8 dollars to see "Super 8" at 8 o'clock...

I have known about "Super 8" for a while now, thanks to my extensive facebook friends list, consisting of too many film nerds. The problem was that I knew about this film a long time ago because it was marketed so well, and then the craze seemed to drop off. I didn't even know it was out until my uncle mentioned in a phone call, my uncle that doesn't even watch movies. Then my roommate was going to go see it with some family, and I decided it sounded like a good way to spend a Saturday night. All of this information is completely useless to you, but I feel compelled to share it for my own sake. I also feel it necessary to let you know there is rather loud party growing in my living room, so I may be a little distracted in writing this post.

"Super 8" was a good, solid movie, as I expected it to be. There weren't any huge flaws, or experiments gone awry (which I say in regards to technique, not plot). It delivered an array of emotions including love, grief, jealousy, anger, and ambition, all mostly through the eyes of children, which was very cool. It was a safe movie though. Even in a group of kids, there was the leader, the hero, the explosives technician, and the comic relief. The story was pretty by the book. It was suspensful in the fact that it waited almost too long to reveal the actual monster, and there was backstory among characters that, while not needed for the plot, was hinted at but not completely revealed until the end to create more suspense for the audience. All of this I am glad for. I went to the movie wanting to see a well made movie with a solid story, and that's exactly what I got. It was funny, it was sad, it was like the Sandlot with a much more dangerous monster. Hollywood needs to stop playing with 3D, stop trying to create something more and more complicated than what they already have, and go back to the basics, the things that make movies great.

One thing that I have to point out is the Abrams loves his lens flare, almost to the point that it makes me hate his films. It was worse in "Super 8" than in Star Trek, and at times took away from the film. I can appreciate a good flare here and there, but to overuse it is to bored and insult your audience. We see it, whether you use it once or five hundred times, and as long as we acknowledge it, we accept your creative vision. That being said, I really enjoy the style of this film. I like the simplicity of the film. It wasn't an overstated period piece, but it was obvious it was not set in modern times. The cinematography was classic but beautiful (you have no idea how happy I was when I knew it wouldn't be shaky camera work), and the sound design had depth. It did occasionally seem like the monster sounds were recycled from Transformers, but I'm not willing to make that accusation. I also wish that I had seen this film at the drive-in because that would be the perfect venue, it would have provided the perfect echo to the sound and a nostalgia that would have completed the throw-back simplicity of the film. If anyone out there has the opportunity to see it in a drive-in, please do it and let me know how it is.

This is completely unrelated to the film for the most part, but it was one of the most magical moments I have experienced in cinema. There was a point during the film when I happened to tilt my head down slightly and shift my eyes to where I could see the audience in front of the screen. It is important now to share with you the fact that this was one of the largest movie theaters I have ever seen, and despite the fact that I was sitting approximately in the center of the theater, I could still see an entire theater worth of seats in front of me. Anyways, I look at the audience, and even looking at the back of their heads it was obvious they were enthralled. They're heads were tilted back, and I could sense the unblinking stares accompanied by drool as the movie hit it's climax. That my friends is the magic of the movies. It is possible to get that reaction.

The Pruitt-Igoe Myth

Tonight I got to see "The Pruitt-Igoe Myth" at the L.A. Film Festival, which was pretty freaking cool. Since it was directed by the one and only Chad Freidrichs, one of the most influential people in my educational career, I was able to get free tickets to see it for the second time. This time, since I was more awake and not distracted with moving, I was able to really enjoy the film and decided to blog about it. I'm not going to go into too much detail because this film has received several reviews from accredited sources, and they have said it much better than I can. Warning, I have a different take on the film because I know the director so well.

"The Pruitt-Igoe Myth" is an archival documentary, which immediately seems to turn some people away...those people should not be allowed to watch films. While Pruitt-Igoe does follow some of the standards that have been set-forth by archival predecessors, this films also challenges many of the stereotypes, and lets the audience know that this filmmaker plans to challenge the status quo in archival filmmaking. The way in which the archival footage is woven together, working brilliantly with the voice-over, interviews, and score is not only thought-provoking, but also upbeat. This is not a PBS documentary you turn on one Saturday afternoon to take a nap to, it keeps you engaged with a quick pace and makes you think. The story is universal, the people real, and images haunting. The story of Pruitt-Igoe is so extreme that at times you have to remind yourself that this is real, people lived through this, and then you ask why?

The film is also smart. It's so important that a documentary inform, but analyze, draw conclusions, and make you think about things. It is important that the film do this, while still keeping you engaged. "The Pruitt-Igoe Myth" presents complex information in a way that allows the audience to follow it without long explanations. Many of the ideas presented in the film come from normal, everyday people who have spent their lives remembering the housing project. Holes are filled in with poetic, to the point voiceover that calms the mind while arousing thoughts of injustice. Freidrichs and his co-producer/wife Jaime Freidrichs produced such a wonderful script for narration, they were recently nominated for an award for "Best Documentary Script".

It is important to note that Chad Freidrichs, or "The Chad" as some of us refer to him, will be a powerful voice in years to come. He has caught what he calls "the archival bug" and his future projects will challenge the ways in which filmmakers use archival footage. He has big goals, and I know he will achieve them, because his passion cannot be stifled and his talent will not go unused. When you see "The Pruitt-Igoe Myth", you will understand why Chad has been over the past four years, and will continue to be, one of my biggest inspirations. If I can maintain half the passion he has for filmmaking, and find a quarter of his talent, then I will make the films I want to make and they will be worth watching.

Elephant White

I found "Elephant White" in my instant play suggestions on Netflix, and while it looked good, it didn't look like something I was in the mood for. Since my mom is here, and the description of the film revealed it was her type of movie, we decided to watch it, and I'm very glad we did (I seem to be saying that a lot lately).

Despite the fact that "Elephant White" stars Djimon Hounsou and Kevin Bacon, I had never heard of it, which leads me to assume that you have not heard of it either. If I'm wrong, please let me know in the comments, we should definitely be friends.

The film is about a hit-man for hire, who gets mixed up in the underground sex traffic world of Thailand. During his mission he uncovers several shady business connections, some of which even violate his own relationships. He also forms a friendship with a young girl who becomes his guide through the twisted maze of trafficking, using her own experiences to both guide and create friction for the hit-man.

What I liked most about this film was that the men buying and kidnapping the girls to sell them, and the war between different groups did not become the focus of the film. It could have been a little more prevalent because at times it was confusing exactly what was going on, but it was nice to see an unconventional but touching relationship become the focus of the film. Director Prachya Pinkaew took the typical hit-man action thriller and turned it into a piece about humanity and our basic instinct to help others.

The cinematography of "Elephant White" should not go unnoticed either. It was absolutely gorgeous. It reminded me, at times, of "Traffic", using vivid color tinting (which is much more in the editing than the cinematography, I know, but the way it is shot is important as well) to enhance the choice of lights and darks in the frame. The camera movement and angles, however, were something all their own. The flow of the cinematography would push the adrenaline in intense scenes, build the characters in the shot, and establish the entire mood of the scenes, even changing as the mood changed. The camera work became a character all it's own in the film.

Not to be outdone, the sound design in this film was also very noteworthy. While there were a few points that I thought I was watching a glorified commercial for guns, most of the film maintained a moderately realistic soundtrack when necessary, and magnified certain sounds to build an unrealistic but motivated world at other times. It added a whole new level of polish to the film by the end.

Finally, it is important to note the editing of this film. In thrillers there should be a focus on quick editing to keep things lively and moving, and this film accomplished that, no questions asked. It also developed a style of quick editing all it's own. It seemed to mimic the calm collected mind of the hit-man, while maintaining the fast-paced style that modern audience crave.

Overall I think the fact that this film seemed to go unnoticed was an injustice to film audiences. It had everything necessary to be a blockbuster movie released in February or March (wasn't quiet good enough to compete with the big boys in May or July), and it could have done well had it been marketed. There were excellent performances from both Hounsou and Bacon, and the director seemed to be able to stand toe to toe with hollywoods admired. My question to you is, why was this film so invisible until reaching Netflix instant play?

I'm also going to add to the end of this blog that I started watching "Stone" and I was beyond disappointed. I love Robert De Niro, if that wasn't already obvious, and Edward Norton is one of the more talented actors in the business right now, so I don't understand how this movie was so slow and hard to watch, but for the first time I did not finish a De Niro film and that is saying something.

A Little Inspiration

After years of wanting to watch "The F-Word", I finally found myself with enough free time to actually do it, and I'm glad I did. The film is a documentary about the last day that KPOL is on the air. They are being shut down due to overwhelming fines from the FCC that they cannot pay, so Joe Pace takes to the streets to see what people have to say. The stars aligned, however, and Pace took to the streets as people gathered in the thousands to protest the republican national convention, giving him plenty of subjects to interview, and more than enough points of view. The multitude of subjects and mindsets made for a very intelligent, and occasionally humorous, film that forced the viewers to think about their world, not just the generic and under visualized "world" that we are always blabbering about. Real people were on the screen, standing in streets of New York City, speaking up for what they believe in. There were war veterans, moms, people on bicycles, republicans, hippies, and free speech advocates. No one (save for Pace's doppelganger that he discovered at then end of the night) was even remotely similar to anyone else, because they were all brave enough to be individuals, which is something we often times lack in our apathetic world.

Now I'm going to get a bit philosophical, so if you are not interested, stop reading, you have been warned.

The film made me think about a lot of different things. It made me question whether or

not I was brave enough to be an individual, or whether or not I would have participated in the protests had I a) had the funds to go and b) supported the issues being advocated for by protesters. The fact that I blame funds as my reason for not going right off the bat, made me realize that I am good at coming up with logical excuses, and perhaps my logic is one of the things holding me back. I have always been uptight and played by the rules, but if I continue to do this, will I ever make the changes in the world that I want to see? Something has to

change.

The film also made me realize that people don't always live up to their appearance or reputation. If you look at me (try looking at my profile picture, I think it's of me), you probably don't think I am a republican, some people still say that I'm not actually, but from what I can tell I am very much a republican and I'm proud of that. I know that I'm not the stereotypical republican, because that republican (who most likely doesn't actually exist) is an idiot. I am my own form of republican, using my personal experiences and moral compass to guide my voting decision and political identification. The same goes for other people, and we all owe it to each other to allow people to define themselves in their own time.

I also have to ask, can we really change anything? Does blogging about films make you want to see a film any more or less? Does walking in the street, holding a sign, shouting something that rhymes change your mind? And if your mind is changed, for how long can it be changed? While watching the film, I realized that people on both sides of the election in

2004 made good points, and despite my stubbornness, I was able to agre

e with both sides at times, but as soon as the next person began contradicting them, my opinion began to change. Perhaps I'm just a little too easily motivated by words, but surely I'm not the only one.

With politics everywhere in 2004 and our present day, I also want to kno

w if it is possible to be completely neutral? As Joe Pace interviewed people, I noticed that at times it was easy to pick up on his anti-conservative feelings, but at other times he seemed genuinely in

terested in hearing people's perspective from a non-biased stand point. Is it only possible to be unbiased when someone is cute or well-spoken? Can we as humans truly be unbiased?

Film is inspiring people, but only if you allow it to be that way.

3 Movies, 1 Day...

The Palace Theater in Springfield, Missouri has started a tradition known as "Time-Warp Tuesday", in which they charge $1 per movie, instead of their standard $2.50. Being the ultimate film nerd and sadist all in one, I took this as a challenge to see just how far I could push myself in one day, so as soon as I could get to Springfield, I began watching movies. Between 4:40 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. I saw "Scream 4", "Limitless" (again), and "Hanna"...these are my reviews.

"Scream 4" was surprisingly good. I have always enjoyed the Scream films, because as I explained to my friend who has yet to see them, they are classics of our generation. The first scream film came out when I was 8 years old, and had my parents been responsible (as defined by the MPAA and supposedly backed by society as a whole), my life would have probably been a lot less terrifying, but it would have also been very empty. The scream films have always caused me to be cautious of who I trust, check the caller ID before answering my phone, and check the bathroom stall next to the one you enter before going in. They also defined for me what it means to be surprised by the ending of a film, which is something so many films today lack. "Scream 4", however, did not disappointed. I had no idea who the killer(s) were going into the last murder sequence, and when I found it, I can honestly say I did not see that one coming. The more important fact, however, is that Wes Craven was also able to make so many bold statements with the film. "Scream 4" is surprisingly funny in a meta-filmic sort of way. The characters essentially make fun of themselves throughout the entire movie, while still mirroring the sad patterns in our own realities. The film was bold, it was suspenseful, it was fantastic.

"Limitless"...just as a good the second time around. To me, if you watch a movie a second time and find details that you missed the first time because you were so involved in the plot, it's a good film. Once a film stops revealing secrets to the viewer, it has lived its life, and a surprisingly small number of films are even good for a second round with me.

I should point out that the main appeal in seeing "Hanna" came from a dear friend of mine who loved the film more than she loves most. When I came back from spring break singing praises for "Limitless", she came back shouting that "Hannah" was one of the best films ever made. Since this girl rarely likes a movie enough to suggest it once, lead alone a dozen times, I figured it was worth a watch, unfortunately I was not as impressed as my dear friend. Although I can understand why she liked the film on a personal level, the story was not what I hoped it would be. The plot was recycle from previous stories, and while told in a very independent way, it was not original. Throughout the entire film I kept hoping that something would surprise me, instead it gave me food for thought, but then quickly dropped recipe to move onto something else. I often found myself deep in thought about something briefly touched on in the film, instead of paying full attention to the story. It should be noted that this is still an impressive accomplishment, and to me makes the film worthy of a viewing by all, but it does not make up for the poor story and aged plot twists, which essentially makes it unworthy, in my mind, of the praise it was given by my dear friend.

One things that I can say about this experience is that it was not as painful as I anticipated, especially not when it is compared to the day that I watched "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "The Aviator", and "The Departed" all in one day. After the three films at the Palace, I was a little edgy and hosting delirious thoughts of being a spy while I drove home, but I was not left incapable of full sentences for the next couple of days like I was after the Scorsese marathon. I will say that watching the films reminded me how much I truly love cinema, and the fact that on a bad day, watching a movie can make me (or anyone) smile and forget their worries, which to me was worth the three dollars and couple of pounds I surely put on from popcorn and soda intake.

DRAGONSLAYER

Every once in a while a documentary comes around that is so raw and honest; it seems almost like a work a fiction. DRAGONSLAYER is definitely one of those films. With unprecedented access to the films subject, Josh Sandoval, it paints a portrait of a kid who has lived his dreams and is now growing up. It is what I can only describe as fast paced New York style meets California cool, making it one of the most originally shot and composed films, documentary or narrative, I have ever seen.

Director Tristan Patterson was able to inject himself and his small crew so far into the life of Josh Sandoval that they were able to get footage of real life usually reserved only for fiction films. Somehow the team shot footage of Josh and his girlfriend during the early stages of their relationship, and continued capturing all of the ups and downs that lead to the solidification of their relationship. The fact that they were able to capture moments when the couple was drinking, smoking pot, laughing, fighting, and sipping soda at the movies would not be impressive if the film were a scripted narrative, but those are often the scenes that go overlooked in documentaries, either because the subjects weren't comfortable being filmed in those situations, or the director's just decided they were unimportant. In this film, however, Patterson made sure to show the small moments that make a person who they are, and it made the film so much better.

Something else that should not go unnoticed is the amazing cinematography throughout the film. I have been a skateboarding fan since childhood, and never have I ever seen it filmed with such brilliance. The focal adjustments and fluid motions, combined with vibrant colors and perfect editing made the film simultaneously poetic and raw. Shot on a 5D, there is no comparison in style, this film was the definition of unique and perfect in its imperfections.

In the Q&A with director Tristan Patterson, he described Josh's outlook on life as oddly optimistic, which is a perfect description of the overall feel of the film. There is just something about the way Josh never lets himself get down for the count that makes the audience smile, even when he seems to be the most self-destructive character ever put on film. It's not a feel good movie, but it isn't a depressing one either. It's a film about a boy who skates, a boy who meets a girl, and a boy who is beginning to grow up. It is raw, delightful, and beautiful. I would recommend this film to anyone, which is an idea to be spreading. DRAGONSLAYER won the award for best documentary at SXSW Film Festival, and has that seems to be have been making its way along the festival circuit. To follow their journey, you can fan them on facebook.

Limitless

When I first saw that Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro were starring in a movie together, I was beyond ecstatic. I remember seeing it on the television at my mother's house and saying "I don't care what it's about, I'm in". That film, my friends, became the highlight of my spring break. Sure I enjoyed spending time with my family and visiting all the things I'll miss when I move to Los Angeles after graduation, but that film surpassed any other experience I have had since seeing the one and only Fight Club.

This film actually reminded me a lot of Fight Club. I'm not sure if it was the sarcastic, witty voice over from a man with nothing to lose, or the attention to detail poured into the sound design. It could have also been the snappy editing, or the techno soundtrack often laid under scenes. It could have also been the nail biting moments that kept getting more and more intense until I found myself curled in a ball with my arms wrapped so tight around my torso that my muscles began to ache, a scream waiting for the moment I was so caught up in the intensity that I forgot to sensor myself for the benefit of the other audience members. A scream which, by the way, escaped briefly at the "all is lost" point in the film, despite my best efforts. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the film gripped me to the point that I almost had to leave the theater because I was so wrapped up in the plot and unsure of how Cooper could escape the mess that had begun to constrict his life before he even knew it. I'm glad a stayed though.

