Open Letter to Richard Kelly

Dear Mr. Kelly,

I didn't think it was possible. I don't know how you did it. But you did.

You did one better than Donnie Darko.

A lot of people will read this and guffaw. They will think something along the lines of, "Donnie Darko sucked! And Southland Tales was even worse!" Those people don't know what they're talking about, and I feel sorry for them.

First of all, Southland Tales was way bigger than Darko. It had a huge cast lineup, the locations were staggeringly more numerous and, presumably, more costly, and the music was unbelievably well chosen, or well written where applicable.

And the concept. My GOD. I can't help but wonder how you are able to sleep if those are the kinds of thoughts and ideas that spend their days swimming around in the viscous fluid of your psyche. Your metaphors, though oblique, all landed on the mark. The comedy, the farcical moments were equally on-point. You made me laugh one moment, and then metaphorically shit my pants the next. And there wasn't a moment that my interest or attention wavered.

And that's the crazy part. You managed to go even more balls-to-the-wall than you did in Donnie Darko which, god help us all, was your FIRST FEATURE(!?!?!), and it only ended up yielding you better results. You are the ultimate chemist filmmaker.

I have no idea how you managed to get such a mass of people behind you with the support, either financially or in spirit, that you managed to elicit, but you sir, are a lucky man. Their support paid off in spades. While I laughed at the thought of Southland Tales, in all of the absurdity that was presented to me, I lay my doubts humbly at your feet. I would follow you to the depths of hell to make a movie about tap-dancing if you told me it was going to be amazing.

You have officially made the greatest movie in the history of all mankind. My hat is off to you, sir.

Sincerely,

Sam

Downfall

(Spoilers)

The other night I finally watched Downfall, the story of the last 12 days of the Third Reich, based on the book of the same title (both are actually originally in German, titled "Der Untergang"). I'd been looking forward to this quite a bit, actually, after watching this video, of all things. I had no idea this movie even existed, so when I saw it I knew I had to see it. So much time gets spent on the concentration camps, the POWs, all of the mayhem and carnage of WWII, but very little mainstream cinema deals with trying to paint an ACCURATE picture of Hitler, his strengths and weaknesses, his humanity. The fact that it was taken on by an entirely German cast and crew is also great.

The film clocks in at about two hours and forty minutes. The amazing part is, at no point in that time span was I bored. Never. I was always trying to see more, trying to know more. So, the fact that I wasn't totally enthralled by this thing is pretty surprising to me. I think one of the big problems for it was that they tried to stay true to the book's wider scope. It's about the whole country at the very end of the war, not just about Hitler and his closest cabinet. As a result, their are sidepocket parallel narratives that, for me, were a total waste of time, such as the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) Peter and his family. Completely irrelevant and uninteresting to me. In fact, I almost think I could have lost Traudl Junge, his secretary, too. I wanted to see what was going on with Hitler and those immediately surrounding him: those closest to him.

Here's another problem: only 12 days. The movie starts around 1942 when Hitler hires Frau Junge to be his secretary. It immediately fast-forwards to the last 12 days of the war. So all the intense relationships that Hilter has have already long been forged, and all we watch is the aftermath of the decline as these people finally see the end and most of them commit suicide. While the events are often startling, you feel no compassion for these characters. This may be a surprising thing to even want to feel for them given that we're talking about the top Nazis. But since we're dealing with a film that is NOT a documentary (and maybe even if we were), I think we need to find something in these people to at least empathize with, which makes their beliefs and downfall that much more gripping and visceral. Granted, there are plenty of emotional and sympathetic moments between characters, but it is at a point where they have already decided their feelings for one another. It is basically watching people unravel, which has its merits, but allows for a lot of distancing. It is a real skill to create a film about a villain, and make that villain somehow worthy of sympathy, but this is not really something that happened here.

Of course, the film has its merits. For one, the sense of claustrophobia is palpable, as a great deal of the film takes place within Hitler's bunker. The space is small, the lights flicker from time to time with the falling of heavy artillery, and the camera is often hand-held. The cinematography is great, too. And I think each actor inhabited his or her character quite well. They were very visibly affected (scenes of note: Frau Goebbels giving her children poison, Mr. Goebbels confiding for a moment his intense unhappiness about being sent away by the Führer, and crying about it, any of Hitler's outbursts, the two Hitlerjugend suicides).

