24 fps

New Blog

2010-09-06T21:37:00.001-04:00

The World of Cinema blog has moved over to No Agenda Films, a blog that presents a weekly film based on the topics of the No Agenda Podcast.

2009 Yearbook

2010-03-11T14:52:00.005-05:00

Here are the posters of note that were discussed in the 2009 Yearbook show. The episode and companion film list will be posted shortly.

I don't know if Steven Soderbergh is involved in the creation of the posters for his films, or just intelligent enough to hire creative people to handle the marketing...either way, his films consistantly have great designs. Traffic, The Limey, Bubble, The Informant!, Full Frontal, Che, the list goes on and on.

This documentary took an interesting angle in that it ignored the devious nature of creating "good" advertising (that people can be made to want shit they don't need) and just focused on the art of creating good design. The poster needs to fulfill the ideas presented in the film and I think it succeeds wonderfully.

Simple. Iconic. What else do you need? I especially like the lack of names (and there are great creative names behind this film) anywhere near the name of the film. The tag line is perfect too. It conveys a sense that this film is officially a children's film, but there is a kid in all of us, so really, it's a film for everyone.

Speaking of a lack of vanity. When a movie star of the Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks or George Clooney variety are in a film, I'm always impressed when the marketing department/company goes with a poster that does not include a head shot. This one goes one step further in that the three main characters are on the poster, but in silhouette. And on top of that, Mr. Clooney has his back to us.

A British comedy about how far a miscommunication between two governments can go...this is exactly the poster design you go with for this film. The only thing better is the trailer.

A documentary about the industrial food system we have here in this country and what it is doing to our health. Once again, what other image do you go with to convey the odd nature of industrializing something that is natural to this world. A cow with a barcode. A brilliant, simple and terrifying design.

At first glance I thought this teaser poster for 9 was original and very creative...then I remembered the "What is the Matrix?" poster from years ago and the creativity points when down a little bit for 9. I still like the idea though. Any poster that doesn't include the title of the film gets my attention, which is probably the intent.

To continue with the 9 theme...this poster was just plain creative and intriguing and original. The target practice element was inspired and once again, the total lack of vanity this poster displays gets it extra points. Actually, all the posters made for this film are fantastic.

2007 Yearbook

2010-03-06T12:18:00.001-05:00

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (http://www.theworldofcinema.com/) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

2007

Dramas (Not ranked)
There Will Be Blood
Prag (Prague)
Zodiac
No Country for Old Men
Into the Wild
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
Gone Baby Gone
The Bothersome Man

Comedy (Ranked)
1. Knocked Up
2. The TV Set
3. The Ten
4. Reno 911!: Miami
5. Superbad

Documentary (Not Ranked)
A Map for Saturday
No End in Sight
The 11th Hour
Your Mommy Kills Animals
Kurt Cobain About A Son
The King of Kong: A Fist Full of Quarters

2006 Yearbook

2010-02-27T12:37:00.000-05:00

2006

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (http://www.theworldofcinema.com/) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

This year seemed to be a very strong year for documentaries, at least the ones I was able to see.

Documentary

Henri Langlois: Phantom of the Cinematheque

Why We Fight

Jesus Camp

Clear Cut: The Story of Philomath, Oregon

American Hardcore

Before the Music Dies

Drama

The Departed

Children of Men

I am the Angel of Death: Pusher III

The Fountain

Brick

L'Enfant

Comedy

Idiocracy

Clerks II

Beerfest

2005 Yearbook

2010-02-20T11:57:00.001-05:00

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (http://www.theworldofcinema.com/) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

The journal entry I have for this list was March 2, 2006. It is a combination of divided up by genres as well as number ranked.

2005

Drama
1. Syriana
2. A History of Violence
3. Good Night and Good Luck
4. Brokeback Mountain
5. Lord of War

Comedy
1. The 40 Year Old Virgin
2. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
3. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
4. The Wedding Crashers

Forien
1. A Hole in My Heart
2. Cache
3. Brothers
4. Kings and Queen
5. The Edukators

Documentary
1. The Future of Food
2. Grizzly Man
3. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
4. Murderball
5. Popaganda: The Art and Crimes of Ron English

2004 Yearbook

2010-02-13T08:06:00.004-05:00

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (http://www.theworldofcinema.com/) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

As asserted in the 2004 Yearbook episode of WOC, this was a fantastic year of film that rivals 1999 in my book. I divided up this year’s best into four categories and each category is ranked.

2004

Drama
1. Primer
2. Before Sunset
3. The Aviator
4. We Don’t Live Here Anymore
5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
6. Madness and Genius
7. Kinsey
8. Sideways
9. Spartan
10. The Village

Comedy
1. I Heart Huckabees
2. Team America: World Police
3. Club Dread
4. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
5. Silver City
6. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
7. Mean Girls
8. Harold and Kumar go to White Castle
9. In Good Company
10. Saved!

Documentary
1. The Corporation
2. Control Room
3. In the Realms of the Unreal
4. Metallica: Some Kind of Monster
5. Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire
6. Super Size Me
7. Farmingville
8. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism
9. The Agronomist
10. The Fourth World War

Foreign
1. Last Life in the Universe
2. Maria Full of Grace
3. Kopps
4. Carandiru
5. The Motorcycle Diaries

2003 Yearbook

2010-02-06T17:16:00.001-05:00

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (http://www.theworldofcinema.com/) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

This year I went with seperate lists of Fiction and Documentary and I went back to actually ranking the films.

