The Film Thugs Movie Show

Official Rejection

I have made no secret of my opinions regarding “independent” cinema these days. In short, it’s farcical.

Now, I am not saying that there isn’t a vibrant and necessary independent film scene, far from it. In many ways we are living in the salad days of independent film. You can go to best buy and purchase all of the equipment you need to shoot, edit, and internationally release your film (say what you will, but YouTube is instant international distribution). You won’t exactly make money that way, but it is possible.

This is a drastic sea change even when compared to 15 years ago. When I was in film school it was insanely expensive. You had camera rental, film stock, processing, then editing on flatbed or one of the handful of Avid systems on campus. It was a brutal, expensive, and cumbersome process.

But now? Now I have a 1080p HD camera on my phone. You can purchase the equipment necessary to make countless feature films for what it once cost to rent what you need for a short. If all you want is to make a movie the tools are available.

So, yeah, there is an amazing culture of independent moviemakers that I am a huge fan of.

However, that is not the farce to which I refer. No, the farce I refer to is the studio take on “indie.” Back in the days before Sundance and Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Michael Moore, Steven Soderberg independent movies were just that, independent. These were young and hungry filmmakers who went out and busted their ass to scrape together enough money, find locations, secure whatever actors they could, and just get a movie finished. They had no support outside of their immediate friends, family, and whatever investors they could find. It was a harsh frontier filled with outsiders and outlaws. In the end, even if what they put out wasn’t great it was still theirs from the ground up.

But now? Now that every major studio has an “indie” division, when people talk “indie” films you hear names like “Juno,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Away We Go,” “127 Hours,” “Revolutionary Road,” “Milk,” and other such films mentioned.

So we went from,

Reservoir Dogs- First time director, some stars, $1.5 million dollar budget

Sex, Lies, and Videotape- First time director, some stars $1.2 million dollar budget

Roger and Me- First time director, no stars, $160,000

Clerks- First time director, no stars, $27,575 budget

El Mariachi- First time director, no stars, $7,000 budget

being the standard of “indie” to…

Juno- Established director, multiple stars, $6.5 million budget, produced by Fox

Little Miss Sunshine- first time directors, multiple stars, $8 million budget, produced by Fox

Away We Go- Oscar winning director, multiple stars, $17 million budget, produced by Focus Features (art house division of NBC Universal)

127 Hours- Oscar winning director, multiple stars, $18 million budget, produced by Fox

Revolutionary Road- Oscar winning director, Oscar winning and nominated cast (2 nominees, 1 winner), $35 million budget, produced by Paramount and Dreamworks

Milk- Oscar nominated director, multiple stars, Oscar winning actor in lead, $20 million budget, produced by Focus Features (art house division of NBC Universal)

being considered “indie.”

I am not commenting on the quality of any of these films, but rather questioning the application of the title “indie.” Can you consider a film with that studio backed financing for production, distribution, and marketing to be “independent?” Independent of what, exactly?

What does all this have to do with “Official Rejection?” Well, “Official Rejection” takes a look at the only real outlet true independent filmmakers have to get their movies known, the film festival.

There is a strict hierarchy in the world of the film fest. Your top tier fests, places like Cannes, are insanely exclusive and very difficult to be selected for. But they are industry showcase fests. If you make a feature that doesn’t have studio backing, or a huge name connected you know not to even waste your time with them.

From there you get into the independent world. These are supposed to be places for unknown filmmakers to show their films in the hope of getting a distribution deal. There are some very highly regarded fests. Getting into South By Southwest (SXSW), Austin Film Fest (AFF), Telluride, or Tribeca goes a long way in helping your career. But at the top of this mountain is Sundance.

Beginning in 1978 as the Utah/US Film Festival it was originally intended to get more filmmakers to come to Utah. It was a combination of new and classic films and highlighted regional filmmakers (regional is a term meaning “not in Hollywood”).

Then Robert Redford got involved and, with the best intentions, brought a lot of publicity to the fest. Well, you know what they say about the road to hell? Yeah…

Now, Sundance has become very much an arm of the studio system. Once upon a time, not that long ago, a young kid could rack up a huge amount of credit card debt making a film and have a real shot at getting into Sundance and having their film noticed. Today though, if you don’t have a studio, or stars, or a huge budget, or have a combination of those things and plan on premiering somewhere other than Sundance, you’re out of luck.

So, now to the point of this review.

“Official Rejection” follows some indie filmmakers as they take their film through the festival circuit. You see the incredible hassle involved in submitting it. The various political forces at work in selection, the frenzy of marketing, and the insane machine that the festival world has become.

