Looking For The Right Image.

5 tips young editors should know.

2010-02-06T14:22:00.000-08:00

Starting a career in post? already in post? good. Here are 5 things I learned, practically. I'm still learning.

1. Drop the book. Hit the edit room.

Walter Murch is god among us, but he can’t tell you how to cut. No matter how many times I read his book, I didn’t have The Godfather or The English Patient to Edit. Better yet, none of us can cut like he does. No one cuts alike, right? That’s because post is a singular field, where emulation is not as valid as in film directing.

FWI: Start cutting, master the tools of storytelling-and gain experience. Orson Welles once said that in editing is where the true art of making pictures comes true, and you control it. (hahaha)

2. Three D’s. Deadlines, Deadlines, Deadlines.

90% of your job is a race against time, how you adjust requires organization. Once you’ve done this enough times, you’ll get good at it. Save time by getting all the specifics of your task before pressing return.

That means consulting with your client, director, cousin, whoever.

Knowing what you can / cannot accomplish in given time is what leverage is, otherwise you’ll be treated like a puppet in this world of emerging deadlines. And you’ll never sleep.

3. I know Final Cut Pro. I know After Effects. I know everything.

Guess what? pick two skills and get really good at it. Time and again I encounter the portfolios of everything in the kitchen, while no set sticks out distinctively. It is true that a lot more is demanded out of us these days when software facilitates use, just remember that if you’re doing grading, graphics and photoshop, expect to be paid for each skill you’re offering.

It’s impossible to be equally good at five jobs, pick two skills and market those well. And just because you know the software don’t make you an editor. (cracks knuckles).

4. Do the first edit yourself, listen to your client. Whichever comes first.

Are you uncomfortable having a director (or client) breathing on your back without a breath mint? nitpicking all your decisions? this is what I do: get the details right, and lay your cards on the table.

Once they trust you, chances are they respect you. I am not grateful for every job I get, because the dollar to hour ratio don’t match. So guess what? have conditions. You’re not a machine although in New York they expect you to have infra red capabilities and work miracles overnight.

The client is always right, even when they’re wrong. Getting paid for the assignment? then get inside their brain just like the footage you’re about to edit. Push on their weaknesses (directors sometimes don’t know what to do) and always, always pretend like you know what you’re doing even when you don’t.

Rough patch? fight for your right. If you feel strongly about something chances are you’re right.

The job tells you how to do it. Trust you.

5. Last but not least. Learn how to edit.

Final Cut Pro has made a lot of editors, and has also made a lot of amateurs into editors. Where you fall is up to you. One thing I agree with is that Editing is more than just a technical means, learning the art form is what you bring from your life using technical means, married to tell a story. How effective you are doing it is what will keep you employed, and hopefully keep you apart from the next person.

I know nothing, just what I can tell.

-Cut.

Why are people so hard to please?

2009-08-11T08:10:00.000-07:00

That's the relevant question of the text generation.

1996. New York City. The internet in it's infancy, the pre digital revolution still a year away. Life is calmer, no IMDB. Art is in post modern mode, movies are still in a transitional stage between blockbusters and indies.

Flashforward to 2009, to 2010. Negativity has gone wild, digital. Our consumption for communication has given us more options to display our distaste. Things are lamer, that's for sure, but so is our ability to feel pleasure in pop culture.

Are we fed up with things or have we given up making them better?

People are harder to please. They want more than before, in their food, in their looks, in their movies, in their facebooks. Communication has led to parallels between our needs and our wants, and made them the same thing by stripping away critical perspective for the perils of negative thought.

Go to any IMDB board and it's filled with hate, some justified, most troubling. Don't like Transformers? don't watch it. Hate Lady Gaga? don't write it. And that's what we're doing: we're driving our art forms into the ground by being so hyper critical. Bloggers are a nasty bunch in particular, the stuff of venom and vitriol directed at anything that is deemed uncool or in need of improvement. We all wished something was better, but we rarely focus on that because our taste, internet taste, has conditioned us to look at the wrong side. It's the backwards way of thinking.

Critiquing something, dissecting it for our own purposes has been the biggest change in communication in the past ten years, and it's all because the access to communication and communicating it got convenient. Imagine for example a day without internet, without text messaging, without twitter, facebook. Your brain will start thinking what it's missing, like a drug. We've become hooked in a paradox that's affected our thinking. It is not the image of reliance that I talk about, but the idea that our outlook towards life and our attitudes towards enjoyment and criticism have become blurred.

Do you remember Total recall? Quaid wanted escapism from his daily life. He went and got sold a dream, except that now WE are Quaid. We can project who we want to be.

It is true that the quality of our entertainment has gotten more desperate and less pleasing, it's a sign of the times that things have to be this disposable without thought and appeal to as many people as possible, and suffer in thematic richness as a result. Transformers 2 was 2 1/2 hours long, way longer than necessary to sustain the fun on such a thin story, but people don't go to it for story: it's to see shit blow up good. And on those grounds it succeeds.

Movies have gotten too simplistic for deep thought, but it's the audience who jumps to thrashing as a means to demonstrate their own sense of entitlement. People are losing social skills. I can barely write something before hordes of opinionated people who have nothing better than complain tell me their opinions are better. Majority rules.

Being a cynic is fashionable, predicated on the moral fiber by which the skeptic's sensibility comes from. The dissatisfaction with HOW you perceive something is not the same of how it exists, the train of thought that shapes perception is affected by inner prejudice or mental rejection. Following something through with logic and thought is not the way most people communicate this day, witness the compact ways our living has been reduced to. Twitter, for example, narrows down blogging to short bytes, just the way people like it.

Cynicism is really bad these days, being constructive is something that requires time and effort, and something to say. Dissing something because you don't like it is perfectly valid, it's the trend of dissing that is the problem, and a direct link to the digital age points to how we experience something is how we feel about those things.

I gather the lack of excitement in today's movies, music, and art has a lot to do with this. Since instant access to any information has rendered the imagination handicapped, people think less and suck in more at a faster pace than it takes to make a rational argument for why they feel bad about something. It happens to me, when I go to the movies and have to sit through another film trailer that gives away the entire movie I cringe, it makes me angry. So is Will Ferrel's face. Or Jonah Hill. But that's only my opinion.

We face uncertain times, in a world going through a mid life crisis. It informs who we are, there is a lot wrong with it, but also a lot of right. It's up to you to decide which way your status resides. Everyone's got an opinion, but do they really matter if the beacon of light is lost in a sea of gray?

Point is we bitch too much, and enjoy less from what we should. The attitude in our social behavior is impacted since the dawn of facebook and blogging, and these are all consequences of our consumption. Facebook is great to keep in touch with friends, but bad for airing out your dirty laundry. Some things are best kept private, but the itchy trigger of the keyboard keeps us saying. I blog about what I like and what I don't like, but at least make you feel like you don't have to take a shower afterwards. By being balanced at least the karma points are in favor, and dishing out punishment less severe.

Really, arguing with people on the internet is at best retarded and at worse lesson giving. We could stand to learn a few pointers from Fletch, and not from the rest.

There's always twitter, which puts these sorta things to rest...onto the next.

Making a living as an editor?

2009-08-03T13:33:00.000-07:00

This is the eternal question facing post production professionals. The answer is a variable set of principles, hypothesis that point out the emerging changes we must all face.

I don't know a lot of editors but I speak for myself. The magic potion that brings stability and business is none other than skill. And perseverance. Knowing something the other man does not know. Knowing how to tell a story.

The transformation of post production in the last decade from SD based, tape work flow to visual effects driven, grading HD work flows necessitate the learning of new skills. Things only learned by experience, by doing. In the golden age of the studio system, the editors were in charge of cutting picture, and supervised the sound mix on shows. Movies had the assembly line according to union rules, it was one discipline. Done.

Fast forward the past 50 years and here we arrive. With more and more people focusing on post production as a career, schools are stuck in a quagmire between teaching the tools and preparing people for arguably the most important thing of it all: getting a job.

The above is more important than learning the tools, because experience comes in opportunities. You must cut to know what it is. Any dummy can learn Final Cut Pro and pick up a tutorial to press the keys, but editing is an art form and that alone don't cut it. I knew since day one I wanted to be a filmmaker but my disdain for the school system changed my priorities. I wanted a career, not content to being a filmmaker in word only. I studied Graphic Design with an eye on Motion Graphics, and learned the discipline of working with what you've got. How the arrangement of things work to fit the whole. It was THE most valuable experience and the reason why I am an editor today.
But that is just theory. Everything is doing.

But what do you desire in this business?

When I talk to people about this, they all tell me they want to cut features. Features are the holy grail of any editor. But features are union based, I'm talking studio funded ones where the credits roll and more than one person is responsible for post.

I'm not so lucky. I cut what they give me and don't worry about the rest. Great editors cut shitty works at one point or another, and this day and age one can't afford to be selective. You either know what's good for you or you don't do the job.

The eye of the eagle in the 2000's points to hustling, the learning something the other guy doesn't know to get the job. Done. There is more asked from an editor than ever before, and we must meet those deadlines because it's all supposed to be done in the same amount of time. For example, I grade. I learned titles. My background helped me ease that and editors who know their sh*t come from a disciplinary background.

The quality of post production in most shows is standard, some exceptional. But the role of the editor in those results is indeed prominent in it's success or failure. One of the great things about editors is that we're barely blamed for something that sucks, but also we don't get the kudos we deserve because it all goes to the director. Most picture cutters don't care anyway, we're too busy cutting to worry about what that means.

And what it means is two ways to the same equation: work. How do you work? how do you get work?

I've done my share of freebies to build my portfolio. Some worth it, some done just for doing it. All valid.

Here are two doors:

1) Assistant Editor

The path most of us have to take. It's a great way to learn the editing room and all it's responsibilities, but you won't learn how to cut that way. You'll learn how to manage time which is the step to learning how to cut. I've worked many times as an assistant editor and it was great, this was on more commercial based stuff.

According to the editors guild, assistant editors are predominately Avid based. Most shows are still edited on Avid, which is the standard although Final Cut Pro is the better alternative in my opinion. Assistants can spend up to ten years or even more on that position, since the gaps between assistant and editor are wider now. Assistants are just too busy and demanding to serve the cutting room needs to actively learn how to edit. Just like the camera guild, you gotta be grandfathered in if you wanna work on union productions and you gotta pay dues first. These guys know their shit, and are competent. That's why they work on features and shows.

But does that mean they'll ever be cutters? the article on the link points out the dilemma. Yes it's great to work, but wanna spent years supporting a staff and not learning your craft? it's up to you. There are no guarantees.

I chose the other path. Path # 2.

Learn by doing.

I learned one craft and applied it to others. The best editors come from another background. Nobody I know studied editing, they fell into it. And so did I.

Unlike cinematography, editing cannot be taught. Sorry but it cannot. It has the be learned. Because there is no one philosophy to approach it, and theory is a clutch, and film schools teach that at the mercy of creativity. The rules are constantly being rewritten, with trends are born any minute. The question is, why do you like it? you must love something to be devoted to it. That cancels out financial considerations, although it's a necessity to pay your rent. I don't make a lot of money and probably never will, but I love what I do. When I get paid for it, it's icing on the cake. I took a job last spring on a project that I've been very grateful for. It gave me a chance to work with someone whose work I really admire, and I learned a lot in the process. Didn't make a cent. And the video still has no release. But that is out of my hands. I just hope that I pleased the director and did the job accordingly.

And there is nothing more gratifying than knowing when something goes well. You watch it and people laugh when they have to, cry when they have to, or hate it when they have to. A reaction is the sign you're doing something right or wrong.

And that's knowing how to tell a story.

Ten years ago, I said to myself I wanna learn to cut. The psychological reasons for making people feel a certain way afforded by editing were attractive. I just love putting things together. I used to cut on tape before as a child. Taking VHS tapes and using two VCR's with flying erase heads to edit. I knew then this was interesting, and temperament (patience) and obsession also being requisite parts of the agenda. Final Cut Pro came and that changed the industry, it made it possible for you me and Joe Schmuck to edit. Shooting stuff helped, but professional environment is were you learn, were you're thrown under the bus.

You don't arrive at those steps without paying dues. Editing is instinctive. It's psychological. It's true to film making. Commercials are a safe heaven for editors, because it's a demanding business. Everyone needs an editor. Work for an agency and cut commercials. I've done it. I love it. Wish I could do it more. Knowing what is realistic within your skills is what sets your limits, and your capabilities. It's astounding when professionals call themselves editors but don't know sh*t from shynola. And there are a lot of them.

And you don't learn how to tell a story through technical manuals. My mother is the greatest storyteller, and so is the friend who tells you a great story and leaves out the boring parts. That is life, and life is storytelling. What you bring to the job is your sensibility, but the footage tells you how to cut.

Average editors rule the airways, in television a lot of chances are being taken but there's a lot of crappy edits too. Schedules are shorter, facilitated by the assembly line way shows are turned out. Only a selected group of editors are in demand, people who work in film, commercials, music videos with filmmakers who are like partners.

These are the people who you see in the credits. Repeatedly. Watch a Tim Burton film? watch for Chris Lebenzon. Tony Scott? same one. How about Dylan Tichenor? he's got the market cornered. These are great editors, and they're great because they have experience to fail or succeed. Someone starts somewhere. And that's my whole point.

The future.

Is now. We're living it. And it is going to end one day. Learning the tools and techniques to execute something quickly and proficiently is what gets you a job, but actually knowing how to cut and seeing the results play out is what gets you a career. Bring the disciplines to one and use it like a swiss army knife, all instruments are useful.

But you gotta know how tell a story, and leave out the boring parts.

The rent is due, by the way.

Editing the music video: a primer

2009-07-30T23:00:00.000-07:00

Now, this highlights music video editors and their prowess behind the clips.

