Narrative Shorts 1

There were a number of good shorts in this reel.  Two of those that stood out were titled “Equestrian Sexual Response” and “Girls Named Pinky”.   The former was a story about a nearly pubescent girl living with her father on a horse ranch.  She perceives a sort of romantic relationship between two of their horses and confides her insecurities to the male (Red).  She stumbles upon and is upset by her father’s effort at  breeding the female (Mollie) with a stud brought in for the purpose and senses an resulting aloofness between the Red and Mollie.  This, combined with growing sexual conflicts with her classmates at school and on the bus sets up from what I recall to be a fairly accurate tension and mood of being at that age.  The film was beautifully shot and I thought captured early teen turmoil in a way neither trite or judgmental nor watered down by comedy.  To be fair, judging by the credits, this one had some pretty decent funding and although a thesis film, definitely had a refined production air about it.

“Girls Named Pinky”, so we were told during the Q&A, was a film about how to tell a story with a minimum amount of information given to the audience and then pulling out the rug with a twist.  The film begins with a geek suit, insurance salesman looking guy sitting at the end of a bar drinking Diet Cokes (he’s diabetic).  In walks the red-dressed femme fatale with the Euro accent, alone.  The suit takes a beating rescuing her from am upsetting unwelcome suitor and gets her attention.  They hit it off and spend enough time together for us to learn that she fears for her well being as her husband is the violent jealous type.  She also thinks he’s been sleeping around as she’s heard him whispering on the phone to someone named “Pinky”.   We also learn how lonely the man in the suit is, apparently being a traveling salesman or somesuch thing.  Our suit winds up taking her back to his hotel to chill out, apparently with no ulterior motives.  Just as he’s taking his overdue insulin shot, our drunk femme puts the moves on him.  Cut to the pillow talk, they intimate how nice it was to connect with another person when she’s see’s part of a tattoo on the man’s arm.  As she get’s a closer look, he jabs her in the neck with an insulin syringe and she dies.  We see on close up the man’s tattoo says “Pinky” and he calls her husband to tell her the job is done.  End credits, we see him leave the motel and the suitor from the bar drives up with an array of cleanup equipment.  Overall, a very successful twist execution.  Just when you think this thing was going to be about how these lonely innocents come together, it’s a murder story.  Bam!  I have to admit, I have always been a sucker for pulling one over on the audience.

Other films in this reel, all were really pretty good: Brave Donkey, Bikini Lighters, Pancake Breakfast, The Mess Hall of an Online Warrior, Snapshots, Jean-Paul Luc Sebastien Rene

Dirty Pictures

In a phrase: another slightly lamer stoner doc.

This one had a lot more promise in the schedule blurb than came to pass at screening.  Dirty Pictures was a mixture of bio / history of psychedelic chemistry centering around the man who introduced MDMA to the modern world, Dr. Sasha Shulgin.  The man is revered in the psychedelics community (both chemistry and consumption) as a god.   He is also getting on in years and has apparently spent decades in his own home lab synthesizing many new psychedelic compounds (the diagrams of which are the “dirty pictures”) and then experimenting on himself and his wife with them for the purpose of publishing his extensive findings into an index.  Although he makes some good and surprisingly sober points about the nature of psychedelics (although a devotee of Burning Man, apparently he doesn’t approve much of rave culture or the name “Ecstasy”) most of the movie is spent on a collection of talking heads managing to make almost no coherent point on either his legacy or on the politics of psychedelic drug research.  This one seems to have been an otherwise can’t-lose premise squandered.  And to think I gave up the film about Osama Bin Laden’s driver for this.  Even the silly mushroom festival doc from last year was more coherent than this.

Monday, March 15

Lemmy

In a phrase: Yet another music bio doc, only with Lemmy in it.  Yeah, but it has Lemmy in it.

Lemmy was a pretty standard musician biopic, the likes we have seen many times at SXSW.  Still, somehow, I never get tired of them.  “Smile” and “The Wrecking Crew” at past festivals come to mind.  Whenever I see one on the schedule I am helplessly drawn to it, and this one didn’t disappoint.  I can’t say this one was any great cinematic achievement, but it seems like they did a pretty good job of getting at some of the complexities of Lemmy as a person.  I certainly went into this film aware of Lemmy by reputation but can’t confess to an extensive knowledge of either him or his music.  The film definitely cured me of that.  Sure, there is also a definite agenda solidifying his legacy as a (the?) godfather of metal.  Twisting Ozzy’s arm on camera goes a long way to making that point.

