list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around 8 1/2 on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/8_1_2/164/default.aspx Title: 8 1/2
Year: 1963
Director: Federico Fellini
Plot: Fresh off of the international success of La Dolce Vita, master director Federico Fellini moved into the realm of self-reflexive autobiography with what is widely believed to be his finest and most personal work. Marcello Mastroianni delivers a brilliant performance as Fellini's alter ego Guido Anselmi, a film director overwhelmed by the large-scale production he has undertaken. He finds himself harangued by producers, his wife, and his mistress while he struggles to find the inspiration to finish his film. The stress plunges Guido into an interior world where fantasy and memory impinge on reality. Fellini jumbles narrative logic by freely cutting from flashbacks to dream sequences to the present until it becomes impossible to pry them apart, creating both a psychological portrait of Guido's interior world and the surrealistic, circus-like exterior world that came to be known as "Felliniesque." 8 1/2 won an Academy Award for Best Foreign-Language Film, as well as the grand prize at the Moscow Film Festival, and was one of the most influential and commercially successful European art movies of the 1960s, inspiring such later films as Bob Fosse's All That Jazz (1979), Woody Allen's Stardust Memories (1980), and even Lucio Fulci's Italian splatter film Un Gatto nel Cervello (1990). ~ Jonathan Crow, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 32
Number of Lists: 62
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:33:50 GMT8 1/21963Federico FelliniFresh off of the international success of <a href=/films/19391/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>La Dolce Vita</a>, master director <a href="/players/P____89547/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Federico Fellini</a> moved into the realm of self-reflexive autobiography with what is widely believed to be his finest and most personal work. <a href="/players/P____46339/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marcello Mastroianni</a> delivers a brilliant performance as Fellini's alter ego Guido Anselmi, a film director overwhelmed by the large-scale production he has undertaken. He finds himself harangued by producers, his wife, and his mistress while he struggles to find the inspiration to finish his film. The stress plunges Guido into an interior world where fantasy and memory impinge on reality. Fellini jumbles narrative logic by freely cutting from flashbacks to dream sequences to the present until it becomes impossible to pry them apart, creating both a psychological portrait of Guido's interior world and the surrealistic, circus-like exterior world that came to be known as "Felliniesque." 8 1/2 won an Academy Award for Best Foreign-Language Film, as well as the grand prize at the Moscow Film Festival, and was one of the most influential and commercially successful European art movies of the 1960s, inspiring such later films as <a href="/players/P____90209/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bob Fosse</a>'s <a href=/films/918/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>All That Jazz</a> (1979), <a href="/players/P____79388/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Woody Allen</a>'s <a href=/films/32774/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Stardust Memories</a> (1980), and even <a href="/players/P____90732/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lucio Fulci</a>'s Italian splatter film Un Gatto nel Cervello (1990). ~ Jonathan Crow, All Movie Guide32Tag Target (>10)621284http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t22403j4cgj.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/8_1_2/164/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/9/12/35101.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 9/12/2008 11:24:50 PM
Body: The Coens have the uncanny ability to make you laugh hysterically and then make you feel like a total jerk for laughing, all in the same stride. Burn After Reading provides that sort of fun-filled game of the Coens providing you with outstanding entertainment, all the while toying with you and laughing smugly to themselves. A standard moviegoer walks out of Burn After Reading with a big, goofy smile, having thoroughly enjoyed the antics and witticisms of the array of imbeciles portrayed onscreen. The avid filmgoer (and Coen devotee) will walk out of the film with the same goofy smile, except realizing how stupid the Coens just made everyone and everything in the world look. Oh, Ethan and Joel, how you mock us... The film opens with a wide shot of the United States from an "intelligence" standpoint in outer space. I believe that the purpose of this was to establish the only firm idea in the film: You are in Washington, DC, in the United States. Have fun. The beginning segments introduce the players, known now by everyone interested in seeing the film and therefore pointless for me to list. Needless to say, everyone is excellent. George Clooney, though panned by some critics as giving a bland, "Clooney" performance, is great, playing an extension of his role in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, except now he has a gun and is a sex addict. He has some of the best scenes in the movie, and there are a shitload of great scenes. Tilda Swinton is a stone cold bitch, and its perfect. I am one of the few who thought she was overrated (hardcore) in Michael Clayton, but she really proves herself in this movie. While she's not necessarily one of the more hysterical characters, she's definitely very solid and provides a strong contrast to the broad comedy of the other characters. Frances McDormand, I hate to say, was a bit undervalued...some of her big scenes were duds. However, I thought she was great, injecting her part with vulnerability and witless determination. John Malkovich plays a man who is enraged beyond belief with the "morons that he's had to deal with his whole fucking life." Seeing him lose it is an enlightening experience. I was convinced about how awesome this film would be after seeing the production photos of his walking down the street in a bathrobe, underwear, and a beater while carrying a drink in one hand and a hatchet in the other. I can see that one scene becoming truly iconic for Malkovich. Brad Pitt is a hardass. Chad is a character that could have so easily become a caricature of the average stupid guy, a buffoon who nobody really cares about, he's just there for laughs. But Pitt makes the character a real person, that guy you see at the gym that's nice to everybody but who's only topics of conversation are what his senses are attuned to at the moment (The ADD guy who's charismatic enough for everyone to ignore how incredibly emtpy-headed he is). He is the lovable character, the "Donnie", who the audience immediately relates with and finds the funniest. The joy he seems to take in this role takes him back 10 years, almost back to the insane glee of 12 Monkeys. Pitt's character brings me to my previous topic of lamentable laughter. Like Fargo, the Coens want the audience to think that the most disturbing of occurences are funny. They want you to double over when William H. Macy fights the cops who are restraining him, squealing like a captured pig, lamenting his life and going insane. That's their idea of fun. And then afterwards, they throw something in, basically saying "You insensitive prick, you laughed at that?" There are a couple scenes of that in Burn After Reading. Several, actually. And it's embarrassing to be the only "insensitive prick" in the theater cackling even as the camera pans to the aftermath of one of these scenes. I mean, I'm sure other people realized it, but had the sense to keep their mirth to themselves. I find that buckets of fun. The supporting players provide a lot of the movie's other vital organs (if the main characters are the heart--albeit, a decrepid one). JK Simmons is outstanding, the only major character that has any real sense. He acts as a narrator almost; an outsider, seeing the events with just as much confusion as the viewer. His lines sum up everything about the movie, making sure that the audience knows that it's all in good fun. Nothing really matters, so don't worry if you don't get it. We don't get it either. Richard Jenkins is the only character with a noticeable soul (except perhaps Clooney, hidden deep inside his perpetually horny complexion). He's a poor, lovelorn old guy, without so much as the courage to profess his love to the shallow, dull McDormand. He is almost seen with contempt by the viewer, being such a pathetic old man, but the Coens quickly make you realize how much of a dick you are for thinking that. And lastly David Rasche, a seldom heard of actor, is effectively deadpan as the informer of JK Simmons' CIA Superior. Somehow, his performance stands out, probably because of its normalcy compared to the weirdness of everybody else. I came to the conclusion early on in the film that this is just the Coens having fun, following the brutal and poetic No Country with some goofy fun. As Peter Travers successfully analyzed, the Coens have followed all of their more serious subjects with their trademark "zany" (for lack of a better word) comedies. As usual, they throw in their two-sense about society, humanity, and what have you. They thoroughly believe that most people are dim-witted, but it doesn't change the fact that these sorts of people have to be dealt with nonetheless. However, Burn After Reading shows that the Coens can show these sorts of characters with compassion. Their previous efforts, such as Fargo and Raising Arizona, were criticized for being condescending towards their own characters. I disagree. While those two films were a bit more pessimistic about these people, both of them (especially Fargo) demonstrate the Coens' love of these people. Why would they continue to make movies about them if they were just ridiculing them? They find depths in characters that seem one note and shallow. They give you a reason to their moronic delusions. They make you feel for them, and realize "Oh, wow, I guess that is pretty stupid when I do that." It may be a stretch, but their work almost brings to mind the two Fellinis that I've seen, La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2. In the booklet for LDV, an essay proclaims that Fellini was primarily an entertaining, infusing his stories with existentialism and satire. While I think the Coens are different in a lot of ways, this could just as easily be said about them. Burn After Reading is basically just evidence that the Coens having a good time is better and more profound than most film-makers' serious efforts. While they are cynical, making each of their movies an inside joke that only they can really decipher, they always manage to entertain their audience. As usual, this review really only touched on the surface of the hundreds of things that can be said about this film. But, all you need to know essentially is that it's a hilarious entry into the Coens' filmography, and has the potential to gain a cult status with The Big Lebowski if it duds with critics. I doubt it will, however, now that the Coens have officially proved themselves with No Country, giving them the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want. (Oh, did I mention I'm a fan?)
