Author: LitTeach12

Writer, adventurer, etc.

SAG Awards in 3 Days

I’ve been tracking the Oscar race pretty closely since Black Mass was released around last Septemberish. The race is almost over. One of the indicators of that is the Screen Actor’s Guild awards which will be broadcast on Sunday (TBS).

There is a lot overlap between the Oscars and the Screen Actor’s Guild nods because the memberes are a lot of the same people. Still, the Oscars usually reserve one or two surprises that the Screen Actor’s awards don’t predict.

My quick predictions: I think it’s Leo’s year for Best Actor. Likewise, Sylvester Stallone has a lot of good favor going for his return to the famous Rocky character in CREED. However, the best actress and supporting actress categories are a toss up. For now I’m going to go with wishful thinking and say Rooney Mara for ‘Carol’ and Brie Larsen for ‘Room,’ which was truly one of the best films of the year.

 

Latest Critic’s Trip to the Movies: 13 Hours

johnkrasinski

Hello.

Greetings to some of you who may have noticed I have been away a while.

Things are picking up here in my freelance career. A few weeks ago I got an e-mail from the local distributor’s office, Moroch Media, asking if I would review the new Michael Bay film 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. I agreed and went, sat on the third row where the critics watch closely, while in the seats above the media section you can hear other audience members (people who have won tickets on the radio) howl or gasp with the action.

I’m including my review here, it was published at The Red Dirt Report. I liked half of the film, and disliked the other half. But seeing as it was based on current events and recent history I found the subject matter interesting and I chose to explore it further in the review. So it’s not just your typical 500 word review.  You can read for yourself. And again welcome back.

 

http://www.reddirtreport.com/rustys-film/unnamed-michael-bay%E2%80%99s-13-hours-secret-soldiers-benghazi

 

The Year in Film: Top Tens and Runners Up, With Mickey Reece and Danny Marroquin

The Year in Film: Top Tens and Runners Up, With Mickey Reece and Danny Marroquin

 

Mickey Reece is the 33-year-old writer and director of the upcoming film ‘Broadcast’. He was born and raised in Oklahoma

it follows

 

MY (VERY PERSONAL) TOP 10
1. IT FOLLOWS

 

I probably don’t watch as many horror films as I should. Not that I mind them, but more times than not the directors don’t usually have film critics in mind when fabricating their spooky fables. Which is both admirable and neglectful. This particular picture had something about it that I can’t necessarily articulate using words like “indie” or “mumblecore.” The score was likely reminiscent of when the genre hit its stride (in the 1980s) and the premise was…Well, a horror movie premise. The sheer atmosphere alone was incredible and what kept me on the edge of my seat, so to speak. Reminds me of those scenes in Boys Don’t Cry when Hilary Swank and Chloe Sevigny are making out in a field surrounded by darkness. It opens with our heroine taking a dip in her dirty, above-ground pool with a shitty TV just outside of it. The set could have been lifted straight out of a Harmony Korine film. Where are the adults in this movie? Who cares? We don’t need them. Classic film references and iconic imagery aside, I will admit I also got locked into the characters and their silly motivations. I don’t think David Robert Mitchell had scaring us in mind but rather to focus on creating an unsettling world for these teens to inhabit, and present it to the audience as if it’s how they would behave if this unbelievable story was believable.

  1. STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON

As an ardent fan of hood movies (my favorite being Menace 2 Society) this was probably the most entertaining movie of the year to me. My brother, who is ten years older, had filled me in on the music and stories of N.W.A. before I even amounted to double digits. Many years later I found myself listening to them as a teenager when I was able to better understand the lyrics. Many years later this movie was made and I can’t thank the folks who did it enough. Nostalgia aside: acting, writing, directing were all superb.

  1. LOVE AND MERCY

Another music biopic. Not sure what’s gotten into me. Just love Brian Wilson.

  1. INSIDE OUT

Without a doubt the best and most imaginative screenplay this year. I haven’t gotten this lost in the actual writing of a movie since Adaptation. Which reminds me I need to see Anomalisa.

  1. THE END OF THE TOUR

I did not expect to like this movie. I thought I had probably seen it before in the 90s. And in fact I had, but it was not on a screen. I’ve met these characters before in real life and I was not nearly as fascinated by them. Jason Segel will be robbed for Best Supporting Actor, BTW.

  1. STEVE JOBS

Not sure how well this movie will age but I loved Michael Fassbender’s performance. Artistry and technique firing on all cylinders. Kate Winslet reminded me of my ex-wife. I liked her, too.

  1. THE HATEFUL EIGHT

Took me a bit to warm up to this one. Should’ve sat in the back of the theater so I could better grasp the big picture. That’s a metaphor as I would never actually sit in the back of a movie theater.

  1. WELCOME TO ME

Kristen Wiig is hilarious and while the acting and direction of this movie were subpar, it was a very original screenplay written way outside of the box.

  1. SPOTLIGHT

Without getting too topical here: I thought this was the most well-directed movie of the year. The tone was neither overly dramatic nor preachy, nor did it take the issue of Catholic priests escaping the consequences of molesting children lightly. Only the facts. While Civil Rights is an important topic, you won’t see anyone displaying public sympathy at the Oscars for Spotlight like the supporters of Selma displayed during John Legend’s performance of ‘Glory’ last year. It’s not a spectacle because Tom McCarthy took this material serious enough to leave the musical numbers and over-the-top theatrical acting on the cutting room floor. Both completely different issues and completely different movies, I’m aware. Important in their own right, Selma was a poorly directed film of powerful subject matter that will not hold up to classics of its kind like Malcolm X, while Spotlight will go down in cinematic history with the likes of All The President’s Men.