Bradley Cooper, who I have been following since seeing him in Older Than America, delivered one of the best performances of his career. He just keeps getting better and better as time goes on. The best part of the entire film was when he had a faceoff with De Niro, who in my book and many others is one of the highest powers in the acting world, and Cooper held his own with remarkable grace. He didn't flinch as he stood there, smugly looking down at the two time Oscar winner in the final scene of the movie, exuding what could only be described as the essence of hard-earned cockiness. He was absolutely brilliant.

One thing I have not yet decided my opinion on is the severe underplaying of De Niro. On the one hand there wasn't as much of him as I would have liked in the film, but on the other it made the film that much more elegant. It's like a fine scotch, you don't drink it all in one sitting by yourself, you space it out and share with friends (I'm hoping this is how you refer to expensive scotch and how you enjoy it because I'm not too familiar with the terms and traditions of alcohol, but you get my point).

All in all, this is a film I would highly recommend seeing in a theater. It is brilliantly intense, and let's be honest, who doesn't enjoy Cooper and De Niro?

Precious based on the novel by Sapphire

I had mixed feelings about the prospect of seeing Precious based on the novel by Sapphire (which from this point on will be referred to as Precious), when it first came out. The trailer itself made me tear up a few times, and who wants to go to the movies and be that depressed? A few tears are fine, but you have to be in a certain kind of mood to put yourself through that much emotional torture. With this in mind, I didn’t see the film when it came out. Instead I watched it for the first time over the weekend.
The trailer gives away 90% of the bad things that happen to Precious. She is 16, still in junior high school, her mother beats her, and she has two children from her father. After seeing the trailer, you would think they have already told you everything that has gone wrong in her life, so you enter the movie thinking you are going to see a character film about the way this young girl deals with all of these issues. You would be right for the first three quarters of the film. Then, director Lee Daniels hits you with one last blow, the killing blow, the point at which you begin to weep uncontrollably. This emotion is only perpetuated when Precious utters the exact word you are thinking, “Why?”. Only a film that spends the first three quarters building up this painful back story could put that much impact in that one word. The word that is every four year olds favorite, and every debater’s go to question. The word that we all ask ourselves when things begin to look bleak, but after seeing this movie, it will be hard to ask that question again unless your circumstances are really bad.
The style of the film was very in the face of the characters. At times I wanted the scene to switch to a medium wide shot to help relieve some of the tension, but the the scene wouldn’t have been as impactful if it had. There are points when the close-ups become almost too much to handle, constantly bombarding the audience with a claustrophobic feeling that pushes viewer’s to their emotional limits, and it seems that if there were 30 more seconds of close-up in the film, many of us would have hit our breaking point and simply stopped caring. It’s not a popular thing to say, but there comes a point when the audience just can’t take any more emotional abuse and they just shut down, and Precious tested that breaking point.
Overall I would recommend this film for that rainy night when you need a good cry. It’s great at pulling at your heart string and driving home the idea that other people have it much worse than you. It’s not something to watch on a sunshiny day, or one in which life looks bleak. Be careful when you choose to watch the film, but do watch it eventually.

Rules to Live By, According to Fight Club

As a self proclaimed film nerd, I have decided to define my life philosophy by films. The film itself does not have to be good, but the quote has to be something I can live by. The first film I decided to apply to my life is David Fincher's "Fight Club". In a not so surprising sequence of events, I found the first 9 rules for life:

1) 'This is your life and it is ending one minute at a time."

2) "With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels."

3) "First you have to give up, first you have to know, not fear, know that someday you are going to die.It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything"

4) "You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're no the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis."

5) "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake."

6) "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

7) "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."

8) "You can swallow a pint of blood before you get sick."

9) "Now, a question of etiquette; as I pass do I give the ass or the crotch?"

Not sure what the next philosophy will come from. Suggestions are welcome, but you can't force inspiration, so I can't guarantee that anything will come of them.

Shut Up Little Man: An Audio Misadventure

The one venue at the True False Film Festival that has never sold out for any event is The Missouri Theater, so when I saw that Shut Up Little Man: An Audio Misadventure was playing there, I decided to queue up for it. I knew going in that it was about an underground movement in the late 1980s, which is something I have always been fascinated by, and nothing at True False has ever let me down, so I decided to go ahead and see it. I was not disappointed.

The "Shut Up Little Man" phenomenon started when Eddie Lee Sausage and Mitchell D began recording their bickering neighbors. When they gave copies of the tapes to their friends, the recording began to multiply through underground tape trading, and soon the neighbors had become infamous. As these things often do, the arguments began to inspire art in the form of comics, play, and movies. Before long, the story was being adapted into a film by three different groups of people.

While the film is interesting, witty, and hilarious, it also provides a sad commentary on our society. As the tapes play out, it becomes obvious that the two men are miserable, even if it is only when they are drunk, and you begin to wonder what kind of person laughs at this horrible misery, after which point you remind yourself that you too were laughing.

The film eventually boils down to a very honest portrait of Mitchell D and Eddie Lee Sausage, that shows them not as people seeking to take advantage of their neighbors, but instead as two young college graduates caught up in curiosity. The results of their curiosity have been wide spread and versatile, but they were not the intent of the boys recording the tapes late at night. The two were acting more as anthropologists than as manipulators, and thirty years after the fact they do feel sorry for all that has happened as a result of their tapes.

While the style is varied throughout the film, and the subjects are at times hard to watch, the film is ultimately an enjoyable one. The story is honest, and the filmmaker provides a fresh perspective on the situation. If you get the chance to see "Shut Up Little Man: An Audio Misadventure", I would highly recommend it.

La Bocca Del Lupo

Over the past four years I have come to the conclusion that there is no way to see every film at the True False Film Festival, so instead I have developed a method of seeing films based on their directors or subjects. This method has quickly become unusable because every time I meet a director or subject I want to see their film because they are all so interesting. The compromise is looking at the description of the documentary, my experience with the director or subject, and my schedule, and seeing which fits best. This year there were two films that, based on these criteria, I simply could not miss.

As part of my Italian Cinema class, I was introduced to Pietro Marcello, the director of La Bocca Del Lupo (In the Mouth of the Wolf), and as the class went I on discovered he had very interesting views on cinema, views that I also have. The more he spoke about film, the more passionate he became, and the more I wanted to see his film, just to see how much of that passion had extended into it. The film did not disappoint.

After working a six hour shift as a volunteer, I stood in the queue line for the Forrest Theater, which is the venue located in the Tiger Hotel during the festival. I got there over an hour early and was still number 20 in line, and with only 180 seats available I was not expecting to get in, so when I did, I was overly excited.

The venue was not the ideal one for a film with subtitles. All of the seats were level, so for those sitting farther back, it was hard to see the lettering at the bottom of the screen, but if you were dedicated, it could be done. The nice thing about the film, however, was that it didn't rely as much on interviews or narration, but instead was a very visual piece. A story could be drawn from the imagery on the screen. It may not have been what the director intended, but it was enough to keep you interested if you couldn't read the subtitles.

The film told two stories. In the Question and Answer part of the showing, Marcello revealed that he had been asked by the city of Genoa to make a documentary about the city, but since he is not from Genoa, he used archival footage to allow the history of Genoa the opportunity to tell its story. The other part of the film was based on Enzo and Mary, and while I won't give away their story, the story of how the director found them is just as interesting. Outside of a baker, Marcello saw a man who had what described as "the face of cinema," so he approached him and asked to tell his story. What he got was one of the greatest discoveries in documentary filmmaking that I have seen.

The film is structured in a way that entwines the story of Enzo and Mary with the story of the city, using clips from tapes they sent to each other while Enzo was incarcerated, mixed with narrative written by the director. There is suspense in the film, as well as a neat circular structure that gives the audience just enough guidance to keep the film from becoming an art film, but still allows them to draw their own conclusions.

Something I found interesting was the way in which Marcello revealed the story of Mary and Enzo. While the audience was introduced to the two through their tapes, they hadn't been visually introduced to them before the "confession" scene. The scene is called a confession because Marcello asked them to simply speak to the camera nd say what they felt needed to be said. He did this for seven months before getting the segment he used. Once he got the story on tape without coaxing it from his subject, he put it onscreen in one large segment. There is no intercutting and very little b-roll. He allows the subjects and their body language to intrigue the audience, and he lets it go on just long enough to keep the audience interested without letting them zone out. There are so many undertones to the story being told that come through when watching the people who tell it, and none of them would be noticed if the confession wasn't presented in such a straight forward manner.



The visual style of the film was perhaps my favorite aspect. It was like watching Amelie, but knowing that it was a documentary. The coloring and lighting of the shots were gorgeous, and the incorporation of archival footage was motivated and seamless. There were two voices telling two stories, but visually they were all one.

