STARRING Glenn Close, Mia Wasikowska, Aaron Johnson, Janet McTeer, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Brendan Gleeson
Maria Doyle Kennedy
WRITTEN BY Gabriella Prekop, John Banville, Glenn Close, Istvan Szabo (story), based on George Moore’s novella
PRODUCED BY Glenn Close, Bonnie Curtis, Julie Lynn, Alan Moloney
DIRECTED BY Rodrigo Garcia

SHOT BY Michael McDonough
EDITED BY Steven Weisberg
MUSIC BY Brian Byrne
DISTRIBUTED BY Roadside Attractions

Screened 2012-01-17

Albert Nobbs is an effacing old butler working in a Dublin hotel in the 1890′s. Nobbs is also a transvestite – a woman who gets a sexual thrill from dressing like the opposite sex. The presence of a bugger like Nobbs in this House of Mirth makes perfect sense, as every character we come across is a walking sexual innuendo, transparent or not. And as usual, the whitebread white breeders are the dullest and most fascistic ones present. Nobbs hides every penny under her floorboards as she nurses the modest dream of opening a tobacconist in town, or to put it another way, ascending a tier or two on the Slave Ladder. The only thing she needs to bring this fantasy to fruition is a helper to run the shop and join her in residence above it, and so Nobbs chooses to groom a clumsy young servant girl (Wasikowska) in her selfsame hotel, taking her out and essentially “courting” her in public, which, yes, is as awkward as it sounds. A wrench in a shape of a fertilizing sperm is thrown into the gears of Nobbs’s plan, no thanks to the senseless boiler mechanic that the hotel recently employed. He just had to stick it somewhere. Nobbs does her best to contain a growingly unstable situation and has some profound moments of relief and connection with a local dyke artist (the Oscar-nominated Janet McTeer) who has successfully, and remarkably, also contained her gender behind a public mask of maleness. I was, however, jesting about that whole transvestite/sexual thrill thing. It’s not true. So far as I know. Nobbs’ reasons for dressing like a man are purely pragmatic. Well, they were when she started doing it fifty years hence…

This is going to be a tricky one to criticize, as Close produced, starred, co-wrote and even created the film’s original song. I’ll just rip the band-aid off and say it’s a numbingly dull film with uneven and downright weak performances from many players, and contains an almost total lack of anything “cinematic” – perhaps a lateral move from Garcia’s previous film, Mother and Child. Albert Nobbs was adapted from a novella by Irish author George Moore, but I take issue: included are many scenes in which Nobbs’ desires are expressed through an external interior monologue or through unnecessary dream sequences which would only be the envy of first year film students. And as clearly excellent as Close’s performance is, I find myself baffled when I think of a focus group answering the question, “Would you like to see Glenn Close play an elderly male servant in a hotel in 1800′s Dublin?” I wonder if all actors nurse a dream of playing a servant?; the ultimate role of restraint and internalization. Nobbs is a role Close first played in a 1982 stage production, in 2000 a potential film production crumbled… so I have the impression that this had been a long desired back-burner project for Close which had achieved a “now or never” status. She does excellent work and wanted the world to see it one way or another, or so I presume. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.

written by David Ashley

STARRING Leila Hatami, Peyman Moaadi, Shahab Hosseini, Sareh Bayat, Sarina Farhadi
WRITTEN BY Asghar Farhadi
PRODUCED BY Asghar Farhadi
DIRECTED BY Asghar Farhadi

SHOT BY Mahmood Kalari
EDITED BY Hayedeh Safiyari
MUSIC BY Sattar Oraki
DISTRIBUTED BY Memento Films

