Big Changes

I haven't posted since the weekend because I was preparing for my Oral Qualifying Exam (no jokes please)this morning. I passed. Now instead of being a PhD student, I am a PhD candidate. Woo-Hoo.

Caption contest

"One thing I learned from working for Nixon, Mr. President: When there's a pile of bodies at your feet, just keep looking up."

There ought to be a law ...

In reference to the last post, apparently there is.

Story, Story, Story

After telling Anne Thompson that "The studio model has to be rethought," Steven Sodervergh adds: "I want them to sell 'Bubble' DVDs in the theater lobby."

I missed Bubble at Toronto so I can't weigh in on the film itself but Soderbergh's idea of selling DVDs of a film in the lobby of the theater where it's just played raises some interesting issues. The concept isn't that much different from Disney selling all manner of merch in the lobby of the El Capitan to customers on their way out. A plush toy or a poster stands in as a subsitute for and extension of the direct experience of the film, itself. From the earliest days of my VHS collection I recognized that owning a film -- on whatever format, VHS, laserdisc, DVD -- operates in the same way. I don't have to re-watch a movie in my collection to feel connected to the movie again, to access the experience of it in a satisfying way. Like looking at a movie poster, a DVD is a kind of fetish object, a substitute for/extenstion of the real thing. A DVD in the lobby, however, would be more appealing to adults who are less likely to buy a poster or a plush toy for themselves for fear of being labelled some kind "fan." Afterall, what adult wants to risk being mistaken for someone who may still live with their parents? Buying a DVD doesn't send the same signal (unless it's a Dr. Who box set).

Still, the succcess of Soderbergh's plan depends entirely on whether or not the movie is actually good. No one is going to plunk down $20 bucks for a DVD with the bad taste of a lousy movie still fresh in their mouths. Which is why, as it ever was, it's all about story, story, story. Keven Drum makes the point here. The only thing I would add to the discussion, however, is to disabuse the notion that Hollywood movies suck now in comparison to some golden age when Hollywood movies didn't mostly suck. Kevin says of the studios:

If they think Transporter 2, Flightplan, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and The Constant Gardener are examples of a resurgence of great movies, they're setting the bar mighty low. A year from now no one is going to look back and think of those as memorable films.

Aside from the fact that The 40 Year-Old Virgin was fucking hilarious Kevin's complaint seems to assume that these films were made to be remembered. Think of it this way. Many film historians argue that 1939 was the peak year of the classical studio system in terms of quality. That year the studios managed to make Stagecoach, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Only Angels Have Wings,Ninotchka, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Roaring Twenties, Goodbye, Mr. Chips and Dark Victory. Without a doubt this top ten holds its own, if not outright trounces, the top ten of any other single year in Hollywood history. But, according to Joel W. Finler's indispensible book of studio histories and statistics, The Hollywood Story, the eight major studios released an addition 357 movies in 1939, the vast majority of which are completely forgotten and probably wisely so. Anyone down for a revival screening of Columbia's Blondie Takes a Vacation? Or how about MGM's Honolulu, which the AFI film catalogue describes thusly:

Dashing film star Brooks Mason and shy pineapple plantation owner George Smith meet in Hollywood, and upon discovering that they are exact doubles, they hit upon a cunning scheme.Brooks will assume George's identity and return to Honolulu for a restful vacation, while George will fulfill his yearnings for glamor and sophistication by substituting for Brooks on a personal appearance tour.

Interested now?

My point being that even in its best years Hollywood has always made more shitty movies than good ones. Any given year we're damn lucky to get five Hollywood movies to carry away with us into the future. Most years, even with a few highlights, yield zero titles destined to stand the test of time. If, as Soderbergh and Kevin both suggest, the studio system is broken, it's always been broken. Kevin asks, "What keeps Hollywood from producing decent scripts?" My answer would be nothing, excpet for the fact that Hollywood's business has always been about quantity rather than quality. Not every movie can be great, or even good, but the studios, huge conglomerates that they are, can't afford to leave the theaters empty until a great script comes along. Of course, almost every studio tries to produce some number of quality films for Oscar consideration if only so everyone in the industry can live with thenselves but that doesn't change the fact that, by and large, they are in the business of producing heaping piles of crap. Which is why avid movie goers have always been a lot like the guy in the joke: "There has to be a pony in here somehere."