Youth
YOUTH

Paolo Sorrentino, the master of composition, is back in his best work since IIl Divo. Bravo!

 

RUNNERS UP:

Sicario

Creed

The Revenant

Joy

A Deadly Adoption

MISSED:

 

Carol

Concussion

The Martian

The Danish Girl

Grandma
Danny Marroquin is a film reviewer at The Red Dirt Report and an educator. He has collaborated with Mickey Reece on the films: Walrus, Mickey and Me, Tarsus and Suedehead

 

Joy

  1. JOY

 

With faux horror, junior filmmakers (like Mark Duplass) enjoy referring to the time David O. Russell cursed out Lily Tomlin with shocking language. This is their proof that the system is rigged in favor of “the assholes.” Well, here is a more quiet and subtle treatment from the wildman of the same Philadelphia working class life plumbed in the hits Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle. This story about the inventor of the miracle mop completes Russell’s Trilogy of the Heart. I didn’t think Russell was a genius until I saw this one. The comedy from chaotic situations worked. Jennifer Lawrence gives her most layered performance yet. Scene: She, the world’s biggest star, plays a bone modest woman petrified by TV cameras who learns how to act during this scene, and then nails it. American Sniper Bradley Cooper: A quietly dedicated QVC TV producer who likes his stove pipe suits. The film has a thesis too, by way of Cooper’s speech about the glory of Old Hollywood: That they made the ordinary extraordinary.

So does Russell. Beyond the quotidian his visual gambles include a fairy tale vibe, meta soap opera scenes, and a voice-over from the departed. With a simpler script than Hustle, these elements usher his directorial manicness into a new realm of moving maturity and inventive wisdom. One careful subplot discovers a new thing between Joy and her ex-husband Tony (Edgar Ramirez), cinema’s most functional divorced couple. Gritty squabbles are followed by acts of kindness, trust, and binding friendship, elements that are a tough sell to bottom-line movie producers looking for the next franchise. From the bootstraps, Russell found his franchise in his own backyard–and these films tend to get actors to the Oscars.  

    

  1.  THE HATEFUL EIGHT

The Hateful Eight surprised me with the depth of its anger. The Civil War has ended, and 8 truly miserable, borderline cartoon characters enter a room colder and more tortuous than Dante’s inferno. The whodunnit plot is crafty. The reveal before the intermission is gross and insane–designed, racially and sexually, to get under The Man’s skin. Which is to say QT is inspired in the true maverick way that once launched Reservoir Dogs and a thousand films thereafter. Here we see a weirdness that’s Quentin’s alone, as well as a sincere exhaustion about America’s original sin, slavery–signaled by a crucifix in the opening sequence–and ever present around us today.

     

  1. CAROL

Todd Haynes is a director who wears his postmodernity loudly (Far From Heaven and the fun I’m Not There). But this movie’s frustrated romantic soul resides in Rooney Mara’s headlight eyes and a restrained and interesting, cram-characters-into-corners filming style (using 16mm; lush and melancholy in theaters). The feelings between Carol and Therese as secret lovers in the 1950s are simple and deep. A classic story of a connection that unfairly must exist and discover the profuseness of its passions, be it love or photography, on the outskirts and to societal disapproval.

alex ross

      4. QUEEN OF EARTH

The misanthropic filmmaker Alex Ross Perry (pictured above) has crafted a vintage, terror vibe that feels visually like the most current movie made this year. Elisabeth Moss (above) is pushed to troubling psychic boundaries that Perry imagines, paradoxically, by sticking with the surfaces of the wretched faces and watery images–shot with more empathy than you might think. Because the fierce passion of the filming trumps explanations. The beauty and fury of the women, and how their descent matches the shadows of nature, unforgettable. Grade A hipster composer soundtrack, too.

   

  1. STEVE JOBS

Aaron Sorkin gambles on a crazy scripting idea and the result is inspired and rooted in fine family feeling. Michael Fassbender, Jeff Daniels and Kate Winslet are all perfect.

   

    6. STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON

Jason Mitchell as Easy E and director F. Gary Gray’s effortless epic-making eye are the stars here. Compton, like black America today, is painted personally by Gray as a cultural hotbed and a war zone. Paul Giamatti really had a money year playing odd outsider witnesses to musical landmarks, here and in Love & Mercy

     

     7. SPOTLIGHT

This justly praised film weaves a slow and soon all-encompassing feeling of horror In uncovering shockingly epidemic numbers of child molestation cases in the Catholic church. Michael Keaton and Liev Schreiber are rock solid. Excellence in casting when Rachel McAdams interviews the victims. Excellence in direction where Stanley Tucci and Mark Ruffalo discuss difficult legal issues, keeping the camera in one place. Here Tom McCarthy trusts the audience can follow the drama–unlike the reactionary and awkward real life tale The Big Short, which literally writes out definitions for an audience it assumes is a room full of illiterate Dude Bros. If Adam McKay predicts and stops the next global economic catastrophe I’ll be less annoyed with his Attention Deficit Disorder filmmaking.

     

  1. THE END OF THE TOUR

A preservation miracle for remembering the time Rolling Stone almost wrote up a novelist and cute girls read Primary Colors by the pair. In seriousness, this is a quiet and poignant road trip movie about would-be friends, writers forever separated by fame and notoriety. Both actors, Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel play their parts to a nimble T. The End of the Tour remains most remarkable for introducing David Foster Wallace’s key themes to a new generation awash in deceptive pleasures and technologies.

 

  1. BRIDGE OF SPIES

On YouTube check out Martin Scorsese’s DGA interview with Spielberg to further see that the director’s visual talents are as strong as the story of James B. Donovan, who navigated a tricky Cold War terrain with ethical rigor and secretly held humanity to release American hostages from Russia. Chatty and efficient script by The Coen Brothers.

