitable future: Republicans blasting “Red Red Wine” from their Ferraris.

But in 1981, it’s all about the politics and the sinsemilla. Back then there was nothing ironic about a ginger man in sunglasses and a tucked-in baseball jersey, playing sax under lyrics like “the poor can scream but no-one hears/the concrete jungle sings the blues”. “Don’t Let it Pass You By” is about how life is short and there’s nothing beyond so you might as well get high. In “Burden of Shame” the band apologizes to South Africa for being British.

UB40’s origins won’t be news to pre-existing longtime fans. Thus, this DVD will be a huge treat for them: An earnest and flawless performance of the band’s first two records. Bleeding hearts like me, without the aid of a certain herb, may still be bored by the droning ska rhythms, but they have to respect the band’s message. The only audiences I can imagine being truly disappointed by this performance are those cheesy dudes who only ever owned “Labour of Love”. They’ll be waiting for that one song that, thankfully, will never be played.

"UB40 – Food For Thought" (2009)
81 minutes
Eagle Rock Entertainment

Review: "Pop Star on Ice"

In many ways, the title for David Barba and James Pellerito’s documentary profile of ice skater Johnny Weir is inappropriate. Weir is less of a pop star than a diva – after all, a pop star is a relatively benign personality who is widely loved, but a diva is a considerable talent that has been overwhelmed by a sense of self-importance that excites some people but irritates others.

Weir, a three-time U.S. National Figure Skating champion, had been in something of a decline since finishing fifth in the 2006 Olympics. Tactless comments to the media and the desire to take fashion statements to extremes (including his decision to wear Soviet Union-inspired training gear while part of the U.S. Olympic team) does little to endear him with the ice skating elite. His fairly obvious lack of butch machismo brings about borderline homophobic comments from skating analyst Mark Lund, and Weir’s ability to attract modeling gigs provokes a surprisingly catty comment from fellow competitor Evan Lysacek.

Yet Weir is often his own worst enemy. A narcissistic personality coupled with an obvious lack of determination to push harder than his competitors leads to several embarrassingly sloppy performances on a national stage. His loyalty to longtime coach Priscilla Hill doesn’t help his work – it is obvious for much of the film that she is indulging him rather than inspiring him, and Weir’s belated replacement of her inevitably brings about a return to his champion-level performance ability.

In many ways, Barba and Pellerito never quite offer a full understanding of what makes Weir tick – or, for that matter, what keeps him functioning. His exact source of income is never clear (no one ever openly states who is paying his bills), his exercise regimen is only briefly glimpsed, and his social life is conspicuously fuzzy (his male best friend Paris Childers is constantly with him, but Weir refuses to answer a direct question about his sex life).

Also problematic is that “Pop Star on Ice” was not able to clear the rights to present the footage of Weir’s championship appearances. And what few clips are available are heavily edited. Thus, we never get the opportunity to actually see why Weir is the center of so much attention, or understand why he can claim the right to carry on like a diva.

Weir was supposedly the inspiration of Jon Heder’s character in the 2007 comedy “Blades of Glory.” The only difference is that Heder was trying to be funny, but turned out to be something of a bore. Weir, however, is not trying to be funny – and despite the hoopla surrounding him, he is something of a worse bore than Heder’s caricature.

Where’s Brian Boitano when you really need him?

“Pop Star on Ice”
Directed by David Barba and James Pellerito
2010, Documentary, 85 minutes
Distributed by Retribution Media

P.J.: An Interview with Filmmaker Russ Emanuel by Amy R Handler

Once in a while, a film comes along that forever changes our lives. Russ Emanuel manages to do this in P.J.---an award-winning film concerning an ordinary man’s extraordinary insight. Unfortunately, this man’s journey to self and social-acceptance is arduous--- and many including his estranged girlfriend, believe him insane. It is this question of sanity raised by those who see beyond what is conceivably there, that insidiously entices and most disturbs.


What attracted you to adapt Mark McQuown’s award winning play written so many years ago?

It was my business partner Howard Nash (producer on this film, as well as all 3 of my features), who first brought this subject up to me. He had the rights to the play and wanted to make it. He had shown me several scripts he had, and I loved this particular one due to its “miraculous” story line. It felt right to make, and I am very glad to have done so.

How did you change the play, if at all, in the actual shooting of “P.J.” in regard to cuts, character, etc.?

First off, I received a very strong script (which was adapted by the brilliant Emilio Iasiello). However, due to location and shooting constraints, we had to be very conscious about our shooting locations. Therefore, in order to maximize the look of the film we decided to shoot in a Brooklyn warehouse that overlooked Manhattan. I thought it would make the film look beautiful if we could see the Manhattan skyline, especially the “magic hour” shot when John Heard and Glynnis O’Connor reconcile.

Also, because we needed to shoot during a short period of time, we maximized the use of the warehouse by changing it into various rooms in the hospital or into other people’s apartments.

The ending montage was also another creation of mine – I wanted to give each character a proper ending, thereby ending their story arc. I don’t want to give the ending away, but be on the lookout for this.

As a speculative-experimental filmmaker, I am intrigued by the cinematography in this film. There are shots that recall silent films, camerawork in Godard’s films, and so on. Can you speak about this?

I’ve always been a fan of German expressionism and film noir, so I especially loved the use of shadows. “P.J.” happens mostly at night, so we get to see the nocturnal side of human nature, that is, people who work the “graveyard shift”, year round.

There are also flashback sequences such as the ant scene, where we made it look like a home movie from the 1970s (and home movies back then were shot on film so we gave it a film look). We also wanted to give the flashback sequences their own feel, as per each character. The Shelly (Patricia Rae) character sees her past in black and white, being extremely bitter about her experiences with Charles (played by Howard Nash). The Dr. Shearson (John Heard) character originally sees his experiences with his daughter in a darker light, though with muted color, but by the end accepts his magical time with her. And of course, Charles sees his past in the most fantastic light, due to the “miraculous” things he sees and hears.