The problems that I've laid out are not, I believe, problems in the eyes of the makers. After watching the making-of documentary I have come to realize that they had no desire to just talk about Hilter, no desire to make him a sympathetic or tragic figure. They wanted to make him REAL and ACCURATE, but not sympathetic, I don't think. And these other, seemingly superfluous narratives were also important to them, because I can only assume they were in the book. However, in my opinion, if they were able to hold my attention seemingly quite easily for almost three hours, that time could have been slightly better spent.

Say Anything...

Let's put aside for a moment my great appreciation for John Cusack and Peter Gabriel, and the fact that Ione Skye looks like my fabulous friend Kristy Koopman. I just watched Say Anything... for the first time (yeah, I know, thanks), and this movie is unbelievable. Is it an amazing romantic movie? Yes. But the best part is that it's not a traditional one. Granted, it steps in a couple of the mud-puddles that others have, and perhaps the irony is that it may have set up those puddles to begin with, but this is a romantic film of honesty.

One thing that immediately struck me, once it got past it's starry-eyed first-love butterflies is the clarity to their conversations. The way that they deal with their problems is really rather extraordinary. The way that the two protagonists in most romantic comedies get over their issues is always terribly superficial, and often involves some outside source coming in at the last minute to save the day, or perhaps some simple moment of courage that sets everything right.

The beauty of Say Anything... is that it doesn't all work out. Romantic films like to parade themselves as windows of truth into the way romance can really happen, if we believe enough. And while this one might not be the posterchild for that mantra, it does something extraordinary. It tests our patience, and it reminds us that we don't always win. Everything doesn't always go "to plan."

The fact that the film ends with Diane's father incarcerated is a big choice. But there is an even bigger choice - the last shot of the film. If this is a spoiler for you, I'm sorry, but you, like me, have had just shy of twenty years to see this one so I'm going to spoil away. The final shot, of the young couple on a plane to England, fearfully awaiting the ding, which will come "any second now," that means everything is OK. That last shot lasts 23 seconds. Yes, it doesn't take a degree in much of anything to figure out that this shot is about anticipation, and puts us in their shoes. But it's twenty-three seconds. While that's not much for some (my favorite director is Apitchatpong Weerasethakul, for crissakes), that is a pretty bold move for a popular romantic comedy. The shot is completely static, and the frame contains virtually no movement and only one line of dialog. This is fabulous.

I have the tendency to talk things to death, to analyze things, and it feels crude and almost inhumane for me to try to theorize a late-80's romantic comedy, so I won't keep going any further than I have. But I will say this; this movie is a classic for a reason. Yes, it has some thrills, but it deals with the realities of a young relationship in a very mature and realistic way. There are always some movie-magic moments in those relationships, and then there are the moments of painful honesty where we don't know how to deal with the thing that we have to deal with. There is no such thing as a total happy ending. As Diane says, "good things always happen with bad things." You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. And at the end of it all, sometimes we just have to wait longer than we'd like for the "ding" sound that means everything is OK.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Saw this one a few nights ago. What a treat! This movie takes its cue from the standard break up, meet someone new who's so much better for you when you weren't trying to meet anyone, but it adds its own flavor. The Apatow-buddy supporting players add some great comedic moments (Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill doing some legwork). Jason Segel carries his weight, as well. He is hilariously awkward, executes the deadpan stuff perfectly, and the chemistry between he and Mila Kunis is surprisingly genuine.

Despite the fact that it looks like a pretty standard romantic comedy, I feel like Nicholas Stoller, Judd Apatow and Segel were trying to do something new. The first time I realized this was in the beginning breakup scene, which includes THREE SHOTS, albeit brief, of Segel's junk. Seeing this movie in the suburbs of New Jersey, where NO ONE expects to see dick on screen, made these moments even more hilarious. The audience was shocked, maybe even a little repulsed, but I think they still found it hilarious (though I could hear murmurs of old people asking why they kept showing his penis). And they made sure they got one more full frontal on Segel before the end.

Also, the moments between the main character Peter Bretter and ex Sarah Marshall are startlingly real. They talk about genuine things related to their prior relationship in a very adult, uncinematic way. These moments are combined with personal flashbacks to moments that illustrate a feeling they express, or directly counter something that they express. These flashbacks are not handled in the typical way: no sound effect with a fade to white, or some kind of transition, just hard cuts, employing some good old Soviet montage, and putting a little faith in the intelligence of the audience. And, after the flashbacks, there were no violent head-shakes trying to clear away the thoughts, or any other acknowledgments that what was just seen was a flashback. It just continues on, and we see the looks on the characters' faces in a new light. The audience does the work, here, which is a pleasure to see.

