Saturday, May 18, 2013

upstream color



Mealworms are birthed beneath the soil of a plant that gives off a purplish residue on the top of their green leaves. After they are placed on a sieve you can pour liquid on over them (like Absinth) to trigger the effects, which apparently includes a puppet/puppeteer reflexive motion within the parties involved. It’s almost like a form of hypnosis, but one that allows one person’s mobility to sync up with another’s. It’s almost as if this chemical connects one human’s motion responses involuntarily to another’s. This leads the innovator, or discoverer, to knock a woman out and force her to ingest one of the mealworms. From here he plays games with her, bending her reality to the point in which she is completely under her control. She writes him checks because he has convinced her that men have taken her mother and demanded a ransom. He is her Murder Legendre, she has fallen deep under his hex.

It’s clear that Shane Carruth is a smart guy, a very smart guy. I hesitate to say that his wit works to his disadvantage because that can just as easily be construed to mean that I would prefer to think and learn less when watching a film. I had to beg my brain to hang on tight and somehow still try to be absorbed in UPSTREAM COLOR’s rhythms, atmosphere, and hues. The film looks crisp but lacks a distinct visual stamp (the editing style brought Soderbourgh to mind, does that makes sense?), though I’m questioning myself here thanks to some primordial shots of mealworms crawling through innards, or microscopic organisms scurrying through a glass of liquor. But these are ideas first, brought to life by a director who leapt stylistically in his sophomore effort. Watching the worms do their thing brought to mind those moments when you yawn and stretch to no relief, it’s like you need to pop joints or break bones but your body lacks the elasticity.

The fear of organisms crawling beneath my skin has kept me paranoid since I can remember. It probably started with ALIEN, somehow I was convinced that the noodles Hurt was eating were responsible for what came directly after. Cronenberg wouldn’t have had to work hard to freak me out, my body was a horror film before I ever encountered him. Anyway, the kidnapped woman attempts to remove the worms herself (via cutting herself up) to no avail, she ends up with an ostensibly omnipresent man who happens to have a pig strapped to a table and convinces him to give the pig a worm transfusion. Somehow this works.

I guess you could break it down this way, a woman is drugged and manipulated. She is under a spell that causes her to do things against her will. She awakens, the remnants of this forced pill to swallow dwelling within her and attempts to mutilate herself in order to remove them. She reenters the world a different person, a scarred one and almost immediately gravitates towards another just like her. He’s a former addict, a man whose slow transformation caused his divorce. After they have sex the camera shows some footsy, revealing identical marks on the lover’s ankles. It appears their union was inescapable.

It also appears that he has some skeletons hiding away in his closet. He says that he was careful not to lie but recklessly omitted certain things about himself. He should be in jail but his bosses covered for him. This act of mercy comes with a minor price, glares and stares that she doesn’t send his way…. yet. The editing style here avoids being caught up in a moment, always cutting away and constantly moving. Altman’s camera was constantly moving in THE LONG GOODBYE but it at least stayed in the scene at hand, making the interactions all the more crucial to the story. As persistent as this technique is, I think it adds a bit to the stupefaction these characters are experiencing. They too are unable to be completely present, and words are just words. Even actions seem to mean very little to them.

It’s clear that the pigs are surrogates for the humans, a fact made literal when she announces she might be pregnant. The scene cuts to our god farmer, who has just found out that one of his pigs (I’m guessing the one who took a worm for the team) is also expecting (though we find it’s something else altogether in her case). The film plays around with these juxtapositions, clean people with immaculate clothing and rooms cut to pig pen with mud and slop. Or how about the scene where the couple drinks wine at a diner while eating burgers that apparently aren’t that good?

Identities begin to amalgamate. Who is the grackle and who is the starling? A bag of dead piglets sends a blue liquid upstream, changing the white pedals blue. Deceptive beauty? Or does all beauty come from something evil? Kill god as an act of civil disobedience. Become him. Witness the intermittent spring. You have more lives to live, don’t spare anymore time for this one, leave the forest. The final shot of this film is equal to Kiarostami’s. It punches just as hard. Carruth can now be reckoned with.

PS, I dug the score, a sullen rush and roar.

Friday, May 17, 2013

responses!

Wow you dudes watch a lot of television!

I have seen THE LEAGUE, at least a few episodes and I’m mostly onboard with John and Chris here. But I’m not sure I’m sick of adolescent adult male comedies, just ones without imagination or even tatters of incite. I’m not saying this show can be filed under in this category but the episodes I saw were forgettable to say the least.

GAME OF THRONES continues to improve for me, even if it has lacked big moments thus far this season. I tend to enjoy the quieter episodes, being mostly a fan of the characters and their interactions. I like how almost everyone has convinced us of their humanity, even after some heinous actions. This show is only a few paces behind BREAKING BAD for me. It might lap it eventually.

Other than that, I’m not really equipped to comment on T.V. I remain a MOVIE GUY!!!!!

I’m really happy to see that Chris enjoyed THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE so much. It’s one of those films that I had no idea of before I saw it. I didn’t go hunting around to see if critics dug it, I hadn’t read anything about it, I just dug the name. I wrote a long post about it a long time ago. I’ll try n dig that up. It’s definitely one of my “essentials.”

UNFORGIVEN is a film I’ve loved for years though I haven’t taken the time to revisit it with a fresh perspective. That being said, I think you’re crazy Chris.

I was hoping that SPRING BREAKERS would provide more conversations/arguments. John and I have hashed out our feelings on Korine for years now and this is the first film that I actually loved of his. Though I admit that as time has passed I have felt more ambivalent about its moral qualities, perhaps admitting that the style here really had me entranced. Perhaps that was the case and I don’t think that makes it any less of a great film. I didn’t get to respond to Jeff’s comments about the audience we shared the theater with….. HOLY SHIT! It hit me recently that this was borderline surreal, watching a film about brain dead nihilist youth gone wild with brain dead nihilist youth gone wild. Maybe we can get resurrect this debate sometime. I’d love to be on the ropes getting beaten up by a Korine apologist, a grumpy substitute teacher with predictable taste, and a smarmy overall great dude (that’s you Chris ;)) ps, winks all around on that last sentence just in case anyone wanted to get offended.

Is it weird that I’m happy you hate THE MAGNFICENT AMBERSONS? I like that kind of irreverent honest opinion. We need more of it in FILM CLUB.

L’AVENTURA is boring. There, this is my contribution.

I think we are all in the same boat on PLACE BEYOND THE PINES. The contrivances were too much and it collapsed under the film’s soi-disant weight. I’m not sure I’m excited to see the next film by this director.

John, it’s weird but suddenly I’m kind of excited to see the new OZ film.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

picking up some speed

I’ve been having trouble writing anything lately. I’ve also had trouble watching much of anything. I gave up on Ben and I’s GIRLS discussion (I’m sorry man), I barely caught up on GAME OF THRONES, and have started several movies on Netflix without finishing them. I have excuses (baby, family, band) but I’m not going to bother. It is summer time and I usually slow down a bit during the season. But no worries, we’ll keep it going.

I have been trying to watch some Altman this month, a mistake considering that I can barely pay attention to Walter Hill’s 48 HRS or even Danny Boyle’s TRAINSPOTTING. I checked out THE LONG GOODBYE for the first time while sick in bed, a nice parallel considering that this was Altman’s take on Marlowe awaking from a long slumber suddenly in the early 70s, wondering what has happened to the world around him. It’s a film that ends with him losing his own sense of code, playing the game and losing or winning depending on your own interpretation. POPEYE deals with a similar character stumbling on a strange new world, an outsider returning home. I love the first film and like the second quite a bit, though I don’t really blame anyone for writing the latter off for obvious reasons (there is something eerily familiar about early 80s musicals, almost creepy).

Altman wasn’t eager to reinforce the classical Hollywood narrative structure; at least it didn’t seem that way at the time. It is interesting to note that POPEYE existed after the advent of the new popular classicist movement (if it was a movement), a time that many bemoan as the death of the 70s revolution. Altman had to work within a system that expected him to evolve and, to a certain extent, compromise. The fact that the hero’s in these films are dropped into a new world with unfamiliar ethics and ideals might reflect the director’s own transition from Kansas City to Hollywood. You suspect that his films are incredibly personal and I think that’s why I like so many of them so much.

