list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Mutual Appreciation 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/Mutual_Appreciation/266209/default.aspx Title: Mutual Appreciation
Year: 2005
Director: Andrew Bujalski
Plot: Alan's (Justin Rice) band, the Bumblebees, has recently broken up after releasing an EP that got some attention. Alan has moved to Brooklyn, where he is trying to get solo gigs, and spending a lot of time with his old friend Lawrence (Andrew Bujalski, the film's writer/director) and Lawrence's girlfriend, Ellie (Rachel Clift). Alan quickly books a gig at hip Brooklyn club Northsix, and does a radio interview with Sara (Seung-Min Lee), during which he mentions that he doesn't even have a drummer. As luck would have it, Sara's brother, Dennis (Kevin Micka), is a drummer. Sara also makes it clear that she's attracted to Alan, which creates a problem when he decides he doesn't want to get involved with her. On the night of his gig, a friend of Alan's father with purported record-industry connections shows up, and invites Alan, Sara, and Dennis to his well-appointed apartment. Afterward, Alan drunkenly goes to a party where he was supposed to meet Lawrence and Ellie. As it turned out, they didn't make it, but a trio of women there (including one played by Kate Dollenmayer, who starred in Bujalski's debut feature, Funny Ha Ha), also drunk, have their own plans for him. Eventually, the unspoken attraction between Alan and Ellie comes to the fore. Mutual Appreciation was shot in black-and-white, and was a hit on the festival circuit before its theatrical release in September of 2006. ~ Josh Ralske, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 9
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:54:00 GMTMutual Appreciation2005Andrew BujalskiAlan's (Justin Rice) band, the Bumblebees, has recently broken up after releasing an EP that got some attention. Alan has moved to Brooklyn, where he is trying to get solo gigs, and spending a lot of time with his old friend Lawrence (Andrew Bujalski, the film's writer/director) and Lawrence's girlfriend, Ellie (Rachel Clift). Alan quickly books a gig at hip Brooklyn club Northsix, and does a radio interview with Sara (Seung-Min Lee), during which he mentions that he doesn't even have a drummer. As luck would have it, Sara's brother, Dennis (Kevin Micka), is a drummer. Sara also makes it clear that she's attracted to Alan, which creates a problem when he decides he doesn't want to get involved with her. On the night of his gig, a friend of Alan's father with purported record-industry connections shows up, and invites Alan, Sara, and Dennis to his well-appointed apartment. Afterward, Alan drunkenly goes to a party where he was supposed to meet Lawrence and Ellie. As it turned out, they didn't make it, but a trio of women there (including one played by Kate Dollenmayer, who starred in Bujalski's debut feature, <a href=/films/229746/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Funny Ha Ha</a>), also drunk, have their own plans for him. Eventually, the unspoken attraction between Alan and Ellie comes to the fore. Mutual Appreciation was shot in black-and-white, and was a hit on the festival circuit before its theatrical release in September of 2006. ~ Josh Ralske, All Movie Guide3Slightly Tagged (1-5)9913http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t90185i8vwb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Mutual_Appreciation/266209/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/joem18b/archive/2008/11/19/37428.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: joem18b Blog
Post Date: 11/19/2008 1:54:00 AM
Body: First paragraph of a review that I posted last year:"If I'm in the mood for a Western, I want horses. If I'm in the mood for explosions, I go to a Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay movie. In either case, I don't want, say, Max Von Sydow playing chess with Death in some black-and-white hovel on the rocky shores of Sturnnveggloven. In the same way, if I'm in the mood to watch echo-boomer twenty-somethings filming their friends hanging out with each other in small apartments and on the urban stoop and in the homes and basements of their parents and grandparents, none of whom will ever appear onscreen, then for those of you who haven't seen one such film before, this would be mumblecore."My assigned movie, "Funny Ha Ha," would be perhaps the first film in the mumblecore genre. Did I read something somewhere about how frequently, for some mysterious reason, the first in a genre is also the best? Homer, Milton, and Cervantes were mentioned. Could this be true of FHH? Is it the purest, as well as the first, mumblecore expression of newly-adult American modern life on the hoof, before the mumblecore melodrama of Mutual Appreciation or the variations on a theme in "LOL" or the psychological depth of The Puffy Chair? A question to keep in mind as I watch.Haven't heard much from the mumblecore community lately. What's the buzz? What's the buzz around saying what's the buzz? Stephen Holden called Baghead a mumblecore movie - comedy/horror mumblecore? Are movies like In Search of a Midnight Kiss moving mumblecore into some new merged genre? Was Old Joy really mumblecore, as it's often listed; some genre morphing might have already taken place in that one. Andrew Bujalski, who wrote, directed, and starred in FHH, hasn't made a feature film in years; he's done some acting but not made any movies. Kate Dollenmayer, who plays Marnie, the lead in FHH, appeared in Bujalski's next film and then disappeared behind the camera. There's an album with her name on it; otherwise, she's light on the google.FHH caught me in one of my watching-the-last-half-of-the-movie-first phases. I've recently finished Rules of the Game and War, Inc. that way. Watching those two films backwards helped them, in my estimation. I'm guessing in advance that watching "Funny Ha Ha," starting at the 45-minute mark, will not harm my enjoyment of the film and may help it. But we'll see.Fooey! Now I've slipped up and taken a peek at the first few paragraphs of A.O. Scott's FHH review in the NYT, wherein he tells us that the film is about a young woman's fruitless search for a little love and meaning in her life. Why did I read that? So now why should I bother dropping into the middle of the movie, already knowing that? The adventure and mystery are ruined. Feh. But I'll do it anyway. So. There Marnie is, passed out in a car. Now she stays with a girlfriend and her girlfriend goes on a job interview. Oops, Marnie is the girlfriend, not the drunk in the car. Confusion. Good. That's how I like it to be. No harm done reading a little A.O. Scott. Meanwhile, the theme of the movie is made clear in minutes, middle start or not, once I've got Marnie in my sights. Perhaps my initial excitement was a little attenuated, but now I'm involved, so onward!Marnie is wearing a T-shirt from a Newton grammar school. Newton is an upscale community in the Boston suburbs. Always made me think of fig newtons, not Isaac. I seem to remember a mall there, back in the 60s, out on Commonwealth Avenue. Bujalski was born in Boston. A good place to locate a movie about the just-graduated and I speak as one who swam in that social sea after college for a couple of years. Youth, out of school at last. FHH is the pure unvarnished article. The essence of mumblecore. Absolute minimum script, or so it appears onscreen. The meta experience identical to the dramatic experience; that is, there are two layers working here, carrying the same message: (a) level one, the young woman moving along through her first adult life structure while (b) level two, the actors live their lives for us by acting onscreen, so that, for this viewer at least, the element in FHH most profoundly moving is the sight of these twentysomethings struggling with their craft, new adult members of society, now with the responsibility of paying rent and negotiating car insurance (no small task in Massachusetts!), with the need to discover meaning in the challenges that they face and in their responses to those challenges. Not the characters, you understand, but the actors themselves. A reviewer comments "The semi-improvised performances seem so natural that it is tempting to confuse the actors with their characters," but the point is that these performances highlight the actors not as the characters they portray but as individuals working - that is, acting. Or am I just being fooled into thinking that I'm seeing the