BLOG

While in Madrid, I had the chance to see the film Elegy, which is yet to be released in the US. Rarely has this been the case as movies released in the US often take 1-2 years to make it to Europe, so everything that in the English language is playing when I visit here came out forever and ago.       Despite being an English language film, the reason it has come out so much earlier is because Penelope Cruz is Spanish as as well as the director, Isabel Coixet who is actually Catalan. So, without spoiling the ending or any plot bits for those back home, I'll kick out a review a bit ahead of the curve, since it appears to be getting a limited release when it does come to the US at the end of June.       Overall, I didn't much care for the film. The script is decent and the directing is quite well executed by Coixet. The cinematography is quite good as well. But, the film just never really clicks. To a large degree, I blame the producers and actors. Ben Kingsley and Cruz should never have been put in the same scenes together. Their chemistry is awful. I've never really cared for Cruz's acting that much and this is just another example of her not really shining. In the scenes where she doesn't appear and it's just Kingsley, the film works quite well. It happens to showcase what is probably the best performance by Dennis Hopper that I've ever seen and the scenes with him and Kingsley are great to watch. The scenes with Patricia Clarkson and Kingsley also work very well. It's to the point where I'm wondering if it is indeed the producer's fault for working to get Cruz in to the film for her name or if there is something that Coixet was trying to do with Cruz and Kingsley that didn't work or I didn't get. I don't think that it helped that these were the first bedroom scenes that Kingsley has ever done in his 40+ years of acting.       On a completely subjective note, the story is also something that didn't really appeal to me. It's set in New York and is very much what I consider to be a New York type of story in that it's a pandering view of a few individuals who don't have to worry about any real life concerns (like paying the electric bill or cleaning the shower.) At no point did I ever really feel like I was given a reason to give a damn what happens to the two main characters. Not good.       On a five scale, I'd probably give it a two and a half. It might appeal more to some than others, especially for those who live in NYC and must love these types of films as they keep getting produced. If however one is a tremendous fan of Cruz's breasts, then by all means, I wish you happy viewing as you will get a tremendous dose.       Watch a small chunk of the film if you're interested.

I'm a huge fan of the still image. I think that for the most part, a still frame of an event has more power, emotion, and truth than that of the moving image in general. I mean, when you think about it, the still image can stand on its own. You can look at a photo or a piece of newsprint any time you want. To view a moving image, you need a projector or some kind, whether it be film or computer. And then, whenever anyone references this moving image, they always use a still image to represent it until the moving image can be projected.       Now, given what I've said, you'd think I find moving images to be an invalid medium, which isn't the case at all. I find a great many films moving and I find documentaries even more so. But, there are only a few of these that I find withstand the test of time, which I am now including below:       The Hindenburg Disaster              The First Moon Landing              The Unknown Protester at Tiananmen Square              The Fall of the Berlin Wall       You may ask why some were not included, such as Martin Luther King's, "I Have a Dream" speech? This is something that I feel is just as powerful when heard recorded as it is to watch. But, what about the planes crashing in to the Twin Towers on 9/11? That could probably make the cut, but I am so sick and brow beaten with that footage at this point, that I wish never to see it again and refuse to post it here as it was used to herd a numbed American public in to doing a great many evils in the world. Maybe someday in the future, I'll be able to view it again and see if it fits in such a list.

