'Stupid is as stupid does'

In the world of film there are idiots and then there's New York Press critic Armond White. The past week, people are finally giving time & day to criticize a man that has denounced every form of art released in film today and championed the bonheadedness of Michael Bay and Tyler Perry. His latest endeavour in oblivion is his infamous review of the just released District 9, which he classifies as 'racist' and 'juvenile'. Roger Ebert has been one of the few supporters of Whte's rant in an interesting but ultimately unsatisfying defensive essay. Yes, White writes for an Alternative news weekly but how far is too far? Alternative news IS a different alternative medium to the news but when what is written is comic and absurd- there must be a line crossed and questions that need to be asked. Comparing a scene from GI Joe to french master Godard is insane, so is saying that Transformers 2 director Michael Bay is a Visionary. White sets the bar high for stupidity. I guess stupid is as stupid does.

'Che'



Now that I've seen Steven Sodebergh's 4 hour epic about Argentinian communist/revolutionist Che Guevara, I have gathered around concrete thoughts about what it all means & why in the living hell he would release such a thing. First off the accusations that Sodebergh is a communist just based on the fact that he has made a movie entirely about a communist is freakishly funny. As Glenn Kenny pointed out, this is far from being a 'valentine' to the guerrilla leader- it's just a look at a man that won his first revolution but sought out to change the world even more and failed. There is boredom and scenes that don't quite fit- scenes that were just out in the open for historical purposes but when the movies kicks it really kicks. The war zone is populated by desperation and the need to fight for the cause but what sodebergh tries to explore here is how a man that was a hero to millions became an embattled & failed warrior. Castro's Cuba is still Castro's Cuba in 2009- which is why the relevance of this movie is very existant, 50 years later. There is definitely a very mixed feeling in watching a movie this long and this arduous without actually asking yourself- why bother? I cannot complain about something this ambitious and expertly made even if I wouldn't necessarily highly recommend it. The fact that not every one of its 257 minutes gathered on screen works is furstrating- even more frustrating is the fact that the action is almost non existant and its pace asks you to be patient, very. This is not the landmark movie we were all anticipating but Benicio Del Toro's performance is even better that I originally thought it would be- to say he's electrifying would make me sound cliched and full of myself, but he is. Judging by his recent films, Sodebergh does not have the same magic touch he had with his astonishing stretch of films from 1998-2001 (Out Of Sight, The Limey, Traffic, Erin Brokovich & Ocean's Eleven). Since Then he's resorted to Artsy, ambitious fare that has steeped from the mundane to the messy- altough I appreciate his remake of Solaris and the more recent The Girlfriend Experience. Che falls in the middle and -to tell you the truth- I actually can't make up my mind about it. Call this a mixed review.

In which I gracefully ramble on...



Why do so many movies disappoint? The quality and substance is decisively lower and there's no reason in thinking it's getting any better. There were years in which I could actually pick as many as 30 great movies but the times have changed, if I'm lucky I find half that amount these days. I remember 1999, in which movies of startling originality came out every week- American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, Magnolia, Fight Club, The Sixth Sense, Boys Don't Cry to name a few. I find it somewhat disturbing that much of the blame is always layed down on the generalization that Americans are 'stupid' and the notion that everything has to do with the dumbing down of America. Just because well reviewed, smaller movies fail at the box office does not mean it is the public's fault for not listening to critical opinion. Movie critics can only tell you if a movie is good, they do not have the power to put your ass in the seat- contrary to what Roger Ebert thinks in his recent essay on The Hurt Locker's lack of Box Office. The best I can do is tell you what's good and what's worth seeing and mention that quality stuff IS in fact still out there- such as 500 Days Of Summer, Up & Public Enemies.



The days of having one great movie a week are long gone and so, our expectations need to be lowered. It isn't just in North America that civilization and art is declining. Look at the recent Paris Match- in which a nude Sharon Stone makes the cover with a headline title reading '50 and stunning' -Thanks to Glenn Kenny for the worthy example. It's not just happening here, it's happening everywhere and it's been happening for decades. Michael Jackson Dies and the press has a field day. GI Joe & Transformers come out, they skyrocket to the top of every country's box office. The sad truth is we are populated & pummeled by dumbed down art and dumbed down messages. We are a long way from Chaplin trying to get the Flower Girl- instead were in the Transformers era- where everything that's louder, bigger & without message is celebrated. Whereas anything deep, incisive and artful is dismissed as too boring or slow. Sadly, there's no reason to think this is going to change.

