Who Cares

Who Killed the Electric Car

     The Film Co-op gathered at Mad Sq 12 theater tonight to watch “Who Killed the Electric Car” a documentary about the life and death of the electric car in California.  The EV-1 was a resounding success with it’s devoted drivers as a prototype limited production electric car designed and built by General Motors.  The company says it was a financial flop and that despite spending an enormous budget on advertising, they couldn’t build the customer base needed to make it profitable to the company.  They are both right.  Who Cares? (BTW, the EV-1 expensive tv ads were totally incomprehensible and unmotivating - they were a cheesey-bad imitation of the most brilliant Apple computer ads.)
     GM had every right to kill off the EV-1 and every right to go after changes in the California law that made the development of the EV-1 a necessity.  Once the law was changed, they were free to kill the car or promote it as they saw fit. 
     The problem, and let me emphasize that, the “PROBLEM” is that the voting public is so unaware and unresponsive and accepting of policies that are not really in their best financial, social or moral interest.  And so, the corporate behemoth of GM (and all the others: Ford, Toyota, etc) can dictate policy and limit your choice.  You let Dick Cheney hold major energy policy meetings with only oil company execs and lobbyists. Why people are not outraged and demanding change or impeachment is quite beyond me.   Yes, it really is YOUR FAULT!
     I think you have a right to buy a big wapping-ass HUMMER if you want one.  I think that if you are that irresponsible with your money, that’s your business and not mine.  But you’ve gotta know that you are an irresponsible idiot.
     But then, I drive a SUV.  Get’s miserable gas mileage.  But I live 2.5 miles from work... on purpose.  I don’t burn any more gas than the guy with the Prius who lives 10 miles from work (which is, statistically, below average).  I’d like to drive a Prius.  Just for the ego trip.  I’d be like an ex-smoker trying to save the rest of the smokers from their cancerous fate....  But I can’t afford a Prius.  The local Toyota dealer marks them up to approx. $30K.  I checked. You can just about buy a baby Hummer for the price of one of these postage stamp vehicles.  And I did the math -  it would take over a decade for me to pay off the difference between buying the Prius than to just keep driving my SUV.  But I’d love driving one.  Or an electric.

Current and near term electric automobiles are still in the $80K price range.  The electric car goes 120 miles on a charge.  My SUV goes 230miles.  It takes 5 minutes to fill the gas tank on the SUV.  It takes 6 to 8 hrs to charge the battery in the electric vehicle.  I could actually live with the electric car’s limited range for 335days of the year.  The other 30days, when I’m out of town visiting, vacationing, cruising up the road, etc.  I’d have to rent a gas powered car... or buy one.  And occassionally I have to ... you know... shop.  Hardware store shopping sometimes, the real kind.  It fits in the SUV.  The electric car holds one kid or 3 grocery bags.  I’m sorry.  I don’t care that GM killed off a vehicle that I can’t afford and doesn’t meet my needs. 
     But I do care that GM (and other industry leaders) get to set public policy.  They pay to elect their lobbyists to public office.  They buy off the people you elect. They define the laws that you have to live with.  They decide that you do not get to set energy efficiency goals that challenge them to make better cars.  And you... vote for this administration that makes that kind of corrupt, conflict of interest possible.  You.
     As a documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car is very good.  While it sugar coats the story with the gushing fans of the cute little car-that-could and celebs bemoaning the loss of their status symbols, you also see the corruption and conflicts of interest that made killing the electric car possible.

Hodge-Podge

Invincible

     I don’t know how Mark Wahlberg does it, but he always draws me into his roles.  He has that all-American good guy look that comes through even when he’s not exactly on the up-and-up.  He can play innocence and honor better than any other actor of his age.  You can’t help but want him to win, even if that means breaking heads.  That he should play Vince Papale is almost overkill.  But it’s also fitting.
     Movies like Invincible are literally a dime a dozen. You know the drill... against all odds and against all expectations, the little guy gets a shot at the big time.  The struggle is enormous, with obstacle after obstacle.  He could cheat and take a shortcut, but never does.  His sense of honor and his heart, his love of the game carry him through.  He may ultimately win - usually does - or he may lose.  It almost doesn’t matter, because what matters is that he tries his best and those around him, including us the viewers, are the better for it.  From Rocky to Million Dollar Baby, ultimate success to tragic ending, we are mezmerized by the journey.
     Invincible carries us on that journey again.  Early scenes were... a little too predictable.  (The whole arc of the story is predictable, as it’s based on a real life story.)  When I notice that predictability early in a movie I get worried.  “Suspension of disbelief” is the key.  Predictability can be a stumbling block.  But Mark Wahlberg does exactly what they pay him for - draws me in.  And I am hooked.  The girl, the game, the challenges, the resentment by suspicious teammates, the stumbles - all the mandatory plot devices rush by.  I am aware of them, of course, but the story carries me down field.  Invincible is a winner.

A Scanner Darkly

     I’m not sure it’s possible to make a bad movie when your source material comes from Philip K Dick.  After 35 years I still remember picking up a quirky looking book called “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” and getting hooked.  Many years later, of course, Harrison Ford breaks the cocky privateer stereotype gift of Star Wars to star in Blade Runner.  Total Recall, Monority Report, Paycheck... well, Paycheck doesn’t quit achieve the brilliance of Dick’s writing.  Richard Linklater combines the graphic techniques he pioneers in Waking Life to bring A Scanner Darkly to the big screen.  Ondercover narcotics agent, Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves), gets in a little too deep, becomes addicted to “D” a narcotic that we suspect (like most narcotics) to have come from the lab of corporate greed.  Arctor doesn’t realize the conspiracy going on around him. He doesn’t know who he can trust anymore.  And he knows that includes even himself.
     A Scanner Darkly has that short-story-expanded-to-fill-the-screen feel to it.  But that’s ok.  Part of its energy and attraction is the addictive and hypnotic graphics.  People seem both hidden and transparent at the same time.  There is something real about them (we see them as the real actors they are) but there is a sense of illusion about their identity that is partly hidden in the addiction of Bob Arctor, partly within the technology used to hide the narcotics agents and partly within the constantly shifting colors and patterns of the images.  The graphics and the story achieve a balance that seems right but is hard to explain.
    There is a thread that connects Linklater’s work.  I’m not sure what it is, but whether its lightweight fare like Bad News Bears (with Billy Bob Thornton) or “School of Rock” (Jack Black), serious interpersonal relationships such as the “Before Sunrise” and “Before Sunset” (Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy), “Tape” (Hawke) or the animated movies (Scanner Darkly and Waking LIfe), there is a sense of a whole being made of the parts.  Or maybe a fabric being woven.  I’m looking forward to seeing what bit of cloth he creates next.


World Trade Center

     Oliver Stone has made a career of cinematic controversy and conspiracy.  His movies are provocative and sometimes angry but always reflective.  WTC is certainly reflective, but in that Made-For-TV kind of way.  It’s a close-up view of what that events of 9/11 meant to two families, of the entrapment and rescue of two NYC Port Authority police officers, worried wives at home with family and friends closing ranks waiting for word on the missing husbands.  The rescue is initiated based on the determined over-night search of the rubble by a former marine who had a religious calling.  Trapped under tons of debris, Nicholas Cage gives a subdued and, no pun intended, constrained performance as John McLoughlin.  Michael Pena portrays Will Jimeno.  Both officers survived being trapped in the debris, having entered the WTC to assist in evacuating personnel from the doomed buildings.  Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhall play the spouses.   Both actresses give strong performances.
     I see on IMDB that the real Will Jimeno had a small roll in the movie as... a Port Authority Officer.  Both McLoughlin and Jimeno, and their wives, are credited on the screenplay.  WTC is an inspiring movie, emotionally involving and moving.  Oliver Stone should get praise for bringing this story to the Big Screen. 
     Flight 93 was a more hard hiting and innovative presentation of the horrific events of 9/11.  Ultimately it is the better film.   I have a hard time criticizing WTC for it’s failures - it does not ask many questions about how or why the attacks occurred, and it feels like a clear-coat, patriotic gloss applied to the heroism of the rescue workers.  The heroism of the port authority police and the rescue workers doesn’t need that extra cinematic gloss to stand as emblematic of the best of what America stands for.  And the broader issues - the “who, what. where, when and why” of the attacks - will be the subject of more moives and books that any of us could hope to absorb.  I believe the WTC was an earnest attempt to protray the events of the narrowly drawn story of these two heroes, and that is sufficient. 
     The one quibble that I carried away from the movie is related to the ex-marine.  Was he really meant to represent a superman like character or was he there for comic relief? (The audience laughed at him).  He’s shown as a small town Americana kind of guy who sees the WTC collapse on TV.  He quits his job, tells his minister that God has called him to go rescue people, but he stops for a haircut, puts on his marine uniform, sneaks into the disaster area, declares that God has provided the smoke to shield our eyes from the reality we are not prepared to see, and... finds the trapped police officers.  Unfortunately, with the low camera  angles and overwrought monologs, I kept waiting to hear “Look. Up in the sky, it’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s...superman.”

