Today I met someone with an old school Super 8 film camera. I love anything old school, and while this particular piece of equipment had certainly been around for some time (probably since the seventies, she and I agreed), and despite the fact she was taking it in to be repaired, it was in great condition. It had a problem with the motor, or the gears, which refused (I also love anthropomorphizing gizmos) to turn with the film cartridge in place. I'm sure she'll have it back in working order next week, which brings me to my point, assuming I have one: she can make a movie with a thirty year old camera.
I'm a big fan of efficiency at large, in general, and all around, and therefore I do appreciate the abilities digital filmmaking affords any and all of us out here with a dream and a vision, but I also believe there's something to be said for the old school methods. These days you can conceive, plan, shoot, edit, and distribute any dumb old movie you feel like in less than a day. One day! You could do it in half an hour if you really felt like it. But in the seventies, personal filmmaking was a passion. You really had to have something in you, that needed to get out, to go through the trouble of creating it. Now it's no trouble; back then, you needed love.
I'm not saying no filmmakers today have no love for what they do; obviously that's not true. However, the percentage is considerably lower. If you look at every "film" or "movie" under 10 minutes that was made in the past week...how much is made with love, and how much is total crap? People will shoot anything and consider it cinematic genius. And I'm not talking about home movies; that's just garbage, or simply personal, and it's really not a film. I'm talking (attempted) narrative structure here. When it was film or nothing, even though it was a simple-to-use small handheld camera, you needed the love to make the film, to put it all together. And now you don't. And now we have loads of super-crap.
With my mutual interest in things both old school and digi-new, it simply fascinates me to meet a film student with a Super 8 camera. Not only that, she wants to have it fixed, so it will work. So she can use it. So she can create her vision for the world to see. Now that's passion. That's my kind of filmmaker. The modern throwback. It's good to see someone like that still hanging around this city; I hope there are more of her.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
In Tyler We Trust - Lessons Learned From Fight Club
These are some of the ideas and ideals I take from the film, things I tell myself all the time. You can laugh, if you want, at this personal revelation; so what? Anyone who reads these blogs or knows me at all understands that my life is buried in the movies, and it's damn near impossible to dig me out of them.
The things you own end up owning you.
It's more than just the idea of material possessions; it's everything you feel is yours. The more you concern yourself with them, and their well-being, the more they shape your life, your day, your every thought. You want, you need, you earn, you gather, and what do you really have? Objects. Ideas. What do you do with them? You keep them, and that's all. To truly own something it has to be a part of you even out of your possession. You have to let it all go. You don't have to sell everything you own (good luck getting me to sell my DVD collection!), but you have to think of them as not belonging to you. They are there for you, you don't own them.
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
So whatever you wish you were doing, stop wishing and work for it. Stop wasting time on what you don't want, what no one wants, and move the fuck forward! Human progress means humanity, not personal gain. Where are you going and what are you doing? What have you accomplished that makes you proud? Are you living, or merely alive? Are you a force of positive energy in the realm of humanity? Or is your existence ticking away with the rest of the unconscious universe? Wake the fuck up; this is your LIFE!
Stop trying to control everything and just let go.
So it's your life, but you're not in charge of much. You're only in charge of you. The rest of life is all around you, not a part of you. It's out of your hands, out of your reach, out of your control. To enjoy it you must become a part of it, not try to make it part of you.
I know it's just a movie, but there are always deeper philosophies in the movies than what shows up on the surface. There are even more great lines in the movie that carry a lot of meaning. If you never watched it for more than its entertainment value, check it out and give it some thought. If you've never even seen the movie, wake the fuck up!
The things you own end up owning you.
It's more than just the idea of material possessions; it's everything you feel is yours. The more you concern yourself with them, and their well-being, the more they shape your life, your day, your every thought. You want, you need, you earn, you gather, and what do you really have? Objects. Ideas. What do you do with them? You keep them, and that's all. To truly own something it has to be a part of you even out of your possession. You have to let it all go. You don't have to sell everything you own (good luck getting me to sell my DVD collection!), but you have to think of them as not belonging to you. They are there for you, you don't own them.
