Friday, December 28, 2007
In 2006 there were two contrasting small films about “Christian” camps that appeared at roughly the same time. They make a striking comparison.
“Jesus Camp,” although shot as 4:3 digital video by A&E Indie (directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, 87 min), got regular commercial theatrical distribution by Magnolia Pictures. I saw it at Landmark E Street Theater in downtown Washington DC. The film traces the lives of evangelical teens in the Kansas City area as they prepare for and then go to an evangelical summer camp near Devil’s Lake, ND (in winter, often the coldest place in the country!) Becky Fisher plays herself, and is most determined to communicate her Christian fervor (that’s how it comes across) with no apologies. This is a matter of Faith, of putting Jesus first, of being God’s warriors, and taking belief and religious authority over reason.
“Camp Out,” directed by Kirk Marcolina and Larry Grimaldi (78 min), is also about a summer camp – this one in Minnesota (Bay Lake Camp) for gay teenagers. That sounds like it would be a world apart from the first film discussed here. Actually, most of the film chronicles the personal friendships developed among the participants. The film is very gentle and stays well within PG to PG-13 territory. There are talent shows and craft works; one of the campers wants to go to divinity school (which organizations like UFMCC can facilitate), and one of the counselors tells his harrowing experience getting ordained in a Lutheran church after coming out. (Like most denominations, Lutherans, common in Minnesota and northern states, vary widely from liberal to conservative congregations). This film was shown free in 2006 at the Lincoln Theater in Washington DC as part of Reel Affirmations 16, but I missed the screening. Since Comcast does not have Logo here, it was a while before I saw it, but I found it on Logoonline.com in its entirety in ten chapters. (The link is here. Netflix shows the DVD as in save status.
MGM has a commercial film called “Camp” (2003, dir. Tom Graff) is a musical (music by Stephen Trask) about college age kids in a summer arts camp.
The Jewish community has a couple of small films about the equivalent of a religious camp, the kibbutz, although in a sense that’s different because a kibbutz is a more or less permanent residential settlement (with considerable political significance to problems in the Middle East). One of them is called simply "Kibbutz" (2006, directed by Racheli Schwartz, 53 min) and deals with the practical economic problems of the community. Another is called "The Children’s House", dir. Tamir Feingold (53 min) documents how children were separated from their parents in kibbutz life. I saw these films in 2006 at a Jewish Film Festival at the Jewish Community Center in Washington DC.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
I had already touched on films that deal with debate on Aug. 19, 2007 on this blog. Christmas Day this year a somewhat more heavyweight film on debate started in theater chains, “The Great Debaters,” directed by Denzel Washington, produced by Oprah Winfrey’s production company (Harpo, her first name spelled in reverse) and The Weinstein Company, with major studio distribution by MGM.
This film gathers momentum as it progresses, and it’s instructive to talk about the ending first (I don’t think it’s a spoiler here), the 1935 debate between Wiley College in Marshall, Texas, a “negro college” according to the terminology of those days of segregation, and Harvard University. Wiley plays this game “on the road” (sounds like NFL playoffs now) and the film shows a steam engine passenger engine train ride through the woods and swamps of the South, headed north and east. (There are a couple of swamp scenes, which could be a reference to Caddo Lake, on the Texas-Louisiana border, the only natural lake in Texas, which has a large number of lakes formed by WPA depression-era-built dams).
The debaters have been forced to write their own arguments, on the affirmative side of: resolved: that civil disobedience is a legitimate form of activism. Earlier, their teacher Melvin B. Tolson (Denzel Washington) had made a “we give you the words” speech and said he would write their arguments. Harvard has actually found out about this practice, so it challenges the students to develop their own material – from a stack of books (including Henry David Thoreau ‘s “Civil Disobedience”). Still, each side has to argue one side (like a trial lawyer); this is no exercise in “objectivity”.
Wiley picks its 14-year-old kid James Farmer, Jr. (Denzel Whitaker) who has acted as the team’s researcher (though not wordsmith) to give the argument, which invokes Gandhi as an example. The Harvard boy talks about the rule of law and mixes things up with a homily about the doughboy sacrifices of World War I, and James is able to hit that one out of the park (even on the road – remember Lloyd Bentsen v. Dan Quayle in 1988?) After all, in the Jim Crow south, laws were being ignored and lynchings were common (one is shown in the film) and other laws enforcing segregation would soon (in two decades) have constitutional challenges. (At one point Tolson explains the origin of the word “lynch”).
There is an earlier debate where the white team tries to argue that integration should not be attempted because it will foster disorder – the same kinds of “blame the victim” or “heckler’s veto” arguments that were used to keep the military segregated (until Truman in 1948) and today are used to justify “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military.
The rest of the story deals largely with Tolson’s difficulties – his activism with unions and sharecroppers gets him in and his team in trouble, and James’s dad (Forest Whitaker) tries, for a while, to keep his son out of the running. We see a lot of paradox: African American children aiming for the American dream in the Depression era 1930s in the south, trying to verbalize their way out of their disadvantage, and yet being told what and how to argue.
The film looks grand. It is in widescreen, full 2.35 to 1, and the visual environment of the 30s is recreated well. At the end, an audience in Arlington VA (about 30% of the audience was African American) applauded.
Harpo films also recently produced the TV baseball movie “Mitch Albom’s For One More Day” for ABC (aired Dec. 9) in which a “failed” baseball player reviews his life while being united with his deceased mother, in order to get the will to live.
In 2004/2005, Winfrey (and Harpo Films) produced "Their Eyes Were Watching God," based on the novel by Zora Neale Hurston, which is often assigned reading in high school English classes. The story concerns a young African American women Janie Starks (played by Halle Berry) whose behavior with men confounds the social norms of the 1920s, which were not necessarily limited by race. The DVD is is 1.37:1 (maybe because this is a TV film for ABC), which means that some sense of space and breadth is lost, especially in the outdoor scenes toward the end around Florida's Lake Okeechobee, and especially during the hurricane. Janie says that her eyes are watching God as the storm approaches. It will lead to a fitting tragedy.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
During the Holidays, we see some of the same classic black-and-white films every year, often on TCM (Turner Classic Movies). Some of them we do take for granted. For example, there is “Miracle on 34th Street” (the street that houses the Empire State Building and is close to Penn Station), first made in 1947 by 20th Century Fox with George Seaton directing, and Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle / Santa Claus, and John Payne as Fred Gailey who makes the case that he is the “real” Santa Claus. Natalie Wood, as a child, played Susan. The 1994 remake (also Fox, this time in garish Deluxe color) is directed by Less Mayfield and has Richard Attenborough as Kris and emphasizes the point of view of the child Susan Walker (Mara Wilson). Now I learned that the fables were, in a “real world” sense, untrue from my parents one at a time, first Santa Claus, and then the Easter Bunny. The filming of the earlier version on location, including Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, was novel for its time. The earlier version is available on DVD in both BW and colorized versions; I have never been a fan of colorizing black and white, as many films communicate more through the abstraction of BW.
A more compelling film from its moral point of view is “It’s a Wonderful Life,” from RKO Radio, 1946, directed by Frank Capra. Here George Bailey is the Everyman (I mention the 15th Century morality play that they made us read in senior English: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/everyman.html ) and he wants to end it all after getting accused of embezzlement (it’s a bit complicated). An angel Clarence (Henry Travers) shows him how barren the lives of his family members and townspeople would be or would have been without him.
The idea that one should take account of the end-result impact of his or her life on others (or of what his life would cause if he succeeded at everything) has gained moral importance, and fits into the concept of karma.
But the best of these may be I Remember Mama (1948, RKO Radio, directed by George Stevens), based on the novel by Kathryn Forbes, as a woman recalls her life as a girl in a large family in turn-of-the-century San Francisco, and traces her life in parallel phases: accepting the common sacrifices of family responsibility, something that earlier generations could not question, and her development as a storyteller and writer. A critical point in the film is whether it is all right to write about other family members. It isn’t in the beginning (according to the girl’s teacher) but during the course of the film it becomes so.
Don't forget the first VistaVision ("Motion Picture High Fidelity") film from Paramount, "White Christmas" in 1954 (directed Michael Curtz) with Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, as a vaudeville team tries to save a Vermont inn owned by a former commanding general. I miss VistaVision (remember how it looked in "Vertigo" (1958)), and the depth and clarity that it achieved (compare to Todd AO). NBC Today this morning gave 1941 as the date for the film; imdb gives only 1954.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Imagine you’re at an actor’s workshop, like the one I used to attend in Minneapolis when I lived there (link). The group will set up dramatic situations, to improvise. Screenwriting classes do this, too.
