Attention Young Filmmakers: Go See These Movies

“Let’s go see Attack the Block,” J said. “Okay, sure,” I replied. I had no clue what this movie was but it was a lazy Sunday afternoon and with the Denver Film Center only 2 blocks from our apartment, I figured why not? Here’s what IMDB says about it: “A teen gang in South London defend their block from an alien invasion.” A very succinct and accurate description, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The next day we decided to watch Box Elder for no reason other than it was on Netlix instant (or are we calling this one ‘quickstant’ now?) and it was shot in my hometown of Columbia, MO. The description on IMDB for this movie is anything but succinct, so I’ll do my best here: a group of unmotivated but witty college students survive their last years of higher education with style. These films are very different. Aliens versus no aliens, lazy white kids versus child gangs in government housing, you get the idea. But one important thing they both highlight is how to make a very successful film without money, or at least very much of it.

Attack the Block is a prime example of how to make an action-packed horror film with very little resources. By choosing 1 location (see: the block) the film locks the viewer in by only revealing information as the characters discover it. There’s no cut to a big government agency that exposes a conspiracy (which would probably be shot in somebody’s uncle’s dentist office or the like) or even to another part of London, much less the world. This was an idea that was always stressed to me at film school: if you know someone who owns a bar, right your movie so it takes place in a bar. Don’t waste your money trying to transform your location into something it’s not, and if you can make it relevant like Attack the Block choose only one location.

With more technological advancements CGI and special effects are getting more affordable. That doesn’t mean you should spend 90% of your budget on a 1998-looking monster. While it’s getting more affordable the quality of CGI used in big-budget films is rapidly improving and the small productions simply can’t compete. Attack the Block avoids the need for mediocre looking CGI by creating ominous villains that lack detail and aren’t used for many close-ups. While the glow-in-the-dark teeth are a little campy at first they’re actually an ingenious way to define the location of the alien without having to make a fully-formed creature. One of the best uses is during the scene when the drug dealer, Hi-Hatz, confronts our protagonist, Moses, in a fit of anger. While Hi-Hatz stands with his back to the window with a gun pointed at Moses, we see dozens of pairs of glowing teeth inching towards him from the darkness outside. It’s not always about having money for the best effects but instead how creative you can be with what you do have.

Box Elder is a dialogue rather than action-driven film and one that young filmmakers are much more likely to attempt: a group of guys sitting around talking. One of the best decisions Todd Skalr, the director and star, makes is to extend the scope to cover a few years of college rather than a particular moment. Much of the comedy comes from the lack of change we see in the characters despite so much time going by. It’s also a great example of a snapshot film, where we don’t have the typical arcs in characters with a nice resolution at the end where everyone’s learned something. You can imagine that this is how these characters acted and interacted before we met them, and that they’re going to keep on going just the same once we stop watching.

Similar to Attack the Block this film cashes in on location: in this case, the sprawling campus at the University of Missouri. At one point a few characters do venture to Mardi Gras but I’d argue what the tangent adds to the movie isn’t enough to justify having to spend a lot of money on a second location. The same comedic devices could have been used at any large public celebration. By taking advantage of a campus with all its highlights (walking through the quad, eating at the same dependable sandwich shop, etc) the viewer is transported back to their own college experience. Although it’s far from government housing the campus is also a way to trap and re-introduce the same characters again and again without feeling forced. We all know the douche bag that kept showing up to every party, even though nobody invited him.

While Attack the Block was an action-driven film, Box Elder relies solely on dialogue. The lack of action is another element of humor: this particular group of guys are all talk. Todd Sklar is a talented writer who knows the genre and has the skill to let his words drive the film. It’s not an easy task and something most young filmmakers struggle with, but Sklar is able to keep the comedy and tone consistent from beginning to end. There are no dips where the viewer is waiting for the next joke as the script is natural and flows remarkably. When describing a film and its characters, “quirky” is almost a bad word in independent cinema today. Since the dawn of Wes Anderson the formula has been repeated tirelessly with fake, overly-conscious characters abound. To watch a character-driven comedy about misfits that feels this honest and legitimate is a welcome change. If you find yourself in the writing phase thinking of a list of random oddities each character can possess… stop. A true group of friends are similar. They talk similarly and they joke similarly because if they didn’t they probably wouldn’t be friends at all.