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
So whatever you wish you were doing, stop wishing and work for it. Stop wasting time on what you don't want, what no one wants, and move the fuck forward! Human progress means humanity, not personal gain. Where are you going and what are you doing? What have you accomplished that makes you proud? Are you living, or merely alive? Are you a force of positive energy in the realm of humanity? Or is your existence ticking away with the rest of the unconscious universe? Wake the fuck up; this is your LIFE!
Stop trying to control everything and just let go.
So it's your life, but you're not in charge of much. You're only in charge of you. The rest of life is all around you, not a part of you. It's out of your hands, out of your reach, out of your control. To enjoy it you must become a part of it, not try to make it part of you.
I know it's just a movie, but there are always deeper philosophies in the movies than what shows up on the surface. There are even more great lines in the movie that carry a lot of meaning. If you never watched it for more than its entertainment value, check it out and give it some thought. If you've never even seen the movie, wake the fuck up!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Death Proof
I never managed to get my ass to the theater earlier this year to catch Grindhouse while it was still playing. I'm sure I would have enjoyed the theatrical experience, but for me it's really about the movie anyway, so I don't feel like I missed out too terribly badly. That being said, with Death Proof released on its own this week, I was able to rent it. I think the most significant difference, which may or not be an advantage, in seeing it this way for the first time, is to see the extended cut. I'm sure the whole Grindhouse experience is a thing all to itself, to see Planet Terror, the trailers, and then Death Proof, and in a way I'll always be sorry I missed that. Then again, I've seen the full length feature of Death Proof not having any idea what was cut out for the Grindhouse version, and frankly, I don't care.
The movie works as it is. I'm sure it worked being shorter, but it probably wasn't as interesting and well-paced, and the shorter cut might not hold up on its own being separated from its half-sibling Planet Terror at its shorter length. The funny thing about all this: I think Kill Bill was ruined by being split up. Okay, not ruined, but it suffered. It was over-indulgent, and if anyone but Tarantino had made that movie, I would have been disgusted by a director being so full of himself. Why do I give QT a break? Because I don't think he made it longer so he could release two volumes and make more money in sales, and I don't think he did it because he considers himself so brilliant that nothing should ever be cut from his masterpiece...I think, in fact, I'm positive, he split up Kill Bill because he just loves movies, he's mad about cinema, and he wanted to pay homage to as many of his favorites as he could. He ended up with an indulgent shlock fest instead of a good movie, but that's okay; nobody's perfect. I don't want to get into a review of Kill Bill, but I will say I love the idea, and admire much of technique, but the execution fell flat, if you'll pardon the unintended pun.
Back to the present, and Death Proof. Once again, we have what was originally intended as one film, was in fact released as one film, split into two. And while there is certainly an element of sales involved in the decision, I refuse to fault Tarantino and Rodriguez for this element. Because I believe with all my heart they just want the films themselves to stand on their own. And not in a selfish way; I guarantee you Quentin wants to see Planet Terror be its own movie as much as he wants Death Proof to do the same; vice versa for RR. It's a selfless choice, I'm sure of it.
And it does work on its own; sure there are a few minor references to the other movie, which I have not yet seen, but nothing that detracts from my enjoyment. It's Tarantino back doing what he does best: exploring everyday interactions, under both normal and extreme circumstances, then exploding into violence. Kill Bill went off the deep end a bit; now he's back in the kiddie pool, frightening the children and creeping out the parents. I'm not quite sure what that metaphor means or where it came from, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem perfectly accurate.
The movie works as it is. I'm sure it worked being shorter, but it probably wasn't as interesting and well-paced, and the shorter cut might not hold up on its own being separated from its half-sibling Planet Terror at its shorter length. The funny thing about all this: I think Kill Bill was ruined by being split up. Okay, not ruined, but it suffered. It was over-indulgent, and if anyone but Tarantino had made that movie, I would have been disgusted by a director being so full of himself. Why do I give QT a break? Because I don't think he made it longer so he could release two volumes and make more money in sales, and I don't think he did it because he considers himself so brilliant that nothing should ever be cut from his masterpiece...I think, in fact, I'm positive, he split up Kill Bill because he just loves movies, he's mad about cinema, and he wanted to pay homage to as many of his favorites as he could. He ended up with an indulgent shlock fest instead of a good movie, but that's okay; nobody's perfect. I don't want to get into a review of Kill Bill, but I will say I love the idea, and admire much of technique, but the execution fell flat, if you'll pardon the unintended pun.
Back to the present, and Death Proof. Once again, we have what was originally intended as one film, was in fact released as one film, split into two. And while there is certainly an element of sales involved in the decision, I refuse to fault Tarantino and Rodriguez for this element. Because I believe with all my heart they just want the films themselves to stand on their own. And not in a selfish way; I guarantee you Quentin wants to see Planet Terror be its own movie as much as he wants Death Proof to do the same; vice versa for RR. It's a selfless choice, I'm sure of it.
And it does work on its own; sure there are a few minor references to the other movie, which I have not yet seen, but nothing that detracts from my enjoyment. It's Tarantino back doing what he does best: exploring everyday interactions, under both normal and extreme circumstances, then exploding into violence. Kill Bill went off the deep end a bit; now he's back in the kiddie pool, frightening the children and creeping out the parents. I'm not quite sure what that metaphor means or where it came from, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem perfectly accurate.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Death Sentence
Not having anything better to do Monday afternoon, I went to see Death Sentence. Why did I choose this movie instead of more than a dozen others that were playing? This one started the soonest after I got there, and unless I'm sure a movie will be too stupid to sit through and not worth paying for (Balls of Fury, anyone?), I'm interested in checking it out. One of the good things about a lifelong interest in film and movies; you're not very picky about what you're willing to see. I like Kevin Bacon, anyway; he's always worth watching.
I was a bit surprised by the movie, for the most part, because it was not ridiculously gratuitously needlessly violent for the most part. It went a little over the top right toward the end, but one expects that; it's the big climactic sequence. The rest of it, however, does its best to remain subdued. Threatening, yes, but never overbearing, like I'm sure the Saw movies are, which is why I've never bothered to sit through or pay for any of them. I mention those horrible horrors because James Wan, the producer of all the Saw movies, as well as the director of the first one, is the director of Death Sentence. It seems to be in his nature to go over the top, and he must have realized a certain amount of restraint was necessary to make Death Sentence work.
And it does work, although there are long stretches where it turns into nothing more than a family drama, and once that part is over, it becomes a silly chase movie, but is also a very harsh revenge flick at the same time. Confused? Don't be; it's just a movie. It tries to reach into all the corners of the box it's marketed into, but it's too thin to stretch to all four of them at the same time. So it goes back and forth, but mainly, it's a revenge flick. It's simple, really; Kevin Bacon kills a bunch of punk ass gang member shitheads because they killed his son for no reason. And while it never goes too far, it never really goes anywhere.
For you film geeks out there, this movie contains an awful lot of examples of how one might go wrong using major de-saturation in the digital intermediate, as well as one outdoor sequence that underwent skip-bleach processing when it didn't need to, because it doesn't really match the rest of the look of the film. However, this is merely my personal opinion, and not only might I be wrong in regards to how the image was attained, but others may think it looks awesome. I too might think it looked awesome if I thought it was really serving a cinematic purpose, but I'm sure it was only done to give the film that grainy, gritty look, and it just doesn't quite have the impact I think they wanted it to. One can guess they were trying for a look that often came about in the 70's, which was simply due to the film stock and lighting they used at the time, and not through the same processes used today, because Death Sentence is directly related to the Charles Bronson series Death Wish; is actually adapted from the same novel, or something like that. Read up on it if you're interested; it's never a bad thing to learn something new.