A well edited clip doesn't just illicit perfect harmony with the visuals, it's got to make you feel them through assembly, arranging it like a good jazz session would.

I liken this way:

Jay Z "99 Problems" Ed: Robert Duffy.

Robert Duffy constructed an editorial masterpiece out of fragmentation, jump cuts, and perfect timing. Flawless, and textbook example of how GREAT editing is.

Jay-Z "99 Problems"

Prodigy "Smack my bitch up" Ed: Jonas Akerlund.

Watch it again. Look at how it stays in character, just like what it portrays.

Michael Jackson "Thriller" Ed: George Folsey Jr.

Thiller is everything a video should be, the holy grail. But the editing of George Folsey has been overlooked for Michael's gravistas, and credit should be due. This is how a dance performance is cut, period. That shit just kills. Every video done ever since has taken the same style and refined it, but 3,000 angles does not equal better editing. Selected shots and rhythmn does, evidenced here. Trivia: He also cut Hostel...and Animal House.

Michael Jackson - Thriller (Music Video)
Uploaded by milaiya. - See the latest featured music videos.

Squarepusher "Come down my selector" Ed: Chris Cunningham.

Every single edit is perfectly timed to the beat of the song, and it all fits. Remarkable. Chris is a better editor than most of them, this was his first. All the other ones were done by Gary Knight. Afrika Shox is a highlight.

Squarepusher - selector
Uploaded by 103clips.

R.E.M "Everybody hurts" Ed: Pat Sheffield

Form follows function in this clip. Perfectly lends itself well to the video's theme, and the edits don't intrude they illustrate. With that kinda footage, i'd be hard to fuk that up.

REM - Everybody Hurts

Justice "Stress" Ed: Romain Gavras.

Romain fucking killed it with this clip. Easily the best edited clip in awhile.

CSS "Move" Ed: Keith Schofield.

A more recent example. It's so simple in theory and moves at a good pace. Take one shot out and it all falls apart, I think Keith understands the "house of cards" approach to editing: every one counts. Put one in the wrong place and the house comes crashing down. I wish hip hop video editors understood this concept.

More to come. List to be updated.

Generation me = rant.

2009-07-29T17:11:00.000-07:00

See this fking guy? look familiar? he just made the self possessed claim that he's the king of pop. Like anyone but him would believe him.

But you what's troubling? he may be right just because people ARE inclined to believe him.

This is a rant. It is filled with disgust. If you don't wanna partake tune out now.

This generation, "Genenation me" are a bunch of fcking idiots. Really. A nation of people with mental challenges, inclined on technology (the keyboard is the new bible) and twitter to construct a significance, built on nothing more than just self vanity as a substitute for a lack of personality.

Welcome to generation me, and it's happening everywhere across the galaxy.

Twitter, Facebook, Texting, Blogging, Youtubing, self idolation, celebrity worship, fashion obsession, hollowness, dumbness, pointlessness, non sense. These are the hallmarks of this dreaded culture and the representation of an entire species. I'm one generation removed, call me X, and can't relate. Won't relate, will never relate.

Any browse through Youtube is filled with hatred, homophobia, and most can't spell correctly or articulate it. Young people have just lost their minds, and have nothing to show for it than what is on their H & M ornated facade. It's the Tyler Durden speech rings a bell truer in detail, truer in verse.

During the past ten years, something was taking place. A generation got younger, and embraced the self as a means of existence. No longer content on representing individuality, they took the bargain basement fashions, quoteable movie slang, and 80's fashion to absurd extremes. Pictures of partying, drunkeness, and toplessness seemed to be no a social discourse, but an actual means of entitlement. Like that is what cool is. Twitter the result, and check 1,000 times to see how many hits you get.

During the movies, you'll text for the duration and only look up during the loud parts. In the street, you zip your latte and say "omg" on your sidekick at every moment of every step of every territory. This is who you are. This is who you became.

Reading scores are down, polls point to 70% of "adults" in the 18-25 range consider themselves "knowledgeable" of world events yet any search through blogs points the inward: this generation of people are dumb. Graduating to the worse financial crisis of the last 50 years, yet why do so many keep a job?

Because they're narcissistic. And narcissistic means you don't think about half the shit most people do. You worry only about self, how you look, how you're perceived and how your value as a human entity is carried in your laptop.

So you're entitled to everything is because you're special? no you're not. This mindset has created an army of useless people, people that populate our sidewalks, night clubs, cafes, and social living. Hipsters, you're an easy target. Men who whine and wear fedoras with fucking shorts while zipping on BK lager should be shot to extinction. Saving that money to buy you a pair of those high tops? great. You can't afford it yet you buy it. I am not against capitalism, shit I am a capitalist but there is something profound and troubling when your moral fiber consists of giving a fk about nobody but your self at the expense of...yourself or others like you.

You hate to be alone. You wait until that text comes back to see what your friends are up to tonight. You tweet about it. You bitch about it. You get isntant gratification from those who agree and wanna take you out. You "like this". The constant attention. The playing the game. Past 30 and still the same.

We talk about the things we don't have, whine about what we do. It's the realization that soon one day you'll realize that the life you live is the one you're living at now. Every single second or every single minute. What is useful about it? that is the eternal question. We are at the mercy of intimacy, substituting communication for instant gratification. They are not the same. They are not designed to be the same.

What you put in is as anything as what you put out.

All comes crashing down. Baby boomers got old, and their abuse of the system led to the credits crunch and the bubble burst. Flash the new economy and all things changed, for the better we don't know but change is not something people that don't think like to do. Interaction is completely dependent on what is happening tonight and what celebrity did what on what reality show star dressed why. Facebook status says "why is it raining today, it's ruining my evening plans" to useless talk of "getting highlights today and hate tall buildings". Whine and whine about yadayadayda LOL LMOA LMFFAO. Whatever. ADD is on auto pilot.

Who's responsable for the narcissism epidemic? the internet.

Yes the internet. Everyone is safe heaven to free expression, youtube facilitated a lack of originality since you can take anything that exists and make it your own. Music sounds worse than it did a decade ago, going back to a decade that was long ago.

The 80's. And why are skinny jeans still in fashion? high top sneakers and bright colors? WTF is this supposed to be? it's hard these people seriously.

The rise of inflated self is a thing people tend to believe, since self satisfaction is mutual with self idolation. They learned this from reality tv, and instructed by gossip mags and bloggers whose negative rhetoric and put downs have become the language of an entire generation. Subtlety, meaningful relationship, generosity, intelligence. These were once hallmarks of a thinking person, but even in school these idiots just think about what they're going to do when they get out. 9/11 taught the world of gen X to grow up. Some did. Some went vegan. Some embraced ironic messages in their t shirts. Some grew a beard. Yager shots in brooklyn is a cultural defining form. Material wealth and grandiose egos are a thing that plagues the visual world, and turns inward on them. Confronted with a crisis, you'd rather twitter the result than confront it like a thinking man (or woman, or both) do: with common sense. A sense of self removed from construct, removed from what you think you know, removed from what you haven't done built from what you've lived. That is who you are.

What ME needs is a sense of reality. What wiser people always try to instill on young ones, and every generation that preceded it has it.

Yes, common sense. That is what's missing this generation and the source of responsibility among action: common sense. Narcissism is a crisis of spiritual faith, were the love of self is not love at all but a deeply distorted sense that you must love me because I am special. Without demonstrating the superlative reasons why you should be treated special. Exceptional at anything besides sucking dick? kissing ass? telling people and hearing what you want to know? that is what me is exceptional at. There is no withs if or buts about it. The narcissism epidemic is so corrosive to society that everything must start again from zero to believe in again.

So when you hear Kanye talk about being the next king of pop, Me will believe him because they've got frame of reference, no mental construct to think otherwise. If you say it, then it must be true. That is the distortion that marks Me and oblivious to all things true to form, true to life. That requires a sense of reality, a sense of thought not a sense of self according to construct not lived not earned through experience emotional or otherwise. You've never been exceptional, because you ride the coatails of your own inflated self as a substitute to reality. LOL. LMAO. OMG. WTF.

Would you like to say a few words to mark the occasion? they have more than three syllables.

3D or not 3D?

2009-07-24T12:05:00.000-07:00

Now it's 3D that's taken over movie screens as a fad.

Or does it offer new storytelling possibilities? yes and no.

I got one word for ya: Avatar.

3D has seen the industry transform (and the profits rise) so it's not a secret they went for it. Big time. Economically it makes sense, for they can charge a premium (about 17 bucks) per ticket and it'll offset the loss of DVD revenues, which were the cornerstone of the business in the last decade.

But why is 3D special? is it special? I've only seen one film in 3D - Beowolf. It wasn't special. Any technology depends on how the filmmaker uses it, and throwing stuff at the audience at random intervals is just cheap, and gimmicky.

If 3D was the be a viable alternative to enhance the experience, make it an actual part of the process and enhance the storytelling. This is were the technology has promise, and of course it takes an innovator like James Cameron to lead the way.

His film will combine 3D with a newly developed technology that would have really feel as close to being there without actually being there, Avatar will be a mix of CGI and live action, picture Golum from LOTR as the main character in a CG environment and you get the picture.

But that sounds exciting and all, what about the rest?

The rest is bullshit really, why not invest those resources into making better scripts or even better lighting? it's amazing how prosaic film making has become, were camera coverage is like television and fast edits with multiple angles is the idea of excitement. Spectacle always works when you are hooked, and that starts with good characters or something amazing to look at. The Dark Knight in Imax was a defining moment, because that film contained amazing cinematography and characters to tell a good story. Not seeing how destruction can occur or how the earth can be toppled by giant robots, even though that could be fun too...just not for 2 1/2 hours.

Somehow they realized that the shitty product was costing more and revenues were down on auxillary markets, so they developed a fad to keep people interested...and make some more money. That I'm not against, but I am against bad product.

And most of it is. Formula. Even Michael Mann, a filmmaker I adore, struck out by sticking to close to his formula. WFT?

In the business, everything's a formula. What cannot be marketed cannot be made, as simple as that. And 3D has promise despite the gimmick but watch it attached to every talking animal movie Disney makes for the next ten years until it runs it's course.

They jump on the bandwagon for profits, which are record high despite them bitching attendance is down. How can attendance be down when two films this summer (Transformers and Harry Potter) have broken opening week records? the movies have gotten worse and the technology more sophisticated.

Really, Transformers 2 was really a bad movie that looked great. I had more fun watching The Hangover than any film out this year. Last summer had great films to choose from, this summer not so much. And the rest of the year not so much.

Translates into nothing without a good story. Avatar, that shows a lot of promise.

Don't forget your goals.

2009-07-23T15:02:00.000-07:00

It's easy to lose the ladder as you climb your way up to becoming an editor.

The traditional master / servant role of Editor / Assistant has narrowed, not expanded due to technology facilitating more tasks for the assistant. HD work flows dominate the rooms, man.

What does that mean for an aspiring, up and coming assistant? doom.

It used to be that we relied on the code book and trimming dailies to work the room, now the path to becoming an editor with the big leagues is plagued with getting sucked into assistant mode, permanently or even years can take until you become a picture editor.

And becoming a picture editor is far out of reach if you go the assistant route. You may learn valuable lessons on how to structure an edit and all the technological issues one must master, but it won't teach you how to cut. Learning how to cut requires actually doing, not observing, cutting.

In Cut To The Chase, the greatest book on editing I've ever read, legendary film editor Sam O Steen (Chinatown, The Graduate, ect) recalls that he spent 11 years paying his dues as an assistant, but by the time he got to edit a feature he'd doctored so many that his peers at Warner Bros had to vouche for him to get in the union. He was under contract to Jack Warner, who notoriously kept editors on a leash on the studio system.

Yes the path is long, but the road is longer. Assistant editor duties have evolved throughout the years to a point of a less creative and more managerial position, more demanding and more technical then before. Most will contest that they will want to cut picture at some part of their lives, and if their mentors will get them in that could happen. Tv in particular has a good system to enter the gates, but like most things in life things happen random, and by force of will do your goals ever get met.

I do not believe in unions, and I do not believe anyone will give you a break. That break must happen by your own doing, pushing and shoving until it happens. Why would anyone spend 6-12 years of their life assisting other people when there is a path to cutting that only experience will teach? sorry but that gap will get wider between editor / assistant.

Jeff Buchanan, editor of Gondry's Be Kind Rewind, became a feature editor after cutting documentaries and bypassed the assistant route. Now the edit in that movie is debateable, but point is some people by association get their lucky break. And that's all that's needed.

As for me, I've done the assistant thing. But later in life, as I learned how to cut alone and by doing. The ratio of getting paid by it vs working for free is uneven thus far, but fortunes are about to change. Once you arrive at a place were you feel your skills are good, that you have developed a methodology, then you gotta have work that shows it. I do not know what people look at when they hire editors, because most people who hire them ARE NOT editors. That's why you see so many idiots running the asylum.

Lesson learned? don't forget your goals, and continue cutting. Anything that moves.

10 things I learned from watching Entourage.

2009-07-22T00:02:00.000-07:00

The new season of Entourage is underway, and I'm a huge fan.

It's the only TV show that I watch, and it says a lot about Hollywood and it's culture albeit in an inflated, "fictional" reality way.

There are ten things I learned watching the show, which may or may not help me later in my career. These are:

1) The "arty" director always wins.

Billy Walsh stuck a finger to the establishment, and didn't care about money. Now that's not something I would follow, but his tactics to keep the suits away were formidable entries in a chess game of film making. Notes taken.

2) Listen to who can make you a deal.

Ari Gold was ALWAYS right. He's the man with the lifeline.

3) Don't listen to actors.

Vincent Chase don't know shit from Shynola. Evidenced in the Medellin storyline.

4) ALWAYS have another project set up.

In case the one you're working on bombs.

5) Spend wisely, but make the studio pay for the real things.