I’m also a big fan of the reveal. Therefore, you will see Glynnis’ character revealed slowly as the film progresses. Same thing with Shelly, Charles, and Claire (Dina Kriger) who is Dr. Shearson’s daughter.

What was your purpose in continuously, almost hypnotically panning the camera from side to side in one specific office scene?

It was to give the office space more flavor. We shot around 70% of the film in the office and wanted to give each scene its own essence. Hopefully my cinematographer Seth Melnick and I achieved that for the audience.

Did you design the camerawork, or leave it up to your cinematographer?

It was actually a combination of both. I am very meticulous about storyboarding but regardless of that, I knew Seth also had great ideas, so I encouraged him to collaborate. The final product is definitely a result of that.

I love the lighting in this film that recalls German expressionist silent film, pictorialism and later film noir. Can you speak about these techniques in the film, and your input as to its design?

As I mentioned before, I am a big fan of German Expressionism, especially the 1920s silent era and [of course] the later film noir look of the 1940s. When we first knew we were shooting in the warehouse in Brooklyn, my cinematographer and I looked at each scene and carefully constructed the lighting. He also worked closely with his key gaffer, Zeynep Catal (who was in charge of lighting), and told her exactly what we wanted.

For example, when you see the Charles character at the beginning of the film, half his face is "in shadow," which is to convey the dichotomy of his character, or a split in his personality. I often use this dichotomy theme in my films, such as the Gwen Hunter character in my short film “Girl With Gun”.

We also worked with the production designer Sarah Kirchner to make sure the colors of the sets matched our lighting moods; the same went for other productions heads such as costume designer Lisa Faibish and key makeup artist Lauzanne Nel.

Are you a speculative person and did you handpick others who are like-minded?

I like to think I am a speculative person, a thinker if you will and yes I tend to pick people who are intellectually-minded. That said, when I interview a prospective crew member, I pick one with whom I can have a rapport – that is, someone I can get along with. For me, a filmmaking team is a family, and if it’s a "strong" family, it then ultimately translates into a stronger film.

What literary figures, philosophers and filmmakers influence your work?

I like a wide range of figures, many of them contemporary. For film, I love the works of Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock and Steven Spielberg. Kubrick had a look which was quite fascinating. Same goes with Hitchcock, though I loved specifically his use of cinematography and the suspense techniques which were accentuated by strong scripts. As for Spielberg, I love his fantastic and optimistic approach to filmmaking, as well as his strong sense of family. If I were to pick the best film I would say “Citizen Kane” which, for me, was a perfect film. Film noir all around there (thank you Gregg Toland!).

As for more recent filmmakers, I am very impressed with the works of Peter Jackson – his “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy was an astounding feat, and each one a classic in its own right. To think he spent 7 years of his life nonstop on a project he so deeply loved (and which showed on screen) is just mind-numbing to think about.

As for literary figures, I am a big fan of Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Baxter (both sci-fi writers), J.R.R. Tolkein, Robert Jordan, Terry Brooks (fantasy writers), and even present-day mystery writers like Sue Grafton. Each writer is able to transport me into their world whether it is the distant, far future, the imaginative fantasy lands beyond, or our contemporary Earth.

I am also a big fan of philosophies and philosophers which range from ancients such as Plato who founded Neo-Platonism as well as the teachings of Esoteric Buddhism of medieval Japan. I was especially mindful of these teaching when I directed “P.J.”


How does P.J.’s content fit into your prior and later filmography?

As I mentioned before, I make use of lighting to convey the dichotomy of certain characters – i.e. Charles in “P.J.”, Gwen in “Girl With Gun”, and Victor (played by William Devane) in “Chasing the Green.”
I try to reveal each character, to show how they ultimately open up to the camera (and hence the audience) as the story is told.

As for story arcs, it is the optimism of life, which may not seem like the case as the film progresses, but nonetheless leads to a happier ending. I don’t want to give away the ending for “P.J.” but let’s just say a majority of the film is shot at night. This also fits with the dichotomy of the characters, as the film is about their resolution of these conflicts, and coming to terms with one’s own life.

How did you direct your actors in the building of their characters?

I talked to them about the story arcs when we conducted rehearsals. I explained to them what I thought of their character’s back story, as well as why they would behave the way they do. I also asked the actors what they thought, and we worked on that to build a credible three-dimensional outlay for their character. It’s a two-way process, much like the “listening” technique that happens between the actors themselves.

And while on set, we go through various rehearsals, then record various takes. It’s when I feel the actors have reached their emotional peak (especially in their close-ups) and I know that camera and sound departments are also good (and therefore I am good too!), is when we move onto the next shot, or scene.

Was the film tightly scripted or was improvisation used in certain areas?

The cast certainly improvises, from time to time. That said, the film was tightly scripted based on budget, shoot days, and locations. And if we needed to improvise logistics (e.g. if it were raining a certain day), then we’d think about plans B and C and go with it. Trust me, there’s never one way to go about shooting!

Technically speaking, I find it interesting that the visuals almost stand alone. This could very easily be a strong silent film. Have you ever shot a silent film?

No, but I would love to. And it’s funny you should say that. Although I’ve never directed a silent film, I’m currently overseeing a web series called “Cult 11” for producer John Paul Ouvrier. It was shot in black and white, and to date I’ve directed two episodes. The series is an homage to the original “Twilight Zone” T.V. series of the late 1950s/early 1960s (when T.V. was still in its infancy). So in a way, we went retroactive for that series and enjoyed every step of the process.

