07.12.13 |
∞
It’s almost too easy to link to another Film Crit Hulk piece given his consistency. But this is another 10000 words easily worth your time if you’re interested in film, especially screenplays for big budget films over the summer (or have always had a bit of skepticism over J.J. Abrams’ skill overseeing screenplays.)
Here’s my favorite part:
LET’S GET HYPOTHETICAL: IF YOU (THE REAL YOU READING THIS NOW) WERE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND SOMEONE CAME UP TO YOU AND YELLED, “Quick! I’m your long-lost brother you never knew you had! Someone’s after me! We have to run!!!!” YOU WOULD BE COMPLETELY TAKEN OFF-GUARD, WOULDN’T YOU? NOW, WOULD YOU BE CURIOUS? WOULD IT BE CRAZY? WOULD IT BE EXCITING? SURE! BUT YOU WOULDN’T EXACTLY BE INVESTED. YOU WOULD BE SUSPICIOUS. YOU WOULD DISTANCE YOURSELF. MEANWHILE, IF YOUR ACTUAL BROTHER THAT YOU’VE KNOWN AND LOVED YOUR WHOLE LIFE SHOWED UP AND SAID “Quick! Someone’s after me! We have to run!” YOU WOULD BE MUCH MORE INVESTED! IT’S YOUR BROTHER, AFTER ALL. BOTH ARE YOUR “BROTHERS” BUT ONE IS A PERSON WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A SHARED HISTORY AND LOVE. YOU HAVE ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO YOUR BOND THUS THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL ROOTING INTEREST. AND BETWEEN THESE TWO SCENARIOS, THE MORE DRAMATIC AND COMPELLING SITUATION SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, RIGHT?
06.03.13 |
∞
Julie Delpy, delivering an important message to Alamo Drafthouse moviegoers:
He’s talking and texting at the same time, is this your living room? What’s your f**king problem man?
Anyone who’s a fan of Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight is going to love this one. I certainly did.
05.31.13 |
∞
Matt Zoller Seitz on today’s great era of TV direction:
Where’s their MoMA retrospective? Why is there no auteur theory of TV?
One explanation is that movies have a half-century head start on TV, so there’s been more time for critics to settle on terms and definitions. I like to tell people that TV, as both business and art, is at roughly the same place in its development as cinema was in the late fifties, around the time that the French floated the auteur theory. We’re still figuring out who the “author” is on TV shows. We’re still taking into account whether we’re talking about the show as a whole or a particular episode, and why. We rarely think of TV as being directed, unless the show’s main creative force has already been identified as a theatrical director (as David Lynch was before Twin Peaks) or doubles as the show’s star (like Louis C.K. or Lena Dunham).
I’ve become more aware of reoccurring TV directors on shows as varied as Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and even New Girl. I know there’s a “voice” there, but I admit I rarely make a connection with what’s onscreen the way I do with a “name” film director. Seitz helps explain why.
05.20.13 |
∞
A fun, breezy conversation with actor Alec Baldwin as he raids the Criterion Collection closet. Good selections.
05.17.13 |
∞
Even smiling during outtakes, the late Dennis Hopper in his Frank Booth outfit scares the hell out of me.
05.15.13 |
∞
I’d argue it’s hard to find someone better equipped to deliver a “State of Cinema” talk than director Steven Soderbergh. Film Comment transcribed his entire talk for reading, There’s also a full SoundCloud embed file if you’d rather listen to Soderbergh’s audio. One of his quick asides on the major studios’ financial dominance was pretty scary:
In 2003, 455 films were released. 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. Last year 677 films were released. So you’re not imagining things, there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. So, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, 10 years ago: Studio market share 69%, last year 76%. You’ve got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you’ve got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. That’s hard. That’s really hard.
05.14.13 |
∞
That shot of Vader and a bunch of mattresses laying on the “chasm” below gets me every time.
05.01.13 |
∞
Very well edited “back to the camera shot” montage, covering everything from Sunshine to Gone With the Wind.
04.25.13 |
∞
Taffy Brodesser-Akner, writing for The New York Times:
Why did he turn into an action star at all?…with each of his three Oscar nominations, there was a sense that he was achieving great things despite the hindrance of his handsomeness. “Can you believe that Tom Cruise was nominated?” Like he had to overcome a great handicap.
So maybe it makes perfect sense that he leapt into action films and thrillers, with the rare foray into something like “Lions for Lambs” or “Rock of Ages.” Finally, here was a genre where his good looks didn’t require explanation, were not presented as an impediment, where he didn’t have to worry about being too pretty for the position…
More than that, here was a genre in which he could outdo anyone.
As much as Tom Cruise’s presence in many movies can drive me crazy, the man’s work ethic is undeniable. From the Mission: Impossible franchise to Minority Report, Cruise’s skill as an action star elevates many of his choices from merely watchable to enjoyable.
04.16.13 |
∞
Grantland‘s Zach Baron:
He [Carruth] is obsessive, won’t deny that. For Primer he taught himself everything, from editing to operating a camera to acting to writing music. It took a while. The movie almost never got made because of it, because of his tendency to go down wormholes for weeks and months and years at a time. “I don’t typically have a social life, I don’t have a family, and I will stay up all night, every night, for days on end, to solve something that I think is solvable,” he says. “And it’s very frustrating sometimes, because I know that I’m like that, and it’s not always a positive result.”
‘Visionary’ and ‘auteur’ are words overused when it comes to describing filmmakers. But Carruth is unquestionably both. I revisited Primer last weekend for a second time, and it’s just as cerebral and deep as I remembered from my first viewing years ago.