Huh?



Those right wing bullies are at it again. I must say it's a creative stab -taking a cue from The Joker- but they should really just give it a rest. whomever's responsible for this clearly has too much time in their hands. Matt Drudge ended up posting it on his site a few days ago- why am I not surprised? The length some people would go to try and justify their beliefs is hilarious and very scary. On a side note, this proves the relevance and influence The Dark Knight -especially Ledger's Joker- has had on our culture in general.

John Hughes 1950-2009

I'm not a John Hughes Fan, I respect what he did but his films always struck me as too conventional. Call me a snob but that's how I've always felt about him. There's no denying the impact he's had with teenagers and the way that target audience drooled at his altar of brat pack characters-they still do to this day (even well into their 40's). So as people Mourn a man that surely had a timely sense of humor and a good heart- I can't help but feel like I just didn't get the man and his art. Roger Ebert proclaimed him as the inventor of the 'Modern American Teenager Film' and no matter how unoriginal I believe his movies to be, there is some truth to that statement. One thing I can't deny is the heart he put into everything he did- there was always a sense of genuine naivety to his characters and the words he wrote always meant well. His later work in the 90's and this decade was frustrating and non existant- he took in the pseudonyn of Edmond Dantes- he was eccentric and strange but which artist isn't. His presence in the industry will no doubt be missed.

Talkin' about Marilyn..



I saw her again in Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot- which features a slew of one liners and one of the best movie endings I've ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW5jzHsW7c

This was the first film in the Hollywood Era to actually have some sort of connection -albeit a minimal one- to homosexuality and drag. It was the beginning of a movement we now call Queer Cinema, kickstarted in the 90's. In fact, Billy Wilder had quite a few hidden references to Homosexuality in his later films, including The Lost Weekend. I can also think of Dog Day Afternoon-released 16 years later- in which Al Pacino takes a bank hostage to get money for his lover's sex change operation or how about one year earlier when The Rock Horror Picture Show came out and made drag an openly public/mainstream affair. This all happened way before Jake Gyllenhall and Heath Ledger went brokeback on us.

An Image 08/05/09 & Marilyn Monroe Syndrome



Cathering Deneuve in Belle De Jour & a picture that defined the 60's french sex symbol. She is still making movies 40 some odd years later- watch Von Trier's Dancer In The Dark and the more recent 8 Femmes. She sadly suffered the same fate as Marilyn Monore did- remembered more for her looks than her actual acting abilities. Monroe did a few good movies such as Some Like It Hot and The Seven Year Itch but she didn't have much acting to do in those films she was just being Marilyn- the giggly airhead type. Denueve is the opposite, she DID extend her acting abilities but her looks overshadowed everything she did and what we are left with is this incredible image from Luis Bunuel's film.

'Funny People'



I'm a big fan of Judd Apatow's comedy -Knocked Up & The 40 Year Old Virgin- mostly because there's always a feeling that it's not just comedy but also human emotions at play. Although Steve Carrell was a loony joke as the 'virgin' he had a carefully written role that demanded more than just jokes and in Knocked Up, Kathryn Heigel asked- No, make that demanded- Seth Rogen to lose his schlub lifestyle for a more serious life as a parent. Funny People is the weakest movie of Apatow's short career, it's also his most personal, ambitious and heartfelt one. It is by no means a total failure, there are scenes of great comedy and effortless abandon. What makes it a disappointment is the fact that you were allowed to expect more from a writer/director who's style everyone is trying to copy these days. The film is too long and should have been much shorter, it also doesn't have much of a flow and -contrary to his past 2 movies- it doesn't mix the drama and comedy as well. Sandler plays -well- Sandler and Rogen plays the same role he always plays- The schlub (God, I love that word). Some comparisons have been made to describe the film as Woody Allen-esque but I wouldn't go that far- Because this is Apatow's most 'Auteuristic' and personal film (loosely based on his days as Sandler's roomate during their comedy club days) I'd actually venture towards a more Truffault-esque play of words and say it reminded me of the French Auteur's later venture into Dramedy.