Screened 2011-12-02

In the wake of the Green Revolution, Simin has had enough: it is time to leave Iran. She is denied a divorce from her husband, who seems willing to talk but refuses to leave his ailing live-in father, and is reluctant to take their daughter Termeh, who keeps her nose to the academic grindstone while avoiding the large questions floating between adults above her. Simin moves out and Nader must hold his family together during this period of indefinite uncertainty. Nader’s immediate necessity is securing a caregiver for his father, which appears to be awfully difficult in Tehran, and as soon as he finally does this an arbitrary misunderstanding leaves him throwing the lower class housekeeper out, accused of theft. And the rest of the film is spent handling this unfortunate encounter and its repercussions, which widen and gain momentum like ripples that become waves: Nader’s bureaucratic pissing match with the housekeeper’s histrionic husband, the pitiful tale of the desperate and foolish housekeeper herself, the existing marital tensions now brought to a boil between Nader and Simin, the precipitous physical condition of Nader’s father, the welfare of the daughter, public shame, and baffling legal distraction. Can Nader hold it together? Not really. In the end we remember that everybody is trying their hardest, we cannot turn on one another, but the system we’ve constructed often does not serve the interests of the individual. Alas Nader, alas Simin. Then there’s the housekeeper and her husband, representing the desperate Iranian lower class, who cannot help but hurt others when a single lapse one’s in self-preservation can lead to ruin. What’s alarming is the ease at which Nader’s seemingly stable middle class life is compromised by brief contact with Iran’s lower class.

What can I say about this film? I can say that every critic in the world seems to like it more than I did (though I liked it just fine), leaving me with a counter-reaction. The film did not emotionally affect me in a pronounced way – is this because of a ‘lost in translation’ disconnect? A lack of contextual knowledge? Or because the film itself left me wanting? (I do believe it’s the third option) Some research provided me with context and then my appreciation grew, though I will not forget the viewing experience; Farhadi simply left me wanting, enhanced by the topical nature of the story. This makes it sound as if I’m being specifically critical of Farhadi – whose career I do not know, though I did groan at missing 2009′s About Elly when I had the chance. I took from the story: “In Iran right now, people need one another more than ever, and are being driven apart.” Any messages about frustrating civic bureaucracy are relevant, sure, but film of the year? Story exceeds craft here and the story is heavily topical, so the more you are connected to Iran, the better. Perhaps I can say that the realism in Farhadi’s film doesn’t feel as visceral as such seen in the Romanian New Wave, the Dardenne brothers, Andrea Arnold, etc. The visual schema isn’t exactly riveting. The screenplay is functional. And much of the performance involves argument and one person shouting over another. So, really, I can only assume the praise exists because the film’s message is just that important. Perhaps it is.

Oh, and, um… A Separation is the first Iranian film to win the Golden Bear at the 61st Berlin International Film Festival. Now don’t my comments seem silly?

written by David Ashley

Currently watching: Hell and Back Again
The Oscar investigations continue.
Pain…
…and the Power of God.

01-26
Currently watching: Bridesmaids
Two Oscar nominations right here. This is going to hurt.
Well, a Milwaukee film… from the perspective of a person who has driven down Milwaukee’s main freeway. How penetrating. Every opening credits location can basically be seen by standing on top of the Iron Horse hotel. Opening with a song you’d be ashamed to hear in a Starbucks, we have two utterly vacuous girls speaking candidly about weeners and yahoos. This frankness is what we’re looking for. Again… penetrating!

Currently watching: Jane Eyre
Swoon. And that’s not a bad shot, either.

01-25
Currently watching: Warrior
The word smoldering comes to mind.

The performances make it very watchable – until the story’s glaring contrivances merge.

Seeking: Producer
Project: Feature-length narrative film
Subject: Detective story, absurdist
Myself: Male, 30, writer/director
B.A. Film Production (Emerson College, Boston)
Film critic (killerstencil.com)
To be shot: Summer 2012, primarily in Milwaukee
To raise: 5-10k

The film’s plot:
Main character, late 20′s, grew up in Milwaukee and left at the first opportunity. Has never returned. He has been in sporadic correspondence with an old WI acquaintance and has ostensibly fallen for her. Film begins after he receives ‘last letter’ from her, stating she’ll ‘disappear forever’ after the coming weekend. Convinced this is his only chance, he uses his employer as an excuse for an impromptu biz-related trip to Milwaukee. Early Friday he arrives and soon learns his acquaintance is thought to have been dead for the past year. His mission is set: track her down, if she is still alive. His investigation takes him into Milwaukee’s fanciful criminal annals, including wresting with a sinister and coercive pornographer for information about this elusive woman.

A few keywords:

• Noir
• Milwaukee
• Procedural
• Emotional distance
• Psychological coercion

Influential films:

• The Long Goodbye
• Mulholland Dr.
• Frantic
• Croupier
• The Last Seduction

Sprawl notes:

• I want the final product to be as enjoyable as possible, and the script is often – hopefully – absurdly comedic. And is certainly filled with my own brand of dryness and eccentricity.
• Script is dense and writerly. I’ll send you a copy if you’re interested.
• I have experience, though this would be my first feature film. But it’s my life and it has to happen. No alternative.