Two for the Price of One

Miami Vice:  Not a bad movie.  That's my review.  Not a bad…  Well, I can't quite put my finger on it, but Miami Vice felt uneven, not unfinished, just not a smoothly told tale.  Colin Ferrell as Crocket and Jamie Foxx as Tubbs pledged their loyalty to each other a couple of times but then pretty much go their own way - no chemistry.  Crocket gets a little thing going with drug lord's woman, Li Gong (Memoirs of a Geisha), and there is a tiny hint of chemistry - er, the screenplay called for chemistry but it seemed like just sex to me.  Meanwhile the rest of the undercover gang pretty much come as go as required to provide target practise for the bad guys.  There's something about leaks from the feds and neo-nazis and anal-retentive thugs and mysterious meetings where the bad guys have more high tech gear than even the best of the feds and…  how all this got packed into this story is beyond me.  There's certainly no joy in this movie, no room for it, and not even enough time for Crocket or Tubbs to take their anti-depressant meds, which they obviously need.  It really is a pretty good movie, but … and can anyone tell me why the director or editors felt the need to add video noise to the night scenes in Miami?  It was obviously added by computer, but I didn't understand why.  Night scenes in other locals looked fine. It was distracting - and not in that tolerable Michael Mann "you are there" handheld shakey video kind of way.

Monster House:  Creative, beautifully illustrated, scary, funny.  Every neighborhood has that one house where the old man chases the kids off his carefully tended lawn.  It's almost a sure sign that a neighbor has retired when suddenly you see the most beautifully green lawn in the neighborhood.  He's got nothing else to do.  Suddenly he obsesses over the blades of grass and resents destructive little feet… uh.. That's my nightmare.  In the movie Monster House, there are rumors about old man Nebbercracker having killed his wife and evidence of toys and the occassionaly tresspasser disappearing.  But the truth is even scarier.  In a confrontation over a wayward basketball, obsessed boy-across-street DJ causes old man Nebbercracker to have a heart attack.  While feelings of guilt linger, the now abandoned house takes on a life of it's own.  Is it haunted?  Is it a monster?  Former Tonight Show host (I have to say that, most people don't remember) Johnny Carson used to say "Buy the setup, buy the bit."  For those who bought the set up, Monster House is a scary and bumpy ride.  I didn't buy into it, I am usually more gullible but that "suspension of disbelief" factor didn't quite take hold.  So I enjoyed the graphics and animation more than the story.  Monster House is a little too much for young kids, but it's scariest moments come early.  There are unsettling thematic elements about wayward babysitters and the kinds of men they choose to invite into your home while you are out and then the whole thing about obesity and taunting and revenge was a little off-putting, but otherwise Monster House is a fun movie for those pre-teens and fascinating enough for adults.  Now if someone made a movie about a real old man with nothing to do but obsess over his lawn, that would be really scary.

A Busy July

Once again there is a degree of negligence associated with my otherwise witty and insightfull filmic banter.  Since my last post I have seen and enjoyed three films.  Due to tardiness, my reviews are hereby cursory in nature.

 

The Devil Wears Prada:  I have all the fashion sensibilites of a clam.  No one could accuse me of anything more than being clean and marginally presentable.  I don't know Prada from Pravda and scarcely from Pavlov.  But I do know what I like in movies and I liked The Devil Wears Prada.  Ok, Roger Ebert is correct that this does play somewhat like an afterschool special about young ladies entering the work-a-day world, but I enjoyed it anyway.  I believe that Meryl Streep captured a personality type that is often flattened into one-dimensional parody in films but has never been presented as a 3D living breathing human being.  I have know a couple of women who could nearly fill these shoes - Prada or not.  Streep's character is demanding and unforgiving.  She expects the best, demands the best and is severely disappointed by it's failure to appear.  But the secret to her character is that she expects no less from herself.  She is her own worst nightmare.  She gives all and expects all.  Only rarely, and never at the office, can her weaknesses be exposed.  Working for such a boss can be terrifying, exhausting and yet darkly desirable.  Thus the character played by Anne Hathaway learns an important lesson.  We expect it of course, but still… it was a journey worth watching.

 

Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest: What an enjoyable 100 minutes.  Problem is the movie is 145 minutes long.  Pop corn never tastes so good as when watching a summer swashbuckling pirate movie.  Alas, I couldn't partake of enough popcorn to fill the wasted minutes.  When will Hollywood learn that too much of a good thing is just… too much.

 

An Inconvenient Truth:  I am surprised by those who find this documentary "persuasive" on the causes and effects of global warming.  It is certainly informative.  But to take as gospel one side of a complex argument is certainly a sign of a weak intellect.   I find the criticisms of Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth to be more persuasive of the causes of global warming than the movie itself.  Much of the criticism consists of personal attacks on Al Gore's character, stupidly false accusations that he did nothing about the environment during his 8yrs as VEEP, and totally misleading criticisms and missappropriations of the science of global warming.  In one case, one of the most sited pieces of anti-global warming evidence was deliberately misconstrued - according to the scientist who conducted the research.  When I dig only millimeters beneath the surface of the detractors of this documentary, I find misleading statements sponsored by oil industry lobbyists and conservative short-term-profits-above-all republican "think tanks."   Al Gore seems perfectly reasonable in comparison.  When I then look to the evidence of the association between man-made sources of CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures, I am worried.  But I temper my concerns by the knowledge that the embrace of ignorance promulgated  through appointment to positions of scientific policy-setting of unqualified political hacks must be soon rejected.  Even self-respecting evangelicals have concluded that this administration has gone too far in it's aims to exploit man's dominion over nature for profit by the conservative oligarchy. Al Gore, as VEEP, sought to show that there is both financial profit and good stewardship in working to save the environment from pillage.  And, in An Inconvenient Truth, he argues that with simple measures consistently applied we can reduce CO2 emissions and defeat global warming.  But those simple measures require a degree of commitment that can only be achieved by international cooperation and governmental action.  In that, the current administration has failed to take even the most prudent precautions.  The really sad irony is that American auto manufacturers are suffering massive loss of profit while exploiting the gas guzzling addictions, while the foreign car companies are setting record profits while drastically increasing fuel economy.  This simple demonstration of the Law of Supply and Demand is proving Al Gore correct.  A rose by any other name is still a rose and still smells as sweet, according to Shakespeare.  The same applies to irony.

---

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

A Busy July

Once again there is a degree of negligence associated with my otherwise witty and insightfull filmic banter.  Since my last post I have seen and enjoyed three films.  Due to tardiness, my reviews are hereby cursory in nature.  

The Devil Wears Prada:  I have all the fashion sensibilites of a clam.  No one could accuse me of anything more than being clean and marginally presentable.  I don't know Prada from Pravda and scarcely from Pavlov.  But I do know what I like in movies and I liked The Devil Wears Prada.  Ok, Roger Ebert is correct that this does play somewhat like an afterschool special about young ladies entering the work-a-day world, but I enjoyed it anyway.  I believe that Meryl Streep captured a personality type that is often flattened into one-dimensional parody in films but has never been presented as a 3D living breathing human being.  I have know a couple of women who could nearly fill these shoes - Prada or not.  Streep's character is demanding and unforgiving.  She expects the best, demands the best and is severely disappointed by it's failure to appear.  But the secret to her character is that she expects no less from herself.  She is her own worst nightmare.  She gives all and expects all.  Only rarely, and never at the office, can her weaknesses be exposed.  Working for such a boss can be terrifying, exhausting and yet darkly desirable.  Thus the character played by Anne Hathaway learns an important lesson.  We expect it of course, but still… it was a journey worth watching.  

Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest: What an enjoyable 100 minutes.  Problem is the movie is 145 minutes long.  Pop corn never tastes so good as when watching a summer swashbuckling pirate movie.  Alas, I couldn't partake of enough popcorn to fill the wasted minutes.  When will Hollywood learn that too much of a good thing is just… too much.  

An Inconvenient Truth:  I am surprised by those who find this documentary "persuasive" on the causes and effects of global warming.  It is certainly informative.  But to take as gospel one side of a complex argument is certainly a sign of a weak intellect.   I find the criticisms of Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth to be more persuasive of the causes of global warming than the movie itself.  Much of the criticism consists of personal attacks on Al Gore's character, stupidly false accusations that he did nothing about the environment during his 8yrs as VEEP, and totally misleading criticisms and missappropriations of the science of global warming.  In one case, one of the most sited pieces of anti-global warming evidence was deliberately misconstrued - according to the scientist who conducted the research.  When I dig only millimeters beneath the surface of the detractors of this documentary, I find misleading statements sponsored by oil industry lobbyists and conservative short-term-profits-above-all republican "think tanks."   Al Gore seems perfectly reasonable in comparison.  When I then look to the evidence of the association between man-made sources of CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures, I am worried.  But I temper my concerns by the knowledge that the embrace of ignorance promulgated  through appointment to positions of scientific policy-setting of unqualified political hacks must be soon rejected.  Even self-respecting evangelicals have concluded that this administration has gone too far in it's aims to exploit man's dominion over nature for profit by the conservative oligarchy. Al Gore, as VEEP, sought to show that there is both financial profit and good stewardship in working to save the environment from pillage.  And, in An Inconvenient Truth, he argues that with simple measures consistently applied we can reduce CO2 emissions and defeat global warming.  But those simple measures require a degree of commitment that can only be achieved by international cooperation and governmental action.  In that, the current administration has failed to take even the most prudent precautions.  The really sad irony is that American auto manufacturers are suffering massive loss of profit while exploiting the gas guzzling addictions, at the same time foreign car companies are setting record profits with more fuel efficient cars.  This simple demonstration of the Law of Supply and Demand is proving Al Gore correct.  A rose by any other name is still a rose and still smells as sweet, according to Shakespeare.  The same applies to irony.

