Slebel

The whole double barrel end of the month movie blowout is going to be put off. I know I know I am violating my mission statement, and I will not offer up any excuses.

So for a later date look out for the cool movies double barrel that you deserve, when I have time to plan it. Yes I plan these things, kind of. You can tell the planned ones from the off the cuffs by the quality of work and of course the lack of proofreading. I will be honest I thought this whole movie month would be a breeze, I just had to talk about movies everyday. Turns out its way harder than it seems. For many I not only had trouble putting into words why they were good, but had to deliver a fleshed out article detailing the ins and outs of it. I failed miserbly on some of these and abandoned so many other movies in fear that I wouldnt do them justice in an article. Many of those actually ended up in the Haiku post.

Anywho, I needed a breath of fresh air and a nice quick post that had nothing to do with cinema, just for right now.

There is only one man who can guess from the subject line what this article is going to be about. But he would be wrong, but its not just about her, but rather a short bit on 365ing in general.

But she is a nice starting off point. Slebel is the user name of a 17 year old girl who lives somewhere in Washington state that fancies herself a photographer. Shane unearthed her pictures to illustrate a point that there was a sudden influx of cute girls with Nikon D40's on the explore feature on Flickr. It was upon viewing her photo stream did we see the full extent of her... I am going to stop.

It would be very unfair of me to rail on a girl that neither knows me or reads my blog. Besides who the fuck am I to have a say on her work? She is 17! And as Charlotte says in Lost in Translation "every girl goes through a photography phase at sometime in their lives". With every passing year boy do I realise that these words truly hold water, as Flickr has pages endless pages of proof. Slebel, her real name is Sarah Lebel, is just http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkbdP7sq0w8.

But why bring her up at all? I dont plan to pick on her, nor do I praise her. I bring her up because she is a great example of the do's and dont's of a 365. Thats right, this girl attempted a rather holy rite of passage that this very blog is struggling through. Read my mission statement (the first post) if you dont know what a 365 is. She, being a the youth she is has slacked off, made excuses, regurgitated old work, and just plain ignored her work.

No one expected her to truly commit to it, well at least me and $hane didnt. We cant attest to these other people who only seem to leave glowing comments on her photostream on how pretty and talented she is. Reading these of course depress me. How can anyone grow if you dont have someone lob a bomb at their work from time to time and crack the mold. She takes the same stupid pictures of herself over and over again.

She reminded me of another photographer I knew who went on a 365. His work was nothing more than contrived shit and myspace picture after myspace picture. He now lives up his own ass somewhere far from here, but I will never forget the day I opened my mouth and criticized his work. He gave me a cold stare, and told me I know didley shit about artistic expression.

Artistic expression my ass, ... thats another blog. Anyway, young Slebel continues on her path of taking photos when life isnt throwing her a curveball or when things arent so chaotic. And who I am I to judge, because I do the same shit. 365's are no picnic, hopefully I can live up to my promise.

I am...

Postponing till tommorow, or my end of the month favorite movie blowout!!!!! get it I am POST-poning.





Yes Yes I am hilarious.





here is a funny picture.

Shane, dont you have this camera?

Shane's take - my favorite film.

I like when Dallas asks me to write things - because it gives me something to do. I love to write, but I'm always stuck with the problem of having nothing to write about. I have my nights to write about things, but nothing to say - so, in effect, Dallas gives me something to write about, or at least a reason to try (i.e., when I guest on this blog - which isn't a good example, considering that I've tried to guest on this blog twice and didn't complete either of them. Bleh). More often than not, though, he tends to come through with a topic whenever I'm feeling like I want to attack a keyboard with my fingers, and usually without my asking. It's slight mental telepathy - if you even believe in that stuff. I do, sometimes - but that's for another blog.

----------

So, to explain things (like I always do), Dallas wrote me an email, with the proposal that, to finish off the November chunk of his 365 blog, I write about my favorite movie of all time. Dallas did a fine job writing about his favorite films, so I'll try to catch up a little bit. That being said, is it alright if I've only seen my favorite film once?

----------

I mean, you can't be a freak about every movie you see. It helps to be, but sometimes circumstances get in the way of your obsessions - like the fact that you borrowed the DVD, and you can't find it anywhere to buy. Or, you got it from the library, and you can't find it anywhere to buy. Or, your friend borrowed it from the library, and... you get it.
This is a problem with the great Criterion Collection. They put out the coolest movies, and then put them out of print after a year or less. Sure, it enhances sales, makes the DVDs collectable, and clears the way for other important Criterion releases. But I want one of them, and damnit, I wish it were still in print. Of course, the only Criterion edition of the film I want came bundled with four other films by the same director. That's the Criterion way - and bless them for it. I need to find that box set.

----------

And this is where Jeremy comes into the story. He took it apon himself to try and get me into serious film. He made a valiant attempt, and showed me a lot of great movies. But, yet again, I lost interest, like I always do with films - I'm ultimately impatient with anything that takes time, unless I have control over the outcome.