So, there you have it.  Let’s make some dreams come true.

Please call or email
857 222 3940
DaveAstor7@yahoo.com

Script segments are available here.  Please view them if interested.

As one ages and learns more about Hollywood, it becomes evident that artistic expression takes a second place to technical achievement. This makes much sense, knowing how many technicians Hollywood employs, and this is the awards ceremony dedicated to, let’s say, “blue collar art.”

All listings below are ranked in the order in which I think awards should be given. Separations between entries denote films I have not yet seen.

Best Picture
The Tree of Life
Midnight in Paris
The Descendants
Moneyball
The Help
The Artist

War Horse
Hugo
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Best Actress
Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis, The Help

Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

Best Actor
Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Brad Pitt, Moneyball
George Clooney, The Descendants
Demian Bichir, A Better Life

Supporting Actress
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids

Supporting Actor
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Jonah Hill, Moneyball

Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Best Director
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Michel Hazanivicus, The Artist

Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Best Original Screenplay
J.C. Chandor, Margin Call
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Asghar Farhadi, A Separation
Michel Hazanivicius, The Artist
Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumulo, Bridesmaids

Best Adapted Screenplay
Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin and Stan Chervin, Moneyball
George Clooney, Beau Willimon and Grant Heslov, The Ides of March
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, The Descendants

John Logan, Hugo

Best Foreign Feature
A Separation

Bullhead
Footnote
In Darkness
Monsieur Lazhar

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris
Chico & Rita
Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

Art Direction
Midnight in Paris
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
The Artist

Hugo
War Horse

Cinematography
The Tree of Life
The Artist

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse

Costume Design
Jane Eyre
The Artist

Hugo
W.E.
Anonymous

Documentary Feature
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Hell and Back Again

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Pina
Undefeated

Documentary Short Subject

The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement
God Is the Bigger Elvis
Incident in New Baghdad
Saving Face
The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Film Editing
Christopher Tellefsen, Moneyball
Kevin Tent, The Descendants
Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Thelma Schoonmaker, Hugo

Makeup
Edouard F. Henriques, Gregory Funk and Yolanda Toussieng, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston and Matthew W. Mungle, Albert Nobbs

Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland, The Iron Lady

Music (Original Score)
Alberto Iglesias, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Ludovic Bource, The Artist

John Williams, The Adventures of Tintin
Howard Shore, Hugo
John Williams, War Horse

Music (Original Song)

"Man or Muppet" from The Muppets, Bret McKenzie
"Real in Rio" from Rio, Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown and Siedah Garrett

Sound Editing
Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon
Drive

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse

Sound Mixing
Monyeball
Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse

Visual Effects
Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Hugo
Real Steel

Short Film (Animated)

Dimanche/Sunday
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
La Luna
A Morning Stroll
Wild Life

Short Film (Live Action)

Pentecost
Raju
The Shore
Time Freak
Tuba Atlantic

STARRING Christian Bale, Ni Ni, Zhang Xinyi, Huang Tianyuan, Han Xiting, Zhang Doudou, Tong Dawai, Cao Kefan, Atsuro Watabe,Yangyang Chunzi, Sun Jai, Li Yuemin, Bai Xue, Shigeo Kobayashi, Takashi Yamanaka, Paul Schneider
WRITTEN BY Liu Heng, based Geling Yan’s novel “13 Flowers of Nanjng”
PRODUCED BY Zhang Weiping, Chaoying Deng, David Linde, Bill Kong
DIRECTED BY Zhang Yimou

SHOT BY Zhao Xiaoding
EDITED BY Meng Peicong
MUSIC BY Chan Quigang
DISTRIBUTED BY Row 1 Entertainment, Wrekin Hill Entertainment

Screened 2012-01-12

So here’s our story: during the Rape of Nanking in 1937, a hedonistic American mortician named John Miller (Bale) winds up taking refuge in a Christian church, where he was pillaging for loot. This church contains a group of about a dozen adorable convent girls around the age of 12, which is a big coincidence considering that Miller became a mortician because his 12-year-old daughter’s dying wish was to “make her look pretty.” Miller ends up acting as a surrogate caretaker to the girls as they remain in the church, one of the only safe places of hiding in Nanking, and he does so while donning the vestments of the chapel’s former occupants. Another incredible coincidence occurs when about a dozen wandering prostitues barge in to hide, and have almost no presence in the film until the conclusion, when Miller applies his curiously applicable skills to disguise the prostitutes to pass off as the convent girls – and this is because the prostitues will be going off to their respective deaths in place of the children. So really, Miller is just doing what he does best. A further coincidence involves a Chinese quisling who works under enemy General Hasegawa (who coincidentally loves the sound of childrens’ choirs) whose daughter is among the convent girls, and who just happens to be the only person who can deliver to Miller all the tools necessary to assist the girls in escaping Nanking (writ of transit and the tools necessary to repair a broken down truck which happens to be on the church property). The quisling only wants his daughter’s safe passage, and in his final moments he does just happen to glean enough information to put his mind at peace (before it is forcibly ejected through the back of his skull). A further coincidence involves the Alpha Hooker having formerly been a convent girl herself (where she learned enough English to be able to converse with Miller) until the age of 12, and having formerly been in love with an American. Besides the fact that many characters die brutal deaths, everybody really ends up getting what he’s looking for. The crowning coincidence is the casting of Christian Bale whose acting career was inaugurated on the soil of China as a 12-year-old boy in Spielberg’s fine Empire of the Sun. It was Spielberg who suggested Bale’s casting in The Flowers of War. And actually, believe it or not, I am leaving out many other more minor coincidences that occur between the characters, all of which create a narrative which neatly fits together and leaves no loose ends of any kind.

According to IMDB this film was shot in primarily 18 hour days, of which there were 164. And here I thought the film was already beyond belief. The production does strive for an epic scope and there are a few extensive war scenes and sets and special effects… but 164 days is astonishing, especially considering how much of the film is spent in one primary location. Given the myriad saccharine story elements, the breadth of the production, and the seemingly totally unnecessary presence of a major American film star, The Flowers of War feels like “an epic for the general reader.” Allegedly this story was based off of true events and I can only speculate as to the dramatic licenses taken by Geling Yan in his book, “The 13 Flowers of Nanjing.” I presume they are legion. Let us never forget the inhumanity of the Rape of Nanking, but to circuitously wring the tears out of your audience like this – as if the massacre wasn’t tragic enough – is to all but pass over the event itself as an historical footnote.

written by David Ashley

STARRING Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly
WRITTEN BY Roman Polanski and Yasmina Reza, adapted from Reza’s play “God of Carnage”
PRODUCED BY Saïd Ben Saïd, Oliver Berben, Martin Moszkowicz
DIRECTED BY Roman Polanski

SHOT BY Paweł Edelman
EDITED BY Hervé de Luze
MUSIC BY Alexandre Desplat
DISTRIBUTED BY Sony Pictures Classics, StudioCanal UK

Screened 2011-12-02

Polanski adapted Reza’s play in Paris despite its Brooklyn setting. We all know why. I will admit that while liking Polanski’s films, I have never weighed them against his crimes; I like his films too much to want to spoil them. That said, his adaptation of “God of Carnage” is a lesson to us all in blocking and photography which utilize actors to tell a story… without being distracted by more frivolous cinethings. The story is simple enough: A playground scrape between young Masters Cowan and Longstreet results in lost teeth and a quiet desire for justice. Aged Lords and Mistresses of each clan meet at the wounded boy’s home to… what, exactly? Apologize, reconcile, guilt-trip? After a few cursory efforts at lip service it becomes clear that none of these is easily achieved, at least not among these eccentrics, and bickering, tantrums and misogyny consume the party as it degenerates from compassion to blind self-interest. It’s a comedy.

What at first appears to be a catastrophe of manners is also a desperate, impotent defense of them made by Penelope against the blithely opportunistic Alan. Alan’s rather chummy relationship with violence nauseates his hopeless wife Nancy and baffles the simpleminded Michael. Alan is the passive moral challenger in this incident. The casual indifference Alan exudes and the way he argues by falling back on flat facts… against Penelope’s emotionally-charged, wounded defense of civilization… their dynamic reminds me of the one I see when I watch debates between atheists such as Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris versus ranking religious experts. The religious debaters always visibly struggle to remain cool while the atheists are posterboys for calm.

