Okay, so I can't help but think the 2011 Oscars will provide as many surprises as did the Academy in 2010 (with The Hurt Locker and its sweep of 6 awards, including the first Directing Award for a woman, Kathryn Bigelow), or in 2009 (with Slumdog Millionaire bagging 8 Awards including Best Picture and Best Director).
Having said that, I don't think there will any surprises among the top three awards. I’m going out on a limb and saying that The Social Network should take home the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay.
Why? Well, first of all, David Fincher is the wizard behind the curtain of this socially relevant film. And he's been up for the directing Oscar before (for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button in 2008). But, now, he has the right product to go along with the pop cultural moment. 'Social networking' is all the rage over the last couple of years. And his movie is caught up in that Zeitgeist. Even the media can't get enough of the topic, writing incessantly about the contributions and negative ramifications of this new form of communication, from how it is harming our children's ability to spell, to the ways it has revolutionized dating in the new millennium. The Social Network is riding the wave of this social phenomenon, which should pay off for David Fincher when he wins a directing Oscar on Sunday night.
The producers, Fincher and the Hollywood 'kingmaker' Scott Rudin, also made some really first-rate marketing decisions which could bear fruit in their movie’s bid for Best Picture. Rudin is the man behind the surprise Best Picture Oscar Winner No Country for Old Men in 2008, as well as not one, but two of this year's Best Picture contenders: True Grit in addition to The Social Network. This team of producers cleverly released The Social Network on DVD on January 11, 2011, giving Oscar voters ample opportunity to screen it before they cast their votes beginning on February 3, 2011. This 'Hail Mary' move also garnered spectators an extra six weeks to make it part of their water cooler conversations, if they had ignored it at the box office. Those forty-eight days really has made all the difference. By now, The Social Network is on the tip of everyone's tongue. Even Mark Zuckeberg eventually came around, agreeing to meet Jesse Eisenberg on Saturday Night Live, which aired on January 29, 2011. This classy move by the social media mogul essentially christened the movie based on his image and made us fall in love with the “fictional” account of his unparalleled rise to fame all the more. So, I venture a guess that, going in to Sunday’s telecast, The Social Network is the movie to beat for Best Picture.
Aaron Sorkin, the Emmy-winning screenwriter of A Few Good Men (1992), The American President (1995), and now The Social Network, has waited a long time for his Oscar due. Now sober--and still brilliant, Mr. Sorkin will most likely be able to call himself "Oscar winner," as well, come Sunday night.
Unfortunately, I don't see any surprises in store for the best actor or actress nominees. It seems Colin Firth and Natalie Portman's statues to lose. That said, the surprises may come in the supporting acting categories, for I fully expect Christian Bale and Melissa Leo to take home the Supporting Actor and Actress Awards, respectively, for their equally brilliant turns in the much overlooked Irish biopic The Fighter.
After Leo put herself forward in a rather provocative way, by taking out full-page ads (donned in a low-cut LBD and a faux fur) asking Oscar voters to "consider" her, she had to go back on the publicity circuit to defend her actions. One Oscar voter told The Hollywood Reporter, "She lost my vote." Although some (including that person, I'm sure) would call Leo's tactic a cheap ploy, as a critical cultural media scholar I would rather describe her behavior as a perfectly situated twenty-first century marketing strategy; and, moreover, one that sets her apart from her contemporaries. So, I venture that this incredibly gifted actress from Frozen Winter and HBO's Treme (who, by the way, has already taken home this year's SAG and Golden Globe Awards in the same category) will bag the Oscar on Sunday night, as well.
There may be a surprise in store with the Foreign Language Film Nominees, but I suspect the category is all sewn up with Mexico's Biutiful. Too bad for the talented Javier Bardem that he's up against heavy-hitter Christian Bale, or he might be taking home an Oscar along with his film.
In terms of technical awards, I also don't think anyone would be surprised if the Oscar for Best Cinematography went to the remarkably talented DP Matthew Libatique for his exquisite visual portrayals in The Black Swan. Many of the Cinematography and DP trade mags have been pronouncing him the unofficial winner since the Oscars were announced on January 25, 2011.
Finally, a lot of people are talking about 127 Hours. Unfortunately for the Director of Slumdog Millionaire, I have a feeling this talented Brit won't have the same luck he had two years ago. Lightening doesn't usually strike twice, right? And, more to the point, this year's Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay nominees are chock full of talent. I do, however, think that 127 Hours will pull out a win for its striking and innovative Film Editing.
Check back on Monday, March 21, 2011, when (with egg on my face) I comment on the actual 83rd Annual Oscar winners. Until then, happy Oscar viewing. And, remember that you still have 48 hours to catch any Oscar nominated films still in theatres or already out on DVD.
Ashley Elaine York
Int’l Film/TV Correspondent and Corus Entertainment PhD Fellow in Television Studies at the University of Alberta, Ashley Elaine York. Contact her at: TalkFilmandTVwithAshleyYork@gmail.com. All photophraphs and words are the creation of Miss York. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED c. 2010.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
IT'S FUNNY AND IT'S NOT: GOOD CAST IN MAD LOVE HITS HOPEFUL NOTE FOR CBS; STILL OUTSHINED BY PERRY AND JANEY IN MR. SUNSHINE
TELEVISION REVIEW: MAD LOVE's MIDSEASON LAUNCH ON CBS
"Do you believe in Fairie Tales?" Well, the narrator doesn't. Or, so he says in the second line of the series premiere. Nevertheless, Larry Munsch (Tyler Labine of SONS OF TUCSON) proceeds forward with caution; and, lo and behold, by the end of the half-hour pilot, he and his geeky friend, Ben Parr (Jason Biggs of AMERICAN PIE), have both landed girlfriends.
What makes this premise especially funny is that only Ben realizes he's commenced a new relationship with one Kate Swanson (HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER and SCRUBS' Sarah Chalke), who just happens to be the best friend of Connie Grabowski (Judy Greer of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT), who is putting up with Ben and his uncouth mate Larry only to be a faithful wingman for her gal pal. Of course, Larry is doing precisely that for his mate Ben. Thus, as well as in the case of the 1934 classic IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, this stock set-up works brilliantly to turn Larry and Connie's love-hate comedic escapades into what will surely become a beautiful relationship. Let's just hope it takes these characters a long time to get to that blissful stage of romantic love. Since, Larry and Connie's caustic behavior and verbal spitting match is the funniest thing about Mad Love's pilot. And, also, such a built-in sitcom setup replete with comedic promise pairs well with its similarly skewed CBS lead-in, HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER.
That said, unfortunately CBS's new romantic comedy has as many misses as hits in its series premiere. On the plus side, viewers couldn't ask for a funnier ensemble cast than Biggs, Chalke, Labine, and Greer. The latter, alone, has guest starred in dozens of scene-steeling roles in shows that include: HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER and THE BIG BANG THEORY, as well as MODERN FAMILY, HOUSE, and CALIFORNICATION. Also, MAD LOVE brings the Judd Apatow-style underdog movie to television. Indeed, Mad Love's Larry channels the lovable loser Peter Bretter in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, or, for that matter, Sydney Fife in I LOVE YOU, MAN (Jason Segel plays the nearly identical characters). This newish, pop cultural icon: a husky, disheveled, beer-guzzling, rude but loyal 'guy's guy,' who musters far more confidence than you imagine he ever could, speaks literally and figuratively to the "everyman" in the show's viewership. The mere idea of it has been striking a chord in the American psyche since the 40 Year Old Virgin caught box office fever with its (to date) 109 million dollar grosses in 2005. If a lovable loser like Larry can get the girl, than any guy can; and, since he is...getting the girl...than "every" man can, right? It's a schadenfreude moment. For better or worse. Since its far funnier than it is true.
Mad Love's season premiere also has its fair share of laugh-out-loud moments. Its creator/showrunner Matt Tarses honed his writing and producing skills on critical favorites SCRUBS and SPORTS NIGHT. As in the case of these two shows, he makes comedic use of rapidfire, often intertexual, dialog to strike a chord with his pop culturally literate audience. For example, Ben and Kate meet in the serendipitous moment after she finds his lost red cellphone, and then overhears what he is in search of. Handing it over, she says: "When you push send, does it go right to Commissioner Gordon's Office?" Taken aback, he retorts, "I'm sorry, I'm not nerdy enough to get that. But, how cool would it be if I did?'' Thus is the start of their textual love affair, and ours with the tuned-in writing staff that thinks to include a Batman reference that makes us feel not only 'in the know,' but culturally literate, too. This quality aspect of serial design, no doubt, also plays up to MAD LOVE and its lead-in's more-educated viewership.
Unfortunately, the show also misses the mark, at times, in its ironically titled "Fireworks" pilot. Not only are the bits poorly strung together, but--as is often the case with sitcom pilots--MAD LOVE's characters and dialogue come off as self-conscious and stagy at times, quite in contrast to its smoothly executed lead-in HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the jokes have been done (and done better) in 'bromance' genre films, such as Apatow's FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL and THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN, as well as his critically acclaimed (but short-lived) NBC dramedy FREAKS AND GEEKS. Tarses has properly learnt his craft and the bible of this new genre--that's evident from the pilot alone. His teleplay includes the requite jokes: one on masturbation, a couple on the duties of a good wingman, and just enough burp and fart jokes to make the nerdy characters cooler, their fairer prey put off, and us laugh. But, the question remains, Is that enough?
With ABC using the star-power of its hit lead-in MODERN FAMILY to launch MR. SUNSHINE, a phenomenally funny, sharply scripted, and expertly cast midseason sitcom starting Matthew Perry and Allison Janey, MAD LOVE may not fare as well as CBS expects. Garnering a 3.0 adult 18-49 rating and an 8 share with its pilot, down from 3.7 and 11, respectively, for HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER, and 10% lower than RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (which LOVE replaced), CBS's goal of shoring up their Monday night comedy lineup may have failed, at least out of the gate. Although MAD LOVE's cast includes some seasoned television veterans, Perry and Janey are spot-on throughout the first two episodes of MR. SUNSHINE; and, moreover, serve as ABC's answer to 30 ROCK's Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy (played by Emmy-winning actors and Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin). Also, MR. SUNSHINE is bolstered by the street cred of executive producer Thomas Schlamme (SPORTS NIGHT, THE WEST WING, STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP). And, finally, unlike MAD LOVE, MR. SUNSHINE offers an always popular premise--that of the often complex workplace environment, replete with workaday mishaps and love's foibles that make office-centric dramedies from Mad Men to The Mary Tyler Moore Show impossible to miss.
We'll have to wait a few episodes to see is Mad Love can live up to all of that.
Watch MAD LOVE tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST on CBS.
Vist MAD LOVE's Official Website
"Do you believe in Fairie Tales?" Well, the narrator doesn't. Or, so he says in the second line of the series premiere. Nevertheless, Larry Munsch (Tyler Labine of SONS OF TUCSON) proceeds forward with caution; and, lo and behold, by the end of the half-hour pilot, he and his geeky friend, Ben Parr (Jason Biggs of AMERICAN PIE), have both landed girlfriends.
What makes this premise especially funny is that only Ben realizes he's commenced a new relationship with one Kate Swanson (HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER and SCRUBS' Sarah Chalke), who just happens to be the best friend of Connie Grabowski (Judy Greer of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT), who is putting up with Ben and his uncouth mate Larry only to be a faithful wingman for her gal pal. Of course, Larry is doing precisely that for his mate Ben. Thus, as well as in the case of the 1934 classic IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, this stock set-up works brilliantly to turn Larry and Connie's love-hate comedic escapades into what will surely become a beautiful relationship. Let's just hope it takes these characters a long time to get to that blissful stage of romantic love. Since, Larry and Connie's caustic behavior and verbal spitting match is the funniest thing about Mad Love's pilot. And, also, such a built-in sitcom setup replete with comedic promise pairs well with its similarly skewed CBS lead-in, HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER.
That said, unfortunately CBS's new romantic comedy has as many misses as hits in its series premiere. On the plus side, viewers couldn't ask for a funnier ensemble cast than Biggs, Chalke, Labine, and Greer. The latter, alone, has guest starred in dozens of scene-steeling roles in shows that include: HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER and THE BIG BANG THEORY, as well as MODERN FAMILY, HOUSE, and CALIFORNICATION. Also, MAD LOVE brings the Judd Apatow-style underdog movie to television. Indeed, Mad Love's Larry channels the lovable loser Peter Bretter in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, or, for that matter, Sydney Fife in I LOVE YOU, MAN (Jason Segel plays the nearly identical characters). This newish, pop cultural icon: a husky, disheveled, beer-guzzling, rude but loyal 'guy's guy,' who musters far more confidence than you imagine he ever could, speaks literally and figuratively to the "everyman" in the show's viewership. The mere idea of it has been striking a chord in the American psyche since the 40 Year Old Virgin caught box office fever with its (to date) 109 million dollar grosses in 2005. If a lovable loser like Larry can get the girl, than any guy can; and, since he is...getting the girl...than "every" man can, right? It's a schadenfreude moment. For better or worse. Since its far funnier than it is true.
Mad Love's season premiere also has its fair share of laugh-out-loud moments. Its creator/showrunner Matt Tarses honed his writing and producing skills on critical favorites SCRUBS and SPORTS NIGHT. As in the case of these two shows, he makes comedic use of rapidfire, often intertexual, dialog to strike a chord with his pop culturally literate audience. For example, Ben and Kate meet in the serendipitous moment after she finds his lost red cellphone, and then overhears what he is in search of. Handing it over, she says: "When you push send, does it go right to Commissioner Gordon's Office?" Taken aback, he retorts, "I'm sorry, I'm not nerdy enough to get that. But, how cool would it be if I did?'' Thus is the start of their textual love affair, and ours with the tuned-in writing staff that thinks to include a Batman reference that makes us feel not only 'in the know,' but culturally literate, too. This quality aspect of serial design, no doubt, also plays up to MAD LOVE and its lead-in's more-educated viewership.
Unfortunately, the show also misses the mark, at times, in its ironically titled "Fireworks" pilot. Not only are the bits poorly strung together, but--as is often the case with sitcom pilots--MAD LOVE's characters and dialogue come off as self-conscious and stagy at times, quite in contrast to its smoothly executed lead-in HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the jokes have been done (and done better) in 'bromance' genre films, such as Apatow's FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL and THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN, as well as his critically acclaimed (but short-lived) NBC dramedy FREAKS AND GEEKS. Tarses has properly learnt his craft and the bible of this new genre--that's evident from the pilot alone. His teleplay includes the requite jokes: one on masturbation, a couple on the duties of a good wingman, and just enough burp and fart jokes to make the nerdy characters cooler, their fairer prey put off, and us laugh. But, the question remains, Is that enough?
With ABC using the star-power of its hit lead-in MODERN FAMILY to launch MR. SUNSHINE, a phenomenally funny, sharply scripted, and expertly cast midseason sitcom starting Matthew Perry and Allison Janey, MAD LOVE may not fare as well as CBS expects. Garnering a 3.0 adult 18-49 rating and an 8 share with its pilot, down from 3.7 and 11, respectively, for HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER, and 10% lower than RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (which LOVE replaced), CBS's goal of shoring up their Monday night comedy lineup may have failed, at least out of the gate. Although MAD LOVE's cast includes some seasoned television veterans, Perry and Janey are spot-on throughout the first two episodes of MR. SUNSHINE; and, moreover, serve as ABC's answer to 30 ROCK's Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy (played by Emmy-winning actors and Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin). Also, MR. SUNSHINE is bolstered by the street cred of executive producer Thomas Schlamme (SPORTS NIGHT, THE WEST WING, STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP). And, finally, unlike MAD LOVE, MR. SUNSHINE offers an always popular premise--that of the often complex workplace environment, replete with workaday mishaps and love's foibles that make office-centric dramedies from Mad Men to The Mary Tyler Moore Show impossible to miss.
We'll have to wait a few episodes to see is Mad Love can live up to all of that.
Watch MAD LOVE tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST on CBS.
Vist MAD LOVE's Official Website
Monday, February 14, 2011
DESPITE A DISTINQUISHED CAST AND TALENTED SHOWRUNNER, THE CHICAGO CODE DISAPPOINTS AS MIDSEASON REPLACEMENT ON FOX
TELEVISION REVIEW: FOX'S THE CHICAGO CODE
I'm not going to lie to you. I had been looking forward to Shawn Ryan’s newest creation, THE CHICAGO CODE, for weeks before it premiered last Monday. Mostly, my excitement stemmed from his compelling work as the showrunner for THE SHIELD and the second season of LIE TO ME; but the series' rich, diverse set of characters also compelled me to watch. Jennifer Beals, who played the feisty Betty Porter on THE L WORD for six seasons, now stars as Superintendent of Police Teresa Colvin. The always intriguing character actor, Delroy Lindo sizzles as Covin's sleazy and corrupt antagonist, Alderman Robin Gibbons. And Caleb Evers (previously "Luke Cafferty" on FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS) plays fresh-faced Detective Matt Lauria, the rookie partner of seasoned Detective Jarek Wysocki (Aussie Jason Clarke of Showtime's Brotherhood), the moral center of the show.
With the bevy of female protagonist dramas hitting the small screen in the intervening years since THE CLOSER premiered on TNT in 2005, viewers may wonder if THE CHICAGO CODE adds anything new to this almost overcrowded television genre. It certainly does in terms of how it doesn’t hem and haul about the power of a woman in charge! There’s no higher rank than Superintendent; and, because Teresa Colvin doesn’t answer directly to any man (unlike Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson, or even Cagney and Lacey, before her), this new series serves as an important first step in the development of female protagonists on American television today.
In one memorable scene, after a perp questions Covin's authority to ‘to deal’ with him, instead of playing cleverly coy, or even disarmingly feminine, as would Southern Belle detective Brenda Leigh Johnson--before, of course, hitting him over the head with a metaphorical anvil of her femininity and, now squarely in his comfort zone, lead him to unwittingly confess his crime before he knows what hit him!--in a move more reminiscent of less-empowered lady detectives, Colvin ‘defends’ her honor by explaining herself: "Superintendent means I'm the highest ranking cop in the city. Every cop in Chicago answers to me." Oh, so now we get it. Thanks. But, that's a bit too pat. So, show me!
