Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Remember Who We Are

This is the Kula


Below is a link to my most recent short film. It was commissioned by my pastor to help promote our ministry's 2007 Winter Retreat.

The synopsis:
A young man's faith is tested when he finds his home ransacked by burglars. Tempted by vengeance, he is given a chance to catch the thieves responsible. Does he act on his desire for revenge or obey Christ's command to forgive?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7844876116158047352

I also did some graphic design work for the retreat. Below is the front of a postcard we sent out to raise awareness.

Come to the Retreat


If anyone reading this is interested in attending, there is still time to sign up. The dates are December 28-30 and the cost is $75. Contact thelo4him@yahoo.com for more details.

Enjoy the film.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Before The Devil Knows You're Bored

Don't look at me!


Expectations were high going into Saturday night’s ten o’clock showing of Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. With clichés like, “A return to form” being thrown around, I couldn’t help but be hopeful. So hopeful in fact, I too jumped on the cliché ridden bandwagon to convince a certain movie-hating (but television loving) friend of mine to see the film.

Boy was my face red. A more apt cliché for the film would be, “A disappointment.” Now I agree with fellow Kula contributor John Lin that somewhere in there is a better film, but as the old adage goes, “Almost doesn’t take it to the bank.”

I find writing negative reviews difficult because I believe failures in form are symptoms of a greater failure in content, and Before the Devil is no exception. The film is born of contempt, not only for the characters, but for the viewer and humanity in general.

Before the Devil has been described as “a Greek tragedy” and to some extent the glove fits. Somewhere in the film a family destroys itself, people die, and everyone is flawed. Now I’m not asking for sunshine and rainbows, but I am asking for an even handed depiction of the world we live in.

There is a certain perspective to tragedy and to a greater extent the world, that can be best be described as "classical" or "mythic." In Greek tragedies or Shakespeare or even No Country for Old Men, there is a sense that what you are perceiving is not so much a random occurrence or the mere result of the actions of man, but instead the movement of forces unseen. There is a timeless quality to these forces, that they have been here long before and will be here long after us.

Someone once said, "We do not speak, but are spoken through," which I was reminded of while reading the following passage of War and Peace earlier today:

Pierre first wanted to sit somewhere else, so as not to inconvenience the lady, wanted to pick up the glove himself, and to bypass the doctors, who were not standing in his way; but he suddenly felt that that would be improper, he felt that that night he was the person responsible for performing some terrible rite which everyone expected, and that he therefore had to accept services from them all. He silently accepted the glove from the adjutant, sat down in the lady's place, putting his big hands on his symmetrically displayed knees in the naive pose of an Egyptian statue, and decided to himself that this was precisely as it had to be and that that evening, so as not to lose his head and do something foolish, he ought not to act according to his own reasoning, but give himself up entirely to the will of those who were guiding him.

With the right perspective, joy or sorrow can be understood by their cosmic purposes and its my belief that the purpose of all art is to transmit this level of understanding. In contrast, art made from a humanist perspective will instead transmit a confusion that takes an apocalyptic stance on tragedy and propagates an unforgiving opinion of the shortcomings of others.

From the first frame on, Lumet’s humanist intentions are clear. He shoots Andy (Hoffman) and Gina (Tomei) very graphically 'getting it on,' with Andy more interested in his own reflection than the lovely Tomei. Post-coitus, they muse about this half-baked dream of moving to Rio until Gina mumbles some wifey comment that brings their fragile happiness to a grinding halt.

What you can judge about the characters from the opening scene is just about all you're gonna get for the rest of the film's two hour running time. Devoid of any real insight to their objective identities or subjective experiences, the film prefers to hit you over the head with how depraved and pathetic these people are. It's as if Lumet wants to coax your wrath to a fever pitch until showing their destruction as some sick form of catharsis.

The last shot in the film is of the father walking down a hospital hallway after killing his son Andy. The aperture opens up until the frame is blown out from the light entering the windows, connoting some idea of divinity or heaven. A fitting end to a film bent on condemnation, glorifying a man who showed no restraint over his contempt, killing the jerk we’ve been watching mess up his and everyone else’s lives for the past two hours.