Essentially, what on the surface appears to be about art and storytelling is really just a business. I know this isn’t much of a shock (You mean the film industry is a BUSINESS?!?! You forget yourself, sir!), but it is when you look at what these festivals purport to be about.

Now, as someone who reads scripts for a screenplay competition I can sympathize with the festival programmers. I mean, you get THOUSANDS of submissions, many of them are not so good, and you have to sift through them in hopes of finding something worth screening. I will read 100 scripts and be shocked if 10 of them are good enough to move on. That doesn’t mean they will win or even be semi finalists, it just means they are good enough to be considered for that.

Imagine doing that with films. Then take into consideration that you aren’t necessarily looking for the best films, but often for films that fit the program. Add to it the number of really big deal, studio star vehicles that you get offered which will give your festival a lot of positive publicity. That’s leaving out that you are among thousands of films fighting for less than 100 spots.

We follow our filmmakers through the insanity of this process. From Sundance to San Francisco, to Arizona, to Chicago you get to see behind the curtain of festivals and learn a little bit about how the industry works.

Along the way you meet other indie filmmakers and get their experiences, from frustration with possibly the worst festival I’ve ever seen (sorry Chicago Independent Film Fest), to more reputable and better run affairs. It’s fascinating and casts a very interesting light on the industry.

The only criticism I have about this film is the amount of frustration that seeps into the film. You can tell how pissed the filmmakers are getting by the end. Yeah, it’s justified. I mean these festivals were meant as an alternative to the very system they have become a huge part of. But after a point it feels a bit like raging against the machine they are trying to become a part of. That is a bit of a nit picky criticism, but I’m trying to be balanced here.

If you are a film fan and have ever been to a film festival or a filmmaker thinking about submitting this is a film you should check out.

The People Vs. George Lucas

"I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them."

– George Lucas expressing concern over the Colorization of black & white films

George Lucas. Damn. It’s amazing how quickly that name completely changed meanings. Remember when we were young and that name brought up images of some of the greatest films ever made? Yeah, he was responsible for some that were maybe not great, but the good… oh, man the good outweighed the bad.

I mean, “Star Wars,” and “Indiana Jones” aside, this is the guy who brought us things like “American Graffiti,” “Willow,” and “The Land Before Time.” While these aren’t all great, the are, at the very least, interesting and original.

So, what happened?

It is this exact question that “The People vs. George Lucas,” attempts to answer.

Like it or not, “Star Wars,” has become part of our national culture. Other than making scads of money, changing the way films were made, changed the basic principles of movie marketing, spawning its own extended universe of fan fiction, creating an entire global fan culture, and becoming damned near required viewing for citizenship in our global community, it’s a pretty damned good movie.

Think about it this way, this is one of the first films to be included in the national film registry of "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films.” It was inducted alongside, “Citizen Kane,” “Vertigo,” “The Wizard of Oz,” and “The General,” for God’s sake. Hell, it was included before “The Godfather,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” and “King Kong.” To say that the original Star Wars Trilogy is important is an understatement.

So… why?

Why would he go back and change these landmark films? Why alter these genre defining, cultural landmarks?

It is all a question of ownership, sad to say. To paraphrase Lucas from his appearance on “The Daily Show,” People don’t know that my middle initial is W. I am the other George W. I’m not just the decider; I am the creator.

Like it or not, the films are his.

This film looks at the impact of the Star Wars films as well as the reaction to the changes and the prequels. It’s an interesting look at something that has gone beyond national phenomena and entered the realm of global obsession.

There are some interesting points and questions raised in this documentary. From Lucas’s vehement opposition to colorization because of a need to preserve the films that were important to him growing up, to the ethics of altering a film that has been tagged for preservation in the national registry, to questioning the altering of visual effects in a film that won the Oscar for best visual effects. These are all addressed.

Make no mistake, this is a film targeted at fans. You don’t have to be a fan to watch it, but I have a hard time imagining anyone who isn’t a Star Wars fan putting this on.

From a personal standpoint I have grown to a point of indifference about “Star Wars.” More accurately, I am of two minds. Yes, the films are Lucas’s. He imagined them, he created them, and he owns them. But, at what point do you just let them exist? Is it ethical to alter fundamental character moments (Han shooting first is a fundamental character defining moment) on a film that has this level of cultural currency?

Hell, Harper Lee is the creator of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” but does that mean she could go back and save Tom Robinson from dying? Yeah, she could, but it wouldn’t make any sense.

I guess that’s what gets me about it all. Going back and improving something that didn’t work the first time is understandable, but I think one could state objectively that “Star Wars” worked. But in the end, what can you do?

Ever since the special editions I have been a bit reserved about “Star Wars.” I didn’t like the content changes at all. Everything from Greedo shooting first, to the appearance of Jabba in the first film, to Luke screaming as he fell, to the unrealistically annoying musical number in Jabba’s palace felt completely unnecessary and detracted from the film itself. The cleaning up of the visual effects was… well, unnecessary. Yeah, they look better now, but did they really look that bad before? The may not have looked cutting edge by today’s standard, but remember these were groundbreaking at the time. Yeah they’re outdated now, but damn it that is how history works. It would be like going back and digitizing all the Harryhausen effects. They would cease to be what made them special to begin with.

But, he is the creator, the owner, and the ultimate authority on what is and is not “Star Wars.”

I have not spent one dime on Star Wars since “Revenge of the Sith,” which, incidentally, I hated. Let’s be honest, all the prequels are bad. They just are. I have written about this before, but it bears repeating. This isn’t me just hating, it is me stating an honest opinion. They were hastily written, amateurishly directed exercises in cramming as much CGI nonsense on the screen as possible. The stories didn’t really make sense and didn’t really add anything to the overall universe. Add that to the continued changes to the original movies and it adds up to me being done with it.

This is the difference between me and the fan boys who deride Lucas. Why should George take us seriously when we complain a about the changes he’s making? I mean, yeah, they complain… and then go out and buy the new versions that have all the changes they claim are “ruining” the movies. Well, if they are ruined, stop buying them.

If you know that something is bad, and a betrayal, and “raped” your childhood, then stop. Just stop. Don’t buy the Blu-Ray boxed set. Don’t go to the 3D re-releases, don’t spend any more money on them. It’s a difference between words and actions. You are saying that he is ruining the movies, but you are paying him to do it. You aren’t just paying him to do it, you are paying him over and over again. So, stop. Just…

Why am I bothering? I mean, next year he could come out with a version that has Yoda back flipping through Degobah, or everyone escaping Alderaan before it gets destroyed, or Vader saving a basket of puppies at the end and people would still flood theatres to see it. I guess addiction is a funny thing, and Star Wars is a hell of a drug.

Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

I have probably put more thought in to Morgan Spurlock than anyone who isn’t related to him should. His 2004 documentary “Super Size Me” launched him into the national spotlight by using an interesting gimmick to address a serious social issue. It was sensational, thought provoking, and, though it lacked much in the way of actual science (more on that in a moment), it brought much needed attention to something people don’t think about anywhere near as much as they should.

The reason I say “Super Size Me” lacked much in the way of actual science is because… well, it does. He talks to a lot of lawyers and political activists, and while he does visit a doctor a few times, he doesn’t really actually talk to many doctors or scientists on the subject of proper nutrition.

That aside, his claims are dubious. He claimed to eat a diet of 5000 calories a day, but has refused to release his food diary. This refusal has made his claims impossible to verify. However, if you follow his claims of what he ate (3 meals a day, super sizing 1 in 10 meals) you get around 3500 calories a day.

Why do I make such a big deal out of this? This is a documentary. It is meant to document something. If you falsify your information then you throw the voracity of your argument into question. Now, I do not believe that McDonald’s is healthy by any stretch, but if it is as unhealthy as this film claims then why would he have to falsify information to prove it?

Put even more simply you cannot have a valid argument based on falsified information.

But had he eaten 3500 calories a day he may not have gotten the type of sensational results that got him so much attention at Sundance and changed his life. There are a lot of other questions about the veracity of his health results, but that’s something for another time.

Spurlock has successfully capitalized on the sensation his first film caused with a series on FX (30 Days) and a few other documentaries (Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden, and Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold) as well as some short segments for other projects (The Simpsons, and Freakanomics). All of these share one thing in common; Spurlock is front and center in all of them.

In essence Spurlock is almost more of a quintessential modern documentarian than the inventor of the new style, Michael Moore. These days it’s not enough for a documentary to be about the subject. No, it has to be about the documentarian and his or her relationship to the subject. We have to follow them as they do something in an attempt to prove the thesis of their film. A thesis, by the way, that was developed before a single minute of actual research has been done or a single frame of film has been shot.

This is the core of my problem with most modern documentaries. These aren’t attempts to learn or discover, but to prove and push an agenda. I take a slight amount of issue with that.

All of this being said, let’s talk about Spurlock’s latest film, “Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.” Here, Spurlock sets out to see if it is possible to finance a film 100% through product placement and corporate tie ins. It is an interesting experiment, but that’s about it.

The real problem is that it lacks any real thesis or point. I mean, is there anyone out there who isn’t aware of product placement and corporate tie ins? There might be, but are those people the likely audience for a documentary?

There were some interesting things in this. Seeing him try to find representation that could put him in touch with the people with the money, watching him pitch the idea to different companies, finding out the mountain of paperwork and the multitude of hoops he had to jump through were all fascinating looks behind the curtain. His meeting with the guy who thinks that there should be on screen notification of any and all product placement on the screen during any movie or film was fascinating. It was interesting and all, but I kept wondering, “What’s the point?”

Yeah, he points out that product placement is prevalent, but did we really need to be told that Will Smith’s character opening his “Converse Chuck Taylor, vintage 2004” shoes, or scenes from TV shows where a character holds a soda can, label facing the camera, and says “All you’re doing is drinking Dr. Pepper,” to the response “It isn’t a road trip without a lot of Dr. Pepper!” are ads?

Are there people out there who really talk that way? If there are, I think they would make a far more interesting subject for a documentary.

But what we are left with is a fairly uninspired, uninformative vanity project that didn’t really serve much of a purpose.

Red State

“How much do you think a cross like that costs?”

“Do you mean in dollars or common sense?”

-ASAC Brooks and Joseph Keenan, Red State

“First of all, if you write a screenplay without conflict or crisis, you’ll bore your audience to tears.”

-Robert McKee (Brian Cox), Adaptation

Kevin Smith. Can anything original be said about him any more? Here is a guy who went from convenience store clerk to indie-auteur in the matter of a few years. He has made some outstand films, and some that were less than outstanding. He defined a genre, has millions of rabid fans, and has inspired countless independent filmmakers. Oh, make no mistake, Smith is an important and influential film maker.

I have LOVED some of Smith’s work in the past (Dogma, Chasing Amy, Mallrats, yeah, so I loved Mallrats, what of it?), I’ve liked some (Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back), disliked others (Clerks 2, Zack and Miri) and outright hated some (Cop Out, and yes, I believe that Cop Out was objectively bad, but you can read about that HERE).

Also, I am in that group of people that liked Jersey Girl. It was a very heartfelt and personal film that got a massive shit end of a massive stick for no reason other than it was a departure from his established brand. Sadly, the reaction was so poor that he went right back to his comfort zone. I say sadly because he proved that he could do films that were more. Not that there is anything wrong with his “Jersey” movies, but as he got older they began to lose that personal feel. He was no longer making movies about his own world, but rather a remembrance of what it was like back then.

But throughout his career I have always wanted to see more from Kevin. Not that I find his output lacking, rather I wanted to see him break out of that comfort zone. “Jersey Girl” let me know he could, and could do so well, and I always wanted to see him challenge himself more.

Well, he did. “Red State,” is a strange one. There is no other way to put it. It is, by far, his most sophisticated filmmaking. It is also, by far, some of his least sophisticated storytelling.

What the hell do I mean by that?

Simply put, from a technical aspect, the camera work, the building of tension, and the starkness of it all was a complete departure for him. Watching this I was completely blown away from the technical aspect. Out of nowhere Kevin went from a “put the camera there and film it” director to “not only can I move it, but I can move it well.” I think this film had more visual stylistics than damned near everything he’s done before combined.

But it didn’t look busy, showy, or show offy. His camera work, use of perspective, and overall film grammar were stunning and effective. They added to the emotion of the scenes and gave new dynamics to the character interactions. On that level this is the best thing Kevin Smith has done.

But…

The story left me a little flat. I didn’t know what he was trying to say with this.

Basically there is either no protagonist, or a protagonist so unlikable that you don’t really care too much about what happens to him. You have a villain without much going on other than his zealotry. Yeah, there are some attempts at giving his side, and you definitely get that he believes himself to be God’s hero, but he was just plain mustache twirling evil. Then you have the ineptness of the government.

So, what is it about? I don’t mean plot, I mean thematically. Because, here’s the thing, whatever your opinion of Kevin or his films you have to admit that he is very good at giving what is happening meaning. From Dante learning to take some responsibility for himself and his actions in “Clerks,” to Holden finding out about the strength it takes to actually love another person in “Chasing Amy,” to Zach and Miri learning how to realize what is right in front of them, Smith has always been a writer who gives thematic weight to his films.

That being said, I repeat the question; what is it about?

I have been asking myself that question since I watched this movie a few days back and I can’t really come up with anything.

Is it about the dangers of dogmatic funtimentalism?

Is it about the danger of following institutional logic?

Is it about the pervasiveness of corruption in our society?

I honestly cannot say.

We begin with one story, shift to something completely different, then do a complete 180 and end up with yet another different story. I have no idea what he was trying to say. That’s where this movie suffers.

It just can't decide what it wants to be. And there are some other issues.

First off, there are way too many dialogue dependant scenes. There are massive amounts of information we get by simply being told. I can’t fault Smith too much here because he had some amazing actors giving amazing performances. Hell, Michael Parks has an amazing monologue that he delivers like… well, like Michael Parks. He absolutely kills it, but the problem is… well, it’s a really long monologue. In the end, no matter how good a monologue is, it is still someone talking for an extended period. Smith does some interesting camera moves, but it is still a long bit of talking in the middle of a film. There is no catharsis from the speech, it doesn’t pull things together, it just happens.

The primary storytelling device seems to be long monologues where we are told what we need to know. John Goodman enters the scene, playing an ATF agent investigating Parks’ Westboro/Branch Davidian type church, and proceeds to give a long monologue giving us all the information we need up to that point. It comes as one side of a phone conversation, and Goodman absolutely nails it, but it’s… again, a long scene of a guy talking.

The tie up at the end might as well have been a monologue. There wasn’t any sense of resolution because there was nothing at stake other than the external conflict.

Basically it started out as a movie about three guys trying to get laid, it then becomes an escape movie, and finally ends up as a siege movie. But none of them had any emotional stakes other than escape and survival.

If a movie doesn’t have internal growth or change, if your characters don’t learn anything or have any discernable arc, then there is no crisis in your film. If there is no crisis or growth there is no real meaning. If there is no real meaning then why the hell am I watching?

The internal struggle is the key to Smith’s work and it is missing here. Let me show you…

Clerks- External- Making it through the day/girlfriend trouble. Internal- Appreciating and finding meaning in what you have.

Mallrats- External- Get the girl. Internal- Becoming strong enough to deserve the girl

Chasing Amy- External- Relationship. Internal- Being comfortable enough with yourself to accept others flaws.

Dogma- External- Stop the apocalypse. Internal- Accept the nature of faith.

Zach and Miri- External- pay the rent. Internal- Seeing the beauty of what is in front of you.

That’s right, even “Zach and Miri,” a movie Smith himself has major issues with, has an overarching theme and internal conflict that gives it meaning.

“Red State” frustrates me because Smith had the chance to do something amazing here. He self produced, and self distributed this thing. That means he had total creative control. Nobody could tell him what to do with it. He could have gone to town. But he didn’t. He went halfway to town and decided that was good enough.

Now, let’s talk ending. The ending was almost amazing. Almost. He set up to do something unique, ballsy, and challenging as hell. Honestly, for a minute I though he was going to do it and I was ready to stand up and applaud in my living room. Then… it doesn’t happen. We get something that feels decidedly like a tacked on after though. It got me because I thought I was going to get something close to the meaning I wanted, and instead got… another dialogue scene.

I know that Smith is known for his dialogue, but he needs to have more. In the end, this felt like the first draft of a script that could have used a rewrite or two. To quote my co-host, “It felt undercooked.”

Let me be clear, this film shows that Smith knows how to direct a movie. It looks amazing and is an amazing departure from what he normally makes. For that I was thankful. I have always thought that Smith could be an amazing filmmaker if he pushed himself, and here he shows the beginnings of what he could do.

When Dreams Take Flight

This is a solid, rousing documentary about the first successful Ornithopter (a flapping wing aircraft) flight. This film covers the basic history of ornithopter flight as well as following the young scientist who is dedicated to solving the problem of human powered, non fixed wing flight.

It is very inspiring, but felt a bit too short. I would have liked to see the director go into more depth with the scientist and the design, the why, maybe some more background. But for a short, less than an hour, documentary, it is fantastic.

The Woman in the Fifth

This was rambling, pretentious, and dull.

Ethan Hawke stars as a writer who goes to Paris to be near his daughter. His ex doesn’t want him around, she even has a restraining order. After being sent away he falls asleep on the bus and has all of his possessions stolen. He ends up staying in a room above a café.

There are some weird, supernatural-esque touches after that but it just felt… I don’t know. Flat. Dull. I didn’t really care. There might have been an interesting thematic message, but the delivery was uninspiring.