I was a bit surprised by the movie, for the most part, because it was not ridiculously gratuitously needlessly violent for the most part. It went a little over the top right toward the end, but one expects that; it's the big climactic sequence. The rest of it, however, does its best to remain subdued. Threatening, yes, but never overbearing, like I'm sure the Saw movies are, which is why I've never bothered to sit through or pay for any of them. I mention those horrible horrors because James Wan, the producer of all the Saw movies, as well as the director of the first one, is the director of Death Sentence. It seems to be in his nature to go over the top, and he must have realized a certain amount of restraint was necessary to make Death Sentence work.
And it does work, although there are long stretches where it turns into nothing more than a family drama, and once that part is over, it becomes a silly chase movie, but is also a very harsh revenge flick at the same time. Confused? Don't be; it's just a movie. It tries to reach into all the corners of the box it's marketed into, but it's too thin to stretch to all four of them at the same time. So it goes back and forth, but mainly, it's a revenge flick. It's simple, really; Kevin Bacon kills a bunch of punk ass gang member shitheads because they killed his son for no reason. And while it never goes too far, it never really goes anywhere.
For you film geeks out there, this movie contains an awful lot of examples of how one might go wrong using major de-saturation in the digital intermediate, as well as one outdoor sequence that underwent skip-bleach processing when it didn't need to, because it doesn't really match the rest of the look of the film. However, this is merely my personal opinion, and not only might I be wrong in regards to how the image was attained, but others may think it looks awesome. I too might think it looked awesome if I thought it was really serving a cinematic purpose, but I'm sure it was only done to give the film that grainy, gritty look, and it just doesn't quite have the impact I think they wanted it to. One can guess they were trying for a look that often came about in the 70's, which was simply due to the film stock and lighting they used at the time, and not through the same processes used today, because Death Sentence is directly related to the Charles Bronson series Death Wish; is actually adapted from the same novel, or something like that. Read up on it if you're interested; it's never a bad thing to learn something new.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Movie Head
You know your head is stuck inside the world of movies when...
...you relish the opportunity to claim that something will happen "in little less a half a hour".
...you can’t drive into a car wash without muttering to yourself "pretty please, with sugar on top...clean the fuckin’ car" and then giggling about it.
...you attempt to insult someone by calling him/her a "scruffy-looking nerf-herder".
...you fail to remain friends with said persons if their immediate response is not "Who’s scruffy-lookin?"
...you expect people to explain themselves if you ask them "The heck ya mean?!" over and over and over.
...you exclaim disappointment in someone by crying "Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"
...you cannot help but respond to a question of "What’s in it?" with a musical phrasing of "That’s the point of the thing, not to know!"
...you are unable to fight the impulse, on being told you have said something funny, to get in that person’s face and say "funny how, like I’m a clown? I amuse you?"
...you can’t hear "There is no ‘I’ in team" without then going on about meatpies.
...you shout "It’s not illegal!" when accused of something mildly dishonest.
This is not simply a game of "Name That Quote"; I actually do or say these things, or somehow manage, despite the compulsion, not to. Seriously. I’m not well. But if anyone feels like naming all these movies, knock yourself out. They’re pretty easy.
...you relish the opportunity to claim that something will happen "in little less a half a hour".
...you can’t drive into a car wash without muttering to yourself "pretty please, with sugar on top...clean the fuckin’ car" and then giggling about it.
...you attempt to insult someone by calling him/her a "scruffy-looking nerf-herder".
...you fail to remain friends with said persons if their immediate response is not "Who’s scruffy-lookin?"
...you expect people to explain themselves if you ask them "The heck ya mean?!" over and over and over.
...you exclaim disappointment in someone by crying "Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"
...you cannot help but respond to a question of "What’s in it?" with a musical phrasing of "That’s the point of the thing, not to know!"
...you are unable to fight the impulse, on being told you have said something funny, to get in that person’s face and say "funny how, like I’m a clown? I amuse you?"
...you can’t hear "There is no ‘I’ in team" without then going on about meatpies.
...you shout "It’s not illegal!" when accused of something mildly dishonest.
This is not simply a game of "Name That Quote"; I actually do or say these things, or somehow manage, despite the compulsion, not to. Seriously. I’m not well. But if anyone feels like naming all these movies, knock yourself out. They’re pretty easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