Formally, you can always question the chronologically mixed structure as well as the awkward flicker fading between each vignette. Add into the mix a bunch of unnecessary zooms and exposed breasts, and you have yet another example of a film senselessly pandering to philistine ideas of entertainment. If Lumet were either a little more sincere or had a bigger budget, we’d be seeing explosions.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Monday, December 3, 2007

Am I too late for the party? I brought chips!


Sydney Lumet’s films often represent themselves as a zoo for the criminally mad, a zoo populated by caged and desperate men grappling with themselves and the law, usually losing to both; crime films as tragedies as pulp. As devoted as he is to the Genre, make no mistake, Lumet is a man of the melodrama. From Howard Beale’s enraged plea of desperation for us to get up from our chairs and to get mad, to Sonny’s anguished stand off in the name of love, his are films indulging in the consequences of human error from human despair, the inevitable tragedy of voluntary choice. Which brings us to Lumet’s newest offering, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead”, a paradox of qualities that frustrate as much as it intrigues.


“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” lurks around in the shadows of a guilt ridden crime drama, insincere as much as it is crushing. Andy, played as cross between Jerry Lundengaard and Gordon Gekko by the always nifty Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is a man who “knows all the angles”, intelligent enough to recognize his desperation but too dim witted to maneuver around them. Andy’s brother, Hank, played annoyingly as ever by Ethan Hawke, is a worn down pair of jeans, heavy with tear and etched deeply with the burdens of his own impotence. The two brothers unlike in appearance but almost identical in distress hatch a plan to rob a jewelry store, a mom and pop outfit (HA! LITERALLY! HA!). This is a fool proof plan, until “it all falls apart”. There is death, there is guilt, there is anguish; this is where the film builds its walls, surrounding itself with the permutations of time, reflections of what Andy and Hank and the rest of their fucked up family must atone for.

This is exactly what makes “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” interesting; the dynamics of personal politics between the two brothers, their family and basically every other character in the film, especially Andy and his wife, Gina (Marisa Tomei), an ennui stricken trophy wife, a sex pot teetering tentatively between come hither gestures and doe eyed innocence. 

The film opens with Andy and Gina on vacation, fucking in a hotel room encased in mirrors. Their sex is bathed in an orange light, Andy’s body rotund and awkwardly confident, Gina, euphoric with passion. This isn’t sex, this is fucking, this is release, this is the 30 minute head start to heaven that one hopes for before the devil knows we’re dead (the original phrase that the film takes its title from). Lumet knows to understand Andy, we need to understand Gina, not as a character, but as an object of fantastic/fatalistic desire. As she dwarfs in and out from Andy’s body, the camera moves tentatively away only to be sucked back in by Tomei’s wrestling of the sheets; he plays to Tomei’s persona and body. We understand what makes Andy want to rob a jewelry store to take her to Rio de Janeiro, to escape to a fantasy where 30 minutes is time enough to escape the devil, but not sexually. Sex is the means for us to compare, to take the evidence of Andy as a pathetic figure from the word “fuck” and to see that Gina, although equally despicable, will be the best he will ever see and as such, he NEEDS her love, needs to hide it from the world and most probably himself. We need to see Andy’s fat ass, we can’t escape from it (literally). Lumet plays this scene and every other scene between the spouses with a certain calculation that he loses in other scenes. Witness the break down of Andy in the car. Gina sits next to him, helpless and barring on indifference. Lumet shoots it strictly as a parallel gesture, never allowing the frame to reveal a two shot sequence; it’s never shot-reverse shot. Although standard issue tactics, it nonetheless provides a glimpse into what Lumet wants, which is at least a modicum of technique that seems so absent from today’s craftless fare. But perhaps the most accentuated, concisely diluted scene in the film is the scene when Tomei leaves Andy behind, her listless body nestled into the corner of the screen, Andy walking through the shot, so indulgent in his guilt and desperation that he is completely oblivious to her presence. Lumet’s camera lingers with Tomei, holding back, as Hoffman goes in and out of the bathroom washing his face. There it is, there is where all the praise lavished on the film lies. The silence of departure, the hope for atonement. Lumet doesn’t push her into the corner, but lets her sit there tracking her without moving. Her presence eats away at the peripheral so ferociously that by the time she confesses to Andy her affair, we’re left with a sudden let down and regret that Lumet couldn’t finish the scene properly.