A couple of years ago, I told my friends that I wanted to become a film director. Seriously - I wanted to buy a Bolex reflex 16mm movie camera and some film stock and try my hand at filmmaking. My friends accepted it, but asked me what inspired me to become a film director - as my dislike for watching movies was legendary, and is still. "Why would you want to make films, if you don't like watching them?" I explained that I would make the kind of movies that I liked to watch, which worked for a while.
Eventually, my want to get into filmmaking was eclipsed by another attempt to write and record my (third) solo album and, when that divebombed and exploded, I took another swing at photography and fell in love again. That's where I am now, but I'm still enchanted by film, and maybe, one day, I'll get that Bolex and make something that I couldn't mind watching myself.

----------

Anyway, Jeremy came into play because I told him that if I was to start shooting films, I would like to at least *technically* know what I liked and what I didn't, and how it fit into film history. (I knew the bare bones of it, but too much knowledge of a creative subject is never a bad thing.) Jeremy, like the friend that he is, ran off to the library and got a selection of films for me to watch. Oddly enough, my favorite film was in that first batch, in a lovely Criterion edition that I would love to be able to find now. It's directed by John Cassavetes, and it's called Faces.





You can tell if I like a film or not. If I like a film, I'm not fidgeting around, looking for a clock, or drinking too much Coke. If a film can make me turn off the outside world and give all of my attention to it, it's a good film to me. Otherwise, I'm always sitting there, wondering how long the movie is, and wondering what else I could do with the time I'm wasting. Faces wasn't one of those - my world dropped away when I saw it, even though it's not a movie you can disappear into.

----------

For one, it's an amazingly uncomfortable film. It mainly deals with the death of marriage, in the most flamboyant and alcohol-soaked enviroment in recent times - late 1960s Los Angeles. The husband character is an advertising executive; his wife has little to do except sit around the house and smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. The contrast between the "good life" - money, a ranch-style home with copious furnishings, and liquor, plenty of liquor - and actually living it is apparent from the beginning of the film. Cassavetes doesn't like giving you space, or dialog that flows off of tongues - being shot on super-grainy 16mm black-and-white film, and probably with a skeleton crew, Cassavetes would direct his actors to put their own spin on their characters. What emerges is a film with incredibly realistic acting, and it makes most of the scenes extremely hard to watch. Cassavetes used this technique extensively; he knew what power it put into his films.
When their marriage is destroyed by debauchery, caused by the ultimately hollow life in which they live, the husband and wife seperate for a night and, left to their own devices, completely walk away from their situation, looking for better things. Mentally, however, they can't unlearn their ways: the husband runs to a young blonde "entertainer", with whom he knows he will never foster a healthy relationship; the wife goes out to the Whisky a Go-Go with all of her shallow girlfriends, and hooks up with a young beatnik who allows her to overdose on sleeping pills. The film closes with the realization that pain and divorce are a normal thing in life; backs are stabbed every day, and it's not always forgiven. Yet, the couples' seperation needed to happen; the last scene, where they're sitting on the stairs, smoking cigarettes and looking rough after their respective nights out, is remarkably free of the choking tension that runs through the rest of the film. They're victims of their times, and content with it; even though their marriage is over, life has only changed a little bit, perhaps for the better.

When I finished it, I felt like I understood life a little better. It was also exactly my type of film: brutally honest, "real" (I hate it when people use that word to describe films, but it works here), and I believe it typifies the era it was made in. It held me enchanted from the opening scene to the last.

Most of all, though, when I said that I would only make films that I would want to watch, Faces is exactly that. I doubt I could match a tenth of the originality of this film, but hey, there's nothing wrong with trying.

Inspiration and life lessons, mixed up in a perfectly preserved time capsule: this is why Faces is probably my favorite film. And yes, I've only seen it once.

(Shane Guy writes External on a semi-permanent basis. He lives in Riverview, Florida with mountains of dust and no cats.)

Turkey day

post tommorow. Double Dose, just how I like it.

My Process

I am not a person that walks out of a movie and is eager to give it a letter grade, a number of stars, or any sort of thumb gesture. I am a guy who likes to talk and stew and talk and stew for a while before I evolve an opinion. It usually lasts about a month, sometimes longer sometimes shorter, but usually a month. I have had time to live with the material, I perhaps have given it another viewing. You are sure as shit I will talk about it, with anyone who will listen. Sometimes its to bounce my opinion off them and listen to their take, and if they didnt see the movie I practice explaining the movie and why I enjoyed or didnt and what I thought to see if I can make sense of myself.

I would be the worlds least punctual movie critic. My turnout would be once a month.

So to show you this process I have picked three movies: one I am fresh from viewing the first time, the next I have just set out to cool and it smells ready, and one that has aged a little in the cellars of my brain.