actors, not the characters, because of Bujalski's style? But no. I know nothing about the actors; perhaps they have something in common with their characters, perhaps not. There is a signature cadence in untrained improvisation, with its small pauses not heard in everyday conversation, neither conversation between those who know each other nor that between strangers, tiny pauses born of the actor's interior monolog, pauses which replace the verbal overlaps and gaps found in everyday talk. So that as we watch, the actors think about their lines, or the direction just provided offscreen, or the act of acting, anything but the less conscious social drivers propelling the rest of us day-to-day in casual conversation. Each actor steps into the frame with an ineffable sense of innocence, usually with an embarrassed grin, and speaks, and we understand that here onscreen are living reminders of already-came-of-age, struggling with dialog as an instantiated metaphor for the whole all-of-it struggle involved in becoming an adult. I find this evocative in the extreme, a spiritual supermagnet pulling me back to that same time in my own life, with all the memories, nostalgia, speculations, and regrets attendant to it - a time in my own life when I'm more than ripe for that to happen. Could I, would I, do better a second time around? That question forms the emotional core of the movie for my demographic; the same thing happens when we watch our own children in their twenties. Where else can you get that in cinema? Not in The Incredible Hulk, that's for sure.The Boojer, by the way, saves the juiciest scenes in the movie for himself - an excruciating dinner and a later sort-of-extended-date with Marni. Cultural extra credit: compare and contrast the boy/girl dinners in FHH and I Think I Love My Wife.At the end of the second half, I return to reviewland and find:A.O. Scott: "What gives this film its quiet pathos is not so much the relative bleakness of Marnie's circumstances but the modesty of her expectations. At one point, she makes a to-do list, and its lack of ambition - spend more time outdoors, make friends with Jackie, learn to play chess - is both funny and sad."Carina Chocano: "Mainly, Marnie is staying afloat and trying to connect with others who are equally lost."Seems like I've seen a lot of this kind of hangdog vibe around the FHH reviews - negatives about mood and lifestyle - and I am not down with that (although I otherwise agree with the NYT and LA Times FHH review content). Perhaps having reached the top of the mountain makes it hard for Scott and Chocano to see those younger who are still way back down in the foothills. Marnie and her friends in FHH are newly-minted adults living life in that broad, spacious, undefined socioeconomicsphere found in first-world countries, a landscape where middle-class children find themselves free to roam, after emerging from college, if they happen to be situated in the middle of the startingout spectrum: neither at one end on the turf of the cinematically-ever-popular male slackers so often seen onscreen, nor the other end on that of the striving medical-school, law-school, and computer-geek proto-professionals; that is, Marnie and her friends are living the unfocused life that many of us lived in our twenties. I speak as one who stumbled off the college campus for the last time to find myself, at the age of 23, living alone in Boston, working at a job I wasn't interested in, and looking for love after refusing to commit to marriage and being dropped by my intended, who switched to her Plan B awfully quickly, it seemed to me. The quiet pathos for my demographic didn't happen then, it's happening to us now, in our dotage, on the viewer's side of the screen. Where is the pathos in Marnie's freshness and energy and in the potential of youth, for Marnie and her friends with an open and unknowable and limitless future stretching ahead of them, or in the knowledge that Kate Dollenmayer herself has moved on into that future, or in Bujalski's vision? Marnie's to-do list in no way lacks ambition; is in no way funny or sad. The act of making that list metaphorizes the ambition of the young; the contents of the list highlight the innocence of youth; it's a list drawn up by someone with all the time in the world and, interestingly, it is a list quite similar to such a one as made up by someone at the other end of life, without much time remaining.So I asked my daughter about this quiet-pathos thing, her being 23 and a recent graduate and living in Boston, all the same as Marnie; her reply: "As far as waitressing goes, I feel embarrassed about it at times, but I've actually made some valuable connections and now have places to stay and help finding employment if I want to go to South Carolina, Maui, Australia, or Columbia (have business cards/notes/emails from all of these people). Plus I make ok money, work with nice people, take home free food (ok, thats not completely kosher but its not like I get a salary or even hourly pay that amounts to anything after taxes). Plus, Im learning to speak Haitian Creole while simultaneously turning enemies into friends (the cooks didnt like me at first bc they assumed I was racist and told me so, but when I asked to learn their language they are suddenly happy to see me each day). So from my lowly job Im gaining: communication skills, agility training, extreme multi-tasking experience, networking opportunities, and employee benefits (that's the free food). Sounds almost ambitious when phrased correctly. This isnt to say I dont doubt what Im doing because I do, every day, multiple times a day. I get asked time and again by my bosses, co-workers and customers "why are you here if you have a degree from an Ivy League school??" One person even went so far as to say I was being selfish because letting my parents spend all that money to send me to a good school only to "disregard" my qualifications by working in a chain restaurant was just like throwing all that tuition money in the trash. Obviously obtaining "street smarts" and trying to experience different ways of life before choosing the "purpose-driven" one is something only misfits and failures do... So what am I trying to say here? Maybe im just trying to rationalize my own current existence when in reality it is just as ambitionless and lost as Marnie's. But maybe if the reviewers got off their NY Times and La Times high horses and really thought about what it means to EXPERIENCE and LIVE life, they might see things a wee bit differently. Or maybe not. Am I giggly all the time? as my friend Lynnea would say: "HELLS no!" But I dont think Ill look back on this period of my life and see it as a time of just "staying afloat" (my high school years on the other hand...)."One more take on the pathos meme, quickly, before getting on with the movie: Marnie celebrates her birthday quietly. Proactive note to lugubrious reviewers: this also is not pathos. What the heck did I do on my birthdays back in Boston? Who knows? I do remember being in a laundromat at North Station on Christmas Eve one year. It was snowing. Neither the Bruins nor the Celtics were in town, so The Garden was deserted except for me and an old woman. I went back to my room and drank. I still remember that, so I guess it means something to me, but I didn't feel pathetic at the time. I felt lonely but pretty good.Ginormous. I've had that word in my head. I'm thinking that if I write it down here, maybe it will go away.And so on to the first half of FHH.Oh my God. Bujalski saddles Marnie with an unrequited-love jones, up front. Booge, how could you? What were you thinking? This is something a novice twenty-something filmmaker would do. Oh, right. But this is why watching War, Inc. backwards helped the movie so much; the process cut out loads of unnecessary plot points till it was too late to matter. In the same way, I was able to watch the downslope of FHH without these moulting feathers of love annoying me. Hmm. Now Marnie liplocks some dude at the twenty-eight minute mark. I would never have predicted that. Oh, no, and then she osculates again three minutes later with her married-dude friend. I'm so glad I'm coming to this at the end and not at the beginning. Why? Because in the second half she's staring into the future without seeing beyond the walls of her room, locked in her head while her anger percolates unfelt somewhere down there lower in her body - after the drinking and smooching fail her - but I understood that, in the second half of the movie, without the