I do think that visuals (in general), if need be, can stand on their own along with music such as certain montage sequences in “P.J.” (which was scored using a full orchestra by our knowledgeable composer Neil Argo). Another good example visuals standing alone with only music was Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a film that inspired me a lot.

In “P.J.”, there are several stories that evolve within the film: the psychiatrists’s tale, P.J./Charles’ drama, the light love story between the orderly and nurse, etc. Was it difficult to keep track and intertwine these ideas?

That’s the beauty of pre-production. You make sure you do your homework, and it becomes easier to keep track and intertwine. The difficulty is getting yourself immersed in their world and living in it, which you must do in the weeks before shooting. But that is how I go about each film as I prep.

Is Charles in effect, P.J.?

All I will say is yes and no (smile).

Is Charles/P.J. human, or a higher entity?

This is really for each audience member to decide. “P.J.” is a type of film which has something for everyone. I like to think of it as a subjective experience which can be enjoyed individually.

Speculatively speaking, it’s disturbing that one who investigates religion, the paranormal or something against the norm is often labeled as crazy. Can you address this issue?

I think it really depends on your point of view. A brilliant T.V. series that explored the paranormal was “The X-Files”. Here you had two characters: one a believer, and the other a skeptic. This I think is the reality of our lives. We all believe in different things, and I think the beauty of humanity is that we can all “agree to disagree”. I think if we were all the same, it would be a very bland world. Conflicts make for fruitful discussions about what one person may say is insane and what another may say is not – and I’m sure Mulder and Scully occasionally had such discussions!


Did Charles/P.J. really investigate other worlds simply because he didn’t want kids or felt himself worthless, or is there another possible reason?

Again, I like to leave this to each audience member to decide. I will say this again: human nature is wrought with contradictions. You know the old saying, that you “love to hate” something (I even think the Shelly character said something to that effect). Well he may want kids, but he is also perhaps going through a mid-life crisis and had to figure it out for himself. Who knows? That’s why it’s up to each audience member to decide.


Is P.J. simply a moral tale, or something more fantastic?

I would like to believe it’s something more fantastic but it’s also, definitely a moral tale.

Can you speak about your next project and if it will explore the extraordinary?

My current project is called “The Legends of Nethiah” (which we shot last August, 2009). It’s about a ten year old boy who must decide whether he will live with his mother or father who are in the process of divorcing (yet still at present live in the same house). Therefore, the maternal grandfather (played by Robert Picardo) is brought in and tells his grandson an incredible fantasy tale of a warrior named ‘Nethiah’ – who must go through his own trials and errors in order to find his way.

Overall, “Nethiah” is a moral telling, much in the same vein as “The Princess Bride”. You can find more information at our official website www.legendsofnethiah.com. We are also on MySpace and Facebook, and the link can be found through the official site

The Fever Dreams Continue: On Almodóvar's Broken Embraces

With characters so intriguing and narratives so deep, it's hard to figure out where Pedro begins: with the plot or the people. His scenarios launch off as melodramas, until the plots go deeper into the characters' psyches. Hence, the central players come full bloom, as rich a – perhaps richer than? – the persons of a tamer character drama. But, why restrict genius which such a question? Perhap the richness of Almodóvar comes in a flourish.

Pedro's career began with zany plots and zanier characters, but his style matured, somewhere around Woman on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988), to reflect uncanny familiarity to the everyday viewer. Hence, we sympathize with Benigno, the obsessive orderly of Talk to Her, or with Hermana Rosa of Mother, loved by a tranny, but loved passionately, regardless. Almodóvar finds characters odd yet real, often through backstory, and reflects the common, primal experience. For viewers, getting to the filmmaker's crescendo is like a psychic mind trip that we never ourselves dreamed, but wish we could.

Broken Embraces reaches near the highest ranks of the filmmaker's work, specifically, All About My Mother and Talk to Her. Surely, Volver and Bad Education made for especially rewarding trips to the arthouse, but the former two films not only reach a state of grandeur, but elevate beyond it. Both films continue to rise beyond our expectations, which, in the presence of Pedro, feel humble.

Embraces reaches such grandeur, but can't rise on and on from there. Once again, Pedro muses on the human need to create. A former-filmmaker/now scenarist is named Harry Caine (a name which rings of Harry Lime, that legendary character on a quest). Caine no longer realizes movies because he has lost the means – vision – to do so. The loaded premise has us wondering what made the man go from film helmer (when he was known as Mateo Blanco) to blind scriber, until we think back to the opening shot, of Penelope Cruz's character, Lena, preparing for a closeup. Here, we then realize, is the answer.

Cue the extended Almodóvarian flashback, and we learn that Harry met Lena, a former-secretary/part-time call-girl, by chance. She has become the lover of business mogul Ernesto Martel, who's brought her financial comfort but strained intimacy. (Pedro serves up what seems like a boon, a topless Cruz, her character post-coital from Ernesto, only to have her vomit in near closeup – a sex-object upturned right onto our heads.) Mateo casts her in his latest film, his first attempt at a comedy. Then Ernesto sticks his foot in the door by funding the project.

Ernesto has his son, a rather lost gay youth, videotape on the set under the disguise of a documentary project. This documenting becomes diegetic reflexive viewing (the counterpoint to Mateo's lost vision, we soon learn) as Ernesto screens the footage for evidence that Lena's cheating with Mateo. Like most suspicious stalker-lovers, Ernesto finds his evidence, then moves to sabotage the production. As those with the power of the dollar can, he succeeds. Thus comes both eponymous fractures, one resulting in another.

Mateo's assistant/agent, Judit, also plays into the drama's unraveling. Originally a professional acquaintence, she's become a caregiver to him too. In the finest of Pedro films, all the past life is matter for reflection to those in the film's present, and layered analysis for us. In this sense, the filmmaker borrows from film noir as he does from melodrama; for the former tradition, as Paul Schrader noted in his seminal 1972 essay, “Notes on Film Noir,” is obsessed with the past. In Almodóvar, the past is reckoned by characters of the present, a layering over which we revel.