Overall though, I think this angle is subsumed by the human story about what a startlingly simple, regular guy he is despite.  Don’t get me wrong, he is a flamboyant character, and now an L.A. rock scenester.  At the same time, he’s a guy who lives in a crappy two room apartment packed to the gills with Lemmy memorabilia and trash (as well was Nazi war trophies) situated a few blocks from his favorite bar where he can apparently be frequently found abusing the trivia video game.  I guess it’s not exactly news that a rock and roll hero like Lemmy lives his life unapologetically by his own rulebook.  Still, when we see him talk about how he forsook family for his career, or about he was kicked out of Hawkwind, or his diabetes diagnosis a few years ago, you get the impression he is far much more than this indestructible, Nazi-uniform loving, thousands of women bedding noise demon many of us assume are the limitations of his character.  Dave Grohl of all people kind of nailed it in his interview, as showcased in their movie trailer.  Far from the pirate he portrays, he seems incredibly gracious to his fans and much deeper of feeling and thought than I would have initially assumed.   In a boy band / American Idol world, Lemmy really does seem to be one of the few remaining old paragons of Rock.

Wednesday, March 17

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

I actually wandered into this screening by accident. I’d screwed up my schedule and found myself in line in front of the Ritz, known for occasional silent film screenings with live accompaniment (I’ve seen “Metropolis” there with 3 or 4 different scores, “Nosferatu”, “Aelita Queen of Mars”, “The Golem”, always a good time).  People in line were buzzing about how incredible this film was, so I decided to join in.  The score this time would be performed by a British electronic duo “In the Nursery”, who have apparently done a number of such silent film performances.  I have to say, they really nailed it.   As for the film itself, the performances both of the actress playing Joan and the cast playing her twisted ecclesiarch judges were incredibly powerful.   The pacing, the bold composition and mise en scene, all of it completely sucks you in which is saying something for it having no audible dialog.  This film expresses the desperation of an innocent person trapped in a kangaroo court about to be unjustly executed like nothing I’ve seen.   Seriously, anyone serious about film really ought to check this one out.

Life 2.0

In a phrase: Yet another freaky gamer doc. At least this one is less abusive.

OK, so I’ve made it a point to go see the rash of gamer docs that have come out over the past few years.  Like “Darkon” from years ago, or “Second Skin” , or “The Dungeon Masters” last year, this one takes on the delicate subject of gamers. Online gamers again this time, this one takes on players of Second Life.  This is an MMO unique in that it isn’t in a fanatasy/sci-fi setting, not does it feature any combat.  It’s really just a reality building game, fairly realistic in tone.  From the get go, my feeling about this game was that it’s nearness to real life lent itself to some pretty upsetting scenarios of people dropping out and choosing to live their lives in game. I suppose that’s a stereotype non-gamers have of all gamers really, but as Second Life would apparently appeal to a much different non-geek demographic, it represents a new “threat” I suppose.  I’ve gone after several of these documentaries in the past for being indelicate with their subjects, choosing to put on a freak show for the hipster indie film consumer rather than trying to do any real analysis or reporting.   This one does a little better in its selection and treatment of subjects.  One is a pretty vanilla white couple who have met in game and are in the process of divorcing their real life spouses in order to pursue a life together.  Another is a chain smoking black woman in Detroit who lives in her parents basement, but appears educated and runs a brisk design business in game, netting her a reported six figure salary in out-of-game currency.  The third is a white couple who are struggling with the husband’s game addiction made more complex by the fact that he plays a pre-teen girl in game.