2003

Fiction
1. Elephant
2. Le temps du loup (Time of the Wolf)
3. Lilja 4-ever (Lilya 4-Ever)
4. Dom durakov (House of Fools)
5. Elsker dig for evigt (Open Hearts)
6. The Shape of Things
7. American Splendor
8. 21 Grams
9. 28 Days Later
10. Old School

Documentary
1. The Weather Underground
2. The Fog of War
3. Capturing the Friedmans
4. Spellbound
5. Seeing is Believing: Handicams, Human Rights and the News

2002 Yearbook

2010-01-30T12:05:00.000-05:00

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (www.theworldofcinema.com) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

This year I ended up grouping the best by their star ranking.

2002

**** (4 stars)

Irreversible

West 47^th Street

The 25^th Hour

Super Troopers

Love Liza

Y tu Mama Tambien

***1/2 (3 1/2 stars)

Gangs of New York

Adaptation

Punch Drunk Love

Far From Heaven

The Kid Stays in the Picture

Bloody Sunday

Time Out

*** (3 stars)

Insomnia

Full Frontal

Heaven

Death to Smoochy

Bowling for Columbine

Kissing Jessica Stein

Sunshine State

Possession

Lovely & Amazing

Frailty

The Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys

2001 Yearbook

2010-01-23T04:01:00.001-05:00

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (www.theworldofcinema.com) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

This year I ended up grouping the best by their star ranking.

2001
**** (4 stars)

Last Resort

Iris

Baby Boy

In the Mood for Love

Waking Life / Tape

Mulholland Dr.

Ghost World

Memento

Amores Perros

Go, Tigers!

***1/2 (3 1/2 stars)

Chopper

Blow

Zoolander

The Royal Tenenbaums

Baise-Moi

L.I.E.

Donnie Darko

*** (3 stars)

Nico & Dani

Training Day

A.I.

Heist

The Pledge

Freddy Got Fingered

The Princess and the Warrior

2000 Yearbook

2010-01-16T15:02:00.001-05:00

Each year has a corresponding Dispatch episode (www.theworldofcinema.com) that gives an overview of the year in film that was...

This is a list as transcribed from a journal entry that was dated March 3rd 2001. Some years I ranked films and some years I just couldn't figure out the actual order they went in. This year they were ranked.

2000

1. Requiem for a Dream

(tie)Traffic

3. You can Count on me

4. Almost Famous

5. Wonder Boys

6. Yi Yi

7. Tillsammans (Together)

8. The Way of the Gun

9. Quills

10. Cast Away

11. Dancer in the Dark

12. High Fidelity

It Can't Be Any Clearer, Can It?

2009-09-17T23:07:00.005-04:00

The first job I ever had that I would actually say I LOVED was working at a store called Video Express. It was a local chain with three stores within a 15 mile radius. It was 1997 and some films, like Heat and Casino, came to the store on two VHS tapes. Our bread and butter were porn and children’s films-we must have had the entire Nickelodeon collection. Oddly enough, both types were the only VHS tapes that came in red and orange.

The new films would come in on Monday nights and I would take one of each home and dub them onto blank tapes so when I got back to school I’d have days and days of free content to watch. To maximize the number of films in the total collection, I recorded everything on SLP so I could get three films onto each tape. Those of you old enough to even know what SLP (and dare I say it, even VHS) means are probably cringing at the thought of the picture quality.

I’ve moved at least a dozen times since making these compilation VHS tapes (I’d say I had at least 70 or so), and for some nostalgic reason I’ve actually held onto a few of them. Last month, it was time to clean out the basement and make room for baby #2. In order to justify keeping the remaining tapes I popped in one into the VCR/DVD combo and watched and entire film that hadn’t physically been played in a VCR since the early 00’s. It was a compilation that included The Dreamlife of Angels, The Funeral and Wendigo. When was the last time you had to adjust tracking when watching a film?

Flash forward to last weekend. I ended up drunk in Justin’s living room and he asked me if I wanted to check out his new “entertainment system”. I think he actually called it “his new best friend”. It contained a Blu-Ray player and the most obscene television I’ve ever seen-a 40something inch Samsung LCD TV. Now, I’m not a big tech person at all. I still watch a 19” Apex tube television with one speaker and the aforementioned VCR/DVD combo. The thought of spending over a grand on a television actually makes me a little nauseous. Justin popped in The Dark Knight and I’d swear you could zoom into office windows during night scenes and see office furniture.

I’m mentioning this contrast not to rave about the picture quality, there’s nothing to argue about (as I mentioned in Episode #17). It’s unbelievable. And this is the point of the contrast. It’s too damned good. It’s better than human vision good. It’s unreal and takes me out of the film. This is the point. Back in the late 1990’s when I was renting pornography and Nickelodeon VHS tapes to customers, no one ever complained about the poor picture quality and how they wish something would be invented that was crisper and clearer than human vision.

But Samsung (or whoever) did it. And now my question is, what is next? I’ve read rumors about 3D televisions coming out (I’ll be the movie studios and theatres are doing everything they can to slow that down). But, what is next for picture quality? Are we done? Are plasma and LED televisions then end? How can it get any crisper and clearer? And why is The Dark Knight to Blu-Ray what The Matrix was to the original DVD players?

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

2009-08-21T23:58:00.000-04:00

My first reaction to Inglorious Basterds is to say I take back everything I said about Quentin Tarantino. To recant to those who never left his side and to take back with me those who had left when I did and vowed to never get excited about his films anymore. To those souls I say, “Trust me, it’s time to come back”.

