And then Lou Diamond Philips walked in.
Okay, rewind ten seconds.
I'm sitting in a room that looks like a convention center meeting room, but in reality it’s a theater at the Studio Movie Grill in North Dallas; it just looks odd because the lights are all the way up. Theaters in movie houses feel strange when all the lights are on; maybe it’s because we spend so much time there in the dark.
Anyway five seconds later, I'm commenting to my girlfriend that the movie we are about to see is a low budget film and could serve as inspirational food for thought on our future projects. She agrees and she tells me "I love cinema."
I turn around in my seat to look behind me and Lou Diamond Philips walks in.
Its in this moment that I realize that my girlfriend is right; we love cinema and in turn we love film festivals. Why? Because film festivals, much more than a casual outing to the movies, nourishes our need to be around other people that also love cinema. Everyone in that theater was there to see a small independent film that could in no way compete monetarily with the Micheal Douglas piece that was playing across the hall and was also a part of the festival. That theater, I heard, was completely full. The theater we shared with Lou Diamond was about 75% full. But it was completely full with interesting people interested in the story telling power of cinema.
The festival was the Dallas International Film Festival. For the past three years it was known as the AFI Film Festival and although it was spearheaded by the Dallas Film Society, the AFI foundation no doubted called the shots back then. I attended a few screenings the first year the AFI Film Festival was in Dallas and I have to say; I thoroughly enjoyed the atmosphere of the DIFF much more. Maybe it's just that I like the new name (it paints Dallas as a stronger beacon for quality cinematic events) but it actually felt like the air around the screenings was less stuffier. Which is saying something in Dallas. So kudos to the Dallas Film Society.
I caught a few screenings at the DIFF this year. One of them I can recommend the other...well, lets just say I've seen better films on youtube. That particular film was a low budget, psychology gore fest called “Walking Distance” directed by Mel House. The story centers around a small community where everything is within walking distance and deep, dark secrets are buried in the earth, not to mention within the psyche of some of the town's inhabitants. The films begins somewhat promising, if not cheesy, but quickly spirals downward from there. Questionable casting, a confusing script and spastic editing make “Walking Distance” barely enjoyable. I'm a big horror fan myself and when the director stood up at the beginning of the film and said that “Walking Distance” was similar to “Nightmare on Elm Street”, I was excited. Sadly, it was nothing like Nightmare. I can only recommend this film to hard core gore-fest fanatics who won't care that the film could have been salvaged with a little creativity.
The other film, the one I can recommend to just about anyone, was called “Transparency” by director Raul Inglis, starring Lou Diamond Philips as an ATF security guard who uncovers a deadly prostitution ring that victimizes young Russian woman. When Lou attempts to help one of the victims, he then becomes the target of the powers that be, forcing him to fight for his life and the safety of the woman he befriends. Lou Diamond said it best in the Q&A that followed the screening: “Transparency” is basically an updated “Deathwish”. Remember that Charles Bronson flick? Lou Diamond even grew a moustache as an homage to the cult Bronson franchise. It looked good on him.
“Tansperancy” will not be winning any Oscars; it’s entertaining but simple. Hell, I doubt it will be given a limited release in theaters. More than likely it will go straight to DVD, which may be a good thing; renting it for a few bucks and watching it at home won't make you feel cheated by paying an expensive movie ticket. But I’ll tell you, it will make you believe in Lou Diamond Philips again. Stay with me on this: for years now I've been saying to myself "Where the hell is Lou Diamond Phillips?" Where's the guy that I grew up with as Ritchie in “La Bamba” or Angel in “Stand and Deliver” or Jose in “Young Gunz”? I hadn’t seen him since the “The Big Hit” back in '98 and even then I just saw him in the trailers, I never actually saw the damn thing. I don’t know why, but I felt like I knew Lou Diamond and respected him but hadn't seen him in a while . Apparently he's big on the Stargate television show but I've never seen that program. So imagine my joy when I saw a great acting performance in “Transparency” by none other than Lou himself. AND he kicks some serious ass in the flick, Jason Bourne style. I half expected him to knock some thug out and as he stood over the body, mutter "Ritchie's Back, Bitch."