Of equal note is the relationship between Andy and Hank. They are interesting and deductive of a past relationship between the two brothers that need no exploration because the characters and their interactions are lived in and experienced by tonality and subjectivity. As Andy bullies his way through Hank, there is the scent of a dysfunctional history, one that has eroded over time, rusted itself into the core of each brother’s actions so much that gestures tell as much motive as expository dialogue; Andy gives his game away without speaking a word, only puffing on a cigarette.

And this is the paradox of the film. Lumet knows what is at stake, he knows what he’s gambling with and yet assumes we don’t. How else to explain the overly tedious and overly used trope of shuttling the film back and forth through time via urgent machine like sound effects and fast cuts, tracing linear lines from past to present, something forced and insincere, pushing context in our faces. Although satisfying and pertinent in the first 40 minutes, these intersections of time become a nuisance later on, when Lumet abandons his original motif of cutting in rhythm to character / emotional advancement, and begins to play the film straight, the shifts in time acting as insincere context builders for the story. For instance, the scene when Andy and Hanks father (Albert Finney) decide to take his dying wife off life support. Hunched over a table, Finney’s decaying body surrounded by his offspring, Lumet’s camera creeps in on Finney’s face. The shot ends on a close up of Finney, his face etched with wrinkles of time, sadness nothing new to a man of his age, and what should be a moment cradled by sincere stillness, Lumet decides to use as a segue, a place marker for the audience. This is a demarcation of the story, not of the morality, which is what Lumet seemingly first sought out to do. We know there is guilt, we know the gravity of the emotions and situation... we need not be reminded of any further context. In short, this is not grace. Like Murakami’s ball of yarn unwinding in the wind, the story, the characters, the emotions are all linear, and yet the film refuses to be. Lumet is so neurotic in his mapping of context, that he loses track of what he’s actually exploring and we end up diverging into material that forces us to witness the robbery and its subsequent (in)consequences over and over and over again like a merry go round of hell. This isn’t tantamount to 21 Grams, but nonetheless, it is still heedless in design. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” isn’t about a specific W of the big 5, but rather, it’s about all of them. It tries to play the genre, but in its neurotic mining of details pushes us so far away from the narrative that we simply can’t find our way back sometimes. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” leads itself in circles, quite literally, which might not be a terrible thing, because amassed from all this confusion are some gems of scenes.

In a way, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” works best as a cousin prologue to Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs”, but Tarantino (My gosh.) eschewed the violence for the aftermath, which is something “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” attempts, but ends up faltering half way. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is a concentrated scatter of details; it focuses on the things that don’t need to be focused on. It loses itself in the segues that are so resolutely manhandled by the musical interludes, musical interludes attempting to hide the stop and go haltering of the film. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” isn’t a terrible film. It’s one of Lumet’s better works, better than “Network”, but one gets the impression that under all of this is a better film, one that doesn’t need superfluous trappings to push the bleakness of human nature. Would I recommend it? Sure. But know that it might give you respite from the devil, but it won’t let you escape him.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

No Country for Miller's Crossing, Pt. 2

I like it


This is the second post on my weekend viewing of Miller's Crossing and No Country for Old Men.

Fast-forward to Sunday afternoon, I still had an itch to watch a decent film and I vaguely remembered Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead was playing at the Brea Edwards. So I show I up, but BTDKYD wasn’t playing. In its stead was No Country for Old Men. Should I take the risk? As the old adage goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Shame on me.

I invited my buddy Brandon to come along and together we saw the trailer for Michael Haneke’s remake of his own film Funny Games. The trailer made Haneke out to be the next Kubrick with its parallels to the trailer for A Clockwork Orange. You can judge for yourself by watching this and this.

So the film begins with shots of the vast, barren West Texan landscape. In a voice-over, Tommy Lee Jones muses about the good old days when being a sheriff afforded more opportunities to be a hero and wonders what the sheriffs back then would do in the face of crime these days (the film takes place in the early 1980s).

I forgot to mention that the visuals also follow the process of the rising of the sun. The sun isn’t captured per se, but more light enters the landscape with each succeeding shot. The presence of a visual metaphor, especially one as poetic as this, in a Coen brother’s film is surprising to say the least. I think I’m in for a treat.