I adopted the same mentality for Mr. Tarantino that I have towards Woody Allen-I’m glad they are both making films and I will catch up with them eventually…but there is no rush. Well, now there is a rush.

But here’s the thing, I’m not taking back anything. I still can’t watch Kill Bill again (I’ve tried) and I have yet to finish his Grindhouse film. So, I’m not the recanting critic. Instead I’m the re-enthused critic who is once again looking forward to many more films from the mind of Mr. Tarantino, especially if he makes another period piece - and Inglorious Basterds is a period piece.

First, my biggest criticism.

Mr. Tarantino is a lot like George Lucas. They both clearly have an encyclopedia of films knowledge. The problem is that their films end up feeling like they are made to exist inside of the film world they live in. That’s confusing.

Their films are so full of references, either by characters talking about films or by plot or characters just being from other films, that they feel like a copy of a copy. I mean, Martin Scorsese figures out how to integrate his obscene database of film references seamlessly into his entire body of work. And this only bothers me as much as it does, at least in the case of Mr. Tarantino, because I know he can write and direct a phenomenal scene (ex. anything in Jackie Brown that doesn’t contain Bridgette Fonda)

Second, the reasons to see this film.

The opening scene is such a textbook example of tension and suspense that I was smiling from ear to ear as I watched the interrogation that didn’t feel like an interrogation. Actually, it’s not textbook in a number of ways, which is why I loved it. A seemingly gentle farmer in the French countryside with three daughters is visited and questioned by a high ranking Nazi.

Yet, somehow, even with all of the film representations I’ve seen of Nazi’s and how much immediate hatred the swastika conjurs up, I found myself really looking forward to seeing what this character was going to do after this interrogation. I was literally on the edge of my seat as Col. Landa drank a glass of milk and then smoked his ridiculous pipe.

All the more terrifying to find out that the gentle farmer was in fact hiding his neighbors family in the cellar and then to watch the floorboards decimated with machine-gun fire. The fact that the farmer never looked guilty and that Col. Landa never really looked overtly evil speaks not only to the performers, but to the writer and director.

This just in: Brad Pitt is not the main character. I’m warming up to him as a performer, and as much as I laughed at his Lt. Aldo Raine, I was much more thrilled with the story of Shosanna Dreyfus, the woman who escapes from the celler and Col. Landa in the first scene and continues on with her life. After that ten minute opening scene, I want to know what this character is going to do.

So the way I saw the rest of the film play out was a battle between Col. Landa and Shosanna Dreyfus. The Basterds were in the film the way a romantic sub-plot will pop up in films, except, the Basterds were a much more welcome sub-plot. In looking at the film this way, the scene where Col. Landa discusses the logistics of the theatre with Ms. Shosanna (especially her reaction once he leaves) is absolutely devastating.

One last saving grace to the film is the period piece element. Mr. Tarantino is writing about a time period and events he never lived through, and I think that helped. There are still pop culture conversations about the movies of the day, but in the normal context in which that would pass as conversation. There is still a lot of musical cues, but not the “hey aren’t I hip” musical selections I felt were throughout the Kill Bill films. The dialogue and the music had to fit the period and they did.

More to come…

The Context of Stars

2009-07-16T03:43:00.006-04:00

So, my Dad loves to drag me to the big summer movies. I like drinking with my Dad so I go the movies with him in the summer with the caveat that we hit our favorite bar (Groucho's) beforehand. It’s located right near the most hideous of all the local multiplexes (a 16 screen Cinemark located inside a mall) so the experience is entertaining, even if the film is not. Knowing we were heading in to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I ordered shots with our first beers. The quality of the movie is irrelevant to this conversation (as anyone who listens to the show knows my feelings about Mr. Bay) so the only thing I’ll say is that I found myself taking a walk down the cinema’s hallways trying to kill time after a bathroom break because trying to take a nap in a theatre showing that movie is impossible.

Cinemark, at least the ones in Cleveland, have an odd decorating style that ended up getting me to think about the context of stars in a way that I hadn’t. I’ve come of age watching films in an era that is arguably a low point for the art form-with the exception of the late 1990’s. There has been more and more product every year with less and less quality. The so called Golden Age of Hollywood has such a nostalgic tinge to it that I just assume that people going to the cinema on a weekly basis were having a blast watching the classics we now enjoy via DVD or the rare repertoire screening.

But were these films classics when they came out? Did people in the 1950’s look at Cary Grant the same way people look at Matthew McConaughey today? Some love him, some hate him and still others just don't care.

This is what Cinemark got me thinking about. In the hallway, there are posters up on the walls for all of the upcoming films of the summer and early fall. In between these are frames stills and headshots for stars of the past. So there is a poster for Battle for Terra next to Audrey Hepburn and Harry Potter is next to Sidney Poitier and GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is next to a picture of the Rat Pack.

The combo that stopped me and sucked up ten minutes of my drunken thoughts was the combo of the poster for Ghosts of Girlfriends Past next to a nice headshot of Cary Grant.

My god, is Wooderson really comparable to Dr. Huxley?

The more I gave it some serious thought; I began to think that Cinemark was right. When my Grandma tells me about seeing Bringing Up Baby or North by Northwest, she never tells me about their box office success or failure. Mr. Grant was simply an actor who did some romantic comedy work and some action pictures and some thrillers and so on.