]]>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:24:50 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog9/12/2008 11:24:50 PMThe Coens have the uncanny ability to make you laugh hysterically and then make you feel like a total jerk for laughing, all in the same stride. Burn After Reading provides that sort of fun-filled game of the Coens providing you with outstanding entertainment, all the while toying with you and laughing smugly to themselves. A standard moviegoer walks out of Burn After Reading with a big, goofy smile, having thoroughly enjoyed the antics and witticisms of the array of imbeciles portrayed onscreen. The avid filmgoer (and Coen devotee) will walk out of the film with the same goofy smile, except realizing how stupid the Coens just made everyone and everything in the world look. Oh, Ethan and Joel, how you mock us... The film opens with a wide shot of the United States from an "intelligence" standpoint in outer space. I believe that the purpose of this was to establish the only firm idea in the film: You are in Washington, DC, in the United States. Have fun. The beginning segments introduce the players, known now by everyone interested in seeing the film and therefore pointless for me to list. Needless to say, everyone is excellent. George Clooney, though panned by some critics as giving a bland, "Clooney" performance, is great, playing an extension of his role in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, except now he has a gun and is a sex addict. He has some of the best scenes in the movie, and there are a shitload of great scenes. Tilda Swinton is a stone cold bitch, and its perfect. I am one of the few who thought she was overrated (hardcore) in Michael Clayton, but she really proves herself in this movie. While she's not necessarily one of the more hysterical characters, she's definitely very solid and provides a strong contrast to the broad comedy of the other characters. Frances McDormand, I hate to say, was a bit undervalued...some of her big scenes were duds. However, I thought she was great, injecting her part with vulnerability and witless determination. John Malkovich plays a man who is enraged beyond belief with the "morons that he's had to deal with his whole fucking life." Seeing him lose it is an enlightening experience. I was convinced about how awesome this film would be after seeing the production photos of his walking down the street in a bathrobe, underwear, and a beater while carrying a drink in one hand and a hatchet in the other. I can see that one scene becoming truly iconic for Malkovich. Brad Pitt is a hardass. Chad is a character that could have so easily become a caricature of the average stupid guy, a buffoon who nobody really cares about, he's just there for laughs. But Pitt makes the character a real person, that guy you see at the gym that's nice to everybody but who's only topics of conversation are what his senses are attuned to at the moment (The ADD guy who's charismatic enough for everyone to ignore how incredibly emtpy-headed he is). He is the lovable character, the "Donnie", who the audience immediately relates with and finds the funniest. The joy he seems to take in this role takes him back 10 years, almost back to the insane glee of 12 Monkeys. Pitt's character brings me to my previous topic of lamentable laughter. Like Fargo, the Coens want the audience to think that the most disturbing of occurences are funny. They want you to double over when William H. Macy fights the cops who are restraining him, squealing like a captured pig, lamenting his life and going insane. That's their idea of fun. And then afterwards, they throw something in, basically saying "You insensitive prick, you laughed at that?" There are a couple scenes of that in Burn After Reading. Several, actually. And it's embarrassing to be the only "insensitive prick" in the theater cackling even as the camera pans to the aftermath of one of these scenes. I mean, I'm sure other people realized it, but had the sense to keep their mirth to themselves. I find that buckets of fun. The supporting players provide a lot of the movie's other vital organs (if the main characters are the heart--albeit, a decrepid one). JK Simmons is outstanding, the only major character that has any real sense. He acts as a narrator almost; an outsider, seeing the events with just as much confusion as the viewer. His lines sum up everything about the movie, making sure that the audience knows that it's all in good fun. Nothing really matters, so don't worry if you don't get it. We don't get it either. Richard Jenkins is the only character with a noticeable soul (except perhaps Clooney, hidden deep inside his perpetually horny complexion). He's a poor, lovelorn old guy, without so much as the courage to profess his love to the shallow, dull McDormand. He is almost seen with contempt by the viewer, being such a pathetic old man, but the Coens quickly make you realize how much of a dick you are for thinking that. And lastly David Rasche, a seldom heard of actor, is effectively deadpan as the informer of JK Simmons' CIA Superior. Somehow, his performance stands out, probably because of its normalcy compared to the weirdness of everybody else. I came to the conclusion early on in the film that this is just the Coens having fun, following the brutal and poetic No Country with some goofy fun. As Peter Travers successfully analyzed, the Coens have followed all of their more serious subjects with their trademark "zany" (for lack of a better word) comedies. As usual, they throw in their two-sense about society, humanity, and what have you. They thoroughly believe that most people are dim-witted, but it doesn't change the fact that these sorts of people have to be dealt with nonetheless. However, Burn After Reading shows that the Coens can show these sorts of characters with compassion. Their previous efforts, such as Fargo and Raising Arizona, were criticized for being condescending towards their own characters. I disagree. While those two films were a bit more pessimistic about these people, both of them (especially Fargo) demonstrate the Coens' love of these people. Why would they continue to make movies about them if they were just ridiculing them? They find depths in characters that seem one note and shallow. They give you a reason to their moronic delusions. They make you feel for them, and realize "Oh, wow, I guess that is pretty stupid when I do that." It may be a stretch, but their work almost brings to mind the two Fellinis that I've seen, La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2. In the booklet for LDV, an essay proclaims that Fellini was primarily an entertaining, infusing his stories with existentialism and satire. While I think the Coens are different in a lot of ways, this could just as easily be said about them. Burn After Reading is basically just evidence that the Coens having a good time is better and more profound than most film-makers' serious efforts. While they are cynical, making each of their movies an inside joke that only they can really decipher, they always manage to entertain their audience. As usual, this review really only touched on the surface of the hundreds of things that can be said about this film. But, all you need to know essentially is that it's a hilarious entry into the Coens' filmography, and has the potential to gain a cult status with The Big Lebowski if it duds with critics. I doubt it will, however, now that the Coens have officially proved themselves with No Country, giving them the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want. (Oh, did I mention I'm a fan?) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/12/35099.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/12/2008 7:01:22 PM
Body: Adam Del Deo and James Stern didn’t start out thinking they’d get into the documentary business, but Every Little Step marks their fourth documentary together as co-directors. It’s an emotional film that follows several hopeful dancer/singer/actors who hope to get cast in the 2006 revival of “A Chorus Line” on Broadway. I honestly didn’t think this would be too interesting of a film for me, having never seen the musical or the Michael Douglas movie version, but it was extremely compelling without taking a turn for a reality television style, which I’d feared would happen. Stern, who also serves as the CEO for Endgame Entertainment, had earlier produced Legally Blonde: The Search for Elle Woods which was a reality show about casting the “Legally Blonde” musical, and I still can’t believe that even exists. He’s worked on Broadway for many years, which helped him secure the legendary reel to reel recordings that consisted of show creator Michael Bennett in conversation with dancers. These tapes not only helped Bennett to create A Chorus Line, but they also serve as the backbone to the film. Read on after the break to find out what it was like making this film, how they got the tapes, and what they think about the current state of documentary filmmaking in America. What inspired you guys to get involved with this? James: First is, I was doing an interview with one of the trades, and they were saying, “How can you do another documentary? Documentaries are so tough.”