Like perks, trips, ect. Wanna hire me? fly me in. Wait, it's not like that anymore.

6) Make sure the posse has a job.

That way you're not the loyal breadwinner.

7) Studio execs are crazy.

And so are the description of the movies they make.

8) Don't trust what's not on paper.

Here today, gone tomorrow. It's not on the script? don't film it.

9) Keep family out the business.

Johnny Drama fucks things up routinely for Vince.

10) Lat but not least:

Play the eccentric, commanding, take no prisoners director well. It's your saving grace from the suits. But deliver no matter what capacity you're working on.

Review: The Girlfriend Experience

2009-06-24T06:46:00.000-07:00

Sucks.

It's a perfect example of what not to do when your subject is sex you better deliver what it promises. In Steven Soderbergh's take it offers neither of the above, so it makes it hard to recommend. The take on the material is all business, no fun.

It doesn't work as anything titillating (casting Sasha Grey in the lead is stunt casting without the stunts) but it does work as an examination of how the client / servant relationship works...in 2008 economic climate terms.

This is good stuff to hang a story on, sex in the digital age is a great topic to explore but sadly that wasn't the case. What we get is a passive protagonist looking bored while her clients bitch and moan about the current economic climate.

It's a movie for people who would rather be reading The Economist than be fucking somebody, and that's troubling. Show me some fucking and I'll show you some interest. We get some insights on the business of economy but that's it.

That is so 2008, man. That framing device of the dudes rambling about nonsense (and the horrid color correction) has nothing to do with the movie.

For a more titillating, cerebral, and gutsy look at the life of an escort, I suggest you watch 1991's Tokyo Decadence.

That movie features a truly courageous performance by the lead, with sex scenes that will get your blood running. That character was tragic, made worse by the degradation and humiliation of her work. It was realistic, and cold yet somewhat sexy.

The Girlfriend Experience is more interested in the inner working of the client / provider relationship and that's ok if you like hearing people complain complain complain about the economy, since the movie just happens as a series of scenes there's no connective tissue to warrant much interest. There is a sort of arc to the proceedings but you'll have to get to the end to see it, I didn't and turned it off at the 40 minute mark.

Sex and economy are a shaky business to pull off cinematically, stories need to be relatable on a human level, or offer some insights with fresh characters we don't know about.

Soderbergh chose the least interesting path for this: Economy. The internet has changed all views of sexuality, and how people promote themselves. The interpersonal connection between sex / technology would have been the angle this story would work from, to me it seems more interesting than hearing a bunch of people whose faces we rarely see talk about the economy. You've got a porn star in the lead, use that to turn the expectations on it's head and integrate her baggage into the plot. Sasha Grey did ok, what her character was supposed to do or didn't do.

I think the premise was ok, and given the right set of hands could have turned out a lively, gutsy, and entertaining movie about the inner workings of an escort. Soderbegh just didn't seem very interested in the story, and it shows in the lack of texture and boring dissatisfaction from the way it's mounted. It looks good, shot with the Red and the acting is ok, neither character makes much of an impression. The audio mixing was also a problem, some of the sound sounded terrible.

Others would like it, but if you've ever f**cked an escort you would know a lot more fun is showing than talking.

Had The Girlfriend Experience focused on the inner workings of the character, and cast someone less passive, it would have been ok.

Anyone seen Tokyo Decadence? pop that in.

Michael Mann + Dante Spinnoti = Great, Mann + Spinnoti + HD? Not great

2009-06-24T05:45:00.000-07:00

I fucking love Michael Mann. Let's get it out of the way.

I fucking love HD, let's get that out of the way.

Mann and his great DP Dante Spinotti reunite on this summer's public enemies, their last collaboration being 1999's supreme The Insider. Shot on film. This one is shot on HD using the Cinealta camera from Sony and there are issues I'd like to discuss with the medium.

Mann is supreme master conductor of feelings and mood, second only to no one working today. I remember when I first saw Manhunter ages ago and how marvel I was at the deep focus compositions and attention to detail his films have. I recently rewatched Heat and was blown away by details I didn't catch the first few times I saw it.

Even when hit or miss his films exhibit great visuals. When I saw the trailer for Public Enemies, I was dumbfounded. Not that he shot digital, but how cheap the movie looks. It looks really cheap. Budget? 100 mill.

It's not secret that HD has come to revolutionizing the system of image acquisition, with each format having pluses and minuses there is still no concrete way to match the density and quality film provides. Take a look at the shootout bank scene in heat (one of the greatest action scenes ever committed to celluloid) and compare that to the trailer for Public Enemies below.

See where I'm going?

It's not the point to compare the two as greater and lesser, but to use Mann's technique as an evolution of each medium.

Mann's approach to HD vs his Film approach.

HD picks up highlights at night that would necessitate HUGE lighting rights if shot on 35MM. Even if you used a fast stock and lenses it'll still need more lighting than HD. Indeed Mann's films are mostly shot at night (his characters populate their lives at night) so aesthetically this makes sense. Collateral benefit from this approach (he used an early version of Thompson's Viper Camera) and can be seen in the scenes were jamie Foxx calls Jada Pincket from the parking lot. You would have had to light the building not to mention source the garage where he's calling from if you shot that on 35mm. That's an added expense, not to mention the speed to set up is quicker on HD.

In the commentary for Collateral, Mann contends that scene would have been nearly impossible to shoot on traditional film since the location was only available for an hour or so and you wouldn't be able to see the subject in the building unless you lit it. Fair game, it worked for that film.

Now, film schedules are shorter than ever and so does technology facilitate the speed by which things can be acquired. This is part of the reason why the industry is leaning towards HD as the standard: money. Money is saved shooting on tape but the post production costs have risen as a result, since digital image acquisition creates more steps to properly create the show. Color grading, conforming, mastering. These things add cost to what used to be film> lab> telecine> post> timing >finish.

I like the traditional model employed by 100 years of use, it works and the fuzz is minimal on big shows. But I don't edit those, I edit music videos and low budget stuff.

Filmmakers have jumped the wagon to HD (the Red being the most prime example for lower cost digital) and forgot about the beauty of film. You could shoot a piece of shit on 35MM and it'll look dramatic, but on HD it'll look realistic so which one is better?

Neither one is better or worse, just how the evolution of these tools impact storytelling becomes the bigger question.

Mel Gibson shot Apocalypto on HD and the skill by which the cinematographer shot that film made it indistinguishable from 35mm film, that is until you saw frenetic action. The motion artifacts are still a handicap HD does not overcome, although new techniques are invented everyday that fix the problem. Fincher shot Zodiac in HD also, look at the night scenes in that and compare them to the ones in Fight Club. Small potatoes.

Back to Mann. Miami Vice was where the change to HD was most evident, since Collateral shot the daytime scenes in 35 most of Miami Vice was shot digitally, and if you saw that film the case could be made it was the format that took you out of the movie or into the movie, depending on your point of view. It took me out of it. The strobing and jerky motion (the movie cost 150 million to make) just looked cheap.

The future, now or then?

In the next five years, I predict digital would be the dominant image acquisition format. It already is on television, where schedules are tight and tapeless workflow speeds up post production. I can appreciate the latter, being an editor I hate logging tape. The issue is, with digital tools replacing the old tried and true method, does it result in better images and better storytelling? that's a hung jury. Audiences already used to the digital look and don't care anymore. The cameras would get better, cheaper, and more sophisticated and as the creative possibilities expand, so do the storytelling ones. What I would say is this: Film is better, no question about it.

Mann, are you listening?

Quantum of what? Solace?

2008-11-17T04:54:00.000-08:00

Somebody shoot Marc Forster, he ruined the franchise.

Never in the history of the franchise has such a soulless exercise been produced. QoS sets out to dismantle everything that Martin Campbell and his team of writers did with Casino Royale, arguably the best in the franchise.

WFT they were thinking hiring someone with no respect for the character? I'll never know, the grosses point out the opposite.

QoS is a Bourne movie with Bond's name only. It is executed with the same flurry of sensory assault devoid of plot, and that's not what Bond movies are. Bond is not a trend, Bond's the standard.

The shoulder to blame are the characters above. The editor is not so behind either. The post below answers all those questions.

For an example of what this film has to offer, look at this scene:

(SPOILERS)

The death of Mathis.

Bond just puts him a FKING garbage can! That's it, next scene. The proceedings here feel like the filmmakers don't care for the character, and none of the emotional pull that Bond went through in CR is present here.

For a friend that went out for Bond, the writers sure could've used a better exit for him. The fact that Bond is wreckless is established, but it feels shallow and incomplete.

Word to Bond producers: Next time, don't make a release date. Make a movie. Do NOT hire art school directors who don't care about the material, and put the money on the screen. I didn't see it.

How can you be fair when filmmakers don't care? you just can't.

Quantum of Solace is in theaters now. Sit a few rows back unless you enjoy vomits.

Action is NOT incoherency.

2008-11-14T05:53:00.000-08:00

The modern action movie has taught us one thing: coherency is an afterthought to chaos.

The cinema of Michael Bay and Jason Bourne have trained modern movie audiences on shaky cam, fast cuts, and multiple angles to compensate for the precision that used to be hallmarks of good action movies. Movie makers think that more and more means better and better, when audiences are trained to accept whatever you feed them they can appreciate when they can tell what they're seeing. It's all about the grosses, quality be damned.

The action genre has been taken over by frenetic editing, a formula that I never understood how it took off. Editors embraced this by cutting action sequences as chaotic and frenetic as possible at the expense of coherency. Second unit directors point and shoot, what technicians and stunt people work hard to stage. It is modern film editing that's robbed us from the ability to appreciate all the hard work that goes on making these films. Too many crashes, too many explosions, too many angles.

What a better way to contrast the changes than in the new Bond film with it's predecessor, Casino Royale.

Quantum of Solace, Directed by Marc Forster, replicates the trend to dizzying heights, resulting in action sequences that lose track of Bond, as well as what he's doing.

Actually, the whole movie is like that.

One of the things that made the Bond films the standard is it's innovation on the action scenes. The stunts of those films are still some of the best ever captured on film, you can pop those movies in and still be amazed at what they did because it was real. Until the early 2000's, Bond films relied on stunts to carry the day.
The editing back then sold us on these incredible feats, and Bond (more correctly his stuntman) was always the focus of the action. Casino Royale, Directed by Martin Campbell, took the series to greater heights by concentrating on character while still retaining the qualities that make a Bond film special. You could actually tell what was happening and where invested in the characters, every action scene was heightened by the character moments that followed:

It's an example of how to treat this franchise. While I like Marc Forster for his versatility, his movies are tedious to sit through. The man has done every kind of movie imaginable, from Monster's Ball to Stranger than fiction. His lack of respect for Bond is evident on every frame of Quantum of Solace, and that's lamentable.

It is disappointing by the standards set by it's predecessor.

Problem #1:

By hiring the second unit guy from the Bourne movies, the Filmmakers went in the other direction and made the action an incoherent mess. Now Bond is just like any sub par action hero, distinguished only by the name and exotic locations.

Problem #2:

The scenes are edited by a Blender. Forster's editor, Matt Chesse (no pun intended) excels at a different kind of movie. Here his edits ruin the flow of the movie by allowing a typical shot to last less than a second. Here is a link to an article on the guy: http://www.moviemaker.com/editing/article/license_to_cut_editor_matt_chesse_on_quantum_of_solace_20081113/

The film's car chase is an example of what not to do in editing. The sequence opens the film, mere minutes after the end of Casino Royale...with Bond on the run by a rogue organization. We can't tell what is happening, the movie just starts on the chase. There's relentless driving, good stunt work, and no suspense because the scene has no...buildup. No sense of geography. At least the way it's edited. This is why it's not always a good idea to bring someone's editor if you're an art house guy. Not every editor can cut action, and vice versa. Lee Smith, Nolan's editor on Dark Knight, accomplished an incredible feat of maintaining the action sequences coherent while never losing track of the characters, AND the film was 142 minutes yet felt faster than this piece of turd. Now, that's good editing.

Parting thoughts

When something goes right, something goes horribly wrong. The Bourne movies have FKed up action movies in general. That's what everybody's doing, and forgotten that showing something from 16 different angles is not as satisfying as seeing how dangerous it is, if we can't tell what we're seeing.

I do not like it, and don’t think it’s good directing. Blame it on movie trailers, blame it on our ability to sustain interest. The movies do not improve, and people watch what you feed them. While action sequences have gotten more grand and sophisticated (don't get me started on CGI)...filmmakers have lost track of what keeps an audience engaged: Suspense. Our ability to appreciate it has not, witness the success of Casino Royale. 564 million worldwide on a 105 million budget.

Shaky cam and incoherent editing is not action, it's not movement, it's not exciting, and its not good film making.

Perhaps the Bond filmmakers will realize this and remedy the headache.

Martin Campbell, come to the rescue.

The complexities of race in a caribean country.

2008-11-09T23:46:00.000-08:00

I am a Dominican. Born and raised in the Dominican Republic. Although I embraced America as my adopted hometown, Santo Domingo is where my soul was cultivated, and where I came of age.

The 80's where are prosperous time for any child growing up outside of a third world country, for the world was presented by the thick haze of optimism and the coolness of Mtv. I grew up with a television, and witnessed the birth of imagination every time I pressed that button. It was predominately white people on TV, while surrounded by people that most definately where not white, they where Dominican.

The politics (shall we say realities) of race where not in my sights during the Reagan and Beverly Hills Cop II years, for playing with WWF action figures and Transformers where the norm for any kid like me. The topic has resurfaced with urgency, now that distance and a good twenty years has enabled me to pass it by.

Dominicans, unlike ethnic puerto ricans, suffer from a transplanted set of conflicting values. Historically, we tend to be darker than our Puerto Rican neighbors. The racist mentality that still stains the country is a decease that runs across every social cycle, from rich to poor to poorest. It's stupid is as stupid does. Amnesty international conducted a report which brings discrimination center stage, with alarming findings. The country's history with neighbor Haiti has been a fractured one, with the racist mentality caused by this fracture still among most Dominican citizens.