There’s no question there’s a sensational freakshow element to the narrative of this doc.  We watch as the first couple take tentative shots at pursuing their new out of game life and fail.  We follow some of the business trials the second subject encounters in game as someone start to steal her IP and destroy her business, which in real life helps support her family.  This leads to a real-world lawsuit, being a bit of a double take in that the good in question don’t really exist.  In the case of the man playing the girl, we learn that it’s not about what we might quickly presume is some pedophilic motive but about his own identity confusion and eventually beginning to come to terms with some abuse he suffered as a child.  So, though there’s a titillating aspect to this cast, it’s certainly a fairly human story over and over.  As they include interview time with one of the game’s creators, there’s certainly a big idea pretense in the film about nailing down the nature of these games and what it means to society going forward.  It’s certainly a question brought up by all the real world consequences we see happen in these people’s lives.  Still, I think it’s too easy to see these people as being a bit flat and pathetic, sadly, and to end the lesson there.

After all these years, I’ve decided this subject is certainly interesting, but the complexities are almost impossible to portray in film.  I’m not sure that this film would be substantively different if these people were alcoholics or addicts of some other fairly socially acceptable vice, and as such, I’m not sure we learn all that much about the nature of gaming or the gamer at large.

Get Low

In a phrase: Bill Murray and Robert Duvall get their grumpy old men act on.

I decided it was time for some narrative candy at this point in the week. “Get Low” is a nice piece starring Robert Duvall, Bill Murray, Sissy Spacek and the lesser known Lucas Black.  Set in the 1930’s South, Robert Duvall plays a pretty grumpy old hermit, widely hated by the townsfolk who comes into town looking to stage a funeral before he dies.  Bill Murray plays a funeral director who takes up his unusual request.  Overall, it’s a redemption story, but I don’t want to say too much more as there is a bit of dramatic tension in how the plot unfolds.  Suffice it to say, it was a nicely put together slow boiler with some great mood and very decent acting, a good mix of suspense and comedy.  If you get a chance to see this one in the event is is released widely, I’d recommend it.

Saturday Night

In a phrase: Actor hangs out with famous friends while SNL happens.

This one stirred some controversy in line.  It’s an insider doc about the making of one episode of Saturday Night Live, in this case starring John Malkovich.  The controversy surrounded the fact that it was done largely by James Franco, celeb friend of the show, in both a fairly annoying often dark, blurry camera style and a fairly casual conversational approach.  Certainly, by itself, learning how an episode of SNL comes together is pretty compelling premise.   I had no idea just how frantic the weekly struggle is to make this show go.  It’s also quite a bit of fun in that you feel like you’re spying on a very rare, very fleeting secret.   Still, the criticism is valid.  You certainly get the impression that the coverage of the subject could have been more comprehensive and that the visual element could have been better done.  A bit of cotton candy in the SXSW grind doesn’t hurt IMNSHO, but it definitely let some people down.  Unless you’re a super fan of the show or just can’t get enough casual celebrity contact, I’d skip it.  I will say, Malkovich was really game.

Nevertheless, here is the beginning of my annual posting on my SXSW experiences this year.  My friend Steve talked me into doing some SXSW Interactive panels this year, so my film will be weighted more towards the end of the week.  Thanks again to Mindy for holding down the fort as I through myself into the jaws of the festival.  So yes, I got another badge this year.  Volunteering is still very much in the back of my mind but will have to wait for the kiddos to be a bit older I think.

Friday, March 12

Kick-Ass
In a phrase:  “Kill Bill” meets John Hughes. Dash of Apatow potty humor.

This was one of those larger mainstream film screenings.  SXSW tends to land a couple of films every year that are about to open and screens ‘em at the festival.  I don’t usually go in for those, but I thought this one sounded fun.  The premise up front: dorky teenager decides to become a superhero.  Director Matthew Vaughn is known for his films “Stardust” and “Layer Cake” (both of which I very much liked), so that helped suck me in.  The line into the Paramount snaked all the way around the block, and I stood next to a girl who was raving about the film for the hour we waited.  So, I managed to wait it out and got a balcony seat.  I mention all of this as it probably had some impact on my eventual opinion of the film.