I don’t particularly like Reza’s play [semicolon #2] I read it in the week preceding my screening. It goes nowhere. It doesn’t even end, they get drunk and things peter out. Nothing is accomplished, no one is the wiser, and it isn’t funny enough. And maybe this is just me, but I don’t find much funny about this story at all – lacerations, affectations, tantrums, and a meager hour together. (Jesus, how many pieces of theater devolve into tantrums?) The repeated line “This is the unhappiest day of my life” is meant to elicit laughter… because I guess we’re supposed to be shocked by the extent to which the characters have been “reduced” to animals or children over a mere hour – hardly true. In fact, not true. Carnage is still better than a lot of films this year because Polanski is masterful and the casting is perfect. Every actor excels and is as enjoyable as the material makes capable. So this pundit recommends reading the play before seeing the film. I’ll email you a digital copy just like one was shared with me. Consider this a test to my undoubtedly devoted readership.

written by David Ashley

STARRING Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, Michel Nyqvist, Vladimir Mashkov, Josh Holloway, Anil Kapoor, Lea Seydoux
WRITTEN BY Josh Appelbaum, Andre Neméc, based on the television series created by Bruce Geller
PRODUCED BY Tom Cruise, J. J. Abrams, Bryan Burk
DIRECTED BY Brad Bird

SHOT BY Robert Elswit
EDITED BY Paul Hirsch
MUSIC BY Michael Giacchino
DISTRIBUTED BY Paramount Pictures

Screened 2011-12-13

Now who would’ve foreseen that this film would be more than a wildly expensive pile of feces? Brad Bird directed, for some reason, but thank heaven. You may recall Bird from animated films The Iron Giant and The Incredibles, and damned if he wasn’t able to inject his notorious and popular specialties into this action franchise: humanity and FUN, which I don’t know if this franchise has ever had – fun, that is, that isn’t simply the equivalent of admiring one’s own body in a mirror. A breakneck pace of smug cliché and blasé superhuman combat has been supplemented with characters we’d not only like to look at, but would like to spend time with; characters who show fondness for one another and who express understandable bafflement and shock when faced with the “impossible” missions they take on – instead of writing off all danger with ironic asides such as “Well, this will be fun.” Well – I will say that Mr. Hunt does take an obscene amount of physical damage and only seems to feel the burden of these wounds in the final moments before the finale – who would’ve suspected?

We start off with warm action film memories: the Russians and nuclear weapons. Special Agent Tom Cruise (played by anyman Ethan Hunt) finds himself at the center of a plot designed to frame his IMF agency (please don’t forget this G.I.-Joe-like moniker stands for “Impossible Missions Force”) for an attack on the Krelim, which looks just awesome. Using whatever IMF team he can slap together from the nearest agents (don’t worry, they’re all the best), the disavowed rōnin sets out to stop the new digital Professor Moriarty, a brilliant Endgame-obsessed Russian bent on starting nuclear war for the cleansing of the human race. This is all fine – though for a man so dogmatic, I would’ve liked to see more cult-like lunacy and less allegiance to Brooks Brothers. Cruise/Hunt’s crew consists of Simon Pegg, replacing the big, not-that-funny hacker with a wiry, witty British one, which seems like a no-brainer; yet another example of exotic perfection, Paula Patton, who does fine work that excels the limitations of her figure; and the very welcome Jeremy Renner, an IMF analyst out of water. Renner does really excellent work, is maybe the film’s most watchable element, and clearly belongs at the tier to which he’s ascended. The team’s quest for Carmen Sandiego this time sweeps them away to Moscow, Dubai and Mumbai – Moscow because Russians can be scary, Dubai because it is home to the world’s tallest building and a venue for a cool plot device, and Mumbai because… because I guess it was next in the action-film-locale rotation and because audiences need reminders of a) the allure of Indian woman and fashion, b) the presence of film in India, c) the presence of extraordinary wealth in India. Or maybe just that India exists. The team bounces about between expensive setpieces and utilizes its characteristic super duper ooper hi-tech espionage gear – which includes a surprising amount of iPhones and iPads (1996′s M:I film did highlight Apple computers, if the sensitive viewer recalls).