So thank you, Lou Diamond, for reinvigorating this Cinema fan. Thank you Dallas Film Society for giving Dallas a cool film festival name. And thank you Tracey Dowling for giving me the opportunity to experience the festival in the first place. Last but not least thank you, yes you reading these words right now, because this one’s for you.
“I love cinema.”
-PM
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Finding Meaning In Cinema or How To Do Your Cinematic Homework
I asked my goddaughter once if she ever used a physical encyclopedia to do research and she looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language. When I mentioned "wikipedia", her face lit up and she knew exactly what I was talking about. Now of course, a discussion about this could venture out on a number of topics that stem from that conversation, but when it’s all said and done, the simple point that really does come across is that no matter what means are used, the act of research is still alive today.
Lately, I've found myself, more and more, researching films long after their credits have rolled. I discover new intricacies that went into various aspects of production. I uncover hidden meanings proposed by other fellow viewers. I can even find a list of all the inaccuracies that appear in any particular film, if I wanted to. When you think about it, this is actually an extraordinary practice that wasn't readily available to cinema fans liek myself, even as long as a decade ago. Before the world wide web, when you wanted to learn anything about…anything, you had to turn to those books my goddaughter knows nothing about ... the encyclopedia. And they weren't updated often.
In the age of the latest iGadget, it's a privilege that we have access to so much wealth of information, and not only is it easy to find out additional information on a particular film, it's practically a shame to not take advantage of technology to further one's understanding of a film or cinema in general. Not to mention, it’s rewarding to simply extend the enjoyment of a work of art ... if the opposite was true, we would never stick a painting inside of a frame for display purposes. True, some films may not seem to warrant prolonged study (a good example off the top of my head would be any of the Final Destination films, with all their “deep” meanings) but even for the casual viewer, there can be enjoyment derived from researching, at the very least, ideas presented in these types of films.
I've made a habit, for better or worse, of going to imdb.com or similar websites after I watch a film to learn facts or trivia that I didn't get from the actual viewing of the film. A good example from my recent "cinema" outings is the film Watchmen. I was ignorant to all things Watchmen before I saw the film, and it intrigued me so much that not only did I do web research to learn more about the concept of bringing a graphic novel to screen, but I also took it upon myself to read the graphic novel Watchmen to better understand the ideas presented within the story. I had no real intention of doing this before I watched the film but the ideas and the overall experience of watching the film drove me to find out more about the story because it was so different. And I have to say, I appreciate the Watchmen lore and the journey of bringing Watchmen to the silver screen much more than I preciously had because of my “research”.
Recently I suggested David Lynch's Mulholland Dr to a friend of mine who would typically not be a fan of such surreal cinema. The movie freaked him out, as I had predicted, but it was a "positive freak out" in that it inspired him to go the web and read up on all the theories and the back story of the film. His appreciation for this absurdist film grew because he took the time to do his own "homework" and answer his own question about the movie he had just watched.
Anyone who seeks to appreciate cinema can learn from this example; the most difficult things to appreciate in life, can sometimes be the most rewarding thing because of the journey taken to truly discover them. And this doesn't mean that encyclopedias or internet connectivity is needed to study what is beyond the images on the celluloid. Sometimes, all it takes is talking, discussing or merely contemplating the ideas expressed through cinema. Some of the greatest conversations about film no doubt took place over a cup of coffee in a brew house in early 20th Century France; not on chatrooms or in film journals.
So find your proverbial "coffee house" and make a truly enjoyable film experience last longer than you thought possible by continuing the film in your head, on paper, on the internet or with another person in discussion. I know I am looking forward to the day when I can have an adult conversation with my Goddaughter about her favorite film.
I just hope it's one I've seen.
PM
Lately, I've found myself, more and more, researching films long after their credits have rolled. I discover new intricacies that went into various aspects of production. I uncover hidden meanings proposed by other fellow viewers. I can even find a list of all the inaccuracies that appear in any particular film, if I wanted to. When you think about it, this is actually an extraordinary practice that wasn't readily available to cinema fans liek myself, even as long as a decade ago. Before the world wide web, when you wanted to learn anything about…anything, you had to turn to those books my goddaughter knows nothing about ... the encyclopedia. And they weren't updated often.
In the age of the latest iGadget, it's a privilege that we have access to so much wealth of information, and not only is it easy to find out additional information on a particular film, it's practically a shame to not take advantage of technology to further one's understanding of a film or cinema in general. Not to mention, it’s rewarding to simply extend the enjoyment of a work of art ... if the opposite was true, we would never stick a painting inside of a frame for display purposes. True, some films may not seem to warrant prolonged study (a good example off the top of my head would be any of the Final Destination films, with all their “deep” meanings) but even for the casual viewer, there can be enjoyment derived from researching, at the very least, ideas presented in these types of films.
I've made a habit, for better or worse, of going to imdb.com or similar websites after I watch a film to learn facts or trivia that I didn't get from the actual viewing of the film. A good example from my recent "cinema" outings is the film Watchmen. I was ignorant to all things Watchmen before I saw the film, and it intrigued me so much that not only did I do web research to learn more about the concept of bringing a graphic novel to screen, but I also took it upon myself to read the graphic novel Watchmen to better understand the ideas presented within the story. I had no real intention of doing this before I watched the film but the ideas and the overall experience of watching the film drove me to find out more about the story because it was so different. And I have to say, I appreciate the Watchmen lore and the journey of bringing Watchmen to the silver screen much more than I preciously had because of my “research”.
Recently I suggested David Lynch's Mulholland Dr to a friend of mine who would typically not be a fan of such surreal cinema. The movie freaked him out, as I had predicted, but it was a "positive freak out" in that it inspired him to go the web and read up on all the theories and the back story of the film. His appreciation for this absurdist film grew because he took the time to do his own "homework" and answer his own question about the movie he had just watched.
Anyone who seeks to appreciate cinema can learn from this example; the most difficult things to appreciate in life, can sometimes be the most rewarding thing because of the journey taken to truly discover them. And this doesn't mean that encyclopedias or internet connectivity is needed to study what is beyond the images on the celluloid. Sometimes, all it takes is talking, discussing or merely contemplating the ideas expressed through cinema. Some of the greatest conversations about film no doubt took place over a cup of coffee in a brew house in early 20th Century France; not on chatrooms or in film journals.
So find your proverbial "coffee house" and make a truly enjoyable film experience last longer than you thought possible by continuing the film in your head, on paper, on the internet or with another person in discussion. I know I am looking forward to the day when I can have an adult conversation with my Goddaughter about her favorite film.
I just hope it's one I've seen.
PM
Monday, March 29, 2010
Movie Reviews
Leave it to the Russians to be so bleak.
“Their smiles are lifeless, even though their movements are full of living energy and are so swift as to be almost imperceptible. Their laughter is soundless although you see the muscles contracting in their grey faces. Before you a life is surging, a life deprived of words and shorn of the living spectrum of colours - the grey, the soundless, the bleak and dismal life.”
That was a quote from one of the earliest film reviews in the history of cinema, by Maxim Gorky, a Russian. Now, it may be true that unbearable climate and a long history of cruel communism can give one a less-than-optimistic viewpoint on art, but Max, as I like to call him, had a valid reason for giving the film in question such an ominous review. The review was for a collection of silent films by the Lumiere brothers, a couple of French cats who were early pioneers in not only the artistic birth of film as a viable medium but also in terms of technological advancements. They were basically the Wachowski brothers of the 1800s.
What’s important about Max's film review is that not only was it ahead of it's time, but its also an excellent example of how useless a film review can be. Let me explain.
Published in 1896, it would be years before the cinema would be taken seriously as an art form worthy of critical merit; in this regard Max was ahead of his time. But when it's read today, the review itself , although seeming like a "downer", is historically important, not to mention revolutionary, because at the time it was written, film was a new art form and it's full potential had not even begun to be realized. In its day, this critique accomplished what many film reviews have accomplished since ... the delivery of one person's opinion. An opinion that may have been too limited to go beyond the scope of Max's possibly vodka-influenced mind.
See, when I read this review, I not only respect it for what it is, but I'm also reminded of how much I value movie reviews ... and it's not very much. Reviewing film can be as useful as asking someone what their favorite type of weather is; you're going to run the gamut of answers. On average, I'm willing to wager that most people will claim to enjoy bright, sunny days, and detest, grey, rainy days. Those people are entitled to that opinion; I on the other hand really, really enjoy the grey, rainy days just as much as the bright sunny ones. It really is up to the person how the world around them is perceived.
So with this is mind, think about film and movie reviews. How much weight can you put on the value of one person's opinion about something as objective as film, or any other art form for that matter. I do believe that films can be broken down and it's various components dissected(cinematography, editing, writing, directing, etc.), but to give a film as a whole a thumbs up or a thumbs down seems like calling a baby cute versus ugly; it's all in the beholder. There are plenty of films that I cherish, even despite their poor critiques from critics. And on the flip side, I've loathed plenty of films that are beloved by many. Crash, Gladiator and Ironman come to mind. But again, its all in the beholder.
Now I won't mislead you; I read film reviews on a regular basis, however I read them like I would hope most people would...with a grain of salt. Just because I read a negative review, it doesn't mean I won't enjoy the film. And to me, that’s the beauty of the cinema; what one man loves another can hate, but both men can fully appreciate the experience of watching a film. This experience is exactly what ol' Max tapped into all those years ago in Russia (was it even called Russia back then? I don't know, I studied film in college, for God's sake); the experience of watching a film and recognizing it's ability to touch the human soul. In this way, I think a new "type" of film review can be born, a review not merely about a film's worth but rather an examination on it's impact on the person, on society and the world in general, whether that impact be good or bad.
During the course of this blog, I will be writing various types of film reviews in an attempt to create this next evolutionary step in the subtle art of critiquing film. Now whether or not I succeed in this, will be up for debate. And I know what your thinking, "He just said, how much worth is there in film reviews" and I still stand behind that posed question, but keep in mind, if Max can be a revolutionary ... maybe we can too. Take that, red communism!
Be on the look out for my first film review. It's coming soon. In the meantime, here is a miniature film review from my good friend Robert Leal on the 2009 Best Picture "The Hurt Locker."
"Don't See it!" - Robert Leal, modern day Max Gorky
-PM
“Their smiles are lifeless, even though their movements are full of living energy and are so swift as to be almost imperceptible. Their laughter is soundless although you see the muscles contracting in their grey faces. Before you a life is surging, a life deprived of words and shorn of the living spectrum of colours - the grey, the soundless, the bleak and dismal life.”
That was a quote from one of the earliest film reviews in the history of cinema, by Maxim Gorky, a Russian. Now, it may be true that unbearable climate and a long history of cruel communism can give one a less-than-optimistic viewpoint on art, but Max, as I like to call him, had a valid reason for giving the film in question such an ominous review. The review was for a collection of silent films by the Lumiere brothers, a couple of French cats who were early pioneers in not only the artistic birth of film as a viable medium but also in terms of technological advancements. They were basically the Wachowski brothers of the 1800s.
What’s important about Max's film review is that not only was it ahead of it's time, but its also an excellent example of how useless a film review can be. Let me explain.
Published in 1896, it would be years before the cinema would be taken seriously as an art form worthy of critical merit; in this regard Max was ahead of his time. But when it's read today, the review itself , although seeming like a "downer", is historically important, not to mention revolutionary, because at the time it was written, film was a new art form and it's full potential had not even begun to be realized. In its day, this critique accomplished what many film reviews have accomplished since ... the delivery of one person's opinion. An opinion that may have been too limited to go beyond the scope of Max's possibly vodka-influenced mind.
See, when I read this review, I not only respect it for what it is, but I'm also reminded of how much I value movie reviews ... and it's not very much. Reviewing film can be as useful as asking someone what their favorite type of weather is; you're going to run the gamut of answers. On average, I'm willing to wager that most people will claim to enjoy bright, sunny days, and detest, grey, rainy days. Those people are entitled to that opinion; I on the other hand really, really enjoy the grey, rainy days just as much as the bright sunny ones. It really is up to the person how the world around them is perceived.
So with this is mind, think about film and movie reviews. How much weight can you put on the value of one person's opinion about something as objective as film, or any other art form for that matter. I do believe that films can be broken down and it's various components dissected(cinematography, editing, writing, directing, etc.), but to give a film as a whole a thumbs up or a thumbs down seems like calling a baby cute versus ugly; it's all in the beholder. There are plenty of films that I cherish, even despite their poor critiques from critics. And on the flip side, I've loathed plenty of films that are beloved by many. Crash, Gladiator and Ironman come to mind. But again, its all in the beholder.
Now I won't mislead you; I read film reviews on a regular basis, however I read them like I would hope most people would...with a grain of salt. Just because I read a negative review, it doesn't mean I won't enjoy the film. And to me, that’s the beauty of the cinema; what one man loves another can hate, but both men can fully appreciate the experience of watching a film. This experience is exactly what ol' Max tapped into all those years ago in Russia (was it even called Russia back then? I don't know, I studied film in college, for God's sake); the experience of watching a film and recognizing it's ability to touch the human soul. In this way, I think a new "type" of film review can be born, a review not merely about a film's worth but rather an examination on it's impact on the person, on society and the world in general, whether that impact be good or bad.
During the course of this blog, I will be writing various types of film reviews in an attempt to create this next evolutionary step in the subtle art of critiquing film. Now whether or not I succeed in this, will be up for debate. And I know what your thinking, "He just said, how much worth is there in film reviews" and I still stand behind that posed question, but keep in mind, if Max can be a revolutionary ... maybe we can too. Take that, red communism!
Be on the look out for my first film review. It's coming soon. In the meantime, here is a miniature film review from my good friend Robert Leal on the 2009 Best Picture "The Hurt Locker."
"Don't See it!" - Robert Leal, modern day Max Gorky
-PM
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Open Your Cinematic Third Eye
Cinema.
It's one of those words that can have different connotations depending on who's using it and who it's being said to. Ask an advocate for the humanities or a museum connoisseur what Cinema is and undoubtedly you will spark up intellectual conversation about the nature of film as art. Ask a casual drinking buddy about Cinema while sharing a pint at the local pub and you're more likely to receive the question "Why are you calling it Cinema?! Just say 'Movies' you artsy fart". The great thing about Cinema is that both of those situations are valid, each touches on what Cinema is truly all about.
Whether you are aware of it or not, the world of Cinema is going through a change, as any revolutionary art form should every once in a while. However it's not the kind of change one would expect. This transformation is not about new genres (like the teeny-bopper vampire flick genre), or new cinematography techniques (3-D), or new forms of exhibition (online streaming) or even about the state of the medium in general. No, this revolution in taking place within.
Within us.
Since it's scrappy roots as traveling sideshow phenomenon in the 1800s, cinema has changed and evolved into a multi-billion dollar, world-wide entertainment industry that has become as much a part of our lives as the automobile, the internet and iPods. Everyone, young or old, male or female, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation has experienced cinema in their life time. However during it's evolutionary journey, Cinema has in many ways, become disconnected from the audience experience; films, in our current times, are often little more than monetary-driven, mass produced escapism that doesn't necessarily need to evoke a substantial experience within it's viewer. If you have any question about that just check out the lastest listing at your local movie theater and tell me how many of those films are not A) big-budget blockbusters, b) are shameless star-vehicles C) are produced by Disney or D) star Johnny Depp/Robert Downy Jr/Jennifer Aniston. Not many, right? This is why we, the movie going public, are changing; this is why this blog was created.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not some pseudo-intellectual that thinks that in order to enjoy a film, I have to be in an art-house theater, sipping on wine, wearing an argyle sweater and sporting thick black-rimmed glasses. Far from that. I enjoy all genres and types of films. What this blog is all about, is more an alternative for those of you like me who are awakened to our analytical mind and who enjoy rationally thinking about film. Most importantly this is about the change I was speaking of earlier. The change within us. More and more I run into people who are not just simply "watching" film anymore but are instead talking about it, dissecting it, debating it and truly experiencing it. This is extremely encouraging and this is the true revolution in the world of cinema that no one is talking about. But I'm changing that.
This blog will not be an argument advocating cinema as art, although there will be blog entries about that from time to time. This blog will not be about reviewing movies, although there will be plenty of my own brand of "movie reviews" to come. This blog will not be about the latest exploits of movie stars or what studio is scheduled to produce which film, although there will be discussion from time to time about the state of the movie business. This blog will not be about movies . . . it will be about Cinema and everything that comes along with that.
Its appropriate, I think, that Cinema comes from the Greek word Kinema, which means movement. Its appropriate because in no other current art form is there such an important need for constant movement, growth and revitalization, then in Cinema. Its consistently evolving and as the audience, our opinions and thoughts towards it should also be in this same state of flux. We owe it to the early pioneer writers of Cahiers du Cinema.
And if you don't know who or what that is . . . you will. Just keep reading.
PM
It's one of those words that can have different connotations depending on who's using it and who it's being said to. Ask an advocate for the humanities or a museum connoisseur what Cinema is and undoubtedly you will spark up intellectual conversation about the nature of film as art. Ask a casual drinking buddy about Cinema while sharing a pint at the local pub and you're more likely to receive the question "Why are you calling it Cinema?! Just say 'Movies' you artsy fart". The great thing about Cinema is that both of those situations are valid, each touches on what Cinema is truly all about.
Whether you are aware of it or not, the world of Cinema is going through a change, as any revolutionary art form should every once in a while. However it's not the kind of change one would expect. This transformation is not about new genres (like the teeny-bopper vampire flick genre), or new cinematography techniques (3-D), or new forms of exhibition (online streaming) or even about the state of the medium in general. No, this revolution in taking place within.
Within us.
Since it's scrappy roots as traveling sideshow phenomenon in the 1800s, cinema has changed and evolved into a multi-billion dollar, world-wide entertainment industry that has become as much a part of our lives as the automobile, the internet and iPods. Everyone, young or old, male or female, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation has experienced cinema in their life time. However during it's evolutionary journey, Cinema has in many ways, become disconnected from the audience experience; films, in our current times, are often little more than monetary-driven, mass produced escapism that doesn't necessarily need to evoke a substantial experience within it's viewer. If you have any question about that just check out the lastest listing at your local movie theater and tell me how many of those films are not A) big-budget blockbusters, b) are shameless star-vehicles C) are produced by Disney or D) star Johnny Depp/Robert Downy Jr/Jennifer Aniston. Not many, right? This is why we, the movie going public, are changing; this is why this blog was created.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not some pseudo-intellectual that thinks that in order to enjoy a film, I have to be in an art-house theater, sipping on wine, wearing an argyle sweater and sporting thick black-rimmed glasses. Far from that. I enjoy all genres and types of films. What this blog is all about, is more an alternative for those of you like me who are awakened to our analytical mind and who enjoy rationally thinking about film. Most importantly this is about the change I was speaking of earlier. The change within us. More and more I run into people who are not just simply "watching" film anymore but are instead talking about it, dissecting it, debating it and truly experiencing it. This is extremely encouraging and this is the true revolution in the world of cinema that no one is talking about. But I'm changing that.
This blog will not be an argument advocating cinema as art, although there will be blog entries about that from time to time. This blog will not be about reviewing movies, although there will be plenty of my own brand of "movie reviews" to come. This blog will not be about the latest exploits of movie stars or what studio is scheduled to produce which film, although there will be discussion from time to time about the state of the movie business. This blog will not be about movies . . . it will be about Cinema and everything that comes along with that.
Its appropriate, I think, that Cinema comes from the Greek word Kinema, which means movement. Its appropriate because in no other current art form is there such an important need for constant movement, growth and revitalization, then in Cinema. Its consistently evolving and as the audience, our opinions and thoughts towards it should also be in this same state of flux. We owe it to the early pioneer writers of Cahiers du Cinema.
And if you don't know who or what that is . . . you will. Just keep reading.
PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)