And I said, “Would you say that about a feature that I do?”

And they said, “No.”

I said, “Why not?”

They said, “Well there’s all sorts of different kind of features.”

I said, “Ah, interesting. So, you’re saying there’s not all different kinds of documentaries.” I said, “Now, you’re asking would we have done a documentary on Abu Ghraib or Darfur, and if we had would we feel nervous.” A) I don’t know if we would do that, because those are great, but it’s not necessarily we wanted to do this, but B) yes, we would be very nervous.

We wanted to do a commercial film. We wanted to do a film with a real heartbeat. So, that’s what we were looking to do, and we were really thrilled when we got this opportunity. It’s important for us that we did a film that was about something, but was at the same time commercial. What separates this film from the reality television is the historical underpinnings which lend context to the yearnings and the attempts of these young people within our show. And it gives you an understanding of why it’s all important, why it resonates with America so much, and the rest of the world too.

So, all that went into it. So, for us, it’s not reality television. At the same time, we’re really visually commercial film. Adam:  Yeah, we didn’t look at it as reality television. The play is sort of a phenomenon, so iconic. What we really like about the play and the movie, the potentially really interesting movie, was that we were going to be following thousands of dancers that were struggling, trying to get a job on Broadway, and in doing that, revealing who they were personally, what it meant to work for that. But, that’s what the play was about.

So, there’s this parallel that needs to be turned into. So, Jim and me talked to her a lot about creating Fellini’s 8 1/2 following that type of a prospect and then applying it to this Broadway. So, that was really fascinating. Did you guys know about the revival in advance and then plan this out, or did it sort of come together happily? James:  The revival is really part of it. John Breglio, who produced the revival and was Michael Bennet’s lawyer and great great friend, had seen my prior film So Goes the Nation. I produced on Broadway. I produced 15 shows in New York. So, I think, the subset of Broadway, producers of musicals and documentary filmmakers is probably one. So I was a natural for John to call once he loved that other movie. So, that was very much part of this, going into it. Did he also provide the access to the archival material? James:  Yeah. He provided the access to the tapes, which was so critical. Without the tapes… the tapes are the stuff of legend. As a Broadway person, I heard for years about those tapes. People talked about them, and nobody ever heard them. So, the fact that we actually had access to those was a huge bonus as well. What surprised you most about this documentary? I guess every documentary has its own surprises. Was there something that just really surprised you when this was coming together as a film when you were shooting it? Adam:  I think, for me at least, Jim has so much more experience on Broadway than I do, which is really zero. But, to me, it was just the amount of people, I mean, the waves, we captured that in the opening five minutes of the film, thousands of people come to these auditions. When you do the math in your head, it’s just like, gah! James:  It doesn’t surprise me at all, because this is my life. I’ve seen this so many times. You’re right, for years. Adam:  So overwhelming, that if they get the job, they get paid not a lot of money, that the people dedicate their lives, they need to perform. James:  That was really what I did for love, you know. Adam:  They need to perform. It’s such a powerful… if you get that genetic whatever that is, instincts to have to be a dancer, performer, there’s people who have to do that to feel that their lives are defined in the way that they want them to be. Did that help in the film making process that you just sort of brought a new eye to it? This is old hat for you, but you’re experiencing it sort of for the first time. James:  I think 100%, and I don’t think it’s old hat for me. But, I do think that getting the history of it right, and getting the underpinnings of the show right, was really critical to me. And Adam as an equal counterbalance to making sure that it was something that was accessible to people that didn’t have my background was absolutely critical. Adam:  Yeah, we had different versions of the film, some of which were more audition based. What I mean by that is following the audition process. And there were other versions that were more historical based.

So, we ultimately came to the conclusion that in terms of a target audience, not the entire audience, but just our target, was someone that had seen the show on Broadway.

And they had these feelings and memories that they’ve never let go, that it was such a powerful experience that they could relive that. And to add some information for the insiders and to keep it accessible enough that we could get a broad term audience when it comes out in theaters. To go after them and have all that not be too exact. Why has “A Chorus Line” endured for so long? It’s amazing. James:  It’s endured for several reasons. Outside of the fact that it’s just got a phenomenal, hummable score, I mean the songs are iconic. You also have a construct which is about yearning and dreams, and that’s something that’s very relevant.

Additionally, it’s probably the first bit of confessional commerce ever done in America, so that, before Oprah Winfrey or before Mona Simpson was writing confessional novels, for goodness sakes, there was “A Chorus Line.” And I think that that comes, you know, I think that people can relate to all that, and people can really relate to individual characters in the show and think, you know, I can do that, essentially. Was there ever a moment when you guys were shooting this and you thought, we don’t know if this is going to work, if this is going to be interesting? James:  Yes.

 [laughter] Adam:  I think, we always knew it was there, I mean, finding the movie, I mean, we have so much respect for any documentary filmmaker that makes a good movie, and all the filmmakers that are here. We know what it’s like to sit in that edit room on, you know, a cold Sunday night in the middle of winter, and you’ve got a big week ahead of you, and nothing’s going to work, and you’ve got to figure it out, you know? You’ve got to go through that 400 hours and you may take it one step at a time, because I think if you knew how difficult the process was, you’d be very intimidated. It seems like it would be. Adam:  It’s a massive amount of work. We work with great people, and we’ve been lucky so far; I think we made a few pretty good movies. What do you think about the current state of documentary films? The American market seems glutted, currently, with documentaries. Everywhere you turn, there’s a new documentary on every possible subject. What do you guys think about the landscape of documentaries? Adam:  Well, we’re aware of it, so we try to pick commercial, broad subjects. James:  I mean, there’s great, great work out there right now which is very serious, and what distributors would think of, and we’re not distributors. We’re everything that is not commercial material.

 I come from the theatre. I never thought that I’d make a documentary; this is my fourth. So, you know, I come from, all about writing, all about words, all about dramatic structure, and Adam comes from a narrative world as well. We came from place of wanting to do commercial films.

I think that everything is difficult right now. I think, features are difficult right now. I think that there’s a glut on the marketplace due to an excess of capital from Wall Street, which I’m sure will not be there in a couple years because of what’s going on with Wall Street today.

And I think that films that take word of mouth to develop aren’t real strong because there’s so many different releases every week, and people’s, you know, and there’s so much other ways to, you know, use your disposable time that that’s just really…

Now, I think that out of this, something else is going to develop, whether it’s documentaries online, whether it’s documentaries in some sort of form of television online, blah, blah, but the problem that we’re having right now that we’re in that inbetween time. Do you guys both sit in front of the monitor, are you trading off, is someone closer to the set, and the other person’s back in video village? Adam:  We’re usually doing it together. James:  I think that we do things together. I think that Adam is going to take more of a lead in terms of shooting on the ground, you know, on the verite stuff. I might take a little more of a lead in some of the interviews. So, we split things up pretty well.

And we’re in the edit room at the same time, although there are times when we’re doing different things in the edit room based on where we are in the cut. Do you think the success of High School Musical will benefit your documentary? James:  Yes, 100 percent. 100 percent sure. I think that’s good, but I mean, the fact that my kids, you know, who are 12 and nine are inundated with the idea of seeing musicals makes this something that they are going to want to see, and not just someone who is my age. So, I think that’s all to the good, and for my purposes, as somebody who still works on Broadway every year or so, that’s great. I mean, the more that people are going to be exposed to different forms of art and culture, the better. Disney turned that into such a franchise, and they actually have a reality show now based on the making of high school musicals at high schools across the United States. If this film is a success and they go on and say, we want to do a reality show around casting Broadway shows or even “A Chorus Line”… James:  Actually, I just did, I just did. I produced Legally Blonde. Oh, you did? James:  Yeah, so I mean, we just did that one. OK. So, you’re already, you’re familiar with it. James:  I’m already there, yeah. We already did this with Elle Woods, The Search for Elle Woods. Was that a difficult process, or was it difficult making that? James:  No, you know, I mean, everything is and isn’t. I don’t think it was backbreakingly difficult. I mean, I think that, you know, I always say that making products that you really care about is the Lord’s work, and selling it is the Devil’s. And I think that anything that gets people’s attention for good work, I think, is great. So, what else are you guys working on? I loved The Brothers Bloom by the way. Great movie. James:  Thank you. Thank you very much, thanks. What else are you guys currently working on, what’s your next project? James:  Well, we have Easy Virtue here, which opens tonight, and The Brothers Bloom. We also have An Education which was written by Nick Hornby, which will be premiering later this year, an r-rated comedy. Endgame looks to be doing four to five films a year. Adam and I will be doing another one later this year.