Those who cannot hear “Tom Cruise” without beginning his/her next sentence with “omg” may want to steer clear, but those of us with a more nuanced understanding of celebrity will have no problem lining up for a enjoyable popcorn film that never suffers from that insufferable sense of self-satisfaction which plagues all action films, many American films, and each of Jason Reitman’s maladapted cosmo brood. Oh, and that “scaling the building” stuff you’ve seen in the media? Yes, it’s that cool. See it on the big screen while you have the chance, because this won’t be half as much fun on your television. Yes. Lea Seydoux is the most alluring assassin who’s ever lived, and the Dubai shit is just great. After the film’s momentum-generating first half, however, things do slide. Still worthwhile, but alas, if only.

written by David Ashley

12-31
Currently watching: Martha Marcy May Marlene
I’m having a strong reaction to this film which is somewhat good. I distrust it. Working it out. But on many levels this is a special film, a rare film – it’s like exposing a scab for one’s pleasure. Self-negating fun. In the script I’m currently tooling there are more than a few similarities which are making me pissed – people will think I ripped this fucking thing off. Oh well. It makes me feel better, however, to note that in my script a (I daresay) Nabokovian ironic distance is observed from all character action, and the cultish, brainwashing, sexual slavery aspect is merely tainted dressing – I want it to be a FUN film, after all. But I won’t go on spoiling the surprise, which I am sure is eagerly awaited by my dedicated readership.

It’s easy to allow oneself to be taken in by the idea that “M” was not quite ‘weird’ to begin with – but what kind of person truly does allow her individuality to be pulverized? When you meet people like this is real life, it’s immediately evident that functionality is a cloak they wear and that they’re as cooky and disassociated as blazes. To sympathize with “M” makes this film kind of like a good version of Black Swan. Still terrifying, but I resent it slightly less. The conceit of both films – milked for sensation by Aronofsky – is that when one encounters madness that’s this far gone, what reaction is there but to gawk in horror? And entertainment. Doing it for entertainment’s sake is what I can’t do and why Aronofsky’s conceit is misguided (for this viewer). Mr. Durkin, however, is not simply entertaining but is taking a hard genuine look, and utilizing bias and sympathy and plenty of re-evaluating of our modern lifestyles. I guess it took a kook to get us there.

Also, does anybody notice how we largely are meant to sympathize with the cultists up until the murder? NOW it’s gone too far. Before? Not too far. That part was fine.

Curiously, last night I realized I was dying to make a Patty Hearst joke and inside my film – and now in MMMM – is the perfect opportunity…

11-30
A few more thoughts on Peter Jackson
Watching Charlie Rose’s interview with Jackson after the films were made – and just learned that Jackson originally wanted to do special effects. That’s it. That literally explains everything. It’s very revealing about the genre of fantasy that the most successful fantasy films are ones which make considerable use of props, elaborate sets, obviously extensive utilization of all kinds of special effects – and again, cements Jackson as the best person for the job. I’m starting to think his LOTR films are more about New Zealand than anything else. Note how much time is spent lingering over locations – and with Jackson that means models and such, which he loves (as do I). New Zealand certainly looks like it’s the perfect place to stage Middle Earth and whether or not that is true, I think the public at large benefitted from good hard look into the beautiful land – again, Jackson was the man for the job. The films are Jackson’s loving tribute to Jackson’s home and his people, never more readily apparent than in his treatment of the Shire.

I’ve actually re-watched the extended edition of Fellowship more than once in the past few days, and I affirm that it is a tremendously satisfying film – the other two don’t come close. I recall seeing that in the theater, and somehow I went in knowing nothing at all about LOTR and hardly being interested. I also didn’t see a trailer. Totally blind. That was maybe the last major studio production I’ve seen that really, really excited and pleased me…

Also have been playing the playstation 2 LOTR video games incessantly (they’re really awesome) and listening to the complete, four-disc-apiece soundtracks. Howard Shore isn’t exactly slighted but he doesn’t get enough credit – his score makes those fucking films.

2011-11-28
Currently watching: Downtown 81
Basquiat being silly. Boy, this one I’m not sure about. Remaining open-minded. Five minutes and I already know I’ll feel differently about the film when it’s over. Well, it better be good – I interrupted the original Red Shoe Diaries for this! Thought it would be a fitting companion piece to Ciao! Manhattan.
Definitely a film made by people who love drugs. I like the blatant post-dubbing.
Ha! Holy shit. He’s smoking a Nat Sherman Black & Gold, the tailcoat and top hat of cigarettes.