Hence, the problem with the serial design of THE CHICAGO CODE doesn't stop with on-the-nose dialogue. In addition, the plot is choppy and hard to follow, and there are far too many instanced of backstory relayed in dialogue, rather than through compelling “action” that motivates the viewer to keep watching the show. For example, we know from the voice-over at the beginning of the pilot that Colvin’s sole goal is to vindicate the wrongs committed against her father by the corrupt Chicago political system. Then, a mere ten minutes into the episode, Covin's ex-partner Jarek Wysocki informs a young detective that his superintendent rose up through the ranks "faster than anyone in history;" that she was responsible for a cocaine bust--the biggest in the city's history; and that she secured her rise to chief of detectives in record time. Finally, that Alderman Gibbons put Colvin forward for the job to curry short-term favor with black and female voters, but his plan backfired when his first-choice candidate suffered a heart attack and he was forced to appoint her to the post. Now, it’s good gal, Colvin, and her good guy ‘partner in crime,’ Wysocki, against bad guy Gibbons in a cat-and-mouse game that defines the cop genre. Oh, the premise sounds so good. Yet, experiencing it in third-person dialogue and voice-over is nothing if not boring.
That huge caveat aside, besides offering a more empowered leading lady, the casting of this series is spot on. At least on paper, Beals is a good choice for portraying a Midwestern cop. She’s a Chicagoan by birth, and got her start playing a hard-scrabbled welder-turned-dancer in FLASHDANCE, similarly set in an industrial town. So, it’s difficult to say precisely why Beals fails to deliver in the series premiere. Suffice is to say that she never fully settles into her role as Superintendent Colvin during the forty-five minute pilot, and is upstaged by most of the cast including Jason Clarke, but especially Delroy Lindo.
Finally, one of the big draws of television as a medium is that it offers viewers an opportunity to get to know their favorite television character over the long haul—sometimes six or seven seasons or more—and almost as they would in real life. I can’t imagine being able to sum up the damaged-but-brilliant British Detective Chief Inspector (DCI), Jane Tennison (Helen Mirren), from PRIME SUSPECT’s pilot alone; or, for that matter, THE CLOSER’s sugary sweet, yet tough-as-nails Deputy Police Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson, who single-handedly turned around the once-fledgling TNT by consistently drawing over 7 million viewers an episode over the course of its now six-season run.
Either Ryan has lost his knack for penning worthy characters like Michael Chiklis (THE SHIELD) or Dr. Cal Lightman (LIE TO ME), or he’s hoping to deliver a show with high production values and a ‘soapy’ quality that brings in more viewers than his other two more critically acclaimed shows did; but, if that’s his aim, he might be sorely disappointed. The overnights showed that the pilot of THE CHICAGO CODE lost nearly 3 million viewers from its lead-in, HOUSE, and was down a solid 55% in ratings and share from the Hugh Laurie powerhouse dramedy.
Again, that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to watch this show. First, it places unequivocal authority in its female protagonist. Second, it's perfectly cast. And these two already compelling reasons are only compounded by the contribution it makes to pushing beyond the boundaries of race on television today. Colvin doesn’t play white. Her ethnic background isn’t revealed, or meaningful, for that matter. She’s simply a woman cop; and that’s refreshing. With the exception of the exec-produced Jada Pinkett Smith vehicle HAWTHORNE on TNT, Ryan’s decision to cast a woman of color in the leading role is a relatively new and socially progressive development for female-centric television dramedies. Following in the footsteps of other socially progressive shows like STAR TREK (1966-69) and I SPY (1965-68), historically, or THE CLOSER and GREY'S ANATOMY today, THE CHICAGO CODE offers a range of characters that more so reflect the true ethnic demographics of its North American viewership. From Lindo and Beals to Todd Williams (Detective Isaac Joiner, formerly of IN PLAIN SIGHT), nearly half of the core cast is a person of color. Kudos to Shawn Ryan for continuing to push the envelope of televisual constructions of race and gender. And, for this reason alone, I’m sticking with THE CHICAGO CODE. At least, for now.
Watch THE CHICAGO CODE tonight at 9 p.m. EST on FOX.
Vist THE CHICAGO CODE's Official Website
I'm not going to lie to you. I had been looking forward to Shawn Ryan’s newest creation, THE CHICAGO CODE, for weeks before it premiered last Monday. Mostly, my excitement stemmed from his compelling work as the showrunner for THE SHIELD and the second season of LIE TO ME; but the series' rich, diverse set of characters also compelled me to watch. Jennifer Beals, who played the feisty Betty Porter on THE L WORD for six seasons, now stars as Superintendent of Police Teresa Colvin. The always intriguing character actor, Delroy Lindo sizzles as Covin's sleazy and corrupt antagonist, Alderman Robin Gibbons. And Caleb Evers (previously "Luke Cafferty" on FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS) plays fresh-faced Detective Matt Lauria, the rookie partner of seasoned Detective Jarek Wysocki (Aussie Jason Clarke of Showtime's Brotherhood), the moral center of the show.
With the bevy of female protagonist dramas hitting the small screen in the intervening years since THE CLOSER premiered on TNT in 2005, viewers may wonder if THE CHICAGO CODE adds anything new to this almost overcrowded television genre. It certainly does in terms of how it doesn’t hem and haul about the power of a woman in charge! There’s no higher rank than Superintendent; and, because Teresa Colvin doesn’t answer directly to any man (unlike Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson, or even Cagney and Lacey, before her), this new series serves as an important first step in the development of female protagonists on American television today.
In one memorable scene, after a perp questions Covin's authority to ‘to deal’ with him, instead of playing cleverly coy, or even disarmingly feminine, as would Southern Belle detective Brenda Leigh Johnson--before, of course, hitting him over the head with a metaphorical anvil of her femininity and, now squarely in his comfort zone, lead him to unwittingly confess his crime before he knows what hit him!--in a move more reminiscent of less-empowered lady detectives, Colvin ‘defends’ her honor by explaining herself: "Superintendent means I'm the highest ranking cop in the city. Every cop in Chicago answers to me." Oh, so now we get it. Thanks. But, that's a bit too pat. So, show me!
Hence, the problem with the serial design of THE CHICAGO CODE doesn't stop with on-the-nose dialogue. In addition, the plot is choppy and hard to follow, and there are far too many instanced of backstory relayed in dialogue, rather than through compelling “action” that motivates the viewer to keep watching the show. For example, we know from the voice-over at the beginning of the pilot that Colvin’s sole goal is to vindicate the wrongs committed against her father by the corrupt Chicago political system. Then, a mere ten minutes into the episode, Covin's ex-partner Jarek Wysocki informs a young detective that his superintendent rose up through the ranks "faster than anyone in history;" that she was responsible for a cocaine bust--the biggest in the city's history; and that she secured her rise to chief of detectives in record time. Finally, that Alderman Gibbons put Colvin forward for the job to curry short-term favor with black and female voters, but his plan backfired when his first-choice candidate suffered a heart attack and he was forced to appoint her to the post. Now, it’s good gal, Colvin, and her good guy ‘partner in crime,’ Wysocki, against bad guy Gibbons in a cat-and-mouse game that defines the cop genre. Oh, the premise sounds so good. Yet, experiencing it in third-person dialogue and voice-over is nothing if not boring.
That huge caveat aside, besides offering a more empowered leading lady, the casting of this series is spot on. At least on paper, Beals is a good choice for portraying a Midwestern cop. She’s a Chicagoan by birth, and got her start playing a hard-scrabbled welder-turned-dancer in FLASHDANCE, similarly set in an industrial town. So, it’s difficult to say precisely why Beals fails to deliver in the series premiere. Suffice is to say that she never fully settles into her role as Superintendent Colvin during the forty-five minute pilot, and is upstaged by most of the cast including Jason Clarke, but especially Delroy Lindo.
Finally, one of the big draws of television as a medium is that it offers viewers an opportunity to get to know their favorite television character over the long haul—sometimes six or seven seasons or more—and almost as they would in real life. I can’t imagine being able to sum up the damaged-but-brilliant British Detective Chief Inspector (DCI), Jane Tennison (Helen Mirren), from PRIME SUSPECT’s pilot alone; or, for that matter, THE CLOSER’s sugary sweet, yet tough-as-nails Deputy Police Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson, who single-handedly turned around the once-fledgling TNT by consistently drawing over 7 million viewers an episode over the course of its now six-season run.
Either Ryan has lost his knack for penning worthy characters like Michael Chiklis (THE SHIELD) or Dr. Cal Lightman (LIE TO ME), or he’s hoping to deliver a show with high production values and a ‘soapy’ quality that brings in more viewers than his other two more critically acclaimed shows did; but, if that’s his aim, he might be sorely disappointed. The overnights showed that the pilot of THE CHICAGO CODE lost nearly 3 million viewers from its lead-in, HOUSE, and was down a solid 55% in ratings and share from the Hugh Laurie powerhouse dramedy.
Again, that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to watch this show. First, it places unequivocal authority in its female protagonist. Second, it's perfectly cast. And these two already compelling reasons are only compounded by the contribution it makes to pushing beyond the boundaries of race on television today. Colvin doesn’t play white. Her ethnic background isn’t revealed, or meaningful, for that matter. She’s simply a woman cop; and that’s refreshing. With the exception of the exec-produced Jada Pinkett Smith vehicle HAWTHORNE on TNT, Ryan’s decision to cast a woman of color in the leading role is a relatively new and socially progressive development for female-centric television dramedies. Following in the footsteps of other socially progressive shows like STAR TREK (1966-69) and I SPY (1965-68), historically, or THE CLOSER and GREY'S ANATOMY today, THE CHICAGO CODE offers a range of characters that more so reflect the true ethnic demographics of its North American viewership. From Lindo and Beals to Todd Williams (Detective Isaac Joiner, formerly of IN PLAIN SIGHT), nearly half of the core cast is a person of color. Kudos to Shawn Ryan for continuing to push the envelope of televisual constructions of race and gender. And, for this reason alone, I’m sticking with THE CHICAGO CODE. At least, for now.