The great news about doing a film like this is that it’s commercial, and that it’s got such a core, and it’s got such a commercial following. The bad news is, we have to find something that’s just as good. 

[laughter] So we’re not quite certain about what it’s going to be, but it’s going to have to be something that really lands for us. It’ll be a documentary? James:  Not necessarily. Have you guys worked on a narrative before together? James:  Yeah. Which film? James:  It’s a film called It’s The Rage which starred Gary Sinise and Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels, and Adam actually produced that and I directed it. That’s how we met. So, would you ever co-direct a narrative together? James:  Sure. Sure. Sure. Adam:  Yeah. James:  Sure. Absolutely. Great. Well, I wish you guys success. James:  Thank you very much. Adam:  Thanks so much. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/12/2008 7:01:22 PM Adam Del Deo and James Stern didn’t start out thinking they’d get into the documentary business, but Every Little Step marks their fourth documentary together as co-directors. It’s an emotional film that follows several hopeful dancer/singer/actors who hope to get cast in the 2006 revival of “A Chorus Line” on Broadway. I honestly didn’t think this would be too interesting of a film for me, having never seen the musical or the Michael Douglas movie version, but it was extremely compelling without taking a turn for a reality television style, which I’d feared would happen. Stern, who also serves as the CEO for Endgame Entertainment, had earlier produced Legally Blonde: The Search for Elle Woods which was a reality show about casting the “Legally Blonde” musical, and I still can’t believe that even exists. He’s worked on Broadway for many years, which helped him secure the legendary reel to reel recordings that consisted of show creator Michael Bennett in conversation with dancers. These tapes not only helped Bennett to create A Chorus Line, but they also serve as the backbone to the film. Read on after the break to find out what it was like making this film, how they got the tapes, and what they think about the current state of documentary filmmaking in America. What inspired you guys to get involved with this? James: First is, I was doing an interview with one of the trades, and they were saying, “How can you do another documentary? Documentaries are so tough.”

And I said, “Would you say that about a feature that I do?”

And they said, “No.”

I said, “Why not?”

They said, “Well there’s all sorts of different kind of features.”

I said, “Ah, interesting. So, you’re saying there’s not all different kinds of documentaries.” I said, “Now, you’re asking would we have done a documentary on Abu Ghraib or Darfur, and if we had would we feel nervous.” A) I don’t know if we would do that, because those are great, but it’s not necessarily we wanted to do this, but B) yes, we would be very nervous.

We wanted to do a commercial film. We wanted to do a film with a real heartbeat. So, that’s what we were looking to do, and we were really thrilled when we got this opportunity. It’s important for us that we did a film that was about something, but was at the same time commercial. What separates this film from the reality television is the historical underpinnings which lend context to the yearnings and the attempts of these young people within our show. And it gives you an understanding of why it’s all important, why it resonates with America so much, and the rest of the world too.

So, all that went into it. So, for us, it’s not reality television. At the same time, we’re really visually commercial film. Adam:  Yeah, we didn’t look at it as reality television. The play is sort of a phenomenon, so iconic. What we really like about the play and the movie, the potentially really interesting movie, was that we were going to be following thousands of dancers that were struggling, trying to get a job on Broadway, and in doing that, revealing who they were personally, what it meant to work for that. But, that’s what the play was about.

So, there’s this parallel that needs to be turned into. So, Jim and me talked to her a lot about creating Fellini’s 8 1/2 following that type of a prospect and then applying it to this Broadway. So, that was really fascinating. Did you guys know about the revival in advance and then plan this out, or did it sort of come together happily? James:  The revival is really part of it. John Breglio, who produced the revival and was Michael Bennet’s lawyer and great great friend, had seen my prior film So Goes the Nation. I produced on Broadway. I produced 15 shows in New York. So, I think, the subset of Broadway, producers of musicals and documentary filmmakers is probably one. So I was a natural for John to call once he loved that other movie. So, that was very much part of this, going into it. Did he also provide the access to the archival material? James:  Yeah. He provided the access to the tapes, which was so critical. Without the tapes… the tapes are the stuff of legend. As a Broadway person, I heard for years about those tapes. People talked about them, and nobody ever heard them. So, the fact that we actually had access to those was a huge bonus as well. What surprised you most about this documentary? I guess every documentary has its own surprises. Was there something that just really surprised you when this was coming together as a film when you were shooting it? Adam:  I think, for me at least, Jim has so much more experience on Broadway than I do, which is really zero. But, to me, it was just the amount of people, I mean, the waves, we captured that in the opening five minutes of the film, thousands of people come to these auditions. When you do the math in your head, it’s just like, gah! James:  It doesn’t surprise me at all, because this is my life. I’ve seen this so many times. You’re right, for years. Adam:  So overwhelming, that if they get the job, they get paid not a lot of money, that the people dedicate their lives, they need to perform. James:  That was really what I did for love, you know. Adam:  They need to perform. It’s such a powerful… if you get that genetic whatever that is, instincts to have to be a dancer, performer, there’s people who have to do that to feel that their lives are defined in the way that they want them to be. Did that help in the film making process that you just sort of brought a new eye to it? This is old hat for you, but you’re experiencing it sort of for the first time. James:  I think 100%, and I don’t think it’s old hat for me. But, I do think that getting the history of it right, and getting the underpinnings of the show right, was really critical to me. And Adam as an equal counterbalance to making sure that it was something that was accessible to people that didn’t have my background was absolutely critical. Adam:  Yeah, we had different versions of the film, some of which were more audition based. What I mean by that is following the audition process. And there were other versions that were more historical based.

So, we ultimately came to the conclusion that in terms of a target audience, not the entire audience, but just our target, was someone that had seen the show on Broadway.

And they had these feelings and memories that they’ve never let go, that it was such a powerful experience that they could relive that. And to add some information for the insiders and to keep it accessible enough that we could get a broad term audience when it comes out in theaters. To go after them and have all that not be too exact. Why has “A Chorus Line” endured for so long? It’s amazing. James:  It’s endured for several reasons. Outside of the fact that it’s just got a phenomenal, hummable score, I mean the songs are iconic. You also have a construct which is about yearning and dreams, and that’s something that’s very relevant.

Additionally, it’s probably the first bit of confessional commerce ever done in America, so that, before Oprah Winfrey or before Mona Simpson was writing confessional novels, for goodness sakes, there was “A Chorus Line.” And I think that that comes, you know, I think that people can relate to all that, and people can really relate to individual characters in the show and think, you know, I can do that, essentially. Was there ever a moment when you guys were shooting this and you thought, we don’t know if this is going to work, if this is going to be interesting? James:  Yes.

 [laughter] Adam:  I think, we always knew it was there, I mean, finding the movie, I mean, we have so much respect for any documentary filmmaker that makes a good movie, and all the filmmakers that are here. We know what it’s like to sit in that edit room on, you know, a cold Sunday night in the middle of winter, and you’ve got a big week ahead of you, and nothing’s going to work, and you’ve got to figure it out, you know? You’ve got to go through that 400 hours and you may take it one step at a time, because I think if you knew how difficult the process was, you’d be very intimidated. It seems like it would be. Adam:  It’s a massive amount of work. We work with great people, and we’ve been lucky so far; I think we made a few pretty good movies. What do you think about the current state of documentary films? The American market seems glutted, currently, with documentaries. Everywhere you turn, there’s a new documentary on every possible subject. What do you guys think about the landscape of documentaries? Adam:  Well, we’re aware of it, so we try to pick commercial, broad subjects. James:  I mean, there’s great, great work out there right now which is very serious, and what distributors would think of, and we’re not distributors. We’re everything that is not commercial material.

 I come from the theatre. I never thought that I’d make a documentary; this is my fourth. So, you know, I come from, all about writing, all about words, all about dramatic structure, and Adam comes from a narrative world as well. We came from place of wanting to do commercial films.

I think that everything is difficult right now. I think, features are difficult right now. I think that there’s a glut on the marketplace due to an excess of capital from Wall Street, which I’m sure will not be there in a couple years because of what’s going on with Wall Street today.

And I think that films that take word of mouth to develop aren’t real strong because there’s so many different releases every week, and people’s, you know, and there’s so much other ways to, you know, use your disposable time that that’s just really…

Now, I think that out of this, something else is going to develop, whether it’s documentaries online, whether it’s documentaries in some sort of form of television online, blah, blah, but the problem that we’re having right now that we’re in that inbetween time. Do you guys both sit in front of the monitor, are you trading off, is someone closer to the set, and the other person’s back in video village? Adam:  We’re usually doing it together. James:  I think that we do things together. I think that Adam is going to take more of a lead in terms of shooting on the ground, you know, on the verite stuff. I might take a little more of a lead in some of the interviews. So, we split things up pretty well.

And we’re in the edit room at the same time, although there are times when we’re doing different things in the edit room based on where we are in the cut. Do you think the success of High School Musical will benefit your documentary? James:  Yes, 100 percent. 100 percent sure. I think that’s good, but I mean, the fact that my kids, you know, who are 12 and nine are inundated with the idea of seeing musicals makes this something that they are going to want to see, and not just someone who is my age. So, I think that’s all to the good, and for my purposes, as somebody who still works on Broadway every year or so, that’s great. I mean, the more that people are going to be exposed to different forms of art and culture, the better. Disney turned that into such a franchise, and they actually have a reality show now based on the making of high school musicals at high schools across the United States. If this film is a success and they go on and say, we want to do a reality show around casting Broadway shows or even “A Chorus Line”… James:  Actually, I just did, I just did. I produced Legally Blonde. Oh, you did? James:  Yeah, so I mean, we just did that one. OK. So, you’re already, you’re familiar with it. James:  I’m already there, yeah. We already did this with Elle Woods, The Search for Elle Woods. Was that a difficult process, or was it difficult making that? James:  No, you know, I mean, everything is and isn’t. I don’t think it was backbreakingly difficult. I mean, I think that, you know, I always say that making products that you really care about is the Lord’s work, and selling it is the Devil’s. And I think that anything that gets people’s attention for good work, I think, is great. So, what else are you guys working on? I loved The Brothers Bloom by the way. Great movie. James:  Thank you. Thank you very much, thanks. What else are you guys currently working on, what’s your next project? James:  Well, we have Easy Virtue here, which opens tonight, and The Brothers Bloom. We also have An Education which was written by Nick Hornby, which will be premiering later this year, an r-rated comedy. Endgame looks to be doing four to five films a year. Adam and I will be doing another one later this year.

The great news about doing a film like this is that it’s commercial, and that it’s got such a core, and it’s got such a commercial following. The bad news is, we have to find something that’s just as good. 

[laughter] So we’re not quite certain about what it’s going to be, but it’s going to have to be something that really lands for us. It’ll be a documentary? James:  Not necessarily. Have you guys worked on a narrative before together? James:  Yeah. Which film? James:  It’s a film called It’s The Rage which starred Gary Sinise and Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels, and Adam actually produced that and I directed it. That’s how we met. So, would you ever co-direct a narrative together? James:  Sure. Sure. Sure. Adam:  Yeah. James:  Sure. Absolutely. Great. Well, I wish you guys success. James:  Thank you very much. Adam:  Thanks so much. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/11/33867.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/11/2008 4:00:43 PM
Body: Lists of movies within movies are fairly common on the internet, enough that I now realize I need to finally see Bowfinger simply because I’ve counted about a million list makers in love with something titled “Chubby Rain.” And the lists are likely to keep on coming thanks to this week’s hot release, Tropic Thunder, which actually features two movies within (the Vietnam War film “Tropic Thunder” and the festival-winning making-of documentary “Rain of Madness”), as well as the upcoming How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which has spawned a popular fake movie trailer for an NC-17 film titled “Mother Theresa: The Making of a Saint” (previewed above). Yet until someone makes a Wikipedia page for “List of Fictional Films,” these blogged and forumed lists are necessary to keep us movie fans remembering those non-existent movies we wish existed. Narrowing down to ten seemed to be difficult — fictional films have been at least nominally been created for tons of films about filmmaking, otherwise reflexive films, sketch comedies, spoofs, etc. — until I realized that a lot of these films within films are appropriately nominal or trailer- or clip-sized gags and would in reality be terrible (imagine actually watching the entirety of “Asses of Fire” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). Even “Je Vous Présente Paméla” (”Meet Pamela”) from Day for Night and the sci-fi film being made in 8½ would probably be major disappointments in actuality if you expected from them the work of Truffaut and Fellini, respectively. So, I went mostly with fictional films that would probably be bad, but would at least be amusingly bad — though I purposefully avoided fictional porns, including those from Boogie Nights and The Big Lebowski, of which there are literally thousands: “Gandhi II” from UHF - There’s just something about watching good people gone bad. But while the idea of the Good Will Hunting sequel, subtitled “Hunting Season”, thought up for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is pretty ingenious, it just doesn’t have the same level of ludicrous exaggeration that a bloodletting follow-up to the Oscar-winning Gandhi has. Dude drives a Ferrari, can punch completely through a guy’s abdomen, and of course he knows how to party. He even eats meat, now. It’s not only funny because it’s the antithesis of what the Indian leader was all about, it’s also funny because it reminds me of all those straight-edge and vegetarian kids you knew in high school who now drink way too much (oh, yeah, I’m one of them). “Odyssey” from Contempt - When Fritz Lang showed up as himself in Jean-Luc Godard’s Contempt, he’d already given the world his final film as a director (The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse). If only he’d really given us this one additional adaptation of Homer’s epic poem. Either as an art film, as Lang originally intends, or as a more commercial picture, as desired by the American producer played by Jack Palance. “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ from Sullivan’s Travels - The other famously named film within this film, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” was, at least in title, already made by the Coen brothers (see the side-by-side comparison in the video above — interestingly enough, their O Brother, Where Art Thou? is also an adaptation of Homer’s “Odyssey”, uniting #2 and #3 of this list). But I always try to imagine what a film titled “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ would have looked like. I always picture a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley, yet it’s got to be more shallow than that, according to how it’s referenced in Preston Sturges’ movie. “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure - What fan of the real Big Adventure wouldn’t like to watch it all over again as an action picture starring James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild? Maybe it wouldn’t be as good, but it does have ninjas. Anyway, because I love to relate seemingly unrelated movies via lists, let it be known that an episode of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse was titled “Ants in Your Pants”. And now that I think about it, that show was kinda like a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley. Kinda. “Habeas Corpus” from The Player - It’s a common staple for lists like this, and pretty much all Bruce Willis movies from the first half of the ’90s were awful (obviously Pulp Fiction is an exception), but I’d definitely watch the whole of this fake film, even though I’ve already seen how it ends. As with Fritz Lang’s “Odyssey”, I’d be curious to see both the originally planned version and the commercialized final version. “Crossed Sabres of Truth” from The Big Picture - Forget “Home for Purim”, that lame movie within a movie from Christopher Guest’s For Your Consideration. This earlier satire of Hollywood from Guest had far greater fake films, most of them fake student films, such as this one, made by the full-of-himself character played by Dan Schneider. It may not have starred Elliott Gould (as does “The Trial of Janet Kingsley”), or been an overly avant-garde work titled “Afterbirth of a Notion” (which reminds me of the opening to Pee-Wee’s Playhouse), or the actual winner of the National Film Institute’s student film award (that would be Kevin Bacon’s character’s “First Date”), but it has the fat kid from Head of the Class and Better Off Dead riding a horse in a 19th century war movie. How could you not want to see more? “See You Next Wednesday” from The Kentucky Fried Movie - I’m probably a bigger fan of weird movie theater gimmicks than the average moviegoer, but that’s probably because I didn’t get a chance to live through things like Smell-O-Vision, which sound neat in theory but which were reportedly very obnoxious in reality (I recently wrote elsewhere about how the return of Smell-O-Vision in pre-show advertising sounds terrible). The joke about “See You Next Wednesday” (a fake movie title referenced in most of John Landis’ films) is that it’s in “feel-around”, a gimmick that’s clearly annoying to experience. I’d definitely be willing to try it out once, though. Especially if it’s the closest thing I could get to one of the Feelies (tactual motion pictures) from Huxley’s “Brave New World”. “MANT” from Matinee - Movie theater gimmicks also have me curious about experiencing the schlock horror film shown in Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama. This is one of those film within a films that you get to see more than enough footage of, but I want to actually suffer it as it’s intended to be seen. “Jews in Space” from History of the World, Part I - Mel Brooks eventually did make a Star Wars spoof, one that featured a lot of Jews in space (Spaceballs), but that doesn’t mean this earlier parody idea wouldn’t also be worth seeing. I’d even settle for seeing the apparently hilarious 2005 Argentine film Jews in Space Or Why Is This Night Different, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to actually take place in space nor, tragically, involve spaceships shaped like the Star of David. “Those Darn Amigos” from ¡Three Amigos! - Because the synopsis of Tropic Thunder reminds me of the plot to Three Amigos, I feel it appropriate to include one of the fake films from the underrated comedy. At the beginning of the movie, we see one of the silent movies starring the Three Amigos (see the clip above), but I’m more interested in the trio’s flop, which diverted from the usual premise to be about three wealthy Spanish landowners who take a little vacation in Manhattan. If it didn’t appeal to the masses, I’ll probably love it. I’d also settle for seeing one of the early shorts featuring Ned Nederlander (Martin Short) known as “Little Neddy’s Knickers.” Considering ¡Three Amigos! is set in 1916, and Short was in his mid-30s, I believe it impossible that Ned could have been a child star of any younger than 30, so I’m pretty curious. BONUS: “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” from Lost in La Mancha - It isn’t a fake film, but it is technically a film within a film. And it’s so far non-existent, really. Terry Gilliam’s attempted loose adaptation of Cervantes was actually being made, with Johnny Depp in the lead. However, due to multiple complications, the production was canceled after shooting had begun, and all that remained was Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe’s depressing documentary Lost in La Mancha. Because sometimes the gods are good to us Gilliam fans, though, it was recently announced that the film is on being attempted again, reportedly still with Depp and possibly also starring Michael Palin. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/11/2008 4:00:43 PM Lists of movies within movies are fairly common on the internet, enough that I now realize I need to finally see Bowfinger simply because I’ve counted about a million list makers in love with something titled “Chubby Rain.” And the lists are likely to keep on coming thanks to this week’s hot release, Tropic Thunder, which actually features two movies within (the Vietnam War film “Tropic Thunder” and the festival-winning making-of documentary “Rain of Madness”), as well as the upcoming How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which has spawned a popular fake movie trailer for an NC-17 film titled “Mother Theresa: The Making of a Saint” (previewed above). Yet until someone makes a Wikipedia page for “List of Fictional Films,” these blogged and forumed lists are necessary to keep us movie fans remembering those non-existent movies we wish existed. Narrowing down to ten seemed to be difficult — fictional films have been at least nominally been created for tons of films about filmmaking, otherwise reflexive films, sketch comedies, spoofs, etc. — until I realized that a lot of these films within films are appropriately nominal or trailer- or clip-sized gags and would in reality be terrible (imagine actually watching the entirety of “Asses of Fire” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). Even “Je Vous Présente Paméla” (”Meet Pamela”) from Day for Night and the sci-fi film being made in 8½ would probably be major disappointments in actuality if you expected from them the work of Truffaut and Fellini, respectively. So, I went mostly with fictional films that would probably be bad, but would at least be amusingly bad — though I purposefully avoided fictional porns, including those from Boogie Nights and The Big Lebowski, of which there are literally thousands: “Gandhi II” from UHF - There’s just something about watching good people gone bad. But while the idea of the Good Will Hunting sequel, subtitled “Hunting Season”, thought up for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is pretty ingenious, it just doesn’t have the same level of ludicrous exaggeration that a bloodletting follow-up to the Oscar-winning Gandhi has. Dude drives a Ferrari, can punch completely through a guy’s abdomen, and of course he knows how to party. He even eats meat, now. It’s not only funny because it’s the antithesis of what the Indian leader was all about, it’s also funny because it reminds me of all those straight-edge and vegetarian kids you knew in high school who now drink way too much (oh, yeah, I’m one of them). “Odyssey” from Contempt - When Fritz Lang showed up as himself in Jean-Luc Godard’s Contempt, he’d already given the world his final film as a director (The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse). If only he’d really given us this one additional adaptation of Homer’s epic poem. Either as an art film, as Lang originally intends, or as a more commercial picture, as desired by the American producer played by Jack Palance. “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ from Sullivan’s Travels - The other famously named film within this film, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” was, at least in title, already made by the Coen brothers (see the side-by-side comparison in the video above — interestingly enough, their O Brother, Where Art Thou? is also an adaptation of Homer’s “Odyssey”, uniting #2 and #3 of this list). But I always try to imagine what a film titled “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ would have looked like. I always picture a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley, yet it’s got to be more shallow than that, according to how it’s referenced in Preston Sturges’ movie. “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure - What fan of the real Big Adventure wouldn’t like to watch it all over again as an action picture starring James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild? Maybe it wouldn’t be as good, but it does have ninjas. Anyway, because I love to relate seemingly unrelated movies via lists, let it be known that an episode of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse was titled “Ants in Your Pants”. And now that I think about it, that show was kinda like a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley. Kinda. “Habeas Corpus” from The Player - It’s a common staple for lists like this, and pretty much all Bruce Willis movies from the first half of the ’90s were awful (obviously Pulp Fiction is an exception), but I’d definitely watch the whole of this fake film, even though I’ve already seen how it ends. As with Fritz Lang’s “Odyssey”, I’d be curious to see both the originally planned version and the commercialized final version. “Crossed Sabres of Truth” from The Big Picture - Forget “Home for Purim”, that lame movie within a movie from Christopher Guest’s For Your Consideration. This earlier satire of Hollywood from Guest had far greater fake films, most of them fake student films, such as this one, made by the full-of-himself character played by Dan Schneider. It may not have starred Elliott Gould (as does “The Trial of Janet Kingsley”), or been an overly avant-garde work titled “Afterbirth of a Notion” (which reminds me of the opening to Pee-Wee’s Playhouse), or the actual winner of the National Film Institute’s student film award (that would be Kevin Bacon’s character’s “First Date”), but it has the fat kid from Head of the Class and Better Off Dead riding a horse in a 19th century war movie. How could you not want to see more? “See You Next Wednesday” from The Kentucky Fried Movie - I’m probably a bigger fan of weird movie theater gimmicks than the average moviegoer, but that’s probably because I didn’t get a chance to live through things like Smell-O-Vision, which sound neat in theory but which were reportedly very obnoxious in reality (I recently wrote elsewhere about how the return of Smell-O-Vision in pre-show advertising sounds terrible). The joke about “See You Next Wednesday” (a fake movie title referenced in most of John Landis’ films) is that it’s in “feel-around”, a gimmick that’s clearly annoying to experience. I’d definitely be willing to try it out once, though. Especially if it’s the closest thing I could get to one of the Feelies (tactual motion pictures) from Huxley’s “Brave New World”. “MANT” from Matinee - Movie theater gimmicks also have me curious about experiencing the schlock horror film shown in Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama. This is one of those film within a films that you get to see more than enough footage of, but I want to actually suffer it as it’s intended to be seen. “Jews in Space” from History of the World, Part I - Mel Brooks eventually did make a Star Wars spoof, one that featured a lot of Jews in space (Spaceballs), but that doesn’t mean this earlier parody idea wouldn’t also be worth seeing. I’d even settle for seeing the apparently hilarious 2005 Argentine film Jews in Space Or Why Is This Night Different, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to actually take place in space nor, tragically, involve spaceships shaped like the Star of David. “Those Darn Amigos” from ¡Three Amigos! - Because the synopsis of Tropic Thunder reminds me of the plot to Three Amigos, I feel it appropriate to include one of the fake films from the underrated comedy. At the beginning of the movie, we see one of the silent movies starring the Three Amigos (see the clip above), but I’m more interested in the trio’s flop, which diverted from the usual premise to be about three wealthy Spanish landowners who take a little vacation in Manhattan. If it didn’t appeal to the masses, I’ll probably love it. I’d also settle for seeing one of the early shorts featuring Ned Nederlander (Martin Short) known as “Little Neddy’s Knickers.” Considering ¡Three Amigos! is set in 1916, and Short was in his mid-30s, I believe it impossible that Ned could have been a child star of any younger than 30, so I’m pretty curious. BONUS: “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” from Lost in La Mancha - It isn’t a fake film, but it is technically a film within a film. And it’s so far non-existent, really. Terry Gilliam’s attempted loose adaptation of Cervantes was actually being made, with Johnny Depp in the lead. However, due to multiple complications, the production was canceled after shooting had begun, and all that remained was Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe’s depressing documentary Lost in La Mancha. Because sometimes the gods are good to us Gilliam fans, though, it was recently announced that the film is on being attempted again, reportedly still with Depp and possibly also starring Michael Palin. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_weirdest_movies/190/32464/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/12/2008 2:09:17 PM
Body: [quote user="Smooth_J"] Surreal, absurd, disturbing, or just plain strange movies. I got this idea from a discussion on IMDB, and I believe some movie website or magazine released a list of the top 20 a while back. In terms of overall weirdness, here it goes: 1. Un Chien Andalou The old Bunuel-Dali collaboration. This had me at the part where the eye gets sliced with a razor-blade. It is quite possibly one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen, and it was made in 1929. It is almost unsettlingly bizarre. This easily takes the cake at a whopping 16 minutes. Watching this film makes you realize how warped the human mind can be, and it's amazing. It is where every David Lynch film is originated, and really where the surrealist genre was created. 2. Eraserhead Not much about this film can be explained that hasn't already been said a million times. It is adequate to say that never has anything like it ever been seen, and it began a long and illustrious career of nightmares and dreamscapes. 3. The City of Lost Children This one is not quite surrealism, more like a plot-driven sci-fi nightmare that more than delivers on the absurdities. However, it also makes up for such strange detachment with likeable characters and genuine horror. 4. Brazil Also one of my favorite movies, it is the crowned jewel of Terry Gilliam's catalogue. The way in which the dream sequences are paralleled by Lowry's just as bizarre existence makes this a masterpiece of surrealism. 5. So many to choose from!!!!!! I can't pick this last one. So, I'll make a list of honorable mentions: Inland Empire, Mulholland Drive, Videodrome (and other Cronenberg), Dead Man, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits (and most other Gilliam), 2001, Donnie Darko, all of Guy Maddin's shorts (some of which aren't in the Spout database......), Pi. Considering this is labeled "Top 5 Weirdest movies", I'm afraid to include 8 1/2, since it's not per se "weird", but more dreamy and surrealist, which does not necessarily mean weird in my book. All of the surrealist films I mentioned were really by-the-book WEIRD. Am I wrong here? [/quote] For some reason I don't like putting Giliam in the "weird" category, although I know his stuff generally is pretty off-the-wall. I grew up watching "Munchausen" and "Time Bandits," so I guess that kind of thing is just part of me. I've been sporadically watching "Fantastic Planet" lately. Now that is a weird movie. It actually feels like I'm watching a feature-length Gilliam animation from the old Monty Python series.
]]>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:17 GMTindieabby88Top 57/12/2008 2:09:17 PM[quote user="Smooth_J"] Surreal, absurd, disturbing, or just plain strange movies. I got this idea from a discussion on IMDB, and I believe some movie website or magazine released a list of the top 20 a while back. In terms of overall weirdness, here it goes: 1. Un Chien Andalou The old Bunuel-Dali collaboration. This had me at the part where the eye gets sliced with a razor-blade. It is quite possibly one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen, and it was made in 1929. It is almost unsettlingly bizarre. This easily takes the cake at a whopping 16 minutes. Watching this film makes you realize how warped the human mind can be, and it's amazing. It is where every David Lynch film is originated, and really where the surrealist genre was created. 2. Eraserhead Not much about this film can be explained that hasn't already been said a million times. It is adequate to say that never has anything like it ever been seen, and it began a long and illustrious career of nightmares and dreamscapes. 3. The City of Lost Children This one is not quite surrealism, more like a plot-driven sci-fi nightmare that more than delivers on the absurdities. However, it also makes up for such strange detachment with likeable characters and genuine horror. 4. Brazil Also one of my favorite movies, it is the crowned jewel of Terry Gilliam's catalogue. The way in which the dream sequences are paralleled by Lowry's just as bizarre existence makes this a masterpiece of surrealism. 5. So many to choose from!!!!!! I can't pick this last one. So, I'll make a list of honorable mentions: Inland Empire, Mulholland Drive, Videodrome (and other Cronenberg), Dead Man, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits (and most other Gilliam), 2001, Donnie Darko, all of Guy Maddin's shorts (some of which aren't in the Spout database......), Pi. Considering this is labeled "Top 5 Weirdest movies", I'm afraid to include 8 1/2, since it's not per se "weird", but more dreamy and surrealist, which does not necessarily mean weird in my book. All of the surrealist films I mentioned were really by-the-book WEIRD. Am I wrong here? [/quote] For some reason I don't like putting Giliam in the "weird" category, although I know his stuff generally is pretty off-the-wall. I grew up watching "Munchausen" and "Time Bandits," so I guess that kind of thing is just part of me. I've been sporadically watching "Fantastic Planet" lately. Now that is a weird movie. It actually feels like I'm watching a feature-length Gilliam animation from the old Monty Python series. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_weirdest_movies/190/32182/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/6/2008 4:43:30 AM
Body: [quote user="Smooth_J"] Considering this is labeled "Top 5 Weirdest movies", I'm afraid to include 8 1/2, since it's not per se "weird", but more dreamy and surrealist, which does not necessarily mean weird in my book. All of the surrealist films I mentioned were really by-the-book WEIRD. Am I wrong here? [/quote] I wouldn't put 8 1/2 on the list, but possibly Fellini Satyricon (1969).
]]>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:43:30 GMTleeroy711Top 57/6/2008 4:43:30 AM[quote user="Smooth_J"] Considering this is labeled "Top 5 Weirdest movies", I'm afraid to include 8 1/2, since it's not per se "weird", but more dreamy and surrealist, which does not necessarily mean weird in my book. All of the surrealist films I mentioned were really by-the-book WEIRD. Am I wrong here? [/quote] I wouldn't put 8 1/2 on the list, but possibly Fellini Satyricon (1969). http://www.spout.com/blogs/leeroy711/archive/2008/7/6/32173.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: leeroy711 Blog
Post Date: 7/6/2008 1:46:03 AM
Body: Have you ever watched a movie that you liked so much that it actually pisses you off that you waited soooo long to watch it? Is there a special word for that? I just finished watching Samuel Fuller's Shock Corrider and I have that feeling. This movie has been bouncing around my netflix queue for the better part of a year now and I finally sat down to watch it tonight. I had a similar feeling after watching 8 1/2 for the first time. Damn it, what the hell else have I been missing?
]]>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:46:03 GMTleeroy711leeroy711 Blog7/6/2008 1:46:03 AMHave you ever watched a movie that you liked so much that it actually pisses you off that you waited soooo long to watch it? Is there a special word for that? I just finished watching Samuel Fuller's Shock Corrider and I have that feeling. This movie has been bouncing around my netflix queue for the better part of a year now and I finally sat down to watch it tonight. I had a similar feeling after watching 8 1/2 for the first time. Damn it, what the hell else have I been missing? http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_5_weirdest_movies/190/32168/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/5/2008 11:01:33 PM
Body: Surreal, absurd, disturbing, or just plain strange movies. I got this idea from a discussion on IMDB, and I believe some movie website or magazine released a list of the top 20 a while back. In terms of overall weirdness, here it goes: 1. Un Chien Andalou The old Bunuel-Dali collaboration. This had me at the part where the eye gets sliced with a razor-blade. It is quite possibly one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen, and it was made in 1929. It is almost unsettlingly bizarre. This easily takes the cake at a whopping 16 minutes. Watching this film makes you realize how warped the human mind can be, and it's amazing. It is where every David Lynch film is originated, and really where the surrealist genre was created. 2. Eraserhead Not much about this film can be explained that hasn't already been said a million times. It is adequate to say that never has anything like it ever been seen, and it began a long and illustrious career of nightmares and dreamscapes. 3. The City of Lost Children This one is not quite surrealism, more like a plot-driven sci-fi nightmare that more than delivers on the absurdities. However, it also makes up for such strange detachment with likeable characters and genuine horror. 4. Brazil Also one of my favorite movies, it is the crowned jewel of Terry Gilliam's catalogue. The way in which the dream sequences are paralleled by Lowry's just as bizarre existence makes this a masterpiece of surrealism. 5. So many to choose from!!!!!! I can't pick this last one. So, I'll make a list of honorable mentions: Inland Empire, Mulholland Drive, Videodrome (and other Cronenberg), Dead Man, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits (and most other Gilliam), 2001, Donnie Darko, all of Guy Maddin's shorts (some of which aren't in the Spout database......), Pi. Considering this is labeled "Top 5 Weirdest movies", I'm afraid to include 8 1/2, since it's not per se "weird", but more dreamy and surrealist, which does not necessarily mean weird in my book. All of the surrealist films I mentioned were really by-the-book WEIRD. Am I wrong here?
]]>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:01:33 GMTSmooth_JTop 57/5/2008 11:01:33 PMSurreal, absurd, disturbing, or just plain strange movies. I got this idea from a discussion on IMDB, and I believe some movie website or magazine released a list of the top 20 a while back. In terms of overall weirdness, here it goes: 1. Un Chien Andalou The old Bunuel-Dali collaboration. This had me at the part where the eye gets sliced with a razor-blade. It is quite possibly one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen, and it was made in 1929. It is almost unsettlingly bizarre. This easily takes the cake at a whopping 16 minutes. Watching this film makes you realize how warped the human mind can be, and it's amazing. It is where every David Lynch film is originated, and really where the surrealist genre was created. 2. Eraserhead Not much about this film can be explained that hasn't already been said a million times. It is adequate to say that never has anything like it ever been seen, and it began a long and illustrious career of nightmares and dreamscapes. 3. The City of Lost Children This one is not quite surrealism, more like a plot-driven sci-fi nightmare that more than delivers on the absurdities. However, it also makes up for such strange detachment with likeable characters and genuine horror. 4. Brazil Also one of my favorite movies, it is the crowned jewel of Terry Gilliam's catalogue. The way in which the dream sequences are paralleled by Lowry's just as bizarre existence makes this a masterpiece of surrealism. 5. So many to choose from!!!!!! I can't pick this last one. So, I'll make a list of honorable mentions: Inland Empire, Mulholland Drive, Videodrome (and other Cronenberg), Dead Man, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits (and most other Gilliam), 2001, Donnie Darko, all of Guy Maddin's shorts (some of which aren't in the Spout database......), Pi. Considering this is labeled "Top 5 Weirdest movies", I'm afraid to include 8 1/2, since it's not per se "weird", but more dreamy and surrealist, which does not necessarily mean weird in my book. All of the surrealist films I mentioned were really by-the-book WEIRD. Am I wrong here? http://www.spout.com/groups/Friends_of_Foreign_Flicks/Re_Foreign_Film_Name_Game/591/28037/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Friends of Foreign Flicks
Post Date: 4/30/2008 8:58:53 PM
Body: [quote user="yojimbo73"] 8 1/2 Does that count if it's spelled out? :) [/quote] I used to sort my movies like that........ so, yes it counts. Fellini Satyricon that's a double word score because I used the same director.
]]>Thu, 01 May 2008 00:58:53 GMTleeroy711Friends of Foreign Flicks4/30/2008 8:58:53 PM[quote user="yojimbo73"] 8 1/2 Does that count if it's spelled out? :) [/quote] I used to sort my movies like that........ so, yes it counts. Fellini Satyricon that's a double word score because I used the same director. http://www.spout.com/groups/Friends_of_Foreign_Flicks/Re_Foreign_Film_Name_Game/591/28031/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: yojimbo73
Post To: Friends of Foreign Flicks
Post Date: 4/30/2008 6:36:26 PM
Body: 8 1/2 Does that count if it's spelled out? :)
]]>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:36:26 GMTyojimbo73Friends of Foreign Flicks4/30/2008 6:36:26 PM8 1/2 Does that count if it's spelled out? :) http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/3/4/25843.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 3/4/2008 11:01:03 AM
Body: Rainbow Around the Sun-Full TrailerAdd to My Profile | More Videos Kevin Ely and Beau Leland’s Rainbow Around the Sun, a feature-length musical built around the songs of star Matthew Alvin Brown, is the rare non-doc to find a place on the 24 Beats Per Minute sidebar at the South By Southwest Film Festival. Kevin and Beau answer the 4 Questions We’re Asking Everyone below; as always, you can check out the trailer for the film above. Rainbow Around the Sun premieres this Saturday at 10pm at the Alamo South Lamar in Austin. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. Rainbow Around the Sun is a rock musical chronicling the fall and rise of a burned-out young musician with an overactive imagination. Whenever he is faced with an unpleasant reality, he retreats into madcap musical fantasies where he can control the people around him, until the loss of a loved one forces him to face his demons. Basically it’s 8 1/2 meets All That Jazz meets Hedwig, with a dash of The Polka Dot Polka. The music sounds like a collaboration between Harry Nilsson and Ween. It’s an adaptation of an autobiographical album by our friend, co-writer and star, Matthew Alvin Brown. The three of us have been making shorts together in Oklahoma City for the last couple of years, and this is our first feature. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:01:03 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog3/4/2008 11:01:03 AMRainbow Around the Sun-Full TrailerAdd to My Profile | More Videos Kevin Ely and Beau Leland’s Rainbow Around the Sun, a feature-length musical built around the songs of star Matthew Alvin Brown, is the rare non-doc to find a place on the 24 Beats Per Minute sidebar at the South By Southwest Film Festival. Kevin and Beau answer the 4 Questions We’re Asking Everyone below; as always, you can check out the trailer for the film above. Rainbow Around the Sun premieres this Saturday at 10pm at the Alamo South Lamar in Austin. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. Rainbow Around the Sun is a rock musical chronicling the fall and rise of a burned-out young musician with an overactive imagination. Whenever he is faced with an unpleasant reality, he retreats into madcap musical fantasies where he can control the people around him, until the loss of a loved one forces him to face his demons. Basically it’s 8 1/2 meets All That Jazz meets Hedwig, with a dash of The Polka Dot Polka. The music sounds like a collaboration between Harry Nilsson and Ween. It’s an adaptation of an autobiographical album by our friend, co-writer and star, Matthew Alvin Brown. The three of us have been making shorts together in Oklahoma City for the last couple of years, and this is our first feature. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/teenagers/MemberTagFilms.aspxteenagers
Number of films tagged: 3025

Number of people who tagged: 97

Number of times used: 399

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:10 GMT302597399Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/genius/MemberTagFilms.aspxgenius
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 56

Number of times used: 96

]]>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:26:43 GMT2275696Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/depression/MemberTagFilms.aspxdepression
Number of films tagged: 462

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 87

]]>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:57:50 GMT4625187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/foreign/MemberTagFilms.aspxforeign
Number of films tagged: 491

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 421

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:41:30 GMT49130421Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Italian/MemberTagFilms.aspxItalian
Number of films tagged: 50

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 55

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:27:48 GMT503055Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxactor
Number of films tagged: 2328

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 55

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT23282555Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/writing/MemberTagFilms.aspxwriting
Number of films tagged: 1300

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 43

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:17:22 GMT13002543Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/reporter/MemberTagFilms.aspxreporter
Number of films tagged: 1590

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 52

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT15902252Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criterion/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriterion
Number of films tagged: 396

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 407

]]>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:08:23 GMT39617407Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/director/MemberTagFilms.aspxdirector
Number of films tagged: 472

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 26

]]>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:03:08 GMT4721726Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/filmmaker/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilmmaker
Number of films tagged: 1675

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT16751730Tag