Pedro with muse, Penelope.

Review: The Book of Eli

By: Jessica Baxter

In the new film by the Hughes Brothers (“From Hell”), it’s 30 years post-apocalypse and things are hella not cool, you guys. The world is a scorched junkyard full of pockmarked and be-goggled road warriors ready to rape, pillage and eat you. Apparently, this is what the world looks like without God. Fortunately, there’s also this dude named Eli (Denzel Washington) who heard a voice in his head giving him a mission. He’s also got a keen sense of his senses and therefore has no trouble taking out any number of bad guys all by his lonesome and in record time. Of course, he’d rather not if he can help it. All’s he wants to do is get this very special book “west” like the nice voice asked him to. But wouldn’t you know it, there’s another man with designs on the book and he isn’t going to make it easy for Eli.

The first 30 minutes of “The Book of Eli” set the scene. You’ve got your standard decayed America, full of billboard ruins and skeletons in stalled cars. Our titular protagonist wanders around killing cats for their cosmetic properties and scoring precious commodities like shoes and wet wipes off of dead bodies. He camps in abandoned houses and makes friends with rats to break up the monotony. Though, as bad as things are, he still has a working iPod. He is an old man by modern standards. One of the few left who remembers how “things were before”. Perhaps it’s because he’s so old that it’s taken him 30 years to walk 3000 miles.

Eventually, he stumbles across a lawless frontier town and stops to replenish supplies. Unfortunately, he chooses the wrong lawless frontier town in which to make a pit stop. Run by a sort of Future Al Swearengen named Carnegie (Gary Oldman), it makes Deadwood look like a country club. Carnegie has been desperately searching for the very book that Eli carries. It’s “a book of power” that he “grew up with” and provides “the right words for our faith.” (Can you guess what this book might be? Hint: It’s not “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”.) All of the copies, save one, were burned after the war because some determined the book to be the cause of this whole mess (go figure). Carnegie says he can use the book as a weapon to control the weak-minded. Carnegie is supposed to be the bad guy, but he sure says a lot of things that make sense.

When Carnegie discovers that Eli carries the book in question, he sets his team of cronies (led by an underused Ray Stevenson) on him. Choosing to join Eli is Carnegie’s stepdaughter, Solara (Mila Kunis), a prostitute who also happens to be the most beautiful girl in the world. How she maintains such a flawless complexion in a time without lotion is a genetic marvel. If you ask me, her beauty secrets are the real Holy Grail. But instead they insist on focusing on the book.

The whole movie feels a bit like a squandered opportunity. We didn’t really need another post-apocalyptic story, but if you’re going to do it, and get Gary Oldman to play the bad guy, you could try and be a little more creative. Instead, it’s all pretty cookie-cutter from the washed-out tones to the wardrobe to the passages of scripture that Eli spouts before kicking ass. I suppose the “twist” ending is supposed to make up for the cliché, but instead it seems silly and rather unresolved. I also left the theatre feeling a little conned, as though a colleague invited me to a “party” that actually ended up being a bible study (with no beer at all!). I’m not sure what, exactly, the Hughes Brothers wanted to accomplish with “The Book of Eli”, but I’m pretty sure Mel Gibson and Kirk Cameron would approve.

"The Book of Eli"
2010, 118 minutes, Rated R
Directed by Albert Hughes and Allen Hughes, Written by Gary Whitta
Starring Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis
Released by Alcon Entertainment

DVD Review: "Chevolution"

Luis Lopez and Trisha Ziff’s documentary focuses on what might be the single most famous photographic portrait of the 20th century: Alberto Korda’s image of the beret-wearing Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

The photograph itself was cropped down from a larger picture that showed Guevara at the 1960 memorial service for the victims of the La Coubre explosion. However, it was not published in the Cuban state-run media for over a year, and the outside world only first saw it in a 1965 edition of Paris-Match (no one is quite clear how it arrived at that high-profile magazine). Italian publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli created posters of the cropped image; Korda, a devoted Communist, initially waived copyright claims to the photograph but Feltrinelli happily claimed it for himself.

After Guevara’s death in 1967, the image was picked up around the world as a symbol of a great many movements and issues – most having nothing to do with Guevara’s distinctive brand of revolutionary Marxism. Korda’s estate eventually regained the copyright on the image, but only after millions of posters, t-shirts, postcards and parodies were created.

It is a fascinating story, to be certain, though it is a shame too much time is devoted to the often less-than-fascinating appropriation of the image (do we really need to see repeated views of a tattoo artist inking Guevara on a guy’s bare arm?) plus dullish input from people with little connection to the photograph’s history (including Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams and actors Antonio Banderas and Gael Garcia Bernal).

But despite its padding, “Chevolution” is a genuinely interesting film about a photograph that still, after 50 years, continues to haunt and intrigue us.

"Chevolution"
2008, 89 minutes, not rated
Directed by Luis Lopez and Trisha Ziff, released by Magnolia Entertainment

DVD Review: "Into the Storm"

Originally broadcast on HBO, Thaddeus O’Sullivan’s re-imagining of the rise and fall of Winston Churchill’s wartime government is fueled by Brendan Gleeson’s wonderfully irascible interpretation of the celebrated leader, which won a richly deserved Emmy Award.

Outside of capturing the distinctive physical and vocal dimensions of Churchill, Gleeson also taps into the leader’s brutally contradictory personality. Rather than offer a one dimensional, too-good-to-be-true hero textbook hero, this Churchill is a baffling and often exasperating mix of bullying, bravado, sincerity, contempt and determination. It is often easy to imagine Churchill was at war on two fronts – against the Axis forces and against himself – and Gleeson does a splendid job in mining the complexity of Churchill’s emotions.