The Discrete Charm of the Bourgeois:

I will be honest I saw this once before, but I dont count it because I was always interrupted from the movie by various odd occurences. Just like our characters, who cannot seem to sit down and enjoy a meal, in this very dry yet quite madcap movie.

I didnt know what to think of it at first because I just had so many people hype it. So when I borrowed a second time, I made sure that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrpGhEVyrk0 before I sat down to watch it.

I wasnt as mixed up on everything as I was before, partly because I knew what to expect. But what I didnt anticipate how wierd and dense it was. It was one of those things that if it were a snake it would bite you. Like for instance when the ladies sit down to have lunch together they are interupted by a young handsome officer who asks to sit with them. I believe his opening line was something like "I had the oddest dream last night, would you ladies like to hear it." This line of course works (just like in real life. Man oh man I cannot tell how many girls fall for that one), and he explains how he as a child woke up to his mother's ghost telling him to kill his father. His father apparently murdered her and he must take revenge.

And the ladies take this stride, like he just got down telling a very interesting anecdote and didnt confess his guilty concious to them in a crowded cafe. This is just one of many little bits that somehow latch onto you and make themselves big chunks in your head.

I like this movie, although I still think it needs more viewing and thought, the material deserves it.

Suburbi@

I also saw this once before, and that viewing was great. So great that I wanted to go back and give it another go. But that next day, it was pulled off the Cinemax In Demand list and I couldnt find it anywhere since. That is until I found it at MCC.

I immediately checked it out and brought it home. I made a bowl of ice cream and parked myself in a chair and viewed it head to tail. And all I got to say is wow.

It has been over a month (and my overdue library fee can attest) and I still love this movie.

One of its best qualities is the tight rope that bogosian has his actors walk. The dialogue is cringeworthy if not delivered in a flawless manner, and I give the cast and Linklater credit for really hammering home the material.

There is a scene where the character Sooze (Amie Carrey) does a performance art piece in front of a store window to group of friends. She basically dances around and says "fuck you" to just about anyone you can think of, especially all the men which she ends with in an explosive and over the top scream. This somehow works for me and I dont know why. I buy into her frustration as opposed to being turned off by her bitching. I know in my heart that this is Amie Carrey's doing and that she was born to play this role. Just like Giovanni Ribisi is perfectly cast as Sooze's boyfriend and the so called center of the group, Jeff. He lives in his parents garage in a pop up tent, doesnt work, and seems to act miserable as an occupation. He is totally at a loss at what he should be doing at this moment in his life and he is overwhelmed by everyone else's sense of direction. Mr Ribisi somehow is able to occupy his character with such a deft touch that all his bitching and ranting feels meaningful, even though we all know that he is just one of thousands if not millions of teen's who feel, have felt, or will eusurpe him in feeling this way.

This story revolves around the arrival of a former classmate, who has made it big as a rockstar. But I will stop there and let you watch it and find out for yourself.

My opinion is that it is a great ensemble movie that has engaging characters whose only real problems are the ones that we all know they will grow out of. But the ultimate fear for me is are they ready for the larger problems ahead.

Lost in Translation

Here is a golden oldie, 2003. Well not old, but aged well enough. I dusted my copy of this off and threw a while back and found myself wandering around doing other things about thirty minutes in. This is a slow movie, and I mean slow. Thats not a bad thing, but when you have had the subject matter pounded over your head for a long time...

My first viewing of this was in theaters when it came out. I was with my sister who I think saw it before with Melissa who I believe saw it before her. She was gushing with emotion all throughout the screening. This is not a hard thing to do with my sister, she will gush with emotion if you mildly poke her in the arm. But this movie was like a dam burst open flooding of 24 year old girl quarter life crisis. Set in fucking Toyko!

For me, I enjoyed it. I liked the peaceful meditations it seemed to take, and the long uninterupted shots of its characters. I think another reason was I felt like it somehow gave me insight into some intangible female feelings. I cant explain it, but watching that movie with girls, two in particular, I felt like I was finally seeing things from their end. I will stop there because obviously I am skating off topic, but I will leave it at this: girls love this movie.

Nowadays it doesnt engage me like it used to. What felt profound and true now feels phony misguided and self indulgent.

Its the Garden State syndrome: when you first see it you are suckered in by great visuals, cool music, and charasmatic people. Upon leaving it you think "wow, that movie really hit it right on the head for me. These characters are full of life and complexity and I feel for them. I can watch this movie a hundred times and discover new things about it and perhaps the world around me everytime. Then you watch it again, kind of laugh at the jokes, jam out to tunes and leave it going huh, I guess it wasnt that good. Then your friend who is a girl throws it on in her dorm room insisting that it is amazing to her friend that is a girl that you have had your eye on all night but she is dating that fucking douche who is playing basketball outside really loudly with a bunch of inner city black guys and he is a rich art school fuck twat. And its then you realize that this movie is chalk full of trite bologni, the "everyone is just so sad inside and everyone else is fooling themselves" rhetoric. It was like Catcher in the Rye all over again, but this time it was the Scrubs guy channeling Alan Alda. Interpret that as you will

Anyway, LIT is a movie that will always be crystalized in time; it will be my "I loved this when I was 19" movie. There are plenty of great bits, most with Bill Murray interacting with the general public. Maybe when I hit 24 I should whip this out and see if it has an inpact then. Or perhaps I already rode that wave and I will be ready for nautical maps and smoking jacket.