Dramatic actors are hard to find… especially when your list of resources is limited to your friends and family. Because of this most young filmmakers choose the genres of comedy or horror when making their first movies. By taking stock in what you’re good at and using creative solutions films shot on a tight budget can be just as satisfying or even more so than Hollywood blockbusters. Unless you have a rich uncle and some connection is L.A. In that case, go forth in making Final Destination 15 and enjoy swimming in your money.

Watch It Now: "Last Train Home"

"Last Train Home" is a stunningly beautiful documentary that tells the story of a family in China struggling with everything from money to raising a teenage daughter. The mother and father, Suqin Chen and Changhua Zhan, respectively, work at a factory in the city making clothing to be exported (with the U.S. presumably being one of the big customers). They are able to travel back home to their rural village only once a year, during Chinese New Year, to see their daughter, Qin, and son, Yang. The opening of the film tells us that families traveling home from the cities during Chinese New Year is the largest migration of humans in the world.

The story could be told in an incredibly sympathetic, contrived manner that I'm sure would pull at your heartstrings in all the obvious ways. But the best part about "Last Train Home" is that it avoids all those pitfalls and simply lets the family's story come about in a completely natural way. You're a fly on the wall, popping in every once and a while over the course of 2 years to check on their progress. The only time we feel self-conscious of this is after an explosive fight between the father and daughter that clearly had been building for years. Qin looks straight at the camera with an accusatory glare and screams right at us. It's enough to make anyone shrink back in their seats with guilt. Even the editing feels delicate and lets scenes play out like they would at any other family dinner. The good, the bad, and the ugly; it's all there.

Another strength to the film is the structure. At the very beginning it looks like the film will be a "will they or won't they" as we see the mother and father struggling to find a train ticket. They talk to co-workers, visit chaotic train stations, and call their kids to let them know it might not happen this year. But rather than focusing on this one visit for the entire film, after the parents finally get their tickets and make it home we only get 2 brief scenes of the family together. And then... it's back to the factory. It isn't much of a pay off but that's why it works so well. For the parents, this is a very small part of their lives so the viewer is treated to the same harsh reality. Rather than being about the "big visit home", the movie is about the monotony of life. Before you know it, the year is up and it's back to the insane train stations to do it all over again.

Often times "Last Train Home" feels like something that takes place in the past and I found myself forgetting that this wasn't some historical account but a reality many people are living right at this very moment. There were several reminders, though, of the contemporary setting: the father bringing home a cell phone for his teenage daughter as a gift and that same daughter waitressing at a dance club for money. The cell phone especially felt like a shock, showing up in the tiny home in a very rural part of China where the ancient-looking grandmother still tends to the farm by hand. Juxtaposition is a huge strength of the film as well, not just with old and new but also the long sweeping shots of the breathtaking countryside versus the dingy city.

An incredibly moving documentary, I found myself emotionally invested in this family's story right from the beginning with hardly any backstory at all. Days after watching it I still find myself wondering what's come of the family members and wishing I could check in for just a minute.

**"Last Train Home" is currently available on Netlix instant.

Quick Review: Kick Ass

I wasn't totally sure what to expect when this movie arrived in the mail. I'd heard mumblings of it being overly violent but wanted to see it for myself. My biggest problem with Kick Ass wasn't the violence (although at times it did feel unnecessary). No, it was the fact that the people behind Kick Ass clearly didn't know what kind of movie they were trying to make. At times it was a raunchy high school comedy. At others, a dark revenge thriller. And sometimes... a commentary on technology and the de-sensitization of "kids these days"??

The tone was constantly readjusting to fit whichever of the 3 main stories were being told at any given time. Surprisingly enough I didn't hate Nicholas Cage in this role like I usually do. He committed 100% which is more than I can say for the majority of the cast. But Cage's story line alone as the disillusioned father training his young daughter to help seek his revenge could have been it's own movie entirely. The result is a lack of flushed out characters and plots, none of which ever give you the satisfaction you're really looking for in a comic book action movie.

And finally, I don't think I'll ever be okay watching an 11 year old girl get shot, chocked, and shot again. No matter how annoying the child-actor may be (and trust me... she tried).

My advice? Rent "Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World". So much better.

My Friend has a Camera... Let's Make a Documentary!!!