Watch THE CHICAGO CODE tonight at 9 p.m. EST on FOX.
Vist THE CHICAGO CODE's Official Website
Friday, February 11, 2011
OSCAR-WINNING CINEMATOGRAPHER VILMOS SZIGMOND AND PRODUCERS RESCUE LOST FOOTAGE OF 1965 SUMMER CHILDREN
Ashley Elaine York @ Slamdance 2011
An early American New Wave film, shot by Oscar-Winning DP Vilmos Szigmond (CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, THE DEER HUNTER, MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, and BLACK DAHLIA), SUMMER CHILDREN serves as a "time capsule of 1960s youth culture," in the words of producer Jack Robinette. The influence of Italian Neorealism is ever-present in this neo-noir dramatic feature film shot in black & white in 1965 that explores the underbelly of a group of free-spirited privileged youth who turn on one another during a seemingly innocent yacht trip to Santa Catalina Island. Although the production values of the film are of the highest order--much to the credit of Szigmond's expert use of natural lighting, deep focus photography, and precise framing--the flawed script, with its fair share of stilted dialogue, implausible plot points, and over-the-top performances, may help to explain why SUMMER CHILDREN was never fully distributed. Restoration Producer Edie Robinette-Petrachi attributes the lost footage to a plethora of cross-over events on the ground. She said, "It got stalled at the lab, then the Vietnam War started, and people moved on. So it was never released."
In fact, until Szigmond, Robinette, and his cousin Robinette-Petrachi rescued and lovingly restored the found footage from the negatives and optical tracks in 2010, the industry had forgot about this socially and historically relevant film that well encapsulates a time of angst and change in America, and particularly in American youth culture. Having recently broken free of the constricting 1950s ideologies of "family values" and women defined as pristine "young ladies" raised to be happy homemakers, this cast of privileged young adults test the waters of rebellion and non-conformist behavior. They speak and act in ways that express their need to be sexually liberated and free of their influential but absent families--as the "Freely ye received, freely given" Matthew 10:8 line displayed in the film duly notes. The film also portrays how deeply entrenched, longstanding social systems like patriarchy, as well as modern social mores that govern relationships among the affluent middle class, are hard to change. The brooding protagonist Adonis, West (Stuart Anderson), illustrates these difficulties when his competition for alpha male dominance with Franky (John Hanek), who shares the affections of the ethereal beauty Diana (Valora Noland), results in a tragedy that will change their lives forever. Thus, as 1960s cinema author Tom Lisanti says of SUMMER CHILDREN, "This is not your mother's beach movie."
After the premiere of the restored version, I talked to the legendary DP Vilmos Szigmond about the making of this film, and also how the art and craft of cinematography has changed with the onslaught of new digital technologies.
What was it like to make this movie at that time?
Vilmos Szigmond (Szigmond): We were a bunch of idealist youths: A PA [production assistant] and a DP [Director of Photography] from Hungary that didn't speak English (laughs). As a cinematographer, my job was the lighting. Without the lighting, you can't create the mood.
The lighting is exquisite. Overall, the cinematography is lux. We're getting so used to digital films today, but actually the depth and realism is so much greater with film. In fact, in one memorable scene in SUMMER CHILDREN, the framing, lighting, and overall tone reminded me of the famous beach scene in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, with Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr. What would you say to budding filmmakers about the importance of lighting in moviemaking?
Szigmond: Before they turn the camera on and make movies, they need to think about the lighting. Watch more movies--especially the classics. I studied the lighting of De La Terre. You must learn to light in order to direct, too. My teacher in Hungary said, "You can not compromise even one shot. Because, if you do, then the next day you will too, and then you will again and again." I always remember this, what he told me. Every single shot has to have a meaning. It has to say something. If not, you can not use it. That goes for a commercial as well as a film. So you have 15 shots in a commercial, 100 shots in a short, or 500 shots in a feature. It doesn't matter. You can not give away one of those shots and then expect to get an award at Sundance or any other film festival in the world."
There was some snickering in the audience during the screening, especially during some over-the-top acting performances or after some stilted dialogue. What do you make of that?
Szigmond: Well, there is some incredibly beautiful sequences [in the film]. But these are some of the problems with a low-budge movie, sure. It's a movie and we have to love it for what it is.
Today, with more and more movies being shot in 3-D or digitally, do you see film taking a backseat to digital cinematography in the near future?
Szigmond: Whether or not you shoot on film or not, it is important to study the great filmmakers of the past. Filmmaking carries a very deep tradition, and using film really helps us continue that fine tradition There is so much light and life living in the emulsion of that black & white film, there is no denying that. But, what is key is to pair it with terrific technology. That's what we did when we restored this film.
Speaking of changing times with regarding to shooting films, tell me about some of your more recent DPing experiences. Do you feel the effects of changing technology in your role as a DP?
Szigmond: When I shot BLACK DAHLIA with Brian De Palma, I used digital intermediate to desaturate the colors--to make it have a film noir feel and black & white style to the movie. I spent seven days working on the cinematography after we wrapped shooting. Brain De Palma spend two hours [in the editing room] afterward and changed only four shots in the film. That's it! He let me do my job as the cinematographer. Now, I also recently shot a film for Woody Allen [You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger], who was dissatisfied with my DP work. Woody spent three weeks changing everything I did. He overexposed the film by two stops. The theatrical version looks terrible. Every shot is overexposed. But, I recently saw the DVD version of the film and it looks perfect. He probably revered back to the way it was shot.
OFFICIAL FILM THE SUMMER CHILDREN Website
 |
| (L-R) DP Vilmos Szigmond, Edie Robinette-Petrachi, and Jack Robinette |
In fact, until Szigmond, Robinette, and his cousin Robinette-Petrachi rescued and lovingly restored the found footage from the negatives and optical tracks in 2010, the industry had forgot about this socially and historically relevant film that well encapsulates a time of angst and change in America, and particularly in American youth culture. Having recently broken free of the constricting 1950s ideologies of "family values" and women defined as pristine "young ladies" raised to be happy homemakers, this cast of privileged young adults test the waters of rebellion and non-conformist behavior. They speak and act in ways that express their need to be sexually liberated and free of their influential but absent families--as the "Freely ye received, freely given" Matthew 10:8 line displayed in the film duly notes. The film also portrays how deeply entrenched, longstanding social systems like patriarchy, as well as modern social mores that govern relationships among the affluent middle class, are hard to change. The brooding protagonist Adonis, West (Stuart Anderson), illustrates these difficulties when his competition for alpha male dominance with Franky (John Hanek), who shares the affections of the ethereal beauty Diana (Valora Noland), results in a tragedy that will change their lives forever. Thus, as 1960s cinema author Tom Lisanti says of SUMMER CHILDREN, "This is not your mother's beach movie."
 |
| Permission c.2007 Robinette Productions |
What was it like to make this movie at that time?
Vilmos Szigmond (Szigmond): We were a bunch of idealist youths: A PA [production assistant] and a DP [Director of Photography] from Hungary that didn't speak English (laughs). As a cinematographer, my job was the lighting. Without the lighting, you can't create the mood.
The lighting is exquisite. Overall, the cinematography is lux. We're getting so used to digital films today, but actually the depth and realism is so much greater with film. In fact, in one memorable scene in SUMMER CHILDREN, the framing, lighting, and overall tone reminded me of the famous beach scene in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, with Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr. What would you say to budding filmmakers about the importance of lighting in moviemaking?
Szigmond: Before they turn the camera on and make movies, they need to think about the lighting. Watch more movies--especially the classics. I studied the lighting of De La Terre. You must learn to light in order to direct, too. My teacher in Hungary said, "You can not compromise even one shot. Because, if you do, then the next day you will too, and then you will again and again." I always remember this, what he told me. Every single shot has to have a meaning. It has to say something. If not, you can not use it. That goes for a commercial as well as a film. So you have 15 shots in a commercial, 100 shots in a short, or 500 shots in a feature. It doesn't matter. You can not give away one of those shots and then expect to get an award at Sundance or any other film festival in the world."
There was some snickering in the audience during the screening, especially during some over-the-top acting performances or after some stilted dialogue. What do you make of that?
Szigmond: Well, there is some incredibly beautiful sequences [in the film]. But these are some of the problems with a low-budge movie, sure. It's a movie and we have to love it for what it is.
Today, with more and more movies being shot in 3-D or digitally, do you see film taking a backseat to digital cinematography in the near future?
Szigmond: Whether or not you shoot on film or not, it is important to study the great filmmakers of the past. Filmmaking carries a very deep tradition, and using film really helps us continue that fine tradition There is so much light and life living in the emulsion of that black & white film, there is no denying that. But, what is key is to pair it with terrific technology. That's what we did when we restored this film.
Speaking of changing times with regarding to shooting films, tell me about some of your more recent DPing experiences. Do you feel the effects of changing technology in your role as a DP?
 |
| Ashley and Vilmos Szigmond, January 24, 2011 |
OFFICIAL FILM THE SUMMER CHILDREN Website
Thursday, February 10, 2011
ROAD TO THE 2011 OSCARS
SLOW DANCE WITH MARITAL ANGST: A REVIEW OF THE 2011 OSCAR-NOMINATED ‘BLUE VALENTINE'
BLUE VALENTINE isn’t a film that will sit well with people who like Hollywood endings. It may also prove taxing for those who prefer the narrative structure of a film that answers every question it puts forward in its premise. But, if you are a viewer looking for raw, evocative performances by two superb actors at the top of their game, then look no farther than this second feature by young writer-director Derek Cianfrance, who studied under experimental filmmakers Stan Brakhage (DOG STAR MAN) and Phil Solomon (REMAINS TO BE SEEN) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling at once sizzle, settle into, and explode out of their staring roles as troubled couple Cindy and Dean, two people trying to make ends meet in their working-class lives, while raising their exuberantly charming little girl Frankie (Faith Wladyka) and grappling with their slowly disintegrating marriage.