24 Hour Party People

It's my belief that history is a wheel. "Inconsistency is my very essence" -says the wheel- "Rise up on my spokes if you like, but don't complain when you are cast back down into the depths. Good times pass away, but then so do the bad. Mutability is our tragedy, but it is also our hope. The worst of times, like the best, are always passing away".

-Boethius

And before I begin, this is a quote from the movie, not me. I would never begin to portray myself so learned as to quote philosophy in my opening passages. Not that its a bad thing, but it would be phony of me.

But I like it. It gives me a certain sense of hope and adventure and perspective when I hear these words. It also underlines the theme of the movie, which is about the conception of Factory records in Manchester, England in the late 70's. It then follows it through the 80's all the way to 1992 where it all goes to shit. And whats very smart about the movie is that we see the whole thing was actually going to shit since the beginning, its just our characters, who are based on real people, just dont realize it.

But thats okay, because anything goes in this movie: breaches in the fourth wall, riding back and forth on the timeline, stock footage mixed with scripted footage. There are also inclusions of the real people in cameo appearances, and sometimes our narrator Tony Wilson (Steve Coogan) will call them out and talk about them. In one scene in particular he points himself out, the real Tony Wilson, and talks at length about him/himself.

This movie is almost formless in this sense. Its a driving narrative, but it also feels like a documentary of sorts the way it so dutifully fills us in on the details of each scene. Like lets reenact history to commentate on it. But not all of it is truth; a lot of it is reenacted legends and rumors. But this is the best part of the movie because it blends fact and fiction so well.

In one scene Tony gets a blowjob from a hooker and his then wife catches him, so she goes and shags the Buzzcock's Howard Devoto in the men's room. This of course never happened according to the real Howard Devoto, who pops into the scene as a Janitor. The voice over tells us a quote, "when given the chance to print the truth or the legend, print the legend."

The method of the movie is to do cool little things like this, explain itself and move on. Its incredibly dense, and the more you research the whole madchester scene, the bands that came out of it, the drugs the more you will get out of your viewing.

What is also interesting is the non filmic quality of the photography. I have no info on whether it was shot digitally, but it has this hyper literal feeling. Not like video, but a much colder feeling. Think Spinal Tap. This of course allows you no real escapist feeling when watching them. It also helps with the Documentarian approach to it.

This movie depends solely on the talent of its actors and their ability to dissapear into their work. Of all the people that it hinges on the main engine that drives this movie is Coogan, who plays Tony Wilson, one of the founders of Factory records our main character and narrator.

This movie also works because the fact that the director Michael Winterbottom dissapeared into the work. I cant tell you what an inspiration to see a director do this. While I like plenty of auteurist movies (Jackie Brown, Boogie Nights, Taxi Driver, Hot Fuzz, etc...), I am still of the school of thought that you have done your job right if people think you have done nothing at all. And after many viewings of this movie, I still have a very hard time picking out the nuts and bolts.

Its clever, informative, engaging, entertaining, sad, funny, intrigueing, odd, long, intelligent, madcap, and nostalgic. The best part is that it is true is so many ways that the truth could never be. That is also not mine, it belongs to the real Tony Wilson.

Medium Cool

Before this article I would like to give credit to Roger Ebert for turning me onto this movie in his review of Battle for Seattle.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080925/REVIEWS/809250301

This is a cool movie. By the way November Movie Month mooniker has been changed to Cool movies, and will make an appearance every so often on the 365, even after November.

So anyway, Medium Cool (1969) is a movie directed by Haskell Wexler. It stars Robert Forster playing against type as John Cassellis, a news cameraman who is on the trail of a potentially hot lead that involves several members of a somewhat militant black protest group. That is until he is pulled off the case. But his story is just one of many many many; he is merely the vehicle that we see these other people thru.

This sounds cool already right? Well what makes this movie Blog worthy are a couple of things. Namely the method Wexler employed in making it: he used a mixture of real and staged footage of riots, protests, concerts, rallies, and other goings on and plunged his actors in there. The real 1968 Democratic primary in Chicago has Robert Forster wandering around with a camera. Or is it staged and he is cut into the real footage. This sequence is done so well that it feels seamless. Real protest footage, real demonstrations, real people, real interviews, so are they fake characters?

This was a question that the film seemed to be asking. While all the scenes are scripted and acted out, they are placed at the backdrop of actual goings on. Footage of police coralling and subdueing demonstators, actual audio of Robert Kennedy's last speech before he went into the kitchen (done in a 360 pan of a kitchen prior to his arrival and ends a frame after the door bursts open.). The characters at this point have as much worth as the ones in the real footage. And they're shot in such a way that it doesnt feel like we are following a logical plot structure but rather hitting upon them at odd and telling emotional moments.