All throughout, discussion of sex is very frank. There is no holding back of profanity, no indirect reference (other than a line where Peter's step-brother says "You don't need to put your P in some girl's V," and Peter says, "No, I need to B my L on some girl's T's). When promiscuous new boyfriend to Sarah Marshall Aldous Snow advises a stranger on good sex, he makes no effort to avoid talking about Deep Penetration and Stimulating the Clitoris.

Basically, it looks like the ensemble came together to put a real and comedic twist on a tried-and-true genre, and I think it paid off in spades. While it's not the funniest movie I've seen in a while, it beats out plenty of others. It maintained my attention the whole way through, had me laughing, and I came away feeling some genuine affection for the Mila Kunis/Jason Segel couple.

Oh, and extra points for using Jason Bateman in a clip during the credits.

Mister Lonely

If you like Harmony Korine, or even if you don't, I'm excited to find a trailer for his new film, "Mister Lonely," on Kitsune Noir today. Another bizarre film for sure... but it looks like it might be a great drama nonetheless, driven by great character acting.

Also in the vein of movies, Dave has pointed me in the direction of Hollywood Elsewhere, another opinion-oriented blog, that looks like it's coming from someone with both a lot of knowledge and a lot of access to the inner workings of Hollywood. I like some of what he has to say, and will continue to familiarize myself with his blog, and post any nice tidbits here.

Death of Cinema

Reasons I will never ever see the movie below:

- Hearing Keanu Reeves say "We're the police. We can do whatever the hell we want," may have been the single most terrifying moment of my adult life.

- The Game

- Seeing Forest Whitaker in a role that is clearly so far beneath him that I'm surprised the script reached him at all

- Cedric the Entertainer

- Cedric the Entertainer in a red track suit

- Anyone offering Keanu Reeves money to act

- Keanu Reeves accepting money to act

- Keanu Reeves having enough money for food, from acting

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1125869268/bctid1415631237

Usual Suspects

A classic film moment... this is a personal favorite of mine. Two things of note: One, the laughter is real. Benicio was fooling around with this character, who was supposed to be a bit part, and making everyone laugh during the take. The character ended up getting more screen time because he was so great with it. Two, you can't see it in this YouTube clip, but in the original cut you can see a boom mic coming in from the top.

Enjoy. NSFW if you've got speakers on.

Once

I had a lot of backstory going into my movie tonight, and I hadn't seen it yet.

First, a while back I can distinctly remember seeing the trailer for "Once" and being committed to seeing it. I had to see it, and I had to like it. I knew I would. It was as simple as that. But the title along the way was lost to me and I had no means of tracing it. Not that I had taken the time. I always know that these movies have a way of finding their way back to you.

This movie found its way back to me. It was nominated for an Academy Award and, against all odds (three nominations for Enchanted, for Spaghetti Monster's sake), WON.

What had struck me about the trailer was the brilliantly, instantly emotional song "Falling Slowly." I had never heard it, I simply knew it was attached to this fictionalized love story for which all music had been originally written/composed by the actors themselves. But already I felt it tug at my heartstrings. And then, at the Academy Awards, watching them perform the song, the strings were pulled harder, even despite jeers coming from my hipster friends behind me. If it was true, and it really was cheez, then I was sold on cheez for once. It was a beautiful song, sung beautifully and passionately by two normal people (who may be beautiful, but not exceptionally so).

So to position number one on my Netflix cue it went. Straight to the front, I said, apologizing to the hundreds of movies that may just have to diligently wait until I watch everything ahead of them.

And tonight, I watched it.

I can do nothing but applaud this film. The music is elegant (and after all of these crosses with "Falling Slowly" I was brought to tears by both of its appearances), and the story is well assembled. While the acting occasionally falters, I was not remotely turned off by it. My attention was held from the first note of the first song of the first minute of the film until the surprising end, an ending which left me full of emotion - not because of any kind of resolution, but because of the lack thereof. I was still full of all the things I had been feeling until that moment, they were still at the core of me, as they are with the characters in the story's conclusion: unresolved, to be dealt with in my own time in my own way and to my own recipe.