So imagine a married couple with an expectant mother (the Lindstroms, played by Paul Schneider and Emily Mortimer) has encouraged the shy and possibly almost autistic husband’s younger brother to come live with them because he spends so time alone, and the brother (Lars, played by a very restrained and dressed-in-layers Ryan Gossling) brings a new girl friend he met on the Internet (please not a Myspace friend) – the only trouble is that the girl is a mannequin. She is an imaginary companion.
Now go on, and wonder what you can do with this. The doll, Bianca, gradually becomes real to the household and to the townspeople. Eventually, Lars will have to outgrow her and be able to have a real girl friend. But how much can one do with this?
The film is "Lars and the Real Girl," directed by Craig Gillespie, written by Nancy Oliver, from Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, production company for a much larger film, “The Kite Runner”, from Dreamworks (reviewed Dec. 15), this film distributed by MGM (yes, our favorite trademark cat). It does seem a bit like an exercise; it could easily have been a stage play, and it seems minimalist.
There’s more of this. Lars has a job as a computer programmer, and some of his office mates (one of them played by Maxwell McCabe-Lokos) play similar tricks on each other, and have their little fetish objects in their cubicles. The film offers a sympathetic Canadian health system GP (Patricia Clarkson) playing psychiatrist (although with the family name, you think the film happens in Minnesota), an ambulance ride for a doll (with single payer you can get away with that) and even a funeral. All to give up a fantasy.
Nevertheless, it’s possible to extrapolate from this, for me especially, beyond the fact that as a boy I had an imaginary companion (I called him Back and worried about the day I would have to give him up). Sometimes media characters seem as real as people, especially the role models. Think of some of our most appealing characters: Clark Kent, Sam Winchester, Ephram Brown, Justin Taylor, Jake Foley, even soap opera’s Nick Fallon. (I’m afraid that right now too many of the females, real and imagined, have been bad role models.) Sometimes “they” seem like real people.
Monday, December 17, 2007
“My Kid Could Paint That,” from Sony Pictures Classics and A&E Indie, and Axis Films and Passion Films, will indeed probably become stable documentary on the A&E channel, although it enjoys a theatrical release now. Documentary filmmaker Amir Bar-Lev has made his own process of artistry the subject of controversy comparable to the artist that he examines.
Most people by now have heard the basic story. Mark, an amateur painter who sometimes sells realistic paintings of his upstate New York area, and his wife Laura let their four year old have at it with oil paint. Almost with a process of finger-painting followed by some brush and palette, she creates interesting impressions with her dabs, and out of fun, the parents display her work at a local Binghamton NY business. Soon people are making offers for her work, which is compared to the work of Jackson Pollick. After hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales, there is a CBS 60 Minutes and Charlie Rose show examining the family, suggesting that it is a hoax. But the family gets over it and she starts selling again.
The point here seems to be one of Einstein’s relativity principles: beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the observer can change what is seen. The film throughout examines whether abstract art is a put-on (John Stossel even appears). Any story, Laura says, generates its own change, and it’s inevitable if they stumbled into a happening with her art, they can wander into an un-happening. So they do. People write very nasty things about the parents on message boards on the Internet – the film shows images of the boards, and we don’t need to quote the words here; they hurt. But it goes away. The filmmaker is left to reflect: he wanted to tell this story, but is it a real story, or did the filmmaker create it himself? We are left to ponder the eternal feminine, whether art can ever express truth. Well, not exactly (mathematics can), but it can urge us to find the truth for ourselves.
I can think of a good parallel example in my own life, where the perception of my own work has taken sudden turns back and forth, just because the laws of physics and “stalking the wild pendulum” (Bentov) seem to require this oscillation.
One can wonder these things about music, which, after all, invokes art over another dimension, time. Some of the same questions about prodigy and talent can exist. But it’s easy to tell, over time, whether a composer’s work resonates with listeners and moves them into new perceptions, even as the language of music expands from composer to composer. Music, like art (even as Da Vinci knew), has always been systematized in mathematical relationships, and so it is as it moved forward into twelve-tone music and sometimes computer-generated music even back in the 50s.
The implications or art legitimacy and forgery were explored in Clive Barker’s massive 1991 novel Imajica with the character Gentle; perhaps this will see film one day soon.
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Kite Runner, directed by Marc Forster, based on the novel by Khaled Hosseini, produced by Dreamworks with Participant, and distributed by Paramount Classics/Vantage, started its theatrical release today (Dec. 14), after a postponement of several weeks over concerns for safety to the two young actors, who are reportedly secure somewhere in the UAE. The radical Muslim outrage focuses on one particular scene early, in a culture that blames victims of assaults for bringing it on themselves. Although the film will not be shown in theaters in Afghanistan, certainly DVDs will appear. Many people in Afghan culture do not understand movies and that what is shown is fiction, and will believe that the boys were actually shamed in the real plane, and may want to take revenge. Apparently Paramount hired former CIA agent John Kariakou (discussed on the International Issues blog Dec 11 in "CIA Agent Speaks Out" on ABC) who felt that the danger was significant. The book author, Mr. Hosseini, says he has experienced no problems in the four years since the best-selling book was published, unlike the situation of Salman Rushdie in Britain. (As far as people "not understanding movies," I actually had a problem with a school administration believing that one of my fictitious screenplays that I had authored and placed on my domain was "real"; that's the heart of the infamous "Touching" case in California in the late 1970s.)
Actually, to focus on that misses the main points of the film, which might emanate from the Islamic belief (according to the film) that all sin gets down to stealing in some form. In a patriarchal culture, that means especially that family members owe their fathers (and Allah) inasmuch as everything they have (in a world that does not distribute wealth evenly) was given to them by religious and family circumstances. From that one principle a rich and layered story evolves.
As boys, Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada) and Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) are friends in 1978 Kabul, and Hassan, though a bit shy, is an accomplished kite runner. Amir is more cerebral and writes stories, which his benevolent father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi) asks to look at, as if Amir was writing away inappropriate family secrets. That turns out to be a feint, but Amir may have a bit of a dark side. A neighborhood Pashtun teen Assef (Salam Yousafzi) complains that Hassan’s presence is a burden because he comes from a different tribe. (Hassan insists that he is not personally hurting anyone.) A beating and sexual assault follows, and it is absolutely clear the assault is about power (to conquer and degrade an “enemy”), and has no erotic meaning at all. It is carefully and obliquely filmed, and the film stays within PG-13 territory, probably because it is so clear that this is about political pecking order and nothing more. (Nevertheless, the outrage in some Islamic world segments, who see their culture humiliated and attacked.) Now Amir starts to taunt Hassan, trying to prod Hassan to hit back (that was done to me as a boy). Amir then “frames” Hassan for a minor theft, in an adolescent-brain even that seems hard to explain the same way similar false witness by the girl Briony in “Atonement” unfolds in a film reviewed Dec. 8. Hassan’s father (Nabu Tanhi) insists that Amir leave Afghanistan with his father Baba, just as the Soviet invasion begins. There are arrangements to look after Baba’s house and other family matters, but it should be no surprise that these fall apart under the pressure of the Soviet invasion.
One wonders here if it would be more logical for Amir to have become the target of bullying. After all, he is the more cerebral. Both boys seem somewhat sensitive and quirky. Even so, Amir could have wound up sent away with an even more subtle set of tribal moral problems. As the story is set up, Amir (Khalid Abdalla as an adult), though becoming a successful writer in San Francisco (his book is called something like “Heaven from the Ashes”) and marrying without being able to have children. The story intersects 1988 and 2000 and Amir hardly ages at all as he reaches his early 30s.
Amir gets a phone call in 2000, to the effect that he should return to Afghanistan to make things right. (Here the movie poster line, "There is a way to be good again" appears.) His mission is to pick up a nephew left from the family tragedy which his boyhood deception helped create. So there is the basic plot element here that makes “Atonement” work, although Amir could have felt considerable family pressure anyway even without a personal sin. The last third of the film, most of it shot in western China, is spectacular with the brown and snowy mountains and passes. (The film does have live footage from Kabul.) He puts on a fake beard to fool the Taliban, now in power when the Soviets are expelled. He witnesses a stoning of an adulteress in the stadium, and is detected. There is a final confrontation, where he is asked why he deserted his own people. Now that sounds more like tribalism than anything having to do with a personal sin. There is some irony in how he gets out that we won’t disclose, as a spoiler. Needless to say, he and his wife will have a family. But he might have been expected to be responsible for his nephew anyway in this bloodline-tribe driven culture.