What to make of the Robert Forster scene in his bedroom, post-coital with his attractive nurse girlfriend. They sit and talk about petty little things, admire his new fiber optics, and then have a playful romp around his spacious loft before doing the nasty, then accidently releasing a dove.

This doesnt read as hectic as its shot, but I benefit from more than one viewing and extensive reading on this movie. Many of the scenes also benefit from this. Not to say that my initial viewing wasn't interesting.

This movie is everywhere at all times and place, covering people and their smallest of moments. Then backing out and plunging those people and their moments into the tumultous world and watch them get chewed up.

I will stop there. This is a very intelligent and well designed movie about how we view the world and how that person on the screen is a real living person with fears and pains and ambitions just like you. The ending is a true litmus test of your numbness. Fuck Funny Games.

Here is the opening 10 minutes. It perfectly illustrates what to expect. Love the motorcycle POV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KruPX4UXf2o

By the way there is a guy named Studs Terkel who is credited as their man in Chicago. Badass points for both his name and the fact he is "Their man in Chicago". I want to someone's man in a city... wow that came out quite gay.

Get them in and knock them out, here is a list of movie synopsie...

in Haiku form!

Mannequin:

Where is the remote

Man I feel like garbage and

Kim Catrell sucks hard.

The Island of Dr Moreau:

This movie is awesome

wait nevermind its not

why val kilmer why

Open Water:

Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch

Bitch Bitch Shark Storm Shark Scream

in Terror, Death Shark End

Sleepaway Camp:

"Eat shit and die Chris!"

"Eat shit and live Anthony!"

Best Banter EVER!

Reality Bites:

I hate this movie

I hate this movie I hate

This fucking movie

Any Gun Can Play:

Hey Jeff guess what? What?

Double Cross, bitch! Gun shot

You've got Fake tan on me

Coffee and Cigarettes:

What did I just watch

(swish of the cred hat) a fuck

-ing masterpiece Bitch!

Scarface:

An Anti-Gangster

movie, thats totally Gang

-sta! Irony Bitch!

Night of the Living Dead:

Are they cousins or

are they lovers, nevermind

because they're dead Bitch!

Enter the Dragon:

They killed the black guy

The white dude looks like Rick Link

-later. Look out Bruce!

Death Proof:

Worst idea ever

Shit Shit Shit Shit Shit Shit Shit

Kurt Russel crying

Akira

When I was in middle school I had five major fascinations: Legos, Mythilogical Beasts (Dragons, Griffens, Trolls, etc...), Diet Food, Star Wars, and Anime.


(As you might have noticed that of these topics Anime will be on the topic of this article.)


I became entranced by the concept of the dramatic cartoon. Surreal landscapes, bulgy wierd gumdrop eyes, slightly intangible and subtle sexual metaphor, and giant tranforming robots. The Japanese were leading the new wave in animation, and the wave that started back in the late seventies was starting to crash on America.

Sorry for all my douchey metaphor, but it felt fitting.






I have a list of favorites that stand the test of time:

RoboTech: Macross
Gundam Wing
Tenchi
Ronin Warriors
DragonBall Z (yes yes I know, but it once was a good show)
and Outlaw Star

I would watch any of these shows again in instant they were that good. But this blog is not about the television shows, though I felt they deserve a mention. No this article is about my favorite piece of animation to come out of Japan: Akira.

Starting out as a comic book drawn by Katsuhiro Ōtomo, Akira become a huge success in Japan... I will stop here and just give you a better article on the comic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_(manga)

I know its lazy, but I would be a lying cred grabber to say I got into Akira through the comic first. I, like just about everyone else, saw the movie and took it from there. *As a side note I am following the comic series, but it is proving quite tricky to secure volumes three and up*





So lets get to the movie. I rented this movie from the bloomingdale blockbuster on the standard Orion letterbox release on VHS. With the original american overdubs. These were great because I swear to god they used the same group of 10 voice actors to knock out about 20 different imported movies. Recently I heard a overdub on Metal Gear Solid and I could have sworn I heard Cam Clarke, who was candede (kan-a-dah). I checked the credits and sure as shit he was liquid snake.


Anyway, I had a similar viewing as I did Rules of Attraction. While it didnt burn a hole in my head, the whole I wasnt prompted prior to watching and I was completely taken aback. Here is a movie set in a post apocalyptic Toyko, deals with the politics and corruption, mystical other worldy powers, and globalization.



But of course these concepts were lost on my fourteen year old mind, it was the motorcycle chases, exploding heads and every expanding climax see bottom pic. All set to the most next score in cinema history... yea i said it. I consider the score on par with Mr John Williams.





