The Film Thugs Movie Show

Austin Film Festival Day Three Rundown

October 23, 2010

1) Under the Boardwalk

2) Burned

3) The best day of panels ever!

Today was amazing. I saw a very good film and was completely ensconced in the world of Pixar. More on that later...

I watched two documentaries today that brought to mind my favorite question on the subject of documentary film. What is more important, the delivery or the subject? Is there more value in the content or the meaning of the film? I have always believed that the delivery is of paramount importance, and my viewings today proved me correct.

1) Under the Boardwalk (w. Craig Bently, Kevin Tostado, d. Kevin Tostado)

Let's get this out of the way up front, yes this is a movie about the board game Monopoly. It is also one of the most engaging, entertaining, and informative docs I've seen in a while. A documentary does not have to be about some loft, high minded subject (more on this later) in order to be effective.

So, why a movie about Monopoly. Well, for starters, most board games only remain relevant for about 3 years, Monopoly has been around for more than 75. Most board games have a fairly narrow audience, Monopoly has been played by more than a half a billion people and has transformed from a worldwide phenomena into a mainstay of global popular culture. Don't believe me? How many of you remember the first time you played Monopoly? You can't, can you. It's something that has always been there.

This film does a fantastic job of balancing two different story lines. One traces the game from it's origins as "The Landlord's Game," which was developed by Elizabeth Magie, Quaker activist and follower of Georgism (an economic theory that opposes land ownership). The game was originally meant as a type of propaganda, showing that land ownership and renting brings great wealth to some, while impoverishing others. The object of the game being to "bankrupt" everyone else was meant to illustrate how land ownership filtered wealth to a few. However, as the point of the game was to win, it didn't really succeed in painting the evils of this system, as everyone wanted to be the one ruining everyone else.

Through a long and lengthy journey the concept ended up with Charles Darrow who, during the depression, wanted to make and sell one game per day for $4 so he could feed his family. It very quickly caught on and became what it is today. Originally it was sold without the signature pieces, with instructions to use things from around the house, like thimbles or coins, when it became more popular they took inspiration from charm bracelets to create the now iconic pieces (I like the Scotty dog, because dogs are awesome, and that one is Scottish).

The other story follows a group of players vying for the world championship. Like I said, global. 41 players from all over the world compete to claim the title.

One could compare this film to "King of Kong," but that is only true from a basic cosmetic standpoint. The style of storytelling varies greatly between the two. "Under the Boardwalk," isn't as flashy and doesn't really have a this guy vs. this guy theme throughout it. There is a very social feeling to the tournaments and the competitors seem to like one another. There is no manufactured tension or invented villain, the players are presented as real people and you are allowed to make up your own mind.

This is what good documentary filmmaking should be. You take a subject people have some interest in (honestly, who doesn't remember playing this game as a kid) and presents it in a way that makes you want to learn more.

If you like movies, board games, history, comedy, a little drama, or just a well told story you cannot go wrong with this.

2) Burned: Life In and Out of Texas Youth Prisons (d. Emily Pile)

This one... Well, this is a tough one. The ideas of this film are very serious and important, but the delivery kills it. "Burned," follows two young men who have spent time in the Texas Youth Authority. One just released, the other appealing his case.

The facts are heartbreaking. Each of these boys were sent in because of sexual improprieties when they were very young. They weren't criminals, they were screwed up kids who needed counseling and help, and should have been there for 6-9 months. What they got instead were long, very long prison sentences. One getting out after 4 years, the other now looking at 21 years in addition to the five he's already served.

If you live in Texas then you are aware that TYC is a fucking train wreck. It has been poorly run and besieged by massive scandals. The subject matter is extraordinarily compelling, the people are real and heartbreaking, and the events are timely.

The problem is that it's not that well made. It's only 69 minutes long, but it felt like it took HOURS to get through. There are shots that linger for far too long with no real reason, some repetitive scenes of people talking to the camera, long scenes that don't really add much to the overall message, points that are hinted at but not really made (there is an attempt to put the blame on former governor George W. Bush, but that doesn't really go anywhere and fails to actually prove the point), and poorly structured information.