As a historic document, however, the film leaves a lot to be desired. Large stretches of history are bypassed – Lend-Lease and the Atlantic Charter are not mentioned and the circumstances leading up to the 1945 election that unceremoniously dumped Churchill from power are barely touched upon. Janet McTeer, as Churchill’s long-suffering wife Clementine, deserves kudos for bringing a degree of warmth and humanity to the production, but other supporting players – Len Cariou’s haughty FDR, Iain Glen’s lisping King George VI, Patrick Malahide’s tightly-wound Maj. General Montgomery and Aleksei Petrenko’s booze-fueled Stalin – come across like one-dimensional cartoons rather than genuine personalities.

Nonetheless, Gleeson’s force of personality dominates the proceedings, and it is easy to overlook the film’s shortcomings whenever the actor’s Churchill turns up on camera.

"Into the Storm"
2009, 89 minutes, not rated
Directed by Thaddeus O'Sullivan, starring Brendan Gleeson and Janet McTeer
Released by HBO Entertainment

DVD Review: “Blessed is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh”

The extraordinary story of Hannah Senesh (1921-1944) is not very well known to most people, so there is reason to be grateful for Roberta Gossman’s wonderful documentary.

The daughter of a prominent Jewish family in Budapest, Senesh fled her native country for British-mandated Palestine prior to the outbreak of World War II. In 1943, she joined the British military and trained for an incredibly dangerous mission in which she would paratroop back into Nazi-controlled Europe and provide coordination between the partisan movements and the Allied forces.

Senesh was captured at the Yugoslavian-Hungarian border, imprisoned and tortured by the Gestapo-trained Hungarian Arrow Cross Party, but she did not reveal the details of her top-secret assignment to her captors.

Senesh was executed by a firing squad before the official verdict of the Nazi-controlled court was announced; her body was returned to Israel for proper burial in 1950. The posthumous publication of her diaries and poetry, however, offered an intellectual sensitivity and literary insight that gave greater depth to her heroic life.

Working with a mix of interviews with former classmates, kibbutz colleagues and wartime cellmates, plus rarely seen newsreel footage, a few dramatic re-enactments and a concise recitation of her writing by narrator Joan Allen, “Blessed is the Match” offers an excellent tribute to a young woman who has been, for too long, an unsung hero of World War II.

“Blessed is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh”
2009, 89 minutes, not rated
Directed by Roberta Gossman, released by The A.V. Club

Review: "Youth in Revolt"

By: Jessica Baxter

On the surface, it might seem like just another Awkward Michael Cera Comedy. It’s true that element is present, but it’s also so much more. “Youth in Revolt” is the story of a precocious Bay Area teenager named Nick Twisp (Michael Cera) whose affinity for Frank Sinatra and Italian cinema only briefly distracts from his raging hormones. When his mother’s redneck boyfriend (Zack Galifianakis) gets in trouble with some naval officers, they decide to lay low in a camping trailer park in Ukiah. It’s there that Nick meets and falls head-over-heels for Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), an undeniable beauty and his intellectual equal. However, several elements keep him from being with his beloved including Sheeni’s religious parents and an over-achiever Adonis of a boyfriend named Trent. Nick creates id-like alter ego, Francois Dillinger, in order to undertake extreme measures necessary to get the job done, including blowing up part of Berkeley so that he will be sent to live with his dad in Ukiah.

It’s never an easy feat to adapt a beloved book. Besides the usual outcry from superfans, a 500-page adolescent hipster-training manual from 1993 would need some editing to become a 90-minute feature film. It was important to have a light touch so as to preserve the essence of C.D. Payne’s rich characters. But Gustin Nash was up to the task and managed to write a script with good sense of modern timelessness. (e.g. He quickly did away with the cell phone conundrum with a quick line about how Nick can’t afford one.) There were other small tweaks as well. Cera’s Nick isn’t quite as incessantly bonered as the literary version (perhaps, by making him two years older, he’s had time to come to terms with his all-consuming sexuality). Die-hard fans may miss references to “T.E.’s” and “I’m Single, Let’s Mingle”. But obsessing over these little differences is nitpicking an otherwise extremely enjoyable film. Nash’s script serves as not only excellent shorthand for the novel but also an entertaining and, in terms of its cinematic peers, original comedy film.

In general, Cera haters have a valid complaint. If his brand of charming awkwardness isn’t your thing, you’re going to have a hard time watching any of his movies. But, in this case, I hope the dissenters give him another shot. While normal Nick is still very Cera-esque, his turn as Francois definitely showcases another level to his talents. Francois is crude, hard and physical comedy gold. Cera isn’t the only one who gets to show what else he can do. There isn’t a single weak link in the cast. Zack Galifianakis, normally typecast as the loveable weirdo, gets to be completely uncharming as redneck, Jerry. Justin Long is spot on as Sheeni’s druggy guru older brother. And while Steve Buscemi and Fred Willard have a hard time stretching their acting muscles, they are still perfectly cast in roles well within their means.

Also notable is the film’s structure. For a film based on a fictional journal, Arteta and Nash managed to avoid the usual voiceover trappings, using this type of exposition sparingly. It’s hardly noticeable, whilst still giving the uninitiated viewer a clear overview of the protagonist. Whimsical animated sequences transition the story from one location to another (or serve to…ahem…accurately illustrate a mushroom trip).

Michael Cera has lamented that C.D. Payne’s novel would have made a better mini-series than a feature film. Indeed there are several characters that were cut and others could have been developed more. But since they signed up for a feature, this was certainly the way to do it. And for those without the mental baggage of the book, “Youth in Revolt” is just a good, solid comedy.

"Youth in Revolt"
2009, 90 minutes, Rated R
Directed by Miguel Arteta, Written by Gustin Nash and C.D. Payne (book)
Starring Michael Cera, Portia Doubleday, Zach Galifianakis
Released by Dimension Films

Retro Cinema: "Chariots of the Gods" (1970)

“Chariots of the Gods” occupies an uneasy position that can easily embarrass anyone interested in the use of cinema as a vehicle for non-fiction filmmaking. A 1970 German production that, incredibly, received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary under the strange title “Memories of the Future,” the film turned up in U.S. theaters in 1974 via the tiny Sun International distribution company. Unlike most documentary distributors of the period, Sun International heavily promoted this title via a noisy television advertising campaign and a tie-in with a paperback reissue of the hitherto obscure Erich Von Däniken text that served as its source material.

The aggressive marketing campaign, coupled with the decision to put the film into wide general release rather than limited art house distribution (I saw the film back in the day at the Dale Theater in the Bronx, N.Y. – a cozy neighborhood venue that normally specialized in Hollywood fare), helped make the film a commercial hit. It also managed to kick off a craze for film and television productions that insisted on connections between the Earth cultures and unidentified extra-terrestrials who made mysterious visits to our planet.

As for the film itself, “Chariots of the Gods” is a painfully benign piece of speculation that offers the mere suggestion that the ancient cultures of Egypt, Central America and Easter Island were incapable of creating any significant architectural, artistic or mechanical invention without the aid of experts who came from beyond the stars. At the very least, it is a typical example of Eurocentric boorishness – obviously, the creators of Stonehenge or the glories of ancient Greece and Rome had the brains, tools and muscles to move and sculpt huge chunks of stone into fancy upright designs, whereas their cousins across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic did not.

At worst, the film provides a careless pondering that shuffles about without an iota of evidence that any spaceships ever landed on Earth. There is talk of supposedly ancient airports at Nazca in Peru, but no proof that any vehicle actually touched down. There is wonderment at the marvels of the Mayan and Incan ruins, but no explanation of how aliens could have passed on their engineering knowledge to a supposedly primitive people (consider the language barrier, at the very least) or a purpose regarding why they would even want to share such knowledge.

The film points to a number of different sacred religious texts, including the stories of Moses, Ezekiel and Elijah in the Old Testament, with their vivid descriptions of chariots coming down from the heavens and then flying away. Yet almost every religious tradition is rooted in some sense of the supernatural descending from a higher plain - both literally and figuratively - to enlighten the supposed dullards of Earth.

“Chariots of the Gods” never overtly claims that aliens were running around the ancient world. Instead, it merely hints that the combination of unusual religious stories and funky structures around most of the world may suggest that otherworldly visitors came by to share insights and ideas. However, there is no explanation as to the exact reasons of their visits and why they never bothered to return.

In terms of style, the film has little to offer. Director Harald Reinl is satisfied to stitch together stock footage of rocket ships in flight, atomic bombs in mushroom-shaped clouds of destructiveness, and endless aerial shots of ancient monuments. Part-found footage, part-travelogue, fully ridiculous, yet strangely naive in making claims it cannot defend, “Chariots of the Gods” is a charming old-school fraud. They don’t make films like this anymore, and we should be glad for that.

"Chariots of the Gods"
1970, Documentary
Directed by Harald Reinl

Review: "The Billboard from Bethlehem"

The focus of this documentary is the advocacy group Combatants for Peace, which is made up of members of the Israeli Defense Force that refused to go on duty in the occupied territories and former Palestinian resistance fighters who are eager to pursue Gandhian nonviolence as a means of gaining statehood.

Members of both sides needed to overcome grief and distrust – one Palestinian member talks frankly of his young daughter being killed by Israeli soldiers while an Israeli speaks of his teenage sister’s death in a suicide bomber attack. The group’s efforts were met with mild support by the Palestinian leadership and complete indifference from the Israeli government.

However, Bruce A. Barrett, the owner of a Connecticut-based billboard company, was intrigued enough by their endeavor to create a mural advocating Holy Land peace. Barrett, using Combatants for Peace, recruited Israeli and Palestinian children to paint the mural, which is on display as a billboard along Interstate 84 in Connecticut.

Barrett, who also produced and directed this film, deserves some praise for supporting the nonviolent goals of the Combatants for Peace movement. But it is impossible to escape the strange nature of his project and the seeming absurdity of its end result (how does a billboard alongside a Connecticut highway ultimately help to fuel the Israel-Palestine peace process?).

The film works best when Barrett is out of sight and the members of Combatants for Peace speak freely about their own experiences and their hopes for the nations’ future. Their comments offer cogent insights on the roots of the conflict and the possible route to its peaceful solution.

"The Billboard from Bethlehem"
2009, Documentary, 63 minutes, Not rated
Directed by Bruce A. Barrett, Released by IWagePeace.org

“My Mouth Lies Screaming”: Interview with Mike Legge. By Roy Koriakin (2009-12-03)

I often think about that kid who I played little league with throughout my baseball career. Every year he sat on the bench waiting to get in for the required two innings and one at bat. I never knew why he kept coming out every year just to sit on the bench. What was his motive? Why didn’t he try something more suitable to his skill sets? Maybe, something like golf or bocce ball. Who knows, he could have been a ringer at throwing those little Italian rubber balls. But, to my surprise, he didn’t even seem to be agitated that he wasn’t playing. On the contrary, he actually looked quite content watching from the bench.

Mike Legge, the writer, director, actor of “My Mouth Lies Screaming,” reminds me of that kid on the bench. He’s on his fourteenth film over the last twenty years with little accolades to speak of. Surprisingly, he still seems to be content to keep making them. Mike explained to me that, “Almost no one likes my films. The people on the internet find it so easy to rip something apart without knowing what goes into it. And, little do they know that it takes just as much work to make a bad film, as it does to make a good one.”

In retrospect, in thinking about that kid on the bench smiling away chomping on his Big League Chew, or Mike Legge and his fourteen films, I guess people need to be a part of, or feel like they are a part of, something. Regardless if it’s only for the two-inning minimum, or making a movie that might not be that well received. At least they did something…and that’s certainly better then doing nothing. So here’s to you, Mike Legge, and that guy who road the bench all those years. You guys keep going regardless of the status quo. In my eyes, you are my sub-par heros, my friends.

I caught up with Legge to discuss what drives his underground career.

Roy Koriakian: How did you come up with the idea for the movie?

Mike Legge: This film was kind of a spoof on these old Italian movies that came out in the sixties. It’s kind of funny, because I don’t really even like them. But, they were always killing young pretty women. What else is new? Well, they always had the most elaborate ways to kill some one. So I thought, what if I came up with the least elaborate method or tool to kill some one with. And that was how I came up with the bow tie killer. To use a bowtie to kill someone is so ridiculous.

RK: How do you go about getting actors for no-budget films?

ML: I have a little repertoire to pull from. I run a small theatre company. So, I run into a lot of actors. I end up getting a lot of them coming back for my next movies. How often does an actress get a chance to make out with balloons. We do a lot of strange things in my movies that they would never get to do on another film.

RK: Every movie seems to have a good story to go along with the process of production. What was this film’s story?

ML: I guess the story would be with how we got, Phil Hall. A writer at Filmthreat who was in this film. I found out that he mentioned me in one of his books about underground movies. He gave me about a page and a half mention in it. He liked my work. No one likes my work. Everyone hates it. Once in a great while I get someone that thinks it’s funny, and really likes it. When I get one of those people I make sure I contact them to thank them. So I called him. Surprisingly, he knew my work well. He was writing a book about distribution at the time. He asked me a few questions about this film. I told him about it. He said, he would love to be in it. I knew he didn’t have much acting experience, but my gut said to do it. I was very pleased with his performance. I guess he was weird enough to be a part of it.

RK: How would you classify the genre of your films?

ML: Years ago, one of the festival runners classified them as no-budget movies. Most of the films in this category are not comedies. Most are vulgar horror films. I’d rather do really, really absurd stuff. In my movies I like to create absurd worlds that aren’t parallel to the real world. In saying that, my fan base is kind of scarce. I get surprised every once in a while. Last year my film, “Dungeon of Dr. Dreck” won at a festival. I won best actor. That was nice.

As a low budget filmmaker how do you go about getting your films out to the public?
I’m terrible at promoting myself. You can find some of my movies on amazon. I used to have distribution. The distribution guy went away. Last three I self distributed myself. I had to find a way that doesn’t cost me a lot of money. I’m retired now. They just give me royalties. The previous two, I got replicated. It cost me a lot of money and I still have tons of them lying around.

RK: Any new projects in the works?

ML: I’m writing a new screenplay. And surprisingly it’s not a comedy this time. I’m doing a ghost story. Something different for me. It’s not like “Paranormal Activity”. I’m not jumping on that bandwagon. I just wanted to do something different. I’m hoping something good will come out of it. I’m basing it on a real life Paranormalist, and the real events from their experiences.

RL: Anything else you want to discuss?

ML: I’ve been a host on a public access horror show for a long time. And, I’ve been doing it with my girlfriend Lorna Nogueira for the past five years. We show old horror films. There seems to be a resurgence in that kind of thing. It’s a shame, the only place you can find local programming is on public access I do it every weekend. We’re shown in over a dozen places around the country. There’s a lot of these going on around the country right now. It’s a lot of fun. People should check them out.

* * *

To Mike Legge and to all the filmmakers and bench warmers out there. Keep plugging away my friends. It only takes one well-received film or one homerun to jumpstart a whole new beginning. Hell… even Mathew McConaughey has a career.

Interview With “Winter Of Frozen Dreams” Producer Millie Stanisic

by Roy Koriakin

A new hobby of mine when I’m frequenting the local pubs is to ask the patron next to me to tell a good story. Often times they look at me and shrug with distaste or discontent and say, “I don’t know any good stories…” That really irks me. How can someone who lives a life full of stories everyday, regardless of how menial, not know one single semi-entertaining story? It really blows my mind away that we as communicating beings can’t muster up or even concoct something that will remotely regale another human being.

When talking to Millie Stanisic, one of the Producers of “Winter of Frozen Dreams”, starring Thora Birch and Keith Carradine, she gave me hope that there are people out there who still care about telling good stories. Millie and Milka Stanisic run Em & Me Productions, a New York City based film production company. When they were choosing this project they could have sold out and done something that had car explosions or a masked man killing young scantily dressed women. Instead, they chose to look for a story that captivated them and showcased the many different facets and introspects of human beings.

“Winter of Frozen Dreams”, based on the real life story of Barbra Hoffman, a bio-chemistry student turned prostitute, turned murderer. The john-murdering Hoffman never stated or commented on why she actually committed those murders. So it was up to the Stanisic sisters and their team to fill in those blanks for the audience. In story telling ‘the why’ is a very important element in the overall success of the story. It drives the character, and when the characters’ motives are ambiguous, the story often falls short. Stanisic’s production team didn’t seem to have any problems with diving into Hoffman’s murderous psyche and flushing out the characters internal reasoning for committing the murders. A brave, but a well deserved outcome for the overall story of the film.


Roy Koriakin: How did you find this story? What attracted you to it?