When I got home that night I looked at their IMDB profiles next to each other and became convinced that I actually had learned something by going to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen at Cinemark night. It’s all about context. I’m growing up with Mr. McConaughey the way my elders grew up seeing Mr. Grant. Just another star up on the screen entertaining us with their antics. The older ones have more of an untarnished image to people my age because all we know of them is their screen persona, not the awkward interview they gave to Jimmy Kimmel or that fat picture that was printed in US Weekly.

But, to my son, they will all be the same and he’ll have a new Mr. Grant/Mr. McConaughey that I’ll be bitching about.

New Forms of Com-Docs

2009-06-21T02:33:00.005-04:00

So Netflix has finally gotten their shit together and allowed us Mac users to watch films online, instantly! Actually, they started allowing us to watch instantly about 5 months ago. However, I've only really started to abuse this in the last few months. What has Aaron been spending his time watching? Never Forever? Cocaine Cowboys? Deliver Us From Evil? Back Door to Hell? Bad Guy?

Nope. I've been watching a type of documentary commonly called the concert film. Stand-up comedy concert films. I started out watching the old Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor and Lenny Bruce and have moved onto current comedians (with the idea of catching them live next time they are in Cleveland). Doug Stanhope, Doug Benson, Joe Rogen, Patton Oswalt, Brian Posehn, Maria Bamford and the current king of stand-up (in my book) Zach Galifianakis.

In watching a few of these documentaries I began to notice a few trends that are different from the earlier concert films. Mainly the name of one man who is working behind the scenes as a director; Michael Blieden. Specifically, he directed the Doug Benson film Super High Me, the film & TV versions of The Comedians of Comedy and Joe Rogen: Live.

Super High Me has three parts. Part one, stand up comedy film showing off Doug Benson's style of comedy. Part two, behind the scenes in the "Alternative Comedy" scene. Part three, a look at the issue of partially legalizing pot in California. Joe Rogen Live is exactly what you'd expect-a live show of Joe Rogen's act. The enjoyment of this films is 100% predicated on whether or not you enjoy Rogen's sense of humor (which I don't), but is still a quality piece of documentary filmmaking.

The Comedians of Comedy documents the tour that Patton Oswalt, Brian Posehn, Maria Bamford and Zach Galifianakis did in the fall of 2004. Instead of playing in comedy clubs (with drink minimums) or on stage at theatres, they took their comedy to smaller venues/clubs that normally host indie label musical acts. The entire audience is standing for the whole show and the ticket prices are more affordable. This film is a favorite of mine as it mixes clips from their stand-up, skits that were performed off stage while on the road together and some insider scenes about how these four go about writing their material.

The film is Blieden's best work because it breaks new ground in Com-Doc filmmaking. If you are following around four comedians on the road, there is an interesting dynamic that I haven't seen in too many other Com-Docs. There is a form of friendly "one-upmanship" that takes place in several scenes, most notably when the three guys go out to eat at a local diner and take turns upping the ante on lame puns involving a bear (the sign that starts it says "Talk to the Paw").

So you get the standard behind the scenes, performance and hanging out footage, but, you also get a great skit show kind of comedy as well. It helps that all of these comedians are doing great and unique comedy. I just hope this format catches on.

Outrage vs. Tyson vs. Anvil: The Story of Anvil

2009-05-25T15:42:00.014-04:00

As listeners to the show are aware, I'm a documentary fanatic. In fact, when we transitioned the show from public access television to the Interweb air waves, there was a brief debate of reworking the show to only cover documentaries as I've never run across a podcast with that format. Justin told me to "go fuck myself" and that was the end of the debate.
So last week I as in my element when I got to see three press screenings in one day of upcoming (at least for the Cleveland area) documentaries, Outrage, Tyson and Anvil: The Story of Anvil. Outrage is Kirby Dick's latest project. Tyson is James Toback's second documentary. Anvil: The Story of Anvil is the directorial debut of Sacha Gervasi. All three are quite different and I couldn't help but think of Episode #4 where I tried to hash out documentary genres with Justin.

Outrage has the feel, look and style of an investigative journalism project. Kirby Dick just happens to use a video/film camera instead of a computer. He interviews columnists, bloggers, friends, lovers and co-workers about closeted politicians who vote against their own best interests. Larry Craig and Charlie Crist are the main subjects of the film, but there are a host of others in the mix. There is even a fascinating, if brief, look at what the wives' of these men go through. By far the most intriguing interview subject is former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey and his ex-wife. Jim McGreevey held a press conference (in 2008 I think) in which he not only resigned as Governor, but came out of the closet too. The film has the feel of a prime time news show that you will never see on any channel (and this lack of coverage in the media is addressed as well) and keeps you watching for the sheer exhilaration of "I had no idea!" and "Who's next?". It's the film equivalent of reading a really well written blog/article. It's not The Celluloid Closet caliber of filmmaking, but it is close. This film falls into the Journalism Documentary category.

Now, Tyson is a different kind of film altogether. I have zero interest in boxing. In fact, I've never watched an entire boxing/wrestling/mixed-martial arts match in my life. I also have zero interest in Mike Tyson. I watched this film only because Justin saw it at the Cleveland International Film Festival this past March. When coming out of the film, he told me nothing of the plot or structure, he simply said, "I cried three times."

My curiosity alone told me I had to check out this film. While I didn't cry during the film, I did have a roller coaster ride of emotions. Everything from this man is quite articulate to this man is an insane animal ran through my head. Mike Tyson narrates his life story with a mix of archival footage illustrating this story. Very simple and very engaging. This film definitely falls into the Biography Documentary category.