I really, really wanted to like this movie. This issue is very close to me. As a teacher I come across kids who I could see these things happening to and I really want to see the problems in this are addressed and corrected. While they are addressed here it is done so poorly as to almost be missed.

Some pieces of information are given way too late (the fact that the young man imprisoned for sexual impropriety had been raped when he was 9 should be something that comes out early on, not something that should be in one line more than half way through the film).

This film suffers from feeling unfocused, inconsistent, a lack of structure, bad sound mixing, slow pacing, and a lack of a unifying theme. There is a very compelling story here that could be told well. But this is a first time director and it shows.

Sadly, what could be an important film with a powerful message gets muddied down by unskilled story telling that ultimately robs it of it's punch.

3) AMAZING PANELS

I went to the Pixar Story Development Process and the TOY STORY 3: How 4 Years of Creative Agony Became 93 Minutes of Movie Fun panels today and both were absolutely amazing.

As much as I want to transcribe my notes, I have over 14 pages of them and that will get tiring for you and for me (it's just past 1 am). So, here is what my plan is. Campbell and I are going to record a Pixar show next month and I will go over these notes at length. Reading a synopsis won't really do them justice. I am very much looking forward to sharing this with you all.

If you want to know anything about it beforehand please let me know and I will gladly discuss it with you before the show.

Well, I guess that's it from me until tomorrow.

Austin Film Festival Day Two Rundown

October 22, 2010

1) Blue Valentine

2) Peep World

3) Panel Rundown

Day two was busy as all hell. I arrived downtown at around 8:40 am and didn't leave until 11:30 pm. Good times. So, here's how it went.

1) Blue Valentine (w Joey Curtis, Derek Cianfrance, Camille DeLavigne d. Derek Cianfrance)

I am going to soap box it here for a second. The MPAA (those fine folk who decide what rating a film will receive) piss me off to no end. Their system feels arbitrary, outdated, and stupid. You can only use the word "fuck" once in the non literal sense and maintain a PG-13 rating. Because that's the problem, kids hearing the "f" word too many times. For want of any other description, it is fucking stupid (I realize this review is now rated "R" and I am ok with that).

Why do I bring this up? Well, because the film I watched tonight, a powerful and incredibly touching film has been assigned an NC-17 rating for a sex scene that is not erotic, not violent, not disturbing. It is graphic, but more that that it is sad. Really sad. I'll talk more about this later, but the idea that we have a system that gives "The Human Centipede," "Hostel 1&2" and all of the "Saw" movies an R rating without a second thought gives this film an NC-17 stuns me. I honestly cannot make sense of it. This is a beautiful, touching, and wonderfully authentic film that deserves a shot at release. There is no logical way a reasonable human being could say that this is less appropriate for a teenager than any of those listed above. For some reason we think graphic torture is fine, but sex and nudity will be the downfall of us all.

Soapbox off.

My favorite poem is T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." I've always identified with it and I think it is one of the finest pieces of writing ever produced. Specifically I am enamored with the line, "Shall I, after tea and cake and ices have the strength to force the situation to its crisis." This describes a situation most of us have been in. You're in a relationship that is failing, you know it's failing, the other person knows, your friends know, but it just hasn't reached that crisis point that forces it to end. That is what this film is about.

Most films center on the beginnings of a relationship (the honeymoon), the middle (where things have reached a comfort point), or the divorce proceedings. You never get the moment when the relationship dies. It's hard to present well and it's difficult to watch. We've all been there and it is painful.

If you think of a relationship as having a life then Blue Valentine is that life at the moment of death where the life that is dying flashes in front of your eyes. There is a combination of present time and flashback showing how these two people came together and how the inevitably fell apart.

Gossling and Williams are both superb in this film. He plays all the clumsy sweetness and frustration of Dean perfectly, and she plays the damage and need to be loved with a quiet power that is absent from most performances today.