Other than those pictures I also got a chance to revisit THE UNTOUCHABLES, a film that works even with some glaring problems. De Palma’s virtuosity barely saves it, his spot the film reference doesn’t work as well here as in past films, and after this viewing I think I can safely retire it to the “we had a nice time but I don’t think I want to see you again” file. I think Costner is pretty weak in the lead, though it may have been a problem with Mamet’s script. I also didn’t much like courtroom finale, the silly rooftop sequence, and even the famous Potemkin riff.

I re-watched THIS IS 40 and had a more enthusiastically defiant response to the yelling and screaming. I guess Cheddar was right after all. Just as the film begins to find a rhythm it loses it with needless wailing and gnashing of teeth. The funny moments still worked, but they are sprinkled too lightly over this bloated film about wealthy people having to tighten the belt straps (meaning selling their huge house and moving into a place without an Olympic size pool). It was very hard for me to sympathize with their issues, even the damn guy in the “music industry.” There is no insight here, at least not for bum like me.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK however was a huge surprise. It was very similar to the aforementioned considering the blowouts and bad soundtrack. The real difference here, as far as I can tell, is the insistence on looking for the good in others and even forgiving someone their shortcomings as opposed to writing them off and using them as spittoon. This includes minor characters by the way; therefore we don’t mock people for their foreign accents nor do we judge even the bookie that has created much of the finale’s dramatic stakes. Even if it’s a little plain stylistically, or cliché, it stands head and shoulders above most of what constitutes as either romantic or funny. It’s one of those rare treats that resolves as expected, but only to better the outcome. Is it the beneficiary of being at the right place at the right time? I’m sure some of you will strongly disagree with me here.

TRANCE is a ball of rubber bands, but it has the quick Danny Boyle of old to remedy this. It’s not perfect, the payoff is a little weak in retrospect (especially the unearned “love story” that closes the film) but I thought the trip was pretty fun. The problem with films this opaque is the problem of writing oneself so deep that you feel the need to try and write your way out, hence the head scratching ending. As characters flip flop, perspectives change, and the central fracas becomes less fundamental TRANCE shifts in tone and importance, transitioning from a nifty heist thriller to something much heavier. I’m happy the film went where it initially went, I think the message here is important but I wonder how compelling it’ll actually be within knotty ruse. It’s certainly hard to juggle this stuff, and you have to hand it to Boyle for trying. Also, this felt to me like his most assured film visually since 28 DAYS LATER, ripe with striking imagery that you know must have been dreamed up well beforehand. It’s worth seeing if only to witness what will hopefully be a return to some of the director’s manic roots. PS a third viewing of TRAINSPOTTING had me smiling ear to ear. Is anyone else a big fan of that picture?

I guess I deserve all the punishment I received for renting the newest TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. The film opens by basically showing most of the pivotal moments from Hooper’s original, then proceeds to show what happened after the police were called. So the newest film opens about 30 minutes after Leatherface spins in circles waving his chainsaw in the orange sunset. From there we witness a mob kill the entire Sawyer clan minus—you guessed it—Jed, unless you count the baby that is stolen from the scene of “crime.” Skip ahead and baby Sawyer is invited to inherit her grandmother’s estate with you know who residing in the grubby basement. So basically the first third of this pointless film goes where every other shitty sequel (TC2 excluded) already went before, only with less logic and even more shameless dialogue. Then the ending tries to throw in a little sympathy for the guy who just sawed an innocent teen in half (while alive and perfect capable of feeling each tooth shred through his flesh and vital organs) after hanging him on a meat hook, it’s ok he’s her cousin guys! The ending sees law enforcement not only watch as Leatherface and his “cuz” (yes there is a line in which the actress slides the chainsaw towards Jed and says “do your thing cuz!”) kill the corrupt mayor via meat grinder. If the film had taken more time with this perplexing final act it might have actually gone somewhere, but as it stands it’s just another bottom of the barrel franchise cash cow that makes Bay’s TCM look like Hooper’s in comparison.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

the place beyond the pines



THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES is both “boldly sincere” and, at times, tragic in the sense that you can’t help but wonder what it could have been. Like virtually every other person who has seen and written about this movie, I think it blows its load within the first hour and then leaves us lying there in bed unsatisfied coping the aftermath. Like John, I was worried within the first couple of minutes of this film, specifically in the way it made Gosling so cautiously unruffled and badass. It just seemed like both the director and actor were so aware of the camera’s presence as well as the oh so calculated attempt to make the dudes in the audience want to go out and buy a Metallica shirt (and cut off the sleeves) and get a face tattoo. We impressionable movie fans would also want to buy a red leather jacket and learn how to do tricks with a switchblade. I love the actor as much as the next hipster but geez his demigod status has felt a little forced since DRIVE came out. As the film carried on it was nice to see this character’s swagger shattered at the sight of a baby boy.