Due to popular films like, Blood Diamond, the issues surrounding conflict diamonds are becoming much better known to the world. If you really want to read up, this article is long, but insanely brilliant and in depth. But something that people are largely unaware of (myself including until about a year ago) is the conflict surrounding Coltan which is the name for columbite-tantalite, an ore crucial to producing the materials needed for capacitors. This is critical because capacitors are in essentially every electronic device that we make today from cellphones, to laptops, to even our cars.       By itself Coltan is just another item that we are stripping from the earth in order to feed our thirst for technology. The big problem with it, is people estimate that 80% of the world's supply exists in the Democratic Republic of Congo and it exists in areas that are rife with conflict and a tally of 3.8 million dead because of the conflict. Buying anything from this region in its current state continues to fund this conflict. There is basically no way to know if the Coltan in your electronics comes from here though as the material mined here is often smuggled out and sold in other neighboring countries who don't have the stigma of continuing war. So, the debate about where the material in the capacitors of your electronics comes from and if you are thusly supporting conflict continues and will hopefully get more attention in the coming years. Currently, the only thing you can do to limit this issue in your own life is to reduce or eliminate unnecessary electronics purchases. From here I depart on to a tangent that is related, but shows how hypocritical Americans are when it comes to what we say and do.       Lisa F. Jackson has been getting a lot of press and showings lately because of her documentary, The Greatest Silence which is a film that addresses the rape and torture of Congolese women in the eastern part of the DRC; an area which is only now starting to emerge from war. Jackson's approach puts her in front of the camera far too much and makes me respect Lumo even more as allows the story of rape and abuse to come forth from the mouths of the victims giving a much more powerful message from those affected. This method takes a great deal of time and isn't the slap dash method that Jackson uses, as her film was shot in a matter of weeks, as opposed to Lumo's two years.       But, this is subjective and I digress. The only think I wanted to establish is that Jackson is quite outspoken, which is good and bad. She is telling a message that needs to be heard. It's her methods that are suspect. For instance she goes to great ends to bash on the UN (one of the more unoriginal organizations to attack) yet at the same time, her film wouldn't have happened without the UN transporting her to areas or UN staff showing her around, such as the fellow in the film named, Bernard did. It's just a wee bit hypocritical. Also in this vein was a comment for the blog of the film from when she was in the Bay Area and had a screening at Pixar:       "I'm afraid I was a little hard on them during the Q&A, commenting that there was probably more Coltan in this building than in all of Marin County and if one-tenth of the creative (and money-making) power at Pixar were harnessed towards solving the problem of sexual violence in the Congo, things would change over-night. I couldn't get off my guilt-tripping and shared with them the suggestion of the person at Sundance who said I should start a campaign where after every screening folks sent text messages to the manufacturers of their cell phones to ask if they used Congolese Coltan and therefore had the blood of Congolese women on their phones. I told them that I had no clue how to initiate such a campaign, but perhaps there was a genius at Pixar who could get it launched."       I find this preposterous. Jackson shot her film on DV. That requires a computer to edit the film, which requires Coltan to manufacture, so is she not guilty as well by having the "blood of Congolese women" on her editing system that she used to make the film? By her logic it seems that the rules of altruism she puts forth don't apply to her as she is the one with the message. I feel that the message is being quickly tarnished and sullied as she appears to say whatever she can say to cause a stir and get her name out there, as opposed to actually posing solutions to these problems.       I have to say that I don't care for this sensationalist approach to solving a problem as it gets people in a flap, but then has little ongoing result. But, such is the way with Americans I suppose and why for the last 50 years we have been so insanely bad at solving any problems in the world despite so many attempts and money thrown at them. I just wish that someone would start "guilt-tripping" Jackson and filmmakers who work in this manner to make them actually stand up and back their lip service to the causes they purport to be supporting, instead of bringing up tragedy after tragedy with no solutions offered or any kind of meditation on what is at the core of the problems.       