So, the thing was lively, no question, and had some truly stunning action scenes.  Well paced overall, and competently composed. The comedy, although it occasionally fell to pretty low humor, was generally pretty well timed and chuckle-worthy.  Still, something nagged at me while I watched it.  There’s no question I identified on some level with the premise; I spent a lot of energy wanting to like what I was seeing.  I didn’t exactly expect going in for the acting to bowl me over or for the plot to be transcendent.  The bottom line is, the premise gets mixed in with some pretty fantastical elements and the audience is asked to buy into these being able to coexist, and it ultimately just doesn’t blend.  The main character (that would be David, A.K.A.  Kick-Ass) in his superheroic misadventures runs into “Big Daddy” and “Hit Girl”, a father/daughter team we find out, via comic book montage, is out for revenge against the city’s apparent main crime lord (played by Mark Strong, recently Lord Blackwood in the Sherlock Holmes film from last year. I love this guy), whom Kick-Ass has mistakenly run afoul.   These two existing superheroes are simultaneously plausible regular folk but also possess superhuman fighting skills. This just never really gelled in my opinion.  I had similar problems with pre-climax climax, when Kick-Ass is caught and to be unmasked on TV.  I don’t think anyone who lived through the Geraldo “Al Capone” thing in the 80’s really buys this kind of media event could happen again.  That note just rang a bit false, even though it led up to the most spectacular little girl kill frenzy in the film.

Also, as the superhero paragons of this universe (espeically Big Daddy, who very purposefully resembles Batman, and has Nicholas Cage doing a thinly veiled Adam West imitation), they kill almost every foe they come across.   It’s corny, I know, but it’s a bit troubling to see figures like this reinterpreted as common vigilantes / murderers.  At the same time, this whole plot is mixed in with a fairly elaborate teen sex farce, mocking the Spiderman/Mary Jane thing a bit as David allows his high school crush to believe he is gay so he can be her gay BFF.   Actually, I almost found this story thread more compelling than the “A” plot.  On this note, the cast of characters is pretty wide, and fairly interesting in conception, including the villain’s family and organization, which is a rare treat these days.  The breadth of them was another glaring weakness though; I never really felt I got to know any of the characters well enough to really buy into what is at base a pretty ridiculous story.  Suspension of disbelief with any superhero move is critical, even if it is an otherwise well crafted and well intentioned parodic twist on the genre.

It’s hard to recommend this one, but it’s not a total waste of time.  Weaknesses aside, the story pulls off without any major non-sequiturs and actually attempts to do some villain development, which always puts it a film a notch up in my book.  Still, I’m wondering if the open ending begging for a sequel is just a stylistic flourish to make it fit the superhero movie genre form or if they’re serious about franchising this thing.  I hope the former; I don’t see how this fairly hybrid premise doesn’t collapse under it’s already considerable weight of absurdity by taking it out any further than they already have.

White Stripes Under the Great White Northern Lights
In a phrase: Jack White keeping it real, solidifying his seat next to Dylan.

So, this is a pretty decent emulation of rock docs that have gone before.  More than one whisper of “Pennebaker” has been uttered about this piece.  Ultimately, it’s a highly stylized “get to know the White Stripes” bit.  We follow them on tour though Canada a couple years ago.  The really interesting part is they decide to hit some really remote places in their quest to do every Province and also do some free day shows for the locals in addition to their normal act.

This has the effect of humanizing Jack and Meg (mostly Jack) as they hang with the hoi polloi, an interesting take considering about how much strange speculation has been made about them over their 10 year career, mostly relating the nature of their personalities and their relationship.  In interview, Jack addresses this head on, freely admitting that the band is a construct, but goes to great pains to point out that the music is still genuine.  The cognitive dissonance on this is a powerful force in the film.  I mean the thing is shot in predominantly white, red, black, and white.  I don’t think it would be a stretch to consider the film equally a construct of the band.  That being the case, it’s a little hard to not take this behind the scene’s look at Jack and Meg as a cynical exercise.  And I’m a fan.

The music sounded good, but this is by no means a concert film. This is much more about putting flesh on the bones of the White Stripes mythology.  As much as I enjoy them musically, I find marketing in the form of art to be a bit objectionable. I guess I’m just not feeling the postmodern groove much this week.  It’s hard for me to like the character Jack White if I feel like I’m being manipulated to do so.  Maybe that’s just naive though, all entertainment is based on this silent contract really.  I guess this just came across to me as working a bit hard to earn my trust, which then produced the opposite effect.  Maybe Jack is the mastermind he is made out to be and this was the intended effect, but I doubt it.