And I was.

"No Country for Old Men has done for the Coen brothers what Eastern Promises did for Dave Cronenberg, it heralded their claim to fame as legitimate filmmakers. With both filmmakers, there was a certain fetishizing of details that marred their previous works. As if they fell into the trap of not so much the joy of making a film, but instead the self-indulgence of it.

All that’s changed. Their attention to detail has now been appropriated for the sole purpose of telling the Truth. Not to say that these films are flawless, but that in a sense, they have become more pure in intent. I for one am looking forward to their next films, but a part of me still wonders if these recent successes were more products of good writing than directorial skill. Cormac McCarthy did win the Pulitzer Prize after all, but then again I need only think of the job Billy Bob Thornton did with All the Pretty Horses to lavish praise on the Coens.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Monday, November 19, 2007

No Country for Miller's Crossing, Pt. 1

Hat in the Road



This will be the first of two posts on my weekend viewing of the Coen brother's Miller's Crossing and No Country for Old Men.

In anticipation of the Coen brother’s newest offering, No Country For Old Men, I Netflixed their 1990 violent equivalent, Miller’s Crossing, last week. Maybe it was the image of a hat lying in the middle of a road that intrigued me most, but having already seen Fargo, MC seemed like the perfect precursor to NCFOM.

Boy was my mouth open. You got me Coen brothers, you got me. I forgot I didn’t like you. Here I was sitting down on a cloudy Saturday afternoon, ready for a thought-provoking genre piece, (something along the lines of The Killers or Touchez Pas Au Grisbi) but instead got this immature posturing heap of rubbish.

Now I remember why I don’t like the Coen brothers. They don’t know what they’re talking (er, filming) about. Theirs is a cinema of appearance, providing an illusion of the truth, but not the T-r-u-t-h itself. Sure they’ll put in certain idiosyncratic details, but to no end. To them a film is a checklist. They have no understanding of simple narrative causality.

Case in point, the film’s opening scene begins with a slow pull out from a close up of a glass being filled with ice and whiskey. The sound of the ice cracking was a nice touch; I’m ready for some hat in the road. Uh oh, what’s this? The camera pulls out to a cut? No new information? Why even pull out? What?

So there’s this fat, bald guy saying something about having ethics when fixing a fight, the camera's zooming in. You can assert that the whiskey shot wasn’t his perspective, yet why the zoom in? Okay, fine, so maybe we’re watching someone else’s perspective of this fat bald guy, maybe it’s even the same perspective that the whiskey shot belongs to. Spoke too soon, it’s yet another non sequitur.

This time it’s an old man calmly listening to the fat man’s tirade. Here comes the owner of the whiskey shot walking into the background. There’s this heated exchange about so-and-so not letting so-and-so get bigger than he wants, yadda-yadda-yadda. The fat bald man leaves. So I ask, what was the purpose of that scene?

Given the opening whiskey shot, I am to presume that the film will be told from the guy pouring the drink’s perspective, which is the henchman to the calm old man. What relevance did the scene have to the henchman or the henchman to the scene? None. The Coen brothers didn’t even bother to shoot his reaction to what was going on. Why put that scene in the film?

As if to save the scene or probably just to connect it to the next, there’s this exchange between the calm old man and our protagonist where a gambling debt is alluded to and the old man offers to pay it off. Our hero declines, an obvious attempt by the Coens to instill some sort of nobility in him, but without any context who’s to say?

To tell you the truth, I slept through the rest of the film. I’m sure maybe there was some mild foreshadowing going on, that the fat bald guy was to have some role in the plot and I think I stayed awake long enough to see that our hero was sleeping with the boss’s lady, but that still doesn’t say much.

A film is not a checklist. You cannot drop plot details like you’re scattering seed, just hoping something will stick and grow in the minds of the audience. People can tell when you don’t know what you’re doing. Maybe you can fool the philistines with your appearance of a film with all its genre conventions wrapped neatly in a bow, but anyone who knows knows that film is medium of emotion, not a game of guess what the film’s doing.


TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

JP at Vienna 2007



"There are no genres in cinema, only multiple polarities (fiction, documentary, diary, experimental, essay) between which every film finds its own balance and invents its own machine." 