Superman

Maybe people won't recognize it, but Brian Singer (along with other writers & producers) must have put a lot of consideration into Superman Returns for the past incarnations of the caped hero.  I didn't recognize the elderly visages of the original TV show's Lois Lane (Noel Neill) and Jimmy Olsen (Jack Larson) in cameo roles, but in so many places, a shot here, a line of dialog there, I sensed a connection with a history going back to the earliest days of the super hero genre.  But Singer also manages to carry Superman forward, laying the groundwork for a new franchise based on young actor Brandon Routh.  In places you could see that deliberate attempts were made to craft a visual recollection of Christopher Reeves, but ultimely I felt a new iconic representation was being carved from the raw materials of the past.

 

I was not a fan of the Christopher Reeves based movies.  The first one was enjoyable but the series grew more stale sequel by sequel.  I thought those movies were too much "high concept" and too tongue-in-cheek.  I assumed that was because I had such vivid memories of George Reeves in the Adventures of Superman TV show that was an afterschool staple of my childhood.  In that series, Superman saved the world less and stops the bad guys more. Special effects worked in the imagination better than on the screen. 

 

The superpowers of super heroes seems to have multiplied over the years, exploding with the advent of digital effects.  We've gone through a whole generation of making every conceivable comic book hero into a big-screen superhero.  And we've seen the anti-hero, the rough and tumble street-wise wise-guy who saves the day despite himself, sink into depths never imagined in the heydey of the noir movement.  This, of course, led to Robert Rodriguez' Sin City as well as "Kill Bill" and most other things Tarantino.  We've seen humanoid aliens with fantastic powers (Superman) and humans with extensive training, cunning and gadgetry (Batman) and humans transmuted into something alien (Spiderman being the epitome) and all shades in between. Each  grapples with greater and greater powers against greater and greater enemies requiring more intense special effects scenes to lure the audience deeper and deeper into a trance. This trend has become a pattern. And patterns in movies always become stale. 

 

My feeling in watching Superman Returns was that Brian Singer, having made X-Men II according to pattern, elected to look for subtle ways of taking Superman in a slightly less predictable direction.  Critics seemed to have sensed this and didn't like it.  Even Roger Ebert's review was rather negative.  So while this movie has super-extra-special effects and improbable feats of daring-do (which for any superhero movie have become Yadda, Yadda, Yadda), it also shows us a Superman that is vulnerable to the vargaries of human relationships and ambiguities.  From my perspective, this opens new possibilities for  sequals - giving room to explore the evolved relationships with fellow cast members.  Of course all the special effects will have to be there, it is "Superman" after all, but there is at least an opportunity for better reasons to watch those effects.

---

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

Prairie Home Companion

Neighbors, years and years ago, introduced me to a radio variety show on Saturday evenings. Odd, observant, and ultimately gentle humor mixed with commercials for products that you will not find on store shelves. "Prairie Home Companion" never became a staple of my listening pleasure, perhaps because my mental orientation is more towards the visual end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, now and then I'd tune in for a few minutes while running errands or sippling a diet soda after doing yard work on hot summer days.

 

When I heard the name of Robert Altman connected with rumors of a movie based on Prairie Home Companion I experienced one of those "Of Course" moments when something is so patently and incontrovertably obvious that you wonder why you didn't think of it already. I saw the movie a week ago. I've been delaying writing about because, well, with Prairie Home Companion, there just is never that sense of urgency. The show is really about stopping, for just and hour or so, and smelling the roses. Living life a little simpler and at an easier pace… Err… actually I thought I was going to see it again and waited until I realized that may not happen as soon as expected.

 

There is almost nothing about this movie that I didn't like. But that's like what Roger Ebert says of Canadians: if they see a movie they didn't like, they say "it was ok" but if they see a movie they really liked they say "It was pretty good." Prairie Home Companion was pretty darn good. What little of plot there is isn't really worth dwelling on. It's the people and the skits and the weaving of the elements that makes it incredibly good. And like a plate of warm powdermilk biscuits with fresh butter and strawberry jam, it's comfort food for the soul.

 

Another thing Roger Ebert says that sometimes I just don't get: Movies are not what they are about, but how they are about it. (paraphrasing) But when I think of Prairie Home Companion, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what he means.

---

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

An Inconvenient Truth

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair

The Film Co-op

I really should take a moment to comment on the efforts of our local film cooperative.  We’ve had a couple of movies worthy of your attention.

Broken Flowers is definitely to be added to your flix-by-mail or rental list.  I’m not a huge Jim Jarmusch fan, having only seen one of his Coffee and Cigarettes movies, though I found it intriguing and worth watching, it was not my cup of ...tea.  Bill Murray has evolved from one of our cheesiest actors to one of our finest.  I don’t know what triggered the transformation, but the evidence is overwhelming.  He joins a long list of comedic actors whose sensitivity to timing works even more effectively in dramatic roles than in comedic ones.  His character is so well played in Broken Flowers that I was just fascinated watching him. 

The plot is simple: an unsigned letter says he fathered a child, a son, nearly 20 years ago.  Neighbor & amateur sleuth Winston pushes him into a road trip to find the mother of his son before the son finds him.  Each of the five ladies of his intimate acquaintance in the potential 2 year window of opportunity are encountered in turn.  Five? you ask?  Yes, even the grave side visit of the one who absolutely could not be the mother of this estranged son is as integral to the plot as if her corporeal presence had been manifest.  And each are alive and real and unique in turn.  We can wonder at the variety of his relationships while simultaneously seeing that each could not last.  Does he discover the identify of the mother?  Does he meet his son?  This is a spoiler free review, except to say that he discovers something more important in the process.

I saw “The Squid and the Whale” at home the same week the Film Co-op showed Sally Potter’s “Yes.”  Both are depressing tales of broken relationships and lost trust.  “Yes” was perhaps the more sterile and unapproachable of the two, both in it’s symbolic decor and icy relationship.  Both movies involve an indiscretion by the wife.  One it’s consequences and the other it’s aftermath.  The Squid and the Whale was the more interesting of the two.  Except that Jeff Daniels character was so utterly dislikable that I can’t imagine any sane women staying with him without having an affair on the side.  The complexity of children provided depth that was ill-explored in Squid.  The passion of the husband in Yes, as played by Sam Neil, also went unexplored.  Though the purpose of the movie was apparently to explore the motives of “She” (Joan Allen), it was an unsatisfying imbalanced look at the breakup of the marriage.  I don’t recommend either movie.

But watching Indy movies is not about recommendations and hit movies, it’s about seeing a vision that someone felt strongly about and just had to commit to film.  The passion of the writer, director, actors, crew are all as important to the viewing experience as the number of stars that a movie might get on the big screen.  When supporting the film co-op we are supporting that hit and miss creative spirit that is totally absent in most TV and Hollywood remakes.  Sometimes you find something so great, so unique, a gem in the rough that nevertheless shines into some dark corner of the soul and brings warmth, insight, knowledge, empathy and even companionship.  And these gems are not for everyone.  In fact, if they are for everyone, they could never shine so bright for you.  Sometimes these little Indy films just don’t do anything for you the viewer - as “Yes” did not do it for me.  But you understand when someone “gets it” even when you didn’t, because you also found one that got to you in it’s unique and brilliant way.  Thus I can watch Yes, because I have also seen Yesterday and Man Push Cart and My Dinner With André and Une Coeur En Hiver and Indochine and Blue and a myriad other brilliant gems that others just never seem to get.

While the Alabama Filmmakers Cooperative (Film Co-op) is just one way to find your personal gems in the age of downloadable and mail order movies, it is nevertheless a valuable member of our culture - a “gem in the rough” in its own way.  The Film Co-op is both a place to show movies and a support group for people looking for that special connection with the movies.  It needs your support and your help to survive.   Get involved.  Volunteer.  Bring us movie ideas.  Share your love of movies and your talents in finding, commenting on, or even making movies.

The Omen

What?  Am I having those flash backs to the 70’s already?  I’m not that old, am I?  Exorcist, Omen, Rosemary and Thyme....oops.  Oh, thankfully it’s still 2006 and this is just a nonstop stream of remakes & rehashings and extensions to the scary “devil behind every tree” movies of a bygone era.  After all, I think they did 3 or 4 Poseidon’s in the last two years.  And Towering Inferno was recreated in an non-artificial reality.  It’s time to codify our terror in the movies, just like the mid-70’s. So disasters and devils come hand in hand.