The film does underline the Taliban's preoccupation with male beards, a secondary sexual characteristic that seems to have ritualistic significance and seems to fit in to their religious justification of an economic and social "pecking order." At one point Amir is told never to make eye contact on the street or stare at any other male. The incredibly strict religious environment seems designed to protect the ability of males to "perform" the way their tribes expect.
The film, then, comes across as a searing examination of the moral principles underneath Islamic society. Amir is the progressive, trying to bring culture and individuality back into Islam, a character that it had a thousand years ago before the Crusades. The film makes it appear as if the self-righteous Taliban came into power largely as a reaction to Communism, and that Islam took its negative turn in history because of external insults. That may be the case. The film, like the likable writer character, tries to nudge Islam into the a direction of accepting individual freedom within the context of its scriptures. The film may be banned in Afghanistan and some tribal areas of Pakistan where authorities fear it will trigger vengeful emotions.
The film does not take us up to 9/11, although it’s easy to imagine that it could have. I recall, in General Education in Ninth Grade, choosing Afghanistan (“a place at the ends of the Earth” according to Newsweek in the fall of 2001) as the Asian country that I would report on to the class, and the teacher’s making the comment that she knew that this was the country I would pick. There was some prescience in her mind a half century ago.
Here's another blogger's review, at this link.
A more conventionally styled film (a sort of satire-comedy) about the international "scheming" that it took a Texas Congressman (Tom Hanks) to respond to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is Univeral's "Charlie Wilson's War," directed by Mike Nichols, based on the book by George Crile.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Mudge Boy is a little film, made back in 2003, that offers a couple of lessons in technique and thought for filmmakers with GLBT materials.
On the DVD, the director Michael Burke talks about the “catch 22” in small film: you have to have the cast to get money, and you have to get money to get a cast. Emile Hirsch and Tom Guiry, from opposite coasts, were willing to rehearse critical scenes on their own dime, and that helped. The film was developed for Showtime, and had a brief theatrical release from Strand Releasing. Films with compact, original stories and short-story-like dramatic confrontations and situations have the best chance of attracting investors.
The other interesting point about this film is that it tells gay men, particularly, how to get into the minds of their parents, especially fathers, and the emotions that parents of GLBT people face. In the movie, Richard Jenkins plays the father Edgar, left to raise his only “different” son when his wife suddenly dies of a heart attack (her sudden death while biking opens the film). He wants his son Duncan Mudge (Hirsch) to take over the chores now and be able to take over the farm some day. The events of the film – Duncan’s cross dressing with his mother’s clothes, his behavior with animals – especially chickens (“Chicken Man!”), his unusual approach to relating to more conventional other boys – force the father eventually to accept his son as different. And this is a blow to him. He will probably not have a biological lineage, he will go his own way in life. If the boy eventually inherits the farm, he will probably sell it to a large agribusiness corporation, take the money and go his own way with his own pursuits, likely in the arts.
People like Duncan’s father perceive the nuclear biological family as a social, physical and psychological safety net. Besides the Church, with the idea of salvation by Grace, it is the one institution that guarantees that people who otherwise would accomplish little from the global view of the outside world still have meaning. In the father's view, at least when the film starts, the moral justification of what the son will get in the world (relative to what people in other families get) depends on the son's loyalty to his own blood, and the son is obligated to maintain the saftey net. This is net is being poked with holes, allowing some people to fall through into an abyss, while others excel. Eventually, however, in this story, Edgar will learn to live with himself in a world with very different rules.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Smithsonian in Washington, the Samuel C. Johnson Theater in the National Museum of Natural History, shows some Imax 3-D (on a 90 ft w x 66 ft h screen) documentaries from National Geographic. All of the films would probably fit into the PG category.
Lions 3D, directed by Tim Liveredge, 40 min, traces the life of a lion pride in the Kalabari Desert in Botswana, north of South Africa. Much of the territory is a flat land salt delta, where seasonal dust storms actually give lions hunting opportunities. Lions are the only cats with a major social organization, and this seems to comport with the fact that males have visible secondary sexual characteristics (manes). A particular male “owns” two females, and the younger lioness is learning to hunt. The older lioness has cubs and trains and raises them, but a raiding male could kill them, if it fit the strategy of propagating one’s genes. The individual wild cats had distinct personalities (one wonders how they accepted human photographers in their territory) and took on the personas of characters in a more conventional film, even making a variety of roars and sounds as "speech". Lion society is somewhat like a primitive patriarchal human society. It starts with survival of the fittest genes, and it is up to civilization to make things more just. Other animals, including hyenas, are shown.
The film does provoke some social and moral thinking. Most of us think of cats as being a bit like us (leading us to become attached to them as having real personalities), and here they are trying to have a society. Without some kind of moral compass rooted in the family (and faith), the ultimate safety net is shredded for some people, and the “losers” after left to perish according to natural Darwinism (or Spenceriansism). Not that human family values don’t embrace their own moral contradictions.
Sea Monsters 3D (42 min, dir. Sean Phillips) has probably the very best realistic animation ever seen on film, when it comes to depicting underwater reptiles (somewhat like crocodiles), amphibians, fish, and mollusks like they would have lived 200 million years ago. Archeologists, mainly in the little known badlands in western Kansas (and some in South Dakota) study frozen-in-time fossils of these creatures from the inland sea (recreated in the NBC disaster movie “10.5 Apocalypse”). The film also shows digs in Australia and in The Netherlands. One water reptile died of gluttony, choking on a smaller reptile. Another small reptile survived an attack, to grow up with a shark tooth in its fin.
When I made still pictures as a boy, I called one of the movies “Sea Monsters” and imagined giant squid climbing onto ships. (That happens in the Sci-Fi movie “Eye of the Beast”).
The Museum also shows, in the Mammals hall lobby, a (conventional video) film called “Mammals” that traces how mammals evolved after the asteroid-based extinction 65 million years ago wiped out the predatory dinosaurs. The film defines mammals as warm blooded, having hair, and extra ear bone, and mammary glands for nursing live born young. They imagine a reunion party with 100 million year old rodents (gnawing animals). A lot of guests don’t make the cut. “You don’t have any hair.” Indeed.
Update: Jan 19, 2008
On Jan 17 Animal Planet had a one hour film "Big Cat Diary" with amazing close up African photos of a lion "family" (where a mother teachers her cubs to finish a kill she has started -- a first), a leopard (running from a baboon), and aggressive courtship among cheetahs -- the cheetah may be the most "tamable" big cat (the WB film "Duma" from South Africa), where a somewhat "dog-like" male cheetah raised in a household with children acts like part of the family (like a Labrador Retriever), even able to learn to operate a remote television pad with its mouth; he only learns who he is when he sees a female when taken in the wild. Large cats don't seem to object to man or to cameras as long as they are in the wild and are not cornered.
Update: April 6, 2008
On May 28 Discovery APL aired a similar "Big Cat Challenge" as lions, leopards, and cheetahs compete in the same space, with cheetahs working the day shift. The show maintains that in a lion pride, only the alpha male gets to have a lineage, and the dominant male will kill the cubs of all other males. Furthermore, the dominant males will take away the kills of younger "bachelor males." This sounds like a primer for the worst of human behavior, such as fascist societies. However, in the animal world, the show maintains, such practice means the strongest genes survive. That sounds questionable, as genetic variation is itself a good thing in the long run. We feel fascinated with big cats because they are problem solvers, have real personalities and emotions (such as the grief of the lioness when her "illegal" cub is killed by the alpha male), and real soap opera. They seem so much like us, and perhaps that is frightening. With a slightly large brain (that might have developed with more genetic variation, which "family values" tend to encourage), perhaps big cats could have developed the ethical perspective that a civilization (humans) needs to grow. Then the cats might have ruled the planet. Bonobo chimps have some of this perspective.