  

  1. IRRATIONAL MAN

Woody Allen puts his darker ideas into motion amid a quaint collegiate setting of self-satisfied millennials who inherit their parents’ rare modernist art. Joaquin Phoenix, as a disenchanted professor, play Russian Roulette in front of them. The dark gag is extended to the professor’s plot to realize Justice in an overheard conversation. This is played out with a sneaky sophistication that–via the professor’s area of study–alludes to the moral blind spots within the mystic German philosophies floating around before WWII. An elevator scene sticks in the mind as ghostly still, grimly funny, fierce, and sad, as if hearing the artist sigh. Woody is a surviving master.

 

RUNNERS UP:

YOUTH

LOVE AND MERCY

SICARIO

DA SWEET BLOOD OF JESUS

TRUMBO

 

MISSED:

CREED

THE DANISH GIRL

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD

INSIDE OUT

DIGGING FOR FIRE

Do It Yourself: Joe Swanberg films on Netflix

Joe Swanberg recently released ‘Digging for Fire.’ It is his most realized and satisfying work yet. It takes actors and even characters from these reviewed films. Its connections include a dialectic of lifestyle and choice, and another thread has connections of natural environment (Los Angeles and its ghosts), human destiny and love. Plus Orlando Bloom is used in a favorable way. Not bad for his first big (er) budget film. 

Joe Swanberg was considered one of the key players in the early to mid 2000’s Mumblecore movement– micro budget, cinema-literate, often funny films where the drama mostly arises from friends hanging out and the awkward struggles of sex. Credit where it’s due: Two movies were put into my hand by former OKC.NET editor Liz Drew and her boyfriend Randall Heyer, Joe Swanberg’s Hannah Takes the Stairs–which introduced us to Greta Gerwig and was unique in indie film for its sexual explicitness– and Mark Duplass’s Baghead. I returned the movies, unwatched, as other flurries of life hit. Then one year ago Mark Duplass’s The Puffy Chair came up in conversation. I watched it, and laughed the laughs of the just. I turned into a delightful person for the entire movie. What any movie should do to we wretches.

Duplass and Swanberg, in their early creative spurts,  share what is missing in most products masquerading as funny these days.  They have an incisive comic timing and a refreshing Who Cares spirit that’s a touch off kilter. They like to watch people define themselves by their actions ,as opposed to what they say (see Happy Christmas & Drinking Buddies). The motif in recent comedies (from fledgling stand-up comics to This is Forty) is to make too much happen in forcefully “funny” dialogue, as if making comedy happens by virtue of the comedians’ violent desire to do comedy. Behind the lens of Swanberg’s movies is an acquired taste that nevertheless knows where the right place for a joke is– in Drinking Buddies a gag with one of the minor characters is built up piece by piece until a pivotal moment at the end of the movie where the most is at stake for the main character and the joke falls: the force of the laugh has been worked for all movie.

Swanberg’s project is necessarily limited in its ambitions, an indie lo fi thing, and when it comes to love scenes, he seems to be too tickled by white people awkwardly stumbling into the sexual experience. For that rare director who wants to see different angles into sex, one wishes he’d be less fussy– but these are the characters he was given. However, it’s without a doubt Swanberg is a rare personality who artfully sees the funny in the kind of situations you find yourself in while trying to get somewhere else. The aura of living life reflects the nuances in Swanberg’s films.

There are four Swanberg films now available on Netflix instant and all are worth a look.

All the Light in the Sky

All the Light in the Sky

Jane Adams is an actress of intrigue. A soul singer’s waitress muse in Wonder Boys, a pimp to Thomas Jane in an unjustly short-lived HBO show (Hung). In the former film she’s given Marilyn Monroe’s jacket. Joe Swanberg has singled her out to be the center of gravity for this essentially experimental film. It’s an obscure and a “duh!” choice. She is really interesting, of course. And as is the destiny for some interesting and independent women, she is living alone. She chooses a gorgeous, tiny and sporty pad, a house on a ledge overlooking Malibu beach; it’ a slice of the acting artist’s life. She goes to sleep listening to lectures on iTunes.

It’s a movie that defies any expectation. If there is a main narrative thread it’s when Jane’s niece comes to visit. This opens the door to a generational comedy or a ‘What Does it All Mean, Growing Older’ kind of story. Instead, an understated zen shows in Swanberg’s approach, compared to Noah Baumbach’s wide open anxieties in Greenberg and While We’re Young. Here, the millennials bring a stylistic innovation; their computer Face Timing and i-Phone footage, a little more pixelated than Swanberg’s, add a collage effect and a percussive current to Swanberg’s meandering method. Narratively, Jane deals with aging by owning it, and naturally pursuing activities and relationships that keep her life interesting. One of these pleasant friendships results from her interviewing an environmental engineer for a role. She learns how data about sun energy is collected and sent to solar entrepreneurs and companies. She visits the Earth Stations (Pyranometers) in the desert that measure the dome of the sky. After study, the engineer talks of his divorce.  

The other interaction is with her neighbor Rusty (Larry Fessenden), a layabout surfer. In Swanberg’s telling Rusty is a man of the beach land. He sees its cycles and ebbs and flows as clearly as a Claude Levi Strauss sipping Fat Tire:

“ And then one day all these houses are going to be gone. The sea level here is getting higher every year. All these, talk about Castles Made of Sand. It’s great for the moment, but uh, it’s funny, these people bought their dream houses. They thought they were putting their nugget away.

“And uh, look at these pylons. It’s just going to erode. It’s just part of the folly of it all.