presumptive romance-o-motivation of the first.No. I'm overreacting. Belay that last paragraph. I've been Hollywoodpavlovianized. This is not Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in the last minute of Sleepless in Seattle or You've Got Mail. This is random lowkey young adult semijoyless evolutionary smootching, pebbles in a pond that cause no ripples. Marnie pretends that it didn't happen, isn't happening, and I'll do the same. Romance is a big deal for these kids, perhaps the biggest deal. My twenties were mostly a history of bad dates. Easy to put off career issues to the next decade while getting the living part right. So Booge perforce makes use of that, but not so much that we can't shrug when the lips meet, and then move on. But still, this series of fraught encounters with men, I don't know; quit beating the drum, Booge. This does remind me, though, that I watched the original Forsythe Saga backward. As with Marnie and Alex in the second half of FHH, something heavy had obviously gone on between Irene and Soames, and Fleur's life was constantly perturbed by it, but it seemed more romantic to me to not know what that something was, not to know what had happened - seemed more romantic than watching the first half and seeing whatever it was that happened actually happen. Thesis: nostalgia coupled with imagination is always stronger than dramatic invention, probably because lived experience, including the actual act of imagination, is more visceral than skoptophilia and its milder brethren.New-Age side note: Coincidence #1: Earlier in this screed I wrote a sentence using the word "evolutionary" and then I started FHH up again and watched the last ten minutes of the movie, which I hadn't seen yet (minutes 35 to 45) and Marnie says to Alex or Alex says to Marnie, "You're the most evolved person I know." Coincidence #2: Later that day, I went to Blockbuster to return Get Smart (I'm rating it "j" on a scale of 1 to q) and while there I picked up The Last Request, which somebody somewhere liked a little bit, and while I was checking out, the clerk asked me how I liked Get Smart and I said, Anne Hathaway is no Barbara Feldon, and when I got home and started The Last Request, there Barbara was, in a starring role. The odds of plucking up a Barbara Feldon movie at random? Antiginormous. Coincidence #3: Marnie's shirt has the number 18 on its back. I'm 18b. My daughter, I learned THE SAME DAY, is living in apartment #18 in her building on Concord St. Consult your Jung! These coincidental whorls in the universal fabric happened ON THE SAME DAY as Obama's election and mean that FHH is connected to the core zeitgeist of the planet. You read it here first.Propositions: (1) The first half of a movie is usually better than the second half when the movie is watched in normal order. (2) Watching the second half of a movie first often improves the movie. Sometimes, watching the second half is sufficient in itself. (3) Thus, perhaps whichever half you watch first is the best.I had to ask Wilson, who assigned this movie to me, what the last two spoken lines of the last scene were. They seemed crucial in defining the mood of the movie, but mumblecore being named mumblecore for a reason, I couldn't make out what Alex and Marnie said to each other. Fortunately, Wilson could. And those two lines bear out my contention, or so I think, that Bujalski is a deeply optimistic guy and FHH is, in the end, a celebration, not a paean. In that final scene, Marnie shows some anger, a desire to move out into the world, and a rejection of the feckless Alex. Good for her and good for a society and economy (knock on wood) where youth is able to rattle around a little. I watched a mumblecore movie made by Joe Swanberg a while back, in which the protagonists grow stronger in the face of Swanberg's efforts to render them helpless; Bujalski throws down some marbles in Marnie's path, but his affection for her never lets her fall hard enough to break anything.This film that launched a genre reminds us that being young and being old are two entirely different things. (Bujalski turned 30 this year.)
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:54:00 GMTjoem18bjoem18b Blog11/19/2008 1:54:00 AMFirst paragraph of a review that I posted last year:"If I'm in the mood for a Western, I want horses. If I'm in the mood for explosions, I go to a Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay movie. In either case, I don't want, say, Max Von Sydow playing chess with Death in some black-and-white hovel on the rocky shores of Sturnnveggloven. In the same way, if I'm in the mood to watch echo-boomer twenty-somethings filming their friends hanging out with each other in small apartments and on the urban stoop and in the homes and basements of their parents and grandparents, none of whom will ever appear onscreen, then for those of you who haven't seen one such film before, this would be mumblecore."My assigned movie, "Funny Ha Ha," would be perhaps the first film in the mumblecore genre. Did I read something somewhere about how frequently, for some mysterious reason, the first in a genre is also the best? Homer, Milton, and Cervantes were mentioned. Could this be true of FHH? Is it the purest, as well as the first, mumblecore expression of newly-adult American modern life on the hoof, before the mumblecore melodrama of Mutual Appreciation or the variations on a theme in "LOL" or the psychological depth of The Puffy Chair? A question to keep in mind as I watch.Haven't heard much from the mumblecore community lately. What's the buzz? What's the buzz around saying what's the buzz? Stephen Holden called Baghead a mumblecore movie - comedy/horror mumblecore? Are movies like In Search of a Midnight Kiss moving mumblecore into some new merged genre? Was Old Joy really mumblecore, as it's often listed; some genre morphing might have already taken place in that one. Andrew Bujalski, who wrote, directed, and starred in FHH, hasn't made a feature film in years; he's done some acting but not made any movies. Kate Dollenmayer, who plays Marnie, the lead in FHH, appeared in Bujalski's next film and then disappeared behind the camera. There's an album with her name on it; otherwise, she's light on the google.FHH caught me in one of my watching-the-last-half-of-the-movie-first phases. I've recently finished Rules of the Game and War, Inc. that way. Watching those two films backwards helped them, in my estimation. I'm guessing in advance that watching "Funny Ha Ha," starting at the 45-minute mark, will not harm my enjoyment of the film and may help it. But we'll see.Fooey! Now I've slipped up and taken a peek at the first few paragraphs of A.O. Scott's FHH review in the NYT, wherein he tells us that the film is about a young woman's fruitless search for a little love and meaning in her life. Why did I read that? So now why should I bother dropping into the middle of the movie, already knowing that? The adventure and mystery are ruined. Feh. But I'll do it anyway. So. There Marnie is, passed out in a car. Now she stays with a girlfriend and her girlfriend goes on a job interview. Oops, Marnie is the girlfriend, not the drunk in the car. Confusion. Good. That's how I like it to be. No harm done reading a little A.O. Scott. Meanwhile, the theme of the movie is made clear in minutes, middle start or not, once I've got Marnie in my sights. Perhaps my initial excitement was a little attenuated, but now I'm involved, so onward!Marnie is wearing a T-shirt from a Newton grammar school. Newton is an upscale community in the Boston suburbs. Always made me think of fig newtons, not Isaac. I seem to remember a mall there, back in the 60s, out on Commonwealth Avenue. Bujalski was born in Boston. A good place to locate a movie about the just-graduated and I speak as one who swam in that social sea after college for a couple of years. Youth, out of school at last. FHH is the pure unvarnished article. The essence of mumblecore. Absolute minimum script, or so it appears onscreen. The meta experience identical to the dramatic experience; that is, there are two layers working here, carrying the same message: (a) level one, the young woman moving along through her first adult life structure while (b) level two, the actors live their lives for us by acting onscreen, so that, for this viewer at least, the element in FHH most profoundly moving is the sight of these twentysomethings struggling with their craft, new adult members of society, now with the responsibility of paying rent and negotiating car insurance (no small task in Massachusetts!), with the need to discover meaning in the challenges that they face and in their responses to those challenges. Not the characters, you understand, but the actors themselves. A reviewer comments "The semi-improvised performances seem so natural that it is tempting to confuse the actors with their characters," but the point is that these performances highlight the actors not as the characters they portray but as individuals working - that is, acting. Or am I just being fooled into thinking that I'm seeing the actors, not the characters, because of Bujalski's style? But no. I know nothing about the actors; perhaps they have something in common with their characters, perhaps not. There is a signature cadence in untrained improvisation, with its small pauses not heard in everyday conversation, neither conversation between those who know each other nor that between strangers, tiny pauses born of the actor's interior monolog, pauses which replace the verbal overlaps and gaps found in everyday talk. So that as we watch, the actors think about their lines, or the direction just provided offscreen, or the act of acting, anything but the less conscious social drivers propelling the rest of us day-to-day in casual conversation. Each actor steps into the frame with an ineffable sense of innocence, usually with an embarrassed grin, and speaks, and we understand that here onscreen are living reminders of already-came-of-age, struggling with dialog as an instantiated metaphor for the whole all-of-it struggle involved in becoming an adult. I find this evocative in the extreme, a spiritual supermagnet pulling me back to that same time in my own life, with all the memories, nostalgia, speculations, and regrets attendant to it - a time in my own life when I'm more than ripe for that to happen. Could I, would I, do better a second time around? That question forms the emotional core of the movie for my demographic; the same thing happens when we watch our own children in their twenties. Where else can you get that in cinema? Not in The Incredible Hulk, that's for sure.The Boojer, by the way, saves the juiciest scenes in the movie for himself - an excruciating dinner and a later sort-of-extended-date with Marni. Cultural extra credit: compare and contrast the boy/girl dinners in FHH and I Think I Love My Wife.At the end of the second half, I return to reviewland and find:A.O. Scott: "What gives this film its quiet pathos is not so much the relative bleakness of Marnie's circumstances but the modesty of her expectations. At one point, she makes a to-do list, and its lack of ambition - spend more time outdoors, make friends with Jackie, learn to play chess - is both funny and sad."Carina Chocano: "Mainly, Marnie is staying afloat and trying to connect with others who are equally lost."Seems like I've seen a lot of this kind of hangdog vibe around the FHH reviews - negatives about mood and lifestyle - and I am not down with that (although I otherwise agree with the NYT and LA Times FHH review content). Perhaps having reached the top of the mountain makes it hard for Scott and Chocano to see those younger who are still way back down in the foothills. Marnie and her friends in FHH are newly-minted adults living life in that broad, spacious, undefined socioeconomicsphere found in first-world countries, a landscape where middle-class children find themselves free to roam, after emerging from college, if they happen to be situated in the middle of the startingout spectrum: neither at one end on the turf of the cinematically-ever-popular male slackers so often seen onscreen, nor the other end on that of the striving medical-school, law-school, and computer-geek proto-professionals; that is, Marnie and her friends are living the unfocused life that many of us lived in our twenties. I speak as one who stumbled off the college campus for the last time to find myself, at the age of 23, living alone in Boston, working at a job I wasn't interested in, and looking for love after refusing to commit to marriage and being dropped by my intended, who switched to her Plan B awfully quickly, it seemed to me. The quiet pathos for my demographic didn't happen then, it's happening to us now, in our dotage, on the viewer's side of the screen. Where is the pathos in Marnie's freshness and energy and in the potential of youth, for Marnie and her friends with an open and unknowable and limitless future stretching ahead of them, or in the knowledge that Kate Dollenmayer herself has moved on into that future, or in Bujalski's vision? Marnie's to-do list in no way lacks ambition; is in no way funny or sad. The act of making that list metaphorizes the ambition of the young; the contents of the list highlight the innocence of youth; it's a list drawn up by someone with all the time in the world and, interestingly, it is a list quite similar to such a one as made up by someone at the other end of life, without much time remaining.So I asked my daughter about this quiet-pathos thing, her being 23 and a recent graduate and living in Boston, all the same as Marnie; her reply: "As far as waitressing goes, I feel embarrassed about it at times, but I've actually made some valuable connections and now have places to stay and help finding employment if I want to go to South Carolina, Maui, Australia, or Columbia (have business cards/notes/emails from all of these people). Plus I make ok money, work with nice people, take home free food (ok, thats not completely kosher but its not like I get a salary or even hourly pay that amounts to anything after taxes). Plus, Im learning to speak Haitian Creole while simultaneously turning enemies into friends (the cooks didnt like me at first bc they assumed I was racist and told me so, but when I asked to learn their language they are suddenly happy to see me each day). So from my lowly job Im gaining: communication skills, agility training, extreme multi-tasking experience, networking opportunities, and employee benefits (that's the free food). Sounds almost ambitious when phrased correctly. This isnt to say I dont doubt what Im doing because I do, every day, multiple times a day. I get asked time and again by my bosses, co-workers and customers "why are you here if you have a degree from an Ivy League school??" One person even went so far as to say I was being selfish because letting my parents spend all that money to send me to a good school only to "disregard" my qualifications by working in a chain restaurant was just like throwing all that tuition money in the trash. Obviously obtaining "street smarts" and trying to experience different ways of life before choosing the "purpose-driven" one is something only misfits and failures do... So what am I trying to say here? Maybe im just trying to rationalize my own current existence when in reality it is just as ambitionless and lost as Marnie's. But maybe if the reviewers got off their NY Times and La Times high horses and really thought about what it means to EXPERIENCE and LIVE life, they might see things a wee bit differently. Or maybe not. Am I giggly all the time? as my friend Lynnea would say: "HELLS no!" But I dont think Ill look back on this period of my life and see it as a time of just "staying afloat" (my high school years on the other hand...)."One more take on the pathos meme, quickly, before getting on with the movie: Marnie celebrates her birthday quietly. Proactive note to lugubrious reviewers: this also is not pathos. What the heck did I do on my birthdays back in Boston? Who knows? I do remember being in a laundromat at North Station on Christmas Eve one year. It was snowing. Neither the Bruins nor the Celtics were in town, so The Garden was deserted except for me and an old woman. I went back to my room and drank. I still remember that, so I guess it means something to me, but I didn't feel pathetic at the time. I felt lonely but pretty good.Ginormous. I've had that word in my head. I'm thinking that if I write it down here, maybe it will go away.And so on to the first half of FHH.Oh my God. Bujalski saddles Marnie with an unrequited-love jones, up front. Booge, how could you? What were you thinking? This is something a novice twenty-something filmmaker would do. Oh, right. But this is why watching War, Inc. backwards helped the movie so much; the process cut out loads of unnecessary plot points till it was too late to matter. In the same way, I was able to watch the downslope of FHH without these moulting feathers of love annoying me. Hmm. Now Marnie liplocks some dude at the twenty-eight minute mark. I would never have predicted that. Oh, no, and then she osculates again three minutes later with her married-dude friend. I'm so glad I'm coming to this at the end and not at the beginning. Why? Because in the second half she's staring into the future without seeing beyond the walls of her room, locked in her head while her anger percolates unfelt somewhere down there lower in her body - after the drinking and smooching fail her - but I understood that, in the second half of the movie, without the presumptive romance-o-motivation of the first.No. I'm overreacting. Belay that last paragraph. I've been Hollywoodpavlovianized. This is not Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in the last minute of Sleepless in Seattle or You've Got Mail. This is random lowkey young adult semijoyless evolutionary smootching, pebbles in a pond that cause no ripples. Marnie pretends that it didn't happen, isn't happening, and I'll do the same. Romance is a big deal for these kids, perhaps the biggest deal. My twenties were mostly a history of bad dates. Easy to put off career issues to the next decade while getting the living part right. So Booge perforce makes use of that, but not so much that we can't shrug when the lips meet, and then move on. But still, this series of fraught encounters with men, I don't know; quit beating the drum, Booge. This does remind me, though, that I watched the original Forsythe Saga backward. As with Marnie and Alex in the second half of FHH, something heavy had obviously gone on between Irene and Soames, and Fleur's life was constantly perturbed by it, but it seemed more romantic to me to not know what that something was, not to know what had happened - seemed more romantic than watching the first half and seeing whatever it was that happened actually happen. Thesis: nostalgia coupled with imagination is always stronger than dramatic invention, probably because lived experience, including the actual act of imagination, is more visceral than skoptophilia and its milder brethren.New-Age side note: Coincidence #1: Earlier in this screed I wrote a sentence using the word "evolutionary" and then I started FHH up again and watched the last ten minutes of the movie, which I hadn't seen yet (minutes 35 to 45) and Marnie says to Alex or Alex says to Marnie, "You're the most evolved person I know." Coincidence #2: Later that day, I went to Blockbuster to return Get Smart (I'm rating it "j" on a scale of 1 to q) and while there I picked up The Last Request, which somebody somewhere liked a little bit, and while I was checking out, the clerk asked me how I liked Get Smart and I said, Anne Hathaway is no Barbara Feldon, and when I got home and started The Last Request, there Barbara was, in a starring role. The odds of plucking up a Barbara Feldon movie at random? Antiginormous. Coincidence #3: Marnie's shirt has the number 18 on its back. I'm 18b. My daughter, I learned THE SAME DAY, is living in apartment #18 in her building on Concord St. Consult your Jung! These coincidental whorls in the universal fabric happened ON THE SAME DAY as Obama's election and mean that FHH is connected to the core zeitgeist of the planet. You read it here first.Propositions: (1) The first half of a movie is usually better than the second half when the movie is watched in normal order. (2) Watching the second half of a movie first often improves the movie. Sometimes, watching the second half is sufficient in itself. (3) Thus, perhaps whichever half you watch first is the best.I had to ask Wilson, who assigned this movie to me, what the last two spoken lines of the last scene were. They seemed crucial in defining the mood of the movie, but mumblecore being named mumblecore for a reason, I couldn't make out what Alex and Marnie said to each other. Fortunately, Wilson could. And those two lines bear out my contention, or so I think, that Bujalski is a deeply optimistic guy and FHH is, in the end, a celebration, not a paean. In that final scene, Marnie shows some anger, a desire to move out into the world, and a rejection of the feckless Alex. Good for her and good for a society and economy (knock on wood) where youth is able to rattle around a little. I watched a mumblecore movie made by Joe Swanberg a while back, in which the protagonists grow stronger in the face of Swanberg's efforts to render them helpless; Bujalski throws down some marbles in Marnie's path, but his affection for her never lets her fall hard enough to break anything.This film that launched a genre reminds us that being young and being old are two entirely different things. (Bujalski turned 30 this year.) http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/3/13/26168.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 3/13/2008 12:01:11 PM
Body: Here’s an excerpt from a comment by Variety writer Peter Debruge, left on a SXSW dispatch by Aaron Hillis on Glenn Kenny’s blog: Pretty soon, it all reduces to semantics, but the label benefits those it describes in that it connects films that, on an individual basis, would be too small to register on most people’s radar. Would Hannah Takes the Stairs or Quiet City or Mutual Appreciation have warranted a NY Times piece on their own? (Then again, is the NYT even the right forum to discuss such films, which seem to do just fine with the more selective audience of the blogosphere?) Debruge is here giving us an object lesson in why most applications of The M Word are really, really frustrating: the genre label becomes a polite form of thinly masking the condescending assumption that none of these films can stand on their own without it. Mutual Appreciation is not a film that needs a movement as a prerequisite, especially one which mostly coalesced after its premiere. As resolutely analog as it is, it also hardly fits in with Debruge’s wider argument that “important thing is that digital cameras, home editing software and the internet have enabled a new wave of filmmakers, many of whom have become very close friends, sharing equipment, ideas, cast and crew.” This statement is not totally false, but at the risk of sounding like a cranky Marxist, it seems like he’s really talking about the means/tools of production. Goliath and Hannah Takes The Stairs might share an actor and certain technical commonalities, but I can’t imagine two films being more different in their sensibilities. By Debruge’s rationale, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler were part of the same “movement,” because both were shot on film cameras, both were released in movie theaters, both were produced by gimmicky showmen, and both productions employed Vincent Price. Actually, now that I think about it, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler are basically the same movie. Never mind! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:01:11 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog3/13/2008 12:01:11 PMHere’s an excerpt from a comment by Variety writer Peter Debruge, left on a SXSW dispatch by Aaron Hillis on Glenn Kenny’s blog: Pretty soon, it all reduces to semantics, but the label benefits those it describes in that it connects films that, on an individual basis, would be too small to register on most people’s radar. Would Hannah Takes the Stairs or Quiet City or Mutual Appreciation have warranted a NY Times piece on their own? (Then again, is the NYT even the right forum to discuss such films, which seem to do just fine with the more selective audience of the blogosphere?) Debruge is here giving us an object lesson in why most applications of The M Word are really, really frustrating: the genre label becomes a polite form of thinly masking the condescending assumption that none of these films can stand on their own without it. Mutual Appreciation is not a film that needs a movement as a prerequisite, especially one which mostly coalesced after its premiere. As resolutely analog as it is, it also hardly fits in with Debruge’s wider argument that “important thing is that digital cameras, home editing software and the internet have enabled a new wave of filmmakers, many of whom have become very close friends, sharing equipment, ideas, cast and crew.” This statement is not totally false, but at the risk of sounding like a cranky Marxist, it seems like he’s really talking about the means/tools of production. Goliath and Hannah Takes The Stairs might share an actor and certain technical commonalities, but I can’t imagine two films being more different in their sensibilities. By Debruge’s rationale, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler were part of the same “movement,” because both were shot on film cameras, both were released in movie theaters, both were produced by gimmicky showmen, and both productions employed Vincent Price. Actually, now that I think about it, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler are basically the same movie. Never mind! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/3/13/26167.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/13/2008 12:00:54 PM
Body: Here’s an excerpt from a comment by Variety writer Peter Debruge, left on a SXSW dispatch by Aaron Hillis on Glenn Kenny’s blog: Pretty soon, it all reduces to semantics, but the label benefits those it describes in that it connects films that, on an individual basis, would be too small to register on most people’s radar. Would Hannah Takes the Stairs or Quiet City or Mutual Appreciation have warranted a NY Times piece on their own? (Then again, is the NYT even the right forum to discuss such films, which seem to do just fine with the more selective audience of the blogosphere?) Debruge is here giving us an object lesson in why most applications of The M Word are really, really frustrating: the genre label becomes a polite form of thinly masking the condescending assumption that none of these films can stand on their own without it. Mutual Appreciation is not a film that needs a movement as a prerequisite, especially one which mostly coalesced after its premiere. As resolutely analog as it is, it also hardly fits in with Debruge’s wider argument that “important thing is that digital cameras, home editing software and the internet have enabled a new wave of filmmakers, many of whom have become very close friends, sharing equipment, ideas, cast and crew.” This statement is not totally false, but at the risk of sounding like a cranky Marxist, it seems like he’s really talking about the means/tools of production. Goliath and Hannah Takes The Stairs might share an actor and certain technical commonalities, but I can’t imagine two films being more different in their sensibilities. By Debruge’s rationale, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler were part of the same “movement,” because both were shot on film cameras, both were released in movie theaters, both were produced by gimmicky showmen, and both productions employed Vincent Price. Actually, now that I think about it, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler are basically the same movie. Never mind! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/13/2008 12:00:54 PMHere’s an excerpt from a comment by Variety writer Peter Debruge, left on a SXSW dispatch by Aaron Hillis on Glenn Kenny’s blog: Pretty soon, it all reduces to semantics, but the label benefits those it describes in that it connects films that, on an individual basis, would be too small to register on most people’s radar. Would Hannah Takes the Stairs or Quiet City or Mutual Appreciation have warranted a NY Times piece on their own? (Then again, is the NYT even the right forum to discuss such films, which seem to do just fine with the more selective audience of the blogosphere?) Debruge is here giving us an object lesson in why most applications of The M Word are really, really frustrating: the genre label becomes a polite form of thinly masking the condescending assumption that none of these films can stand on their own without it. Mutual Appreciation is not a film that needs a movement as a prerequisite, especially one which mostly coalesced after its premiere. As resolutely analog as it is, it also hardly fits in with Debruge’s wider argument that “important thing is that digital cameras, home editing software and the internet have enabled a new wave of filmmakers, many of whom have become very close friends, sharing equipment, ideas, cast and crew.” This statement is not totally false, but at the risk of sounding like a cranky Marxist, it seems like he’s really talking about the means/tools of production. Goliath and Hannah Takes The Stairs might share an actor and certain technical commonalities, but I can’t imagine two films being more different in their sensibilities. By Debruge’s rationale, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler were part of the same “movement,” because both were shot on film cameras, both were released in movie theaters, both were produced by gimmicky showmen, and both productions employed Vincent Price. Actually, now that I think about it, The Ten Commandments and The Tingler are basically the same movie. Never mind! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/porcupine/archive/2008/2/8/24879.aspx Post By: porcupine
Post To: porcupine Blog
Post Date: 2/8/2008 3:27:20 PM
Body: I just watched this for the first time the other day. I'd heard that it was one of the first of a new crop of talkie, low-budget indy movies, a few of which I've really liked (namely Quiet City and The Puffy Chair). I guess that when it first came out I can see how the no-frils naturalistic dialogue could seem really fresh, but watching it now it seems like a tool that's used well, but it doesn't accomplish much.
]]>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:27:20 GMTporcupineporcupine Blog2/8/2008 3:27:20 PMI just watched this for the first time the other day. I&#39;d heard that it was one of the first of a new crop of talkie, low-budget indy movies, a few of which I&#39;ve really liked (namely Quiet City and The Puffy Chair). I guess that when it first came out I can see how the no-frils naturalistic dialogue could seem really fresh, but watching it now it seems like a tool that&#39;s used well, but it doesn&#39;t accomplish much. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/21/24152.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/21/2008 3:01:15 PM
Body: From what I hear, everyone is talking about Goliath, a film by the Zellner Brothers that premieres at Sundance this evening. But after watching the trailer, I have to wonder what has people so excited. Sure, I think it looks cheap and funny in a Me and You and Everyone We Know sort of way — which isn’t a gripe, as Miranda July’s film was my favorite at the festival back in 2005 — but it also looks like something homemade and bound for YouTube, and I’m not the only person on the internet to say so. Fortunately, the film has support from the right people. On the Goliath Facebook page, SXSW producer Matt Dentler commented that it’s “an awesome, awesome movie. Truly.” But Sundance is very different from Austin, and just because the Zellner Brothers have a loyal following back home doesn’t mean they’ll succeed in Park City. Then again, after excitedly watching Me and You three years ago, I never thought it was going to catch on with other people at Sundance let alone be a huge hit in the real world. Of course, the Zellners have already been to Sundance — every year since 2005, in fact. It could all change this year, though, with their first feature, the simple synopsis of which is as follows: “In the wake of a divorce, a man desperately searches for the one relic of the broken marriage- his pet cat ‘Goliath’, who has gone missing.” So, I can’t wait to hear what festivalgoers think of the film after tonight’s premiere (or even from readers who view the trailer and wish they could be there). For those of you not in Park City, you’ll have to settle for this sorta funny clip. And maybe eventually the film’s website (Goliathismissing.com) won’t be down — damn that Sundance buzz for causing the bandwith to be exceeded — and we can investigate further what is so attractive about this little movie. Is it just the association with filmmaker Andrew Bujalski (Mutual Appreciation), who appears in the film? Is it just the popularity of the Zellner’s three shorts that have shown at Sundance in the past? I guess I could just go and find those films on the interweb and see … Goliath premieres at the Prospector Square Theater tonight at 8:30 PM. It also screens at the Library tomorrow morning and Saturday morning and then in Salt Lake City on Saturday night. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/21/2008 3:01:15 PM From what I hear, everyone is talking about Goliath, a film by the Zellner Brothers that premieres at Sundance this evening. But after watching the trailer, I have to wonder what has people so excited. Sure, I think it looks cheap and funny in a Me and You and Everyone We Know sort of way — which isn’t a gripe, as Miranda July’s film was my favorite at the festival back in 2005 — but it also looks like something homemade and bound for YouTube, and I’m not the only person on the internet to say so. Fortunately, the film has support from the right people. On the Goliath Facebook page, SXSW producer Matt Dentler commented that it’s “an awesome, awesome movie. Truly.” But Sundance is very different from Austin, and just because the Zellner Brothers have a loyal following back home doesn’t mean they’ll succeed in Park City. Then again, after excitedly watching Me and You three years ago, I never thought it was going to catch on with other people at Sundance let alone be a huge hit in the real world. Of course, the Zellners have already been to Sundance — every year since 2005, in fact. It could all change this year, though, with their first feature, the simple synopsis of which is as follows: “In the wake of a divorce, a man desperately searches for the one relic of the broken marriage- his pet cat ‘Goliath’, who has gone missing.” So, I can’t wait to hear what festivalgoers think of the film after tonight’s premiere (or even from readers who view the trailer and wish they could be there). For those of you not in Park City, you’ll have to settle for this sorta funny clip. And maybe eventually the film’s website (Goliathismissing.com) won’t be down — damn that Sundance buzz for causing the bandwith to be exceeded — and we can investigate further what is so attractive about this little movie. Is it just the association with filmmaker Andrew Bujalski (Mutual Appreciation), who appears in the film? Is it just the popularity of the Zellner’s three shorts that have shown at Sundance in the past? I guess I could just go and find those films on the interweb and see … Goliath premieres at the Prospector Square Theater tonight at 8:30 PM. It also screens at the Library tomorrow morning and Saturday morning and then in Salt Lake City on Saturday night. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/gonzo_freak/archive/2007/11/14/21689.aspx Post By: gonzo_freak
Post To: gonzo_freak Blog
Post Date: 11/14/2007 4:02:43 PM
Body: I hope this film ends up doing for our generation of slackers what Richard Linklater did for the 90's slacker. Andrew Bujalski is the next great indy director that everybody should keep an eye on. His writing, acting, directing, and editing show a man who understands his art. I can't wait to see his next film. On a side note, the music is unbeleivable. Justin Rice and Bishop Allen are just straight up great musicians that Bujalski did right by exploiting. Also, math rock drummers suck. Everyone should see this film.
]]>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:02:43 GMTgonzo_freakgonzo_freak Blog11/14/2007 4:02:43 PMI hope this film ends up doing for our generation of slackers what Richard Linklater did for the 90&#39;s slacker. Andrew Bujalski is the next great indy director that everybody should keep an eye on. His writing, acting, directing, and editing show a man who understands his art. I can&#39;t wait to see his next film. On a side note, the music is unbeleivable. Justin Rice and Bishop Allen are just straight up great musicians that Bujalski did right by exploiting. Also, math rock drummers suck. Everyone should see this film. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/10/26/21206.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/26/2007 11:01:17 AM
Body: Yet another gem from the Silent Movie’s stellar fall schedule that I somehow forgot to mention: The New Naturalists, with Saturdays in December devoted to a handful of works from “America’s new-fly-on-the-wall auteurs.” The Puffy Chair, Mutual Appreciation, Frownland and Old Joy and will be joined by Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker’s Apart From That. All that, and not an M-word in sight. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/26/2007 11:01:17 AMYet another gem from the Silent Movie’s stellar fall schedule that I somehow forgot to mention: The New Naturalists, with Saturdays in December devoted to a handful of works from “America’s new-fly-on-the-wall auteurs.” The Puffy Chair, Mutual Appreciation, Frownland and Old Joy and will be joined by Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker’s Apart From That. All that, and not an M-word in sight. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/7/24/15718.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/24/2007 3:00:57 PM
Body: Please join me in thanking SXSW’s Matt Dentler for the above. Earlier today, Matt posted a video on his blog titled “How Mumblecore Saved My Life.” In it, a young, female filmmaker named Erin (peruse her full YouTube oeuvre here) explains at some length how films like Andrew Bujalski’s Mutual Appreciation have restored her faith in independent cinema. If you’ve got seven minutes to kill, it’s great, but oh–there’s so much more. Matt pinged me this afternoon to draw my attention to another of Erin’s videos, and this one shot to the top of my list of potential Clips of the Day. It’s Erin’s version of Allen Ginsberg’s Howl … rewritten as a tribute to one Lindsay Lohan. As you’re surely aware by now, Ms. Lohan was busted yet again this morning for driving with alcohol in her bloodstream and coke in her pants (for more details, go to TMZ and read their 60 or 70 updates from the bottom of the page to the top). Allen Ginsberg is okay, but Erin’s poem is really, really genius. It begins: “I have seen the best actresses of my generation destroyed by madness–starving, hysterical, drunk, driving through Beverly Hills at dawn looking for a place to crash.” My favorite is verse is probably, “Who got busted in their thong from a night of parting with a belt of cocaine, headed to the Coffee Bean.” Either that, or “I am with you at Promises, where your condition has become serious and is reported on the internet!” This clip was posted on on YouTube on June 7 and as of this writing has only been watched about 150 times. Won’t you join me in making Howl (For Lindsay Lohan) the internet phenomenon it deserves to be? Originally posted on:Spoutblog
]]>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:00:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/24/2007 3:00:57 PM Please join me in thanking SXSW’s Matt Dentler for the above. Earlier today, Matt posted a video on his blog titled “How Mumblecore Saved My Life.” In it, a young, female filmmaker named Erin (peruse her full YouTube oeuvre here) explains at some length how films like Andrew Bujalski’s Mutual Appreciation have restored her faith in independent cinema. If you’ve got seven minutes to kill, it’s great, but oh–there’s so much more. Matt pinged me this afternoon to draw my attention to another of Erin’s videos, and this one shot to the top of my list of potential Clips of the Day. It’s Erin’s version of Allen Ginsberg’s Howl … rewritten as a tribute to one Lindsay Lohan. As you’re surely aware by now, Ms. Lohan was busted yet again this morning for driving with alcohol in her bloodstream and coke in her pants (for more details, go to TMZ and read their 60 or 70 updates from the bottom of the page to the top). Allen Ginsberg is okay, but Erin’s poem is really, really genius. It begins: “I have seen the best actresses of my generation destroyed by madness–starving, hysterical, drunk, driving through Beverly Hills at dawn looking for a place to crash.” My favorite is verse is probably, “Who got busted in their thong from a night of parting with a belt of cocaine, headed to the Coffee Bean.” Either that, or “I am with you at Promises, where your condition has become serious and is reported on the internet!” This clip was posted on on YouTube on June 7 and as of this writing has only been watched about 150 times. Won’t you join me in making Howl (For Lindsay Lohan) the internet phenomenon it deserves to be? Originally posted on:Spoutblog http://www.spout.com/groups/Realism_and_The_Lack_There_Of/Re_How_things_should_work_and_how_they_do/219/9756/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Realism and The Lack There Of
Post Date: 5/30/2007 3:02:05 PM
Body: Have you ever heard of Andrew Bujalski? I haven't seen any of his movies, but I've heard they are very realistic in a certain way in regards to a certain culture. Two of his movies are Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciation
]]>Wed, 30 May 2007 19:02:05 GMTRisseladaRealism and The Lack There Of5/30/2007 3:02:05 PMHave you ever heard of Andrew Bujalski? I haven&#39;t seen any of his movies, but I&#39;ve heard they are very realistic in a certain way in regards to a certain culture. Two of his movies are Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciation http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviedodd/archive/2007/2/16/5544.aspx Post By: moviedodd
Post To: Dodd's Film Reviews
Post Date: 2/16/2007 1:40:19 PM
Body: One ongoing debate in cinema is realism, and how much of it really exists in a film. There is always that question of what the audience wants: ridiculously unreal yet amusing, or true-to-life, yet accurate? Let's take for example the relationship comedy. Most of these films rely on pre-planned monologues and dialogues about sex and dating that may be rather funny at times. However, there is sometimes a question about the truthfulness of these scenes. Is this really how people talk in real life, and does the audience really relate to the material? In a sea of clichés, there are a few filmmakers in the independent world who will boldly sacrifice blockbuster spectacle to capture the essence of how humans really interact. Mutual Appreciation is a striking example. In the spirit of Swingers and Rent, Mutual Appreciation focuses on the "little fish in the big sea" idea of young twentysomethings moving to the big city to pursue their dreams. Alan (Justin Rice) is an alternative rock musician who re-locates to New York City to hopefully stick out amongst the many other artists on the concert venue scene. His best friend Lawrence (Andrew Bujalski), who ekes by on teaching assistant wages, provides a support system for Alan while he desperately tries to find a drummer for his unique musical vision. However, things get slightly complicated when Alan begins to develop feelings for Lawrence's girlfriend Ellie (Rachel Clift). While Mutual Appreciate could step into farce territory by constructing a silly love triangle between these characters, it refuses to do so. Instead, the 110-minute film follows its characters from the underground music scene to the cramped apartments of eccentric characters. Each scene places the camera in the room like an innocent bystander and observes these people as they exchange everyday conversation about their struggles in the Big Apple. I consider myself an omnivore of all things cinematic. I can appreciate a forced, mainstream romantic comedy as well as an independent character study on a shoestring budget. Mutual Appreciation falls under the category of the latter, and it is hard for me not to appreciate this telling depiction of confusion and awkwardness. Director, writer, and star Andrew Bujalski knows how to convey these characteristics in the construction of the film. As Mutual Appreciation begins and ends abruptly it parallels real life, which hits these main characters so suddenly like a swift kick in the ass. Something that the filmmakers really capture here is the art of conversation. Following in the footsteps of directors such as Richard Linklater, Bujalski focuses the film's energy on the connections between its characters. Rather than having the characters spout off witty and cute lines about pet peeves and heartbreak, they just go with the flow. There is clearly a form of improvised acting here, and the dialogue is hit-and-miss. However, it is refreshing to see conversation just as it is typically seen between real people. Humans do not communicate to entertain a camera tucked away in the fourth wall. They communicate their true feelings. Though mumbled and slow at times, I was with these characters every step of the way.Mutual Appreciation is not a masterpiece of a character study, but I certainly appreciate its effort. Fans of indie cinema and the frustrations of being a lost twentysomething will likely want to give this a shot. I highly recommend giving this a rental.
]]>Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:40:19 GMTmoviedoddDodd's Film Reviews2/16/2007 1:40:19 PMOne ongoing debate in cinema is realism, and how much of it really exists in a film. There is always that question of what the audience wants: ridiculously unreal yet amusing, or true-to-life, yet accurate? Let&#39;s take for example the relationship comedy. Most of these films rely on pre-planned monologues and dialogues about sex and dating that may be rather funny at times. However, there is sometimes a question about the truthfulness of these scenes. Is this really how people talk in real life, and does the audience really relate to the material? In a sea of clich&eacute;s, there are a few filmmakers in the independent world who will boldly sacrifice blockbuster spectacle to capture the essence of how humans really interact. Mutual Appreciation is a striking example. In the spirit of Swingers and Rent, Mutual Appreciation focuses on the &quot;little fish in the big sea&quot; idea of young twentysomethings moving to the big city to pursue their dreams. Alan (Justin Rice) is an alternative rock musician who re-locates to New York City to hopefully stick out amongst the many other artists on the concert venue scene. His best friend Lawrence (Andrew Bujalski), who ekes by on teaching assistant wages, provides a support system for Alan while he desperately tries to find a drummer for his unique musical vision. However, things get slightly complicated when Alan begins to develop feelings for Lawrence&#39;s girlfriend Ellie (Rachel Clift). While Mutual Appreciate could step into farce territory by constructing a silly love triangle between these characters, it refuses to do so. Instead, the 110-minute film follows its characters from the underground music scene to the cramped apartments of eccentric characters. Each scene places the camera in the room like an innocent bystander and observes these people as they exchange everyday conversation about their struggles in the Big Apple. I consider myself an omnivore of all things cinematic. I can appreciate a forced, mainstream romantic comedy as well as an independent character study on a shoestring budget. Mutual Appreciation falls under the category of the latter, and it is hard for me not to appreciate this telling depiction of confusion and awkwardness. Director, writer, and star Andrew Bujalski knows how to convey these characteristics in the construction of the film. As Mutual Appreciation begins and ends abruptly it parallels real life, which hits these main characters so suddenly like a swift kick in the ass. Something that the filmmakers really capture here is the art of conversation. Following in the footsteps of directors such as Richard Linklater, Bujalski focuses the film&#39;s energy on the connections between its characters. Rather than having the characters spout off witty and cute lines about pet peeves and heartbreak, they just go with the flow. There is clearly a form of improvised acting here, and the dialogue is hit-and-miss. However, it is refreshing to see conversation just as it is typically seen between real people. Humans do not communicate to entertain a camera tucked away in the fourth wall. They communicate their true feelings. Though mumbled and slow at times, I was with these characters every step of the way.Mutual Appreciation is not a masterpiece of a character study, but I certainly appreciate its effort. Fans of indie cinema and the frustrations of being a lost twentysomething will likely want to give this a shot. I highly recommend giving this a rental. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationships/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationships
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 249

]]>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:40:59 GMT20374249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/musician/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusician
Number of films tagged: 997

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 30

]]>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:31:33 GMT9971530Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mumblecore/MemberTagFilms.aspxmumblecore
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 8

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:23 GMT768Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/band-music-group/MemberTagFilms.aspxband-music-group
Number of films tagged: 3095

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:02:37 GMT309556Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/musicians/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusicians
Number of films tagged: 10

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:09:24 GMT10310Tag