These are two people with a very idealized and romanticized view of love. They view it as something that is there or it isn't. From their backgrounds it is obvious why. Neither of them has any exposure to a couple working at it, tending to the relationship. Things are good, then they aren't. Williams character says early on, "How can you trust your feelings when they can just disappear like that?" That is a question that has plagued people as long as there have been relationships. At some point your feelings will change and if you are unequipped to change and grow with them, then any relationship is destined to fail.

The two stories (falling in love and falling apart) are told in intersecting circles. You see the beginning of the end, then you see how they meet, you see the relationship deteriorate further, then you see their amazing first date. This style allows you to see how they fell in love with each other, but also showed the lack of foundation the ultimately doomed them. Through most of the film it is obvious that the only reason they stayed together as long as they did is because of their daughter, and their absolute love for her.

Gosling as the devoted, hard working father is touching, Williams as the overworked mother who seems to be raising her husband along with her daughter is touching. The dynamic of goofy, doting father, and concerned, loving mother is brilliantly played, and creates some genuinely sweet and heartbreaking moments.

This is not an easy movie to watch. It's quite brutal, emotionally, at times. The scene that earned the NC-17 is quite graphic. The two go away to a romantic hotel for a night to try and rediscover something, and end up in a graphic sex scene that is just hard to watch. It's not as graphic as say "Monsters Ball," but there is a resistance by Williams, followed by a resignation, she doesn't want to, but she'll do it. It isn't violent, it isn't a glamorized rape scene, it's hard to watch because it's just so sad. There is no way to deny that this is the death of the relationship embodied in a single moment. He is still infatuated with her, but she has moved on and there isn't any of the old spark left.

While I did enjoy this film it is most definitely not something I would watch often. It is good enough to deserve another view or two, but it is just to heartbreaking. This script went through 66 drafts over 12 years and it shows in the attention to detail, the brilliant pacing, and the way it allows a look and silence to speak volumes. This is a well acted, solidly written and directed film that is well worth at least one viewing, just be aware that it won't be an entirely pleasant experience.

2) Peep World (w. Peter Himmelstein d. Barry W. Blaustein)

Family centered movies are a double edged sword. Sure, everyone can relate to the idea of "family," but can they relate to the one you created. This goes for comedy and drama equally. If you go too realistic you run the risk of limiting the ability of people to relate, too simple people won't buy it, too unrealistic and it's... well, unrealistic.

"Peep World," pulls off the job of creating a believable family with relatable aspects that is completely unlike the family of anyone you know. Basically the father doesn't really care for his kids, they know it, but they fight for his approval.

Jack the oldest (Michael C. Hall in a solid performance) plays the oldest. His marriage is in trouble, his business is failing, and he has no mooring lines to keep him in place. Next is Joel (Rainn Wilson, who is brilliantly restrained) is the family fuck up. He fails at everything and nobody really takes him seriously. Next is Cheri (Sarah Silverman in a somewhat familiar role that she manages to make fresh and enjoyable) is the flaky daughter who can't really find her place. And Nathan, the youngest (Ben Schwartz who plays the hell out of this arrogant prick) who has a best selling book that is so literally based on the family that he is being sued by his sister, all gather together for their father's birthday.

This feels very much like an LA version of "The Royal Tennenbaums." Everything is amped up. The relationships are more strained, the father is outright hostile and dismissive towards his children. You really get the feeling that this is a group of people who only associate with one another out of a sense of genetic obligation, who no longer really like one another, but who obviously love each other.

Peep World ultimately succeeds at what it sets out to do. It shows a comic portrait of a HIGHLY dysfunctional family that is having a very bad day. The humor works and the performances are solid. All in all, this was a very good film.

3) Panels- It's really late and I don't really feel like transcribing my notes, so I might do that another time. But here is my rundown.

I attended

Writing RX- How to deal with being blocked

Writers and Directors- Featuring Randall Wallace, John Lee Hancock, Shane Black, Phil Rosenthal, and Alex Smith.

A Conversation with Phil Rosenthal

Film Critics in the Industry

Phil Rosenthal was without question the highlight. I'm putting all the thugs on notice. I will be pimping "Exporting Raymond" really hard until everyone has seen it.

Austin Film Festival Day One Rundown

October 21, 2010

Note: This was written late at night after a VERY long day, so I might re-do some of this later.