All that said, I suppose this is still a must see for fans.  If for no other reason, you may gain a bit of insight on Meg and her apparently crippling shyness. At least I feel a bit vindicated about the ACL no-show that happened that year.  One lingering question not addressed at Q&A:  what was up with that guy napping on the bed behind them during the interview segments?

Friday March 13

“Strongman”

Honestly, I’m not sure what attracted me to this one in the schedule. Perhaps the potential for it to be an entertaining freak-show doc, the kind that so often seem to show up at SXSW, drew me in. It turned out to be a quasi-cinéma vérité style documentary, just following the aging “Stanless Steel”, whose ambition is to continue to be, well, a strongman in the carnival sense, though not literally in carnivals. The

film delves deeply into his relationships with those around him, including his family, his peers, and his girlfriend. It also focuses heavily on his earnest quest for self perfection, mostly of physical strength. As we follow him through his days and his various experiences and tribulations, it’s seems like he’s a bit of a feckless, but lovable dolt. His heart in in the right place, but he is incredibly absorbed by his need to be a better, and more popular and bankable strongman entertainer. After leaving this one, it occurred to me that independent docs are often guilty of victimizing subjects/people like this, taking advantage of their naive natures to exploit them for entertaining material. This piece transcends this a bit, seeing something about his creative impulse and struggle that is identical to that which is presumably at the core of anyone involved in the creative enterprise of independent film. It’s subtle, but the subtext is definitely there. I confess, I usually prefer docs with a strong narrative current, which this one lacked, but I think the treatment of the subject was relatively fair yet unflinching, and if you were paying attention, you might learn something before it was all done.

“Monsters From the ID”

This doc suggests that the 50’s were something of a scientific golden age for America. It points out that, although the conventional understanding now is that the science fiction cinema of the era was largely about fear of Communists and the Bomb, that many of these films: (“Forbidden Planet”, “Them”, and one of my favs: “The Day The Earth Stood Still”) also lionized scientists as heroes, something not often seen since, and this had a knock on effect of inspiring people of that time to pursue science, and thus drive the county on to great scientific achievement. He also goes on to draw the conclusion, mostly though his interviewed experts, that there is something of a connection between the lack of this glorification of scientists these days and the decline of scientific education and ability in this country.

I went along with this premise, mostly out of the sense that we’ve just emerged from 8 years of a government fairly disdainful of things intellectual, and that American science could use some bolstering right about now. Still, I’m troubled by the flag-waving aspect of this. We are a wealthy and powerful nation, and as such, we surely have a responsibility to support and contribute to science. However, since the subject was limited only to a discussion of a history of America’s scientific prowess, one implication there is that science should be used to secure our own advantage in the world. The film does not overtly suggest this, but I think the inevitable conclusion from the notion that America is in danger of being left behind intellectually is that Americans should then pursue science for our own benefit. I frankly find this to be a fairly shallow point of view. Thinking about science in tems of national engagement kind of misses the point. Good science should be about the free exchange of ideas unimpeded by borders and what have you. I understand that some things will be considered to be military secrets or whatever, but what about when we’re talking about clean energy or pharmaceutical research? Surely science at it’s best must include inputs from and benefits to everyone rather than just one country or just the First World. So, I guess I came away feeling like trying to look at 50’s sci fi as being some kind of inspiration for us now to be a bit specious. I understand needing to limit a subject for purposes of discussion, but this one left me feeling like the discussion had unceremoniously been ripped out of context to a point so as to be useless. It doesn’t help that the title kind of points to the aspect of the discussion least developed by the end of the film. Seems like this film might have gotten away from it’s masters when it crawled off the slab.

“Ong Bak 2″

No need to belabor this one, it’s more Thai martial arts from Tony Jaa. If you saw the original, you’ll probably like this one. It has the same film speed-ups and florid slo-mos of the original as well, but it was pretty enjoyable overall if you’re a martial arts film fan.