Indeed, BLUE VALENTINE offers up moments of sublime storytelling and cinematic genius. In one memorable flashback sequence, the young lovers stand in a storefront entryway and playfully get to know one another. Dean boasts that he can sing, but only if he exaggerates his vocal qualities (i.e., mimics a young Elvis), and requests that Cindy join in on the fun by dancing to his soulful tune. While he shows off his serenading skills and she sheepishly and bashfully does her silly little gig in the doorway, we glimpse how these two people fell in love. It happens for Dean and Cindy pretty much the way it could happen in real life: in the wistful moments when lovers’ guards are down and they’re willing to make complete fools of themselves to get the other’s attention. Cianfrance uses these stanzas to successfully document the moments leading up to their falling in love. And with an equal dose of fearless genius, chronicles their demise into marital entropy in the very same way.
Cianfrance took eleven years to make this film, but feels he needed that time to gain the requisite life experience to write about the dual aspects of these characters lives. Until a few years ago, he admits that he didn’t quite ‘get’ the idea of marriage or fatherhood. “My grandma always told me, ‘You can't force things to happen.’ I have a wife and kids now, and I could never have told a story about being married with a wife and kid [when I first started out].” The real-life fears and traumas of his youth, however, prepared him well to flush out the realities of a marriage on the rocks. “When I was a kid, I had two nightmares: nuclear war and that my parents would get a divorce. I was 20 when they did divorce, and it caused me to question things. What's the point of falling in love? What happens to love over time? I needed to confront that thing I was so scared of when I was growing up. And to not repeat the mistakes my parents made.”
He certainly confronts his fears in this (un)mythologized script of the evolution of a marriage. Along the way, he also reimagines an innovative way to tell the dual narrative of a tale set alternately in the present and in the past. His background in cinematography and editing, as well as the years he spent learning from one of the great master manipulators of the traditionally-structured narrative, Stan Brakhage, has given Cianfrance the arsenal of skills required to stitch together a fluid, back-and-forth dance that keeps the spectator guessing as to ‘What will happen next?’ until the very last shot. The viewer may hold out hope that the troubled couple can work through their differences; yet, all the while, the narrative demands that she wallow in Cindy and Dean’s lows and giggle alongside them when they remember the reasons why they first fell in love. Cianfrance’s text indeed represents real life—and real love—gone ecstatically well and terribly wrong. Thus, viewers who want to take a ride that veers off of the traditional Hollywood Beltway of prettily packaged narrative films tied off with a neat little bow will surely love Cianfrance’s raw meditation on real love, the 'down and dirty kind' called true.
BLUE VALENTINE: THE FILM OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Sunday, February 6, 2011
BHOPALI TAKES TOP DOC GRAND JURY PRIZE and AUDIENCE AWARD AT SLAMDANCE 2011: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE DIRECTOR CUM HUMANITARIAN, VAN MAXIMILIAN "MAX" CARLSON
 |
| Van Maximilian "Max" Carlson |
This moving documentary by promising director Van Maximilian “Max” Carlson gives voice to the victims of the historic Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) Disaster on December 3, 1984 in Bhopal, India. From biting, heart-wrenching testimonials of surviving victims of the tragedy to an expansive collection of newsreel footage, Carlson gives depth and perspective to this historic tragedy that killed 25,000 people and left more than 100,000 people chronically ill.
One of the film’s most devastating sequences is that of Dr. D. K. Satpathy, a pathologist and the director of Medico Legal Institute in Bhopal, who showed the rows and rows of fetuses that remain in water-filled containers from the women who died in the UCC disaster or those of women who miscarried in the aftermath of the event. “I want the world to understand the crimes of these companies,” another Bhopal victims’ relief volunteer states. “They profit from their endless projects, as they’re shown on TV, but these are the same products that poison our lives.”
I interviewed the director cum humanitarian on Monday, January 24, 2011, the afternoon after his film premiered at Slamdance 2011.
Ashley Elaine York (AEY): You’ve chosen to highlight a little known but important story about American businesses acting badly in developing countries like India and Africa. Although a more common occurrence than one might think, this topic is usually not taken up in a first doc feature. Why did you feel compelled to highlight this subject in your film?
Van Maximilian “Max” Carlson (Max): I learned of the Bhopal disaster only about 2.5 years ago. There was a chemical leak from the UCC factory that installed itself in Bhopal as a pesticide manufacturing facility. Bhopal was a densely populated area in 1970s. In the 1980s, to cut costs, UCC cut refrigeration on the MIC.
[NOTE: MIC, methyl-isocyanate, is a chemical 500 times deadlier than hydrogen cyanide, so volatile that unless kept in spotless conditions and refrigerated to 0˚C, it can even react explosively with itself. To save $70/day, UCC shut down refrigeration on the MIC, which caused the tragedy].
Max: Months after that, the tank leaked and the toxic chemicals were released into the air. It eventually seeped into the ground and the groundwater supply and spread as far as 3K away, which has affected 100,000-200,000 people to date. Immediately after this, UCC abandoned the factory, left the chemical waste, and went back to the US. Even 26 years [on], the toxins are still in the ground and the water supply and are still affecting the Bhopal community. Children are born with mental disabilities, cerebral palsy, or limbless. And, since Dow Chemical bought UCC out, both companies now claim they’re not liable for cleaning up the factory or compensating the victims. My film is primarily about the children affected by this disaster. It follows them and the Chingari Trust, which was set up by two women who lost the majorities of their families in the gas tragedy to treat the children affected by the UCC Disaster. Many have been born with weak or malformed limbs, so they need physical therapy.
AEY: You mentioned you learned about the disaster only 2.5 years ago. How did you first hear about it? The subject isn’t heavily covered in the current 24-hour news cycle, is it? I only learned of it because I was living in South Asia, taking my Master’s in SE Asian Studies in Singapore, and had friends doing their research on the tragedy.
Max: Yeah, I also learned about it from a friend familiar with the area and with the disaster. A friend of mine visited Bhopal in 2008. She had volunteered at the Sambhavna Clinic, a free clinic which treats survivors of the disaster in Bhopal, three blocks from the abandoned UCC factory. I was immediately intrigued by the story, as well as surprised that I had never heard about it before—especially since it’s considered [historically] to be the world’s worst industrial disaster. I was only 24 at the time, and only older people tended to know something about it. But, most people don’t realize the ongoing disaster that it is today; they have no idea of the repercussions that have followed years later—that 30,000 people are still drinking that contaminated groundwater because they have no choice, and still get sick. I also was shocked to learn the corporation responsible for the tragedy still hadn't been brought to justice. And I felt compelled to try and help, so in a relatively short amount of time, I decided I would make a documentary on the subject.
AEY: How hard was it to film what really amounts to an exposé in a foreign country, as an American citizen, without interference from the Indian government, UCC, DOW, or influential American ambassadors living in India?
Max: Well, I went to India with just myself and my producer, Kirk Palayan. We arrived in January 2009. We lived off of funds from our day jobs, which we also used to shoot it. We filmed in Bhopal for about two months; then I returned to Bhopal again in November and December of 2009. I tried my best to find an aesthetic balance between these very personal human stories and the dense history of the tragedy. I wanted to stay away from narration, and just let the stories unfold before the audience. I never went to film school, but I was the director, cinematographer, and editor of the film, so my involvement became very personal and the experiences and the people I met in Bhopal will never be forgotten. It was something we felt totally passionate about. The most difficult part of the experience was paying for the plane tickets back and forth to India. We just saved money to do it. We couldn’t fly to Bhopal directly, so we had to pay for several planes to get there; it took 36 hours to finally get to Bhopal, and ultimately was very expensive. But I edit movie and video trailers for a living, so I was able to cut the film on Final Cut Pro, which helped us to save money.
 |
| Ashley interviewing Max, January 24, 2011 |
AEY: Did you shoot the film with the intention of showing it at festivals or selling it, or was this, simply, a project of love for you and Kirk [the producer]?
Max: We set up a website for BHOPALI which has info about the film itself and screening times and press reviews, and another whole section on how to get involved and help with the Bhopal cause. After I finished the film, we submitted to festivals and, luckily, we got into Slamdance. But the focus of my film is to encourage people to help these victims. We screened the film in Bhopal already and the Chingari Trust School received a copy of film, as well. The two women who run the orphanage will screen it annually at their awards ceremony. Mainly, we want people to lend their support. While I was there, the people of Bhopal were so very warm to me and wanted to tell me their stories because they know hardly anyone knows about it. I only hope my film does justice to the inspirational people of Bhopal who continue to fight for their lives.
AEY: Indeed, you have created a moving and important film. People are already talking it up, and it just premiered last night. Even though you have won other awards for your past directing efforts at the Buffalo Niagara Film Festival and the Toronto International Teen Movie Festival, and your doc NINTH NOVEMBER NIGHT (2004) was considered by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Documentary Screening Committee to be “one of the outstanding documentaries” of that year, your career might take off after this 17th Annual Slamdance. If so, would it change you as a person or the types of films you make?
Max: Well, the success hasn’t changed my life yet (laughs), but the experience of going to Bhopal did. It changed my life forever. I feel like, in general, a person can do things on their own [to make a difference]. You don’t have to rely on huge amount of outside funding. You can do it on your own. Filmmaking is all about getting out there, documenting something important, and then getting your project out to an audience. I have a lot of friends whom I met [in Bhopal]: Sanjay Verma, for one. He was originally supposed to be my translator and guide. But his story was poignant and tragic. He lost 7 of his 10 family members on the night of the disaster, including his folks, 3 sisters, and 2 brothers. He was raised by his older sister and brother and grew up in an orphanage. Now he works as an activist for the Bhopal victims. I relied on him to meet people in the community. Everyone knows him and his story. In the Bhopal community surrounding the factory, everyone knows each other. It’s a close-knit community. So meeting Sanjay was great: in spite of his trauma, he is an insanely outspoken and funny person. It’s amazing to meet someone as strong as him. And he’s now my friend.
AEY: What’s next for you, Max?
Max: I would like my next film to be a narrative feature. I started very young making narrative shorts and Kirk Palayan, my co-producer, will work with me on this next project too. It’s about whaling off the coast of Japan. I’m also working on another project about a magician who lives in California. And then there are a few docs on different things that I want to explore in the future.
AEY: What's the lesson of BHOPALI? What's your personal "take away?"
Max: That when environmental disasters of any kind occur, know there will be repercussions years down the line. And realize that it is up to us to support those victims and help in any way we can, because they can’t rely on the Indian government or the DOW Corporation, for example, to help them. It’s up to us. We should try our best to make sure when a disaster like this happens, the corporation who caused the damage is held responsible--in order to set up a precedent that stops US corporations from going into developing counties, causing disasters, then escaping back to the US where they are protected from prosecution in the future. It’s really up to us to do our part to stop this from happening in the future.
In 1989, a settlement was reached under which UCC agreed to pay US$470 million (the insurance sum, plus interest) in a full and final settlement of its civil and criminal liability to the Indian Government, as “representatives” of the victims. Most families of victims received $500 for life-long injuries. The settlement was considered so low that UCC’s stock went up by $2/share the next day.
Today the factory site is owned by the state government of Madhya Pradesh and only the state can remediate the factory, the toxic soil, and the contaminated groundwater. To date, the Indian Government remains adamant that there is no contamination in Bhopal.
If you are moved to help, go to:
Friday, February 4, 2011
STRANGER THINGS TAKES THE 2011 SLAMDANCE GRAND JURY PRIZE FOR BEST NARRATIVE FEATURE: AN INTERVIEW WITH WRITERS-DIRECTORS ELEANOR BURKE and RON EYAL
 |
| Ron Eyal and Eleanor Burke |
In their feature film debut, writer-director Ron Eyal and writer-director-cinematographer Eleanor Burke, have created a strikingly shot and poignantly acted film about love, loss, and the power of reaching out to someone different from yourself.
Oona, a young British woman dealing with the loss of her mother, reaches out to a stranger: Mani, a mysterious homeless man of Middle-Eastern origin, whom she invites to stay in her shed. Despite the myriad differences in their backgrounds and lifestyles, Oona and Mani share a quiet understanding and gradually form a meaningful intimacy that changes them forever.
Burke's seemless, slow-paced, affecting cinematography is as much a character of the film as that of Oona (Bridget Collins) or Mani (Adeel Akhtar), and it captures the myriad truly intimate, humane moments between these two unlikely allies.
Illustrating that one's worldview is mostly about perception, in looking out over the rippling ocean waters, Mani comments to his fellow homeless friend named 'King of the Road,' "It's beautiful there." King makes a face and quickly replies, "It's freezing." But, after a beat and with a slight smile, with assurance Mani simply reaffirms his statement, "It's beautiful."
In another poignant scene, this time of simultaneous human devastation and joy, Oona finally gathers the necessary courage to sort through her mother's closet. In a long, unhurried, quiet one-shot, the young woman's feelings of loss, but also love--and more so the rekindled memories brought forth by her actions--are displayed in her stance, in her wretched tears at one moment and joyous laugh and wide smile in the next, and in the simply way she breathes in the lingering scent of her mother captured between the woolen fibers of her clothing.
Illustrating that one's worldview is mostly about perception, in looking out over the rippling ocean waters, Mani comments to his fellow homeless friend named 'King of the Road,' "It's beautiful there." King makes a face and quickly replies, "It's freezing." But, after a beat and with a slight smile, with assurance Mani simply reaffirms his statement, "It's beautiful."
In another poignant scene, this time of simultaneous human devastation and joy, Oona finally gathers the necessary courage to sort through her mother's closet. In a long, unhurried, quiet one-shot, the young woman's feelings of loss, but also love--and more so the rekindled memories brought forth by her actions--are displayed in her stance, in her wretched tears at one moment and joyous laugh and wide smile in the next, and in the simply way she breathes in the lingering scent of her mother captured between the woolen fibers of her clothing.
Though finely acted and smartly written, for me the cinematography proved the most striking feature upon first viewing. Just as vulnerable as the characters, Burke's shooting style well represents the rolling tides and lush green meadows of the the seaside town of Hastings in East Sussez (UK) where the film was shot. And her stylistic tendency to shoot straight on, close up, and over the shoulder (from front to back), with visual access to only a 1/4 of the character's face--maybe only an eye and a cheek, or even less--gives the camera as much a point-of-view as the characters themselves; and, moreover, acts as an intimate conduit to draw viewers into the storyworld to live alongside these well-drawn characters for 75 minutes, yet leaves Oona and Mani mysterious and detached: to us, as well as to each other and even themselves.
No little cinematic detail is left unexplored in their feature film debut: from the close-up of the spider crawling down a pan left abandoned by its owner who has died, or the the heavy, dirt-ridden ring swashing around the tub--and the leaves and other bits of debris--that slowly train out of the tub after Mani has taken his first bath in God only knows how long.
This may be Burke and Eyal's feature film debut, but they are anything but green. Their specific and deep understanding of genre (the dramatic thriller), honed skills as narrative storytellers, and restrained and methodological pacing and precise framing left me utterly speechless. Indeed, STRANGER THINGS was far and away my favorite film at Slamdane 2011.
I conducted an interview with Eleanor and Ron on January 24, 2011, three days before their film won the Grand Jury Prize for best Narrative Feature at the 17th Annual Slamdance.
Ashley Elaine York (AEY): What was it like to make your first feature?
Eleanor Burke (EB): We actually had our first short at Slamdance in 2007, RUTH & MAGGIE. When we made that film, we started working with the actors in a particular way. We made the film work around them and their performances. So we put their work at the center of what we’re doing. Specifically, we loved working with Bridget Collins [who played Maggie] on that short, and another actor Adeel Akhtar, so we wrote this feature for them.
Ron Eyal (RE): Many film shoots can be taken over by the equipment. So, we decided to minimize the amount of equipment we used. And we only used available lighting. We also shot with a much smaller crew. It was a very intimate shoot. There were only 6 on the set, including us.
AEY: Besides wanting to work with Collins, who is flawless as Oona, and Akhtar, who has already received some critical acclaim for his comic work as a British Muslim extremeist in Christopher Morris' FOUR LIONS earlier this year, I'm curious: Why this film and why now?
EB: It started off as a discussion about "insiders" and "outsiders". Oona, a young woman dealing with the loss of her mother, reaches out to a stranger, Mani, a homeless man. And, gradually she lets him in--in the many senses of the word. We were interested in the idea of “inside” and “outside,” because both characters are outsiders isolated in a particular way. Oona’s loss of her mother is part of that. His homelessness is part of that. But also I was specifically interested in my grandmother, who was itinerant at various points in her life, and I started thinking about her and her experiences. She inspired Mannie, the homeless character. We wanted to explore this outsider being let in. That idea really excited us.
RE: We had met in the NYU grad film program [The Tisch School of the Arts] while we were getting our MFAs there. We were so hungho. First, we decided to pull our resources and work on something together, so we made [RUTH & MAGGIE]. And after that experience we decided we were going to make this film and wouldn’t let anything stand in our way.
EB: Even though we're based in New York, we shot STRANGER THINGS in the UK.
RE: Because Eleanor has resources there--she is from London and had a lot of resources to make a film in the UK on a tight budget. For example, the house we used to shoot STRANGER THINGS is owned by a friend of Eleanor's. So, we wrote the script with that house in mind.
EB: I spent a lot of time in East Sussex during my childhood holidays. I had always loved that area. But the seaside town of Hastings, by the village where we filmed, is run-down and attracts a lot of down-and-outs. It’s a place where people from different walks of life live in very different worlds from each other. So I was inspired by that. But, after we shot in the UK, we found additional resources in the US during post-production. And, then we found the IFP Independent Filmmakers Lab, which was enormous help. They helped us tackle a lot of issues.
[NOTE: STRANGER THINGS was one of only 10 films from across the US selected to participate in the 2009 IFP Independent Filmmaker Lab, where it won the lab's top award: the IFP Narrative Lab Finishing Grant]
RE: We decided to think in the moment. And only after it was shot did we think about where to send it. So were are so surprised that we got into both Woodstock and Slamdance.
AEY: Has your recent success--winning the Grand Jury prize at the Woodstock Festival (2010) or getting accepted to Slamdance 2011, among other accolades--affected you as filmmakers? Have you or your approaches to filmmaking changed as a result?
RE: They've obviously had an impact, these seals of approval and signs of support from the film community.
EB: When we were making this film, we were excited about the process and the story, but even more excited about sharing this quiet drama. People viewing this film seem very engaged and we hear people laughing [during screenings]. It’s just so nice to hear that response. Doing Q&As--and getting that contact--has also been great.
RE: For example, this film is about a mother dieing and her daughter going through the bereavement process. One viewer said, "I just went through this. I was cleaning out my father’s stuff after he died." She, like others who've watched it, felt connected to the characters on an individual level--to their experiences with bereavement or to making connections with people. It touched them personally, which is wonderful for us.
EB: I personally love stories like that and I’m excited to see more of that, with less Hollywood, fast pacing, and more like the theatre or with an European influence. I love it when people tell me that they have this personal connection [with STRANGER THINGS], and identify with this depiction of companionship, with one character reaching out to another from a different walk of life. Hopefully these characters will open people up and otherwise touch people, which can lead to more human connections in real life.
AEY: Although it is going to be hard to top this fabulous first feature, what are you working on next?
EB: It's an actor-driven piece about a woman looking for her father. They're estranged. Like STRANGER THINGS, it will be a character-driven drama.
AEY: Are you shooting the new feature in the UK, as well?
RE: We’re considereing whether it’s going to be shot in the UK or the USA. There have been cuts to the arts in the UK, so maybe not.
EB: We work in a pretty unvonventional way, whether in relation to the UK or here, so we'll have to see.
RE: We want to step things up a notch, to see what kind of talent--actor-wise--we can bring to our next project, but still stay true to what we have been developing since RUTH & MAGGIE.
AEY: Tell me about these stylistic acting techniques you've been developing? And, how did you originally conceive of your personal directing style?
RE: First, we had really great teachers at NYU.
EB: In their MFA program, the directing students also have to take acting classes. Our instructor Tom Noonan [the offbeat character actor who finely portrayed "Detective Victor Huntley" in FX's DAMAGES in 2010] opened our eyes to the possibilities of all you can do with actors, how to use freedom to get more out of them, and in general the different ways of working with actors. While growing up in the UK, I watched a lot of Mike Leigh films. These ideas gave us permission to discover a lot of other ways of working with actors, as well. And we continue to develop our actor-centric methods from that.
RE: When you watch a Mike Leigh film, it doesn’t feel like anyone else’s form. It's a Mike Leigh film, period. Same is the case with a [John] Cassavetes' film, the actors are doing something you don't find in other director's films. There is something about their process of directing actors that translates to something that can be felt and heard on screen.
AEY: So, what specific techniques of working with actors and directing make an "Eleanor Burke/Ron Eyal" film unique?
EB: Mainly, we minimize distractions on the set
RE: Yes, sometimes its only us two on a set, besides the actors.
EB: Also, before the shoot, we workshop the characters and their backstories with the actors. Then, during production, we give them the script in segments. This means that the actors only know as much as their characters would for any particular scene. Revealing the plot to the actors in segments gives them the freedom to act spontaneously, and to feel the same things the character feels in any given moment.
AEY: How do actors like Collins and Akhtar feel about your your process of holding material back--only sharing pages you're currently shooting--or granting them large amounts of freedom to go where they want to with a scene?
RE: Bridget and Adeel were ready to play the game and wanted to go with it.
EB: Yes, and as we moved through the film, like the night before we would show them a little bit more about what was coming up. But, at the beginning, we revealed very little beyond the current scene we were shooting. We know we were lucky to work with these actors, who are both brave and committed. And they are responsible for creating many of the most touching moments you see in the film.
AEY: How do you feel about being named two of the "25 New Faces of Independent Film" by Filmmaker Magazine in the Summer of 2009?
EB: Thilled.
RE: Scott Macaulay, the editor of Filmmaker Magazine, contacted us. We had met him when we were in the IFP narrative lab. He’s been a big supporter of us and the film.
EB: When you’re an emerging filmmaker, all of these little validations...they're like badges. And they really make a difference.
AEY: Many independent filmmakers do it all. First feature end credits often reveal that the film was Directed by, Written by, Produced by, Shot by, Edited by, etc. the same person. Do you similarly consider yourselves Renaissance Men, or do conceive of yourselves as masters of particular domains of filmmaking, whether it be directing, writing, shooting, or producing?
RE: In the past, we've assembled the crew ourselves. And, Eleanor shot the films, due to her background in cinematography. But, in general, we see ourselves as writers-drirectors. In the case of STRANGER THINGS, it was out of necessity that we produced. But we're going to try not to do that again (laughs).
EB: We see ourselves as filmmakers, foremost, with a slightly further reach that writers-directors normally have.
RE: Just like most independent filmmakers, I guess.
EB: Right.
Wrong! There is nothing average, common, or general about these highly talented, yet humble and grounded, creative artists, each with a genuine gift for visual storytelling. I'm sure that STRANGER THINGS will continue to play at film festivals around the country until (hopefully) it is sold. So, if you ever have a chance to catch this brilliant first feature, don't hesitate. Burke and Eyal's film is more than a movie: it is a 75-minute journey that explores the benefits of living one's life as an open, humane, selfless, and glass-half-full kind of person, which is a great lesson for us all to learn.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
NEWEST DOC TRENDS: DISTRIBUTORS REPURPOSING SUNDANCE DOCS AS REMAKES OR TELEVISION SERIES
Ashley Elaine York @ Sundance 2011
February 3, 2011
Sundance is an influential film festival, there's no doubt about it. Just like Festival Director John Cooper watches television with the intention of spotting trends to aid in his selection of films for the upcoming Sundance Fest, film and television distribution companies came to Sundance 2011 to create new trends by repurposing great doc films as either television series or remakes with an American cast.
HBO acuired Ian Palmer's KNUCKEL, a world cinema documentary competition film about Irish gypsy clans called "travelers" that traditionally have setlled their disputes through ritualized, bare-knuckle fighting. In a strategic move, HBO intents to to repurpose this rare look at the brutal world where a cyle of bloody violence seems destined to continue unabated as a television series with partner Roughhouse Productions. HBO didn't stop there; they also acquired rights to the Susan Saladoff-directed competition documentary, HOT COFFEE, for a mid to high six-figures that includes broadcast and Video On Demand (VOD) rights for two years, as well as a theatrical run before it premieres on the cable network. The premiere cable giant also bought the rights to another competition doc, PROJECT NIM (which won the world cinema directing award for James Marsh last Saturday night) about one chimpanzee's extraordinary journey through human society.
Fox Searchlight was equally busy starting new trends and buying up some of the best films at the Fest. First, they acquired the rights to BENGALI DETECTIVE, the Phillip Cox doc about police corruption and the private detective business in India, to remake it with an American cast for an American audience. Claudia Lewis, president of production at Fox Searchlight, didn't admit to this reasoning in her recent press release, only saying: "We adored this film and are delighted to have the chance to work with such entertaining, funny material. We were charmed by this story of a dedicated husband and self-made detective who dreams big." But, the original director, Cox, alluded to Searchlight's strategy by adding that the company has a good track record of “bringing stories set in India to a worldwide audience," austensibly referring to Searchlight's success with SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, which has grossed $141,319,928 at the box office to date.
Fox Searchlight also acquired most worldwide rights to the dramatic film HOMEWORK, a sharply written and subtle coming-of-age drama about teens of troubled parental relationships written and directed by Gavin Wiesen in his directorial debut, which stars Freddie Highmore, Emma Roberts, Elizabeth Reaser (the truly gifted actress from the TWILIGHT Saga, as well as CBS's THE GOOD WIFE), Rita Wilson, Sam Robards, and Blair Underwood. Fox Searchlight Pictures Presidents Stephen Gilula and Nancy Utley announced that they also picked up the worldwide rights to the suspensful drama MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE, written and directed by the super-talented Sean Durkin in his stunning follow up to his 2010 Cannes award-winning short, MARY LAST SEEN. MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE stars Elizabeth Olsen (sister of the famous Olsen twins) in her breakthrough performance, Sarah Paulson, John Hawkes and Hugh Dancy. Both film are scheduled to be released later this year.
February 3, 2011
Sundance is an influential film festival, there's no doubt about it. Just like Festival Director John Cooper watches television with the intention of spotting trends to aid in his selection of films for the upcoming Sundance Fest, film and television distribution companies came to Sundance 2011 to create new trends by repurposing great doc films as either television series or remakes with an American cast.
HBO acuired Ian Palmer's KNUCKEL, a world cinema documentary competition film about Irish gypsy clans called "travelers" that traditionally have setlled their disputes through ritualized, bare-knuckle fighting. In a strategic move, HBO intents to to repurpose this rare look at the brutal world where a cyle of bloody violence seems destined to continue unabated as a television series with partner Roughhouse Productions. HBO didn't stop there; they also acquired rights to the Susan Saladoff-directed competition documentary, HOT COFFEE, for a mid to high six-figures that includes broadcast and Video On Demand (VOD) rights for two years, as well as a theatrical run before it premieres on the cable network. The premiere cable giant also bought the rights to another competition doc, PROJECT NIM (which won the world cinema directing award for James Marsh last Saturday night) about one chimpanzee's extraordinary journey through human society.