1) Short Film Program 1

2) Exporting Raymond

3) Visual Storytelling panel with Randall Wallace, John Lee Hancock, and John August

Day one is down and I am loving this shit!! The following are not in chronological order, but rather in the order I want you to read them.

I'm starting with the shorts because I want to get some publicity out for them. There were some outstanding films in this series and I am going to go over the highlights.

Honestly people, stop watching Youtube videos of kids puking and cats falling down and watch some good shorts. If you don't think there are any here are a few suggestions.

1) Taste in Powder (w/d Mike MacRae)- Carbs are the new drug of choice in America.

This film is what short subject comedy should be. It starts with the type of asshole cokehead we have all had the misfortune to encounter at one point. You know the type, he thinks that the more annoyingly coked up he gets the more charming he becomes, then it shifts to his dealer who reveals a secret about his supply. It then becomes a short mocumentary about the worlds best (or possibly worst drug dealer). Essentially, if you do not like this movie it is because you are a joyless prick who hates to laugh. If that isn't a poster worthy blurb, I don't know what is.

2) I Love You Will Smith (w/d Bradley Jackson)- A discussion of Will Smith's latest movie leads to a psychological breakdown.

You know that friend of yours who loves to camp and cannot fathom why you don't share his enthusiasm? Well, this is what would happen if that friend loved Will Smith instead, and simply would not take, "I don't care for him," as an answer. This is another solidly hilarious film that is well worth you time.

3) 52 Takes of the Same Thing, Then Boobs (w/d T. Arthur Conan)- The most important aspect about filmmaking is a good story.

First thing's first. There are boobs, as promised, and those boobs are quite nice.

This is an interesting little experiment. A lovely young woman is asked the question

"What is the most important aspect about filmmaking," to which she replies,

" The most important aspect about filmmaking is a good story."

To which the off camera interview responds,

"Good. Now show us your boobs."

There are 52 different takes of this exchange, each one slightly different, put together to create a rather hypnotic experimental film. Check it out, you'll come for the boobs, but you'll stay for the inventive filmmaking. Yet another poster worthy line, if I do say so myself.

4) Ollie Klublershturf vs the Nazis (w. Damon Lindelof, d. Skot Bright)- A ten year old fights off the most evil group of people in the world, all while eating dinner.

So, this movie has some pretty heavy star power.

Chris Hemsworth (Kirk's dad in Star Trek), Norman Reedus (Boondock Saints), Samm Levine (Freaks and Geeks), Lainie Kazan (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), George Segal (you shouldn't need a reference here, but I'll go with Carbon Copy), and Rachel Nichols (G.I. Joe) star in this hilarious time travel comedy.

However, all of these people are flatly upstaged by Zach Mills as Ollie Klublershturf, the young genius trying to keep a group of Nazi's from stealing his time machine for nefarious purposes. Oh, and best use of a fart sound I can think of.

5) Make a Wish (w/d David Ward)- He may or may not hit a home run for you, it just depends.

The idea of a sick/dying child asking his favorite baseball player to hit a home run for him is as old as baseball and sick/dying children. What would happen if the aforementioned kid was a bit of a degenerate and had an ulterior motive? Very good idea, very good execution.

6) Pitch Perfect (w Brad & Zach Anner, Chris Demarais, Marshall Rimmer. d Chris Demarais, Jason Harter.)- When a pitcher starts losing steam at the biggest game in all of history he goes to his coach for some advice.

This one is beautifully perverse, and very well done.

There was another one about people having sex with puppets that was quite good, but it's for some reason not in my program. If I find out what it was I will post more.

2) Exporting Raymond

Writers can often form a strange relationship with their own work and sometime it can be hard to let it go. Follow Phil Rosenthal, creator of the hit TV series “Everybody Loves Raymond," in this incredibly funny true story of the attempt to translate “Raymond” into a Russian sitcom.  A hilarious, warm and intimate journey of one man, considered an expert in his country, who travels to a land to help people that don’t seem to want his help.  Lost in Moscow, lost in his mission, lost in translation, Phil tries to connect with his Russian colleagues but runs into unique characters and situations that conspire to drive him insane. The movie is a true international adventure, a genuine, “fish out of water” comedy that could only exist in real life.