I really felt a need to see “The Omen.” I wanted to know if this idea of demonic possession can really hold weight in this new millennium.  Is it still scary?  Does the idea of the Antichrist really have that much power today?  What will I feel and how will the audience react?

First let me summarize my opinion of the movie.  It’s well made, reasonably interesting if you haven’t seen (or remember) the original.  It’s true to the original story - that is, it is the original story.  There were a few scenes that I felt I could have edited better - the scooter in the stair well was absolutely uninspired.  And frankly, I didn’t care about the mom.  I like Julia Styles, but I didn’t care for her character.  I didn’t dislike her or anything, I just didn’t care.  From the moment she uttered the powerful maternalist words “Who’s that?” until her untimely... well, I just didn’t connect.  I understand the thematic significance of “Who’s that?”  It’s just a crummy way to build empathy for a mom who will soon learn that her son is the devil.  Hell, who’s isn’t?

Mia Farrow was great.  She was everything that Ruth Gordon was in Rosemary’s Baby.  Effective casting.  The doggies startled me a couple of times.  I liked them.  Playing to type, but perfectly pitched performances.

Ok, devils.  The audience seemed to gasp and shriek at all the right places.  I guess it still works.  People believe that crap.  I laughed at all the wrong places - like when I giggled at the Mini-me in the androgonous-she/he-devil’s arms in that Passion of pornographic violence that Mel Gibson created.  My thoughts in the final scene of The Omen were not “How tragic that the President’s nephew is the devil” (That’s tempting to expound upon, but I bite my tongue!)  Rather, I saw in the kids eyes “I got a 3 picture deal out this flick and I didn’t even have to talk!”

I have to say that I enjoyed seeing “The Omen” for it’s production values and the effort to explore that aspect of superstition as religion.  It hurts me to dwell on the reality that so many people believe that there is some hidden evil that is responsible for the atrocious way we often treat each other.  We don’t want to accept our personal failings without somewhere to divert blame or shame, so we need devils.  But once we have them, how do we free ourselves from their nonexistent clutch?  Oh... the other fiction.

Silence is often the better part of valor... and movie reviews

I have been delinquent in posting recommendations for my small but loyal readership.  Pardon me, I expressed that incorrectly.  I have not seen much worthy of recommendation recently.  Not that I haven’t seen any movies, I’ve seen a few, and not that they were so bad that I felt an obligation to save my readers from the expense and time invested in a night at the theater.  Far from it.  It’s just that I couldn’t say one way or t’other that you should see them.

Let’s start with Mission Impossible.  It’s not a bad film.  It’s fast paced, has some exciting scenes, interesting characters (at times), etc. etc. etc.  To say that Tom Cruise’s antics on Oprah or the silliness of his belief based on some aliens inhabiting or leaving his mind caused the low turnout for MI:III is silly.  No one seems to notice that it’s just not that innovative a story.  It’s fluff - summer fluff. Fun.  Ate lots of popcorn.  Not a waste of time at all.  Just not something that I’ll remember past... when did I see it?

X-Men III.  I’m partial to the X-Men.  I really knew nothing about the comic books when the first movie came out.  The symbolism inherent in the first movie was inspiring.  I loved the idea, the setting, the characters, the conflict.  Movie II was good, a worthy addition but a little more convoluted in the ole plot line.  That’s fine.  I saw it again last week and was just as fascinated with it.  Movie III is good.  More convoluted.  Much more.  Some of it was logical and interesting, some of it was just to get to some extra special effects.  The basic theme - what if a cure can be found? - is great, but the exploration of that theme focused on action and subjugated idea.  Idea would have been much more interesting.  If I wanted so many special effects I could just go see MI:III again.  Now, I can certainly recommend X-Men III to those who are fans and saw the first two movies, but do you really think my recommendation makes a difference?

Aquila and the Bee.  What a charming movie.  Great for the family.  Flawed character motivation - why does the mother’s moods shift so?   Why is the coach’s motivation so... er... overused. So... predictable?  But the kids will not know any of that and the parents can let the gentleness of the story wash over them and remove some the that bitter irony and jaded humor that accumulates from watching CNN or FOX news (Are they owned by the same brainwashing regime now?)

Let me make a suggestion that has nothing to do with going to the theater.  I have been hosting one and my daughter is hosting another “Firefly” festival.  Two episodes and dinner with friends makes for a great evening.  I’ve seen all the episodes, of course, ummm, a few times.  But it just plain fun.  If you haven’t seen it, get it... and you will ... get it.  If my place were bigger than a postage stamp, I’d host a real Shindig with a palaver in every room and frippery on every belle and, of course, a powerfull need to question the buffet table with some kind of melted cheese and strawberries. Maybe I’d wear a sash, as unfortunately I look the part played by Larry Drake.  Proving the existance of my pie-eyed optimistic nature, I believe Serenity will sail the big screen again in aught nine or ten.  If you are a fan too, send a wave.  No power in the ‘verse...

On a side note, enjoying the comforts of Rave whilst melting like a soft pat of butter on a fresh hot powdermilk biscut, the mood was spoiled by yapping from the jack ass twi seats away.  If he were a fan of the ‘verse, he’d have known about the “Special Hell” reserved for child molesters and people who talk in theaters.  I was sorely tempted to confront him with a rapid conversion experience.

Da Vinci Bonanza

Someone once claimed that if he knew God didn’t exist he would rape women, steal whatever he wanted, abuse drugs and alcohol, kill people he didn’t like. In short, he’d do all the evil, vial things that apparently only the wrathfull vengence of God can prevent. Apparently he lives his life in such intense fear of god that it constrains his otherwise evil nature.

How can one even bother to be shocked at such a confession.

I don’t think that person should see “The Da Vinci Code.” It might set him loose. Is “The Da Vinci Code” really an anti -religious screed aiming to disprove the existence of God? No. It’s nothing of the sort. But people choose to believe the darndest things.

Take the “right wing press” - the idiotic pundits haunting the underbelly of the internet. They had a field day last week with “proof” that the world would reject “The Da Vinci Code:" bad reviews by some critics at it’s Cannes Film Festival world premiere. These pundits can, but choose not to, provide rational context for their articles. In this case, they totally abused journalistic standards by ignoring the reality of the Cannes premiere.

The flip side of the “I’m with stupid” t-shirt is the religious right who believe that only they know what God intends for humanity and who accuse the makers of “The Da Vinci Code” of blasphemy of a sort not seen since ... well, the Clinton administration, or before that, the crucifiction itself.

So after the first weekend, world wide box office gross for “The Da Vinci Code” was over $220 Million. Does this prove that it’s opponents are morons? No. Of course not. No proof required. No. It just means people are curious and want to see a good movie.

MI:III and Poseidon were mediocre, at best. Been there, done that. Or at least, seen it many times in many other movies, some better and some worse. Can’t we have one good movie that treats us like adults? Can’t we have one movie about sometime beside taking our money? Come on! Girls just wanna have fun.

“The Da Vinci Code” is fun and stimulating - and maybe 15 minutes too long. But still, it’s a good ride and provides food for thought. What thought? Maybe that you have to think for yourself and not just accept the dogmatic interpretation of scripture as dictated by child-abuse-hiding clerics or hate-mongering protestant snake oil salesmen.

What difference does it make to your faith that Jesus was or was not married? Or had children? About the only rational difference is that maybe the bureaucrats that run most denominations would loose a little of their power.

So what’s the beef with “The Da Vinci Code?” Two things:
1) Tom Hanks - how many years has it been and why do I still hear the wackos refer to his old movie as “Filth-a-delphia?” Bigotry, pure and simple. Saving Private Ryan and Forest Gump (favored by Hank’s detractors) haven’t really made up for Philidelphia in these feeble minds (in whose presence, Forest gains an ivy-league patina).

2) Dan Brown violated the radical right’s claim to sovereignity in all theological interpretations.
Only fiction that comports itself fully with dogma is tolerable by these people. Mel Gibson can make a hate-filled cinematic diatribe from scribblings of a proto-nazi nun, a pornographic cornucopia of violence and made-up stuff, but it agrees with dogma and spreads fear, so it is welcomed as ... er ... gospel.

Remember “The Last Temptation of Christ,” Martin Scorsese’s cinematic exploration of faith? Idiots condemned it and called for a boycot without ever seeing it. Yet it’s one of the most truly spiritual movies about Christianity of the past half century.

Is “The Da Vinci Code” in similar league as Temptation? No where near. But it's a much more entertaining movie. It’s really just a good who-dunit with a religious setting. The “bad guys” are not presented as leaders of the church, but as radicals who have distorted it’s message (maybe that strikes too close to home for some?). In a time of wide spread church scandals, I guess it’s just too much to have one little depiction of it in the movies.

Dan Brown has been somewhat coy in describing the “facts” of his book, but he’s never made any attempt to pass “The Da Vinci Code” off as anything but fiction. Even a casual reader of history will be aware that there is scarcely more evidence for many of the claims of the gospels. The church believes that you are not equipped to deal with that knowledge. They believe that your faith will be shaken to it’s core if you learn that they can’t prove the stories they tell. Dan Brown believes you can handle both truths and both fictions and still find your faith. The only heretical question that Dan Brown leaves us with is “What do you believe?”