Fox Searchlight was equally busy starting new trends and buying up some of the best films at the Fest. First, they acquired the rights to BENGALI DETECTIVE, the Phillip Cox doc about police corruption and the private detective business in India, to remake it with an American cast for an American audience. Claudia Lewis, president of production at Fox Searchlight, didn't admit to this reasoning in her recent press release, only saying: "We adored this film and are delighted to have the chance to work with such entertaining, funny material. We were charmed by this story of a dedicated husband and self-made detective who dreams big." But, the original director, Cox, alluded to Searchlight's strategy by adding that the company has a good track record of “bringing stories set in India to a worldwide audience," austensibly referring to Searchlight's success with SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, which has grossed $141,319,928 at the box office to date.
Fox Searchlight also acquired most worldwide rights to the dramatic film HOMEWORK, a sharply written and subtle coming-of-age drama about teens of troubled parental relationships written and directed by Gavin Wiesen in his directorial debut, which stars Freddie Highmore, Emma Roberts, Elizabeth Reaser (the truly gifted actress from the TWILIGHT Saga, as well as CBS's THE GOOD WIFE), Rita Wilson, Sam Robards, and Blair Underwood. Fox Searchlight Pictures Presidents Stephen Gilula and Nancy Utley announced that they also picked up the worldwide rights to the suspensful drama MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE, written and directed by the super-talented Sean Durkin in his stunning follow up to his 2010 Cannes award-winning short, MARY LAST SEEN. MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE stars Elizabeth Olsen (sister of the famous Olsen twins) in her breakthrough performance, Sarah Paulson, John Hawkes and Hugh Dancy. Both film are scheduled to be released later this year.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
IT'S OUT OF THE BAG)! COOPER AND GOTH SHARE STORIES ABOUT STARS BEHAVING BADLY AT THE 'CHURCH' OF SUNDANCE ON SUNDAY
 |
| John Cooper |
The 'Church of Sundance' is a tradition. Every year, Sundance Director John Cooper and Director of Programming Trevor Goth lead a discussion with a mixed audience of press and Sundance passholders to dish about the best and worst of Sundance offerings and happenings before the slate of award-winning films play for the last time on the final day of the Festival in Park City, Utah.
Indeed, this event is an annual rite of passage for many Sundancers. "I have to go to 'Church' before I can go home, or it wasn't Sundance," the woman sitting next to me said.
Many of John and Trevor's tales are new to passholders, but the press may have been told or heard the scuttlebutt around town. Other stories are new even to the press corps. So, in this venue everyone gets to dish about the films they liked or hated, and the outlandish (or wonderful) things that stars or filmmakers did or said during the Festival that made them stop...and take pause!
 |
| Trevor Goth |
The band had told director Rapaport (a self-described mega-fan of the group) that he could shoot them at all times. Nothing was "off-camera," so to speak. But as the project wore on, and they saw dailies of their most private moments forever captured on film, most of the members started to panic. How would spectators judge their boozing and outlandish behavior? What about their infighting? Ultimately, they worried the documentary would "reveal too much" about themselves and their real lives. That it would cross over the line from documentary film to real life.
Three of the four band members pulled their support and didn't accompany the film to Sundance. But, even though the remaining member, Malik "Phife" Taylor, didn't know what to expect from the screening, the spectators, or the press, he nevertheless followed through on his commitment to Rapaport and to the project and showed up to support the film.
Seeing the completed film for the very first time (a common occurrence with low budget films in post up until the final days before the premiere), Phife wasn't on the defensive after the screening, but rather genuinely touched. So much so that he cried in front of the crowd, and told them if the rest of his band would have seen the final project and their reaction to to the story of their lives, they too would have been moved and supported the release of the film.
What neither Cooper nor Goth mentioned during the talk was that this type of portrayal is the aim of good non-fiction films. Great docs get too personal, too messy, and too real. So personal, in fact, that it’s often impossible for the spectators viewing the created/crafted/often scripted documentary to distinguish between the real people and real events that inspired the story, and those which they morphed into the creator's narrative. But also such reenactments are often uncomfortable to watch for those who inspired the story. Their depiction on screen is too close to, or different from, the real thing. Plus, in our contemporary media-saturated world, documentary films now often 'inform' history, or even rewrite it, rather than relaying history as everyone already knows it.
In BEATS, RHYMES & LIFE: THE TRAVELS OF A TRIBE CALLED QUEST, Rapaport's directorial debut, the man who took his turn behind the camera pays homage to a band he dearly loves and admires. His work which is channeled through his fandom, as well as a deep understanding of how to convey empathetic characters on screen, well relates to its audience. And, in the end, achieves what every good documentary film must: that is to capture a kernel of truth--a slice of real life and humanity--on celluloid for all to witness, and for posterity. Sans apology, regret, and explanation. The way that Rapaport did by exposing the behind-the-scenes drama that led to the seminal bands tumultuous breakup.
In route to the venue, Reed realized he had left his jacket behind in his suitcase. He told his Sundance handlers that he simply couldn't (or rather wouldn't) perform without the jacket, so they turned the van around and headed back to his hotel.
But the situation got even more complicated when Reed knocked a glass of water over when reaching into his luggage, leaving his bag and his jacket drenched. He nevertheless remained adamant about wearing his jacket when he performed later on stage; so the Sundance PA had to run up and down Main Street, and in and out of shops, looking for someone to lend out their hairdryer.
Finally, the young PA found a taker, but only because the star himself held sway with the proprietor. "You know Lou Reed?" the woman asked the PA? "Of couse," he said. In fact Lou Reed REALLY needs that hairdryer to dry his jacket so he can get ready to go onstage and perform at the Kimball Art Center. Hint, hint!
Finally, the young PA found a taker, but only because the star himself held sway with the proprietor. "You know Lou Reed?" the woman asked the PA? "Of couse," he said. In fact Lou Reed REALLY needs that hairdryer to dry his jacket so he can get ready to go onstage and perform at the Kimball Art Center. Hint, hint!
Well, if she could meet Lou Reed, then she said she would be happy to loan out her hairdryer. Her wish was granted; however, the PA spent the better part of the next hour hand drying the finicky rocker's jacket until, finally satisfied, Reed threw it on, went onstage, and gave the crowd the "spontaneous" performance they expected from a "surprise" guest.
 |
| 'Church' Audience |
Fest Director Connor, for example, shared his point of view that, ten years ago, when filmmakers wanted to expand the representation of non-Whites on screen, they used the character of the next-door neighbor to do it. First, that neighbor was Black. Then he was gay. Now, he's a religious person, illustrating a socio-temporal theme that runs through a large crop of the films at Sundance 2011, including three films I'll review over the next 10 days: George Ratliff's SALVATION BOULEVARD, Vera Farmiga's HIGHER GROUND, and Maryam Keshavarz' CIRCUMSTANCE, about young Iranian women who are of two minds when it comes to falling in line with the traditional tenets of their Muslim faith. 'Next-door' characters are positioned in the narrative to push beyond the historical boundaries of those traditionally represented on screen, so as to seep into the spectators' "consciousness," to use Connor's word, and thus have the potential to change how people feel, how they see others, and how they make meaning of zeitgeist topics, such as religion, that are affecting (and changing) the world as we know it today.
And speaking of the lighting-rod topic of religion at Sundance 2011, Kevin Smith (director of CLERKS), encountered Pastor Fred Phelps (the inspiration for his new horror film RED STATE) and 8 of his right-wing Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) parishioners when he arrived at Eccles Theatre in Park City before his screening. Phelps' anti-gay rhetoric and protests at funerals of American military personnel are currently front and center in a First-Amendment lawsuit before the US Supreme Court. The infamous Reverend and his disciples began protesting three hours before the start of the Sunday, January 23, 2011 world premiere, carrying the quintessential signs that broadcast the three-word slogan they're famous for, like: "God hates fags," which is also the name of the group's main website.
But Smith had some people fighting on his side of 'right', as well. About 250 local Park City high school students (who outnumbered the WBC by some 30-1) carried signs with their own quirky slogans, like: "I eat with a spoon;" "I love my mother;" and, "Hell is fabulous;" while belting out Katy Perry's fun take on female homosexuality, "I KISSED A GIRL."
"Smith is a master of social media," remarked Director Cooper to the 'Church' crowd. Thus he wasn't surprised at Smith's behavior in his post-premiere Q&A. Although, in the weeks leading up to Sundance, the director had suggested that he would hawk his film from the stage; but, instead of taking questions from the spectators, he lambasted Hollywood for 30 minutes, and announced that he had already bought the rights to his own film for a token $20, and had plans to take his film on the road through its' scheduled Oct. 19th theater release, in order to recoup as much of the film's $4M budget as he could.
"What we need to prove is that anyone can release a movie," Smith said. "Indie film isn't dead. It just grew up. It is just Indie Film 2.0 now. [And] in Indie Film 2.0, we don't let them sell our movie; we sell out movie ourselves."
Cooper reacted to Smith's remarks in this way: "Well, we'll know if Kevin succeeded by next year. We'll talk about it at Sundance 2012, whether or not his strategy worked."
That seems to be what Sundance is all about; giving independent cinephiles the opportunity to try on myriad different films (and flmmakers) for size. Not liking everyone they meet or everything they see, but having access to movies and characters and ideas that aren't valued (or marketable) in Hollywood today.
 |
| Robert Redford |
Over the course of the next four weeks, I'll take a look at many of the most talked about films at this year's Sundance and Slamdance, and discuss the making of these features with the writers, directors, producers, and cast members who shed further light on their importance, as well as the trends taking place in independent film today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)