According to the findings, deportations, "discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin, language and nationality, are a reality for many Haitian migrant workers and Dominicans of Haitian descent living in the Dominican Republic. Victims whose cases have come to the attention of Amnesty International are predominantly irregular and undocumented migrant workers, but also include Dominican nationals of Haitian
descent, including children".

This is alarming, specially considering the moral fabric that governs the Dominican mentality. Many a voice view Haitian people as second class citizens, people who are less than human. I've heard this echoed around from here all the way there, and it reminds of how conflicted we are as a nation. American influence has surely clouded our ethnic pride, for hordes of Dominican women (typically darker skinned ones) cosmetisize their appearance to their white counterparts, similar to how Black women tend to dress nowaways. This is not the root of the problem, for it's cosmetic, bloodline ignorance is to blame. I'm fairly medium complexion myself, and when I returned to the country after a 17 year absence my conscience was filled, my memories remained but reality confirmed times have changed. I recall walking into a club meeting all the requirements (you think clubs here are strict, think again) only to be turned down more than once while my lighter skin friends where welcomed and white tourists paraded about. Witnessing this ridiculous display caused me to reconsider what I had grown up beleiving, that Dominicans are racist the same way the black community feels about Gay people: denial. Denial of one's truth is denial of one's being, and the anti Haitian, anti dark skin sentiment was a harsh reminder of a country filled with a false sense of identity.

Being dark in Dominican Republic will call you a "negro", or "prieto". It's not as harsh sounding as "Negro" or American counterpart. Context is key here. I've been called Moreno before, as a term of affection. This is something any outsider finds hard to grasp, and it's the local culture that represents the true voice of the people.

The Amnesty article woke me up, shook me, for what it says speaks volumes about how fucked up the state of things are in times like these, times that need integration. We have a black president here, try explaining diversity to a country where identity is still at a crossroads. Haitian migrant workers are denied the rights and protection of ordinary citizens, and even if you where born Dominican and are from Haitian descent people are denied a Dominican "Cedula" (green card). This is astonishing. Dominicans, like our Latin counterparts, are comprised of every ethnicity. Black Dominicans, Brown Dominicans, light, ultra dark, Asian, white, all categories exist, thanks to the gift of a diverse set of people. Exclusion of our neighbors threatens to intensify the brigade, and further escalate tensions. Violence has already resulted, with lynchings reported as recent as 2006.

No isolated incident can destroy the spirit of the Dominican people, it will always be one of singular conviction over what's right or wrong. The case of ethnic confusion is a matter of debate among nationals, one that people far removed from the nucleus can observe.

I come from an ethnically diverse family myself, where my nucleus, my Granddad, was as dark as the beauty of confronting light while my grandmother was as light as early morning sunshine. Both produced my mother, while my father was a brown skin dominican man of middle eastern descent.

Just as the testament of unity seems to be coming true, I offer an glimpse at the kind of people that represent my great country, what a better way to show it than when I first had my Mtv?

Barack Obama is our new president: A review.

2008-11-05T12:58:00.000-08:00

Last night was the most historic night on our nation's recent history. The people spoke with their votes and elected Barack Obama as our new president.

The collective feeling in our country was something I've never experienced, an excitement where race is no longer the matter, and people joined together for the same cause: change. The enormity of the task ahead put unimaginable pressure of Obama, whom many people look at as a savior. A heir to the dreams of such great leaders like Dr King.

It's a moment to be proud, I shall say that I am proud to be an american. This is possible, and more than me feel great already. Like a burden lifted from the negativity and cynical air breathed due to Bush's policies. In more ways than one, this is a victory of hope. Let's all work on making it better.

Then my second half wants to join in and add his collective consciousness. This is a double edged sword, for Obama winning changes the rules among race relations in this country...and opens up new ones yet to be written.

It is within my conscious to state that the majority of blacks whom are uninformed with politics voted for Obama simply because he is black. This raises ethno political issues that come with such history being written. I live in the mecca of Harlem, a neighborhood seen changed by gentrification and split in two by a lack of integration.

What I saw yesterday was not what I just said, it was everyone joined at the hip embraced for the same voice. This is the moment that restored hope and voice that the perils of the 20th century have been lessons learned, now abolished by a new beginning.

I certainly believe white people's self entitlement will change, for they have no reason to widen the gap anymore that Obama being president signals the great thing that makes this nation prosper: Diversity. Every citizen of the united states should be proud of this, for it is what America can be at it's best. He is simply the best candidate for the job, who happens to be black.

Which bring my next point: self entitlement rolling it's ugly head.

Like I said, I still think blacks voted for the Obvious, and to me that is important. Obama could fuck up on his job and people will still love him because of his skin color, but it's black people the ones that need some catching up to do now that the playing field is no longer on the short end of the stick. That self defeating way of thinking that cripples many promising minds shall cease to abolish. I hope his message empowers people to escape the narrow mindedness that perverses this sector of the audience, to escape their entrapment and onto a path of equality, the way Dr King once wished. Every ethnicity has their fuck ups, the black community knows this.
Systematically, socially, and economically, this persecution is the ugly head that rears the reality of where a community stands, and where it will lead by leadership.

Obama is the man that changes this, for his victory spells the consciousness that our nation must and will change. Abolish proposition 8 and we're on our way. Back to life, it feels a collective high.

God bless Obama, god bless America. His victory signals how far we've come, and how open our future can become. The change has already begun. The truth it is evident.

Body of lies

2008-10-12T17:29:00.000-07:00

Body of lies is an ok movie with moments of greatness. Further evidence which brings Ridley Scott's current streak full circle. Take away Scott's characteristic attention to detail, and it could have been made by anyone.

I'm a very big fan of Scott the visionary, not the workman. Just look at the resume: Blade Runner, Alien, 1492 and Thelma and Louise, those movies have no peer. American Gangster, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of heaven exhibited a lack of consistency that leaves me wondering Scott "knew better" but chose not to go the extra mile to greatness. His output increased while the quality has not, and takes little chances. That's too bad considering what he's capable of. One wonders if Scott is content in letting things materialize this way, rather than the visionary gusto that categorizes his best work. Maybe that's the whole point. Earlier efforts like The Kingdom explore hollywood middle east in more satisfying ways.

Body of lies represents workman-like Scott to the fullest. It is well made, engaging, and never boring. What is lacking is a clear agenda, and dramatic momentum to leap the story to satisfaction.

Trust no one, deceive everyone. The movie promises that. By sticking so rigidly to formula (the love story feels patched on), it pleases no one.

Leo Dicaprio is characteristically intense (shades of his Departed performance here) as a man who is once again caught up in a web he has no idea he's weaved into. His performance keeps Body of lies watch able enough to be mildly satisfying, even if the casual viewer is wondering if the story's going anywhere. Russell Crowe does exactly what the part calls for, and it's an interesting parallel to the one he played in the far superior Insider. His character here represents the beaurocratic obesity that heroic guys like Dicaprio clearly despise. That's an interesting dynamic that the movie spends far too little time dwelving into.

Other than the negatives, there's much to recommend here. Lenser Alexander Witt and Arthur Max's production design ground the movie in realism, among the supporting performers bring more to the movie than the script (By Departed's William Monahan) realizes. This brings me to the conventions of Scott's working style. Remember Black Hawk Down and sections of Hannibal? Scott seems to fetishize ethnic profiling, as evidenced in these movies. The arabs are stereotypes, and lack dimension. Part of the problem is the film's lack of identity. It's neither a political thriller like Syriana nor is it an action movie. Transplant the conventions of those genres and you sorta get the idea. It's got the adherence to action movie conventions while trying to branch out of it. Anytime something interesting is about to happen, Scott rolls out an action sequence that feels obligatory instead of organic. One fresh character is the suave Hani, played by new comer Mark Strong (Rocknrolla). This part is where the film shines, and Strong's performance keeps things interestingly contrasted to Dicaprio's pleading intensity.

Body of lies is neither bad enough to condemn nor good enough to praise, and doesn't fall in the middle either. It makes for a frusttating experience. Scott and co surely are capable of better, and the question of whether his best work is behind him is valid. Is he content with the current wave of cranking out a film a year rather than attempting something more ambitious?

Based on box office receipts, I suspect the latter. Perhaps the criticism is too harshly.

The question remains, does he still want to?

The law of diminishing returns kicked in five movies ago. It's time for a new frontier, Scott.

Blindness

2008-10-05T17:21:00.000-07:00

Blindness is a good movie. Stopping short of great, it's a mostly fascinating allegory of human nature at it's most desparaging
when chaos erupts and people are confronted with the unexplainable. Just don't call it entertaining, for those coming to see this wanting all their answers solved are in for a doozy. The Film is an intellectual exercise, one that confronts the viewer and puts them right where the characters are: A world falling apart.

Along with Children of Men, and to a lesser extent, 28 Days Later, Blindness can be considered part of the new sub genre dubbed "Apocalypse Porn". It's neither a thriller nor is it an action film, which makes it harder to categorize.

Blindness's premise is simple: In an unspecified city, people a blind epidemic starts to occur. Stripped of their sight with an unresponsive government at hand, chaos erupts and the bleakness takes over. Fernando Meirelles, whom directed the excellent City of God, is less interested in the Psycological aspects of blindness (the movie just begins when the first person is infected and doesn't explain anything) than the despair it brings to a group of people. This is something the Director, a native of Sao Paulo, understands all too well. The movie's subject matter offers endless visual possibilities, and this, along with is talented DP César Charlone, device a visual device as bold as the storytelling. White is the dominant color, and is effectively used as a framing device to transport the narrative.

Julianne Moore (em, Children Of Men) is the only person who can see among the blind, and along with her Doctor Husband (and delegating Mark Ruffalo) is forced to survive in situations that are harrowing beyond belief. The government, in fear of the escalating chaos with no answers to solve it, takes a group of the infected and hauls them together to fend off for themselves. Power plays ensure, as the screws of survival tighten and despair takes it's hold. These sequences are among the most harrowing seen in a recent movie, as the blind cope with the relentless abuse of power by another sector who use fear and intimidation as a dominating tactic. Allusions to the real world are not coincidental. This material is what's polarizing viewers and clueless reviewers whom don't like their cage shaken. The movie's centerpiece, where the woman are forced to make the ultimate sacrifice for survival, and men put them there. This scene really pissed off my partner, whom as a woman has every right to a perspective man don't share. The scene shows human nature at it's most primal, and how men force woman into making sacrifices by the use of fear and abuse to dominate others.

To put this scene into real life perspective, one must understand it's implications. In her own words:

They (the men) chose to let the women save their asses with the cost that outstrips any reasonable explanation. and men always do that!!! not just in the movie, but in the real life and that's what pisses me off. Men always let women sacrifice the most. and even in that situation, man still finds time to turn around and cheat on somebody who's the only person there for him. Once you see the scene you'll understand what this means.

I suspect the removal of a reportedly incessant voiceover (Danny Glover, in eyepatch) pulls the rug under the viewer even more, adding to the unpleasantness. The third act of the film is so bleak and heavy that the movie barely recovers by the time the optimistic resolution comes. This, along with the music and a few pacing issues, detract an A movie to a B rating.

Regardless of the uneveness, it's a powerful film about the effects of humanity responding in the urge of a crisis no one can see. Being stripped away from our vision also strips us of our senses as we confront survival, according to the film's material.

Blindness is engaging and intelligent enough to provoke some hard reactions and frustration. See it with your eyes wide open, no pun intended.

Trailer:

In defense of Spike Lee...sort of.

2008-09-30T02:47:00.000-07:00

Spike are you listening? you get a lot of flack from the white community, sometimes self imposed, most often not. This is my attempt to examine the parallels and double standards of race in this business as they relate to your work. Roll tape.

The man is a polarizing figure to most, yet he remains one of our premier filmmakers. The man has an impeccable resume: Do The Right Thing, Malcolm X, among many others.
He never told the same story twice, and branched out onto documentary just as successfully. Spike Lee opened the doors for black film, and in the process revolutionized film culture through his convex of racial politics, ideology, and cinematic language. The fact that the progress he has made for African American arts has been devalued by the acceptance of commercialism as a means to an end makes the current state all the more saddening. There was one time where progressive social politics MEANT something to film culture, and Spike was at the forefront of this examination through his work.

I can mention Spike in the same sentence as Woody Allen, Scorsese and Spielberg and not miss a beat. This may sound like a love letter to Spike, no it's an affirmation of his contribution to film culture. A culture that is sadly in decline. Mediocrity is the new cancer, playing it safe at the hands of nothing to offer. How many times have you been to the movies in the last ten years and truly came away inspired and changed?

I remember my first summer in America, the summer of 89'. I lived in the Bronx at the time, and recalled the poster for Do The Right Thing at the local bus stop. I remember looking at that poster, and the characters looking up at me. I didn't understand it at the time, what that image meant to convey. Years later I saw the movie, and that summer vividly replayed among my young eyes. This was my introduction to Spike Lee.

Later in eight grade I bought the screenplay to Do The Right Thing and was more interested in reading that in class than any bullshit they wanted to teach me. I would get lost in the colorful language and the scenes, it was something within me. I saw it as "this is it", this is my calling. Sweet Dick Willie couldn't put it better.

Film is the defining art form of the times, and now more than ever it's in trouble. It's power to move people and inspire their emotions remains the best vehicle of self expression. The language of telling stories has evolved, but storytelling has been impacted, taken a step back to mere technique.