Millie Stanisic: Our lawyer brought the project to us. At the time we were looking for a certain kind of picture in a specific budget range. “Satan’s Playground”, our first film was kind of our learning project. We weren’t really horror people. So this film was our next step in the progression of story telling. We looked at a bunch of projects and scripts and had to make a tough decision on which story we wanted to be vested in. We read a lot of good scripts, but they didn’t seem to gel with the total goal that we were trying to achieve in this next project.
I’ve always had the uncanny ability raise money from investors. In this case, I had to raise money for a project that doesn’t exist yet. So I had to sell the idea. Ideas do matter. In saying that, I wanted to sell an idea that we liked. Whatever idea we chose we wanted to put our all in. That was important to us. This story was just as good as the others. And it fit our criteria. So we decided to give it a go, and we went with it.

RK: What attracted you to the story?

MS: The complexity of Barbra Hoffman’s personality was what attracted us to the story. Nobody knew who she really was. This was someone who could have been a professional in the medical research field. She was very intelligent and had the whole town at her beckoning call, but she chose instead to be a prostitute and a murder.

The story had gotten a lot of media attention. She was a smart woman and this wasn’t your average John story. So, the challenge was trying to figure out what her state of mind was, because no one really knew. Who was Barbra Hoffman and what were her relationships and motives at the time? She never has spoken to anyone about the case, so no one really knows. As two female film producers, my sister & I didn’t want to make a typical tits & ass hooker film.

A certain amount of ambiguity is involved in the story. You don’t know what her motive is throughout. We wanted people to walk out of the theater and wonder if she really did it. The story is meant to be a bit grey, moody and at times slow paced. You’re meant to sit with the characters and sometimes you feel uncomfortable watching events unfold.

RK: The original story was from a book. Tell me about the writing process of converting it for film.

MS: First we acquired the book and screenplay rights. Right off the bat, we felt that the original screenplay lacked Barbra Hoffman’s essence and motivation. We knew we needed to get information or at least a sense of who she was as a person. The main challenge was the fine-line between trying to stay true the facts of the criminal case; yet still tell an intriguing story cinematically. We chose to stay true to the story. The film is based on facts, but it’s not completely factual. We felt that we had a responsibility to stay true to the story. It’s often a double edge sword as a filmmaker. Tell a good story, or stay true to the authenticity of the facts.

RK: As a fellow filmmaker I feel like behind every film, there is a story. It could be about how you got the money, an actor, or something that happened with the crew or the shoot. There’s always a story behind the story. What’s the story behind this film?

MS: The way this film came about wasn’t exactly what we had in mind originally. We were supposed to shoot a film in summer in Texas, not in the freezing cold in upstate NY. This film is about a tragic event, and it came about out of tragedy.
It started with our first executive producer, Jeffrey Kirsch who we had met at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2003 when we launched our production company. My sister, Jeffery and I instantly became friends. Next thing you know, he’s saying, “Let’s do a movie together”. I’ve always said if you’re going to do something creative like make a film, you better do it with people you like and people you trust. This is one of the main reasons why my sister and I went into the film business together. But this was equally as true for Jeffrey. So we got the ball rolling and started looking for a project. After we found the script, the project was well on its way.

The Christmas holidays came around. For the first time in I don’t know how long my family organized a holiday together in Miami. We quickly remembered why it had been 16 years since the last family vacation, but that’s a whole different story… As it happened, Jeffrey was also in Miami visiting his parents who lived in Florida during the long months of the Canadian winter. We talked about making the film together and started mapping out our future business partnership. It really was a wonderful time with Jeff.

Family time, friendship and fun was soon eclipsed by tragedy. It was 2004, the year of the Tsunami, some good friends of ours lived in Thailand so they news was especially devastating. My sister was slated to go over there and shoot some footage for a documentary. After the holidays, my sister & I returned to New York and Jeffrey returned to Toronto. The day after my birthday my sister left for a 3 week trip to Thailand and I got an early morning phone call that same day from a friend in Toronto saying that Jeff had been killed in a head on collision with a Mack Truck. While driving on a highway north of the city he hit a patch of black ice and died instantly.

It was a level of shock and grief that was very hard to deal with. We were close friends and business partners. Two things you don’t have to deal with at once too often.

Now I had to make a decision. My sister was on an airplane for twenty hours to go to a place that was going to resemble a living hell. Do I tell her that our good friend and primary investor had died or do I conceal it from her. I opted for the latter. I wanted to protect her from this while she was there. She was going to see and experience enough terrible things while in Thailand, why should she have to worry about what was going on in New York as well. So I hid the truth from her for three weeks. One of my mother’s favorite sayings is “darling it never rains, it pours”. Well that was definitely the case here: losing a friend in a tragic accident, losing a business partner, having the future of the film & our business hanging in the balance. Needless to say it was a very difficult time.

So if you were to ask what’s the cost to make a movie, I would say you have to look at two factors, the financial cost and the human / emotional cost. We paid a very steep price for this one.

RK: Tell us about the actors. How did you go about getting your cast?

MS: Amy Adams was originally attached to play the role of Barbara Hoffman, but as we soon learned “attached” is not the same thing as “signed”. To make a long story short, the casting fell apart at the last moment. Amy Adams pulled out because there was a scheduling conflict with the Disney film “Enchanted”. The timing of that decision was terrible for our project, because it came in the third week of December and it basically meant that we were going into the Christmas holidays with no female lead for the film.

I’ve always said that good can come out of bad. In saying that, Thora Birch ended up starring in the film. A friend of ours had worked with her on an indie film and spoke very highly of her. She was perfect for the part; she gave a great performance as the icy, beautiful and manipulative Barbara Hoffman.

* * *

Good things do come out of bad. Even though the filmmakers went through many trials and tribulations to make this film, when all was said and done, they made a solid film that they could be very proud of. The name of the game in this industry is perseverance, my friends.