Updates, Predictions, and Reviews

In recent news:

Filming for the Untitled Boxing Project started on Saturday and continued for 12 hours Sunday, during which time we shot the first of the boxing sequences. It was incredible. Dino, one of our stars, correographed the fight. He's done a lot of fight sequences (he's been Antonio Banderas' stunt double since... From Dusk 'Til Dawn, I think. Or maybe Desperado) and he's done correography on films like Fight Club and Tomb Raider. So, unsurprisingly, the fight sequence was great. Next Sunday comes the real challenge. The big fight, with two boxers who have never fought for the camera before, in a boxing gym covered in windows. By far, my biggest challenge ever.

Casablanca, eventually retitled Excerpts From a Michael Bay Interview, was barely completed on time but received with tremendous fanfare, mostly because roughly half of the students in the LAFSC program were in it in one form or another. So it didn't bomb, after all. Plus, I still love it, so it's a win-win in all regards. I'll re-edit a final cut in a few weeks.

In other news, I've discovered a new movie review site: Pajiba: Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People. Quite good.

In other news, being in and around Hollywood, one catches a certain buzz about pictures and box office, and ultimately forms their own inaccurate opinion. So here's mine:

Hollywood's fast-declining box-office take will rise somewhat with the releases of Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, and King Kong. However, since all three will at least mildly disappoint, all likely being good, but not great, Hollywood will still likely be left in the lurch. Fortunately, the surprising success of Walk the Line and Just Friends will manage to stave off suicide in Burbank.

And finally, Jack-In-The-Box's piping-hot, tasty, and cheap Egg Rolls get 10-4GB's first ever 5 out of 5 star review. They're a dollar each, or 3 for 2.99 (that's really how they're advertised), and you wouldn't even realize how good they are, hidden amid J-I-T-B's mediocre burgers and disgusting 2-for-a-buck tacos. But they are that good. It's fantastic.

Review: Jarhead (2005)

Director: Sam Mendes
Writer: Anthony Swofford, William Broyles Jr.
Starring: Jake Gyllenhall, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx, Lucas Black, and Chris Cooper
Synopsis: A young Marine (Gyllenhall) in the Gulf War is frustrated at the fact that though he's on the front line, he never gets to fight.

I'm not, as you might have guessed, a Marine. I can neither verify nor deny the accuracy of the information put forth by Mendes in his harrowing documentary-style war-free war flick based on Swofford's Jarhead. I have no intentions of talking knowledgeably about the nature of war, of the killing of innocent citizens, or the homoerotic behavior of thousands of men trapped in the desert with nothing to do. If you scroll around online for a minute, you'll get varying opinions on the realism of Jarhead from military personnel, spanning a range from "stunningly exact" to "absurd," which leaves me in the lurch if I have any intention of congratulating Jarhead on its accuracy - or, conversely, debunking its falseness. And if there's anything that ticks a military man off, it's the false camraderie that comes from faking military knowledge when "we" went to war.

I didn't go to war. I don't know what it looks like to walk through burning oil fields. And I don't want to pretend I do. So I'm going to take this carefully.

Maybe you find this introduction completely unnecessary. "Show some nuts and write the review, kid," you say. But:
a) If I'm going to make a perhaps erroneous statement: "Jarhead is full of unconvincing, war-movie hokum that merely creates an unfair mythology to an already overly-mystified military branch" (and I am), I don't want to have any ex-Marine come and break a bottle over my head for any inaccuracies I might make. After all, Swofford was a Marine. Broyles was a Marine. What do I know?
b) Mendes works as a commercial director for RSA Films, a joint company of Scott Free, whose building conjoins this one. You've seen his work, I'm sure: the Ebay commercials that suddenly erupt into song-and-dance routines, or those Allstate commercials where Dennis Haybert tells you how Allstate will still be there, providing car insurance, even when aliens come and do awful things to your children, as the camera slowly pulls up to his face. I'm just afraid that if I rag on the flick too much, one thing might lead to another, some phone calls will get made, and Ridley'll come down here and break the bottle of Glen Elgin single malt I just delivered to his office over my head (am I a name-dropper? Yes I am)

I'll list out my complaints in an orderly fashion, so that if Mendes has a problem with anything, he can drop in* and correct the error of my ways.

Counting down from least ridiculous, the Top Five Unrealistic Metaphors:
5. At the end of official hostilities, yelling "we won't need this anymore," the soldiers and officers burn their uniforms and fire several clips from their automatic whatevers into the air. I'm sure none of them realized that they might have to stay in the Middle East a touch longer, though in Mendes' version, they seem to fly home the next day.
4. After spending several months together in a desert with nothing to do, I imagine a good deal of homoerotic banter goes on between the Marines. But simulating acts of fellatio in the middle of the desert for the TV cameras, regardless of its documentation in Swofford's narrative, is just ham-handed story-telling. And frankly, I don't buy it.
3. When Gyllenhall and Sarsgaard, a crack sniper team, are about to take a shot, a commanding officer (Dennis Haybert, again) comes in and overrules, making them move out for an airstrike. In frustration, Sarsgaard attacks Haybert and takes out his aggression on him. No one makes a big deal out of this. No discipline action is taken
2. In an early scene, Swofford's commander (Jamie Foxx) accidently kills one of his own men in training when the inexperienced soldier panics and stands up into the live fire Foxx is shooting over his head. Foxx stays in command of the unit. No discipline action is taken.
1. And, finally, the ultimate nonsensical piece of metaphorical tom-foolery ever foisted on a war movie: As Gyllenhall wanders through Kuwait's burning oil fields (like the burning of his own unrequited passion for war), a riderless Arabian horse (as lost as the war's own purpose), covered in oil (the currency of the war), appears from the darkness (like the bleakness of war) and comes and nuzzles Gyllenhall (like the affection he lacks from being away from his girlfriend because of the war), who rubs its neck and talks to it for a moment (like he can't talk to anyone because he's alone on a battlefield because of the war) before it disappears across the sands (like the sands of... um... war. I was doing great until then).

But let's be fair. For each moment of heartbreaking lunacy, there are two of breathtaking imagery. Mendes (American Beauty) appreciates the small things, and it's the tinier moments that land like grenades in the minds of viewers (that's a war metaphor. I can do it, too). When Gyllenhall tries and fails to masturbate to a picture of his possibly unfaithful girlfriend, it's a heart-in-throat sort of emotion that grips the viewer - in the hands of any other director, it would drive us from the character; here we just feel the pain. Kudos for truly unique direction.

Plus, in a story of bleak, empty warfare, Mendes' never lets his desert be an barren wasteland. Instead, the characters (and therefore the audience) always seem to feel strongly that the enemy is waiting just over that shimmery horizon, or in the shadow of burning oil wells (but no, it's just an Arabian horse covered in oil). There's lyricism to his urgency, you feel the sweep of the landscape, but there's always a deep gut feeling that you're among the action. If there was any action.

Plus, characteristically strong performances from Sarsgaard, Foxx, and Cooper manage to carry an incredibly difficult piece, while Gyllenhall simply shines as a tightly-wound, closed-off individual in a world of solidarity. But for all Gyllenhall's energy, the audience is never really let inside. We feel for him, but we never feel with him. It's the same distance we get from, say, Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List or The Constant Gardener. We appreciate the flawlessness of the acting, since it lets us feel the tension and power of each event. But we're still on the outside looking in.

In the end, it's a collection of pieces that never really gels into anything unified, but instead wanders through the desert endlessly (like an Arabian horse, covered in oil).

The Rundown: Lessee, Jarhead gets one star for fantastic direction by Mendes, one for fantastic cinematography by Roger Deakins, one for fantastic performances by all concerned. Gyllenhall also get a star for having the sheer bravado to be willing to run through a good ten, fifteen minutes of the film wearing only a Santa hat around his groin, but the star gets taken away for actually letting him. I also give a star for the sheer power of the images, but I'll take that one back, too, 'cause I'm still ticked about the horse. That's three stars.

Oh, another half a star for the horse. That really was ridiculous. Two and a half stars.

* I'm in the library, Sam. Stop by anytime.

Review: Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)

Starring: David Strathairn, George Clooney, Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Ray Wise, and Frank Langella

To say that Clooney's directorial debut, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, lacked subtlety is... a bit... understated. Quite a bit of an understated, actually. One reviewer referred to it as "a movie dressed up in a camouflage shirt and pink polka-dotted pants in the middle of a surprise summer snowstorm." Colorful imagery, that. I don't think I could have come up with that myself.

I bring this up because Clooney's second picture is so much the antithesis to this. Good Night, and Good Luck bristles with tension, but the tone and style of the picture is, well, understated. Quite a bit understated, actually.

Inspired by the simplicity of Jean-Luc Godard's films (most notably, Breathless - Clooney wanted to use the same lenses so badly that when they didn't fit, he tried to scotch tape them to the camera), Clooney's film is sparse, subdued. He couldn't be any more deliberate. For almost every shot in the film, he let his actors pick out where they wanted to be, then moved the camera around to film them. It's a smart choice - in a story of such slow, careful change, the audience constantly feels like a fly on the wall, observing action that flows organically around the camera. In an utter rarity in recent filmmaking, every piece of the film's style - from its European cinematography to its silky 1950's black-and-white styling to its modern sensibilities - enhances the story.

Oh, right, the story. I forgot. Good Night is the true-to-life tale of how famed journalist Edward R. Murrow (it's okay, I hadn't heard of him either) turned the tables on red-scare ringleader Senator Joe McCarthy through a series of accusatory pieces on the mildly-groundbreaking CBS news show See It Now.

I wasn't particularly familiar with the story before seeing the film (alright, fine, I didn't know a damn thing about it), but Clooney's got newsman in his blood and his script - co-written with Grant Heslov, another actor-cum-writer - lays the facts out with a surprising journalistic clarity. In fact, Clooney's might even be too careful in covering all his bases: afraid that any deviation would let the press cut his film to ribbons, Clooney triple-checks his facts, leaning on actual recorded dialogue or stock footage whenever possible. Most surprisingly, rather than having someone play McCarthy, he only uses what footage of the senator is available. It's simultaneously refreshing and a cheap filmmaking crutch for the story to lean on.

Still, I'm all for it. Clooney dearly wants his film to change a viewer's perspective, and I find Good Night's earnestness deeply endearing. Each actor's performance is entrancingly personal and natural - particularly Strathairn, who gives Murrow a subtle humanity covered over by a steely public persona. It's one of the many little-noted performances this year (along with Damian Lewis in Keane) that probably won't scare up any Best Actor buzz this spring, but really should.

The problem with Good Night, though, is that the message of the film is that once upon a time, newsmen gave a damn - but those days are gone now. The film bookends with clips of Strathairn performing Murrow's landmark keynote address at the Radio and Television News Directors Convention (Not to toot my intellectual horn, but I had actually heard about this speech. Admittedly, I'd heard about it in the promotional articles for Good Night, and Good Luck) about how news reporting was being replaced by mere entertainment, and the time has come for television journalists to stand up and use the medium for good. "This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire," Murrow notes. "But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

I agree. I do. I truly believe that if television reporting does nothing more than keep the viewer occupied for a moment, if it inspires nothing more than water-cooler talk, then it's wasted breath. And Lord knows I'm tired of: "Big news today in the Middle East - we'll keep you updated on the events as they unfold. But first - Kelly Ripa!"

But I'm not convinced that modern-day journalists have truly lost their belief in the power of the press. Consider the general reaction to Katrina: in the wake of tragedy, the press sprang into action faster than essentially every government office, and spent the next two weeks holding the government's feet to the fire on their lackadasical response. Admittedly, they didn't show a whole lot of disgression in understanding exactly whose feet should be held to which fire ("Hey, Benedict XVI! How could you just stand by and let the U.S. government develop no emergency flooding strategy?"), but no one's arguing that they didn't feel strongly about the issue. As a field reporter for the Daily Show gently lampooned: "I've been in New Orleans for six hours now and I still haven't gotten to publicly berate an official." I think Clooney can rest easy in that regard.

Furthermore, Clooney falls prey to one of the classic blunders (the most famous of which being never, ever give Michael Bay a camera): in striving to drive home a blistering lesson, he becomes the very evil he's fighting. Yes, entertainment shouldn't trump true news reporting in the hearts of television producers - but if that's the case, shouldn't Good Night hold the same tone? Instead, Clooney seems perfectly willing to deviate from his story in order to work in some comic relief: Murrow's interview with Liberace, a highlight of the film, helps loosen up a story becoming too wound up in its own careful pacing and weighty pauses; in the same way, modern newscasting breaks up the fiery crashes and confusing foreign policy with speculation on whether Paris has stolen Mary-Kate's boy toy. Watching Murrow try to hold on to his deadpan interview style across from the most flamboyant of all subjects humanizes his character, just as entertainment news helps humanize a medium that flourishes on destruction and pain.

I'm not saying that Clooney is wrong. I just feel that if you're so willing to film something in black-and-white, you better be ready to deal with the fact that it might be a gray area.

Rating: Lessee here - one star for Strathairn's performance and one for everyone else's, one star for making something as anachronistic as black-and-white movie, one star for making history interesting without adding any homosexuality (in case Oliver Stone ever reads this), minus one star for writing a movie that occasionally borders on propaganda but plus half a star for actually having the balls to make it. Comes out to three and half stars out of five.

Casablanca: finally, the story comes to life

I can now certify that Casablanca is far and away the most fun film I have ever shot. Those familiar with previous student films I've shot may think this a small feat: When one thinks of [Let go], one doesn't think of a carefree tale of adventure and excitement. One thinks of a guy sitting in a car in the cold talking to a dead girl. Woo.

But we had loads of fun shooting [Let go], despite the cold, and the harsh subject matter, and the fact I burned most of Becca's face off by accident. Same with Leaves. Subject matter doesn't affect how much fun you have - we got to take a baseball bat to my car for [Let Go], we clambered around moving trains for Leaves, we threw metal chairs around a restaurant for A Great and Terrible Beauty - not to mention how much fun I had getting beat up by Trevor for Justin Ladd's final DFP project, or kicking sand in people's faces in one of Queue's, or clambering up a cliff face (okay, steep incline) with a couple 12 year olds and a camera on my back (no, the kids climbed for themselves. I just had the camera) for an amazing cityscape shot during one of Laura's, or when I hit Johnny Roggio in the face with a suitcase for one of Matt Burgos's.

The truth of it is that I always have fun shooting films, regardless of how they turn out. Which is important because a) no matter how proud I am of a film when I finish it, a couple months later I will look back and flinch - hard - if I watch it again, as I slowly realize how incredibly flawed each project is, and b) because if you aren't willing to have fun when things aren't going your way, things aren't ever going to get better. In my mind, the more fun you have, the more creative you get, and the better your final product. Of course, I've been in projects where it was all about having fun, and we made projects that looked like we had a lot of fun shooting them. And not much else.

Which honestly might be the case with Casablanca. But who cares? I've never had more fun shooting anything, this was truly filmmaker heaven. It gave me a chance to do all the sort of things I'd always wanted to do - all at once. I shot a Star Trek sequence on an alien planet, had a long dolly shot with an extravagant dance sequence in it, a huge mobster shootout, lightsaber fighting, kung fu fighting, and several bar scenes - plus I referenced/ridiculed at least 30 films (in addition to the already-ridiculous script, we added Sin City, Boondock Saints, and Miami Vice as references during filming), and I used more than 20 people in period costuming spanning several decades. I shot a sequence where I play two characters, arguing with each other, in the same shot. I put people in alien costumes several times. I utterly destroyed someone else's apartment. I don't care how it comes out, at this point. It was so much fun to shoot I'll always love it, no matter how bad it might (and probably will) end up being.

Okay, that's not true. I'll be absolutely heartbroken if it ends up failing. But it really was fun.

The Not-Just-Another-Update Update

I suppose it's the best example of how far this blog has fallen off the map that whenever I do post, it's a hurried "don't-have-time-for-a-real-entry, but-here's-some-boring-bullet-points-of-how-I'm-doing-sorry, I'll-write-more-later-when-things-settle-down" post. Blech. How the middling have fallen.

I've come to an understanding: things will never settle down. By the time leave in December, I will have gone non-stop for several months in a row. So I might as well stop fooling myself that leisure time will abruptly appear in front of me, and just try to make the blog at least a minor priority. Peracchio, my constant inspiration, continues to update RNF constantly, and he's not exactly lazing around these days. So there's no excuse.

Well, since I haven't really updated since before I shot "A Great and Terrible Beauty," and I'm shooting "Casablanca" tomorrow, I should probably hunker down a little and get something down.

Reasons For Not Writing: The main reason that there've been no updates is that whenever I've been around a computer, I've felt obliged to work on one of my scripts. Either I've been researching for my "Casablanca" script (the quantity of research I've had to do for this film is unbelievable) or touching up the boxing script (still unnamed) or outlining my directed study (more updates on that later).

But it's time to change all that. Let's start with the finished films.

Coffeehouse Film: I finally completed "A Great and Terrible Beauty" a few weeks ago, despite massive computer problems that almost completely destroyed the film and actually did destroy my spirit. I premiered the film to absolutely no critical acclaim whatsoever, due to audio problems and a complete lack of adept storytelling. I'll give you a full review on this and "Lights" later, rather than expanding this one out.

Dark Rejected Lover Film: "Lights" was my grand experiment. I wrote a highly visual story, envisioned something even bigger, and went and shot something outrageously complicated. It sort of worked. I'm lucky it even worked as well as it did. I made every shot a moving shot, using a homemade steadicam. When the steadicam broke an hour into shooting, I shot the rest handheld. I scored the film through Garageband, which I'm pretty sure is not how Hans Zimmer goes about it. And almost every transition is wiped away by an object crossing the screen (you have no idea how much work it can take, sometimes, to create this crappy effect. I wish I'd known). When I screened the film, I got a lot of good reaction: people loved the visual style, they loved the direction I took, they loved the score, they loved the wipes. They barely understood my story and they never really got into it. And I'm not surprised. It doesn't even feel like a film, it feels like a music video. Still, I'm glad I did it. I learned a lot.

Trouble Brewing: But there's trouble brewing: Dr. Walker e-mailed me to tell me that the film festival this year is only accepting 5-minute films. Which is a tremendous disappointment to me, because it means my directed study film can't be in the film festival. And that's sad because my directed study film is all about Asbury, and I want to show it to as many people I possibly can. Also, the Theatre and Cinema department has claimed the Sony HDV camera for their film. Which is expected, they should have first dibs, we bought the camera for them to use it. Here's the kicker, though: the spring semester film shoots over spring break - 5 or 6 long days, and the film's completely done. But no one else is allowed to touch the camera whatsoever until two weeks after the film has finished shooting. From the beginning of the semester until April 3rd, the camera on which I have the most experience is off limits. I'm baffled. I'm disappointed. But I do have good news.

Romantic Comedy: Not only was my directed study application approved, but I've also joined up with a co-director for the project: Mary Lashbrook. There are several reasons this is a good thing:

Reasons Mary Joining the Film is a good thing:
a) Mary is extremely cool
b) Mary is a fantastic screenwriter - she's working on a full-length right now, a middle school version of
The Godfather. Nickelodeon is actually having her pitch it to the executives.
c) Which shows how much Mary is the perfect person to co-write this project with, because she writes in the exact right style for the film
c) There's a lot of pressure taken off my shoulders, because I really struggle at producing, and...
d) Mary is a producer. She's producing a short film this semester in the same class that I'm making the boxing film, Hollywood Production (Vanessa Roggio is directing). It's set, interestingly enough, in the Middle Ages,
and she's already found a castle to shoot in. In California. For free. You have no idea how unheard of that is. We were pumped to get a boxing gym for only $300 a day.

Boxing Film: Speaking of the boxing film, let me just say that I'm thrilled to death that I have two hard-working producers on this film with me. I would be a terrible producer. They're all working out the details of insurance, and scheduling auditions, and figuring out what scenes we're shooting which days, and all I have to do is show up and be creative. It's awesome.

Casablanca: And finally, I finished the screenplay for "Casablanca," which I'm shooting tomorrow and Sunday. It's gonna be simply fantastic. I don't mean in terms of how good the film is actually going to turn out to be, because the film is actually going to be terrible. Instead, I mean that it's gonna be simply fantastic to shoot: I've written in dance sequences and fight sequences and science-fiction sequences and comedy sequences and a lot of lightsaber action. It's going to be one of the craziest days in the history of filmmaking. And at the end it's going to be awful.

Because, you see, the script is entirely too smart. I don't mean "smart" as in "intelligent," I mean "smart" as in "you need to know loads of useless trivia to understand this film." I references all sorts of obscure films: Robert Altman's 3 Women, Oliver Stone's JFK and Alexander, Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi, and Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain, which hasn't even been released yet. In fact, I've never actually seen any of those movies. I'm telling jokes that even I don't understand. It's ridiculous. It even references things like the films of John Woo, William Shatner's short-lived directing career, and every Michael Bay movie ever made. It's wildly over the top. No one is gonna understand a word.

I'm looking forward to it. I hope you are, too.