Though PINES is about legacy, fate, and fatherhood it’s also about class struggle. Sadly this becomes one of the film’s most promising squandered contrivances due to an ending that somehow allows the fallen cop to become the political hero. It just didn’t seem all that plausible, and as many have pointed out it also felt trite. It’s not fair to the character; it’s not fair to the audience to tread down that familiar boring path. I don’t know if this will make sense to anyone here but that plotline felt like that of the series THE KILLING, a promising idea quickly reduced to boring cliché. The first act presents a nice dilemma, a tried and true plot device that rose to power in the mid-40s where post war soldiers got tangled in a dangerous web of economic desperation. Here we have a father who wants to provide for his family, this desire comes from a pure place but later his nature begins to get in the way of his intent. I am actually surprised that people were so taken with his plight, even after he bludgeons the film’s true hero with a wrench. This is a man carrying on a sad legacy, only realizing in his final moments what he should have done.

The first act works on some serious emotions, and to this viewer landed nearly every one. Gosling is good here, the best when he’s in the back of church looking on as his child is christened, crying as though this overwhelming and new feeling of love was just too much to take. Like John said, you immediately want him to be with his child and girlfriend forever. But as circumstance and jealousy begin to draw him away, he ignores even the most obvious advice to quit while he’s ahead, surrendering to impulse and anger. He isn’t as tough as he thinks he is, not as cool as we believe, he even screeches like Eli in THERE WILL BE BLOOD when he’s supposed to be scaring the patrons at the bank. At this point we know his fate and learn to accept it. The second act blends well with the first; a cop is forced to do the unthinkable in a fast situation. As much as I hate to admit it, I would have done the same thing. Bradley Cooper is an easy actor to dislike, he’s been on the chopping block for a while now, but he does a fine job here playing the role of a man dealing with the fallout of a tragic situation.

While this section of the film should have been a lot shorter and cut deeper, it still manages to set up the third act rather well. The corrupt cop trope (this is a film that suffers from needless side plots and half arcs) has one of the most devastating scenes in the film involving a sleeping baby. I found it one of the most vile and uncomfortable movie moments in recent history, even if nothing graphic or nasty happened. I even think the intro to Von Trier’s ANTICHRIST packed less of a punch. The idea of a corrupt protector of the peace taking a sleeping baby from its crib in order to steal the money beneath it (perhaps a chance at some future) is the type of scenario I expected from this director. He’s really good at creating these types of scenarios, the kind that aren’t necessarily vulgar but exude such a strong emotional urgency that you can’t help but be devastated. Sadly this scene merely sets up one of PINE’s most uninteresting developments, the rise of this cop to office. The most second most effective moment in the entire second act lends itself perfectly to the next. This “hero’s” action ripples and extends beyond him and the deceased, the impact of this event (regardless of blame) will leave a legacy of pain. The cop can’t look at his son without thinking about the child his victim left behind.

But from one overblown chapter we enter another, and director Derek Cianfrance begins to really lose his bearings. I liked how the two kids met and I liked how they were portrayed. At first I had high hopes about where the film might go. Ultimately it let me down pretty hard. I agree with Jeff that the film should have ended with Gosling’s son riding free through the tall trees, happy to have learned more about the man who created him and perhaps even thankful for the family he got in the reverberation of his death. But the film decides to swing for the fences, and finds out the hard way that less is more. The plot involving the gun, the son, and the kidnapping feels unworthy of what came before, even the stale stuff. The scene with Cooper being elected to office opens its mouth wide only to say nothing. The final scene with Bon Iver (yuck!) tries unsuccessfully to leave us with a cautiously optimistic ending but fails.

But what should it have done? I think the final act is crucial, I think we needed to see where these kids ended up. I guess I would have hoped that director of BLUE VALENTINE could have found a more satisfying conclusion. I think of the final scene in that previous feature where Gosling walks away from the only people he has ever loved as fireworks explode in the background and wonder why this film fizzled out. As John pointed out (btw both John and Jeff’s reviews are amazing!), Cianfrance knows how to explore the emotional space between people, but somehow he opted for something less personal and for that this feels like an often good but frivolous sophomore feature.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

takin shit seriously



ROOM 237 exists solely because Stanley Kubrick was the type of artist to be reckoned with. It’s not fanciful to believe that every frame was just approved by the director, meaning that it had a purpose and reason to look just so. This has led many fans and believers to inspect every picture on the wall and every word in frame (on t-shirts or on cans of food) for subtext, which is where we have our film. It’s about art fanaticism, specifically in regards to THE SHINING, Kubrick’s “horror” film (most of Kubrick’s films are horrific). While I’ve heard that many viewers simply scoff at the eccentricities and lame brained theories of the interviewees (all voices, no faces) I was actually quite impressed by their intelligence and dedication to their concepts. The problem with each and every person’s approach isn’t in their actual ideas but their belief that any Kubrick film can be contained within one idea. He didn’t seem that attached or dedicated to “making sense” and therefore didn’t seem too sold on the notion of making THE SHINING about one thing. For instance, there is certainly validity to the claim that it has elements of the American massacre of the Native American. There is validity in the claim that Jack could be the Minotaur while hunting Danny in the maze. In both cases there are certainly nuggets of evidence to authenticate a theory, but certainly not enough to imply that Kubrick was solely dedicated to one principle. Whenever I write something I don’t set out to make it about one idea or feeling, I don’t find life that simple.



If we are to trust that everything in Kubrick’s frame is deliberate then we best take each of Tarantino’s words just as seriously. In DJANGO UNCHAINED we are told that Siegfried mustn’t fear the dragon guarding the mountain, and we are also told that he must pass through the fires of hell because Broomhilda is worth it. The first half of this quest is then decidedly light in comparison to what the fires of hell conjure up. The first scene of the second act is like a scene out of the inferno, lit with dark reds, sweaty, bloody, and with weeping and gnashing of teeth. It’s also where Tarantino makes some atypical egregious artistic errors, starting with an awkward use of Rick Ross and continuing with other small slip ups. But while I admire and love the first half’s careful precision, I feel the real brio comes from these risks taken in the nauseating Candieland sequences. It gets dirty, real dirty. Remember, we are in hell after all. Flaws and all, I think I was wrong about DJANGO the first time around, most likely because I, like Jeff, read too much about it. I also had the highest of expectations (something Jeff and I texted about after we saw it) which were sunk before I even set eyes on this wonderful film. I still stand by many of my criticisms (to quote Jeff) but I overlooked and misjudged much of its magnitude.



If a second viewing of DJANGO illuminates the trouble with high expectations then TED must have exposed something about the opposite side of that coin. Like Chris, I openly despise FAMILY GUY for its rapid fire comedy, the type that unloads many rounds at a wide target, still managing to miss the mark most of the time. But TED isn’t really doing anything that hasn’t been done before, old boy must become man before girlfriend leaves him, putting strains on his relationship with his enabling best friend. Most males can relate to this type of humor, because we’ve been forced in one way or another to leave behind our adolescence. It’s kind of like a nostalgia thing, albeit an understandably annoying trend for those who never acted like complete morons whilst being an adult. The catch here is that his best friend happens to be a teddy bear, the result of a wish on Christmas night. There is something here, but it’s squandered at the altar of modern comedy spite. Fuck this new fad, it seems like it’s trying to cater to bullies in high school everywhere. Mark Wahlberg almost saves this thing, but I’m over this mean-spirited stuff, especially when it’s getting in the way of perfectly suitable Hollywood fluff. It’s mean in order to be mean, it doesn’t question itself, it just expects me to laugh at people for being foreign, gay, etc. I get, McFarlane is probably not a bad dude. He probably isn’t racist, homophobic, misogynist, or xenophobic but he’s got to be aware of his target audience. I’m not saying that he ought to be blamed for his fans, but it seems that this film isn’t really doing any non-white-non-hetero-non-Americans any favors. I’m sure some will laugh along, I’m sure some will find that this film reinforces their stupid points of view. I’d almost want someone to call me out for being overly sensitive; maybe I need a good scold.



Speaking of being morally sensitive to fault, LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF (whatever you do don’t call it L.A. Plays Itself), Thom Anderson studies the use of his city in cinema with a scornful eye. It’s the kind of great tetchy film essay that suggests that the amount of “disaster films” shot about the city would suggest that the entire world would like to see it melt into the ocean. With quotes like this “DOUBLE INDEMNITY and the Cain adaptations that followed convinced the world that Los Angeles is the world capital of adultery and murder,” (wrong sir) or “people who hate Los Angeles love POINT BLANK” (wrong again sir) you get the impression that he feels as though his town has been raped by Tinsel Town but that he also thinks of us “outsiders” the way Fox News watchers think of people practicing the Muslim faith, haters. It also goes to preposterously persistent lengths to point out egregious continuity errors in locations. For instance, if a crowd runs out the back door of a specific bowling alley to a parking lot, Anderson will literally gauge the mileage to point out how far away the two connected locations actually are and throw in a moral spanking for good measure. Like ROOM 237, it takes film as seriously as humanly possible, and I relate to that. Still, part of me wants to laugh; the other part admires the fastidious research or perhaps the encyclopedic knowledge of each building, street, store, etc. in the city. He obviously loves his town, and I think this film exists to right the wrongs, even if a big part of the thesis here hinges on the assumption that outsiders and tourists believe every lie fed to them by Hollywood. The best aspect here is the picture’s knowledge of film and the use of clips as well as its desire to teach us more about a city that has been painted a certain way through the same medium. The most interesting section for me was the architecture scenes, in which he looks at the characters inhabiting specific types of homes and jumps to the conclusion that these designs/decoration schemes will now be associated as the home of the world’s seedy transgressions. It’s the ultimate mis en scene movie’s movie, one I loved because it gave a shit, even if I can’t even pretend to. NOTE: this film is both too long and too exhaustive to be contained within a paragraph.



L.A. movies don’t get much better than THE LONG GOODBYE, Altman’s Rip Van Marlowe adaptation, where the beloved detective awakes from a big sleep in a strange time, the early 70s. It doesn’t take long for him to get mixed up with killers, adulterers, pigs, and other low lives. None of this happens before he goes on a doomed mission to find his cat a very specific brand of food. Penned by the great Leigh Brackett right before her death, it might just be my favorite Robert Altman film, though that’s a tall glass. You keep reading how this film attempts the “impossible” and “almost succeeds,” and while that angle works I think of it more as a film that simply wants to be that which did not exist at the time. I feel like I’ve heard Altman say more than once that he just wanted to see something he hadn’t seen. You get the sense that he was bored and took up the Gordardian advice to create rather than criticize (or is it to criticize via creation?). The final scene, an ode to THE THIRD MAN (the line of trees with the lone friend walking to a fallen friend), says it all. I lost my cap.

Friday, April 26, 2013

don't quiz on the electric fence



1. What are your top five Spielberg films (ranked)?

1. E.T. : I feel like I’ve been on a journey with this film. The first few times I saw it, back in the old 80s, I was terrified. It seriously kept me up at nights. I would break out the storybook, with the read along cassette, and sit in terror the entire time. It was like an endurance test for me. Then as I got much older the film became something much less threatening, much more powerful. It’s one of my all-time favorites now. I even have a talking doll with a mini-red hoodie.
2. Catch Me If You Can: I’m so happy to see this getting more attention now, if only to gloat at those who dared doubt my immaculate taste. Bow before me! Many Spielberg films fall apart at some point of the narrative, usually because he can’t stand the idea of leaving something on a negative note, but this one is probably the one that I consider perfect in its decisions.
3. Jaws: Another film that had a long lasting traumatizing effect on my psyche. Like millions of others I can’t go beyond my titties in the ocean. I’d also dare call it Hawksian once it switches gears and sends us out to sea with the trio of shark hunters. It’s a film that knows how to transition.
4. Jurassic Park:
5. A.I.: I can’t wait for this to be released on Blu Ray.

Note: I agree with John that THE LAST CRUSADE is incredible. I also adore MINORITY REPORT, SCHINDLER’S LIST, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, 90% of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, 90% of MUNICH, 90% of WAR OF THE WORLDS, the final 20 minutes of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and so on and so forth. I need to see ALWAYS, THE COLOR PURPLE, and EMPIRE OF THE SUN as well as revisit THE TERMINAL. Long live Spielberg!

2. Have you ever been convinced by a member of Film Club to change your mind about a movie (tell us about it)?
I’m not going to lie, the first time I met John I was fairly intimidated. First of all, he was my boss which added a new dimension of pressure to the situation. Second, he was immediately declaring his hatred for all things new (it was a phase he was going through at the time). When I came back from THE SAVAGES glowing he told me he was going to check it out. He came back disappointed, talking about how he was sick of films about rich liberal assholes. Honestly, I felt he had a point and pretty much just changed my opinion. Since then it’s happened several times with several members. I’m not really firm in my shoes and have a long list of insecurities from days in which religious zealots would browbeat me into submission. I get really easily intimidated. I need to just follow Captain Beefheart’s advice and grow some thicker skin.

3. What is your favorite sub-genre and why?

I guess I’m not really sure what I mean by sub-genre. I hate this question.

4. Do you enjoy violence in film and if so do you feel bad and if so why?

Yes, I was definitely baiting people here, hoping to spark a longer discussion about a subject that I find exciting to talk about. My answer however has to be yes and yes. Unlike the other answers I’ve read thus far, I don’t really care if the violence I’m watching is “just” or “unjust,” “righteous” or “unrighteous.” But that’s not necessarily true. I do get upset with films that seem sadistic towards the audience. Of course the reasons for “feeling bad” come from not wanting to be lumped in with a certain crowd. I don’t consider myself a violent person, though I’ve been in some stupid situations. Real world violence really bums me out in ways that I find hard to explain. I’m not naïve to the world around me, but I still managed to be shocked and appalled nearly every time I read or hear about the not so brave new world around me. That being said, I’ll be the first to admit that I am drawn to violent cinema and I’m not sure why.

5. Tell us about a few of your strangest theater going experiences.

Scream 2: guy in front of me leaned his chair back and draped his long ratty hair over the seat onto me legs. I was wearing shorts. Fucking gross.

Starship Troopers: A kid from my church was working the ticket stubs and told us that it was a sinful movie to see. This obviously didn’t deter us one bit.

The Evil Dead: Cinema Saver with a bunch of drunk dirty punkers.

Rush Hour: My brother and I were the only people in the theater so we started doing mock karate moves in the aisles.

The Sixth Sense: The time I realized that it would be ME burying me head in my wife’s arms.

6. Name 5 films that you have been eager to re-watch, perhaps even despite your tepid response some of them.

1. Julien Donkey Boy
2. The Terminal
3. Written in the Wind
4. 8 ½
5. The Devil’s Rejects

7. Name 5 films that you absolutely love or respect that you have no desire to see ever again (going against John’s Letterbox’d rating system).

1. The Master
2. Andrei Rublev
3. Yi Yi
4. The Evil Dead
5. Love Affair or the Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator

8. What are five films that you really want to see for the first time?
1. The Magician
2. The Phantom Carriage
3. Los Angeles Plays Itself
4. The Sacrifice
5. Southern Comfort

I could keep going with this. So many films I can’t wait to see.

9. Name 5 surprising “classic” popular films that you have not seen.

1. 12 Angry Men
2. The General
3. 3:10 to Yuma
4. Metropolis (I’ve seen much of it but haven’t officially sat down to it)
5. Pretty much anything from the 80s

10. Who are your top five directors of all time (hahahaha)?
FUCK! Hitchcock, Hawks, Kubrick, Renoir, Lang….. that was suck a fake list.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

new quiz

1. What are your top five Spielberg films (ranked)?
2. Have you ever been convinced by a member of Film Club to change your mind about a movie (tell us about it)?
3. What is your favorite sub-genre and why?
4. Do you enjoy violence in film and if so do you feel bad and if so why?
5. Tell us about a few of your strangest theater going experiences.
6. Name 5 films that you have been eager to re-watch, perhaps even despite your tepid response some of them.
7. Name 5 films that you absolutely love or respect that you have no desire to see ever again (going against John’s Letterbox’d rating system).
8. What are five films that you really want to see for the first time?
9. Name 5 surprising “classic” popular films that you have not seen.
10. Who are your top five directors of all time (hahahaha)?