PBS Nature aired "Lions: Pride in Peril" narrated by Richard Attenborough, following a small pride living in an old caldera in Africa. The social structure of the animals is explored as the pride deals with reproductive failure and competition from nearby tribes. The animals are under tremendous pressure to learn to hunt and reproduce competitively, and the film seems to offer a subtle commentary on our own moral values.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
I preface this review is a little anecdote. Back in the summer of 2003, when I was working a telephone debt collector, I reached and mini-marandized someone who owed just a small balance, about $65. I said such, and he retorted angrily, “then why don’t you pay it for me, then?” (I didn’t.) Sounds like something out of the Bible, the sharing of burdens. It gives an insight in what some people expect of any hardline, fundamentalist religious faith. Life is unfair (Donald Trump always says that rather brazenly), life is hard, and bad things happen beyond people’s control. With a strong religious conviction and black-and-white ideas about right and wrong, it is possible to share some identity with others of the faith, and rationalize the hardships that are imposed.
Today, Sunday Dec. 9, The Washington DC Jewish Film Festival presented (at the Aaron & Cecile Goldman Theater of the Jewish Community Center on 16th St) a screening of the sensational documentary "Jerusalem is Proud to Present" (“Yerushalaim geaa lehatzig,” 2007, Kesnet/Israel Channel 8, dir. Nitzan Gildady, in Hebrew and English with subtitles, 86 min) along with a Q&A afterwards with Special Guest: Sa’ar Netanel, Member of the Jerusalem City Council (Meretz Party), presented in Partnership with the J’s Stuart S. Kurlander Program for Gay and Lesbian Outreach and Engagement, Co-sponsored by the Embassy of Israel, New Israel Fund and Reel Affirmations. The WJFF link is here. The Jewish Quarterly link is this.
Actually, Israel has enjoyed significant GLBT Pride celebrations in Tel Aviv for some years, but the 2006 was the first major such event in Jerusalem. The film traces the difficulties encountered by Open House in putting on both the festival (in August 2006) and then in attempting a 1500 foot march. Of course, there was tremendous religious opposition, most of all from the Orthodox community that at one point has a march screaming “Woe.” But there were also many individual characters with their own stories. For example, there is the attractive Palestinian young man who police allow to cross into the Jewish quarter to go to the one gay bar (the Shushan, now closed) where he performs as a drag queen, with actually rather minimal makeup or change. Israeli police consider someone like that “safe,” yet his own Palestinian people (Hamas) eventually tell him he must leave or offer himself as a martyr. On the other hand, there is Andy Russo, an intense young man whose forearms bare the scars of past violence, and who was stabbed in a Pride event in Tel Aviv. His mother begs him not to participate, and to regard his own life and family as more important than his political causes. But such is not the way things are in the Middle East, or a lot of other places.
The film, which is quite professionally made (it seems to be in HD video, 1.85:1 and digital stereo) shows a street-level look at ordinary life in Jerusalem like few films have. It builds up real suspense, that outlasts what sound like senseless antigay harangues from the fundamentalists (who often enough are women, saying that “these people” will capture the young with AIDS). There is a confrontation in the Jerusalem city council, over whether the rule of Law can trump over religious intolerance and intimidation. People are backed into situations where they are threatened with total breakdown of the usual application of security and law. In the background, other conflicts in the West Bank and Gaza are reported, and the Israeli military must consider the diversion of resources to protect the gay events in Jerusalem. (It's interesting that Israel allows open gays to serve in its conscripted military, in contrast to the United States.) The irony is, of course, is that GLBT issues transcend religious differences, and sometimes would encourage personal bonds from both sides of the Wall, and encourage peace in the region. We are left to ponder what fundamentalism (and the belief by both sides that their tribes have God- or Allah- given rights to the land) really means to people. Marx once wrote “religion is the opiate of the masses.”
There is one curious home scene where, in the midst of crisis, three playful house cats appear, as if to make us question what the sense is of our fighting each other all the time. They don't care.
In the end, the festival is held, and the march is postponed, and then a replacement event is held for the march in an outdoor stadium which I believe is the same venue where Leonard Bernstein once conducted Mahler’s Second (the “Resurrection”). In early 2007, a short (500 meter) march finally was held, according to Netanel.
The film is said to be making the festival circuit. Let’s hope an American theatrical and cable distributor (maybe Picturehouse / HBO, for example) picks it up soon.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Atonement: a great example of layered screenwriting (head to head with "Golden Compass" on spiritual matters)
Of course, many of us (New Age people particularly) understand personal atonement as required by the Law of Karma. From a Christian perspective, only Jesus Christ can personally atone for all of our sins, and we find ourselves self-negotiation out of a maze of contradictions. I personally believe that we must atone for our wrongs and for unfair takings, and that how we are situated in the next life (in whatever universe) is affected by it. But, in this film, we’re reminded of how we can atone for the sins committed by others. It seems that Grace is necessary because no matter how hard we try, we cannot prevent our subordination by events we cannot prevent.
So it goes with this mesmerizing British film from Universal Focus Features and Working Title, “Atonement,” based on the novel by Ian McEwan, directed by Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice). With hypnotic piano and orchestra music by Dario Marianelli (it vacillates between (C) major and minor in Mahlerian fashion “G—E Ab D# G—“ etc), it casts the spell of a Hitchcock thriller, with lots of close-ups (Wright eschewed widest aspect ration in order to keep a focus on the characters, even though many of the war scenes could have used it), and it turns out that the mystery in the story is in the reality of the events itself. As the film opens, talented 13-year-old girl Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) has written a perfunctory play (she types “The End” and typewriters in this period piece set between 1935 and 1940 really do have the social consequences of computers). By the end of the film, you won’t remember the name of the play. She gets her little twin brothers to rehearse it, all buttoned up; but then soon her imagination runs wild in a series of plot steps that require the moviegoer to pay attention to detail (the focused direction – no pun here – helps) to compare her later accusations with “reality.” Now much of her bad judgment, jealousy or vindictiveness (it’s hard to separate them) revolves around her teenage crush on groundskeeper Robbie (James McAvoy, who looks in this movie a little less than perfect in the midsection, and he smokes – that’s depressing), who is falling in love with his older (and more mundane) sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley). There are several incidents that mince words and intimacy, and they are carefully set up. A crucial plot point has to do with Robbie’s playfully typing an “obscene” sentence (the camera lingers on the typeface here, a scene that would have wasted wide screen) and Briony’s accidentally finding it and delivering it. That sequence makes the point that in the physical world of English manor estates, mislaid letters or notes can be as dangerous as emails or social networking profiles today. Finally, the accusation comes, and so do the police. Briony even realizes that she could be misunderstanding things, but she has already been told by the headmistress that she did the right thing already.
The payoff, we learn, is that some of the denouement is layered itself into Briony’s last novel, as Vanessa Redgrave, soon to die of a dementia, is interviewed about her final novel. The effect is similar to the flashback that forms almost all of James Horner’s “Titanic.” Resolution is to be attained only imagination; in real life, there was only tragedy in the early days of the War, before the United States was present in Britain (where most World War II movies pick up).
The screenwriting concept itself is fascinating: to mix imagination with “reality” as if they were interchangeable because the writer himself or herself wants to change the world.
The trailers for the film summarize the “real” story pretty well, and the closing credits make it clear that Universal itself was pretty involved with the film. This movie is quite ambitious, and could have been distributed under Universal’s own “Valkyries” trademark. Starting in a platform release, it sold out at matinees today at Landmark’s E-Street downtown Washington DC.
The device of mixing "real life" narrative with events from an author's story has been tried before, often in "science fiction." In fact, Richard Kelly's "Southland Tales" (2007, Samuel Goldwyn), following two nuclear attacks in Texas, gravitates toward a July 4 apocalypse in LA, but it is only gradually that we realize that some of the apocalypse comes from a circulating screenplay "The Power" by character Boxer Santoros (Dwayne Johnson), particular when Sean William Scott's character splits into doubles approaching a violent rendez vous, and Justin Timberlake (his character, that is)is just so plain goofy. Earlier, Kelly's "Donnie Darko" had experimented with imagination and reality. But also look at William Malone 's "FearDotCom" (2002, TriStar) where the police detectives go into a website, or Joseph Rusnak's "Thirteenth Floor" (1999, Columbia) where a virtual reality world replica of 1930s LA becomes quite circumscribed at the end. Of course, David Lynch played with ideas like this ("Lost Highway") as have some "puppet master" movies.
This weekend New Line’s latest pride and joy “The Golden Compass,” based on Philip Pullman’s novel opening his “Dark Trilogy”, opened in multiplexes this weekend. (New Line insinuates that it will reproduce the phenomenon of "Lord of the Rings" with this. Well, probably not.) This film also relates to the "faith card." Many evangelicals have challenged it’s “faith,” but I don’t think it is necessarily less honoring of Christianity than the Narnia Chronicles. True, souls don’t inhabit animal doubles that accompany people. But the idea of parallel universes connected by “dust” (branes in quantum physics) itself is interesting. After all, to exist, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the Islamic Paradise, etc. all have to exist in some location in some universe. God cannot change mathematics. The "alethiometer" reminds me of the astrolabe, a kind of ancient mechanical computer that is an interesting toy now.
Friday, December 07, 2007
True Love (2004, Waterbearer / Moonspinner, 72 min) is an anthology of seven GLBT related short films all written and directed by Michael J. Saul. Each film is like a short story, an incident or “slice of life”, and each film is rather open-ended as to what the follow-up would be. The films seem more interconnected than are the films of most anthologies. The filmmaker says that the stories are about how people view others as having sexuality based on their own perceptions and needs (especially as parents). The film deals with very sensitive issues but treats them with great restraint (except for one simulated scene in a car). It is unrated but would probably correspond to a “kind and gentle” side of the MPAA “R” rating.
The DVD adds a featurette, “True Stories About True Love” to analyze the stories. It adds “On the Set of True Love,” in which Mr. Saul explains how he achieved his dream of making his feature film for about $10000, which included auditioning a lot of actors and paying little money (but giving meals), and editing on a Mac (Final Cut) in his bedroom. He did not mention using SAG; I discussed SAG for indie films on Oct. 15, 2007 on this blog. Mr. Saul says that technology has allowed emerging artists to produce and distribute their work with relatively modest resources compared to the established industry as a whole. The cast includes John Ainsworth, Michael Bierman, Michael James Crowley, Cameron Northey, Mark Weathers, and Ryan Thomas as “Tristan.”
A Christmas Story is framed as a Super-8 miniature, of a boy celebrating Christmas morning with his mother, and we notice that he is a little different from other boys.
Going Gay starts with a confrontation between well-aged, balding father and a teen son as the drive around LA. The dad keeps trying to get the boy to “tell.” The father threatens to take the boy to a place that will make him the way he is supposed to be. The boy gets out of the car and visits the teenage friend that his father is suspicious of, and has another confrontation that end inconclusively.
History starts out with a West Hollyood restaurant dinner scene in a style than reminds one of the famous 1981 film “My Dinner with Andre.” A middle aged man is conversing with his gay grad student age nephew. The nephew starts to confront him about the possibility of past abuse. All he wants is an admission.
Sunday is a miniature where two late middle aged men, apparently committed lovers, wake up on a Sunday morning. Benjamin Britten had named one of the episodes in “Peter Grimes” this.
He Was Perfect starts with a familiar but not often discussed situation in discos: one man on the sidelines ogles another “Mr. Perfect” on the dance floor. “Mr. Perfect” ‘s boyfriend thinks that creates a problem. (I found myself in a situation like this at least twice; one time a woman came up and asked me “what’s your next birthday?”) Nevertheless, they steal away for a moment in a car, and the ogler gets what he fantasized he wanted.
Staying Together has an out-of-sight country kitchen confrontation between two young gay men in a relationship, at a party.
A Little Drama has the sound man of a stage school production of the Liebestod scene from Richard Wagner ‘s “Tristan and Isolde” (that was a film in 2005) starting at the actor playing Tristan, and the actor notices and offers a reward. (Anyone notice that Jared Padalecki ‘s middle name is “Tristan”?)
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Well, if you’re awake on the operating table, but paralyzed and immobilized, and you hear the surgeons talking about their plot to murder you – well, that sounds like the ultimate cliffhanger crisis. In fiction writing and particularly screenwriting, pundits always say to create the sharpest possible crisis to keep the audience from putting that book down or from going to the concession stand for teeth-cleaning popcorn with rancid melted butter. The situation that Clay Beresford (a very natty looking Hayden Christiansen) finds himself in certain fits the bill for the ultimate plot crisis.
I won’t spoil things too much here to say how rookie British writer (and director) Joby Harrold resolves the plot, other than to say what’s obvious: about the only way to get out of this mess is to go “out of body.” Maybe try a little astral projection. You need more than email and search engines to contact your loved ones: you need telepathy. If it could really happen, yes, the world would change. This idea has been tried before, as when Lucas (Chad Michael Murray) goes out of body after his accident+genes triggered heart failure in TheWB series “One Tree Hill.” I could add that a little remote viewing, the kind that the CIA supposedly teaches in a country estate near Charlottesville, VA could help, too.
The trouble with this new flick from MGM, The Weinstein Company and Greenestreet Films (the credits mention a lot of resources from London but carry the “made in NY” seal) is that Hayden looks way too healthy and robust to be believable as a heart transplant candidate, all the way from the shaggy legs drooping from the OR table to the upper arm definition. He looks like he belongs as another Krypton phantom on "Smallville". They do play games with his body all right in the OR (and a little bit before), although in the scenes that matter (with the telltale heart exposed – literally) the body is obviously a mannequin, attached to his head with CGI.
The medical issues is, of course, anesthesia awareness. I’ve been under the knife only once, for six hours, and lost all memory before reaching the operating room as the sedative started. They are supposed to give you a drug erasing memories of the operation. It’s as if this movie tells you why.
Hayden Christiansen is one of today’s most appealing young actors, but the characters he plays do “get it” sometimes. In the third Star Wars movie (Revenge of the Sith) as Anakin Skywaker his character gets burnt to a crisp and turned replaced by the robotic body that becomes Darth Vader. In "Shattered Glass", he plays a New Republic writer who succumbs to pressures and commits journalistic fraud.
But go see this movie to find out how the rich heir Clay Beresford saves himself (if he can).
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Democrats did this on July 23 (on this blog). This evening, the GOP had a debate in St. Petersburg, FL with the questions submitted from the public as "YouTube" videos. Anderson Cooper and Gov. Charlie Crist hosted. A major sponsor was Coors, which was promoting MVparents with its "asset parenting" website (claiming that every child should have at least five adult role models).
The rules included "no adult questions with children acting" and no animals talking. Most of the video clips were pretty straightforward.
The candidates were Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ton Tancredo.
A lot of the questions are shown on the CNN political ticker blog here.
On gun rights, Giuliani explained his personal view that the Second Amendment defined an individual right, subject to reasonable regulation that could differ among states.
One video with a little activity was by Jay Fox, who catches a gun thrown at him. He was criticized for showing unsafe gun handling.
On the support of evangelicals, Joseph Dearing asked "Do you believe every word of this Book?" and held up a Bible. Very simple filmmaking.
Leeanne Anderson included her kids (one adopted) and asked about toy safety.
Giuliani was asked if New York had become effectively a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. He answered that it was much better policy to educate their kids and process complaints from them legitimately.
Retired BG Keith Kerr asked if today's soldier's were professional enough to serve with openly gay soldiers. Kerr said that he had come out at retirement after 42 years in the Reserves. All of the candidates who responded (Giuliani did not) answered that they would defer to the judgment of military officers on matters of unit cohesion. At least one, however, admitted that other countries, including Israel, had been able to lift the ban. On Nov. 29, it was disclosed that Kerr had supported one of the candidates and that had CNN known, it would not have aired his video.
David Cercone asked if the candidates welcomed the support of the Log Cabin Republicans.
Friday, November 23, 2007
War Dance, directed by Sean Fine and Andrea Nix (distributor: ThinkFilm and Sundance Channel, production companies Shine Global ) and Fine Films), is a passionate documentary about kids living in a government protection camp in northern Uganda competing in the country’s music festival in Kampala.
The film weaves chilling stories of atrocities by the rebels with a step-by-step account of their competition from their Patongo school, all the way to the finals in the cultural center in Kampala, which is shown as a mixture of clapboard poverty and high-rise opulence.
The music itself is in several categories: Western choral, instrumental composition, creative dance, and traditional dance (the Bwola). The kids from Patongo actually win the traditional dance. The music is played on homemade instruments with wood components like xylophones and various percussion and some strings. It sounds folksy with just a trace of a Bartok flavor at times.
But it is the stories of the rebel atrocities that get quick attention. Often, a child talks while the site of the atrocity is shown, such as a military barracks in which the kids hid out, or a stormy setting in rounded mountain scenery. Typically rebels would come and kidnap the parents, and kill the father, quite brutally, and abduct the kids. One kid tells of being forced to kill farmers. Another, a bit older, talks about the eugenics of the rebels policy. They target families with the most kids because in their society, having more kids confers more economic wealth and political status. Kids also talk about being the only ones left to take care of younger siblings. It’s easy to appreciate from this film how loyalty to blood and family is so critical in economically “poorer” cultures and how those value systems trickle up. There is one scene on Lake Victoria. The HIV epidemic is not mentioned here, but has been the subject of other films (like Darwin’s Nightmare (2004), from Hubert Sauper, about nearby Tanzania) about the region.
Even the trip to Kampala is bare bones. The kids are piled onto convoy trucks and travel 200 miles on dirt roads, under guards patrolling them with AK-47s. Once in town, at night they sleep, boys and girls separated and carefully chaperoned by music teachers, on the floors with just blankets.
Uganda is mixed ethnically and with respect to religion, being south of the Muslim areas. The CIA website does not fully explain the causes of the brutal activity.
Picture: Primitive settler dwelling in St. Mary's, MD.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Another new documentary that can make American and western consumers squeamish about their karma is “The Price of Sugar” (2007, Mitropoulos Films / Uncommon Productions, directed by Bill Haney, mostly digital video, 1.85 to 1 and 1.33 to 1 in spots). Paul Newman (“Hud”) narrates. The films documents the importation of Haitian workers onto sugar cane plantations in the Dominican Republic as (essentially) slaves by the five large sugar companies. The history is significant: the Dominican Republic broke free from Haiti, and views Haiti as an “enemy”; Haiti is actually poorer. It’s interesting that, according to the film, the US had trade agreements with the Dominican Republic that result in US consumers actually paying more for sugar. The sugar barons seem to pocket the rest. Sugar cane may come into more demand as the worldwide demand for ethanol fuel increases (already big business in Brazil).
But the hero of the film is Father Christopher Hartley, who decided as a teenager in Britain (or Spain) to dedicate himself to God and become a priest. He spent some youthful years working with Mother Theresa in India, and the film shows some harrowing stills of the poverty in India. (A related film is the Italian account “Madre Theresa” (2003, Lux, dir. Fabrizio Costa). Hartley goes to bat for the Haitian workers, and eventually defends their right not only to be there but also to organize. He fends off many threats from the sugar companies and the Dominican government, both of which try to get him expelled.
At least from the material in the film, Father Hartley does seem to follow the moral teachings of the Church. He gives up the competitive world and individualized self-expression and takes a vow of poverty, and as far as known, remains abstinent. He remains indirectly supportive of the families of others and of the emotional empathy that families need and does not set himself up as competing with it. He seems his moral duties as collective in nature. He takes charge and assumes “power” only in the context of having shared the empathy and sacrifice himself first, but when he does, he is vigorous about his beliefs. For example, he fights for the rights of workers to organize. But he does so not as a pamphleteer or legal activist, but as someone who responds to others directly, with the appropriate amount of intimacy. Everything, while coming out of a heavily socialized, moral universe, responds to real needs, and that seems to be his own answer to the usual concern that Catholic authoritarianism invites corruption (and, of course, in many other parts of history, with the simony, sale of indulgences, and scandals, it has; but not here). Has he exhibited moral utopia, the kind that can generate self-righteousness? One could say that, in the teachings of the Church, freedom from sin only exists when one turns oneself over to God completely and lives only to serve others in a concrete sense. (In that sense, even procreative heterosexual marriage, for "normal" people, serves God and others through its ritualized and sacramental emotional risk, progression, and finality of commitment.) Well, sometimes you need an ego, even some self-indulgence, in order to advance things for others. Leonardo Da Vinci knew that. So did Father Mycal Judge, the so-called "Saint of 9/11" (Red Envelope Films, dir. Glenn Holsten, 2006).
Another related film is Jonathan Demme’s "The Agronomist" (2004, ThinkFilm), about Haitian radio personality and scientist Jean Dominique, who was assassinated in Haiti in April 2000.
Another comparison is "Life and Debt" (2001, New Yorker Films, dir. Stephanie Black), about the worker conditions in Jamaica under globalization.
One other thing about Father Hartley's activism here strikes me. Because he was helping specific people, his political activism was necessarily "partisan" (one-sided). As a moral matter, that's dicey with me; one wants to delve into all sides of an issue (most are not as one-sided as this one) and that's hard if you have to help specific people. Yet, intellectual honesty is what I was taught in my own academic upbringing.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Wednesday, Nov. 14, CNN ran an AP story about the online movie rental business “Netflix Offers $1m Coding Prize”, story here.
The story involved improving Netflix ‘s campaign to increase DVD rental rates by software that associates movies into groups and recommends them to customers based on customer rental history and ratings that customers have given to movies that may be similar. Programmers will be rewarded by how well their systems perform in increasing rentals.
I use Netflix, find it convenient and find that most titles arrive in the mail the next day. Titles from other processing centers still come quickly, and often show up as returned the next day even when mailed to the West Coast. Blockbuster has a similar service, as well as retail stores, which I have not yet explored. In March 2004 I actually applied for a job with Hollywood Video but became a substitute teacher then instead.
Netflix has also did some theatrical distribution (with its Red Envelope brand as a distributor) of a few small independent films dealing with social issues, such as "Saint of 9/11" and "A Crude Awakening" (the latter about oil production).
The interesting concepts here are grouping and reviewing movies. Netflix groups movies into many categories and subcategories (just look at the site). IMDB (run by Amazon) classified movies by generous use of keywords which, when clicked, give all the movies in history for which that keyword applies. (The keywords for horror movies can be interesting). A movie can fit into more than one classification.
I have the three-movies-at-a-time plan with Netflix, and about 15% of the rentals come from their recommendations. The rest, I know I want to rent. There is enormous variation in how quickly movies come out on DVD. Some come out immediately (Bubble) or quickly (Pathfinder); others have never come out at all (Camp Out). Usually they appear on Tuesdays.
California teacher Rafe Esquith made some recommendations for movies (suitable for public school) for schools in his book, and I found that I had never seen almost half of them. I also found waits on Netlfix for some of them. Apparently, when a book like this comes out, it stimulates interest in specific older movies.
IMDB, Amazon, and Netflix, and many other sites allow and encourage visitors to review movies, and the reviews can be anonymous. Amazon will group reviews by reviewer screen name. IMDB also has message boards to discuss movies, actors, writers, directors, etc. and also has major news item stories. But the best message boards in the entertainment business were probably those on Project Greenlight during the first two contests, and on TheWB for each WB show (the boards for Smallville and Everwood were especially spirited). Since TheWB became CWTV I haven’t found the boards as interesting.
But on my own websites (doaskdotell.com which was preceded by hppub.com, and this blog) I have manually, and somewhat crudely, grouped movies (and television shows sometimes) into separate review pages, with referrals to other pages for movies that fit onto more than one. I set this up in 1998 manually with HTML when the technology available was much cruder. I still use it. I place movies that relate to a common social or artistic issue or vision on one page. Unclassified movies from major studios go on my “tidbits” page. I pick a few of them and regroup them for more discussion on this blog. Examples of social issues could be “mandatory family responsibility” (having to raise other people’s children), as in Raising Helen and Saving Sarah Cain, or even “the dead hand” (The Bachelor, The Ultimate Gift). An example of an artistic issue could be screenplay structure, as with Keane or Mustang Sally.
I’ve discussed the concept of expanding knowledge management (beyond Wikipedia and also beyond e-commerce sites) on my main blog, by aggressive use of databases and by combining concepts found in wiki encyclopedias and compendiums with e-commerce. Stay tuned.
A WJLA story at 11 PM on Nov 15 reported on a suburban MD man Jim Judy who runs a website called Screenit (for subscription) that gives detailed breakdowns of each movie as to specific items of potentially objectionable content.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Available Men shorts collection (Wolfe)DVD (2006)
Available Men (2005, Bates, dir. David Dean Bottrell, 15 min), In a hotel bar, two pairs of similarly named men mix each other up on a meetup. There is a cab driver trying to sell a screenplay, and another man looking for love. It’s interesting to see how the metaphors actually work. Interesting two see what you can do with four actors when they are accidentally mismatched. There is something here on how hard it is to find and agent and sell a screenplay in LA. Brian Gattas, Jack Plotnick, Richard Ruccolo, Kotas Sommer.
Straight Boys (2006, USC, dir. Dave O’Brien. 14 min). A young man deals with how to “confess” his feelings to a straight roommate, and gets a not so predictable surprise. Damian Pelliccione, Nick Bartzen
Hello Thanks.(2005, Northwest, dir, Andy Blubaugh, 8 min). The slightly built but appealing director documents his looking for love in personal ads, with the ads displayed on the screen. This is a kind of writing, almost in the sense of grant writing. “Someone who will still be there in the morning.” He says he likes words more than he likes people.
Tumbleweed Town (1999, dir. Samara Halperin, 8 min) Claymation short about a simple pickup in the “Bronco Bar” in the southwest – like the Roundup in Dallas or Remington’s in Washington.
The Underminer (dir. Todd Downing, book by Mike Albo with Virginia Hufferman, 8 min). A social encounter in a bar, taxi, moving to an art gallery, has a self-indulgent “subjective feminine” prattling to a friend about being alone. I can see how this could have been an autobiographical novel in New York.
Irene Williams: Queen of Lincoln Road (dir. Eric Smith, 23 min) is a video documentary of a friendship between a NYC gay man and a South Beach elderly lady, developed in the 90s on his trips to South Florida. A lot about the aesthetics of fashion, clothes, homes. Much of the video was shot in the 90s. She is a jack of all trades: notary public, resume doctor, and says she does term papers. Eventually her health and memory declined, and the friendship continued until she passed away in a nursing home.
Sissy French Fry (2005, Kiros, dir. J. C. Oliva, 28 min) Openly gay and flamboyant “Sissy French Fry” (Steven Mayhew, his hair bleached) is student class president at West Beach High (he has been so for three years). Conservative Rodey McDodey (Ross Thomas) opposed him, and sets up debates on many of the contentious issues, some revolving around immutability. There are open gays on the football team at this school. Slowly Sissy finds his place in the world challenged. Justin Dabuet is friend Dana Aquino. The new candidate talks of social Darwinism and “gender appropriate behavior.” Then a scandal erupts in a “film within a film.”
At Apex-DC club in Washington:
Out in Alaska (5 min): a video documentary of the gay scene in Anchorage, with plenty of sea planes and one dance bar.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Well, the roaring trademark MGM Lion that opens “Lions for Lambs” may indeed provide a fitting visual (and perhaps legal) irony for the message of this very political and, for some audiences, intentionally preachy film. This is Tom Cruise Mapother ‘s first film since essentially taking over MGM’s United Artists unit ("Cruise/Wagner"). (Paramount's sacking of him always seemed silly.) When you have Mr. Cruise ‘s position, you can get the money to make the movie you want, even with money in publicly traded companies. The movie's title refers to the idea that troops who bear the sacrifice are like lions, and their political bosses are the lambs. The film reminds us a couple of times that we used to have a military draft (although Cruise's character officially denies that it is necessary now) -- one can imagine the lecture the audience is going to get.
But this really is a valuable film, too. Cruise and director Robert Redford definitely have something to say, and it certainly falls on the conservative side of personal moral debate. We do need to hear about this, a style of "moral thinking" that was taken for granted a few decades ago but not very often articulated openly today. I’m not sure how that fits into the philosophy of scientology. Cruise has acted in films with important political messages before, such as “A Few Good Men” and “Minority Report.” Some people, in this film, however brief (88 minutes), will question the storytelling style. The film seems to break the "rules" (of screenwriting), at first.
Or does it? There are three segments of story that seem disconnected. TV journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep – she seems to have walked across the set from “Rendition”) debriefs GOP Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise) in his office. 10000 miles away, in Afghanistan, two Army rangers (played by Derek Luke and Michael Pena "(World Trade Center)" are wounded and pinned down on a mountaintop as Al Qaeda fighters close in, and their unit is hopelessly trying to find and protect them (in a chopper mission that went wrong). Then, in California (it looks like Stanford), political science professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) chats with and pressures likable but seemingly apathetic student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield).
Gradually, the threads come together a bit. Irving’s press release could jeopardize the soldiers. And the soldiers had joined the Army because of Malley’s moral idealism, and that of course makes us wonder what Hayes will do with his life (an obvious possibility for a UA sequel to this film).
Still, most of the time this seems like three separate films, and they could have been made that way. The military portion could have been a compelling film by itself.
I have, myself, considered constructing a film with my “do ask do tell” material, and the settings would probably convey substantially similar messages. And that brings us to the moral points of the film.
Redford and Cruise obviously believe that moral social justice depends on the actions of individual people, and their willingness to take responsibility for what they consume and share the burdens of others. That is, after all, how much religious moral teaching (in almost any faith) unwinds. This contrasts with the approach of the Left, which is to see social justice in terms of the actions of groups. In particular, the college students (Hayes in present day, and the two soldiers in the past flashbacks) get challenged to prove that they will take responsibility for the “privilege” that they have and the lives they want to lead.
There is one flashback where a mandatory national service proposal is presented (the film really gets preachy here, but it’s necessary). Give up a whole year of college (the junior year) for a year of service, and make it practically compulsory. (What’s ingenious is that the time taken is nullified by making the number of years of school one less.) The burdens of the world (the poor education, particularly the inner cities, the poverty, drugs, and international political instability) are shown – correctly – as interconnected like dots. Redford's professor character and the college student get into a discussion of how many of the people who join the military and go overseas to take all the risks are the most disaffected and marginalized at home, where as the "haves" often take their freedom for granted. He tells the boy that he is now and adult, will make decisions that define the rest of his life, and hints that the boy should taste "real life." This reminds me of a similar admonition to Richard Pimentel (Ron Livingston) in MGM's concurrent "Music Within" (dir. Steven Sawalich) in which a professor tells debater Richard to taste the world like a Don Quixote (Pimentel's book "Windmills") and Richard winds up almost deafened in Vietnam before going out to fight for the disabled. Some particular political buzzwords (“no child left behind” and “don’t ask don’t tell”) don’t get specifically enumerated, although it takes little imagination on the moviegoer to fill them in mentally.
Cruise’s character is a bit of a hawk, and articulates compelling arguments for aggressive policies from the Middle East through Iraq to Afghanistan. At one point, he says that Iran is allowing Wahhabist Sunni fighters to transit the Shiite country to join the Taliban in Afghanistan (a true “axis of evil”). He mentions the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neglects to mention that Pakistan is already nuclear and may be unraveling as the movie premiers. He also says that Al Qaeda has blackmailed Pashtun tribal leaders and family patriarchs in Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas into offering up their male ons to become fighters. It is also known that sometimes kids of some families have been sent overseas (to Europe) to protect them from such pressure.
The movie tries to make most of the moral points it can think of, however. At one point, Janine’s boss reminds her that she is 57, and has a mother that needs 24 hour care (a reference to filial responsibility laws, that could become a hot issue soon).
Visually, the film is slick, if melodramatic. The camera focuses on details at times, such as the shorthand on Janine’s pad, and Garfield is sometimes presented with some unusual camera angles, as if to make the viewer wince at what would happen if he joins the military himself and then makes a real physical sacrifice, just as have so many troops in Iraq.
It's interesting that today, Tim Russert interviewed Tom Brokaw on MSNBC ("The Greatest Generation" and now "Boom! Voices of the Sixties") and Brokaw mentioned the growing objection to student deferments from the Vietnam draft during the 60s. He also repeated the quote, "The personal is political."
This might be a good place to mention the "Hire a Hero" website.
Pay your bills, and pay your dues.
Update: Nov 12
Rick Sincere has a writeup of the Virginia Film Festival on his blog, starting Nov. 1 and continuing for several posts; go here.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
The horror film “Mustang Sally’s Horror House” presents a pretty good example of how sequencing and presentation decisions in the screenwriting process can affect the way characters (or maybe even the actors who play them) are perceived, as well as the impact of the story.
The DVD (no rating but would normally correspond to “R”) offered in 2006 by American World Pictures (it did not show up on Netflix until early this year) has that title, but the original title appears to have just been “Mustang Sally,” which is how it is carried on imdb. In fact, it apparently had a “full studio theatrical release” from New Line Cinema in 2005, but it seems to have been lost. The film is directed and written by Iren Koster. There is a 1992 novel by this name by Edward Allen and I don’t know if there is any relation. It appears that American World may distribute some controversial genre releases for New Line (much as Roadside Attractions does for Lions Gate sometimes).
The movie plot, on the surface, follows the model of the famous classic “House of Wax” (which Warner Brothers and Village Roadshow remade in 2004). People go into an establishment looking for thrills and, well, they “get it,” most of them, at least. (Even the original “Halloween” fit this model.) Here, six college age young men go to a house of ill repute in the San Bernadino Mountains. (I believe that I have driven through a tunnel shown in the film once in a rental car about 25 years ago.) Now “Mustang Sally’s” house is no “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” (which was kind of fun, wasn’t it!) and Mustang Sally herself (Elizabeth Daily) is no Dolly Parton. But five of the young men act more like the braggy frat boys of freshmen dorms, the kind that brag about their heterosexual conquests, the kind that the military would depend on for unit cohesion. The ring leader, Josh Henderson (Massachusetts raised and educated Mark Parrish, very much in the shadow of Damon, Affleck (both of them) and Wahlberg (again, both) – with quite a bit of stage experience in college, too) is just a bit different, to the point of being a little more calculating, reserved, if not “different.”
So I come to the point. The movie opens with him lying apparently in a hospital bed, ready to recollect and tell the story of his misadventures in the horror house. We know right off that he survives in reasonably good shape. (In fact, according to imdb, Parrish broke is leg during filming in a minor off-set accident, and finished the shoots in a cast – much like what happened to Brad Pitt in filming Se7en (Pitt wears an arm cast in some scenes --- it was real!). The movie soon cuts to the main “story” and starts like a road movie, with a train and tunnel, etc. Soon they find the hideaway, and our morbid erotic curiosity is heightened during the “introductions.” It isn’t too long before very bad things happen to the boys – the movie is torture porn in reverse, with the men as “victims.”
Henderson, however, seems to have his partner under “control” and it seems as if there really could be a genuine (heterosexual) love relationship. The rest of the movie sets Henderson’s character apart from that of the other five boys, to the point that we really wonder why he went on such a foolish venture.
Parrish had played a somewhat charismatic character Thomas, leader of a mountain commune, in an earlier film "Jerome's Razor" discussed on this blog in April 2006. In that film he does not appear until the second half and there is genuine suspense as to what will happen until toward the end.
I wondered how the movie would have come across had the story been told in straight sequence. Screenwriting classes tend to encourage spec scripts to be straight-line, with just the story (the “beginning, middle, and end” you know, which breaks down into more parts in Hague’s guide, or the idea of point of recognition in novel writing). Then there would be genuine rooting interest in Josh, and you would not know until the end if he was going to make it.
Another curiosity about this film struck me: there are twelve “major” characters --- a lot for a low budget film that has to follow SAG per diem rules. (I’ve heard that New Line and some other companies work differently, I don’t know the details; a visitor could comment on this.).
Another moderately well known independent film with a plot sequencing controversy is "Keane" (2004, Magnolia Pictures, written and directed by Lodge Kerrigan). Here William Keane (Damian Lewis), as the movie opens, has apparently lost his young daughter in the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. As the movie progresses, we quickly learn of his mental illness. But Steven Soderbergh (“Traffic”) edited a shorter version of the same movie (offered on the DVD) in a totally different sequence, where we do not know at first that Keane believes his daughter has been kidnapped. The story takes on a totally different meaning, much truer to “reality.”
I use the “Mustang Sally” trick in one of my own (unmade) scripts called “69 Minutes to Titan.” The title of the proposed movie is based on the length of time it would take light (and therefore an email, perhaps) to get from earth to the most interesting moon of Saturn (actually it’s a little longer, probably). I have a number of scripts on the Internet (the scrplys directory of doaskdotell.com), and this one has among the higher page request volumes.
In the opening scene, an older gentleman whom I call Clem is being visited in prison by a couple of much younger friends, and we learn that he may soon get out. The point is to make the moviegoer wonder how such a man wound up in prison and reassure the viewer that the character will reach some kind of “success” The interest in the younger characters is first born, too.
The movie then goes back about six years to tell its story. Although Clem did something foolish, it turns out that his imprisonment that then the goings-on after his release can have apocalyptic consequences indeed.
A somewhat abbreviated version of the treatment and script is available online as noted above. For certain business reasons, I do not show all of the details of the full story (as in my own private hard drive versions), a few of which can be extremely sensitive and misinterpreted if found and misconstrued online.
Update: Nov 9
I saw "Darfur Now" today but I put the review with "The Devil Came on Horseback" on the Sept. 12 issue on this blog.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains (2007, Sony Pictures Classics / Participant, dir. Jonathan Demme, 126 min, PG) and O Jerusalem (2006, Samuel Goldwyn, dir. Elie Chouraqui, 100 min, France/UK).
I backtrack to May, 1976 while Gerald Ford was still president and Jimmy Carter was about to be nominated (he would be put over the top at the convention by Ohio). My studio apartment in Greenwich village, renovated out of a warehouse with nooks and crannies, was crowded with about thirty strangers, and Dr. and Mrs. Florence Fry, whom I put up at the George Washington Hotel, spoke. I was in charge of the NYC unit of Understanding, a New Age group from Tonapah, Arizona, that I had already visited a couple times. The largest unit was actually in Buffalo. The underlying concept was a grassroots political process to be called The Area of Mutual Agreement, which was supposed to solve political and international issues. It was supposed to run around the world in viral fashion in those pre-Internet days.
I did not work out that well, although I visited Understanding several more times and made some good friends. There were some personal vicissitudes that would themselves make a movie in those pre-AIDS days. But in September, 1978, I did have a meeting of a reorganized unit in my apartment, and recorded it on cassette. We spent most of the evening talking about the meeting at Camp David between Jimmy Carter, Anwar Sadat, and Menachem Begin.
At the time, the meeting was still deadlocked. A few days later, it suddenly broke, and there was an accord. The two adversaries were shown hugging. There is video of this in Demme’s film, and Carter appealed to Begin’s own sense of concern for his own family, at the last minute. That memory is shown in the film.
Most of the movie shows Carter going around the country defending his book “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid,” with the metaphor offensive to many. Carter constantly emphasizes the way rights were taken away from individual Palestinian people on the West Bank. Alan Dershowitz sees it as political: the Palestinians elected Hamas, he says, and there are consequences for electing a government that says it wants to destroy Israel.
Demme's film does show the red clay countryside around Carter's Plains, GA home, and shows in talking in church at home ("You don't have to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I do.") I met President Carter in 1977 when the taught Sunday School in the balcony of the sanctuary of the First Baptist Church of the City of Washington DC, near the White House (the present building opened in 1955); the lesson was on the Divorce Chapter. I heard him speak about Habitat for Humanity in the Washington Cathedral in 1996. The film shows him working in New Orleans after Katrina.
It's interesting to remember the domestic politics of the time, given that now we tend to remember his international peace efforts and the Carter Center (often shown in the film), which I paid a quick visit to in 1994 in Atlanta. (Remember his failure to rescue the Iran hostages in April 1980.) In 1976 there was a PAC called "Gays for Carter" and it was somewhat naive. But, according to Randy Shilts (in "Conduct Unbecoming"), Carter's people had suggested doing something about security clearances for gay people if he got a second term (that didn't get much better until about 1990 with the Persian Gulf War) and could not consider doing anything about the military gay ban, which actually was hardened in 1981 as Reagan took office.
The Demme film shows a lot of on location shots around Washington and Arlington: the Memorial Bridge, the new Air Force memorial.
The Choraqui film came out in theaters just a little before, and it is a somewhat stagey drama of two friends, a Palestinian Arab Said Chahine (Said Taghmoui) and Jew Bobby Goldman (JJ Feild) while the state of Israel is being created in 1948, and then while Palestinian reprisals are fended off, resulting in a truce. The film shows lots of black and white historical footage of Jerusalem and of the Holocaust, and in some scenes black and white transformed into a sepia movie set.
The film documents the historical case for the Jewish state well enough (it makes a lot of the United Nations vote and the departure of the British from Jerusalem) but says little about the displacement of individual Palestinians, and tends to make the opposition appear religious in nature. Perhaps it was. But today we know that the psychological motive under the suicide bomber threat has a lot to do with the shame of being less than second class citizens personally. And Israel, as the Carter film depicts, insists that all of this is necessary simply for security.
Most of history, as we study it, is about the subjugation of one group of people of another. The same thing happened to native Americans in our country. When teaching social studies to kids, we usually don’t emphasize the loss of individual rights as part of group subjugation (we do show that this happened to the Jews in Germany under Hitler, but we don’t follow up well with how this happens to individual Palestinians). We think it is somehow justifiable, and we expect families in a subjected people to adjust with “family values.”