Retrospective & Lecture Notes from Vienna 2007
Curated by Jean-Pierre Gorin
A cooperation with the Austrian Filmmuseum, from October 1 to 31.

The film essay as a thought
The film essay is a strange beast. To simply define it as this form that foregrounds a voice and sketches a persona falls short. The essay is rumination in Nietzsche's sense of the word, the meandering of an intelligence that tries to multiply the entries and the exits into the material it has elected (or has been elected by). It is surplus, drifts, ruptures, ellipses, and double-backs. It is, in a word, thought, but because it is film it is thought that turns to emotion and back to thought. The strange thing is that as such it flirts with genres (documentary; pamphlet; fiction; diary…you name them) but never attaches itself to one. It flirts with a range of aesthetics but attaches itself to none.

"Termite Art" /vs/ "White Elephant Art"
It is both in form and content, unruliness itself, "termite art" and not "white Elephant art". I am, of course, borrowing from Manny Farber, and borrowing wholesale. Listen to Farber, and forget he might just be speaking about Laurel and Hardy, the words stick even tighter to the film essayists: "They seem to have no ambitions toward gilt culture but are involved in a kind of squandering-beaverish endeavor that isn't anywhere or for anything...The most inclusive description of [their] art is that, termite-like it feels its way through walls of particularization, with no sign that the artist has any object in mind other than eating away the immediate boundaries of his art and turning these boundaries into conditions of the next achievement."

The origins of cinema
The film essay might well be cinema's last irreducible. You find it, arguably, at the origins of cinema with A Corner in Wheat (1909), but a few years later Griffith laments the fact that cinema has turned away from filming "the rustle of the wind in the branches of the trees". Twenty years and ten days that shook the world pass, and you see it triumphant in Vertov's Chelovek s kinoapparatom (1929) but a few trials later you feel the Stalinist boot heavier by the day on its neck in Entuziazm - Simfoniya Donbassa 1931) and Tri pesni o Lenine (1934). You think it is done and over with when the oppressiveness of commercial cinema rules, but it reappears under the guise of Straub, Huillet's Trop tôt, trop tard (1981), Marker's Sans soleil (1983) or Godard's Puissance de la parole (1988). As soon as you wonder if it is after all just an ubër western mode, it becomes Asian with Oshima's Tokyo senso sengo hiwa (1970), Tahimik's Mababangong bangungot (1977) or Weerasethakul's Dogfar nai mae marn (2000). And when you want to keep it there it bounces back to the Middle East or South America…

The essay is haunting cinema
This is, of course, a fairy tale hurriedly told to infuriate academics and critics alike, and they'll accuse me, once again, of confusing everything. One fact remains though: however dire the circumstance, the essay remains alive in the margins, an Id that haunts cinema. It is never more alive than when the times are more repressive and the dominant aesthetics occupy more squarely the middle of the road. In short, it might just be a perfect time to think about it.
(Jean-Pierre Gorin)

Here are some notes on a lecture he gave:
1. There are no genres in cinema, only multiple polarities (fiction, documentary, diary, experimental, essay) between which every film finds its own balance and invents its own machine.

2. Any film worthy of the name is a machine, with its functions, its dysfunctions, its own operations. The interest of a film does not lie in its message or in its story in the literary sense, but in the operations it executes, in the articulations it keeps making and unmaking between form and meaning.

3. What sets the essay apart is its ability to unveil its own operation and articulations, more so than its subject or contents. Thus way, the image attains a special status in the essay: "it doesn't pass but it revisits itself, resisting its own temporal nature, its own passing," as Gorin writes in the catalogue that accompanies the retrospective. He also states that the essay is a form of energy, the energy of the termite, of an insect always busy digging and breaking through barriers, "an energy that constantly redefines the practice of framing, editing, mixing, freeing these from their habitual allegiance to genres."

4. Based on the kinds of operations they execute, films can be divided into two broad categories: those that tend toward unity (of message, of form) and those that try to divide, to propagate division and a dialectic - of the image, of ideas, procedures, and operations.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

A one and a two...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket



This is how the perfect human dances...




TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Is this the kula?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket



TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE