Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Quirkiness and the Transformation from Independent to Commercial Cinema (TFR Article)

(Link to article)


“Quirkiness” has become the word of the different, weird and uncool. Films that can’t be defined as funny or serious are called quirky. If you’re not sure if the film you’re watching is quirky, take out the quirky character trait and, if you’re left with a fairly standard story, it’s a quirky film. An example: take out the witty dialogue from Juno and you have a Lifetime movie called Fifteen & Pregnant. (You’d be surprised how eerily similar they are).


Quirky is a modern incarnation of a type of film that used to be called “outcast cinema.” Of course, it used to be a lot less normal and a whole lot weirder. Eraserhead, Pink Flamingos: that was outcast cinema. It dealt with abnormal subjects, in a not-so-normal way. There was a reason you saw those movies at midnight, too – their foreboding allure made watching them during daylight hours seem sacrilegious. (Watch Eraserhead at noon and then at midnight. It’s two different films, two different worlds, two different sets of implications).


Independent cinema thrived on these types of stories and subjects. Studios, however, didn’t care for them: hardly ever making much money, these films stayed on their side of the sandbox. Then Napoleon Dynamite happened and, suddenly, independent cinema crossed lines. It wasn’t the first time an independent film became a mainstream success, however: Quentin Tarantino made a name with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, two films that proved he was fit for Sundance and the Academy. Others like him include his partner in crime Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi), Kevin Smith (Clerks), Steven Soderbergh (Sex, Lies, and Videotape) and Paul Thomas Anderson (Cigarettes and Coffee), all who had films at Sundance and made more money than expected. Napoleon Dynamite was a clear example of how eccentric characters, doing pretty normal things, and in their own unique, “quirky” way, could be replicated. Whether it is the hamburger phone in Juno, the costumes in Eagle vs. Shark, or a family in a semi-working Volkswagen van in Little Miss Sunshine, it doesn’t take much to make something banal into something quirky.


Does this mean America is becoming more tolerant to the weird, unspoken, un-championed people of our time? Partly. It started with Woody Allen (as a somewhat average, albeit neurotic, man) who wasn’t destructively handsome or completely serious. Woody Allen turned into Steve Martin, then into Adam Sandler. Slowly, this ideal of leading men became less Cary Grant and more Jim Carrey. This doesn’t mean that the actors became less handsome; rather, they began portraying people who weren’t necessarily “normal.” As time progressed, we became O.K. with imperfect leading men and women, which also meant less-than-normal stories.


However, this convergence of independent cinema into commercial film was premature. I agree that America is ready for less manufactured, more authentic protagonists, but has this really happened? People tend to mistake quirkiness for well-developed characters when, in fact, quirkiness simply functions superficially. Quirkiness, therefore, never reveals anything about the character. That’s why genres ebb and flow so much in a commercial industry; once something becomes commercially successful, a market emerges. This explains why, following the popularity of the Lord of the Rings series, we get The Golden Compass; or, when 3:10 to Yuma does well, we get Appaloosa.


You get the same trouble in an economic market. When you find that yo-yo’s are popular, you flood the market with them until the supply overshadows the demand; then you’re left with a warehouse full of yo-yo’s that may one day be in demand again. (Or maybe they won’t). Quirky films are going through the same process and, as a consequence, we’ll have to suffer through the Juno’s to get to the Rushmore’s.

Marxism, of the Brothers, not Karl (TFR Article)


















Even though I saw Soderbergh’s Che on Friday, I wanted to examine different sorts of Marxists: The Marx Brothers.


The Marx Brothers were a famous vaudeville act in the 20’s, and when they moved to film in the early 30’s they established a unique approach to comedy, which becomes their tenants of Marxism.


Ideology


The joke is king. Their ideology establishes that settings, backstories and characters are simply premises that one of the brothers will use to capitalize on a joke. Whether it’s interrupting a chess match or an argument, if something funny isn’t happening, it’s not a Marx Brothers film.


Tenant 1: If there’s no “in” (or setup) for a joke, make one.


This is largely a trope for Groucho, like when he walks into a conversation and makes himself a part of it. He takes the situation away from the characters in the frame and makes it a focus of him. Without it, the scene is reality and reality isn’t funny. This shows just how much the brothers other-worldliness is juxtaposed to the society that they are portraying and it’s about as far as any critique of something will go. The ultimate is when the critique is the joke, but the joke always has precedence.


Tenant 2: If it’s silent, it’s not funny.


Take Monkey Business for example. Throughout the whole film we are constantly berated with noises, being music or words. Groucho, either after a one-liner or while waiting for someone, will hum, sing or whistle. This makes any silence that does happen in their film awkward and uncomfortable. Even when they play songs, they are played in a humorous way. Harpo’s odd faces when strumming the harp, or Chico shooting the piano keys with his fingers or Groucho’s facial expressions when he sings. It’s all a push for a laugh.


Tenant 3: It’s never about you.


All of the Marx brothers have an approach to scenes and to characters with the knowledge that they are performing. Often the characters are playing straight to the audience. Groucho is constantly looking in the direction of the camera and saying a one-liner (sometimes with no reaction from the opposite character). Many times they will enter a scene and never acknowledge that the other person is talking. It adds to the fact that supporting characters are simply plot devices implemented for the story to progress and so more jokes can be used. The supporting cast are often a reverse comic relief to a film filled with comedy.


I would conclude by saying the unwritten rule of Marxism is never analyze the joke. If it doesn’t make you laugh, don’t worry - their are hundreds more to come.


(Link to article)

Meeting Woody Allen (TFR Article)



I was in the Upper West Side over the weekend when I ran into comedic genius and good friend, Woody Allen. He was kind enough to take a break from trying to stop the fatalism of death, to do a quick interview with me.



Meseret Haddis: So Woody, how are things?


Woody Allen: Well it’s hard to say. I found a lump on my neck the other day before going to bed and haven’t been getting much sleep since.


MH: Besides the lump, how are things?


WA: Well I suppose they are good. My kids are doing well in school and I’m still making films so I can’t complain. Even though it’s getting a little cold for my liking.


MH: Speaking about film, how was working on Vicky Christina Barcelona with Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall, Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem in Spain last year.


WA: It was wonderful. You know me, I’d never cheat on Soon-Yi, but on this shoot I had three reasons I could cheat on her. I only say that because I know Penelope wouldn’t have gone for it.


MH: You’re in the process of finishing Whatever Works with Larry David, is that right?


WA: We actually just finished cutting the film.



MH: So how do you think it turned out?


WA: Well you know me Mezzy. It’s hard to analyze something you care for, so beyond that I don’t know. I hope people will enjoy it as much I as did making it although Larry David was a little much from time to time. And I thought I was a mushugana!


MH: Oh Woody!


WA: How about you? How’s school?


MH: School’s fine. I’m working five jobs right now to pay off one month of tuition, so it’s going pretty well.


WA: You’re still at NYU right?


MH: Yes. You’re alma mater.


WA: If I had stayed at the school it would have been.


MH: I want to let you go, but is there anything you want to say to students who might read this?


WA: Only to say that education is very important, because without it, how will anyone ever learn how to cheat?


MH: Before you go, what is your one regret?


WA: Printing that quote on in the back of my books and not killing everyone who’s asked me that.


Woody and I hugged our ceremonious hug. He asked if I needed any money to get home, but I said I was fine, I had my skateboard. I told him I’ll keep in touch and he told me he’ll keep ignoring my calls.


Vicky Christina Barcelona is playing at the Angelika Film Center and Whatever Works will be released in early 2009.

Tisch Film Review: December

Articles on the Tisch Film Review for the month of December '08.

Friday, December 12, 2008

The Rock Bible

I contributed some rules to Henry Owings' (Chunklet) very funny book The Rock Bible which you can buy at Quirkbooks.com or on Amazon.

Here's one of my rules in the book
Drummers (in the Book of Live Performances)  Rule 52: In no way, shape, or form will you lead a band from behind your drum set.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

5 Essential Jean-Luc Godard Films (60' to 67') without Breathless (TFR Article)

Jean-Luc Godard is one of cinema’s most prolific minds. Because his films were often years ahead of their own time, they might seem difficult to approach, unless you already love them (which I know is kind of a paradox). The challenge is to find the Godard film you like and discover his other films through it. The films below are essential to any fan of movies, but just as important to any fan of Godard.


These five Godard films are in no way an introductory course to the filmmaker (he made 23 features and short films during the 7 year period), but these will help guide your journey in experiencing cinema’s greatest troublemaker.


Le Petit Soldat (The Little Soldier) 1960


One of Godard’s first films was banned for three years in France because of its depiction of the war between France and Algeria. It’s the first film in which Godard works with his cinematic muse, Anna Karina, whose portrayal as an Algerian spy is so subtle that it becomes immediately clear why they will later make eight films together.


Quote: “Photography is truth. And cinema is truth at 24 frames a second.”


Le Mépris (Contempt) 1963


Starring the ultra sultry Brigette Bardot, Michel Piccoli, Jack Palance, Fritz Lang, Greek statues, Italy and cinema, in this exuberant Technicolor masterpiece. The film becomes a template to the Godard romance: A woman, a man, another man, a misunderstanding, a death, a camera and a whole lot of questions.


Quote: “Now it’s no longer the presence of God, but the absence of God, that reassures man. It’s very strange, but true.”


Pierrot Le Fou (Pete the Mad) 1965


Often heralded as the color version of Breathless, Pierrot Le Fou is the essential love story by Godard. A man and woman, together against all odds, struggling to keep sanity in a world strife with gun smugglers and musicals. It’s one of Godard’s best road films and is an example of the work of a master.


Quote: “Poetry is a game of loser-take-all.”


Masculin féminin: 15 faits précis (Masculine, Feminine: In 15 Acts) 1966


In what seems to be a throwback to Rossellini’s disjointed narrative, Pasian, Godard pieces fifteen vignettes showing the volatility and confusion of young men and women in Paris. Brilliantly performed by Jean-Pierre Leaud (a new wave favorite) and Chantal Goya (a ye-ye singer), this film gave Godard a chance to re-establish the theme of banality, which he had begun with Breathless, and also to express realism, through which he used mainly improvised dialogue (most of which was fed through an ear piece to the actors from Godard himself).


Quote: “Human labor resurrects things from the dead.”


La Chinoise (The Chinese) 1967


Godard’s most overtly political film, about a student teach-in, in a Paris apartment that examines/predicts the May 68 riots which would happen a year later. The students engulf themselves (figuratively and literally) with Mao’s Little Red Book and debate and discuss the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rhetoric of their day-to-day lives. This film would be a clear precursor to the Dziga Vertov Group (JLG and Jean-Pierre Gorin) and marks the time when Godard went “political”.


Quote: “We should replace vague ideas with clear images.”