And now for one of my favorite films of 2009. Another Biography Documentary. Anvil: The Story of Anvil. I had the same emotions going into this film as I did with Tyson-I have zero interest in heavy metal music and on top of that, I'd never heard of Anvil. Turns out, anyone who shares those feelings will still enjoy this documentary.

It also provides an emotional roller coaster experience similar to Tyson. During one scene, I'm laughing at the ridiculousness of the Eastern Europe tour that Anvil is attempting. Then the next scene has me tearing up as the band members talk about their broken dreams and the hardship of being musicians whose chosen genre (Metal) is no longer in vogue. It's a breezy 89 minutes of film, but it packs quite a punch in that short length. If anyone reading this has seen Some Kind of Monster (the Metalica documentary from a few years back), you will love, love, love, love this film. Justin and I will be discussing this film at greater length on the show, so I'll save any more comments for that episode. Also, I think the less you know about this film, the more fun you'll have. My last thought will be this - keep and eye out for the This is Spinal Tap! references (I counted four), they are hilarious. This film falls into the RockDoc genre with a little bit of Biography throw in for context.

As you may have noticed by this point in this article, it is a companion piece to the previous one about The Other Summer Films. Take a break from the mindless popcorn action event of the week and check out some high quality documentary storytelling.

The Other Summer Movies

2009-05-04T15:04:00.015-04:00

Maybe it is the byproduct of working at an art house theatre and seeing the attendance drop off year after year as the "Summer Movie Season" begins, but I'm starting to get fed up. Regulars who come to the theatre week after week disappear for a few months as they soak up all the latest and "greatest" Hollywood has to offer. Once they finally return, conversations always take place about how bad these event films continue to be.

Sure, there are some exceptions to this statement, The Dark Knight comes to mind, but most of the "Summer Movie Season" goes through the same cycle year after year. It's similar to the "Fall Movie Season" in which there is buzz about how amazing and award worthy films are. Remember last year when The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Doubt were "shoe-in's" for all the major awards? All the hype leading up to X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Terminator Salvation telling us how huge and awesome they are going to be, I'm sure they will end up with terrible reviews and generate only a handful of die hard fans.

So, while the Hollywood box office is covered as if it were news and films grossing $80 million in one weekend are looked on as "disappointments", there are always great films that go by unnoticed. There is a whole host of interesting, if not downright amazing films, that are being independently released and not finding the audience they deserve, until the DVD's are passed around. Here are some recommendations that range from interesting to downright mind-blowing. They are sure to give you a much better film diet over the next few months.

The Other Summer Movies.

The Brothers Bloom
Away We Go
Tyson
Moon
Lemon Tree
Anvil: The Story of Anvil
Outrage
Food Inc
500 Days of Summer
In The Loop
Paper Heart
Dead Snow
The Hurt Locker
The Cove
Precious

Contemporary Adult Cinema

2009-04-27T12:18:00.005-04:00

If you look at the box office charts every weekend, which I do, there is one trend that is immediately obvious week in and week out. The bread and butter of Hollywood is the teenager with a part time job/parents with money who have nothing better to do that go the theater every weekend, sometimes more than once. Now also consider that when you hear a quick recap of the weekend box office on CNN or Fox News or where ever, you only hear about the top three, sometimes only the top film. The emphasis is on breaking records. If something breaks a record, it's reported on in a tone of bewilderment and amazement.

Enthusiastic female voice-For the third week in a row, The Dark Knight holds onto the number one spot at the box office as it heads into the history books as the top grossing film of 2008, possibly of all time.

Then there are some numbers thrown out about Titanic and Gone with the Wind (if they take the time to adjust the numbers for inflation) and how much more The Dark Knight will have to make to beat these records. There is a larger debate here about the need to report these number rather than report about the ACTUAL FILMS THEMSELVES, but I will save that for an episode of The World of Cinema, because I think rants work best when you can hear the person getting worked up and angry.

The point of this piece is that, looking down this well publicized list, there are other trends besides the teen crowd making financial success out of lowest common denominator films. You just have to look past the top films that automatically get the headline story.

Tops Films at Box Office in 2009 (Past 6 weeks)
17 Again (PG-13)
Hanna Montana The Movie (G)
Fast & Furious (PG-13)
Monsters Vs. Alien (PG)
Knowing (PG-13)
Race to Witch Mountain (PG-13)

The point of this is also not an argument for the quality of any film. Just an under reported trend that I have been enjoying for the past few years, but without noticing it until just recently.

Contemporary Adult Cinema

I had a strong urge to see the film State of Play, because I'm a sucker for any film that takes place in a newspaper setting. Yes, even The Paper, even though I know I'm not supposed to mention any of his films (See the 2008 Yearbook episode for more information). Newspaper reporting is a job I was always interested in, attempted briefly in college, but didn't really have the skill set for. So I enjoy a film about it from time to time. Sometimes they are good, but mostly they are just average and forgettable.

Shattered Glass intrigued me enough that I went to see it opening day and watched it one more time that Sunday night. This meant that knowing its writer/director, Billy Ray, was also a screenwriter on State of Play was enough to get my ass to the theater. I knew of Mr. Ray's involvement and that it was directed by the guy who made The Last King of Scotland and that he came from a documentary background, but I could not even remember his name before the film.

Once the credits came up and I learned not only who was in the film, but who helped put the film together. My brain started to make a fractal map, connecting together all the films of Billy Ray, Tony Gilroy and Kevin Mcacdonald together with State of Play in the middle. It began to expand on my way home to include other films in recent memory.