Shining

This is the funniest, smartest short film (mov file) I've seen in a long, long time.

Stop, Hey, Look Around ...

Which political party is this asshole taking about:

This is not the actions of a political Party engaged in seeking a majority - it is the action of a Party determined to destroy its opponents entirely and sieze all power for itself...it is, in short, the stuff from which civil wars are made.

Why it's the Democratic Party, of course. Recognize it? I didn't think so. Hunter pretty much says it all here and I urge you to read it. We'll need a lot more of these kind of steely-eyed pep talks as we slog our way through the nightmare political world that the modern Republican Party has been slouching toward for four decades.

What Mark Noonan wants to say but which even his feverish, addled mind recognizes as pure madness and depravity, is that he and the Republicans are willing to destroy this country to save Tom DeLay from prison. Noonan and his ilk, to the extent that he has supporters and speaks for them, are now talking about turning to violence, real violence, to ensure the corrupt spoils of a select few political hacks, cronies and incompetents. They talk about violence now but how long until they work up the horrible will to act on their words? I just happen to be reading Richard J. Evans The Coming of the Third Reich at the moment which I beleive I first came across on Billmon's reading list. It's a good read, especially now. Covering the years from the end of WWI to 1933, Evans recounts in rivetting detail the failure of liberal democracy in the face of rising tyranny. Evans writes of Germany post WWI:

"... the language of politics was permeated by metaphors of warfare, the other party was an enemy to be smashed, and struggle, terror and violence became widely accepted as legitimate weapons in the political struggles. Uniforms were everywhere. Politics, to reverse a famous dictum ... became war pursued by other means ..."(72)

Noonan would have you believe that it is the Democratic Party that has injected metaphors of war and violence into American politics, turned the Republicans into enemies to be "smashed." Hunter lays out the particulars in why this is utter rubbish. I'll only ask, does this sound right to you? Does this make sense to you on its face? Even today, who in the Democratic Party, or any of its supporters, have evoked the image of civil war in discussions of political opposition? The Republicans and the conservative movement are talking violence now. We've seen Reblubican mobs at work in Florida election offices in 2000. How much longer until we see it again? And will we be ready to meet them?

Of course, it may not come to this. Afterall, we already know that Noonan and guys like him are too chickenshit to fight in Iraq.

Confessions of a blah blah blah

Here's my latest video pick in the LA Weekly: Let's Go With Pancho Villa!

You can find my capsule review of Serenity here. (Just scroll down.)
It's not a ringing endorsement. I never saw Firefly but I was a fan of Buffy even if I tuned out around seaon 3 or 4. I've just never had the staying power for TV dramas. It's the same with sports seasons: I'm in for the first two games then tune out until the play offs or the final. I am not cut out for serial narrative forms, I guess. I like my visual narratives (I do, afterall, enjoy reading)told in one sitting. So Whedon always had a better chance getting his story and characters to a guy like me in movie form but they seem to have lost something in the compression. As I say in my short Weekly review the most engaging thing about the film are its central characters and their relationships. The action drags, the plot bores and the fx are subpar. On the fx front, I recognize that Whedon may have been going for a certain look on purpose. He certainly takes risks staging the film's first major fx sequence -- a violent chase between two space craft -- in the broad daylight of a desert-like planet. But the lack of shadows puts every detail of the composite and rendering out there for scrutiny and it isn't always pretty. Over a longer period of time, like say in a TV show, the personality of the characters may have won out against the banal plot and the technical faults (again I haven't seen the show) but in the movie they battle to a draw. To discuss the ultimate flaw of the film's plot would require a giving away the ending so I won't go there but suffice it to say that in today's media climate the ending of the film just wouldn't fly.

But what about the marketing campaign in which Universal invited political bloggers from across the spectrum, from Josh Marshall to Powerline, to spread tickets amongst their readers and offer their reviews. This kind of word-of-mouth marketing is not new. The studios do it all the time with films like this, bringing in fan club members, fan magazine writers, and community groups and high schools to get the buzz going. A saturation marketing campaign may get your attention but a friend's tip on a flick is gold.

What's new here, or at least relatively new, is the addition of blogs to this age old strategy. I'm sure that old media critics, like myself (not that I'm old, just that I write for an old medium), are expected to get all huffy about this. What, after all, qualifies John Hindraker to write about movies? Harrumph! Although seriously, who would take movie going advice from a guy who rated Mike Brown's recent testimony performance "most impressive"? Get that speech ready Rob Schneider, your Powerline approved Oscar is on its way.

But hey, the movies, at least Hollywood movies, are the most democratic art form going so I'm not going to fall into the elitist trap. Just because I've sat through The Decalogue (hey maybe I'm a serial narrative guy afterall!) doesn't mean I'm better euqipped to tell you whether Serenity sucks.

The ethical considerations that always come up are no less murky. Everyone knows that segments of the press whore themselves out to the studios for perks and access. At the Serenity screening I attended in Los Angeles a young pup of a press member (because I am getting on in years) was complaining about the Universal press junket the night before: "I was there to cover it for the magazine and from a press perspective it was a disaster. I got the large poster but then no one could tell me where to get it signed." I swear. This is what he said. I will not argue that I am on any firmer ethical ground than this guy. I need access to films to do my job and any time the studio doesn't like what my paper is doing it can restrict that access. But does that mean I play nice occassionally to keep my paper in good stead? No. I've never done that either in my theatrical reviews or with my video column. In both instances I always think of myself as answering first to my readers and then to my editor. The studios needs or desires simply aren't in the equation. What's my guarantee? There isn't one. You have to read my stuff and learn to trust me based on what kind of critic you think I am: A whore or the other kind. Of course, the same goes for Hindraker or Marshall or Kevin Drum if they go in for advance access to films or books (remember, were not talking about reviewing something you see on TV or pay to see in the theaters). On that level there really is no difference between me and them but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that at this most basic level the whole process begins compromised: We depend on the studios/distributors to do what we do. Our readers are then left to their own devices to determine if we have allowed that original sin, if you will, to taint what we do.

The fact that the process is fundamentally compromised is what made it so surprising that, as far as I could tell, every blog who was given free tickets seemed to go along with minimum reservations. Did anyone out there actually say no? Kevin Drum put it best:

However, what I'm really struck by is the fact that bloggers can apparently be bought so cheaply. I mean, a free movie ticket? That's what, ten bucks? Sheesh.

So basically, for the price of a movie ticket, the new media gladly allowed itself to help the old media with what may be its oldest tactic: manufactured word-of-mouth. I wonder if it would have made a difference if the NY Times offered all these bloggers a free subscription to their new premium service as long as the bloggers wrote about (even if they couldn't link to) the editorials. Is it just because it was the movies that everyone thought, "What the hell?"

Oil on the Brain

Kevin Drum dissects Bush's oil-addled brain here.

Speaking of which, I just moved the recently released Rollover to the top of my Netflix list. I'm a fan of paranoid thrillers and while this one may not prove to be all that thrilling it sounds ridiculously paranoid.

On another note, I'll heading out to see Serenity tonight to review for the Weekly. I'll keep you posted and I've got a thing or two to say about the movie's blog related marketing campaign.