United 98

I actually tried to see United 93 over a week ago. Mission failed. I was with a friend who was getting on an international flight a few days later - and it was more the either of us could handle. So tonight, with trepidation, I am in the theater and staying put.

United 93 made me angry. Not at the film. Not at Arabs. Not at the airlines, or the goverment or anything specific. And certainly not at the movie. Just angry. How could this have happened, the whole thing. The decades of tolerance of feudalistic dictatorships that masquerade as governments. The abuse of powers and heavy handedness that twisted response to 9/11 into a profit making machine for power elite. The perversion of faith that leads to the sick and twisted mentality that requires young men, boys really, to shave their pubes and kill innocent people. (What’s with that?) So much to be angry about and it seeped into the viewing experience.

United 93 is less about the tragedy of that morning than a testimony to the intense confusion of the experience of being “there.” Of course, the tragedy is recreated in intensely real detail, but at a slight detachment. We see the trade towers only on the distant horizon or video screens in the background. Mostly, up close, we see the faces of the people whose job it was to get us through it - through it meaning to manage the nearly 5000 other aircraft with probably half a million people and get them back on the ground safely. We see their confusion, their horror, their fears and longings. We see men and women in the military, the ATC controllers and managers who work through that horror to do their job. And finally we see the men and women on United 93 as they realize their fate and finally take measures to control their now inevitable destiny.

United 93 is a great and tragic movie. As horrific as are the events portrayed, I think this is a movie every adult should see. It is not meant to entertain so much as to provoke thought, discussion, dialog.

But I also had the distinct experience of seeing the “bones” of United 93, the underlying structure of the film. I didn’t take notes on which events occured at the passing of each interval, but I felt I was watching a well masked skeleton composed of Syd Field’s popular manuals on how to make a movie. The plane was on the ground just long enough to reach a key plot point, the other planes hit the towers and just the right moment, the passengers decide to act at just the right time. Every time I thought it was time for a plot point, I was given one. Surprisingly, United 93 does a better job than most movies of making those plot points seem real and driven by the plot. It’s just that I’m not busy rooting for the “hero” of the story - as one did not exist. There were many people who overcame fear to do heroic things, but there was no Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford or Signourney Weaver to root for. There was no witty and insightfull dialog, no love interest nursing handicapped children in the background, no narrator except for the occassional subtitle. In the absense of “ploty” distractions, the bones show through. But I was fine with that. This was, in tone and essence, a documentary of what seemed to have happened. A well edited documentary that was supplied footage from all the key locations, and it was edited so as to allow us to approach a very emotional subject in a way in which we can each control the depth of our emotional response. United 98 is respectfull of its subject, the sensitivities of the families of the victims, and of its audience. Go see it. Steel yourself for an emotional experience and go see it. You need it and it needs you.

Ebertfest Day 5 (Sunday)

The Last Day...

So the last day of the festival arrives and I came close to missing it - not from leaving early but from oversleeping. Between the after-festival party last night and staying up to write my post for Saturday and then the middle of the night party-animals at the hotel yelling back and forth and pounding on doors... it took a while for me to get to sleep. I awoke at 10:55am. The final movie starts at 12 noon.

I make it in time, no breakfast or lunch or brunch on the way. (I wish they served lunch in the Green room this last day, but alas...)

Today’s only movie is titled “U-Carmen eKhayelitsha.” It is film production of the classic opera “Carmen” by Bizet. BUT here it is set in a sprawling ghetto of immense poverty, eKhayelitsha, near Cape Town, South Africa. And the opera is sung entirely in the local language called “Xhosa.” Roger joked that someone in the lobby asked him if the opera would be in a foreign language, to which the only answer is “every time I’ve seen it, Carmen has been in a foreign language.” The storyline of the opera is altered to fit the location and circumstances of the ghetto - including drug smuglling, shaman fortune telling and gang activity. Pauline Malefane portrays Carmen. I have never seen a production of Carmen, though almost everyone would recognize a handfull of the songs.

Pauline Malefane and the director, Mark Dornford-May, were present at Eberfest. I don’t like the story line of Carmen, it’s really pretty cheesey and “melodramatic” (though I’m not sure that is acceptable as a description of Opera, which is the epitome of melodrama and wears that as a badge of distinction). But I must say that this is a spectacular production. The way the story is told fits so well in the ghetto that you would believe it’s origins to have been South Africa. Local dance and music added authenticity to the story. Pauline Malefane’s performance as Carmen was incredible. Smouldering, sexy, angry, aluring, conspiring, fighting, loving. She is a “full figured” gal, in the sense of being voluptuous, not fat. And her voice is electric and it was hard not to watch her face and listen to the emotional power in her voice.

The cast was often drawn from the local population. In fact, there is a subplot about a local boy having grown up to become an international Opera star and he is returning for a special performance for the people of eKhayelitsha in a run down gymnasium surrouned by razor wire. It is during this performance that we reach the climax of Carmen.

I you ever wish to introduce opera to poor, inner city high school kids, you can do no better than U-Carmen eKhayelitsha. Many of the kids, regardless of race, will see themselves in this electrifying performance. The social interactions and many of the settings will seem familiar, but the signing will astound them.

Summary,

I didn’t stick around to hear the post movie discussions with Pauline Malefane and Mark Dornford-May. I would have loved to stay, but the road was calling. The cold wind outside the theatered was howling and rain was emminent, so I thought it best to gas up the car and get on the road.

This was a great year at Ebertfest. I met some wonderfull people. I had some great conversations. I saw some truly great films that will stay with me forever. The previous two years I found one film each time that I felt was special, that I knew I had to make sure other saw them. The 2004 film that most moved me was “Tully” and for 2005 it was “Yesterday.” I feel a little guilty about making a choice this year. The smaller indy films including Man Push Cart, Duane Hopwood, Somebodies and Claire Dolan are all great movies in their own regard, but my criteria is simple: the movie had to move me by showing me something new, something that strikes a nerve, and emotional response. With that in mind, and almost since the moment the credits started, I felt that it had to be Man Push Cart. I hope you will all find a chance to watch it - all the others too, of course - but at least this one.

A few people I have not mentioned but need to be added to the name-dropping section: Mary Susan Britt, one of the principal organizers of Ebertfest. I think I will always think of her as a dear friend. I enjoyed many brief exchanges this year (and previous years). She takes time away from her family to make sure this is a success and does a wonderfull job. Nancy Casey is the executive producter of the festival. We talked during a couple of dinners and she introduced me to several cousins who were visiting and I really enjoyed talking with them (if you guys read this - good luck on the birthday video!). David Bordwell, who’s books on the history of cinema are highly praised by Roger and others, I enjoyed talking with him and pledged to buy a couple of his books. He has a historical command of the movies that is awe inspiring. I had a long conversation with his wife (I hope I remember her name correctly), Kristin (or Christian?) Thomas, who is writing a book about the phenomena that has grown up around the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. It will be a “popular” book but with serious discussion about the many aspect of the fan base - from gaming to web sites to movie fanatics, etc. It’s due out next spring.

I’m already planning my next trip. Eberfest is a blast - a wonderfull experience for any movie fan, but especially for those of us who are big fans of the creative and powerfull storytelling that movies provide like no other medium. Now it’s back to busy work-a-day life in Hinstville and regular movie reviews. Next up: “United 93.”

Eberfest Day 4 (Saturday)

Ebertfest Day 4 (Saturday)

It’s been an incredibly long day. I am writing this at 2:30 am Sunday. The day started at 9:00 am Saturday. Given an 8am wakeup call (by which I mean alarm on my watch - this place long abandoned by fleas charges $10 extra to activate the phone, so no wake up calls) that means an 18.5 hr day.

Michael Weise gave a seminar this morning on Indy Film Making from his personal experience - mostly it was a 2.5 hr autobiography complete with video clips. The more I have come to know him, the more impressed I am, He showed part of his first film, which was so bizarre that only a mad genious such as Salvidor Dali could champion it. Made with friends in San Fran, Michael carried the film to NYC and stood outside Dali’s hotel for 3 days, till he finally caught the elusive artist. Dali loved it and arranged a premiere showing in NYC with celebrities such as Masters and Johnson - the sex researchers - and Andy Warhol and his posse. Then Michael showed about a third of his infamous “Hardware Wars” parody of Star Wars. I haven’t seen it in many many years, but it’s still hysterical.

Michael came upon a crowd surrouding a beached dolphin one day and it so moved him that he worked to raise funds and then produced a video about interspecies communication. A guy playing a portable waterproof keyboard under water to a pod of dolphins. One of his friends in that video is still following that same pod. Michael plans to make a new documentary that incorporates that old footage (if you are over 30 you probably saw it on PBS years ago). I’ll skip the next many years, to the present, he is making a documentary about sacred places in Tibet. He traveled with a couple of friends and used only a hand held 3-chip mini-DV camera, capturing 20 hrs of footage. This new documentary will be out next fall. He’s also nearing the start of a dramatic presentation to be set in Bali, one of his favorite places.