State of Play is like the Greatest Hits compilation of the world of Contemporary Adult Cinema. It's like the Adult Contemporary Music charts - full of crappy, unoffensive, pseudo ballads dripping with cliched, greeting card sentimentality. Films that fall into this category usually; are directed by men, based on a book or play, contain some strong central female character, contain a buddy relationship for levity, involve an "everyman" kind of character (the main male star), have the main character inadvertently caught up in a mystery beyond his control that he ultimately triumphs over by the end (although his death is not out of the question-usually in martyr kind of way).

I personally like a lot of the films I'm about to list because the last main element these films present is an elaborate conspiracy. Be it a corporate or government conspiracy, I don't much care, as long as rich white men are portrayed as evil people and trying to control us all, I'm on board (See the Zeitgeist and the Internet Documentary episode for more information).

As you read through the list keep the following in mind:
-Ignore the box office for these films, just look at content.
-Ignore the success of failure of the films source material, if it is an adapted screenplay.
-Most are PG-13 (in order to not loose any potential teen money)
-The R rating is almost always used as a form of street cred
-All of these films are aimed at working adults/parents (21 and up)

State of Play (PG-13)
The Last King of Scotland (R)
Breach (PG-13)
Flightplan (PG-13)
Shattered Glass (PG-13)
Duplicity (PG-13)
Michael Clayton (R)
The Bourne Trilogy (PG-13)
Proof of Life (R)
Lions for Lambs (R)
The Kingdom (R)
Doubt (PG-13)
Blindness (R)
The Constant Gardener (R)
The Interpreter (PG-13)
Angels & Demons (PG-13)
Frost/Nixon (R)
The DaVinci Code (PG-13)
Charlie Wilson's War (R)
The Sentinal (PG-13)
Revolutionary Road (R)
Vantage Point (PG-13)
Body of Lies (R)
Milk (R)
Nothing But the Truth (R)
The Contender (R)

I encourage anyone to go to a matinee after the first weekend of any future films like this (Endgame is my recommendation), preferable at a huge multiplex in a mall. See who you are watching the film with. Middle aged women in small groups and lot and lots of seniors.

And me.

Woodstock (1970)

2009-04-07T14:13:00.001-04:00

I bought this film in VHS form when it was a two-cassette edition. I believe it was almost four hours long, according to the box. Unfortunately, a flooded basement claimed the tapes before I could watch them. Cut to 11 years later and I successfully check out the single DVD from the local library and watched the entire film, twice. This week.

This is one of those rare viewing experience that I know everyone has at least a dozen or so times in their life. Lets say you get about half way through a film, and you are really, really enjoying it. You're almost bouncing in your seat (I did that with this film). You hope it stays on course and finishes strong because it's already starting to feel like one of those films you will go back to again and again. One of those films you'll pass around to your friends telling them they're missing out if they haven't seen this gem. You are actually watching a film that you know is going to be one of your favorite films you've ever seen. That happened to me with Woodstock.

I'm admittedly biased towards liking this film. The late 1960's thru late 1970's is THE era that I wish I'd lived thru, so any kind of documentary about the culture, politics, music, film or literature from that era is going to catch my interest. This documentary also had a very young, very 'coked up', Martin Scorsese as an editor, so my interest is further piqued. It also is about four hours long, which speaks to the exhaustive nature of the coverage of the festival. It probably could have been nine hours long.

The cinematography is consistent thru all the performances, often capturing one entire song in one long take. A split screen (sometimes up to four and five images at once) is used instead of cutting away. This way we can see close up shots of Roger Daltry, Pete Townsend and Keith Moon all on the screen at the same time as they rock thru the two minute breakdown at the end of "Summertime Blues". If this was all one shot, it would have to be from such a distance that we (the audience) would get none of the detail that makes the whole performance so amazing. In three separate close ups, we see that Townsend can play the guitar literally with his eyes closed, that Daltry dances around in a musical trance and Moon is drumming so intensely that the sweat is literally flying off him and looks like a sprinkler.

Better yet, take a performance that is all about one person, Jimmy Hendrix. As he plucks away at what is now his famous psychedelic guitar version of the Star Spangled Banner, the camera is a tight close up of this fingers as they effortlessly slide from fret to fret. The split screen is still used, but this time it simply duplicates the same image in a mirror effect. The visuals become as trippy as the music itself.

This last comment is the essence of why this is not only one of my favorite documentaries I've ever seen, but on the short list of great films I've ever seen. I do not play music. I've tried. I've tried three different instruments for long enough period of time each that I have a great respect for anyone who can successfully play anything above a kazoo. In about 90% of the performances caught on film for this documentary, those performers are clearly at the top of their game. The film conveys a sense of wonder, because of the long and unedited takes, in the ability of the musicians to play as good as they are. I imagine that some of this has to do with the sound of half a million fans cheering them on. I've done some live theatre and I can attest to the power of 200 people, so I can't even comprehend what Joe Cocker must have been feeling when he sang, "Help from my Friends", but I can come close by watching it within this film.

33rd Cleveland International Film Festival

2009-03-30T15:36:00.004-04:00

I hadn't added up the years recently, but this was my 15th time going to the festival. It has only been on the rise, in attendance and in prestige, since the 19th festival was held in 1995. More films, more filmmakers, more screens of content, more people, more press coverage and more discoveries.
I have only visited the sites and in some cases ordered a catalog from a handful of other festivals, but I've only attended the one in Cleveland. The past three or four years I've gotten hooked on watching video blogs and youtube post that people have made about several festivals (mainly SXSW and Telluride).
Having confessed my lack of personal experience with the environment and atmosphere around other festivals, I do know lots of people who have been to lots of festivals. I've heard personal experience stories from people who both went with their film and who just went to see films at; Slamdance, Palm Springs, Ann Arbor, True/False, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Sundance and Cannes.
In talking to these people, a lot of them filmmakers that I met at the Cleveland festival, I've had my suspicions confirmed-Cleveland has a very quality festival, and it's only getting better.
The catalog is available on their website (www.clevelandfilm.org) and if you'd like some recommendations, Justin and I are recording an entire show about what we saw and what trends seemed to emerge in the next few days, so it should be released in early April.
The main beauty of the festival is the location. Right in downtown Cleveland (which I love) and all at one 11-screen theatre. If you have the money and the time and a backpack full of food, there are 4 days when you can go from film to film to film from 9am until the midnight round and catch seven films in one day. The other 7 days of the festival you can only get in a mere 5 films per day, without ever leaving the same theatre complex.
If you want to skip a round you can walk to a Cavaliers game or upwards of 20 local bars that have overpriced drinks. Not to sound like the Cleveland Tourism Bureau, but it's a sweet location and we always have a blast.
Here are some past discoveries at the fest (some when on to quite a bit of acclaim):
Slaves to the Underground
Small Time
The Debt
Last Resort
Memento
Amores Perros
Paradox Lake
Kira's Reason
waydowntown
Bolivia
Irreversible
House of Fools
The Weather Underground
Seeing is Believing
Open Hearts
Madness & Genius
Carandiru
In the Realms of the Unreal
Last Life in the Universe
The Future of Food
The Educators

Measuring a Year

2009-03-03T23:40:00.004-05:00

The awards season has come and gone for yet another year, and this time, I thought about them in a slightly different way. Each calendar year, I pick a different time period of film history to seriously study and for 2009 I've chosen the American New Cinema movement of the late 1960's and most of the 1970's. I'm trying to reach beyond the obvious and readily accessible films of the era. Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Taxi Driver, The Godfather, The Exorcist and all the big names that are easily found with a Netflix or Wikipedia search are obviously part of this movement and I have watched all of these films at least three times each. However, every time period, every era has so much more to offer. This is where the awards season has changed its meaning to me just a bit.

In researching the era for the past two months, and watching four films I don't think I would have ever found otherwise, I'm convinced that some of the great films of all time are being forgotten. The awards have their place and are a handy way to give the public a quick five to six film list of what it considered the best of the year, however, as a film geek, I find it hard to whittle down my yearly list to just the usual format of the top ten list. There are so many more than ten great films in any/every calendar year that any such list is going to leave out several very important works. I realize that of the 600+ films put out by American studios in 2008, most are easily forgettable, in a strict film geek sense, but there is an argument that films like Never Back Down and Stomp the Yard are just as telling about our current culture as the best we have to offer from this year.

This is why the awards season takes on new meaning to me these days. I'm beginning to like the idea of a film time capsule for each year. It's not just about the great films (in the traditional sense of the term) that came out, but the massively successful films that aim for the lowest common denominator, like Speed Racer as well as the easy to ignore midrange film that came and went in two to three weeks and made a modest profit, like Step Up 2: The Streets. I guess the goal of the awards season is to create a benchmark of what "quality films" were produced in any given year, but that is so subjective that even professional critics can't agree on what this means. Try a Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes search for the five films nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars and you'll see that they are not the best reviewed films of the year. Why not try for a film time capsule instead?

Now, I'm mainly looking back at and watching films from 1967 to 1971 this month, so I've got the benefit of over 40 years of hindsight to apply to these films and see what holds up and what doesn't. Comedy's with lots of social in jokes (The Boatniks) hold up about as well as I'm sure Date Movie will in 40 years. However, smaller films like Scarecrow and The Panic in Needle Park hold up remarkable well. So the question becomes, what is the Scarecrow of 2008?

Summer of Sam (1999)

2009-01-14T02:15:00.001-05:00

Every few years it occurs to me that I should catch up on Spike Lee Joints. He is a filmmaker who has a very clichéd public persona that I know I should be ignoring and just pay attention to his films. I learn this lesson every few years when I catch up on his films. Summer of Sam from 1999 is no exception. In fact, it is quickly becoming one of my favorites.

For the purposes of this entry, we'll refer to Entertainment Weekly, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, Us Weekly and all of those types of shows and publications as the "Entertainment Press". So, in the Entertainment Press, Spike Lee is always referred to as a Black Filmmaker. This notion seems funny to me since Steve Spielberg is never referred to as a White Filmmaker. By adding the race before the occupation, there is added baggage to think about. It's no longer just a film that a filmmaker made. The film is now first ranked within the cannon of "Black Films" or films about the Black Experience, not in the overall cannon of "Film" in general. Now, some of Spike Lee's films are obviously asking to be placed in the "Black Films" cannon (Malcolm X comes to mind immediately), but not all of them. Summer of Sam is one of these.

I read an interview with Spike Lee after he made Clockers that the part he enjoyed most in making that film was that he got to work with Martin Scorsese (he was a Producer on the film). Spike Lee had always admired his work and acknowledged that he had in fact "stolen" a lot from Martin Scorsese's films over the years. This was the quote that made me first seek out Spike Lee's films, as Martin Scorsese is one of my favorite working American directors. The similarities jumped right out as I watched older Spike Lee films; Joe's Bed-Sty Barber, She's Gotta Have It, Do the Right Thing and most obvious of all Summer of Sam.