Here is some selections:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYCW-pWu5Bo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ8Dbj13f_A


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8rHTGk_kjY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dQSTR5K1Bw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsi4jVnKUoc



The score is probably some of the most original arrangements and instrumentations I have heard. In fact when I got into Kid A, my favorite song was "How to Dissapear Completely". The strings and tone reminded me of the sometimes unpleasant visceral grindings of the score. And in the oddest moments hauntingly beautiful. Testsuo's theme is my personal favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3RBvWbnMW8

So okay, I have kind of avoided doing this the whole article. Plot Synopsis: well... I cant. God knows I have seen this movie as many times as Ryan has rocked Blue Velvet, yet all I can give is a recount of the events, what happens to who, and how it all turns out. But I would never just do that, because thats only the surface of this movie. there is so much going on under it, and thats where the real meat is.

The movie revolves around a young bike gang whose youngest member Tetsuo has a chance encounter with a gifted young child. He is bestowed with strange powers. These power surge inside him and drive him insane. Like a roaring beast they surge out of him, and eventually cause him to expand to grotesque lengths. Canede, the gang leader and older brother figure to him tries his best to save his friend. All this is set in a dystopic Toyko on the verge of collapse.

This is the best I can do to explain this movie. Its a very complex, metephoric, and epic movie.

I recomend if you have the energy. Its dense, I havent had a head to tail viewing of it in over two years. But I have been reading the comic and every time I return to movie I get a little more out of it. Think Twin Peaks the series versus Twin Peaks the pilot. The abridged version does a good job in conveying the tone and the main plot details and wraps them up reasonably well, but the series does so much more.

And having not finished the comic series yet I cannot go into to further detail about that.

But the movie is great. There is a new release with an updated transfer to DVD, including a better much more accurate translation and voice acting. Although I will always a big place in my heart for the Orion release.

The Things I write

well you might have noticed that my other blog is not being updated. For those who are actually fans of it, all four or five of you, I feel its my duty to inform you that it will temporarily on hold for a week or two. I have finals coming in my classes, which is really just papers after papers, and I am also tweaking FUCK THE ESTABLISHING and my schedule is ever diminishing. I know where it is going, its just a matter of writting so I hope to get back to it soon. Look forward to a new serial debuting after it, the working title is Rosewood.

The Rules of Attraction

Upon my first viewing of this back in 06, a hole was burned in my skull. And before reading this please note that I will have a painful time not hyping this movie, so mind the occasional nerd out. This should not hurt your viewing of it later (I hope).

So anyway a hole was burnt, and I turned it off 15 minutes in. Thats right, after fifteen minutes, and these werent pleasant in my opinion, I had enough. I wont really go into detail (nerd out hype alert number 1: wont describe scenes that caused "a hole to burnt in skull" automatically hyping said scenes with mystery and elevated expectations, disavow and continue) because it would really spoil it. Just go forth with the knowledge that a young guy like me without being properly debriefed on it... well it was quite a shock and a lot to get over.

I returned the movie to blockbuster and didnt think about until about a year later. Thats when I decided to give it another try. Knowing what I did about the first part it made an easier experience to slip into. But once I got my sea legs this movie once again devoured me hole and (nerd out alert number 2: overuse of adjectives that as a result overegg and hype the movie, so continue as if I didnt say this, although I did) digested me in its battery acid of a plot.

When I finished this movie, I was quite shaken. I have never seen anything like it. None of the main characters were likable, their lives revolve around petty bullshit, and everyone is only concerned about who is shagging who. Not to mention they are all pretty white affluent fuckheads at a pretty liberal arts college. And the ending, well it was a what the fuck.

Everything about it was groundbreaking for me. I deplored all its characters for shallowness: Sean pines for Lauren, a girl he hardly knows and shags every other girl he sees because he can. He is also a lying backstabbing drug dealer and self centered prick. The object of Sean's new found affection, is a whinny self centered bitch. Paul, another self centered twat, lusts after Sean and finds it almost fashionable to be totally apathetic anything that doesnt concern him. So yea he is self-centered. In the course of goings on in this movie, which is party after party followed by another party and a single book cracked open, these characters mix and mingle and inadvertently and advertantly fucked up shit happens.

Roger Avary does such a good job weaving thru these characters, making each one memorable and insanely watchable(nerd out number 3: hyping the director, classic). After repeated viewings of this movie the sting has worn off, save for a couple of scenes which hang in there. And in these viewings I really start to pick up on the love and care that was taken in each and every shot; the attention to detail, the colors and the sound design. God bless the commentary tracks...(nerd out penalty, any praising of commentary tracks is an automatic sentence disqualification. move onto to the next paragraph and start a new topic)

This is a movie that successfully uses its style to add an extra bite to the already chomping subject matter. I had never heard of Bret Easton Ellis before this, I initially picked it up for Roger Avary, whose Killing Zoe was in my opinion a much better movie than Resevoir Dogs. So when I saw this I had no preperation. But after I saw this movie I devoured the book. I tasted great. What a cool book, really Shane give it a go. You can keep that copy, I bought a new one.

Anyway so yea writing anymore might do a diservice to the movie (nerd revelation number 1), but let me just say... (which obviously did nothing) that this movie is really cool and challenges its viewer. Its a savage and dark satire;a true noir (just watch the damn movie and we will discuss it later).

By the way I nominate this for the worst DVD cover ever! If you want an accurate adverstisement of this movie see the top. And while yes the sting has worn off, this movie is not hilarious, at least not at first.

The Tampa thang, part 3 Comedians of Comedy & Meeting People is Easy

Before I start:

"...if you're tired of hack comedy, the Carlos Mencias, Jeff Foxworthys, and Larry the Cable Guys of the world, then you might be open to something creative and hilarious. I defy anyone to attempt at the originality of Zach Galifianakis, both in content and delivery, the amazing undulating idiosyncratic rants of Patton Oswalt, or to be as engrossing as Maria Bamford's characters and stories can be... If you prefer tired old routines about race, married life, the predictably narrow comedy of a comedian who plays up a simple character or stereotype, then you can have your cavemannish Tim Allen, or go to the other extreme with the hyper-pretentious and unfunny Dennis Miller... But if you like creativity, not just because its different, but because it's true to the hilarious personality of the artist who it emanates from, and not just replicated bullsh!t echoing off these soundboards of a homogeneous and mediocre culture, then check out Comedians of Comedy..."

-SKATLOVER, IMDB

Man this person had a lot to say about this movie, and apparently every other comedian on television.

So anyway yes, the following day after lounging around and re-shooting the key special effect shot for our movie Coke of the Crusade I snuck in a copy of Comedians of Comedy while Ryan hit the head. I mainly did it to see if there were any good special features or even a commentary (Eddie Izzard's Glorious had a great one where he dissected his act and the making of the show). When Ryan came out from the can and we watched the conception Zach Galifianakis physical comedy routine.

So after watching this we were naturally in the mood to watch the whole damn thing. And I was suprised once again how this movie wasn't as funny to me. I wasn't bored, but this movie must have made a bigger impression on me than I remember, because I remebered a lot!

This of course could be many things. For example in comparison to Spinal Tap, its not as dense. Its a documentary on four standup comedians, Patton Oswalt Maria Bamford Galifianakis and Brian Posehn, touring rock clubs so its a little more of a personal movie, so its not as farcicle. Its hilarious, as SKATLOVER stated, but I have heard the jokes. And I am guessing the reason for my less comic viewing is much like Spinal Tap, the jokes only get funnier with your friends.

But this is not to say that I didnt have a good viewing of it. This time around I got to study it a little more, examine the coverage of the shows, the interactions in the RV, and the various exploits each comic takes. This is why I went on a limb and borrowed it from Jeremy (by the way its still in good condition and I will bring it in my next excursion up there). But something nagged me after finishing it; I kept thinking of Meeting People is Easy, perhaps the best on the road documentary I have ever seen.

On the surface the two movies are night and day, but at their heart they're one in the same.

For those who do not know this movie, MPIE is a documentary by Grant Gee that follows Radiohead on their "Running from Demons" tour in support of their release of Ok, Computer. The documentary is all over the place, jumping around random interviews, photoshoots, and follows radiohead from show to show into the studio, through bitter arguements, making music videos and sometimes very humurous asides. It also tracks their fame as it ascends to from already massive to ridiculous. The tour initially was only supposed to last about three quarters of a year, but grew larger and larger after the skyrocketing success of the Ok.

This proves to be curse in disguise, because most of the band members are at their wits end. Thom Yorke (the lead singer) grows edgier, lashing out at reporters in interviews and becoming generally more morose and depressed. Colin and Ed (the bassist and 2nd guitarist), the two sanest ones at that moment, take the lead in dealing with the public but soon become fatigued and equally morose. There is a great, and by great I mean rather heartbreaking and shitty but still great, moment when Colin essentially tells a reporter in an interview to just fuck off. Jonny and Phil (the lead guitarist and drummer) remain quiet and in the background, dutifully plowing through show after show and writting new songs in soundchecks.

I really like this movie, and it has been extended loan from Shane Guy (likewise it is in good condition and if you want it I will also bring it up next trip). I initially got into it because I am a fag for Radiohead, but now I am a fag for Grant Gee. He mainly does TV, and he recently did a documentary on Joy Division that I heard was okay, but I havent seen it.

But how is this anything like Comedians of Comedy?

Well aside from the obvious road documentary comparison, they are both about artists who struggle with their work, and the world outside.

Zach Galifianakis has a rather telling moment when he states that society says that you should be here and buy that at his age, settle down. And while that moment is brief as are the rest of these kinds of moments, they not so subtlely tell you that these guys struggle and fight for their lifestyle and profession. Their first love is stand-up comedy, and they tolerate all the acting gigs and promotional work to get to work in it professionally.

Its not all struggles though, because each of them enjoys what they do so much that these pressures dont really break into their lives too often. The case is different for our boys from Oxford. While they love what they do very dearly, its the pressures from the outside that are tearing them apart on the inside.

The two movies are equally telling and interesting documentaries and were made even more interesting when watched back to back.

After I was done I realized what a struggle it is to find something you love, and it could be an even bigger stuggle to hold on to that love once you have found it.

This is a 365...

not a sit and dick. I understand, post coming tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87-MUkH3fgU

A taste of tommorow folks...

The Tampa thang, part 2 Spinal Tap

Spinal Tap (1984)

It had been a while since I have seen this movie, and once me and Ryan started quoting it endlessly in the living room did I know that we were destined to revisit before I left that weekend.

And revisit we did. It was fun, as usual. But I have something to confess: I was slightly bored. I have seen this movie, and when I say "seen this movie", I mean it belongs in the 15+ club. And even with my boy chilling and watching it, it still felt like old hat.

I am quite sure I am committing heresy and one of the raindogs is mailing a letter to the Archduke of Canterbury requesting my excommunication, but hear me out. When I wasn't watching the movie, I was laughing harder at our constant quoting and callbacks to the jokes from the movie.

But during the movie, I was only grinning at what I knew was coming. Oh yes there are moments that still kill me, for instance the scene where Nigel is playing a solo on his guitar with a violen. Just rubbing it on the strings.

I have seen that scene so many times, and right then and there Ryan points out something I didnt notice: Nigel frowns a little and starts to tune the violen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJT-SZRH8Y

It was little moments that I still pick up on each viewing that keeps me in the mood for watching it. But as I stated above, I get an equal (if not more sometimes) kick out of repeating the jokes with my friends.

This is a really cool and smart movie.

The Tampa thang, part 1 Westworld.

Westworld, Spinal Tap, Comedians of Comedy and Meeting People is Easy

I had an interesting experience the other day. I had just got home from a marathon trip to Tampa with “The Comedians of Comedy”, which I would I like to extend my gratitude to Jeremy for, it will be safe and returned within my next visit.

I popped it in my laptop and watched in its entirety before conking out around 2 in the morning. I woke up around 7 to the menu screen, which played Michael Penn’s “Down by the Riverside” on loop. I had the weirdest dream, and I think it was this song that playing on loop that contributed to it.

It was December in Pikes Place market in Seattle and I was wandering around alone at twilight shooting my exploits. People were crowding around the streets where performers had setup. I filmed a quartet singing this very same song. This wasn’t my dream. Its just that this song always takes me back to wandering around the most beautiful city in the world at the most beautiful time of year.

On that trip I shot 6+ hours of footage, which I have yet to edit. But I have dragged it out and reviewed it from time to time. I initially thought it would be cool to try to edit some of it this weekend, so I watched a ton of it. I felt very nostalgic, especially some of the Ahnna stuff, she is such a cool chick.

I arrived in Tampa later that day and chased that viewing with a dose of Westworld (1973):

I read that Michael Crichton had died. I didn’t know much about the man other than that he was an author and that Jurassic Park was based on one of his books. I read a post on by Edgar Wright on his blog dedicated to Crichton’s memory, and with some heartfelt words to the man he also posted a series of trailers for all the movies that Crichton was involved in.

The one that caught my interest was a movie called Westworld, in which has a very young James Brolin who in some moments is the spitting image of Christian Bale. Or rather in some instances Christian Bale looks like a young James Brolin.

So when I saw it on the video rack at the guy’s house I knew I had to throw it on. It has some parallels with the more famous Crichton work Jurassic Park, but on whole I think this movie is much more dense and powerful.

The story takes place in the future at an amusement park where our two character drop 1000 dollars a day to have an authentic, or rather idealic storybook adventure. The theme park is divided into three parts: Roman world, where you lie around in togas, wander the gardens and have all the orgies you want. Medieval world, where you can be a knight and relive the chivalrous days of the middle ages. And then there is West world, where you can play cowboys and Indians.

In each of these worlds the visitors interact with life like robots who are sunject to their every whim.

I wont give away to much, suffice to say shit goes wrong and the robots run rampant killing everyone. This movie, for its short run time, is rather thought provoking.

Turns out this movie was the directing debut of Crichton. And a fine debut if I say so myself.

The 365 is...

On my arrival home I have encountered a fair bit of hang ups, namely i am behind in my planning. I have set to work on a new movie blog, which is in dire need of a rewrite and reworking, so it will be up tommorow. The next installment of "Death in a Suburban Home" should make it up tommorow. In Gunslinger style I have to augment somethings to make the direction the story is heading work better, so for you purists (all two or three of you) I recommend saving the original piece if you want it, things will probably change. anyway I apoligize, I am off my beaten path and stuck in a briar patch of disorganization and half baked thoughts. it kind of looks like this...

See ya tommorow