June 9, 2006
A fest and lotsa shorts.
In this week's Chicago Reader, Jonathan Rosenbaum focuses on one title lined up for the 18th Onion City Experimental Film and Video Festival (June 15 through 18). In half an hour, Roads of Kiarostami "starts out as a straightforward and unassuming introduction to a selection of his black-and-white landscape photographs, but it turns into something poetic and frighteningly up-to-date that speaks to a much broader constituency." More.
Christopher Hayes for In These Times:
Progressives have an annoying habit when it comes to pop culture. Anytime they fall for a particular TV show, movie or Top 40 hit, they proceed to spend inordinate amounts of time and mental energy convincing themselves that while most of what the corporate media produces is reactionary crap, this particular product is actually subversive, laced with a cutting critique of capitalism, patriarchy or the Bush administration.
I mention this only because I'm about to do the exact same thing. But of course, in this case, it's really, really true: My current television obsession, UPN's Veronica Mars (Tuesdays at 8 pm CST), is the single most compelling exploration of class anxiety and class friction on the little or big screen today.
Brian Darr among the Cinemarati on a 1934 John Ford movie: "Certainly any good film can springboard a myriad of interpretations, but in 2006 a dominant one surely is to see The Lost Patrol as an eerie premonition of this country's current situation in Iraq." Related: The second part of John McElwee's consideration of The Searchers at Greenbriar Picture Shows.
Ken Loach talks with Time Out's Cath Clarke about being savaged in the British press. Also: Chris Tilly reports that DreamWorks has hired British ad directors Tim and Charlie Guard to remake Kim Ji-woon's A Tale of Two Sisters.
Jon Bentham asks various directors who've made horror films, most of them fairly recently, about their favorites of the genre. Here, all on one page, are, for example, Eli Roth on Audition, Robin Hardy on Psycho, Hideo Nakata on The Haunting, Rob Green on Rosemary's Baby and Neil Marshall on Alien.
Also in the Guardian, Laura Barton asks Jim Jarmusch about his favorite "musical moments in film": "Wild Zero. Guitar Wolf. Where they're killing zombies. Rude Boy. The Clash. Performance which has Mick Jagger..."
Had enough of United 93? One more. Because it's Martin Amis. In the London Times.
Acquarello reviews "Nagisa Oshima's trenchant and acerbic coming-of-age tale, Boy."
Just look at that cast for Zak Penn's poker movie: Ray Liotta, Woody Harrelson, Cheryl Hines, Ray Romano, Jason Alexander - and here's the point, really - Werner Herzog. Cinematical's Martha Fischer has more.
William Goss at Hollywood Bitchslap: "A Scanner Darkly seems to be practically begging for a cult following, but any such appeal can be attributed more to the story beneath than the glossy package it comes in."
In the New York Times:
For the New Statesman, Richard Cork surveys Los Angeles 1955-1985: The Birth of an Art Capital, an exhibition "as concerned with the seamy underbelly of LA as it is with Hollywood gloss."
Online viewing tip. Rashomon points to "Jean-Luc Godard's [rejected] jean commercials." Are they?
Posted by dwhudson at June 9, 2006 5:19 AM
If you're asking if they are really Godard commercials the answer is yes.
They were made in 1988.
If you're asking if they were rejected I cannot confirm this althought the YouTube site says they were. It defintely adds a more subversive element to say they were rejected.
I saw Prairie Home Companion today. It was a matinee. But I would say 50 percent of the theater was full.
Full of really old people.
I'm not an age-ist, because I recently had a birthday, but I was by far the youngest person there seeing the movie. I was excited when I saw a girl I thought might be my age with her great great great grandmother, however she turned out to be a hospice volunteer wheeling in an elderly woman and assisting in her death.
I love Robert Altman. We're from the same place. Kansas City. I smoked weed with him at the USA film festival, though he doesn't like to share the good stuff, Oliver Stone has the great stuff! Oliver Stone will share!
I wonder if a Prairie Home Companion had been directed by Oliver Stone if the majority of the audience today would have been too engrossed in the bloodshed to fidget with their portable medical devices, colostomy bags and hearing aids?
The interesting thing was, that everyone stayed for the entire length of the end credits, but it turned out many were just simply unconscious.
I admit I'm a fan of the radio show, but as I've said before, Why can't the radio show be a radio show and not a movie?
Still, I liked it, but can't get the smell of Vicks vapor rub off of me.
Posted by: Jerry Lentz at June 9, 2006 7:20 PMFantastic. Many thanks, Matt, for both answers.
And Jerry, what, no Lindsay Lohan fans in there?
Posted by: David Hudson at June 10, 2006 6:15 AMI read elsewhere (maybe in the book, "Hollywod in teh Information Age"?) that the Godard ads were rejected. I'll try to track it down.
Posted by: Chuck at June 10, 2006 8:32 AMSpeaking as someone who's actually sat through about 20 minutes worth of 24 Hour Psycho, can I just say that what Johnson says about the radical gesture involved in taking the film and slowing it down strikes me as a load of horseshit? It was a stunt and not much more. An amusing stunt, I'll grant you (and indeed there was something faintly mesmeric in watching this thing and waitng for the next frame to come up), but that seemed to be about as far as it went.
Posted by: James Russell at June 10, 2006 9:09 AMWell, James, I think that, like Warhol's Empire - and Gordon references Warhol constantly, so I don't think this is a stretch, by any means - 24-Hour Psycho is not meant to be actually watched. True, Warhol did screen Empire in a theater in NYC (the Bridge), but it seems he was primarily interested in creating another sort of movie strictly for himself - he watched the audience the entire time (and was evidently pretty entertained by their reaction: "Gee, you think they hate it... You think they don't like it?").
24-Hour Psycho, though, screens in galleries, where, in the context of a larger installation or exhibition, people are practically encouraged to concentrate more on the concept than the experience.
Posted by: David Hudson at June 10, 2006 4:09 PMI have to disagree with you partly on this David... and I think the guy from New York Times really fails to nail it.
I had a chance to experience 24 Hour Psycho when it was part of the Hayward Gallery's landmark Spellbound exhibition 10 years ago, and it has haunted me ever since.
I watched about 90 minutes of if while sitting on a bean bag which the gallery had provided, while the film progressed on an enormous screen that hung suspended in darkness above our heads. I guess 90 minutes is a bit shorter than the whole of the original normal speed Psycho.
The sequence we watched was a very simple piece of exposition. The sheriff talking to Vera Miles and John Gavin (if I recall correctly), and not at all dramatic. But the thing was so compelling and also deeply sinister. Every gesture and look became extraordinary, and each time the film cut to a new composition it had a very intense effect. If anything it affirmed Hitchcock's incredible precision for visual construction, where even the most mundane intertitial moment has been rigorously conceived and designed. Those people who walked in during the shower scene, were very, very lucky.
So, the art-work was a powerful experience, as opposed to a conceptual mind-game, as well as an act of cinematic worship of one of the true Gods.
Warhol was interested in boredom and real-time. If you like movies, 24 Hour Psycho is not boring at all, and it unfolds in its own magical cinematic 'time'.
Posted by: ben at June 10, 2006 7:24 PMSounds like the experience more than measures up to the concept, then. I'm very happy to stand corrected this time around - many thanks, Ben.
Posted by: David Hudson at June 11, 2006 5:22 AM






Subscribe to GreenCine Daily by email