All in all, this was one of my favorite films of the entire festival. It was gorgeous, it was well told, and it was honest. The filmmaker acknowledged his limits, and instead of trying to do it anyways, he found a way to allow the people of Genoa to tell their story. It is clear that he respects his subjects and his art form, something that can sometimes be lost in any form of cinema, so when a director clearly cares about these things, it is refreshing.

Buck

I will be the first person to admit that I wasn't overly excited about Buck (2011). My teacher had given me three choices of films that she could get me tickets to and the only one that wasn't political and didn't sound like it was going to depress me was Buck. I told a friend of mine who is a barrel racer about the film and decided if I was going to recommend it, I should at least watch the trailer. After I did, seeing the film became a priority.

The film was a beautiful portrait, not just of a man and his passion for horses, but of the human soul. Buck is a person unlike any other that I have seen in my life. He is the perfect combination of sensitivity, honesty, and understanding. He loves his work because he loves riding horses and helping people ride them without abusing them.

While the horses in this film are beautiful and make you want to go out and ride a horse, the film is not about them. As the title implies, the film is about Buck. There is something about him that pulls at your emotions immediately, and it doesn't let go through the entire film. While he makes you laugh quiet often, Buck also makes you cry. Not because something bad has happened, but because he has truly touched you. There were countless instances where I wanted to cry simply because a small task was accomplished that meant so much. There were also points where you could see pure happiness and joy on screen, and it was so real that it made you wonder if you had ever seen that yourself. Buck is truly happy when he works with horses and more importantly when he spends time with his youngest daughter and horses. There is a look and a calm that comes over him that I don't think most people ever feel, but it is magical.

I can't really criticize the making of the film because I'm not a documentary filmmaker and I don't know a lot about what makes a good documentary. I can say that Cindy Meehl achieved her goal of making a cinematic masterpiece that looks like a feature length production (that was in the post film Q&A that Buck was also at). It represents a complicated and unique man in a kind and loving light. The film does not seek to humiliate or flatter its subject, but instead portrays him exactly as he is. It was beautiful, it was heartbreaking, it was perfect. Buck, the man and the film, was an inspiration.

Blue Valentine

I'm going to write my entry about "Blue Valentine" before it has time to process with my brain, because it's about to crush my soul, I can feel it.

Director Derek Cianfrance did an amazing job portraying an actual relationship on screen. I initially entered the theater thinking the film was going to be a huge downer, so I prepared myself for such. When it turned out to be awkwardly humorous, I found myself in an even deeper emotional state, one that will take longer to hit and even longer to recover from.

The film tells the story of Dean and Cindy, played by the amazingly talented Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. It begins in the midst of what the audience can gather is the end of the relationship based on the painful tension put on screen. As the film progresses, we are introduced to the beginning of the relationship is episodic flashbacks that loosely parallel the current problems. There is no big event, or dramatic revelation for the couple during the film. They don't have a happy ending, nor do they have an un-happy one in my opinion. They simply go through this time in their life and enter into the great unknown that is any long term relationship. One that offers the possibility of an end, or the possibility of reconcilliation. It's impossible to gauge what will happen, because it is impossible to know the capacity each one has for loving the other.

This film, although it seem to portray the ending of a complicated and painful relationship, also made me realize what it was about relationships that scare me. It is so easy for one person to fall out of love, either because they have become numb in their daily routine, or there is a better offer on the table. Even great fathers make bad husbands, and selfish lovers make great mothers. In the end, if there is not an inexplicable force the binds two people together, they will not last. But we are not afraid to seek relationships, because they are good while they last, and even in the end there are smiles. When you get to know someone well enough to marry them, it is hard to see only the bad in them, which is why leaving is so hard, but it is that level of comfort that we all seek to have with another person, and it is that level of comfort that makes Blue Valentine so hard to watch. The two actors give a more than convincing portrayal of a couple in love, and it is so honest that we connect with it despite our romantic backgrounds, and are forced to acknowledge both the bad and the good that come from love.

Very quickly I would like to discuss my disgust at the fact that Ryan Gosling was shafted yet again by the Academy. His performance as Dean made me laugh and cry, and wish desperately that I were in a failing relationship if it meant being around someone like him. There were two points in the film that I cried. The first was when he cried and beg Cindy not to end the marriage, it reminded me of when my father told me that he and my mother were getting a divorce. There is something powerful about a man crying over the end of his marriage that touches your heart, and Gosling was able to put that on screen with unbelievable honesty. the second time that I cried was when he left and his daughter, Frankie, chased after him. Perhaps I was more touched by the position of the camera and the composition of the shot, but something about that moment made me sorry for their relationship to end. Those characters became real and I wanted nothing more for their reconciliation.

Michelle Williams portrayal of Cindy was commendable, but there character was not one that I could accept. Most of my reservations, I believe comes from personal views of the world, but I wanted for her to at least give the relationship a shot. Dean was a multi-layered character who had grown and decomposed, but was willing to change, while she was bitter and set in her ways. The character was written in a manner that was very one dimensional, one that seemed to be nothing more than an obstacle created to antagonize Dean, and I wanted more from her. Williams performs was spot on and phenomenal, but she wasn't given the material to make me feel for the character.

The cinematography for this film also aided the actors performances. The camera was in their faces to the point that I wondered if a costume designer had even been necessary at times. There was an intimacy shared between the audience and the characters, one that didn't seem to exist between the couple, that made everything seem more painful. Cianfrance, in this regard, is a genius.

Ossession

Ossession (1943) is the story of two young lovers who take drastic measures to guarantee that they can be together, but the odds still are not in their favor. The film centers on the arc of the main character as he goes from wanderer not looking to be tied, to head over heals in love, to restless in his new life. He begins his journey as the sultry, unemployed man who walks into Giovanna's kitchen. She is instantly taken with him, and he with her. Using his charm and con skills, Gino finds a way to have alone time with Giovanna, after which he convinces the husband to allow him to stay in their house. When Giovanna refuses to run away with him, he returns to his nomadic lifestyle, only to find himself helplessly in love. When the two are reunited by nothing more than coincidence, they devise a wicked plan. After this plan is carried out, Gino is not the same man. He begins to drink and act much like the woman's husband. At this point, the audience has grown to hate him.

The end of the film, which I will not give away is why I decided to blog about it. In the last twenty minutes or so, the characters are able to redeem themselves and return to the pure love that they found in the beginning. At this point, the audience is willing to forgive them for what they have done, and hopes for the best. In an ironic twist of events, however, the film ends on a much more somber note. It clearly demonstrates that what comes around goes around, as well as the fact that there comes a point when everyone has nothing left to lose, and when you get to that point, there is nothing left of who you once were.

I would highly recommend seeing this film. It is an Italian film, so it is subtitled, and the running time is 2 hours and 20 minutes, but it's worth the watch.

I'm on Facebook As I'm Writing This

The ads for The Social Network intrigued me, but didn't quiet get me into the theater. Neither did recommendations from friends of mine with highly esteemed taste in films. When Golden Globe Nominations came out, I remember that I still hadn't seen the movie, because it had been lost in the blur of production, homework, and work. Then it came out on DVD, and I planned to rent it. Then the Golden Globes were awarded and Fincher won best director, the film won best film of the year, and the writer and composer won as well, so I decided to check it out.

The film was oddly demanding of my attention. Not a whole lot happened, but there was a lot of tension. I only found myself thinking about checking my own facebook twice, and those urges lasted less than a minute, after which time I was sucked back into the film.

I think the thing that made The Social Network so good was the writing and the portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg. I had my doubts that Jesse Eisenberg could pull off anything noteworthy, not sure why, but he proved me wrong. He made me hate his character while pitying him at the same time. While I know nothing of the real Zuckerberg (because I live under the rock of film school), if he is anything like the character in the film, his life must be hard because he simply has a hard time functioning with people. This is something I can relate to, which is probably why I know for a fact that I will be thinking about this film three days from now, and then two weeks from now. When I watch the Golden Globes Sunday night, I was rooting for everyone but Eisenberg and Firth, and now it was just the winner I would prefer not to see awarded the Oscar.

The writing overall was spectacular, just as my friend had said, and the acting on all accords was brilliant. There were times during the film that I wondered if that is how guys really act around each other, and while this is slightly exaggerated for the sake of making a film, I must admit that I have in fact seen hints of it in real life (and I go to an all girls school). Justin Timberlake was a perfect douche, and Andrew Garfield truly broke my heart. In the end it was the characters that carried this story of the site we all know and love, and it was the actors who made that possible.

I will say that as soon as I finished the film, I logged onto facebook and changed my status, but I have a new found perspective on it that will hopefully discourage the amount of time I spend on it. It's weird to think that guys my age and younger came up with the site that is so incredibly popular. It's weird to think that they are so young, yet so powerful. It's weird to think that this could happen in my generation.

Go see this film. I know you have a facebook, so learn about where it came from.