Now to the movies... but first I have to say that one of the benefits of being a sponsor is not just access to the “Green Room” where the festival guests come to talk and relax, but also to enjoy the meals prepared by a local caterer. This is great food.

This first film of the day was “Millions.” This is the only film that I skipped. I have seen it twice recently so... But I’ll say it is a good family movie. You may, as I did, have some trouble adapting to the British accents of the two boys in the film, but it’s well worth the effort.

Next film, shocking transition, was “Claire Dolan” about a prostitute in NYC. Starring Katrin Cartlidge in one of a handfull of brilliant performances before her tragic death. Also staring Vincent D’Onofrio in what I think is his best performance. And Colme Meaney in one of those roles that only he can play (he was grotesquely undercast in his Star Trek DS9 role - but even actors have to pay the mortgage). Writer and director, Lodge Kerrigan was present and interviewed after the film. The problem with describing this movie is that anything I write can only do a disservice to this movie. It’s like an American recreation of French New Wave movies. It is an unblinking, unflinching look into the life of a mid-level call girl. It is graphic and intense. Yet it doesn’t judge or tell us what to think, it simply presents. And in doing so, it is compelling.

Next up: “Junebug” Whenever you hear of a movie about someone from the big city coming south to meet the family, you just clinch your jaws and steel yourself for the usual Dukes of Hazzards stereotypes. And some of those stereotypes are based on some elements of truth, but the honesty is drained from them by the time they get to screen. Junebug looked like it could have gone in that direction, but then did the other thing. It took some of those small town stereotypes and made them seem like people I have known and loved for many, many years. And the city slickers were hardly perfect and not even judgemental. There are two secrets to this movie: the director and the cast. A single change to either and Junebug could not have happened. The director is a quiet young man named Phil Morrison. He grew up in the south - Winston-Salem. Yet his stint abroad - NYC film school, that is - provides him with observational powers that are keen yet loving, analytically precise yet emotionally true. Scott Wilson, one of those hollywood gems that never got overly polished and so has always been treasured, was present at Ebertfest. He protrays the quiet, seemingly dullard of a father whom we come to see as perhaps a simple man, but one who who loves his family and works to be the fulcrum around which the rest can revolve safely. Amy Adams, of course, was the oscar nominee and deservedly so. If I had time, I’d write about each of the cast members as they were so perfectly cast and gave such great performances.

Phil admitted that one of the most common criticisms of Junebug is that the role of Johnny (played by Benjamine McKenzie), the son who returns home with his new wife, is not really the focus of the movie, nor do we see the rest of the family through his eyes. Phil commented that he really made a deliberate choice to do that. his reasoning being that he honestly expected only a smaller art house audience in places like NYC and Johnny is the guy they would empathize with. He would be their entry into this strange southern family and Phil did not want to give them that anchor. He wanted these art-film afficionadoes to come to meet new people and learn about someone with whom they are not familiar. I think that effort work, paid off in good measure. But we also learned that the two biggest NYC film critics who screened Junebug at a film festival, hated it. Word got around the festival and scared away some of the distribution companies, leaving only Sony Pictures Classics to pick up the ball and run with it. The head of Sony Pictures Classics was here and on-stage. When I hear people talk about how the big studies set up these “Indy” arms that are really just “Hollywood” movie producers claining Indy status, I’ll forever remember this movie and the fact that Sony Pictures Classics believed in it and made sure the rest of us get a chance to see it.

The final movie of the night was Terry Zwigoff’s personal cut of “Bad Santa.” When introducing the movie, Roger didn’t remember if Terry called it Badder Santa or even Worse Santa or what. Terry, sitting in the audience, called out “Better Santa.” It is certainly a tighter cut, with better focus on Billy Bob Thornton’s portrayal as the bad santa. If you liked the theatrical release and are really into film, you’ll like this one better. But there is one scene that grew a little too much, the final scene of Bernie Mac’s character. I was sitting next to Michael Weise this evening and he said that scene just lost him - that it went too far. I am tempted to agree, but I wondered if we were influenced in that thinking by a line spoken in Malovich’s portrayal of Tom Ripley.

The “print” of “Better Santa” was absolutely spectacular. I commented on it to my neighbors within minutes of the start of the movie. Roger even brought it up during the Q&A. Turns out, this was not a pristine 35mm print. This was digital. I talked to Robert Hoffman, the film’s editor, and he said it was HDCAM mastered from their D-5 originals rendered in 24P. This was an incredibly clear and beautiful projected image. I hope to discover what projector they used for this, as it was incredible. Roger is not a big fan of going digital, but since he saw the difference, he may have to rethink that.

The post movie Q&A session lasted till after 1:30 am. After missing it for the previous two years, I decided I absolutely had to go to the “post festival” party for sponsors and guests. It is hosted by a Betsy Hendrick, a local film enthusiast, and starts after midnight. I am told it usually goes to 4 or 4:30 in the morning. It was a really nice affair complete with a pianist, an open bar and H’orderves and a crowd of 50 to 70 people. It was a chance to say goodbye to some of the movie makers and cast members and say one more time: Thanks for being so willing to make movies that are new and unique and Thanks for being kind enough to share your visions and your energy with those of us at this festival. And best wishes for the continued and increasing success of your future films. If you keep making them, I’ll keep coming to see them.

One film left - Sunday noon. I hope I wake up.

Don

Ebertfest Day 3 (Friday)

Ebertfest Day 3

The festival is wearing me out. I was invited to join the crowd at Steak and Shake last night - apparently 20 people stayed there till way too late. I was too tired and went back to Flea-Rejected hotel to sleep and promptly overslept, missing Roger’s early morning interview and booksigning. (I wish I knew his secret - Roger can talk film till dawn and still be up for his festival activities with a razor sharp mind and impecablly timed sense of humor - he looks tired up close & off stage, but when he climbs those steps and sits next to a budding filmmaker, he comes to life). Tomorrow morning, Michael Weise gives a 2.5 hour seminar on Indy Film Making and his new documentary shot in Tibet. I hope I can make it in time. I’ll have only 6 hrs sleep tonight, but that’s an improvement.

Somebodies

“Somebodies” was written, directed and stars Hajii. A University of Georgia film student and protege of Nate Cohn, the festival director. Hajii is a very sharp young man with a keen sense of his own destiny. He introduces himself with throw away lines such as “I’m not being too sexy today, I toned it down for you.”

Somebodies started in Hajii’s mind as a tv show, but when no one was interested, of course it became a movie. He’s a big Seinfeld fan and drew inspiration from the way Seinfeld reacted to the wackiness of the characters around him. When asked by an audience member, his favorite comedy movie is Hollywood Shuffle. Somebodies has an episodic feel to it, but each skit leads logically to the next - structure is meerly it’s way of holding Hajii’s close and perceptive observations about human nature. It is funny without being meanspirited, and has a unique way of capturing the essence of real-life “characters” in ways that in lesser hands become stereotype, but here just seem true. The humor marches right up to the edge of offense and sometimes dwells there a few moments but never, IMHO, crosses the line.

He was accompanied by Kaira Whitehead, the female lead who provides a center for Hajii’s on screen world. Kaira is more sweet and delightfull in person than her character in the movie might suggest. She has a smile that draws you in and a simple elegance that will give Hale Berry and many other Hollywood actresses a run for their money one day. Hajii closed the interview by stating “Roger Ebert is a hip movie critic because he understand the brilliance of my work.”


The Eagle

Rudolph Valentino movies have never been high on my “to see” list, but The Eagle was a pleasant, though melodramatic, march back in time to 1925 in an adventure involving a rather horny Catherine the Great, and a Cossack soldier who rejects her pre-ratings board advances. He meets, falls in love with the daughter of the man who has schemed to ruin his family - revenge or love? And the Czarina wants him dead. Shown in a restored 35mm print, it was a vivid reminder that silent films can still have relevence. One short segment was rather fuzzy, a result the panelists afterward told us of times when film restorers are left with nothing but a 9.5mm transfer (which were sold for home viewing at one point) and that tiny frame gets blown up to the 35mm format.

The soundtrack for The Eagle was provided in a live performance by The Alloy Orchestra - 3 guys with instruments and junk for sound effects. They create new, but perfectly period, soundtracks for silent films and tour the country. Its a wonderfull performance. When Roger noted that they use an old bed pan in their repetroire, a member of the trio responded that it makes a perfect “tinkle.”

Ripley’s Game

I can’t say why, but I was afraid that I wouldn’t like Ripley’s Game. Maybe with exhaustion setting in I didn’t think I could handle the pschological violence of a movie about a sociopathic killer. But I was wrong. I could handle it - mostly because it was so perfectly delivered, so incredibly nuanced. The basic story you can read in Roger’s description of the film, but essentially, Tom Ripley, after being insulted by a neighbor, arranges for the man, who needs money, to be lured into commiting murder. Why? Because, he explains, that’s the way the game is played. At one point, Ripley is preparing to... well, do what he does, but first asks the neighbor to hold his watch. Why? Because,Ripley says, if it got damaged he’d have to kill everyone there. Coming from John Malovich, you believe it.