Che Part 1/ The Argentine



The above first picture is iconic and represents counterculture in ways you wouldn't believe. It is a symbol of revolutionary depth and rebellion. It's been used in countless T-shirts by people that have no idea what it actually signifies or represents. Che Guevara WAS a communist but that's besides the point- he was a doctor, a poet and a revolutionary fighter that helped Castro build his army and power. He DID kill people that defied his side but what he achieved is historical and bold. Steven Sodebergh's two part Epic called Che is more than 4 hours long- I've seen the first part called The Argentine- Now available on DVD- and although flawed, it is fascinating. Right-Wing nutjobs can wine all they want that this is a 'Valentine' to communism, they've obviously not seen the film. Benicio Del Toro doesn't play Che, he is Che and it's something to see. The battles scenes are harrowing and the presence of the man is even more grandiose. Walter Salles released The Motorcycle Diaries in 2004, it recounted Che's young days in Latin America as a doctor and the affection he got for his homeland via interaction with the people. That was a very good movie and paved the way for golbal Che acceptance. If Salles' film was about a young adult maturing into a man- Sodebergh's movie is about the man already matured and ready to take on the world. I'm impatiently waiting Part 2.

Image(s) 7/30/09

Talking about movies such as 500 Days Of Summer and Eternal Sunshine made me completely forget Sofia Coppola's divine Lost In Translation. As Thelma Adams stated 6 years ago 'Getting lost never felt so good'. A beautifully shot film.




(500) Days Of Summer



Van Morrison once said 'To live is to love is to love is to love is to love is to love'. That's as close to a concrete explanation of love as were likely gonna get anywhere. It's messy, frustrating, amazing and -above all- unexplainable. Director Marc Webb knows that and his new film called (500) Days Of Summer IS in fact messy, frustrating, amazing and unexplainable. Add the words Original, sweet and thoughtful. It stars Joseph Gordon levitt, the awesome Zooey Deschanel and gives us a peak at their 500 days together in a fragmented, twisted narrative. This film is so truthful and ambivalent about love that I was reminded of past relationships and past -shall we say- forgettable circumstances. It's a small movie, very hard to find but look out for it.

Levitt and Deschanel are Incredible-they bring the film to a much higher level than it deserves to be at. Especially given the fact that it does have the misfortune of going all saccharine on us towards its conclusion. As for Levitt, I'm not sure why this guy has not hit it big yet, every film he's in just surprises me and makes me realize he's one of the better actors of our generation. No, I'm not joking and Yes I do realize he's the kid from 3rd Rock From The Sun. Want rental advice? watch him in The Lookout.

It's rare to find a movie this truthful and honest about attraction- not many films in the past few years have actually had anything interesting or new to say about what it is to be with someone. I can think of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, in which Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet erase each other from their memory -literally- only to get back together not knowing it had already happened. Fate? not sure. That's another thing about (500) Days Of Summer that interests me- the notion that love is possibly not only about fate but the right and wrong decisions you make in between. It's sweet but real and I believe the people that see it will likely enjoy diving into its pool of pain, sorrow and happiness + any film that has references to The Smiths and Springsteen is perfectly fine in my book

David Ansen

I've been reading David Ansen in Newsweek for many years now. So, much to my dismay, I find out that he is no longer writing and has decided to go his own way. Replaced by a -shall we say- degenerate robot writer. He's not the only one, film critic Glenn Kenny has done the same thing- except he was fired from Premiere Magazine. Most of these unemployed critics are resorting to blogging as a form of expression. Although it does not bring much money, it is their only way to write about film (not including books). I guess when you got no choice, you got no choice- Newspapers are cutting down and film is one of the targets. I had the chance to have a quick chat with David Ansen a few days ago and he claims it's all for the better. 'Im still writing, just not as often... had a piece in newsweek on bruno and one on ang lee's new movie next week, and did something for The Sunday NY Times about a month ago, my new contract with the magazine calls for 11 pieces a year' He talked about the mediocirty that exists in movies today and how he is happy he no longer has to 'watch boring movies every day'. I'm worried. more people are hooked online and less take the time to actually buy a newspaper or read a magazine, which means cutting down and more cutting down. The horror of it all pains me and it's only going to get worse.