Apparently, it's been time to play catchup in the realm of documentary film watching. While I watched Czech Dream awhile back, I just checked out This Film is not yet Rated a couple nights ago. This is a good film that digs in to the MPAA ratings board to find out who these anonymous people are and what gives them the right to dictate the ratings to the movies we see.       This movie is good. It started out by stating a lot of things I already knew, but I was happy to have it educate me in a great many more things that I did not know, such as some of the films that were originally NC-17 and then recut to R. It was also interesting to find out that all the blanket statements from the MPAA about the type of people who are on the board, are largely false. For instance, there is only one rater that had children within the young age group that the board states everyone has children in.       It was also interesting to see people dig in to the fact that sex is seen as a bigger problem than violence, which is pretty much the exact opposite in Europe. Apparently when it comes to sex, certain positions are okay, but once you start making the "business" the least bit interesting or show women thoroughly enjoying sex, that throws up red flags. Oh and naturally any kind of gay sex gets the big, "I don't think so." from the raters.       But, the biggest shock came with the appeals process when you want to try to get a lower rating than the one given by the board. The fact that there is a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest present was definitely news, but not much of a shock. The real shock was that everyone on the appeals board is in some way a film distributor. So basically, when you are appealing your film, you are not arguing a case to have it released with a lower rating due to a mistake by the raters, but you are in fact arguing to a group, who will decide if it gets a lower rating based on if it is marketable or not and what rating they need to give to hit whatever certain demographic they need to hit.       The unfortunate irony in all of this is that this film was given the NC-17 rating because of all the movies it shows clips from that were rated NC-17. I think that there is almost no swearing in the whole film by the people making it and obviously no nudity. So, the documentary, without the "evil" clips that it shows would actually have been rated damned near G. At some point, I hope that they recut it so that it can somehow be released on TV, since Americans really need to see this and see who it is that dictates morality on the silver screen through this outdated censorship program.

Czech Dream. At the very least it sounds like really bad porn, but for people living in Prague, in 2003, it was the name of a new, and super-duper-mega incredible hypermart that was coming their way. The only catch is that it never came. Two fellows by the name of Vít Klusák and Filip Remunda created this whole charade as a film project to show how capitalism has the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe firmly in its grasp.       This film was released quite some time ago, but it has only recently been released on video in the US by Morgan Spurlock from Super Size Me and soon to be released, Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?. Yet, despite the time lapse of five years, the move is still poignant and probably even more so today as we in the Western World buy ourselves in to madness.       The parts that document the marketing process won't be the groundbreaking to those of us in the US who are the least bit familiar with the process, but it's always interesting to see how cocky people in advertising and marketing are. At one point the firm that is helping the filmmakers promote their fake store boasts, "We make people want products that don't even exist." Obviously, we don't need anymore of these people plying their trade these days, but it keeps working, so they keep marketing and they're scary bastards to watch as they play out what are essentially God Complexes.       It's a good movie though and overall it's sad to see how people all walk to the altar of the Almighty Cheap Price no matter what. For those looking to laugh at people doing exactly what Americans do who don't happen to be American, check it out. I think that people looking to see a commentary on the current direction and decline of the 21st century citizen might get a bit more out of it though.

Sunday marked the 80th Academy Awards which was an interesting show as no Americans won the acting awards. This speaks volumes about the state of acting in this country where it's more about being a pretty face than actually having any real talent. But partly out of curiosity and partly out wanting to balance an evening of watching revolting opulence, Number One Fan and I headed over to the Pacific Film Archive to watch a documentary about rape in Eastern Congo called, Lumo. Specifically, the film deals with the story of one woman healing from a gang rape by rebel soldiers where she developed a fistula due to the violence and savagery of the rape by the men. Read up on that link there and yes, it's about as horrific as it sounds. It's crippling to the women who have had it happen to them.       The film is excellent and while I was a bit timid to watch it as I was worried that the film would focus on the gory specifics of the fistula and the surgeries the women underwent to recover at a hospital sponsored by HEAL. Thankfully, the film did not do this. The film was a wonderfully well crafted piece that followed this woman, Lumo, as she goes from being bedridden in horrible shape in her home village, to coming to the hospital, to the slow path of recovery, which involves multiple surgeries with lengthy recoveries from each.       The film isn't some social studies experiment however. It takes an angle of actually getting to know all the women in this hospital and dealing with the fact that there is not only physical trauma for them to recover from, but also the mental anguish from rape, a possible pregnancy, and being completely ostracized by the people in their village. They become outcasts in their own homes and the film shows that in this safe commune of the hospital, they recover to some degree by having the support of others around them. Of course, there is also the return home to an uncertain future looming on all their horizons once they're healed.       To say the film is heartwarming story would be ludicrous. It's a hard look at the area around Goma where the brunt of the fighting between government troops and rebel fighters tends to hurt the civilians living there the most. Even still, it's an informative film that bears watching for anyone unfamiliar with this war that has cost millions of lives and continues to this day.       On a different note, I was quite interested by the audience. For those who don't know, February is Black History Month. While this film takes place in Africa, it was officially part of the Human Rights Festival. Even still, one would think that this would be something important to the history of blacks living in the US to some degree. This reminds me of a story though.       When I was living in Berkeley, I did a little stint working at the Berkeley Art Museum in the bookstore. It was some work thing I did for extra money to balance out my student loans. Pretty boring, but it paid the bills. So, it was about this time, in February of 1999 where I was sitting there, bored and the phone rang. This almost never happened, so I just picked it up and said, "Hello?"       "Hi, yeah, is this the Film Archive?"       "No, this is the gift shop for it and the museum. I can transfer you down to the archive if you want?"       "No, don't bother. No one's answering there. Listen, what's the program for films this month?"       "I don't know. This is the gift shop, but let me check." I ruffled through papers and found the program. "Looks like some black and white prints from the 40's. One or two minor short films. You can find it all online if you want."       "What?!! There aren't any African films being played down there?!!"       "Hmm, no, doesn't look like it."       "But this is Black History Month!"       "Oh yeah, I guess it is."       "This is a travesty. An outrage. Despicable. Despicable."       "Um, okay."       "Look, why are there no African films being shown for the month?"       "I don't know. I'm just a guy working in the bookstore."       "Come on, you've gotta know. I mean, how can you in good conscience tell me you don't know? This is belligerent racial insensitivity in its purest form."       My point of patience was gone with this guy and I pulled out my "race" card.       "Look, my family is originally Croatian. There has been a devastating civil war over there and they don't have anything, anywhere on this whole campus dedicated to it, let alone and entire month! Be thankful you get that."       "Ummm, okay put me through to the director."       "She's not here, but here's her number. Goodbye."       I probably wasn't supposed to give out the number, but then again, I also was just a guy working in the bookstore and not getting paid to deal with ax grinding boneheads. But, I brought up this whole story because as we were leaving after the screening, I looked around the audience and saw that it was maybe 10% black with the rest being mostly white. It just made me shake my head and realize that obviously my not solving the ax grinder's problem with the film program in 1999 has had vast and serious repercussions that has resulted in racial lethargy. Stupid me.

I believe that it is the case wherein with films, there are two positions that get all the glory, which are actor and director. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are a great many positions that get next to no glory, but the two I think are the often the most overlooked, but are by far the most important, are editing and sound editing/engineering.       Acting can be a little off. The script can not be perfect. The director can be so-so. The makeup can look not so great. But, if the editing or the sound work are just a bit off, a whole film can collapse. When they're weak, it destroys the suspension of disbelieve required for a film to work and thusly, you just feel like you're watching some piece of junk. It took watching a rough cut of a film with terrible sound and bad editing, which I then watched again once polished to see the difference. The first time, I watched the film, it was abysmal. The second time, it was far, far better. While still not a great film, I didn't feel like I was sitting around wasting my time on some lousy art student project.       While giving sound editors the credit the deserve may come someday when I have built the ability to upload sound clips in to the site, I would now like to salute the difference an editor can make by starting off with this Bush and Blair clip. It's far more impressive than the Bush and Blair Gay Bar. Naturally, it should be as the editor is Johan Söderberg who I will gladly hire to edit any film of mine once I shoot with a budget someday. His work includes more genius, such as:              Never before was Hitler so lyrical. Unfortunately, the sync is a little screwy because that YouTube Funk we all hate. If you want to see something a bit more musical that weathered the upload a bit smoother, check out, Familjen - Det snurrar i min skalle. Pure. Genius.       But, these are much more music videos, which are fun and edited well, setting their mood to the music. How does editing effect the mood of a film? Well, there was a contest to take known films and make new trailers for them that altered the genre and/or subject of the film. Sure, with proper editing, you can get a Scary Mary or a Gay Top Gun, but only with the brilliance of an amazing editor can you get 'Shining':              Again, pure. Genius. Brilliance even. But, this is just a small taste of what happens when editor makes things go wonderfully right and what the miracle a proper "Hail Mary" that can be brought in to a project.       We always say that make a film three times: 1) you write it 2) you shoot it 3) you edit it. Naturally, the director is supposed to be part of all these steps, but when you have an instance where your director takes off to shoot Godfather 2 and you leave you editor by the name of Walter Murch to edit something called, The Conversation on his own, you end up with the best work ever from that director, which was actually the best direction ever from that editor.

I suppose that in the end, someone has to review movies, I just wish that it could stop being Mick LaSalle. It says a lot about a movie critic when he can't even use his real name when reviewing films for fear of death threats. On some level I know that he gets off on people thinking he's an ass and I wouldn't even be wasting the space to talk about it except that web blogs are cheap and this is taking up about 10 minutes of an otherwise lazy evening to write. Also, someday, I hope that the Chronicle will just give him the boot. They have a great many other reviewers that while I may not agree with them all the time, don't insult me as a reader. And it's this point that brings me to his latest "genius" opine:       Agnosticism has killed the horror genre in the United States. Take away the afterlife, take away a belief in the spirit world, and horror becomes about nothing but the fear of death and stories about sadism.       Those are the opening lines to his review for The Orphanage. What the hell is that? Just tell me if it's a good film. It's his bungled, misplaced attempts at an intellectual diatribe in his reviews that drive me crazy. You wouldn't see Michael Bauer (whom I also hate because I love) writing about the philosophy behind the steak that he's eating. In my book, food is just as much an art form as a movie, yet someone LaSalle keeps getting away with this.       He had been rather quiet for awhile and I had hoped the Chron had silently done away with him, but then no, up he pops like that smartass kid in school who keeps mouthing off at you while you dunk his head in the toilet. Someday, somehow, he will stop reviewing and that will be a joyous day for cinema the world over. It really is uncanny how he has the same annoying smirk that Jeff Bezos has.

For those who don't know, Arnold Schwarzenegger happens to be a very brilliant actor. Those aware of his moment in Eraser where after many attempts to have a "Deep" moment with Vanessa Williams, after one too many cuts, he finally yelled out, "I'm not an actor!" should take heed. For, accusing him of flubbing lines and sounding about as smart a lump of cheese at times, is ridiculous. And to support my argument, I submit this evidence:              I mean look at that. Okay, I admit that it's not perfect Shakespeare, but it's surprisingly good for an action actor. Oh yeah, it happens to be in Spanish as well, because we all know that Arnold is pretty awful in English. I don't know why he hasn't stuck to Spanish all this time as he is much better in it than English and it would have gone over even better with the Hispanic population in the last election. Oh and in case, you were wondering what his line of 'Hasta la vista, baby' would be in Spanish (since it loses something when speaking Spanish lines in Spanish), check out this.       But, it all seriousness, it is obviously the overdubber that gives Arnold a better tone in Spanish. It's quite funny actually, since in Spain all of his movies are dubbed in to Spanish and it's always the same guy doing it, so people thought that Arnold actually sounded like that or something like that. It came as a rude shock once he became governor (again, I still have trouble accepting this) of California and they suddenly heard what he really sounds like. And naturally, a great many of us cried as he was sworn in to office as the first governor of the state unable to say the name of it correctly. Viv l'Kalifohrniya!

The adventures of Chick continue. In this episode, we get to meet his brother, a retired uranium salesman. They make beautiful music together.