Ripley’s Game got lost in the financial gamble that led to New Line bankrolling Lord of The Rings. The story is convoluted, but that’s Hollywood. Ripley’s Game is a world class movie and Malkovich gives an Oscar caliber performance. In the post movie interview, we learn that Malkovich wrote virtually every line that Ripley speaks in the movie. And it flows so naturally from his lips that we audience members believe every word. We see what Tom Ripley is capable of doing, yet we still sympathize with his character, even when it shocks and revolts us. Malkovich described Ripley as a hollow shell, seeking ever for his own rebirth into something new. He can kill with no remorse yet seeks out beauty for the sake of being in its presence.

I have only a couple small bragging moments for today:
Roger Ebert was kind enough to stop for a moment during lunch for a photograph. And this evening, I spoke with Chaz Ebert, who when I told her than my best friend really enjoyed talking to her when he came up two years ago, she said “well let’s make your friend a little jealous.” then she hugged me and gave me a kiss on the cheek. Now that is something to brag about.

Ebertfest Day 2

After three different locations, I hope to have overcome the limitation on WiFi access. The very kind manager at the Illini Union, the campus center, provided access after hearing my tale of woe.

Today is hard to describe, but that’s what I’m here for. Started with a panel discussion this morning that was hosted by Roger Ebert with a panel of 10 or so guests. The excuse for the panel was to discuss the possibility that the film festival circuit may be in the process of evolving into it’s own dead end distribution deal. Each panelist was given a chance to discuss this topic but most spoke from their own film’s history, which as one might expect was mixed. John Malkovich was a member of the panel, which I mention only to note that was the only sighting of him today. His film comes up tomorrow night.

About John M, I’ll say that in both brief occasions of hearing him speak that he is quite reserved, shy even. I say that as a segue to discuss Marni Nixon. On the walk from the parking lot to the Virginia theater, she was kind enough to talk with me. I got around to asking her about my perception that despite all we hear of “Hollywood” types, everyone I meet here is incredibly nice. She allowed as how that was clearly the result of being hand picked by our host.

That theme was echoed throughout the day, with each guest and each film. Further discussions today included having lunch with two elderly gentlemen who have been students of Roger Ebert’s for many many years. (I actually think they said 40yrs). He teaches classes in film studies at least one term each year and these guys have been going forever and never seem to graduate! And also sign up as sponsors just to continue their education. Also at the table was Robin Christian, an independent filmmaker from Champaign, IL. I met him last year but just in passing. We got to talk a little more this year. He has a few films that he’s been searching for a buyer, and had been fortunate enough to work with name-brand talent. He also designs web sites and does video work for commercial clients. This includes having doen some work for NASA in Huntsville. I’ll have to check out his web site when I get time near the WiFi connection.

The afternoon movies included Man Push Cart and Duane Hopwood. Both are incredible. Neither seems likely to achieve public appeal. Man Push Cart was made by Ramin Bahrani, American born of Iranian parents. His heritage obviously influences his style, and he was in Iran making a film when 9/11 occurred. He attended a candlelight vigil held in sympathy for the tragedy that befell America, but was arrested a few days later and held in prison for 5 days under suspicion by the Iranian authorities. Of working in Iran he said that the Government censors fretted over everything in the script but the government of Iran is encouraging film making so money was not an issue, while in America money imposes its own form of censorship. During filming of Man Push Cart in NYC, the FBI came calling after someone called reporting suspicious foreigners filming in the subway. They had permits and all, and everyone was an American citizen, so it was all soon cleared up, but still... the Pakistani star of the film was carrying a 20lb propane tank and some electronics so you can just imagine how that was perceived.

Man Push Cart is about a man who pushes a cart - literally. A coffee & donut cart on the streets of New York. He’s Pakistani, a former celebrity, had a life and success, but came to America to be with the woman he loved. Except that she died. We’re not told how, only that her family still blames him and we realize he blames himself. Ramin Bahrani was inspired by the work of Camus. If you’ve read anything by Camus, you’ll understand. If you haven’t then you probably will find this movie depressing. Ramin said that he hoped his movie would somehow stick with you, that three days later maybe you’ll talk to the coffee vendor and just think of him or her as a little more human, a little less foreign. Ahmad Razvi portrays the Push Cart vendor with a simplicity and grace that is astounding for a man who never acted before, he once worked in a push cart and eventually owned his own restaurant. After 9/11 Ahmad became a community leader, working with immigrants from many middle eastern countries to overcome the hardship and suspicion directed against them. One young man stumbled into his restaurant with a severe knife wound to the abdomen, having been attacked by three men accusing him of being a terrorist. That young man makes a brief appearance in the film, obviously scared and yet also proud that he survived, the reality of that attack comes through in the film. Real people, real lives. It’s no wonder that many viewers thought Man Push Cart was a documentary. It feels real because it touches reality in ways that few movies can.

In the post movie interview, Director/writer, Ramin proves himself to be wise way beyond his years. He is so devoted to the craft of film making, so intent of finding a voice that is true and real in his films. He spoke with the eloquence and wisdom that astounded us all. I understand that the audio of that interview will be posted on the Eberfest web site. On Directing, Ramin said he doesn’t use the words Action and Cut, he said “’Action’ means the end of reality and the start of acting” where he wanted reality. Of films in general, he said “A film should end at the moment it reveals the most about life.” And so ended Man Push Cart - an end that was so very Camus and not at all depressing.

Next up came Duane Hopwood, starring David Schwimmer in an electrifying role as an alcoholic who refuses to see himself as such. The opening scene shows a happy family after dinner, then cuts to Duane sneaking out in the wee hours for a drink. Or two. Soon he’s divorced with only weekend visitation rights with his young daughters. After being stopped for a DUI with one daughter asleep in the back seat, his life begins to unravel. Still he doesn’t see it. We’re immediately reminded of Lost Weekend, of course, but Duane Hopwood looks and feels more real, less “hollywood.” We’re both drawn into the film and away from Schwimmer’s TV personna. I didn’t stick around to hear the commentary after this movie, Matt Mulhern, the writer/director was present and probably had a lot to say, but what the movie had to say was enough for me today. It struck a perfect note and no more was needed.

So off to dinner where I had a really good time sitting at a table with a young UofI doctoral student and would-be filmmaker (borrowed the pass to get in for dinner! I wish I remembered his name) and his lovely date, Sarah, who is a Special Ed major from Chicago. Michael Weise and Alan Dysert joined us, followed by two guys here as representatives from NetFlix (They gave me a NetFlix ball cap so they’re pretty good people in my eyes!)

The evening movie was “Spartan.” I did not see it when it was released in theaters and indeed it came and went too fast. With very poor box-office sales. The TV commercials made it look like a cheesy action adventure romp - the president’s daughter is kidnapped and action ensues to rescue her, etc. Seemed like too much of many other movies. But it’s not. The ads were misleading. Val Kilmer gives an electrifying performance as a secret service agent a la David Mamet. Fast paced, taut drama with the usual Mamet style - dialog at the speed of sound. As a member of the audience, your job is to keep up. And you are racing to keep pace. Spartan is a movie that respects it’s audience enough to challenge it.

Maybe that’s a good note to end today’s post (as it’s almost 1:30 am. Respect. All three of these movies really respect their audience. From the quiet stoicism of Man Push Cart to the heart rending self-realization of David Schwimmer's portrayal of alcoholism to the thinking man’s version of an action adventure film - none of these films talked down to their audience. All three were challenging and engaging. What a great day.

Don

Ebertfest Day 1

The biggest problem in Champaign-Urbana is finding a parking place close to the Virginia theater. Last year it rained just about every day - or seemed to. This year, first day, sunny and cool. But rather than talk about my hunt for parking, I’ll mention the party.

This is my first time to attend the opening gala held at the home of the President White of the University of Illinois. I met him and his wife last year, shortly after their arrival as the new President of this great university. I spoke with Mrs. White today as I arrived. There must be a couple hundred sponsors and representative and most come for the party. I didn’t get to meet any “celebrities” per se, though John Malkovich was present. Such celebs are kept busy and I didn’t want to intrude.

I did get to say hello to Michael Weise. (I’m pretty sure he didn’t recall meeting me two years ago...but that’s really pretty understandable.) His publishing company MWP publishes a book on film making for teenagers. We talked about that, the Filmmaker’s Workshop for Kids and I flat out told him I’d buy his book and if I don’t like it I’ll be contacting him with my own book proposal. I told about some good press he got at Filmmaking Central podcast and he was interested enough to ask for contact info so he can call and say thanks.

Others I met today included Alan Dysert from Nashville. He’s an Indy movie producer and teacher. I got his phone number to follow up when I get home. We may be able to get him to give a talk about his work. I Met Robert and Cathy Baird. Robert is the University coordinator for Instructional Development and Educational Technologies. He was genuinely interested in our workshop for kids and we’re going to talk more. Cathy is an accountant for United Way - my mom was a bookkeeper for United Way for many years.