Without giving away too much of this film (it's box office numbers lead me to think that not too many people have seen it), the rock soundtrack, the varied types of film stock, the slow dollying camera, the flash cuts, the Italian-American neighborhood (and the larger setting of New York City) all could just as easily describe several Martin Scorsese films as well as Summer of Sam. However, this alone is not the reason so see the film. It is the acting. John Leguizamo, Adrian Brody, Mira Sorvino (daughter of Martin Scorsese regular Paul Sorvino) and Jennifer Esposito all turn in performances unlike anything they've done before. In addition, the plot amps up the tension as the film comes to a close as there is a crazed killer on the loose and everyone in the story has a legitimate reason why they thing they will be the next victim.

Also, it's one of those films that after you've seen it, you'll stop and watch the whole thing anytime you're flipping the channels and it's on.

Here Comes the Oscar Bait

2008-11-15T22:38:00.002-05:00

The six screen arthouse theatre that I manage has just got our bookings for the rest of November and the tentative bookings for December and into January. Finally! Every other question we get in person and on the phone is about Milk, Doubt, Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Australia, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Gran Torino, Che, Revolutionary Road and probably a few more that I can't think of right now. Basically, if it's been written up in Entertainment Weekly as having "Oscar Buzz", we're getting bugged with "when are you getting it questions".

Perfectly fine. Whatever gets folks to come out and support a locally owned arthouse theatre is fine with me, but what about Waltz with Bashir, The Class, Gomorrah, O'Horton or anything else that is maybe not in English. It's almost not worth programming anything but the Oscar Bait films from November to February because the audience just isn't there for these films, at least not in Cleveland. Once the Oscars are done, then we're back to business as usual and these foreign films will do just fine.

I hadn't ever noticed this trend until I started my current job. The brand of Oscar is quite powerful and 90% of the conversations heard in the lobby in between shows are comparison arguments about why there is no way Mickey Rourke will win Best Actor. I love that people are that into film and are having heated and intelligent conversations about the illogical ending of Doubt, I just wish that there was some cohesive element to films the rest of the year. Something that would keep these kinds of conversations going from March until October. But, at the same time, I really dislike the Employee of the Year (aka Oscars) awards.

My New Theatre Experience

2008-10-07T14:05:00.002-04:00

The son is now one year old and that means a lot of things have changed for me in the last 365 days. The only thing of relevance to The World of Cinema in this regard is that for the most part my film watching habits have become much, much more geekier. The moments that aren't too geeky are so far from geeky that the thought of them makes me smile.

Example: I work at a six screen art house theatre and since I work opposite shifts from my wife to avoid daycare costs and traumas, that means that I close the theatre during the week. This means that once we are closed I can either go home and sleep or I can stay at work and screen any of the films we are showing. Since I nap with the son during the day, I watch a lot of the geekiest stuff around. When the wife and I actually go out to see a film (twice in 2008-and one of those isn't until next week), we usually see crap since we tie a night of drinking on before we hit the multiplex.

So this means that in the same week that I watched Bigger Stronger Faster, I also got to see Baby Mama. When you "go out" to the movies as a parent, it becomes much more of an event (agreeing on a movie, getting the Grandparents to babysit, getting a weekend evening off of work,...). This is both interesting and frustrating.

I would prefer to see any and all films projected on a screen from 35mm film, but this rarely happens. That is frustrating. The rarity of the movie going experience has sharpened my senses to the packaging and marketing of movies coming out of Hollywood. That is interesting.

The conversations that now happen when two college educated individuals (My wife and myself) with vastly different tastes sit down and watch previews and look at posters and try to decide what looks like garbage and what looks intriguing usually leaves us either in stitches, in agreement (the upcoming W. is high on both our lists-only from a curiosity standpoint) or going to the video store with the son to get something to watch once he's asleep.

I currently trying to talk the wife into recording a show about this very topic, so I'll save some anecdotes for that show. If I can't get her to agree to do it, then I'll post some later. In the meantime, if you're planning to "go out" and see something, anything in the neat future, I encourage you to really think about what it is about the movie you are going to see that got you interested. The music in the trailer (that probably isn't in the film), the design of the poster, the subject matter, the actor (or any crew member), genre or whatever. The more you pay attention and can articulate what your tastes are, the few shitty movies you will sit through.

Although, I clearly can't walk that walk as the only movie I've "gone out" to see was Baby Mama.

The Podcast

2008-09-19T14:46:00.005-04:00

Welcome to the official blog for The World of Cinema podcast. This blog is more or less a journal of cinema (both films and selected topics) that we are watching, but not necessarily discussing on the show. Common topics will be underexposed cinematic gems (both good and bad), film criticism, history, authorship and marketing.

We started this show back in the winter of 2004 thru a public access channel and after several years of producing shows that no one watched, we decided to invest a little money and jump into the warm waters of podcasting. The production time for a single half hour show used to be around 11 days (full time work schedules and limited hours for editing at the public access station didn't help) and is now cut down to two or three.

The show format is pretty simple. We start each episode with another entry in The Never Ending Film Festival. Justin and Aaron both watch a film and refrain from discussing it until they sit down in front of the mics, discuss it and then pick the next film. Then the topic of the episode is delved into.