A few thoughts on Peter Jackson
Days later and here’s what I have to report. I daresay that Peter Jackson is the sort man who should be making movies – insofar as he is ambitious, dynamic, unstoppable, and now gets exactly what he wants from the product. Retraction, sans ‘should’: let’s just say that Jackson thrives in a movie-making business. I did King Kong, which goes to show how bankrupt and useless (not to mention effing ponderous) a Jackson film can be without the proper writing behind it. But then I did Heavenly Creatures (for the first time since its release) and while I’m not as enthusiastic as many critics – it’s hard to be that enthusiastic about anything Jackson does – I will say that my critical faculties were overwhelmed by the sheer charm of the actresses, the never-ebbing pace and general monument to love, acceptance and imagination that the film represents.

I’ve been watching a great many films on Netflix and have not had the opportunity to capture screenshots for this silly blog of mine. This is a problem. The blog comes first, fear not, my non-existant base.

2011-11-24
Re-watching: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
You know what’s great about living in Minas Tirith? You can’t look out your front door without seeing and thinking “FOE!” I’d also like to box the ears of the architect who designed a city which goes out of its way to shield itself from sunlight…

11-23
Re-watching: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
And just sort of marveling at Jackson’s ingenuity. My criticisms aside, the breadth of the filmmaking endeavor is staggering, and he got exactly what he wanted out of it.

11-22
Currently watching: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
It’s remarkable how little I care about these films.

11-20
Re-watching: The Tree of Life
OK, let’s try this one more time. First things I’ll note are – - Chicago! Sean Penn’s character works in Chicago. Here you can see the easternmost part of downtown…

And the building with the little temple on the top that filmmakers all seem to love to capture…

And to clinch it, the unmistakable route down LSD pointing right at the Drake Hotel.

And…

2011-11-11
Re-watching: This Is Spinal Tap
To celebrate 11-11-11.

Re-watching: M. Butterfly
OK, just tackled A Dangerous Method and tonight we’re going to be revisiting Mr. Cronenberg – just to facilitate my Dangerous Method review, not because I feel I have anything left to learn from Cronenberg. Let’s start with his most maligned professional work.

One thing I’ve learned about Jeremy Irons is that if you want naked male vulnerability and longing, he’s your man. The autopilot marriage.The precious love fantasy.

Re-watching: Chinatown
In HD for the first time. The production design, the costumes, obviously the casting, the score, the writing, the editing. Everything about it is stellar. Is this the best film made by Paramount? By Hollywood? Los Angeles, 1937. Tasty. Flawed.
Nosing into water.Mr. Morality.You can’t quite tell in this still frame, but while watching the film these two are lit in totally different ways and it looks a bit surreal.

Ranked:
We Need to Talk About Kevin
Tuesday, After Christmas
The Sleeping Beauty
On Tour
Mysteries of Lisbon
Outrage
Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life
The White Meadows
Don’t Go Breaking My Heart
The Dish and the Spoon

Don’t Go Breaking My Heart
Caught Johnnie To’s Vengeance at last year’s MFF and was happily surprised, so I was very excited about Don’t Go Breaking My Heart, a potentially auteur-ish romcom, of all things. But no, no, no no. I wonder if a romcom is defined by its emphasis on quirk and the dumb horny scramblings of its characters, the main love interests of which are inevitably undergoing a crisis/transition and are attempting to fill their respective voids with warm [or hot] bodies. It’s the formula, for sure. And the animal, the pet a lonely person gets, with which he cutely converses and speaks to about the sought one… It’s odd, in 2011, to see cosmopolitan urban adults so obsessed with marriage like in an old Cary Grant film.

The Sleeping Beauty
Critical faculties notwithstanding, sometimes I just like watching Breillat work. I have almost nothing to say here – this film is clearly a fanciful reconstruction of a fairy tale to which I only ever knew the barest parts. Breillat is meticulous and highly theatrical, gets exceptional performances from her actors in highly abstracted roles. The film, so far as I can tell, is about the maturation into womanhood experienced as a kind of fever dream. Great!

written by David Ashley