Toronto Film Festival -- Wrap up

It's impossible to sum up a film festival the size of Toronto's, which screened 350 films this years, with any sort of overarching authority. Was it a good year or a bad year, on the whole? Who's to say. No one can see everything. There were films, such as Ballets Russes that generated a lot of buzz (not the least of all because the filmmakers, in a canny move, brought one of their film's older subjects to the fest and he apparently charmed the socks off audiences and critics alike)which I never saw. And as seems to happen at every festival I've been to, from Sundance to Sarajevo, I didn't see any of the major award winners, incuding Tsotsi (Audience Award) and Sa-kwa (FIPRESCI). All of which is to say that no matter what else you hear about this year's festival, the one I went to was fantastic.

Battle in Heaven confirmed for me the power and daring of a new voice on the scene. The Wayward Cloud showed an old favorite still stirring things up in entirely unexpected and innovative ways. In Harsh Times I found an American writer-director intelligently tackling intensely personal material that implicates all of us to one degree or another. Three films to carry away from any festival ain't a bad week at the movies.

I have to admit though that the thing I love most about the Toronto fest (aside from the fact that the love of my life works for it) is that it is in Canada, of course. I always feel most like an American in Canada. Or rather, I always feel most like what I think the average American feels like when I am in Canada. I am a political junkie and follow American politics and policies very closely. I am obsessed with it. I have, however, deliberately and scrupulously avoided learning anything specific about Canadian politics since I first went up north six years ago after K. and I started dated. My ignorance has paid off. Now, when I walk down the streets of Toronto I am utterly oblivious to the larger contexts and controversies surrounding me, free from the rage, judgement, righteousness and sadness that can come from knowing too much about the way things work. When I see a homeless person on the street in Toronto I can drop a "toonie" in his cup and walk away without the slightest bit of frustration over the failures of the political and economic system I live in. Yes, I know it's all still capitalism but I have a different relationship to it in Canada. I don't recognize it in the same way, if at all. I don't know if such a willful naivete would be possible in other countries. History and politics bear down on you in Europe, they're unavoidable. At resort spots like the Bahamas or Jamaica, the inequities of capital, I suspect having never been to either place, might be too sharp in the sunlight to ignore or walk by. I have no doubt that would be the case anywhere in Africa. I don't know, maybe somewhere in Asia?

At any rate, Canadian politics are a blank slate to me which is how I imagine the average American -- the ones who don't vote and can't name the three branches of government -- must feel in their own country as they go about their otherwise rich and full lives. Which is not to say that I think this ignorance is blissful for the average American -- everyone has it rough sometime whether they can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or not -- just that it seems, to me, to be a less tangled up way of being in the world.

I have come to really appreciate this space of ignorance that I have cultivated for myself during festival time. Drawing films and filmmakers from around the world the festival is awash in politics, it swims in controversy, it exists to shock people from their usual way of seeing. All of the films that I loved at this year's festival did that for me, to varying degrees. That is, of course, one reason why I love the movies but even if being shaken up is a welcome experience it isn't always pleasant. Sometimes it can be downright traumatic. Which is always when I'm most thankful for the cushion that Canada has become for me, to be able to step out in the light of a warm Toronto day, merge back into the bustling flow of the sidewalk crowd and dissapear with my thoughts into a reassuring fantasy.

Confessions of a blah, blah, blah

Here's my latest video pick in the LA Weekly.

Getting back to normal

Back in Los Angeles, trying to get everything back on track. Can't find my cell phone. Hmmm. I'll post a final round up of the festival tonight. In the meantime, here's my top ten features (out of 30 seen and yes I got lazy) with addendum:

Battle in Heaven
The Wayward Cloud
History of Violence
Be With Me
Harsh Times
The Well
The Proposition
Adam's Apples
Entre Ses Mains
Fallen

It's a sex and violence hit parade. I was disappointed with Sympathy for Lady Vengeance and really disappointed wth Mary and Dear Wendy. On reflection, I think the most memorable stuff I saw was on the first Wavelengths program, Instructions for a Light and Sound Machine, the Oliveira short Douro, Faina Fluvial and sitespecific_ROMA 04 which was amazing.

UPDATE; Did I say tonight? I meant Saturday morning. I've been home a week and I'm still living out of my suitcase!