Wanna know what pisses me off? critics. Critics think they know everything when they fucking don't know from A to B. Audiences have changed, and it's harder than ever to engage them when 90% of what they want is just want escapism. That and the driven cost of films has made it harder than ever for a filmmaker like Spike Lee to tell his brand of stories. Lesser filmmakers are handed out bigger budgets (Wes Anderson comes to mind) to craft their idiosyncratic visions, even if his films only play to art school sophisticated hipsters. Everyone has an opinion. Bloggers get down on their knees and suck up to the system in exchange for a free pass. Seems like no one wants to critique work with a balanced view anymore, since intellectual exercise has been replaced by juvenile "youtube" comments. It can be argued that film criticism is dead, packaged, morphed into a popularity game of admiration and bottom floor condescension. No film by any contemporary American filmmaker faces more derision and deviance than a Spike Lee film. Oh folks are equally pissed and entranced at a Spike Lee joint. That's part of what's great and part of what's...sad about our movie going culture. His detractors are usually film critics who take personal issue at his reputation while overlooking his craft at telling a story. When you're as vocal as he is and pigeonholed as the angry black man, no one cares how good your films are. Film criticism has no place anymore, because personal dogma has replaced what used to be known as artistic merit.

The posturing of the "angry black man" is like a curse that haunts every production he makes. Somehow critics, and the audience by large, can't separate the man from his films. I'm afraid this is a reason his films don't do as well commercially as they should because of that. Then again, few filmmakers have cemented a reputation in the public and artistic side like Spike has. There's a sociopolitical identification with his work that engages the audience and makes them asks the same questions his characters live through. His media visibility overshadows that of his films, although in recent times he's learned to be smarter and take a back seat. I argue that because he is black and makes movies about blacks, he gets attacked on those grounds. Well, if 90% of all stories are told from white people's point of view, where's the balance to illicit such strong reaction? people focus on the bullshit and overlook the craft and passion even his less successful movies contain. Sure, his record is hit or miss, but he never plays down the integrity of the story the rules for the sake of dishonesty, something 90% of American films are guilty of doing. Every film he's made could not have been made by anyone else.

Look at an film like The 25th Hour. Very underrated film. It's a story of predominately white people. Any white director could have made that film. What distinguishes it is the insight which informs his best work. The language of new york, the beauty of the characters interactions. In a Spike lee film, people say what often you and I feel about people but don't often express. It could only come from having that unique sensibility. He's had bad films before, but even the bad ones contain elements as good as any.

In a broader spectrum, it can be argued that black film's aim is no longer to shed a light on the African American experience. Capitalism is the new god, so times have changed. I believe art still has a place in this world, even if the bar has been set so low that it has no place to go. Social discourse is solely missing in our cinema. Black cinema embraced the backwards buffoons and racial stereotypes that people take as the construct of our reality. This is what the media wants colored people to represent, evidenced by all the garbage that plays on our screens. The politics of change don't wheel forward unless its from within, and that plays to our fundamental understanding of how we feel about ourselves. The screen is the truth that represents how we are viewed.

Things are changing, with the world becoming more ethnically integrated than ever before. A black man is running for office, and America has come a long way from the days of OJ and Rodney King. Racism still exists, and it always will. The relationship of race and it's discontents are at the heart of his work. However didactic and heavy handed a Spike Lee film can get, the messages they carry are urgent and full of plight. He does not glamorize the trappings of black people, instead offering social commentary on how these trappings bind the black experience in social and cultural struggle. That's anthropology to you and me.

Spike makes what he wants, and he's done more to articulate the race issues that divide this country than anyone with a voice that needs to be heard would. Other black filmmakers chose to glamorize capitalism and materialism as the means to an end for them, that's a cultural shift and a gradual change of the times. Spike's integrity permits him to focus on the black experience instead of the stereotype.

What Spike has accomplished for black film, and for film in general, should not be understated. This is a town that paints in the same color, and excludes everyone else.

Anyone remember driving miss daisy? that film won an Oscar the same year Do The Right Thing was released. Do The Right Thing remains a benchmark film, and didn't even get a best picture nomination. Same could be said for Malcolm X, both remain his best movies to date.

This is where the praise ends, and the subject begins.

I've read the definitive book on Spike (That's my story and I'm sticking to it). It's a remarkable read, and one of the most honest studies of an artist I've read. To understand his work one must understand the man who made them, and the book paints the nuances in a satisfying light. As the book notes, Spike is a man whose complexity far justifies the intentions behind his artistry. He is a bit of an asshole, and self serving, specially to his collaborators. Then again which filmmaker isn't self serving? it's in their DNA. I would not have written this article without gathering an understand of his work. I revisit his films with inspiration and a point of view.

To make the long story conclude, I respect Spike Lee as a filmmaker and think he's great. Call him a racist or a bad filmmaker if you must, but don't deny he's a fucking great storyteller. Even I sometimes disagree with his methodology, but always enjoy the film.

Keep doing what you're doing, Spike. Fuck the establishment, it will never change.

Do the right thing.

Cut it within an inch of it's life, Fincher.

2008-09-24T00:54:00.000-07:00

I love David Fincher's films, except for Zodiac. The man is a genius, no pun intended.

But I also beleive that long doesn't necessarily mean better, and incline towards a streamlined approach in what I'm watching. You see, I'm a film editor, so naturally this topic is right up my alley.

Some films are just too long. I've seen movies that are three hours (Casino comes to mind) that fly faster than anything under 94 minutes, either because they're so engaging that you're glued or fascinating in the way the story is told. Hitchcock said it best to consider your film's running time by genre expectations, audience expectation, and their bowel movements.

Everyone has a bowel, not every filmmaker is successful at telling a story. If they where, every film would be a masterpiece.

The bigger the filmmaker, the longer the film. There's examples of this in every good filmmaker, Spike Lee, Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson come to mind.

That's the cliche. Good directors know how well a film will play to the audience because they command the language to engage their senses before they even edit it. Good directors stage their scenes with maximum efficiency instead of shooting the shit out of it till something good pops out. The only one who's above all this is teh late, great Stanley Kubrick. His films where long, but every edit was perfect. Others work differently and rely on an editor's sanity to rescue their story from total incoherence. Action films don't subject to this formula, as coherence is not a basis for engagement. An hackeyed action film such as The Bourne Supremacy ends up Winnin the editing Oscar versus measured and seamless pieces like Children Of Men. This goes to prove that you don't need to be up there to know that idiots run the show.

Remember the days of Oliver Stone? he's a reason film editors exist...often at the mercy of the director. If form follows function, good editing is the chess game of intentions.

The secret goal of a film editor is to bring in a film fat free, to trim away all the directorial excess and keep the story told as lean as possible while maintaining the vision of that story. Easier said than done, it takes a lot of skill to do this. During this time, questions are asked, accidents happen, and films are shaped in ways that resemble the script, or radically depart from it. What is essential is how efficient can a story be told without disrupting it's emotional core? that's a director's job ideally. A questioned later answered at the bay...or at the script stage. So many directors don't understand editing, and watching even great movies made by even great filmmakers narrative leaks and edits exist. Every cut is a decision made in the service of telling that story.

Even one frame can make a difference whether a film drags or feels just right, but only people that do what I do notice that. We're the gods between the details.

David Fincher, top 5 greatest Director alive, has been in a locked battle over the lenght of his new 175 million epic, Benjamin Button. The film stars Brad Pitt as a man who ages backwards. It's the move I look forward to seeing the most this holiday season. Now if you've seen Zodiac and aren't a cinephile, you probably found it as laborious to sit through as I did. That movie is what prompted me to write this blog.

You see, Fincher is uncompromising. This is the man who notoriously has his way with the studios, and makes the films he wants to make. This is his best and worse quality as a filmmaker, but I'm a subscriber to the "lenght is dictated by how you stage it" theory. Quoting Fincher, a movie "makes a pact with it's audience". Every bit of information is informed by every cut. The thematic threads of the story and the context of the emotions are formed by the choice of shots, their staging, the performances, and when and how the edit is applied. Sorta like how your brain engages the intellect, if you possess it.

Zodiac's running time was 158 minutes (162 in the DVD). It is neither a historical epic nor does it contain multiple narrative threads. It is also a story with no resolution, given that it's based on the case of the Zodiac which was never solved.

Fincher had final cut in the film, which means after a studio mandated lenght all the creative decisions are his. When you have millions invested in a property, wouldn't you also want your investment to play to as broader an audience as possible? this is the argument that underlines film vs movies, art vs commerce. The both are not mutually exclusive because they must join in order to exist. Back to the movie.

Now, 158 minutes is a lot of time to devote to a movie without a clear resolution. This to me is the main reason why the movie failed at the box office. The movie just lacks momentum, and this is informed by the way Fincher chose to tell the story. Out of my experience with my own work and working with someone else, I often have an internal discussion about how it's playing. I structure the footage six ways to sunday until every single creative avenue has been explored, and the end result is the connective end of all these roads. Reports from a 20 minute preview point out the obvious, that the film poses a challenge to mainstream audiences accustomed to having everything fed to them at a steady pace. Fincher's contract with Paramount (and Warner Bros) gives him final cut at 2 1/2 hours. It was reported that the film irks closer to three hours, and the studio demands more cuts to keep it under 2 1/2. Judging by the trailer, it's a sweeping epic which covers a man's entire lifeline, hence the lenght might be necessary to tell that kind of story. If the movie resembles the pacing of Zodiac in any way, audiences are in for a rude awakening. Bring plenty of coffee, because great films can be ruined by poor pacing. Ever told someone a story and before you got to it they just want to know what happened? audiences are conditioned to read a film this way, because most entertainment is designed this way. Hollywood films are escapist entertainment, but Fincher's films toe the line between art and commerce more successfully without compromising either. Every one of his films are made within an inch of their life, save for Zodiac and his Alien movie (that one doesn't count).

Does the article FEEL long? that's the whole purpose. If it feels long, then it must be long. But is it necessary to tell the story? only time will tell. This is the longest I've had to write to say so little, could it be told by anyone else?

Cut it within an inch of it's life, Fincher, don't let the scenes go on too long.

Trailer for Brad Pitt as an old man below:

Off topic: Gay rights vs Immigrant reform.

2008-09-23T18:36:00.000-07:00

Today I got into an interesting discussion with fellow thespians at IMDB regarding Stephen Spielberg's contribution to help strike down Proposition 8 in California.

The news led me to examine the cause, and add a few opinions to the topic at hand.

It beleive it is a worthy cause to contribute to equal rights, and I support gay marriage.

But I also beleive this country, and the world for that matter, has deeper problems than solidifying Gay equality. Being Gay is a lifestyle choice, not a legal matter. Racism still exists, and so does the cancer of ignorance. Inner city children, for example, could use that money Spielberg donated to build after school facilities or donate a film program helping those who want to be filmmakers and are underprivileged. I suppose the donation was at the urge of his fellow friends who asked for a drop in the bucked to help their cause. Gay people have come a long way, and I think their intergration to society will one day become permanent if that say hasn't already arrived. I wish for that, but I also wish that immigrantion was reformed, and that powerful people like Spielberg will also focus their attention to giving minorities opportunities to level the field. Bill Gates is a good example of this, and has dedicated his wealth to further education. That to me is more important than the Gay agenda. Children and immigrants are the future of this country, whether you agree with me or not.

Don't know what part of the country you live at, but it is likely that the people who cook your food at your local restaurant works illegally because he / she cannot become an American citizen unless they marry one. One is not more important than the other, but they are all the root of the problem. A question of priority over social advancement. People who are illegal immigrants do the jobs you and I won't do, and should have the same rights accorded to them that any law abiding citizen should. Yet they will not be able to advance that way due to the roadblocks of immigration. Gays in America don't have this problem. Subject to persecution and discrimination happens to anybody, as does reverse racism. The world has become ethnically integrated, and that pisses some people who don't embrace change.

America is the only place in the world where all cultures and ethnicities can prosper, yet I am not satisfied with what this means because the laws don't often work in this favor. Because it's all on paper and statistics are futile. Everyone does and should have their right to accord, yet it's not that simple.

I also don't think if McCain and Plain get elected they will change anything. Legislation for Gay marriage is a state by state basis, as is Roe vs Wade a supreme court one. Ten years ago being Gay was still socially Taboo in the majority of the world, specifically in America. A lot has been done since then, but still don't know quite what to do with the increase in ethnic population. I don't claim to have all the answers neither do I think I'm right. I just think immigration reform has more gravity than Gay rights, because Gay rights are not the rights of equality if being Gay is a lifestyle of choice. The needs of children are way more important than the rights of alternate lifestyles that are an accepted part of society. That is a generalization, but necessary to state it.

What this country does is constantly turn a deaf ear on immigration plea, yet welcomes the workforce that they provide.

What I think we as citizens need to ask ourselves is: What is the meaning of change, and how do we relate to a world that's constantly being changed by opposing forces?

Any time a discussion involving Gay rights come up it's sure to be a divisive one. The same goes if discussing if Hasidic Jews prefer their own and exclude minorities is considered Anti semitic. Being Gay is neither an ethnicity nor a racial group, like many classify themselves as such. People classify everything as the hate speech bandwagon so easily these days once any critical questioning falls on the table. What is missing in this social discourse are the meaning behind social agendas, and offering no ideas to moderate it is not a ticket to discussing it. The sanction of marriage and what it entails should not be limited only by what god says, but that's another discussion.

But if you ask me, I'll tell you that immigration reform has more gravity than Gay rights.

It is more relevant to the future of this country at this time. I wish Spielberg made that donation towards helping people that clean his toilet instead of those who don't need it. Statement concluded.

The Everlasting Gaze

2008-09-11T02:30:00.000-07:00

The Everlasting Gaze from Acapedit on Vimeo.

Internet racism: War

2008-07-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

By now it's either naive or a waste of time to decry that internet racism just for the sake of it.

With the advent of forums everyone and anyone can express their digital hate. I gather a lot of people purposely sit at their keyboards all day and criticise anything that isn't remotely theirs to compensate for their lack of education.

There is a correlation between this culture's new breed of internet savants and the deeply rooted racism that run rampart, unchecked with such liberties. Take for example the cancerous obsession with everything and anything celebrity. Sites such as http://www.perezhilton.com/ and the http://thesuperficial.com routinely open their forums for the willing to engage in the (sometimes deserving) lives of people who are thought to be important and influential. That's an easy target, I will not go there.

Take a look at this thread for example: http://thesuperficial.com/2008/07/paulina_rubio_in_a_bikini.php

There was one member in particular who stood out, who ironically goes by the name "Barack Obama". Seem like he/she gets a kick out of writing comments like the one below. Fictional or real and however despicable the remarks are, some people do think it's funny and that to me is unacceptable.

Sample:

10.

I like to fuck the illegal mexican girls, then call immagration on them. It makes for a good weekend. Promise them you will sponsor them and thier family and they just open thier legs. It is pretty easy. Throw in a shopping trip to WalMart and you can get some anal action from them.

Stupid mexicans.

Or: #79

Paulina,

Hold your head high! You may be a chalupa chomping piece of Mexican crap scuttling your way across the border screeching your gibberish music in the bastardized version of Spanish your monkey people blather in, but you're also hairy and greasy...

Um, wait... I don;t have anything good to say about her at all... or Mexicans in general... You wetback lowlifes can stay on your side of the border until 1/2 hour past checkout time so you can clean my hotel rooms. I may let you stay late to do the dishes or fix my "chebby".

But your crime-ridden cities, complicit cooperation with drug traffickers and government corruption to the highest positions means you are a 3rd world country for a reason. Take your pudgy, squat faces and your 18 children and return to the barren wasteland you screwed up.

Cheers!

- Randal

Oh wait:

#3: A masculine-looking nobody, like all hispandex women. She better know how to scrub a toilet. Wait, what am I saying, it says "Latin" right there at the top...

Notice they have one thing in common: Targeting mexicans.

While I won't go on and give a speech, it demonstrates the general racist sentiment among mexicans in this country. Mexicans represent THE latin ethnic group among the clueless adolescent minds whose prose adorn those pages. As part of a larger epidemic, they think of mexicans same as they think of ALL Latin ethnic groups, which is as second class citizens.

No one is above contempt just as no one is below praise. The world is comprised of elements of both and best personified by what we carry on our souls. Racism is old news, what's new is how it's morphed into the mouthpiece of those who hide behind their keyboard. Everyone's a critic, just like the internet allows us to express our innermost of sentiments.

But if you where to ask me why this irks me, it's because I have a very clear distinction on what constitudes the right from wrong. Sites like these engage in all sorts of soulless behavior as it's called freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech...a double edged sword it surely is.

The Dark Knight: The visual aspect.

2008-07-21T21:56:00.000-07:00

The Dark Knight is an unprecedented visual triumph. If you read my review you would share my enthusiasm. Whenever something like this comes along it inspires me to write, it becomes an object of my cinematic obsessions.

Notable for being the first major film to be shot using the IMAX process, Dark Knight moves a step ahead by retaining film's essential quality: Photochemicaly. With an industry quickly adopting digital as the primary means of aquisition, Nolan and co went the opposite route and set out the unpresedented task of shooting a film of this scale using the format. It's a testament to the balls out approach that they managed to convince Warner Bros to buy into their scheme. The risk paid off handsomely.

First, a primer on the IMAX format.

While a standard film is shot and projected in 35MM, IMAX DOUBLES the negative size and has 10 times the resolution of 35MM film, resulting in a 70MM image. Not only do you see more at the top and bottom, but the composition size is enormous. The cameras a bigger and bulkier to use than standard 35MM, which makes operating the camera impractical compared to 35MM. Due to the size of the negative, a 500 foot magazine can only record up to 100 seconds at a time, compared to 10 minutes in 35MM. In order to expose at standard film speed of 24 frames per second, three times as much film needs to move through the camera each second. To do this, 70 mm film stock is run "sideways" through the cameras. While traditional 70 mm film has an image area that is 48.5 mm wide and 22.1 mm tall (for Todd-AO), in IMAX the image is 69.6 mm wide and 48.5 mm tall. In order to expose at standard film speed of 24 frames per second, three times as much film needs to move through the camera each second. (Source: Wikipedia)

IMAX is the highest quality motion picture format currently available, and while filmmakers employ digital tools that capture images at an inferior resolution than that of film, it's ironic that it took Nolan to explore the format's possibilities in a narrative feature. The last couple years has seen the format become commercially viable, as more and more Hollywood films where released in the format the additional revenue stream it provides makes it attractive to the studios, after all, tickets are more expensive thus the revenue's higher. I think this was a defining reason Nolan managed to sell Warner Bros on, as shooting in theformat is four times of standard the streams provided by tocket sales offset the costs. The film shot for 155 days on an estimated 185 million dollar budget.

Now the film.

Nolan and DP Wally Pfister shot the film's major action sequenecs in the format, expanding on what could be done with the cameras by employing them as never before. Because of the format's gigantic size, certain camera moves easily done in 35MM would not work. Focusing is also an issue, as the frame size is so big that keeping objects in focus became a challenge. This is evident during the opening heist sequence. There is very shallow depth of field on the images, especially during closeups.

The format's potential is realized especially during the spectacular aerial shots of Chicago. You really feel like you're there and the filmmakers used the format to immense the audience. The increased detail meant that the filmmakers had to be super diligent about hiding the lights and equipment, and the Joker's makeup is seen with every imperfection of it's grotesque glory.

The most impressive goal of the film is how the special effects don't upstage the action, rather complement it. In big Hollywood comic book films (like Spider Man) the special effects are so obvious that it takes the viewer out of belief. The use of CGI so plastered that audiences have become acostumed to it's obvious banality. Nothing amazes anymore, because everything is relentless, artificial, and overused. The Dark Knight, and to a lesser degree Iron Man wisely allow the special effects to complement the characters and immensing us in the story.

I loved The Dark Knight and think it's the most visually impressive genre movie since Terminator 2. Remember how in awe you where when you saw that? here you are in awe at how seamless Batman's universe is presented, and surprised at how immensive it can be when filmmakers use the technology in the service of the story. See it in IMAX if you get a chance, it'll blow your mind.

The Dark Knight: my review vs his review.

2008-07-21T02:48:00.000-07:00

I'm not a professional but one thing I do know is that film critics can no longer be trusted to give a thorough opinion when dismissal is their main frame of reference. When a movie such as The dark Knight comes along it's worthy of discussion.
So much is inversted in the storyline and themes that simply dismissing it as popcorn entertainment condescends it's considerable achievements.

Armond White is a film critic for New York press, one that is widely respected as well as detested. He's a polarising figure for sure, as someone who champions films like The Black Dalia yet reduced this to mere insignificance. Here is his review and below i'll share my thoughts and contrast the two. It was a great movie why not talk about it?

KNIGHT TO REMEMBER
Christopher Nolan panders to hip, nihilistic tendencies, forgetting that superheroes are also meant to inspire hope.

By Armond White

The Dark Knight
Directed by Christopher Nolan

Every generation has a right to its own Batman. Every generation also has the right—no, obligation—to question a pop-entertainment that diminishes universal ideas of good, evil, social purpose and pleasure. And Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, is a highly questionable pop enterprise. Forty-two-year-old movie lovers can’t tell 21-year-old movie lovers why; 21 can only know by getting to be 42. But I’ll try.

After announcing his new comics interpretation with 2005’s oppressively grim Batman Begins, Nolan continues the intellectual squalor popularized in his pseudo-existential hit Memento. Appealing to adolescent jadedness and boredom, Nolan revamps millionaire Bruce Wayne’s transformation into the crime-fighter Batman (played by indie-zombie Christian Bale), by making him a twisted icon, what the kids call “sick.” The Dark Knight is not an adventure movie with a driven protagonist; it’s a goddamn psychodrama in which Batman/Bruce Wayne’s neuroses compete with two alter-egos: Gotham City’s law-and-order District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and master criminal The Joker (Heath Ledger)—all three personifying the contemporary distrust of virtue.

We’re way beyond film noir here. The Dark Knight has no black-and-white moral shading. Everything is dark, the tone glibly nihilistic (hip) due to The Joker’s rampage that brings Gotham City to its knees—exhausting the D.A. and nearly wearing-out Batman’s arsenal of expensive gizmos. Nolan isn’t interested in providing James Bond–style gadgetry for its own ingenious wonder; rather, these crime battle accoutrements evoke Zodiac-style “process” (part of the futility and dread exemplified by the constantly outwitted police). This pessimism links Batman to our post-9/11 anxiety by escalating the violence quotient, evoking terrorist threat and urban helplessness. And though the film’s violence is hard, loud and constant, it is never realistic—it fabricates disaster simply to tease millennial death wish and psychosis.

Watching psychic volleys between Batman, Dent and The Joker (there’s even a love quadrangle that includes Maggie Gyllenhaal’s slouchy Assistant D.A., Rachel Dawes) is as fraught and unpleasurable as There Will Be Blood with bat wings. This sociological bloodsport shouldn’t be acceptable to any thinking generation.

There hasn’t been so much pressure to like a Batman movie since street vendors were selling bootleg Batman T-shirts in 1989. If blurbs like “The Dark Knight creates a place where good and evil—expected to do battle—decide instead to get it on and dance” sound desperate, it’s due to the awful tendency to convert criticism into ad copy—constantly pandering to Hollywood’s teen demographic. This not only revamps ideas of escapist entertainment; like Nolan, it corrupts them.

Remember how Tim Burton’s 1989 interpretation of the comics superhero wasn’t quite good enough? Yet Burton attempted something dazzling: a balance of scary/satirical mood (which he nearly perfected in the 1992 Batman Returns) that gave substance to a pop-culture totem, enhancing it without sacrificing its delight. Burton didn’t need to repeat the tongue-in-cheek 1960s TV series; being romantically in touch with Catwoman, Bruce Wayne and The Penguin’s loneliness was richer. Burton’s pop-geek specialty is to humorously explicate childhood nightmare. But Nolan’s The Dark Knight has one note: gloom. For Nolan, making Batman somber is the same as making it serious. This is not a triumph of comics culture commanding the mainstream: It’s giving in to bleakness. Ever since Frank Miller’s 1986 graphic-novel reinvention, The Dark Knight Returns, pop consumers have rejected traditional moral verities as corny. That might be the ultimate capitalist deception.

A bleak Batman entraps us in a commercial mechanism, not art. There’s none of Burton’s satirical detachment from the crime-and-punishment theme. In Nolan’s view, crime is never punished or expunged. (“I am an agent of chaos!” boasts The Joker.) The generation of consumers who swallow this pessimistic sentiment can’t see past the product to its debased morality. Instead, their excitement about The Dark Knight’s dread (that teenage thrall with subversion) inspires their fealty to product.

Ironically, Nolan’s aggressive style won’t be slagged “manipulative” because it doesn’t require viewers to feel those discredited virtues, “hope” and “faith.” Like Hellboy II, this kind of sci-fi or horror or comics-whatever obviates morality. It trashes belief systems and encourages childish fantasies of absurd macho potency and fabulous grotesqueries. That’s how Nolan could take the fun out of Batman and still be acclaimed hip. As in Memento, Nolan shows rudimentary craft; his zeitgeist filmmaking—morose, obsessive, fussily executed yet emotionally unsatisfying—will only impress anyone who hasn’t seen De Palma’s genuinely, politically serious crime-fighter movie, The Black Dahlia.

Aaron Eckhart’s cop role in The Black Dahlia humanized the complexity of crime and morality. But as Harvey Dent, sorrow transforms him into the vengeful Two-Face, another Armageddon freak in Nolan’s sideshow. The idea is that Dent proves heroism is improbable or unlikely in this life. Dent says, “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain.” What kind of crap is that to teach our children, or swallow ourselves? Such illogic sums up hipster nihilism, just like Herzog’s Encounters at the End of the World. Putting that crap in a Batman movie panders to the naiveté of those who have not outgrown the moral simplifications of old comics but relish cynicism as smartness. That’s the point of The Joker telling Batman, “You complete me.” Tim Burton might have ridiculed that Jerry Maguire canard, but Nolan means it—his hero is as sick as his villain.

Man’s struggle to be good isn’t news. The difficulty only scares children—which was the original, sophisticated point of Jack Nicholson’s ’89 Joker. Nicholson’s disfigurement abstracted psychosis, being sufficiently hideous without confusing our sympathy. Ledger’s Joker (sweaty clown’s make-up to cover his Black Dahlia–style facial scar) descends from the serial killer clichés of Hannibal Lecter and Anton Chigurh—fashionable icons of modern irrational fear. The Joker’s escalation of urban chaos and destruction is accompanied by booming sound effects and sirens—to spook excitable kids. Ledger’s already-overrated performance consists of a Ratso Rizzo voice and lots of lip-licking. But how great of an actor was Ledger to accept this trite material in the first place?

Unlike Nicholson’s multileveled characterization, Ledger reduces The Joker to one-note ham-acting and trite symbolism. If you fell for the evil-versus-evil antagonism of There Will Be Blood, then The Dark Knight should be the movie of your wretched dreams. Nolan’s unvaried direction drives home the depressing similarities between Batman and his nemeses. Nolan’s single trick is to torment viewers with relentless action montages; distracting ellipses that create narrative frustration and paranoia. Delayed resolution. Fake tension. Such effects used to be called cheap. Cheap like The Joker’s psychobabble: “Madness, as you know, is like gravity—all it takes is a little push.” The Dark Knight is the sentinel of our cultural abyss. All it takes is a push.

The Dark Knight.

By Acapedit.

My jaw dropped on the floor.

The Dark Knight is the one comic book movie that redefines how comic book movies are made. This is what brass balls filmmaking is all about. Wildly ambitious, dark, preocupied with alot on it's mind. It succeeds brilliantly because the weighty thematic elements work in perfect unision with the popcorn munching requirements.