I know what you're thinking. "But I don't like 'Everybody Loves Raymond! Why would I want to watch this?"

To which I reply, to your first point, "You are an asshole. It is a very good show, stop being an elitist prick and just enjoy yourself!"

To your second, I reply, "You want to see this because it is, quite frankly, one of the funniest, sharpest, and completely entertaining documentaries I've ever seen."

This is, in my opinion, the best documentary of the year. We follow Rosenthal from the original idea to the other side of the world as he tries to tune his show to fit the Russian sensibility, work in a creative environment that makes no sense to him, and deal with the absurd logistics of working in Russia.

I cannot count the number of absolute laugh out loud moments in this film. Be it dealing with the new head of network comedy (a man who knows a significant amount more about lasers than comedy), trying to get the head of the Moscow Art Theatre to allow one of his actors to appear in the show (The Moscow Art Theatre is where Stanislavski did his writings on "the method," and Chekov premiered "The Seagull"), or attempting to translate the delicate physical comedy of a nut shot this movie has no shortage of genuinely funny moments. (At one point a joke about a "Fruit of the Month Club," had to be changed to "Water of the Week" because there is no "Fruit of the Month Club" in Russia... but apparently "Water of the Week" is a booming industry.)

There are some touching scenes as well, Rosenthal bonding with his bodyguard (who would have preferred to have spent his life writing about sea shells), and spending an evening with a Russian family (and seeing just how similar we really are) add a nice emotional weight to the otherwise light proceedings.

You could not write comedy this brilliant or moving. The film basically asks the question, "How difficult is it to let go of something you spent years of your life creating and let someone else make it their own."

If you only see one documentary in the next two years, do yourself a favor and see this one.

3) Visual Storytelling panel with Randall Wallace, John Lee Hancock, and John August

Here is a brief transcript of my notes from this panel:

Be precise and provocative- Sparce

Int- Joe's apartment- Shitty

One line, avoid large blocks of writing.

Allow anyone to get it, write feelings, not details. Go for tone.

Don't mention things too much.

Interesting images

Don't direct from the page

Randall (Braveheart-Bay)

Told to drop the "Jayne Austen Fag Shit"

When explained as subtext Bay said, "Yeah, that shit!"

Wallace replied, "You don't get it because your idea of foreplay is 'See my Ferrari? Want to fuck?" (Bay replied, "Yeah!") He can't complain, "I've cashed every Pearl Harbor check."

Blake Edwards, who wrote and directed, as a director would curse about the writer.

The less you say the more you remember and the smarter your characters sound.

Write a scene without dialogue, convey it visually.

Hand write first draft on the backs of old scripts, scribble them out quickly.

Characters must have a moment when they define who they are. "Cross this line and I will fight you to the death."

These moments often come when you are removed from writing, the story is alive inside you. (The Shining, "You hear that sound," as he bangs on the typewriter, "When you hear that sound I'm working. When you don't hear that sound I'M STILL FUCKING WORKING!)

Single focused image.

Books and short stories have back story- films are about what is happening now.

Leave a mystery. Show scars that you don't explain.

Fragments in action scenes are ok.

People will remember almost nothing of what you say, a little more of what you do, but they will remember how you make them feel.

Funny moment:

A guy asked a rambling 5 minute question that a Hancock summarized as, "What do you do when a character talks too much?" I love irony.

His response, give him less screen time.

Show reaction rather than talking: Brian Cox in "The Rookie" He closes his eyes and communicates everything you need to know in that moment.

Never direct with adjectives, direct with verbs. Tell them what to do, not what feeling to show.

Replace dialogue with action.

Silence should be louder than words.

Long, busy day. Saw Michael Arndt give his Toy Story 3 presentation, saw John Lassiter, saw a panel by show runners. Met comedian Fred Stoller. Ran into an old high school friend, saw a short and a feature, and walked past James Franco at the Driscol bar. Details forthcoming.