Documentaries are easy to make. I mean, what do you really have to do? Just set up some interviews, film some b-roll, throw in a couple Wikipedia facts, and bam! You're on your way to Sundance! It's been my experience lately that many documentarians are forgetting that just because it's a different genre, doesn't mean that the normal filmmaking elements don't apply. It doesn't matter how important or groundbreaking the material, if it isn't well made it becomes irrelevant. The unfortunate part is that this lack of good filmmaking does a huge disservice to the most important of topics.

The 2009 documentary Tapped is an excellent example of this problem. It strives to tackle the bottled water industry and unfortunately, fails miserably. The structure of the film, one of the biggest problems, is completely meandering and nonsensical. 20 minutes in and you're already getting the "we have options, the people can make a difference!" speeches before launching into another example from this grocery list of issues. It's true that documentaries are "made" in the editing room since as a filmmaker you can't be sure what material you're going to collect until you've actually done it. But that can't be an excuse for not having a clear structure in your mind before ever hitting record.

So the one thing you figure a documentary should do is prove it's case, especially those of the social-activist variety. For Tapped, that means long stretches of ridiculous b-roll (think local-news style) and a few random numbers chucked on the screen. I can only watch empty water bottles washing up on the beach so many times before I'm yelling at my TV to just, give me something! An entire section of the film, about the production of plastic and health effects on the local town, continues without one hint at hard evidence. We're supposed to be convinced of this by repetitive interviews with locals who have to pause to breath through their oxygen tanks rather than the facts that are indeed out there if you just take a second to do some real research. Documentarians aren't just filmmakers, they're also journalists and Tapped is an example of extremely lazy journalism.

Yeah, you get to see a lot of this shot.

Rather than just focusing on getting the public to understand the facts behind bottled water, the film eventually resorts to vilifying the industry via interviews with 2 corporate buffoons. I'm immediately skeptical of this because all it tells me is that you don't have enough material to support your own argument. It fails miserably and actually provokes me to side more with those corporate suits than the irritatingly cocky filmmaker.

Ultimately, Tapped doesn't respect the viewer. The material is so dumbed down that unless you've been living under a rock for the last 10 years, you aren't going to learn anything from this film. I can tell you more about bottled water and the privatization of this natural resource from one semester of Ecology in college. And what a shame, too, since this important material in more capable hands could actually make an impact and hopefully garner up some action.

The Brad Pitt Effect

Not too long ago I opened up the USA Today to the Life section to see an article about "Inglourious Basterds". Now, I hadn't seen the film at the time but it still managed to get me totally riled up- and gave me that much more motivation to go out and see it. It reported that more women have gone to see this particular film compared to previous works of Quentin Tarantino- 42% of the audience so far, actually. Obviously, that's not the part I had a problem with. I was pretty excited to hear that women are showing up in greater numbers to this than "Post Grad".

What really surprised me was the reason why. Or at least USA Today and Harvey Weinstein's reasons why. Two words: Brad Pitt. This actor, or his face rather, is attributed to the sole reason why women are seeing "Inglourious Basterds" more than other Tarantino movies. It literally states, "That tandem was all it took to lure female moviegoers". Okay, I'm no feminist but this is pretty insulting. As if placing a widely regarded attractive male actor in a lead role suddenly causes all us brainless females to finally leave the kitchen and buy a movie ticket. This is no surprise to the Weinstein Company, though, since recent trailers were cut to purposefully focus more on Brad Pitt and less on any violence. Right- because women would never be smart enough to attribute violence to a Tarantino flick.

And you know what? "Inglourius Basterds" has turned out to be one of my favorite movies of the year, so far.

The funny thing is, USA Today also grouped "Inglourious Basterds" into an article called, "Film Remakes Gone Wild". Really? That many people have seen the 1978 Italian work "Inglorious Bastards"? How many people who have seen or are planning to see Tarantino's movie even know it's a remake at all? I think it's ridiculous to lump this movie into the same category as "G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra" and "Land of the Lost". The article also asserts that this is a "familiar" movie since it's about war...What? Here's the quote:

"Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is another time warp, a historically egregious nod to war flicks, film noir."

Here's the link to the whole article, if you're curious:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-08-17-film-remakes_N.htm

Taking their formula, I'm not sure a totally original film exists. (Sounds like a good topic for a future post...)

But more importantly, what really sets this movie apart from other summer blockbusters we've seen dominating the box office lately is not only Tarantino's unique style but the traditional pacing of the film. Anything with fast, erratic cuts anymore is attributed to this "MTV generation" idea since the style emulates music videos more than it does a movie. Tarantino pushes his audience to sit back and actually watch an entire scene unfold... for a very long time. By doing this he builds a form of suspense that I don't think bombarding us with images so fast we might have a seizure can ever come close to. It is one of the most original as well as entertaining films I've seen in the theater in a while and I only hope more people (especially women) will agree... after they get past the shock that Brad Pitt's glorious mug isn't even actually on the screen very much.

No, I haven't seen "Casablanca"

That's my confession.  I've never seen that movie.  Now you say, "But I thought you were a film major!"  It doesn't really matter what movie it is, from time to time I have to figure out a decent response to this accusation.  Usually, it's classic Hollywood movies from what many consider the golden era of film; although, once or twice it's been about some random 90's action flick (which is also the reason I lose points in Scene It).  Whether I studied it in film class or not, I haven't seen every movie...nor do I want to.      

There's a big difference between movies I think I should see and movies I want to see.  Looking through my Netflix queue I can see this problem represented right in front of me as certain movies seem to just float in the middle for months and months, never actually reaching the top but never being deleted either.  For a while J was giving me trouble for never watching "The Pianist" and I told him I just hadn't been in the mood for it.  To which he responded, "Abby, you're never going to be in the mood for the Holocaust!"  Touche.

So while I finally did get myself to watch "The Pianist", which was totally worth it by the way, some nights I just want to watch an entertaining movie that I know and love.  While on the one hand I get incredibly frustrated when films like "Transformers 2" and "G.I. Joe" dominate the box office, the need to just escape with a film isn't a totally foreign idea to me.  I just don't happen to do it through ridiculous toy-based action flicks.  

My cup of tea?  "Anchorman".  I have no idea how many times I've seen it but no matter what, it always makes me laugh.  I think there's an unspoken rule among film majors that no matter what, you DON'T admit you like "Anchorman".  It's much more acceptable to make pretentious jabs at man-children like Will Ferrell in front of the entire class- a slam that is always well received with jaded snickers.  Instead, we're supposed to say we enjoy watching Buster Keaton on a Friday night which makes us just die from laughter.  I don't find Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin particularly funny.  I can watch it, write about it, and appreciate the significance but that doesn't mean I'm going to run out and rent "Modern Times" when I want to laugh.  I'd go as far as to say that anyone born after 1965 is a total liar if they tell you otherwise.  Or, they just have a really crappy sense of humor.

So in an effort to combat the dreaded "I thought you were a film major!" accusation, I've started lying.  Because even though I haven't "seen" "Casablanca", I've SEEN "Casablanca".  I know the entire plot, the famous line, and the mix-up of that famous line.  And I've found it's much easier to flat out lie and reaffirm someone's idea my film expertise than to explain everything I just wrote to them.

Now if I could only get "Schindler's List" to the top of my queue...

At least he thinks he's funny.

Paper I Wrote on Hitchcock

So in an effort to show some more serious and formal writing I've done on film, here's a short paper I wrote for my Films of Alfred Hitchcock class.

Art is one of the many motifs Alfred Hitchcock uses in several of his films to reveal deeper themes that are important, but an average viewer may not notice at first.  In his 1929 film Blackmail, Hitchcock’s villain is an artist and his paintings are an important part of the film in what they represent.  The use of art as a motif in Blackmail reveals more about the characters, advances the plotline, foreshadows events, and symbolizes covert themes of the film.

            The painting of the jester is a reoccurring image in Blackmail that conveys several different ideas as the film progresses.  The first time the jester painting appears on screen is when Alice has gone up to and is exploring Mr. Crewe’s apartment.  When Alice comes across the painting she mimics the gesture of the pointing finger and laughs whole-heartedly at what she sees as a silly portrait.  By imitating the jester Alice is therefore identifying with him, as up until this point she has lived a carefree and jovial life where she can date a dependable police detective but also have fun with a spontaneous artist on the side.  The next time the jester painting shows up is right after Alice has tried to fend off and eventually stabbed Mr. Crewe and is about to leave his apartment.  This time Alice’s reaction to the piece of art is to be horrified rather than to laugh, and the outstretched finger of the jester is now accusatory as it blames Alice for what she has just done.  Her response is to lash out and stab through the canvas; an act that mirrors what Alice has just done to the artist of the work. 

The idea that after this horrendous incident Alice now sees the painting of the jester in a different way represents how Alice now sees the rest of the world in a different way.  Before that particular night, Alice’s world was one full of innocence and ease.  After the attempted rape and self-defense that resulted in murder on Alice’s part, her world is then tainted with scandal and she will never view it the same way again.  This is further reiterated by the next scene were Alice stumbles aimlessly through the city and everything reminds her of the event she has just gone through. The jester also is the first instance of the common motif of an outstretched hand seen throughout the film Blackmail, especially after the murder where Alice continually associates any outstretched hand with that of Mr. Crewe’s limp hand hanging out of the curtain.  The image of the jester seemingly catching Alice in her incriminating act also foreshadows the blackmailer, Tracy, who discovers what she has done and tries to make her suffer the consequences.  The blackmailer, like the jester, appears to take great joy in getting Alice in this position as he takes his time tormenting her at her parent’s breakfast table.

            The jester painting also plays into Frank’s storyline as well as the resolution, or lack there of, of the film.  The day after Alice has been at Mr. Crewe’s, Frank is in the same apartment investigating the murder of the artist with his coworkers.  While examining the crime scene, Frank finds one of Alice’s gloves and realizes that she had been in the apartment the night before and may have something to do with the murder.  Frank turns and sees the painting of the jester that is now laughing at him, as he is realizing his suspicions were right in that his girlfriend has not been faithful to him.  The jester laughing at him also means that Frank should have known and stopped the infidelity earlier, especially after he saw Alice and the artist together after Frank had dinner with Alice the night before.  The jester is lastly seen at the end of the film after Alice has tried to confess to the murder but Frank has made sure that all the blame is placed on the now deceased blackmailer, Tracy.  The painting of the jester is shown being taken into evidence and is now laughing once again at Alice, who is left to live with her guilt in an unhappy and controlling relationship with Frank.  This is particularly clear in the final scene of the film where Alice and Frank walk stoically out of the police station without holding hands. 

            The artist, Mr. Crewe, and the portrait of a nude figure he and Alice paint are both important symbols in Blackmail as well.  Alice’s life, as played out through the beginning of the film, is one of relative comfort and ease where she is used to getting what she wants.  This is best shown by her reaction when she meets Frank at the police station and immediately reprimands him for being late.  Because of her easy and predictable life, Alice sees Mr. Crewe, the artist, as an exciting form of escape especially compared to her boredom in her relationship with Frank.  She is clearly interested in Mr. Crewe’s profession, as she looks over his paintings at his apartment and asks him to help her hold a paint palette correctly.  Mr. Crewe, on the other hand, uses art and being an artist to his advantage in order to lure Alice to his apartment where he plans to take advantage of her.  He understands Alice’s desire for spontaneity and practically dares her to come up to his apartment with him. 

While looking through Mr. Crewe’s art supplies, Alice inadvertently makes a mark on his blank canvas that she then turns into a smiley face.  Mr. Crewe then guides her hand to finish the person and draws an outline of a naked woman, which represents the artist taking control over Alice in a sexual way.  After undressing Alice with his paintbrush, the artist will literally get her undressed and try to take advantage of her only moments later in the film.  When the painting is complete, Alice giggles and jokingly reprimands the artist for his work, but she is clearly still comfortable and thinking of it as a game.  Alice then signs her name at the bottom of the painting in bold, capital letters that further suggests she is the subject of the painting rather than the artist.  After Alice has defended herself from Mr. Crewe and killed him, she sees the nude painting again as she prepares to leave and is now disgusted to realize the true intentions of the artist from the beginning.  She quickly takes a paintbrush and crosses out the title, which also represents a blackening of her name as she has been robbed of her innocence.

In Blackmail, Hitchcock uses this theme to his advantage in several different ways, though especially in the central plotline of Alice turning from an innocent girl to a tarnished victim that defines the second half of the film.  Just as art is not only visually appealing, Hitchcock uses this motif in order to serve a deeper purpose with a clear point of view as well.