Lemme just say that I am not a fanboy geek. I could give a shit about the adolecent preoccupations of that audience. I take joy dissecting the film thematically by examining it's plot and character. The acting, sight and sound to me inform what it's about. I'm the first to admit i've never been crazy about Christopher Nolan, but he stepped up his A gam here. I liked The Prestige and I found Batman Begins too ponderous and boring to be satisfying. Safe to say that here the proceedings fire on all cylinders, as anything i've seen done with Batman is being reevaluated. The Dark Knight is the most ambitious movie of it's kind since The Empire Strikes Back, and it plays like a fully formed creation instead of fragments by commitee becasue Nolan was allowed to make it uncompromising. First thing he's done right? the screenplay (cowriten with his brother) is layered with thematic weight, framing the characters in an universe that doesn't transcend them, instead embraces them. This is unlike what Tim Burton did in his movies. Nolan wisely (and without irony) represents the Batman mythos seriously. Every character represents sides of the same agenda. The chips drop and consequences ensure.

Remember when you first saw the Empire Strikes Back and once Luke lost his hand all bets where off? this is THAT Batman movie. There's a level of uncertainty and an undercurrent of dread that's palpable as you see every character put in circunstances beyond their control. Only fate determines the outcome. This emotional investment of theme and character, chance and fate succeeds partly because the acting is so superb and because the direction is so confidently executed. In the first film Batman's need for justice was his sole motivator, here the results have dire consequences beyond his control as the odds stack up against him. The preocupation with justice and it's moral implications pepper the film with a complexity uncommon for this type of film. The dissertation on the nature of good and evil is what anchors the movie. Mistaking bleakness for thematic emptyness is invalid. Film critics often submit to cynicism because they prejudice the joy an immersive experience like The Dark Knight provides. You need your brain as well as your eyes here, because it's an incredibly immersive movie. Don't you think it's uncommon seeing somthing this complex in what's essentially a cash machine?

I find it subversive that a commercial entity designed soley to make money comproses a platform to discuss such weighty issues. The city and it's citizens evoke post 9/11 panic. When the joker instills anarchy onto Gotham the results are exactly how a city in panic reacts to an uncontrollable force. I find it subversive that a commercial entity designed soley to make money comprise a platform to discuss such weighty issues.

Second thing Nolan got right: The conception of The Joker.

Heath ledger creates a performance so inedible that an undercurrent of sadness is all but inevitable knowing such a gifted performer is no longer here. Every expression feels organic, rather than prerehearsed. Ledger nails every gesture, every weird tick for this maximum impact. What makes the character so memorable is that he has no identifyable agenda, he's simply a symbol of anarchy. He enjoys driving the city to it's knees. Joker's determination to expose Batman as a fraud presents a psychological component of uncommon gravity for this sort of film. While Jack Nicholson played it for fun, Ledger makes him off the handle terryfying. One of the things the reviewer above got wrong is calling it a "ham" and one note, mistaking purpose of character for nihilism. If you appreciate good acting then you will see that a great actor disappears into the role and that's exactly what Heath accomplishes. Rather than go the usual route of taunts and antagonisms, Joker outlines his dilemma and the reasons for them. Credit Nolan and his brother for writing intelligent dialogue.

Nolan's direction.

The impressive thing about Nolan's confident direction is how all the plot theads manage to run parallel to advance the story, instead of stopping and starting. This is one 2 1/2 hour movie that never falters because the narrative elements are precisely in their right place. Kudos to the editor, I envy you.

The visuals.

This is by far the most visually impressive Batman movie since Batman Returns. Lemme pause for a minute to pick up my jaw from the floor. Nolan shot the spectacular action sequences in IMAX and the results are outstanding. Michael Mann is a frame of reference evident in the opening heist that launches the movie. Gotham city is less gloomy than the first but in return has more gained more clarity and is better intergrated into the story. Gone are the awkward fight scenes from begins, here everything is dynamic, perfectly realized. Nolan's DP Waly Psister deserves an Oscar nomination for his work, as his lighting scheme is incredibly intricate without resorting to the typical artifice. It FEELS like it should. Worthy of mention is the scene where Joker exits the hospital. I fucking peed my pants almost. The action scenes evolve in a coherent manner and are visually dynamic, yet theu never upstage the characters and this allows us to be absorbed into the story rather than be distracted.

As for Batman? well that's the least interesting element of the movie. He does get to do more detective work this time around and his resolution is terrific, I was surprised at how screentime Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckard) had. His character is arguably the most prominent to the story. Two face is a grisly creation and certainly very cool indeed. Katie Holmes? Gillenhaal is an improvement but not hot enough to warrant the extremes Harvey Dent would later go to. In fact this was the weakest link in an otherwise flawless film, I just didn't think their relationship had enough gravity to warrant the preceeding shitstorm. Rachel is a thankless role and more designed to move the story along, the other is The Joker's resolution. The stakes where so high that...it was all forgotten in favor of Harvey Dent's character arc. I hear reports that Nolan shot scenes for the third film that would complete Joker's arc but that's just a rumor.

Parting thoughts.

Nolan has crafted an epic where every action has a reaction, and everyone's fked to some degree. Every character at one point stands to lose everything. Towards the end Batman makes the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good, his choice resonates and is true to character. The Batman mythos all but demystified. The end barelly allows hope to peek though because when all is done, the chips fall where they may.

The Dark Knight is the best comic book movie ever attempted. Nolan has crafted an intense and unrelenting ride. That it deserves further discussion is a sign of it's merits. Superbly realized and without peer, comic book films reach a zenith to a level of art with The Dark Knight. Along with Children of Men, It may very well may be one of the decade's crowning achievements.

A masterpiece.

Michel Gondry = genius = past his prime?

2008-04-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

Don't get me wrong I have always had a love for Michel Gondry's work, he's without peer and truly a singular vision.

I remember fondly the days of art school at Pratt in the late 90's, back then music videos where still healthy and there was no youtube. These where arguably Gondry's golden years, the years where his best work was produced. His videos fueled my imagination, and I beleived I can do stuff great within my means. Such is the power of inspiration.

Flash forward a decade, and here I am, frustrated by lack of progress. Ideas floating in a sea of unrealized expectations, potential just now beginning it's fruition. Such has the work of Michel Gondry evolved with the times, his influence seen in advertisements and countless other forms of media. The child like wonders of imagination become a touchtone of hip culture, disciples eat this up. I had a chance to interview the man a few years ago, and he struck me as someone completely in the know of his persona yet equally savvy and shy. I took notes, because the mistique of who you appear to be superceedes your reputation. Does that make sense? He struck gold with Eternal sunshine, as good a movie as any this decade. The notoreity gained from that success and the industry finally catching up with is influence seemingly led to his ability to do anything he wanted, when he wanted. And that's when he started to repeat himself.

Take for example a movie like The Science of Sleep. He penned it, a french guy with deep pockets bankrolled it. Sure it was a sweet little movie, but the dialogue so inept and the editing so jagged that it resembled less a movie than a poetic lovefest designed for hipsters. I didn't like the movie, and still don't think he's a good screenwriter. His work is best when there's a strong glue to cement his visual ingenuity, in Eternal Sunshine he had Charlie Kaufman's material, almost impossible to fuck it up.

At this point in the story, it should be noted that I equally admire and loathe what his does, his career is the perfect one anyone aspired in the medium (such as me) would want to have. This business is tough, tougher to start, tougher to stand out. If I sound bitter don't mind me, i'm just rambling.

Then he made Be Kind Rewind and I couldn't sit through the whole thing. It's so haplessly put together that it has no regard for it's audience. Yes the audience. My idea of a good movie is one that no matter how arty it needs to be assesible, it's ideas well intergrated into the storyline. Here I was watching another hip wankfest, and while cute, it confirmed my notions that what was once innovative and full of wonder has now turned into half formed ideas stretched to the running time, and somebody paid for it.

Every great artist worth his salt reaches a point where destiny is seemingly endless, and synonymous with achievement. He's done such great work and influenced a generation of art school pets that mainstream acceptance has given the right to do anything, and people will eat it up. This is the part that I think is a casualty of success, because there's no longer a need to swing for the fences when you're in your confort zone. I wish there was a manual on how to infiltrate the industry and carve out a niche for oneself, the days of conquering the world long gone, now materialized in pragmatic discurstions of what's doable at my second lease.

That's the connective link between Michel Gondry and my aspirations. The fact that at a time one stuck to what he does and kept on going with it, and my being inspired by the same idea in search of what's going to happen. A relationship forged by illusion and reality, personal goals and professional dreams.

Dreams, a motif both illusive and inviting. I continue to be amused, but I think Michel Gondry's starting to suck.

Watch "declare independence" to see what I mean: Genius or past prime?

Björk - Declare Independence
Uploaded by Bjork

Bjork's Wanderlust: Risk vs Reward.

2008-04-03T22:24:00.000-07:00

BJORK "WANDERLUST"
Uploaded by Bjork

Bjork has pulled out all the stops for her new video, "Wanderlust". An epic, visual effects laden extravaganza directed by new kids Encyclopedia Pictura.

Now, it's worth debating the relevancy of such a massive (and expensive) undertaking in today's Youtopia culture. With music videos becoming less and less effective as a means of exposure for an artist, here comes an interesting project by the always risk taking Bjork. The question becomes, is it worth going through the expense and (trouble)? there must be a risk vs reward scenario in these days of tight economics and diminishing returns. The video took an army of technicians almost a year to complete, at a cost of whoknowshowmuch.

Bjork is in a leauge of her own, and she must be applauded for opening her bank account to invest in music videos of this scope, even as her music has become less and less user friendly. She's always taken risks and done her thing, resulting in some of the very best the medium has offered.

I've seen the video and while I admire it's achievements, I don't feel the need to see it again. ALOT of effort when into it's making, yet the end results seem proacted instead of organic. Replay value is limited, therefore I'd clasify it as an art project instead of something designed for mass consumption. That doesn't diminish it's value, but i'm not sure if it enhances it.

Time will tell if it catches on, it's a great video on it's own merits. If it starts dialogue again and people talk about it and see it, then it reconfirms there is still life left in the medium. If it does, it's revival might be restored in this day and age of zero attention spans.

I'm all for it.

Does raising movie ticket prices mean a better moviegoing experience?

2008-03-26T17:35:00.000-07:00

WARNING: PRETTY SOON YOUR MOVIEGOING EXPERIENCE IS ABOUT TO GET MORE...EXPENSIVE. THEY'LL OFFER WINE TO GO WITH THAT SEQUEL TO DRILLBIT TAYLOR.

Variety reports about a disconcerning development in the future of our entertainment: Ticket prices. If you are like me, that is, a movie fan who can't stand going to the movies anymore, there's reason to pay attention.

The movie business is changing, and so are the economics. The advent of technology and the greed of the movie studios means they want to expand on any possible ways to keep fattening their wallets, by justifying the ticket price hike with "added value and improved experience".

Let's examine what this is supposed to mean.

As if sitting through half and hour of previews and commercials isn't enough, now they plan on offering "premium seating" and other incentives to cover the cost of their bottom line: Digital Projection. Pretty soon, Digital projection will become the standard, as the increased cost of movie prints and exhibition facilitate this need. Someone has to pay for this, and the movie studios want the theater chains to do so. They reached a compromise, which is genius: Raise the ticket prices. Makes perfect business sense.

IMAX and 3-D has become a juicy revenue stream for the studios, and they'll keep pumping product to facilitate that stream. The success of films like Beowulf gave them the go ahead to expand and 3-D will be the next gimmick to get butts in seats. Despite the recession and their screams that attendance is down, what explains the continued smashing of opening week records? attendance turnout in record numbers to see the latest overblown special effects spectacle.

Yes folks, economics is what it's all about. It's always been what it's all about. But what does it mean to you and me?

Face it, the modern moviegoing experience is flawed at best. On top of the shitty product, we've got twenty minutes of ads, cell phones ringing, people kicking your chair, babies at inappropriate showings, and an absent projectionist who doesn't keep the screen in focus. THESE ARE THE REAL REASONS you and me wait for the DVD, or better yet: download.

The average movie ticket costs $11 dollars in cities like new york, $17 dollars for Imax or 3-D presentations. You pay an average of 12 dollars for popcorn and soda, add in transportation, and that's an average of 50 or 60 bucks for a night out with your sweetheart.

Now. Let's say they raise ticket prices to $15 bucks a pop, plus concession prices. Going to see Wedding Crashers III will become a lot harder to enjoy.

So I have a list of suggestions to remedy the situation:

1) Make better movies and they will come.
Seriously, Drillbit Taylor?

2) Hire 300 pound convicts (preferably african american) to eject anyone talking or texting throughout the movie.
I'll help with the selection process, I live in harlem.

3) Ban homosexuals from any movie with Meryl Streep.
Cross that. Ban anyone from the ghetto at any movie with special effects, period.

4) Ban parents from taking their little children to see see Hostel, part 17 or Superbad 4.
The most distressing time i've had at the movies was seeing Superbad and during the penis drawing scene I overhear a young girl's voice: "Mommy, can I watch now?". Repulsive.

5) Make films downloadable the same day they open for the same fee.
That way they can make more money and I have the option of watching it at home, like pay per view.

That evens out the score.

Conclusion:

As long as theater chains maintain a lax policy towards cell phone ban and rude patrons, things will not improve. People go to the movies to be entertained, but this past generation is nothing but an army of assholes with attention deficit disorder. They, the price of tickets, and the quality of the product are the main reasons piracy runs rampart, and waiting for the DVD three months later the better option.

Thing is, you can charge all the money in the world and people will still go to the movies to watch whatever you feed them. The public are like dogs of consumption: they are used to repitition.