When I finally arrived at the Virginia Theater, I was glad to see Jim Emerson. We talked a bit, catching up, then I went to find a seat. I was happy when Robert and Cathy sat on one side of me. The seat of the other side had a coat drapped over it. Then comes Jim to claim that seat. Well, remember that I mentioned we seem to like sitting about the same distance from the screen.

No celebs, but ... Two people to look out for. Roger has championed a film made in Atlanta under the watchfull eye of Nate Cohn, who directs Ebertfest but is in teh Film Studies Dept at the University fo Georgia. Nate encouraged a local film maker and former student named Hadjii and the results is “Somebodies” - a big favorite at Sundance. Hadjii, writer, director & actor, and Kaira Whitehead, actor, are here and I got to talk with them. Hadjii has a very dry sense of humor, while Kaira is a delightfull person, very upbeat and warm hearted. If we can arrange it, I’d really like to get both of them to come to Huntsville with their film. I hope to talk to Nate Kohn about that possibility, as Hajii suggested that would be the best approach. Nate is here with his wife Pamela, a producer in her own right, having worked in Europe, Africa and America. If I get a chance, I’ll talk to her about the African film series that the Co-op is co-sponsoring with A&M.

The evening program was a 70mm restored print of My Fair Lady - the movie isn’t overlooked, but the format certainly is. It’s hard to describe the experience of seeing a true 70mm print shown on a 50ft wide screen. And My Fair Lady was as fresh tonight as the day it was released. The “Overlooked” name also applied to Marni Nixon, whose voice you hear coming from the lips of Audrey Hepburn in the movie (also West Side Story and The King and I). What an interesting lady. At the conclusion of Roger’s interview, she actually sang acapella “Wouldn’t it be Loverly” She got two standing ovations and deserved them both. Working in annonymity and without complaint, she became the unsung hero of American Musical Theater.

I don’t know how reliably I’ll be able to post. WiFi access is not as easy as last year - when the flea bag motel I stayed is provided it. This year the fleas don’t stay at this hotel, it’s so bad - no cable, they charge $10 per day to turn on your phone, and clean as a parking lot...

I tried the Starbucks near campus but their’s was only a subsriber T’Mobile access. Dumb.

In the morning I go looking for access. Maybe the parking lot from last year’s hotel? We’ll see.

Thank You for Smoking

Of all the things that will kill you, smoking is… one of them.  Vermont cheddar is, apparently, another.  And the list is endless.  So why bother to pick out this one little issue - smoking - for special scorn?  In fact, if only we can get movie stars playing good guys to smoke on screen... 

I don't think "Thank You for Smoking" is actually about smoking.  That's one of those writerly choices about "milieu" or setting.  I think this movie is really about how some people can make a living arguing for a cause that they only casually believe in or care about.  It's about making money representing your client.  It's about obfuscation and moral indifference carried to the bottom line.  "If you argue correctly you are never wrong" says Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart - In The Company of Men) to his son Joey (Cameron Bright - Running Scared, Birth, Godsend ).  Indeed Naylor is a founding member of the MOD Squad - the Merchants of Death - a weekly luncheon by a trio of lobbyists representing the big three: Guns, Alcohol and Tobacco.  Even when the subject turns to cell phones causing brain tumors - well, there's room at the table.

"Thank You for Smoking" takes a humorous spin on cynicism.  It argues that the "flexible morals" of lobbyists may serve their clients well, but not the rest of us.  Serious stuff for a comedy.  Cynical?  Yes.  But only in the sense that it presents it's protagonist as someone who is able to shunt aside his own cynicism or doubt in order to play the game - a game in which he considers himself an expert.  Aaron Eckhart strikes the right notes as someone who knows the game, is a master of it, yet he shows us that behind the bravado is a glimmer of regret.  That it works as a comedy, without getting too dark, is amazing.

"Thank You for Smoking" is a comedy that I am glad I saw, that I believe respects its audience, presents serious matters in a humorous way. "The Benchwarmers" which I reviewed last week, is a truly cynical piece of work, having little respect for its audience or its subject matter, and plays all laughs cheaply.  Yes, I confess I laughed more at Benchwarmers, but it is forgettable laughter at forgettable jokes. Sometimes we all need that escapist humor, like watching a Benny Hill episode again.  "Thank You for Smoking" is a comedy that confronts the real world rather than escaping from it. Helps us to laugh at things that would otherwise turn us cynical.  For that, I give it a hearty endorsement.

People I know

April 26 to 30 I’ll be staying in the flea-baggiest (well cheapest) hotel I can find in the sleepy Mayberry-esque college town of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.  This is my third vacation to lovely Champaign-Urbana and I love the place.  I plan to make it a permanent fixture of my spring rituals - vacation in Champaign-Urbana.  Hot Spot.

But why do I vacation there? What can I tell you about this wonderful secret vacation hotspot?  Not a thing.  Not a thing.

It seems like a really swell place, great University of course, and I know they have Steak & Shake restaurants there.  I even ate at one last year, on a recommendation from Roger Ebert, world famous movie critic of the Chicago Sun-Times.  Oh yeah, he recommended it to me and fifteen hundred other visitors at the famous and beautifully restored Virginia Theater, a jewel of the midwest.  Rog... I like to call him Rog... is a big Steak & Shake fan. 

I don’t call him Rog to his face, or anywhere actually.  But I have managed to shake hands and say how much I enjoyed his annual Overlooked Film Festival.  And I’m going again and will be happy as can be when I get to shake hands once again and tell him how great it all is.  Am I a sycophant or what?

And I hope to shake hands and maybe converse with a few notable guests of the festival.  I look forward to seeing Jim Emerson again.  He’s a great guy, outgoing and opinionated, friendly to a fault.  And he runs Roger Ebert’s web site.   I very much enjoyed several conversations with Jim.  We both like to sit about the same distance from the screen.  (Roger sits in the back, BTW)

Name dropping.  While I’m at it.  Two years ago, one guy conversing with Jim and I was Michael Weise.  He’s one of those fast talking Hollywood producer types whom you just know came out of the Bronx.  Oh, you don’t remember him?  He was one of the makers of the legendary Star Wars “tribute” known as “Hardware Wars.”  He now runs his own publishing company selling how-to books to amateur and professional moviemakers the world over.  He was scheduled last year, but had to cancel at the last minute.  He’s scheduled to appear again this year and host a seminar on Indy movie making.  And you are wrong about that Bronx thing.  He’s a native of Champaign-Urbana and despite being a fast talking Hollywood type, he loves talking about movies and was great to talk with.

My biggest bragging moment, for those who know me, was getting to meet John Sayles and Maggie Renzi last year.  If I have an idol...  They are both more interested in the integrity of their work and their independence than in celebrity or the money.  And to meet them, they could be the activist liberals down the street.

But I had a real surprise last year.  One movie was so moving, sad, poignant, hopeful and tragic, frightening but filled with love.  That movie is called “Yesterday” and you better watch it.  It’s director, I’d like to report is a quiet, unassuming South African.  But he’s actually a very ebullient unassuming South African named Darrell Roodt.  He’s was as excited to be there as anyone.  Totally the opposite of the character of his movie.  I made a point of telling him how beautiful his movie “Yesterday”  is. (He didn’t have a US distributor yet, HBO finally picked it up and it has been showing lately - but I say Buy It! I bought a bunch of copies to give to friends.)  Darrell also directed Serafina and Cry the Beloved Country.  With those credentials, unassuming was not a requirement.

The previous year, unassuming and quiet applied to Daniel Algrant.  Not a well known name, but his movie “People I Know” starring Al Pacino was a fascinating and complex look at the underbelly of New York City social networking.  Unfortunately for Daniel, the movie came out too soon after 9/11 and got buried by those whose sensitivities were potentially offended by its subject.  Yet it’s a great film.  My first day at the festival, we grabbed seats at one of the large tables in the Green Room and introduced ourselve to our fellow dinners. Daniel and Bobby Zarem, the well know NYC publicist upon whom the story is based - though Pacino looks nothing like Zarem and his fate in the movie was thankfully fictional.

And one last... Erol Morris.  Director of the fantastic documentary “Fog of War.” He was at the festival with one of Roger Ebert’s favorite movies “Gates of Heaven.”  Disproving your sycophant accusation about me and Rog... er, Mr. Ebert (and even Mr. Morris) I hated “Gates of Heaven.”  But that’s another post.  Despite that, Erol Morris was another quiet and unassuming type!  (Where are those obnoxious Hollywood types we keep hearing about?)  When I got the chance to tell him how much I like “Fog of War,” he seemed surprised to hear it. (It was only the Winner of the Best Doc of the year at the Oscars - but he was still surprised!)  And when I told him about working in Huntsville, he expressed a keen desire to have fellow denizens of our beloved missile city, USA see Fog of War.  I have loaned it to several friends adn acquaintences.

So much for dropping names.  You may not be impressed by some of these, but you should be.  Not because I was lucky to meet them, but because these are people with real voices in their movies.  People with heart and intellect. Seeing movies is great, but meeting people for whom it is a love and passion and life and who are willing to share that with the rest of us... That’s what makes Ebertfest great.

I can’t wait.