list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Kissing on the Mouth 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/Kissing_on_the_Mouth/275026/default.aspx Title: Kissing on the Mouth
Year: 2005
Director: Joe Swanberg
Plot: The low-budget, direct-to-video erotic drama Kissing on the Mouth explores the erogenous trials and travails of a clique of college grads. It concerns Ellen, a young woman sleeping with her ex-boyfriend and bucking his attempts to re-instigate a serious romantic commitment. Meanwhile, she does her best to ignore the increasingly possessive and suspect behavior of her flatmate, Patrick. The film (shot by its cast) is marked by graphic sexual content and frank, explicit discussions of coital behavior. For added realism and authenticity, the directors work in a number of documentary-style interviews with college graduates. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 2
Number of Lists: 4
Number of blog posts: 17
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:19 GMTKissing on the Mouth2005Joe SwanbergThe low-budget, direct-to-video erotic drama Kissing on the Mouth explores the erogenous trials and travails of a clique of college grads. It concerns Ellen, a young woman sleeping with her ex-boyfriend and bucking his attempts to re-instigate a serious romantic commitment. Meanwhile, she does her best to ignore the increasingly possessive and suspect behavior of her flatmate, Patrick. The film (shot by its cast) is marked by graphic sexual content and frank, explicit discussions of coital behavior. For added realism and authenticity, the directors work in a number of documentary-style interviews with college graduates. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide2Slightly Tagged (1-5)4173http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t85384lifgj.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Kissing_on_the_Mouth/275026/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/6/15/31257.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:01:19 PM
Body: FINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:19 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog6/15/2008 9:01:19 PMFINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/15/31256.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:01:11 PM
Body: FINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:11 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/15/2008 9:01:11 PMFINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2007/12/21/23098.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 12/21/2007 4:16:17 PM
Body: When I was getting the trailer up for Joe Swanberg’s Butterknife yesterday, I noticed our ad network had placed a banner for Dear Pillow (just released on DVD) on SpoutBlog. It felt serendipitous considering Dear Pillow and Swanberg’s Kissing on the Mouth were often cited together when they came out because of their frank treatment of sex. (Director Brian Poyser and Joe Swanberg are also friends who collaborated on Grammy’s, a short film included on the Dear Pillow DVD.) I get excited to see a film, which two years ago I thought was too edgy to be seen outside a festival, getting a shot at an audience. However, my first reaction was disappointment to see the film’s marketers exploiting the T&A strategy. In a movie with no gratuitous sex scenes, Dear Pillow’s mock porn mag cover and “UNRATED” label heavily hint that it does. The “gratuitous sex” takes place in conversations between a teenage boy and two adults shockingly comfortable with talking about all things intercourse. Although they can get really, REALLY awkward, the conversations are kind of a relief for a kid whose dad won’t discuss the realities of sex with him. Although the “eroticism” is more raking than arousing, I believe the distributor in question, Heretic Films, knows this microbudget movie needs all the *pow* it can muster to get attention. And I agree. Jonathan Hickman said in his 2004 Dear Pillow review, “For some, such content will be tough to stomach and difficult to tolerate. The thing is that viewers should be encouraged to tolerate this kind of smart and perceptive material precisely because it is challenging and thorny. Independent films this complex, self-aware, and well-acted are becoming more common. Films like this one get issues out to be publicly commented upon.” But, of course, who ever heard the phrase, “Challenging sells.” If more people see the movie, why not hook them with soft porn even when it’s not? It’s a good film. But as I try to referee the purist versus the pragmatist within me, I think there has to be a way to sell challenging work as such. Maybe? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul
]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:16:17 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com12/21/2007 4:16:17 PMWhen I was getting the trailer up for Joe Swanberg’s Butterknife yesterday, I noticed our ad network had placed a banner for Dear Pillow (just released on DVD) on SpoutBlog. It felt serendipitous considering Dear Pillow and Swanberg’s Kissing on the Mouth were often cited together when they came out because of their frank treatment of sex. (Director Brian Poyser and Joe Swanberg are also friends who collaborated on Grammy’s, a short film included on the Dear Pillow DVD.) I get excited to see a film, which two years ago I thought was too edgy to be seen outside a festival, getting a shot at an audience. However, my first reaction was disappointment to see the film’s marketers exploiting the T&A strategy. In a movie with no gratuitous sex scenes, Dear Pillow’s mock porn mag cover and “UNRATED” label heavily hint that it does. The “gratuitous sex” takes place in conversations between a teenage boy and two adults shockingly comfortable with talking about all things intercourse. Although they can get really, REALLY awkward, the conversations are kind of a relief for a kid whose dad won’t discuss the realities of sex with him. Although the “eroticism” is more raking than arousing, I believe the distributor in question, Heretic Films, knows this microbudget movie needs all the *pow* it can muster to get attention. And I agree. Jonathan Hickman said in his 2004 Dear Pillow review, “For some, such content will be tough to stomach and difficult to tolerate. The thing is that viewers should be encouraged to tolerate this kind of smart and perceptive material precisely because it is challenging and thorny. Independent films this complex, self-aware, and well-acted are becoming more common. Films like this one get issues out to be publicly commented upon.” But, of course, who ever heard the phrase, “Challenging sells.” If more people see the movie, why not hook them with soft porn even when it’s not? It’s a good film. But as I try to referee the purist versus the pragmatist within me, I think there has to be a way to sell challenging work as such. Maybe? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2007/12/21/23096.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 12/21/2007 4:16:14 PM
Body: It’s no secret Karina and I have been advocates of Joe Swanberg’s films since his debut, Kissing on the Mouth, hit festivals two years ago. In light of the recent debate about conflict of interest in the film blog community, I think it’s a good time to clarify our relationship as critics/fans versus the sponsorship/distributor ventures we’ve been getting into, most recently with Butterknife. For Spout, some may say it’s a conflict of interest for a company employing ardent supporters writing about Swanberg to then distribute his work online, as if our support has been engineered for two years to help Butterknife. So, before the record is even bent, I’ll set it straight. We have felt since seeing Kissing on the Mouth that Joe is a filmmaker to watch. Trying to spread the word about his movies is what we do. There was no talk of distributing his work until recently. That said, after Spout’s promotion of Four Eyed Monsters in June, Joe contacted me and said he had an idea for a web series he would be shopping around later in the year. In September, he shot the first four episodes of Butterknife and showed me a rough cut. It was unanimous here, everybody wanted to show it and we bought the Internet distribution rights. So, we officially switch hats here. We will be promoting Butterknife on SpoutBlog in the coming months. I think we’d be covering it anyway as we have all of Joe’s work, but it is true we now have more than an altruistic reason to promote it. And now… a shameless promotion: Sign up to get notified when Butterknife is released at butterknife.spout.com. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul
]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:16:14 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com12/21/2007 4:16:14 PMIt’s no secret Karina and I have been advocates of Joe Swanberg’s films since his debut, Kissing on the Mouth, hit festivals two years ago. In light of the recent debate about conflict of interest in the film blog community, I think it’s a good time to clarify our relationship as critics/fans versus the sponsorship/distributor ventures we’ve been getting into, most recently with Butterknife. For Spout, some may say it’s a conflict of interest for a company employing ardent supporters writing about Swanberg to then distribute his work online, as if our support has been engineered for two years to help Butterknife. So, before the record is even bent, I’ll set it straight. We have felt since seeing Kissing on the Mouth that Joe is a filmmaker to watch. Trying to spread the word about his movies is what we do. There was no talk of distributing his work until recently. That said, after Spout’s promotion of Four Eyed Monsters in June, Joe contacted me and said he had an idea for a web series he would be shopping around later in the year. In September, he shot the first four episodes of Butterknife and showed me a rough cut. It was unanimous here, everybody wanted to show it and we bought the Internet distribution rights. So, we officially switch hats here. We will be promoting Butterknife on SpoutBlog in the coming months. I think we’d be covering it anyway as we have all of Joe’s work, but it is true we now have more than an altruistic reason to promote it. And now… a shameless promotion: Sign up to get notified when Butterknife is released at butterknife.spout.com. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2007/12/21/23040.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 12/21/2007 4:15:11 PM
Body: I like the films coming from Swanberg, Duplass, Bujalski, et al mentioned in Kristin’s Mumblecore post. Kevin and I watched Joe Swanberg’s new film, Hannah Takes the Stairs at SXSW and I had the same response to it I’ve had to his other films (LOL, Kissing on the Mouth). I didn’t leave the theater riding on one emotion. I left talking about all the brilliant little gems, the pieces that are more relevant in his films than the whole. As Kristin put it, the films are a series moments so acutely portraying people trying to communicate. As far as labeling this family of film–and the friendships growing between the filmmakers–as a “movement.” Well, I bristle at the idea. What is it about coining a movement that (in this case before these filmmakers even reach the age of thirty) we find comforting? Does it somehow validate watching films which individually may confuse us? Now that they’re grouped together, like the French New Wave, are we now able to analyze them? Where as before, we just had to watch them like we would any other movie. If a group of like minded people gather together, it’s normal. But if those like minded people gather together and make something interesting, like European painters exiled to New York after World War II, they’re labeled a movement. Their work is not close and intimate, it’s recognized by themes and concepts demarcating that movement. In short, trying to stamp “mumblecore” on the work of a filmmaker like Joe Swanberg I think defeats what his films try to achieve: A moment of real intimacy and connection with the audience. The moment when a 25 year old girl sits in a theater wading through the film and suddenly says to herself, “Whoa! This is me! My boring little life is on a big screen and now, suddenly, it’s interesting!” Maybe now instead of having that moment, that 25 year old girl will say, “Hmm. This is Mumblecore.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul
]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:11 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com12/21/2007 4:15:11 PMI like the films coming from Swanberg, Duplass, Bujalski, et al mentioned in Kristin’s Mumblecore post. Kevin and I watched Joe Swanberg’s new film, Hannah Takes the Stairs at SXSW and I had the same response to it I’ve had to his other films (LOL, Kissing on the Mouth). I didn’t leave the theater riding on one emotion. I left talking about all the brilliant little gems, the pieces that are more relevant in his films than the whole. As Kristin put it, the films are a series moments so acutely portraying people trying to communicate. As far as labeling this family of film–and the friendships growing between the filmmakers–as a “movement.” Well, I bristle at the idea. What is it about coining a movement that (in this case before these filmmakers even reach the age of thirty) we find comforting? Does it somehow validate watching films which individually may confuse us? Now that they’re grouped together, like the French New Wave, are we now able to analyze them? Where as before, we just had to watch them like we would any other movie. If a group of like minded people gather together, it’s normal. But if those like minded people gather together and make something interesting, like European painters exiled to New York after World War II, they’re labeled a movement. Their work is not close and intimate, it’s recognized by themes and concepts demarcating that movement. In short, trying to stamp “mumblecore” on the work of a filmmaker like Joe Swanberg I think defeats what his films try to achieve: A moment of real intimacy and connection with the audience. The moment when a 25 year old girl sits in a theater wading through the film and suddenly says to herself, “Whoa! This is me! My boring little life is on a big screen and now, suddenly, it’s interesting!” Maybe now instead of having that moment, that 25 year old girl will say, “Hmm. This is Mumblecore.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/11/16/21730.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/16/2007 11:01:55 AM
Body: When I was getting the trailer up for Joe Swanberg’s Butterknife yesterday, I noticed our ad network had placed a banner for Dear Pillow (just released on DVD) on SpoutBlog. It felt serendipitous considering Dear Pillow and Swanberg’s Kissing on the Mouth were often cited together when they came out because of their frank treatment of sex. (Director Brian Poyser and Joe Swanberg are also friends who collaborated on Grammy’s, a short film included on the Dear Pillow DVD.) I get excited to see a film, which two years ago I thought was too edgy to be seen outside a festival, getting a shot at an audience. However, my first reaction was disappointment to see the film’s marketers exploiting the T&A strategy. In a movie with no gratuitous sex scenes, Dear Pillow’s mock porn mag cover and “UNRATED” label heavily hint that it does. The “gratuitous sex” takes place in conversations between a teenage boy and two adults shockingly comfortable with talking about all things intercourse. Although they can get really, REALLY awkward, the conversations are kind of a relief for a kid whose dad won’t discuss the realities of sex with him. Although the “eroticism” is more raking than arousing, I believe the distributor in question, Heretic Films, knows this microbudget movie needs all the *pow* it can muster to get attention. And I agree. Jonathan Hickman said in his 2004 Dear Pillow review, “For some, such content will be tough to stomach and difficult to tolerate. The thing is that viewers should be encouraged to tolerate this kind of smart and perceptive material precisely because it is challenging and thorny. Independent films this complex, self-aware, and well-acted are becoming more common. Films like this one get issues out to be publicly commented upon.” But, of course, who ever heard the phrase, “Challenging sells.” If more people see the movie, why not hook them with soft porn even when it’s not? It’s a good film. But as I try to referee the purist versus the pragmatist within me, I think there has to be a way to sell challenging work as such. Maybe? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:01:55 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/16/2007 11:01:55 AMWhen I was getting the trailer up for Joe Swanberg’s Butterknife yesterday, I noticed our ad network had placed a banner for Dear Pillow (just released on DVD) on SpoutBlog. It felt serendipitous considering Dear Pillow and Swanberg’s Kissing on the Mouth were often cited together when they came out because of their frank treatment of sex. (Director Brian Poyser and Joe Swanberg are also friends who collaborated on Grammy’s, a short film included on the Dear Pillow DVD.) I get excited to see a film, which two years ago I thought was too edgy to be seen outside a festival, getting a shot at an audience. However, my first reaction was disappointment to see the film’s marketers exploiting the T&A strategy. In a movie with no gratuitous sex scenes, Dear Pillow’s mock porn mag cover and “UNRATED” label heavily hint that it does. The “gratuitous sex” takes place in conversations between a teenage boy and two adults shockingly comfortable with talking about all things intercourse. Although they can get really, REALLY awkward, the conversations are kind of a relief for a kid whose dad won’t discuss the realities of sex with him. Although the “eroticism” is more raking than arousing, I believe the distributor in question, Heretic Films, knows this microbudget movie needs all the *pow* it can muster to get attention. And I agree. Jonathan Hickman said in his 2004 Dear Pillow review, “For some, such content will be tough to stomach and difficult to tolerate. The thing is that viewers should be encouraged to tolerate this kind of smart and perceptive material precisely because it is challenging and thorny. Independent films this complex, self-aware, and well-acted are becoming more common. Films like this one get issues out to be publicly commented upon.” But, of course, who ever heard the phrase, “Challenging sells.” If more people see the movie, why not hook them with soft porn even when it’s not? It’s a good film. But as I try to referee the purist versus the pragmatist within me, I think there has to be a way to sell challenging work as such. Maybe? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/11/15/21708.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/15/2007 2:01:50 PM
Body: It’s no secret Karina and I have been advocates of Joe Swanberg’s films since his debut, Kissing on the Mouth, hit festivals two years ago. In light of the recent debate about conflict of interest in the film blog community, I think it’s a good time to clarify our relationship as critics/fans versus the sponsorship/distributor ventures we’ve been getting into, most recently with Butterknife. For Spout, some may say it’s a conflict of interest for a company employing ardent supporters writing about Swanberg to then distribute his work online, as if our support has been engineered for two years to help Butterknife. So, before the record is even bent, I’ll set it straight. We have felt since seeing Kissing on the Mouth that Joe is a filmmaker to watch. Trying to spread the word about his movies is what we do. There was no talk of distributing his work until recently. That said, after Spout’s promotion of Four Eyed Monsters in June, Joe contacted me and said he had an idea for a web series he would be shopping around later in the year. In September, he shot the first four episodes of Butterknife and showed me a rough cut. It was unanimous here, everybody wanted to show it and we bought the Internet distribution rights. So, we officially switch hats here. We will be promoting Butterknife on SpoutBlog in the coming months. I think we’d be covering it anyway as we have all of Joe’s work, but it is true we now have more than an altruistic reason to promote it. And now… a shameless promotion: Sign up to get notified when Butterknife is released at butterknife.spout.com. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:01:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/15/2007 2:01:50 PMIt’s no secret Karina and I have been advocates of Joe Swanberg’s films since his debut, Kissing on the Mouth, hit festivals two years ago. In light of the recent debate about conflict of interest in the film blog community, I think it’s a good time to clarify our relationship as critics/fans versus the sponsorship/distributor ventures we’ve been getting into, most recently with Butterknife. For Spout, some may say it’s a conflict of interest for a company employing ardent supporters writing about Swanberg to then distribute his work online, as if our support has been engineered for two years to help Butterknife. So, before the record is even bent, I’ll set it straight. We have felt since seeing Kissing on the Mouth that Joe is a filmmaker to watch. Trying to spread the word about his movies is what we do. There was no talk of distributing his work until recently. That said, after Spout’s promotion of Four Eyed Monsters in June, Joe contacted me and said he had an idea for a web series he would be shopping around later in the year. In September, he shot the first four episodes of Butterknife and showed me a rough cut. It was unanimous here, everybody wanted to show it and we bought the Internet distribution rights. So, we officially switch hats here. We will be promoting Butterknife on SpoutBlog in the coming months. I think we’d be covering it anyway as we have all of Joe’s work, but it is true we now have more than an altruistic reason to promote it. And now… a shameless promotion: Sign up to get notified when Butterknife is released at butterknife.spout.com. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/8/23/18586.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/23/2007 9:01:04 AM
Body: More news from the front lines of The New Talkies coming soon, but here’s a tidbit for the capitalists: Chris Wells, who starred in and co-wrote LOL and who now works at the IFC Center, told me before the 6:05 PM screening of Hannah Takes the Stairs that in the film’s first three shows, it had already made enough money to cover the budget of Joe Swanberg’s first film, Kissing on the Mouth. I caught up with Chris again later in the evening, at which point he told me that not only had the 8:00 PM Hannah show sold out, but Swanberg’s third film had, in its first day of release, grossed more the budgets of his first two features combined. If you know anything about Joe, you know that we’re not talking about millions of dollars here, but I still think it’s impressive evidence that the DIY model doesn’t have to be an economic disaster. More mumblemania to come… Originally posted on:Spoutblog
]]>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/23/2007 9:01:04 AMMore news from the front lines of The New Talkies coming soon, but here’s a tidbit for the capitalists: Chris Wells, who starred in and co-wrote LOL and who now works at the IFC Center, told me before the 6:05 PM screening of Hannah Takes the Stairs that in the film’s first three shows, it had already made enough money to cover the budget of Joe Swanberg’s first film, Kissing on the Mouth. I caught up with Chris again later in the evening, at which point he told me that not only had the 8:00 PM Hannah show sold out, but Swanberg’s third film had, in its first day of release, grossed more the budgets of his first two features combined. If you know anything about Joe, you know that we’re not talking about millions of dollars here, but I still think it’s impressive evidence that the DIY model doesn’t have to be an economic disaster. More mumblemania to come… Originally posted on:Spoutblog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/8/16/18229.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/16/2007 2:00:43 PM
Body: If you read a lot of film blogs, you might have noticed a virus going around called Dentler Takes the Stairs. It’s all the brainchild of Matt Dentler, who is like the P.T. Barnum of the SXSW Film Festival, and who, by being the first person to program movies like Kissing on the Mouth and Dance Party, USA, has played a huge role in legitimizing this wave of no-budget American indie filmmaking over the past few years. Dentler conducted interviews with the major players in Hannah Takes the Stairs (the Joe Swanberg drama starring Greta Gerwig and filmmakers Mark Duplass, Andrew Bujalski, Kent Osbourne, Ry Russo-Young and Todd Rohal), and asked a number of us film bloggers to each broadcast one of these interviews on our blogs. Matt asked me to carry the interview with Mark Duplass, and of course, I complied. I reviewed The Duplass Brothers’ The Puffy Chair, which Mark starred in and co-wrote, in 2005 after seeing the film both at SXSW and the Chicago International Film Festival. At the time I said this: It’s amazing how [The Puffy Chair] nails the mealy-mouthed way people my age have of saying what we mean by dressing the same words, over and over again, in different kinds of inflection. Between Rhett and Josh, the word “dude” has a thousand meanings; Emily isn’t satisfied being referred to by any of them. Fleshing out that tension, between what is being said and what it obviously means, is where The Puffy Chair really succeeds. After the jump, I turn it over to Matt and Mark, who talk about Hannah’s Atari-fueled set, Andrew Bujalski’s boxers, and what Duplass did to get the film’s mythic stairs cut out of the picture. (more…) Originally posted on:Spoutblog
]]>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/16/2007 2:00:43 PMIf you read a lot of film blogs, you might have noticed a virus going around called Dentler Takes the Stairs. It’s all the brainchild of Matt Dentler, who is like the P.T. Barnum of the SXSW Film Festival, and who, by being the first person to program movies like Kissing on the Mouth and Dance Party, USA, has played a huge role in legitimizing this wave of no-budget American indie filmmaking over the past few years. Dentler conducted interviews with the major players in Hannah Takes the Stairs (the Joe Swanberg drama starring Greta Gerwig and filmmakers Mark Duplass, Andrew Bujalski, Kent Osbourne, Ry Russo-Young and Todd Rohal), and asked a number of us film bloggers to each broadcast one of these interviews on our blogs. Matt asked me to carry the interview with Mark Duplass, and of course, I complied. I reviewed The Duplass Brothers’ The Puffy Chair, which Mark starred in and co-wrote, in 2005 after seeing the film both at SXSW and the Chicago International Film Festival. At the time I said this: It’s amazing how [The Puffy Chair] nails the mealy-mouthed way people my age have of saying what we mean by dressing the same words, over and over again, in different kinds of inflection. Between Rhett and Josh, the word “dude” has a thousand meanings; Emily isn’t satisfied being referred to by any of them. Fleshing out that tension, between what is being said and what it obviously means, is where The Puffy Chair really succeeds. After the jump, I turn it over to Matt and Mark, who talk about Hannah’s Atari-fueled set, Andrew Bujalski’s boxers, and what Duplass did to get the film’s mythic stairs cut out of the picture. (more…) Originally posted on:Spoutblog http://www.spout.com/blogs/analogzombie/archive/2007/7/27/16705.aspx Post By: analogzombie
Post To: analogzombie Blog
Post Date: 7/27/2007 11:37:00 PM
Body: Joe Swanberg is, without a doubt, a very gifted new film maker. As a part of the unfortunately dubbed Mumblecore movement, he creates ultra low budget films that touch on very personal and small stories. Kissing on the Mouth is very poignant in that almost everyone can relate to the mixed up, and often embarrassing, post-college sex scene.What is immediately striking about the film, besides the barebones aesthetic, is the sexual frankness Swanberg brings to the picture. Sex is shown for all its non-glory and absurdity. I'm not sure if this is a stylistic choice or if the director is using this as a means to attract attention to his first film. What I am sure of is that, at least for me, his scene of self-masturbation in the shower, complete with climax moment action is more than I want to see. It's not because I'm a prude or I think it goes against the theme of the film, it's just because, as a talented film maker, I know I'll see much more of Swanberg in the years to come. From now on, though, I'll never be able to get the image of his weiner explosion out of my mind.Decent film though, and I look forward to a long and fruitful career from him.
]]>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:37:00 GMTanalogzombieanalogzombie Blog7/27/2007 11:37:00 PMJoe Swanberg is, without a doubt, a very gifted new film maker. As a part of the unfortunately dubbed Mumblecore movement, he creates ultra low budget films that touch on very personal and small stories. Kissing on the Mouth is very poignant in that almost everyone can relate to the mixed up, and often embarrassing, post-college sex scene.What is immediately striking about the film, besides the barebones aesthetic, is the sexual frankness Swanberg brings to the picture. Sex is shown for all its non-glory and absurdity. I'm not sure if this is a stylistic choice or if the director is using this as a means to attract attention to his first film. What I am sure of is that, at least for me, his scene of self-masturbation in the shower, complete with climax moment action is more than I want to see. It's not because I'm a prude or I think it goes against the theme of the film, it's just because, as a talented film maker, I know I'll see much more of Swanberg in the years to come. From now on, though, I'll never be able to get the image of his weiner explosion out of my mind.Decent film though, and I look forward to a long and fruitful career from him. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 549

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:22 GMT2414126549Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationship/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationship
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 189

]]>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:18:01 GMT109050189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sexuality/MemberTagFilms.aspxsexuality
Number of films tagged: 390

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 65

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:20:33 GMT3902365Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/honesty/MemberTagFilms.aspxhonesty
Number of films tagged: 109

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 13

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT1091013Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/roommate/MemberTagFilms.aspxroommate
Number of films tagged: 288

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 11

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT288811Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/chicagointernational/MemberTagFilms.aspxchicagointernational
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:37:56 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/swanberg/MemberTagFilms.aspxswanberg
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:50:38 GMT111Tag