You can the article here: http://www.variety.com/VR1117982907.html

A primer on Film Editing

2008-03-26T17:07:00.000-07:00

It always worries me when I work with people who think they understand what film editing is. Most directors I know don't can't tell what a match cut is to a three point editing of a sequence, just that they want it to feel like something they've seen.

Film Editing is a fucking skill best served to those who study and practice it. It is the skill any aspiring filmmaker must understand, because films are made and broken in the editing room. I'm self taught, and studied and practiced the craft for the better half of my life, and it's only now that I've matured that I'm beginning to see how valuable knowing it is.

These are some of the most revered and acclaimed film editors in the industry, along with sequences that display the best the craft has to offer. Roll tape.

Walter Murch.

Coppola's editor, and an innovator of sound and montage. Remember Apocalypse Now's opening? he cut that. Murch is widely acknowledged as the person who coined the term Sound Designer, and helped develop the current standard film sound format, the 5.1 channel array, helping to elevate the art and impact of film sound to a new level. His contributions in both editing and sound design are invaluable, the work speaks for itself.

Apocalypse Now (1978).

Note: The editing of Apocalypse Now was handled jointly by Richard Marks, Jerry Greenberg, and Walter Murch. Walter cut the montage sequences and was the sound mixer / designer, he won an Oscar for his efforts.

Thelma Schoonmaker.

Martin Scorssese's secret weapon, and the recipient of two academy awards. Her innovations in the work of Scorsesse revolutionized and became the synthesis of modern film editing. I think Casino, Goodfellas, and Raging Bull are among the best edited films i've seen, and work precisely because they're edited so brilliant.

Indeed, many of the editorial greats have been women. It's a little known fact in an industry where women only accounted for 16 percent of all editors working on the top 250 films of 2004, and 80 percent of the films had absolutely no females on their editing teams at all, the golden age of hollywood (1940's to 50's) employed roughly 40% females as editors or editing assistants. Many of the many of the editorial greats have been women: Dede Allen, Verna Fields, Thelma Schoonmaker, Anne V. Coates and Dorothy Spencer rank as the most celebrated and respected among their peers.

Casino (1995)

Michael Khan.

Probably the most skilled editor there is, he is responsable for giving Spielberg's films a sense of geometry. This man has brought that editorial sense of unity to the films he's cut, and I think he's unmatched in terms of rhythmn and pacing. Anyone remembers all the memorable setpieces in Spielberg's films will attest to that.

Look at Schindler's list for example, he's a master of pacing, credit should be given when credit is due.

Check out this sequence from Saving Private Ryan so you see what I mean. I study him alot.

Anne V Coates.

In a career that spans over 50 years, she's still going strong. The woman was born in 1925 for chrisssakes!

She cut films by David lean (Lawrence of Arabia) as well as Steven Soderberg's. I'd be happy to go on as long as she has.

Out of sight (1998).

The next generation.

Children of men.

Dir Alfonso Cuaron was one of the editors of the film, it's notable because the long takes are spliced together from multiple sources to appear seamless.

Children of Men ~ the Best Long Takes Scene
Uploaded by FanaticMovie

The Matrix.

Ed: Zack Staenberg.

Amother great film editorially is The Matrix. Every visual effect shot has a setup, and that's a reason the film holds up so well.

There will be blood: Overdone by indulgence or moments of brilliance?

2008-03-03T11:17:00.000-08:00

Paul Thomas Anderson should have his final cut card...Revoked.

This is the end result: Directorial overindulgence.

TWBB has it's legions of serious movie fans, who workship it's maker. It's a film to admire more than enjoy. I dunno what the big deal was.

I love Paul Thomas Anderson, admire his talent, admire his films. TWBB is uncompromising, but not in a good way. This is a film that does not earn it's running time. The running time for Magnolia is justified, given how much ground and characters that film covered. I think TWBB has flawed structural problems, all are apparent upon first viewing. This is not a great film, a film that is stylistically well made is not the same as a film that earns it's stripes. It's been hailed as a masterpiece by mainstream critics who overpraise his work, and that becomes the widely accepted merit. The fact that the other film won the awards doesn't lessen it's achievement, instead it invites critical analysis of it's themes.

It's universally agreed that DDL and the technical craft makes this film what it is, it's also worth considering how PTA's decision to focus on such an unredeemable character resulted in a disbalanced, and ultimately unrewarding story. The set up, and execution of the story gives the promise that the conclusion falls short delivering on. It should've been worth the sum of it's parts, instead the last act just flies off the handle, and loses it's focus. Scenes play out too long, with music setting up emotions that don't come. As if the audience is supposed to catch the drift of molasses slow pacing, nothing emotional is earned in slow motion if what is happening doesn't have a sense of momentum. And don't get me started on that ridiculous ending. That whole third act feels like a DVD deleted scene, pulling the movie into an awkward, over the top direction that negates the pact it made with the viewer.

If this was the intention, it didn't work for me. We have no one to pull to, it's themes are vague instead of satisfying because the story has 0 involvement with the audience. It's art alright, but hollow art.

It's okay that Daniel Plainview is a bastard, but his universe and the secondary characters in the story feel so lifeless the emotional pull is one of coldness Paul Dano is fine in his early scenes, once he goes toe to toe with DDL during the last act it becomes a screaming match, the scene in the bowling alley is awkwardly staged and edited. I don't think it's supposed to be funny, yet it was hilarious. The acting is pretty bad, reducing DDL's performance to over the top hysterics. It negates the careful subtleties that preceeded it.

It's problems like these that make me wonder what's so great about the movie. NCFOM had tighter direction and involved the viewer in ways this does not with a plot that moved forward. Here it's just indulgent direction redeemedd by a spectacular central performance and period details.

I'll wrap it up saying that with tighter focus on it's themes the film could have been more rewarding.
I can image it's maker intended it for himself, because he refused to cut a frame from it. Mind that i'm not saying the film should've adhered to hollywood conventions (happy ending, predictability) to be any satisfying, but the hallmark of a great film is to take the whole of it's parts to a satisfying conclution.

If you ask so much from the audience why do give it so little? some will like the journey some will not.
I can't recall a movie with so much going for it yet offers so little. A new american classic it is not.

Overdone by indulgence.

Fauxcialite

2008-02-07T16:09:00.000-08:00

Fauxcialite promo from Acapedit on Vimeo.

www.fauxcialie.com

Launching soon.

The Will Be Blood

2008-01-31T14:27:00.000-08:00

Paul Thomas Anderson has created a frustrating movie experience.

Equal parts brilliant and maddening, i'm not quite sure how to feel about it. It will split the audience down the middle because it doesn't care about what the audience thinks. It's uncompromising, overlong, and boring. But never less than fascinating.

This thick, dense narrative allocates 158 minutes that questions the nature of hate and greed, of religion's purpose and the ellusive power of the dollar. These trappings paint the moral shadings of a man with a black heart. This is a movie about the landscape of the soul, and Daniel Day Lewis portrayal is one of cinema's greatest. He's fucking intense, and frightening in full on asshole mode His performance never hits a false note until...Anderson lets the chips fall.

And it all falls apart at the end, but more on that later. I've got a movie to review here.

Day Lewis portrays Daniel Plainview, a man on a mission to get rich by all means nessesary. He's an oilman, divide conquer are me putting this man's obssesion modestly. He cares about no one, heck he even raised an Orphan as one of his offspring simply because it added a face of innocense behind his ruthlessness. Thats fucking insane, a man using his child as a tool, but it works for him. He takes him to every deal, and as we see later, his bond was only based on nessesity. Plainview doesn't give a fuck about anyone. He's built up his hatred for people one inch at a time and is devoid of compassion.

In other words, he's an asshole. You'll be spending 3 hours in hell if you expect a likeable character, because likeable he is not. He's a mess of contractions: Ruthless, fair, cunning, charismatic, and condescending.

The movie opens with a lenghty, wordless scene establishing this man's greed and the lenghts he will go to find oil. During the leisurely pace we get to see how the chips stack up, and how they eventually fall. Power corrupts. Absolute power is blood on everyone's hands, and that is the basis of the film's title. He's mining for gold in a shaft he has dug into the ground of his Texas property. He finds what he's looking for, and perhaps more. Several years later, he has shifted his focus from gold to oil and he has been able to hire some hands. When an accident results in a death, Daniel finds himself with an infant orphan to care for. He raises the child, known as H.W., to be his own. By 1912, Daniel has become a well-known oil man, and he his looking to expand his empire. Accompanied by his partner, Fletcher (Ciarán Hinds), and his son (Dillon Freasier), he travels to California to follow a promising lead. What he finds there astonishes him. He seeks to buy large parcels of property, but he is impeded in his goal by the evangelist preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who wants Daniel to donate $10,000 to the local church before he sells. After the contract is signed, however, Daniel reneges on the deal. Shortly thereafter, once the first drill has become operational, there is an accident that results in an explosion that fuels a major oil fire and costs H.W. his hearing.

This is where things go from bad to worse, and one can interpret the events as the makings of someone devoid of faith or just the result of greed rearing it's ugly head. God is in the details. There is no trust in business, no friends in riches.

This is a powerful, timeless statement.

There's a development in the second half where a man who claim to be his brother shows up, only for Plainview to discover that he's an impostor. I won't give it away, but the speech he gives during his only moment of opening up his emotions cut right to the bone, in a way what he says makes his case logical.

It seems like the moral fabric of this country's foundation is a topic that's ripe for exploration, given the current state of things. The other film that covers similar thematic territory is The Coen's No Country For Old Men, which I found to be the superior of the two. The frightening thing about there will be blood, and why I found it so maddening, is that it makes the case for greed as an allegory for evil better than any film i've seen, yet the film feels underwhelming as a whole.

This represents a change of pace for PTA. I always through he is the best director of his generation, better than Tarantino and all those overrated retards. The man is an undeniable, gifted storyteller. This is an ambitious film, and his direction is very mature. There is nothing here that feels like one of his prior movies, it's almost like if Stanley Kubrick directed Citizen Kane and based it on the early days of the Oil industry. There is no showing off, no crazy camera movements. The focus is on the character, and the spiritual link to Citizen Kane is more than evident. Once you've attained everything, what have you got to show for it if your hatred for people consumes you alone?

With all these great thematic elements it should all have led to something great, and it doesn't.

I'm a film editor, so of course i'm going to pay attention to scene construction. The film's first quarter is poorly focused, and the last quarter suffers the same fate. This makes the proceedings feel strangely unsatisfying, because I know the material would have benefitted from readjustment. The pacing is uneven, and Anderson lets scenes go far too long. There is a scene near the end where he's at a restaurant with is son and for real it felt liek they used up the whole magazine. The editing was choppy, and that's surprising coming from him. But that's minor compared to the major, and that's the film's resolution. You get the feeling the film was setting up Plainview for a royal downfall, and once we get to the scene Anderson commits a major mistake in direction: He lets it go over the top and the actors lay it too thick during the final confrontation.

It almost reduced Day-Lewi's performance as a mere stunt, and Paul Dano, who was also so great, both turn up the volume too high. Worse of all, the end result felt like a slap in the face.

Day-Lewis' performance is There Will Be Blood's biggest selling point. It's intense and on point, at least for two-thirds of the lengthy picture, a brilliant depiction of Daniel's complex and conflicted personality. Great films carry their themes to the last frame, and here Anderson got too indulgent on the lenght. A film that has no climax and no ending WTF? If i'm going to spend 158 minutes on a character study make his lose a leg at least or close up the movie in a satisfying way.

The resolution with his son was the film's true closure, and what follows felt very hollow and unsatisfying.

The best thing about the movie was the score. This is by far the most original film score i've heard since Requiem For A Dream. It's fucking brilliant, and saved the movie's ass on many occations where the scenes did not gel.

I don't recomend this movie, fuck it'll be awhile till I sit through this slow ass shit again. However, I respect PTA's talent and Day-Lewis and Paul Dano's plotline was great. What it needed was more focus in the first and last half, and in many ways that is the trade of doing of a character study: You run the risk of losing perspective of the story since everything is invested on one person.

There will be blood is a good movie, but nowhere near as satisfying as it's Oscar competitor NCFOM. Fascinating and disturbing, it's the perfect allegory for the moral fabric of our dear America, that's it's greatest achievement.

3 stars with tough love. I'm Alan and i'm out.

Frame 3: No pants day!

2008-01-12T15:41:00.000-08:00

Today was a fun day, like everyday should be but unfortunately isn't always the case.

I joined about 100 other pantless people in enjoying a little civil liberty, and I kept a straight face about it.

I was on the train on my way home and wasn't going to do it, until I saw these chicks strip right in front of my eyes. Suddenly the train was packed with pantless people. I got off on 14 St and took mines off. We took the train to 42nd St and walked the station. If anything, the look of people's faces was priceless. Everyone played along, minding like nothing's wrong, which made it funnier. Children laughed, others didn't.

We went to union sq and had a rally there, urging others to do the same. Some did, some didn't.
Overall it was fun participating in a group, and to do something for the hell of it felt very free.

When is shirtless day? Sign me up.

Frame 2: No negativity zone campaign 2008

2008-01-12T01:12:00.000-08:00

Fuck the presidential campaign, things never change unless it's from within in this world.

Negative energy is a cancer aflicting our senses everywhere we go, that having peace of mind is right at the core of what is to be our sanity. Think i'm crazy? add up the things in your life that you deal with everyday that are negative and see how they stack up against the postive ones and you'll find your answer.

Take this picture and paste it everywhere you come into close contact with negative energy. Well, at least it will get a reaction, right?

The goodwill police is in full effect.

Frame 1: Have a sense of humor.

2008-01-12T01:07:00.000-08:00

Having a sense of humor is soo important in this day and age, so I made a little video about it just for kicks.

It will be up for the remainder of the month. Maintain the sense of humor for the rest of the year and beyond please.