Slow week



It's been a slow movie week, not much on the forefront except for the San Diego Comic Con happening as we speak and news that a new Batman film is in the works. I can't forget to mention some of the negative response to my Watchmen post- in which I call the film lazy and pointless. Reactions to the film have been mixed but it still has its die hards and still has a strong following- just like the graphic novel. I ended up watching it again and guess what? It's still lazy, pointless and boringly directed. Without an ounce of visual or artistic flair. Not my cup of tea I suppose.
The movie everyone is talkin' about is Kathryn Bigelow's war movie The Hurt Locker and I'm hopefully planning on screening it during the coming week, along with 500 days of summer and my review of Che on DVD. Some interesting viewing ahead and an all together more interesting week to come. Have a great weekend.

Lynchian Modesty



A filmmaker doesn’t have to suffer to show suffering. You just have to understand it. You don’t have to die to shoot a death scene.

Only David Lynch can resort to answering questions in a remarkable kind of eccentricity. He basically gives all the answers one would need as to why watching a film on a laptop takes away from the main experience. Take note, there is no better way of watching The Godfather than on crisp, clear HD sound and there's no better way of taking away from visuals than to watch it on a modest 12' laptop screen. Watching film on your PC or Mac takes away from the experience- as Lynch says, The visuals are ruined and all you end up with is plot, now what's the fun in that? I cannot imagine watching movies like 2001 and Lynch's own Mulholland Drive for the first time on a small screen. It takes away from the visceral experience and prevents any atmosphere from happening. As he states 'Some people think they have seen the film but they really haven't'. In his own words 'it's a pathetic horror story'.

The below interview he gave to The New York Times Magazine is great and definitely worth a read- the most revealing quote comes at its conclusion and talks about memory.

Do you plan to film your wedding?
No. It’s a hassle. So many things these days are made to look at later. Why not just have the experience and remember it?

Because most people have the experience and forget it.
Some things we forget. But many things we remember on the mental screen, which is the biggest screen of all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine/23wwln-q4-t.html

Image Of The Day 7/20/09



A strange thing happens during The Shining. In fact, I never really got the scene's purpose within the story. As the chills build up and as the scares come up, we see a man in a bear suit giving head to a properly dressed man. The fact that these 2 random strangers are a somewhat ghostly presence in the house only reinforces the oddness of it all. Case in point, to this day people are still trying to find an answer to the absurdity on screen. What's the point? If there IS in fact a point. Don't get me wrong, creepy scene but very random.

Where's Nathalie Portman?



The above picture is as iconic as any in the graphic novel world. Coming out on DVD tomorrow is Zack Snyder's Watchmen. A completely botched take on Alan Moore's classic and another example of how Snyder has no artistic or directing flair. It's one thing to be this ambitious but it's another to leave it to incompetent hands that will botch every detail- this is by all means not a horrible 'ed-wood-esque' fiasco but what pisses me off most is the fact that there was so much potential, especially given the fact that the novel was voted one of the 100 greatest in Time Magazine. Or it could all just mean that Moore's novels don't translate well on screen (From Hell, Extraordinary gentlemen, Spawn). V For Vendetta being the sole exception to the rule and I'm being biased considering I'm hooked on anything Nathalie Portman does. No matter the reason, The Watchmen is just a bad movie.

'Venturing into the slipstream'



If music was ever made in the heavens, this is it. A mix of Celtic, folk, blues, jazz and rock. You've never heard anything quite like Van Morrison's Astral Weeks. It's a dreamy record and possibly my favourite one ever. To listen to it is to get immersed in its dream world where nothing makes sense but everything does. Renowned Rock critic Lester Bangs supposedly locked himself up in his final days of madness and all he would listen to in his surreal state was Astral Weeks. To listen to this record is to experience something unique and surreal. At one point during a song, Morrison keeps repeating 'You breathe in, you breathe out' countless times. You have no idea what he means but there's a spiritual sense that he truly believes in whatever he's saying and that he's getting into something highly spiritual and revealing. As the weekend starts- there's no better record that captures an Irish summer at its dreamy best.