Saturday March 14

“Reel Shorts 1″

My annual readers might recall that I do loves me some shorts programs. There’s something about the form that makes for a sort of “pure” cinematic experience. There is absolutely no room for dead wood in a short. Either you hit your mark or you don’t. When they do, they seem so satisfying somehow.  Fortunately, many in this reel did.  Strange as it is, if there was a theme to this reel, it would be semi-experimental black comedy. “Winter Lilacs” is about a man living with his aged mother who appears to be near catatonic with dementia.   Oddly, yes, they found a bit of humor in this.  Also true for “Countertransference”, about a milquetoast antique store worker and her relationship with her boss, but also her twisted, abusive therapist helping her with her low self esteem issues and “Cochran”, about a loser who hates his delivery job, bit whose true love of skeet shooting and hunting leads him towards a hunting accident that leaves him unable to deliver, but allowing him to work at the gun range. The stand out from the black comedy take would be “Isis avenue”, about a crime scene cleanup company emptying a house of its contents left behind by it’s dead owner.   I suppose the commonality here was that though the subject was undoubtedly morbid, the interviews with the workers were surprisingly upbeat.  Go figure.

“AMAC @ The Hideout”

This was a shorts program Jordan turned me on to populated only by works from students of the Austin School of Film.   I have to say, it was surprisingly solid.  In particular: “Remains”, a narrative about a woman who is in town to clean out the house of her recently deceased, estranged mother and her interaction with her mother’s neighbor, who had had some kind of relationship with her. It was really well acted and fairly compelling, especially for a narrative short. Also, “Blade Throwers”, a very short doc about a regional knife throwing competition. Nicely polished and put together, your typical “get to know a subculture” doc. Lastly, “Headcheese”, a somewhat longer horror piece where the young worker of a butcher shop starts to lose it and starts taking orders from a pig head, Son-of-Sam style.  Not shy with the fake blood.

“The Last Beekeeper”

Knowing a little bit about this subject, I was curious to see this filmmakers take on the state of the bee industry, if you will, in light of the recent troubles with honeybee populations in decline. This one was really well put together, had a nice little narrative to it as we follow three beekeepers on their annual trek to the almond pollenation in California, and their struggles to keep it together. As it turns out, there’s quite a bit of passion and heartbreak in the bee biz. The only thing that left me unsatisfied were the scientific underpinnings of the film. There are some interviews with apiarists trying to explain Colony Collapse Disorder, often heard about through brief mass media science-scare stories, but as there’s no explanation, no theories are really advanced. We learn that the almonds in particular are instructive as they, unlike many other crops, depend totally on bees for successful pollenation, and to accomplish this takes 75% of the US supply of beehives. There are therefore some stabs made at an explanation implicating the constant, long-distance transport of hives into monoculture areas, such as the vast almond orchards of California , are to blame, combined with the stressed of environmental pesticides and imported bee parasites.   I guess if you assume that we’re in the grips of a national bee holocaust, that beekeepers are having a rough time of it, interesting as their stories might be, isn’t excatly a surprise.

I can’t help but feel they should have let the franchise rest a little longer a-la Doctor Who.  What I don’t want to see is yet another ill advised, half-baked Hollywood fishing expedition through TV shows of yore.  I couldn’t bear watching Star Trek become a parody of itself.  I guess we’ll see next Summer.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/

See especially the AICN review.  If one of the biggest fanboys in the world can say this publicly, Lucasfilm, it’s probably time to wake up and smell the bantha poodoo.  Look, good things are made by people who care, not by sycophants and group-thinkers, and the latest wares you’ve been pushing smell suspiciously of the latter.  Go look at how Nolan rescued Batman from the empty-headed “nipples & neon” era we suffered at the hands of (speak not his name) Joel Schumacher and get a hint.

Let’s face it, the latter SW should serve as a warning to the future that fabulous effects and design doesn’t cover for fundamentally bad storytelling, even if it’s a franchise as classically story-rich as the SW universe once was. The contrast couldn’t be clearer considering the startling (esp. compared to the prequels) magnificence of what Tartakovsky et al. did with their rendition of Clone Wars a couple years back.  Lucasfilm, there really is no excuse.

Sadly, I still feel the need to see this at some point, if for no other reason than to be conversant in what continues to be so frustratingly wrong with Star Wars.  Maybe I can sneak in some how so I don’t help fund this kind of apparent atrocity any more than I’ve already been complicit in.  People depend on me to be informed on the important issues, you see. 

-D.

Seriously, no.

America, what in the hell exactly is wrong with you? These people aren’t Amish, trust me. That said, I’ll bet they do have a UFO in the barn.