I am so delighted that this film was an amateur endeavor from start to finish, that it has received the accolades it has, and that I have gotten to see it. I recommend it for anyone. It is inappropriate for no one. There are no cheesy love scenes, no poorly written climaxes, only a few curse words, and all of the themes that make us remember what it means to be a person. All within the context of the exciting things that really, truly, do happen in our mundane lives.

I suggest watching it.



Post-Script: I will try to tell you this more often, but I love you.

Art sites

In and on the way to LA I've discovered a few art-related sites that I wanted to share with you:

passingby.net - a website of just videos of people looking out windows of trains, cars, traversing the landscapes

Todd Hido - Photography that in some series reminds me of my own

Crime Paintings - Courtesy of BoingBoing, paintings done from photos of crime scenes

A Plat Ventre - "Flat on one's belly," photos of people lying flat on their stomachs in France in very strange places.

Enjoy. This is also being posted to The Dead Chinchilla.

Blindness

May I confide in you? OK, thanks.

Ever since I read "Blindness" by Jose Saramago, I've wanted to make it into a film. Well, maybe not immediately after I read it, but for quite some time now I've wanted to do that, and it remains to this date the only book I've ever read that I've wanted to make into a film. So, you can understand my being a bit upset being informed that it is now being made into a film to be released in less than a year.

Here's the part I'm worried about: The main aspect of the book is that almost all of the main characters for the majority of the book are blind. They can't see anything but a milky whiteness. So my approach to the film was that it would consist of a great deal of WHITE SCREEN, with the sound design describing the scene to the audience rather than images. It certainly wouldn't be an hour or something of white, but minutes upon minutes at least. So my main concern is that this, the crux of MY version, will be lost. Also, of course, since I loved the book, there is the fear that, in general, it will be ruined, either in the truncating process or the performances, the use of recognizable actors, etc.

However, there is one saving grace, upon which I rest all of my hopes: it is directed by Fernando Meirelles, who is the director of "City of God" and "The Constant Gardener."

Please, oh please, let this be a good movie. Julianne Moore, I'm talking to you. Don't fuck this up.

Thanks for listening.

Hotel Chevalier

If you go into iTunes and search for "Hotel Chevalier," you'll uncover a short film by that title. It is a teaser, part 1 of the Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson's upcoming feature. This short stars Natalie Portman and Jason Schwartzman.

What begins as a typically Wes Anderson-esque film rapidly spirals into a drama with characters and dialog that rival Mike Nichols (and I'm not just saying that because Natalie Portman was in Closer). Anderson's two-dimensional walking-idiosyncrasies give way to two characters with very deep hurt, the kind that comes with a long history of emotional pain with someone, and the relationship and all it entails reads on their faces the moment their eyes meet and Natalie Portman nestles her head next to his.

Their dialog has equal hyper-familiarity, and they do absolutely nothing to curb their blunt honesty. One of Jason Schwartzman's lines stopped me dead in my tracks, and my eyes widened. I could not believe that any line written by Wes would not be draped in velvety sheets of facade and contrivance (facade and contrivance that I deeply enjoy, mind you).

The film is only 12:58, and in that short time Anderson manages to break himself out of a pattern of filmmaking, weaving a story and people that are truly remarkable and to whom I can easily relate, creating a beautifully orchestrated vignette that gives me newfound hope for the quality of The Darjeeling Limited.

The entire short film is available on iTunes for free download. Prepare to be heartbroken. The good kind.

The Darjeeling Limited

In My Opinion, it's just another Wes Anderson feature.

But, I guess that's not really a bad thing, is it?

SiCKO

I just saw Michael Moore's "SiCKO."

I don't really know what to say, so I'll tell you what I told my parents: If you do nothing else this week, see it.

It will open your eyes to a number of things, and remind you of some old ones in new light, that are important to us as people and as a country that is really behind the bandwagon.

Check out his website:

Noah Baumbach correction

Someone has graciously pointed out that The Squid and the Whale is in fact not Noah Baumbach's directorial debut. It was his FIFTH film as director, the FOURTH feature for him. Margot at the Wedding will be his FIFTH feature film that he has directed.

Thank you, Anonymous.

Margot at the Wedding

For those of you who liked The Squid and the Whale, Noah Baumbach's directorial debut (he's the guy who's worked with Wes Anderson on writing scripts), check out this trailer for his new one: