Jim says....

I'm just going to post this. I got it from http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/jim_jarmusch_2972

Rule #1: There are no rules. There are as many ways to make a film as there are potential filmmakers. It’s an open form. Anyway, I would personally never presume to tell anyone else what to do or how to do anything. To me that’s like telling someone else what their religious beliefs should be. Fuck that. That’s against my personal philosophy—more of a code than a set of “rules.” Therefore, disregard the “rules” you are presently reading, and instead consider them to be merely notes to myself. One should make one’s own “notes” because there is no one way to do anything. If anyone tells you there is only one way, their way, get as far away from them as possible, both physically and philosophically.

Rule #2: Don’t let the fuckers get ya. They can either help you, or not help you, but they can’t stop you. People who finance films, distribute films, promote films and exhibit films are not filmmakers. They are not interested in letting filmmakers define and dictate the way they do their business, so filmmakers should have no interest in allowing them to dictate the way a film is made. Carry a gun if necessary.

Also, avoid sycophants at all costs. There are always people around who only want to be involved in filmmaking to get rich, get famous, or get laid. Generally, they know as much about filmmaking as George W. Bush knows about hand-to-hand combat.

Rule #3: The production is there to serve the film. The film is not there to serve the production. Unfortunately, in the world of filmmaking this is almost universally backwards. The film is not being made to serve the budget, the schedule, or the resumes of those involved. Filmmakers who don’t understand this should be hung from their ankles and asked why the sky appears to be upside down.

Rule #4: Filmmaking is a collaborative process. You get the chance to work with others whose minds and ideas may be stronger than your own. Make sure they remain focused on their own function and not someone else’s job, or you’ll have a big mess. But treat all collaborators as equals and with respect. A production assistant who is holding back traffic so the crew can get a shot is no less important than the actors in the scene, the director of photography, the production designer or the director. Hierarchy is for those whose egos are inflated or out of control, or for people in the military. Those with whom you choose to collaborate, if you make good choices, can elevate the quality and content of your film to a much higher plane than any one mind could imagine on its own. If you don’t want to work with other people, go paint a painting or write a book. (And if you want to be a fucking dictator, I guess these days you just have to go into politics...).

Rule #5: Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery—celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to.” MM  

The Tree of Larfs

Alright...so I finally got around to seeing this year's Palme D'Or winner, the newest Terrence Malick film, The Tree of Life.

And....so....what did I think? 

Yeah...my brain has been kind of like that for the past few days.

I won''t bother to rehash the "story" of this film, especially since it has already been discussed in so many other forums over the past month. It only relates the beginning and ending of time to the birth and spiritual death of Sean Penn's dour character.

Of course, since the universe didn't form the earth and the dinosaurs just to eventually culminate in Sean Penn's lifetime, there has to be much made of how Brad Pitt's Mr. O'Brien character was a repressed failure of a musician who ruled his household with an ironfist so his three boys would be able to fend for themselves in their adult lives (clearly, this is set during the Eisenhower era). All of the actors, including wunderkind Jessica Chastian, play their roles well and look beautiful. Of course, they are all merely window dressing in Malick's philosophical misc-ens-scene. The real stars of this show are Douglas Trumball's special effects shots which show what Jurassic Park would look like if it had been made by an aging trust fund hippie.

A lot has been made of the film's future awards chances. I would say the cinematography has the best chance of getting anything. I would imagine that the art direction and direction could be nominated as well. I would say visual effects, but Douglas Trumball has been persona non grata in Hollywood for so long after the fallout with Brainstorm (if anyone even remembers that film) that he may split the votes with say, the Harry Potters and Green Lanturns of the year.

I must say that the infamous "creation" sequence is among some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen outside of an IMAX science documentary. Hearing about Mr. Malick's new documentary project that will be out next year, making this sequence in a narrative format suddenly seemed to make sense. The way it comes about in the film makes dramatic sense, kind of, and is such an artistic risk, you can't help but want it to succeed..and it does...in it's own way. However, contrasting a silly new age-y "afterlife" sequence with a depiction of the the supernova of the sun and the end of the universe, was pushing it too much, it you ask me. Surprisingly  I felt this climatic sequence is what worked the least in the entire film, although I can't fault Mr. Malick for putting it in to begin with. Its abstractness felt appropriate but did not dramatically pay off the way he was going for. The film suddenly began to feel cliched and slightly superficial. However, the images were so beautiful, I didn't seem to mind. 

A lot has also been made of the audience's reactions. Reactions such as these remind me why I bother to pay ticket prices to see films to begin with. When the film ended, some jerk started doing the coughing then saying "bullshit" thing that people still do for some reason. Even elderly women started saying things like, "f you and f you too!" as their reaction. Some said it was "beautiful," but most just seemed to be waiting for something to happen. I'm guessing that a Matthew Barney film would not be up their alley. But whatever lack of good gestalt that the film provides, it's emphasis on physical beauty and ethics of a past era are what makes it stick out. The music is amazing as well, but it's nothing ground breaking.  In fact, most of it feels like something from a  science documentary. If it hadn't been directed by Mr. Malick, I would have guessed that the film was made as an advertisement for the upcoming documentary or a big budget What the Bleep do We Know remake. It's lack f story and actual characters isn't surprising, considering the conceptual ambition Mr. Malick, is going for. Many scenes, like when the two brothers bond over a shooting accident, are surprisingly intimate and illustrate the theme of mercy in this cold, cruel universe very well. It is forgiveness that gives this life any real meaning in any time or place. It's moments like those that will keep the film from becoming simply an unworthy macro-cosmic Cannes hit and/or forgotten by the hoi polloi.

Of course, when you've got images like these, I doubt becoming forgotten is what will happen to any film, no matter how polarizing.

100% Medically Awkward: My Thoughts on The Human Centipede 2"'s Recent Ban

the past year, it has come to my attention that we finally have a new horror film franchise that actually repulses people. Naturally, it has to come from outside the US of A. It is not that I don't have faith in the American Horror Film industry, but their recent output from the last decade kind of has made me feel worse than watching this on a loop:

That's right! It's the infamous film that pretty much dares America to re-make it (you just know they would if they could): The Human Centipede!  This is a film that got pretty much no theatrical distribution in the USA (however, I still managed to watch it at Tempe's own MADCAP Theater in June '10). However, after getting released on Blu-ray, DVD, VOD, and Netflix Watch Instantly, has become a truly iconic horror film that we didn't think was ever going to come again since the neutering and consistently terrible remakes that the genre has now become more known for in the country. It even got its own homage in the recent premiere of South Park:

Having seen all of these works, I have to say, the film was probably the only film I've seen in the last five years, American or otherwise, that actually made me physically nauseous in the best possible way: the intentional kind! Not even the recent Euro gross-out insta-classic, A Serbian Film, The film itself is rather terrible, a non-existent script with a flimsy story that just exists to give a reason to the fabulous make-up, art direction, and cinematography that comes our way. It also contained a lovely mad scientist performance courtesy of  Dieter Laser. But, let's face it, that performance really wasn't what we remember about the film. I will not go into detail of what the featured, but I will provide plenty of visual supplements for you to feast on if you haven't seen them already:

 Of course, that final image isn't from the film....but don't you wish it had been the poster? I guess this is an example of how iconic the film has already become. It has become instantly recognizable in the form of actions figures (shown above), posters, graphic art, birthday cakes, and even video games (this you gotta see):

Of course, what does any of this cultural success mean in terms of market value? That's right: QUICKIE SEQUEL!!!! This will be no ordinary sequel is courtesy of the original film's director, Tom Six!

This Dutch director certainly holds no bounds when it comes to pushing limits. His first feature film is actually entitled, Gay in Amsterdam. Are we sensing a connection yet?

Over the past few days, the internet has been a buzz that the "100% Medically Inaccurate" sequel, imaginably titled, The Human Centipede 2, has been officially banned in the UK.

I have to admit,  all of the shock and disgust this "story" has brought, I suddenly realized how little the UK has really progressed as a nation. Are we still living in the 80s with the "video nasties" giving all the horror hounds a reason to live? I also have to admit that this whole controversy  has been hankering to my more nostalgic sensibilities, dating back to the early-90s with postmodern films being made with a meta narrative. Somehow, no storylines or cast details were able to leak into the press....until the UK ban basically lifted the lid on the whole ordeal. Of course, Mr. Six said the sequel make the first look like this:

After what has been exposed thus far, he's probably right.

Has any film ever practically begged to have a heavy metal band name themselves after it? Wait, don't answer that. I really don't want to know.

This is what Mr. Six said in reaction to the ban: “Apparently I made an horrific horror-film, but shouldn't a good horror film be horrific? My dear people it is a fucking MOVIE. It is all fictional. Not real. It is all make-belief. It is art. Give people their own choice to watch it or not. If people can’t handle or like my movies they just don’t watch them. If people like my movies they have to be able to see it any time, anywhere also in the UK." 


Hmmm. Freedom of speech has been a privilege of not that many nations in the world. I'm still of the opinion that certain nations cannot handle certain types of stories and/or films. Film of the nature of The Human Centipede really don't have much of a function other than to brutalize the senses, not really to frighten anyone. 
I've never really heard anyone say that they were actually frightened by the film, or even really compelled by it in anyone. I must admit that while I am more interested in his exploration of the mental effect of horror films upon its viewers and the actions they take to express their desires that this sequel promises to be than the more traditional story of the original ever aspired to be, I really doubt that's what Mr. Six was attempting to achieve with this sequel. It sounds to me that he is doing nothing ore than trying to push the envelope without really being bothered by things like style, intelligence, subtext, or even decent filmmaking. I'm sure the final product will gross out, but not really surprise anyone who watches it. I don't really care how many people he decides to make into a centipede chain, more than likely, the film will just descend into the stereotypes and pratfalls of what 21st century slasher filmmaking is all about. Of course, all of this is probably more preferable to listening to  Lauren Alaina's new single. This banning will simply become the chief marketing device of the picture, much like this was of Lucky McKee's new film, The Woman, back in January:





I also won't be surprised if complete strangers start forming their own centipedes to celebrate the release of this sequel in the USA. I can't wait to post the pictures from that. 


But however memorably gross or iconic this sequel becomes, it will probably be laughed at and referenced in academic essays five years from now. People will watch it on Blu-Ray and the internet and wonder what all the fuss is about, just like all of the video nasties from the 80s. Some things ever change.


Now, let's look at that lovely South Park image again. This one's a little different,

Beautiful Boy (2010)

Where do I start with this one?

 

Usually, when I feel a film doesn't live up to its potential I feel cheated. However, in this case, I was just glad it was over.

I got an advanced screening pass to see the theatrical feature film debut of Shawn Ku, whom I guess made an award winning musical short called Pretty Dead Girl and starred in a very good film called Samsara.  While I have to admit that he seems to have an excellent understanding of how to deal with actors and an understanding of their process to create a great performance, he does not seem to be as comfortable with finding a screenplay that is not a greatest hits album of cliches. The subject matter is compelling enough. However, it has some unintentional competition now that Lynn Ramsey's We Need to Talk About Kevin getting raves (but no awards)) at Cannes and Oscar buzz for Tilda Swinton, it's pretty clear that just making films about the parents of school murderers isn't enough to gain respect; the film itself actually needs to be good. Though the film is very well acted and photographed, its lack of style and story cohesion made it feel more like a movie of the week rather than a important drama about the loss of a problem child. The shift to college from high school was kind of interesting, but after suffering through the insufferable Meryl Streep film, Dark Matter, it just felt like too little, wayyyyy too late. Every twist and turn of the story felt more phoned in and cliched than the last until it reached it dramatically satisfactory yet painfully predictable conclusion.

I will say that the film's main cast deserves special recognition, even though their performances screamed Oscar bait. Why Maria Bello is not an Oscar nominee after her amazing work in A History of Violence and Downloading Nancy still baffles me. Here, she does pretty much what she does best (yes, I know she got a Golden Globe nomination for the former and Independent Spirit nomination for the latter, but still). Every scene she's in feels real and natural, even if she is a little too mannered sometimes. Having just seen Michael Sheen in Midnight in Paris, it was funny to see him emoting in his sometimes rather poor American accent. I feel he fit his character rather well, even if he does come off as too effeminate to be completely bland. I liked his choices with his transitions and his characterizations really worked. His angry scenes came off as believable and I felt sympathy for his character even though i could predict his every move before he made it, but that's the script's fault and not the actor's. The scenes where the parents separately talk to their dead son didn't really gain the dramatic inertia I thought they would. They felt tacked on ore than anything.

The supporting cast is rather good, if forgettable. Firefly/Serenity's Alan Tudyk always turns in good work. It's no different here. It really is starting to annoy me how they cast these school shooters as basically the same kid every single time. Is it possible that school shooters can have a hair style other than black and all over the place?

Watching this film with its unfortunate title and half baked screenplay made me yearn for it to be a two person play rather than a film. The suggestion of violence does not really work dramatically. The whole divorce arc feels too obvious. The characterization of the shooter is nothing new or remotely interesting. He is less "beautiful" than "stereotype." 

Overall, I urge you dear readers to be skeptical of the good reviews and buzz its getting from the festivals and realize that just because a film sounds like a good idea with good actors, doesn't mean the result will let you down any less. Don't be surprised if this manipulative dribble sinks like a stone in theaters, but is a big hit on Oxygen or Lifetime.