“But, you know, I got my place 5 years ago. Every day is, uh, fuckin’ awesome. But if you were thinking you were cashing in, then you’d have to think again. All this will be gone in 10 years.”

Q: That doesn’t scare you?

A: “Then I’ll just move somewhere else. I’m done fretting over it. Spent a lot of time trying to change people’s mind and it just doesn’t work. So I’m just going to enjoy the ride. Go to each beautiful place and watch it crumble away.

“But, look at this. Just live in the moment, It’s spectacular.”
The first scene is Jane stark naked putting on a wet suit to go surfing. The matter-of-fact vision of the female form completing a mundane task establishes Swanberg’s style as a filmmaker: a kind of humorous, not unsexual, philosopher. Interested, but at a distance.

In another shot which could’ve been caught by accident, Jane Adams stares at the floor and ocean, seeming to lightly ponder some heavy existential situation (the subtext being the precarious, difficult career of a working actress). Swanberg’s camera drifts around, waiting for a brief accidental revelation in her face.

Swanberg tells Bret Easton Ellis:

“ My favorite moments are doing the least. Not attempts to fill every silence with dialogue, or cracking jokes that have set ups and then land. It’s just the ability to observe people hanging out, which for me has always been thrilling. When you do it it’s like capturing a rare butterfly or something like that… There’s this moment where, like, ‘oh they forgot the camera was there.’ There’s some sort of real interaction.”

Perhaps because Swanberg isn’t trying too hard, perhaps because the unique spirit of Jane Adams, All the Light in the Sky is the director’s most poetic work.  
happychristmas

Happy Christmas

Happy Christmas doesn’t brazenly lift itself above the fray of mid-level independent cinema immediately, but on second viewing for me it communicated its unique joi de vivre. The sly way the director puts his characters into situations, the music they play for each other and how a guy responds to a new song (that’s Joel Alme), the way a girl says “chunk of money” cartoonishly with her hands reminded me of the way many of my friends talked in our 20s.

The situation is Jenny (Anna Kendrick) has broken up with her boyfriend and in her funk she moves in briefly with her brother Jeff (Joe Swanberg) and his wife Kelly (Melanie Lynskey). Jeff thinks it’s a good idea because it can free Kelly up for some errands. But it becomes clear on the first night that they’ve invited a party monster. Jeff has to go pick up his sister, passed out on the floor of a party, unresponsive to her friend/driver Carson (Lena Dunham). The next day they call in a baby sitter. In a suave reaction shot, we see Kelly’s face when the babysitter Kevin (Mark Webber) asks for Jenny’s number.

Chicago is a distinct character in the movie, mostly by the filmmaker’s limitations. A place for writing for the struggling novelist in Kelly is no doubt a production space Swanberg and his buddies already had access to. The house they have has an intricate tiki bar down in the basement, a brilliant relic of post-war life  when a WWII vet enjoyed national prosperity enough to build such things in their basement. This will become the party monster’s lair. The lofts, the empty bars, the cold weather and half full pints of beer spice, the marijuana couches all inform the movie as it does the filmmakers’ lives, where Swanberg made many of his mumblecore pictures and his wife taught school.

This director, like his character Jeff, must have a serene temperament. It may prevent him from “swinging for the fences” on a film, but it makes for interesting storytelling anyway. This movie could have been a cautionary tale or moralizing in its treatment of Jenny’s aimlessness, her coldness and alcoholism. But over time it assuages her coldness with moments of human warmth from Melanie. And Swanberg’s narrative swerves away from drunkenness to creation, a kind of inquiry into what what precisely, mysteriously certain self destructive activities can give to a marriage life (or that married person’s art). She gets Jeff high and he goes up to make great love to his wife. It’s Jenny’s idea that Melanie write a romance novel to fund future literary projects. In writing the trash book,  Melanie’s writer’s block is broken. However, there are still some practical dangers that Jenny’s lifestyle poses.

In addition to funny situational comedy, the director is interested in the differences between domestic life and the creative life. He wants to know how drink and misbehavior can embolden art and life, while throwing good things into chaos too. This curiosity prevents his story from ever getting boring and gives us a sense of the present day filmmaker’s waking life, and the effect, if one has a taste for this kind of meandering work, can be exciting.

Drinking-Buddies-DI

 

Drinking Buddies  

My guess is there was a wider audience for such closely observed and slice-of-life relationship movies when Paul Mazursky was making them– I don’t say this having seen his films but for Swanberg thanking him in the credits.

If the audience for Drinking Buddies is micro, then this, Swanberg’s 14th feature, shows growth in the interest of pro actors. In the entertainment industry not every actor gets to live large with a part in the next Marvel movie, leaving many actors with an open schedule and a desire to do the kind of thing Swanberg does: subtle exchanges, improvisation, character studies.

Jason Sudeikis, Ron Livingston, Oscar nominated Anna Kendrick, emerging star Olivia Wilde join Swanberg fave Jake Johnson in this movie about the difficulty of living together in a relationship. It’s set in a Chicago brewery (Swanberg had access to one through a friend). The principals get the chance to do some layered acting. Take for example when relationship #1 between Chris (Livingston) and Kate (Wilde) shows signs of trouble. The obvious sign is that Kate can’t sleep and wants to go make trouble with the couple downstairs, Luke (Johnson) and Jill (Kendrick), who are having an intimate moment playing cards.

But one of the more subtle signs is when Kate is reading a book Chris got her, John Updike’s Rabbit, Run.  Her face is trying to read it but you also see her forehead furrows hitting a mental road block. He watches her read waiting for some acknowledgment.

“You like it?”

“I do.”

Wrong. But Wilde does the heavy lifting of telling the audience the truth with her face and body language. She has learned how to speak the secret subtext when she says “I do.”

There are longer riffs on subtext with Luke, the more he falls in love with Kate and the more his fiance presses him to save a date for marriage. When angling to be at a bar with Kate (and the guys) Johnson movingly juggles an obvious yearning with the obligation to bullshit with the buddies, the result being a finer note of sadness that Swanberg can swerve into brutal comedy (which happens vis-a-vis “the guys”).

There are longer riffs on subtext with Luke, the more he falls in love with Kate and the more his fiance presses him to save a date for marriage. When angling to be at a bar with Kate (and the guys) Johnson movingly juggles an obvious yearning with the obligation to bullshit with the buddies, the result being a finer note of sadness that Swanberg can swerve into brutal comedy (which happens vis-a-vis “the guys”).

Like in Happy Christmas it would be easy to judge the difficult character of Kate. She seems to exist solely to scramble the minds of men. But Swanberg allows his camera to hang around long enough (especially in the last shot) for us to see that it’s not that easy. Some chemical (beyond the brew) has already been shared between Kate and Luke and Swanberg never reflects it to be anything but authentic. Yet Luke’s engagement is tested in a rigorous way that yields its own relationship richness that dawns on the viewer in a great scene between Johnson and Kendrick where she dresses the wound he collected earlier in the day.

Swanberg delights in the complexities of romantic and human relationships. There will be no shortage of actors lining up to do his movies.

24-exposures

 

24 Exposures 

Not counting future works, this is Swanberg’s “deepest” movie. Bold cinematic choices are marshaled on a small budget when this odd movie opens bombastically with a crane shot — depicting the drowning death of a woman in a horror movie.

24 Exposures, sometimes cheesy feeling, follows two threads that dialogue with each other. A detective Michael Bamfeaux (Simon Barret) is searching for real life causes of womens’ death; meanwhile a photographer William (real life horror filmmaker Adam Wingard) recruits a posse of pretty girls and waitresses and entices them to take what he calls “personal fetish photographs,” which he convinces them, with guile and flattery, is art. As he juggles and discards the desires of the multiple girls he sows the seeds of future violence.

His girlfriend doesn’t love that he does it, but she tolerates it, until she comes across a picture of an exuberant twosome photo sesh that happened in her absence. This is the first time he is confronted; there is another. Eventually he recruits the detective, who is lonely anyway, to play with cameras. He might even get the sad detective a girlfriend.

Watching William have his way with these photographs is one thing, but even in the mysterious landscape of attraction violence against women rears itself, as when he’s having a beer with a heavily crushing subject Callie (Green director Sophia Takal) and the waitress who finds Adam already has an actual black eye.

The detective is played with great deadpan, but also surprising moral force in his brooding and self destructive tendencies, by Simon Barret. He becomes the question asker for Swanberg. The film seems to discreetly question the logic behind the entire film industry (violence is cool, violence is interesting, violence sells). And he ups the anty by interspersing the film with super lux still shots of made-up dead women, and real ones from the detective’s investigations. The director has seen something quite shocking that most accept through passive media consumption: something to do with a dark reflex of men, the abuse of women, and even creative woman’s complicity in sanctioning this abuse in the mass media. A dark urge becomes examined here in the honest costume and guise of hip twenty somethings making films with kind of dank sets and great and nondescript indie rock music lining the cracks of the scenes.

Swanberg himself has participated in making horror films. He probably likes them. But here, through the detective, he can’t help but make a movie that asks … Why? A question the dilettante suburban artist will never be able to answer with persuasion or conviction. Though sadly, the people in his work won’t care if he can or not.

Detective: “Why dead women though? Why not some dead old guy?

William Wingard: … It’s like a spice. It’s ridiculous for me to try and explain myself. It’s not something that I think about. You can’t say, why am I doing this? Why? Why? Why?

Detective: Have you ever seen a real dead body?

William Wingard: I mean, at a funeral. Not like stumbling around.

 

 

Straight Outta Compton, a few points

nwa

It’s still August but I’ll safely wager that Straight Out of Compton, the story of the legendary gangster rap group NWA, will be one of the ten best films of the year. It’s got the performances, it’s got spine chilling set pieces (the opening drug bust scene, the live performance of the banned song Fuck tha Police). It’s got the sweep, at times with riot footage, concert crowds and images of the Rodney King beating on television. One image strikes right at the heart of our evergreen problem, capricious police violence against black males. That image is Bloods and Crips bandanas tied together in a truce. This truce happened in Ferguson 2014, happened in LA 1992. There’s not a moment in Straight Out of Compton that feels like history, though the reminders of its particular place in time are scrupulously and joyfully deployed (A Tony Dorsett jersey, #33, an LL Cool J dis at rappers wearing Kangol hats).

Director F. Gary Gray (‘Set it Off,’ ‘Friday,’ ‘The Negotiator’) comes at the story with a startling professionalism, not least among his talents is that he’s coaxed such naturalistic performances out of completely new named actors. He also knows that his first job is to entertain. He does both in the very first scene where Easy E (Eric Wright; played by newcomer Jason Mitchell; Oscar worthy) enters a crack house to secure a deal. When he’s threatened with violence for asserting himself (he doesn’t want to drink, he wants to do business), he tells them his back-up is waiting and watching across the street. Tension boils in this old west stand-off. Then the police caravan comes storming down the street, the show horse a militarized Batterram. The Batteram bulldozes the house, landing a blow at one of the females in the house, sending her across the room, like a Tarantino flourish made real. Easy E makes his escape. The stakes involved in this world are immediately clear– one must negotiate the gangs and police, as we see E, Napoleon short, darting down the backscapes and kicking out the kitchen window–wartime streetlights aglow in a pale yellow. Entertainment value is there. Shocking bit of social commentary also. Lastly, the foundations of a very intriguing character, E, are laid casually.

There’s no shortage of movement. Stand-offs w/ tha police, drama among the band, sexed up party scenes, guns, glory. But it’s the second layer of Gray and the screenwriters’ (Jonathan Herman & Andrew Berloff) professionalism that this piece is about–the delicate and dynamic ways they set the scenes to play out racial and power political issues, and their discipline in keeping them on the human level. Such scenes, which are mere discussions, make for the most powerful scenes in the movie– they color the struggle as a matter of the soul.

A scene that the film will be famous for is the Torrance, California recording studio scene. Here Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti) has upgraded the rappers from Lonzo’s place studio in Compton to a better studio. The boys are taking a break outside when the police roll up. They start harassing them, as the boys don’t look like they belong in the neighborhood. A black officer is part of the pair and he’s enjoying it even more. They make the rappers lay on the ground. Heller comes out and asks what the hell they are doing. This is not serving and protecting but harassment. It’s not legal. The black officer laughs, calling Heller their ‘massa.’ Giamatti’s acting stirs up an outrage that feels deep and authentic. He may be ripping some of the rappers off later during the Straight Out of Compton tour, but you can’t forget this odd moment where Heller’s impulse is to protect and his outrage at a brute injustice is a reflex of his character. And Easy, who gets the brunt of the officers’ force, probably doesn’t forget this moment when he allows Heller to represent him long after the rest of the guys want to play ball with him.

The first meeting between Easy E and Heller establishes a union of two (ethnic) outliers. Heller is wearing a cheesy sports jumper, and his claim to fame might be working with Grand Funk and Styx. Nevertheless something strikes him as original about NWA’s raps, and he’s an instant sell. Heller lets him know that he has access to places where Easy wouldn’t be let in the door, and he’s not wrong. Mitchell plays it right, shrewd and suspicious, knowing the alliance is fraught with dangers, but seeing it as a necessary one for NWA’s advancement.

BACK: L-R: D.J. Yellr, Dr. Dre & M.C. Ren (Kings cap) and L-R: front--ICE CUBE (w/Raiders cap) and Ease E. (Seahawks cap) March 23, 1989 L. A. Times staff photo.

The film will spend an unusual amount of time on Easy and Heller’s table interactions. Maybe it’s because it’s uncharted territory (as Kanye says about contracts and rappers on Yeezus: “y’all know that n*ggas can’t read.”). Ice Cube in particular notices a distance growing (as the empire grows) when he sees Easy and Heller have a champagne and lobster breakfast. Easy probably sees himself, starting with a past life of drug running where he was self sufficient, as the actual equal of Jerry and thus in a position higher than the other rappers (even tho Cube is the strongest talent there). He and Jerry have an easy rapport throughout the movie, some sort of understanding of how business flows. Easy seems to have been comfortable moving into a seat of power. But it’s always in a smart way. Later when he must fight a contract dispute with Suge Knight at Death Row records Easy’s business ideas, learned from Jerry, a preferable in contrast to Suge’s barbaric tactics.

When Cube leaves the band the groups start a public diss war, which will become standard in rap. At a day-hang scene NWA and Jerry listen to Cube’s latest diss on the band. He gets them all. Including Jerry, who he identifies as the “Jew.” Now for the second time Giamatti erupts in a rage, denouncing Cube’s anti-semitism. The remark hit close to home, but he forgets who he’s talking to.  Easy tries to calm Heller’s rage, and adds “no one here knows what anti-semitism is.” The film is rife with on-point little quips like this, lines that in this case show how naive the young rappers are to the white world of business, or at least the kinds of internal struggles therein (WASPS vs. Jews). Nevertheless it’s the kind of exchange that forges an odd camaraderie between NWA and the dorky Jerry–when we consider the institutional racism against blacks or subterranean anti-semitism are two different kinds of a general prejudice directed at America’s minorities

Straight Outta Compton
Jason Mitchell as Easy E and Paul Giamatti as Jerry Heller

 

jerry-heller_opt-300x300
The real Easy E and Jerry Heller

There is a rather sad scene where Easy E approaches Suge Knight wanting to get Dre off their roster. He is jumped by Knight’s henchman and Knight throws a few kicks in. It’s a pivotal glimpse showing Gangster Rap has caught on like a brush fire. And now will come the men who smelled the trend and look to capitalize on it. They will also embrace the art form’s more brutal aspects. There’s a sweetness to Mitchell’s performance that lets this marked difference in approaches be seen. Nevertheless, he would have to reckon with the inflammatory content his group created eventually. You get the sense Death Row is that reckoning.

Easy E confides in Jerry at Heller’s home in the middle of the night. This is my favorite scene of the movie. Again cultural differences are exposed and then bounced off each other. Easy wants to kill Suge. Heller tells him you can’t just do that. You call lawyers and bleed them dry that way. With all of the emotion in him, Easy says that he can’t let himself be treated like that. He won’t survive. He’s right.  In this scene the actor shows remarkably, after all we’ve been through with Easy, the literal anguish inside him–the kind of laying bare that a young black man would be foolish to show in public. And Easy ain’t no fool. It’s an intimate moment that seared its way into my memory.

Final note. “Gangster Rap” is the term history has given NWA as a phenomenon, and as such “Gangster Rap” as a term has become its own thing. This is something that later history imposes on events that were at some point real and material. F.  Gary’s Gray’s significant contribution to culture is that he made a film that rescues the events from the historical abstraction of “Gangster Rap” and given us an immediate reality in which events took place. These were: Rappers take a refreshment break outside their studio, then are harassed by police officers and wrestled to the ground. They are insulted to their faces. Back inside the studio, the rappers wrote “Fuck Tha Police.” These events were: Batteram property of the LAPD, gift of the federal government, is used in the “war on drugs” to plow into African Americans’ homes; here a woman is shot into a wall.

When people talk about Gangster Rap as a dangerous influence, they are not wrong (RIP, Biggie and Pac). But they are not considering the circumstances that provoked the music into being, or at least they haven’t seen it as it’s depicted here. Even one of Dr. Dre’s women victims of violence, Dee Brown (not portrayed here, regretfully for the sake of realism). She says that domestic violence among black males is a response to the repression caused by the indignities he experiences every day in society.

NWA was young men attempting to reclaim their fight, their manhood, and that act– as music– is portrayed here as having a revolutionary effect on the people who came to NWA concerts. Before history, following journalism, tags NWA “enemies” and “thugs,”  or “,villains,” as they are dubbed in Chuck Klosterman’s culture analysis I Wear the Black Hat, then we must see the material conditions from which NWA sprung–and one of those conditions is that these dangerous tough guys were ,in the world of their neighborhoods, not that dangerous at all. F. Gary Gray shows us that place, Compton.  People like filmmaker Ava DuVernay say he did it to a T and that the place had much violence and beauty.

“Reality Raps,” Dre called it. And its the reality of a very particular and changing time that Straight Outta Compton rescues from abstraction, making it a more vivid and often beautiful history than the headlines of before had read.

Top Ten Books

charter      atph1

Not really film related but oh well. Been having the great books on my mind. This list changes each year. Sometimes you re read a book and it’s a different book. great feeling.

A Farewell to Arms- Ernest Hemingway

The Great Gatsby- F. Scott Fitzgerald

The Sufferings of Young Werther- Goethe

The Executioner’s Song- Norman Mailer

The Ghost Writer- Philip Roth

The Charterhouse of Parma- Stendhal

Les Miserables- Victor Hugo

Hamlet- William Shakespeare

Underworld- Don DeLillo

All the Pretty Horses- Cormac McCarthy

Oscar Isaac’s Mercury Moment pt. 1 

  
Just watched the sci fi flick Ex Machina. The sometimes Hispanic, sometimes Jewish seeming actor falls into a new generically American character whose birthplace is nowhere, or the internet, or Palo Alto.

 He’s a billionaire, rich, able to do what all driven rich people strive for. Move themselves away from the rabble, the lumpen, the proletariat. This tech mogul is extracting personal information from Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. about people and using it to create an AI, a fetching soft mannered woman.

Isaac inhabits this character’s isolation perfectly. His gaze is long. His relationship to new people, an intern enters the mix, must be antagonistic. His knowledge in the darker arts of science has taken a toll on his soul. He laughs at his intern’s innocence. He downs beers. Or perfects his body. Speaking of, he has terrible manners, hilariously greeting his guest by punching on a bag, back to intern. Turning around he explains why he can’t cook breakfast for him. He’s hungover.

 Oscar Isaac has played two pretty much classic roles, the troubadour on Inside Llewyn Davis, and The Pacino in A Most Violent Year. But this one is his best so far. He shows piercing intelligence, and embodies the form of a rugby bruiser. He is able to intimate the menace behind the driven millennial’s “hey man!” And “dude!” He is clearly no good, so when he decides to dance with a foxy Asian lady bot, apropos of nothing, it is of course seductive, menacing, and awesome.

 Isaac reveals a kind of never ending energy in this one, and shows us more dimensions. Ex Machina  is a good film, slick, current; but it’s not a heavy duty picture. Not until Isaac steps into the ring.

In a sense, these are the best kind of performances an actor could get. Mid range movies without huge amounts of ego in the direction and writing, leaving a place where the actor can slip in and totally dominate, expansing his own possibilities. 

Paul Simon Reveals the Limits of the Podcast 


Alec Baldwin’s ‘Here’s the Thing’ podcast for WNYC has been a good morning podcast to listen to as I research the form. In the morning I like news, not exactly the long-form interviews.

This is what he was going for, the long ball, when interviewing the notably private musician (rock legend) Simon. Think of the quiet spaces on that Graduate soundtrack, or the song America. Those songs come by a mysterious process and a private landscape.

So, surprised but not surprised when Simon stopped the interviewed and said to (an always pushy) Baldwin , “so you’ve got a list of questions there.?”

Link: http://www.wnyc.org/story/htt-paul-simon/

Baldwin halts then explains his idea for the podcast, to give the viewers an idea of “what its like to be you.”

This doesn’t help Paul Simon open up, nor does it when Baldwin changes the subject to Paul Simon’s problems with his father.

There’s almost something painful about this exchange, and nice too, in learning that there is still someone out there whom we don’t know everything about. Paul is the quiet man. His genius comes from that solitude.

Listening to him chafe under Alec’s questioning I admired that he didn’t care about Baldwin’s celeb status enough to cave in. I also thought that this exposed some of problems of the concept behind podcasts. Or namely: the idea that we need to know everything about someone in order to connect to them. Podcasts often last an hour. Since Marc Maron’s success celeb podcasters like Baldwin, Kevin Pollack and Chris Hardwick are guys who’ve taken a rigorously and perhap dangerous psychological approach and stuck to the interview format that sometimes borders on amateur Freudianism–with the interviewer wanting a family history, fears, every nook, crany and motive of their creative process. Is Paul Simon even even getting paid for this?

In the podcast world, there are no secrets and everything is connected, what the sociologists call “mass man” being created.

I will still podcast. There are, after all, so many stories. But I honor the resisters too. Those who still believe in secrets.

The Psychology of the Film Grain Structure in ‘Lone Star’

“Maybe they can’t articulate it but I think [with] film there’s a psychology to the grain structure and an emotional component to it that maybe you aren’t aware of as you are watching. It’s working on you in a way that you are not even sure it’s working.” — Harmony Korine, WTF podcast

Harmony Korine edited his first film as a director, Gummo, on film and continues to today despite the cost and the industry pressure to use a form of digital that ‘looks’ just like film. An app, even, can give the appearance of film stock to an I-Phone recording. Off the top I can think of two other directors who are insistent on using film, Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson. The film stock lends a certain ambience, indeed, to the purples, the greens, the night time scenes in Inherent Vice and imparts an otherness to the large close-ups.

lone star

There is a difference, and this was driven home to me watching a borrowed copy of Lone Star by John Sayles, a movie I hadn’t seen or wouldn’t have had the patience for when released. This was 1996, the middle of the post-Sex, Lies and Video Tape/Pulp Fiction independent film boom. There was money floating around for ambitious young filmmakers, Paul Thomas was one of them and gratefully found the money to make Hard Eight around this time. John Sayles is an uncompromising director, in one aspect because he dares to be boring, letting you spend time with the characters walking around the small border town of Lone Star. His narrative approach also seems to be strongly influenced by Marxist thought, showing how the oppressed and working people carry a narrative as important to the town’s existence as the official records of judge, jury, paper and law. Widows on front door stoops, or a bar owner have a different way of telling the story than, say, the bar owner’s son who is more strait -laced and believes hand-to-mouth all the things that might be in a handbook they give Privates before basic training. The Marxist and the patience angle would be not one, but two huge red flags to financers today.

lone star river scene

One of the many intersecting threads of Lone Star is about reigniting the past romance of Sam (Chris Cooper) and Pilar (Elizabeth Pena). The characters deny it, circle around it, entertain it, go to work, stay up late in their offices with the knowledge of their past and only slowly in shots that slide across a character’s shoulder do vignettes from the past reveal themselves to us.

I paid close attention to this screening, knowing what I know now, that it’s damn hard to make a film and costs a ton. So for one flashback (and one of the few savory times we get to see a young Matthew McConaughey in action) Sam sits in a deserted drive-in, a kind of ghost town setting that accounts for most of America but also makes for great film. He replays the time his dad Sherriff Buddy Deeds (McCon) pulled him out of a car back seat, leaving Pilar. At this moment Sam contemplates the memory and decides to reverse it, by driving the highway at night to go see Pilar. The look on Cooper’s face is that he won’t be denied this time.

chris cooper

So that description answers the question I had the first time I watched the scene and asked why did they use a crane shot here? Of Sam’s car leaving this empty field with de-funked speaker poles and a scuffed screen? You’ll commonly hear of indie and big budg filmmakers sacrificing a crane shot for something else, as it is quite an indulgence. Well the sign for the Drive-In, depleted, is still cool looking. But also it heralds a shift in the narrative, from chasing the past to acting on the future, which is what Sam decides at the empty drive-in.

There hasn’t been much sex in the movie but now a groovy tune by Little Willie John (“My Love Is”) kicks in. The car passes a pink streak of evening sky and follows Sam down the dark highway. Dissolves split the shot in two, with Cooper’s thinking face and the dash marks of the highway. It’s the perfect segue. Sayle’s shows an intuitive hand for the American landscape, dreamy mind, and night driving. “Oh,” I said. “They shot this on film.”

Mostly this is the scene where I noticed the change, from the mid 90s to today. Shooting on film creates a mood like no other. I could see the little granules, the sky was more like something painted than something taken a picture of. In other scenes I saw the tiny grains moving around, though it is basically a subconscious effect. Sometimes you will see a little white pop.

They were probably just making a movie at the time, but now it seems Lone Star was using film stock to its full potential.

John Sayles on People stories Vs. Screen Stories.

From a piece of research tracked down after watching John Sayles’s ‘Lone Star,’ which was nominated for the screenplay Oscar in its year and features an impressively diverse cast of people in small town, TX.

You’ve also said, my main interest is in making films about people. Surely making any decent film is a film about people?

“What I mean about that is that so many films are film oriented, their references  are other films, if there’s a scale between recognisable human behaviour and movie behaviour – if you think of MGM in the 30s and 40s, that was the fantasy world, that was the escape from the depression, that was somebody with a living room as big as a sound stage and they always lit the background and then you might have something that was stylistic in it’s way and wasn’t exactly realistic but was closer to realism, which might be Warner Brothers and the film noir and that kind of thing which brought in some of the greyer elements of society and some of the black and white meeting in the middle and some of the heroes were a little bit more like anti-heroes, they could have Sam Spade, they could have outlaws that you rooted for, they could have backgrounds that went into shadow, so if you’re thinking of that spectrum of behaviour, the movies that I make, I’m interested in people, even in something like The Secret of Roan Inish, leaving the theatre not thinking about other movies they’ve seen but thinking about their lives or the lives of their friends or what was the movie itself about and the human behaviour in the movie about, not saying oh that was just like Mean Streets crossed with Seven Days in May, or that was just like the War of the Worlds crossed with Marnie or whatever the two combinations are. And I think that if I have any criticism of other film makers it usually is, this just seems like a movie by somebody who’s spent his life in front of a screen and never went outdoors and never had a job other than making movies. I like some of those movies a lot but I’m always feeling, like there are all these other great stories about people that need telling, and if I’m going to spend a year of my life making a movie, I’m not going to make a movie that everybody else can make cos they’ve seen a lot of movies too. I’m going to make the movie I want to make about something that I think is a great story, that I’ve read or I’ve seen in the world but I’ve never seen it up on a screen.