list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Hannah Takes the Stairs 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/Hannah_Takes_the_Stairs/324824/default.aspx Title: Hannah Takes the Stairs
Year: 2007
Director: Joe Swanberg
Plot: American independent filmmaker Joe Swanberg's 2007 feature Hannah Takes the Stairs concerns Hannah (Greta Gerwig), a recent college graduate who spends one long, unsatisfying summer in the Windy City attempting to achieve romantic fulfillment in a seemingly endless series of relationships. Drifting in and out of infatuation, but never quite reaching satisfaction, Hannah begins to pose an emotional threat to herself and those around her. The picture co-stars filmmakers Andrew Bujalski (Funny Ha Ha) and Todd Rohal (The Guatemalan Handshake) as well as screenwriter Kent Osborne (The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie). Gerwig co-authored the script with Osborne and Swanberg. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 98
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:00:46 GMTHannah Takes the Stairs2007Joe SwanbergAmerican independent filmmaker Joe Swanberg's 2007 feature Hannah Takes the Stairs concerns Hannah (Greta Gerwig), a recent college graduate who spends one long, unsatisfying summer in the Windy City attempting to achieve romantic fulfillment in a seemingly endless series of relationships. Drifting in and out of infatuation, but never quite reaching satisfaction, Hannah begins to pose an emotional threat to herself and those around her. The picture co-stars filmmakers Andrew Bujalski (<a href="http://www.spout.com/films/229746/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Funny Ha Ha</a>) and Todd Rohal (<a href="http://www.spout.com/films/278585/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>The Guatemalan Handshake</a>) as well as screenwriter Kent Osborne (<a href="http://www.spout.com/films/223504/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie</a>). Gerwig co-authored the script with Osborne and Swanberg. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide27Tag Target (>10)129843http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s324824.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Hannah_Takes_the_Stairs/324824/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2009/3/9/40914.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 3/9/2009 5:00:46 PM
Body: It would take a certain amount of energy and emotional strength to produce a full consideration of David Denby’s piece in today’s New Yorker, which swiftly traces the lineage of the last seven years of American micro-independent film up to and including Joe Swanberg’s upcoming SXSW and IFC VOD debut, Alexander the Last. I currently feel that this variety of strength and quantity of energy are resources that I cannot access, and if I could, I’m not sure the best target to point them at would be a piece that has already been declared late to the party by two reliable sources.  However, in case it seems imperative to take up this task at some point in the future, here are the vague bases I would try to touch in such a consideration: Prior to this, David Denby has produced two notable works in the past six months (in this case, we’ll take “notable” to be equivalent to “provoking of blog posts and/or mocking on The Daily Show“; if there is another definition of the word here on Planet Earth in 2009, I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it). Most recently, there was Snark, a polemical book in which the film critic argues that “snarkers like to think they are deploying wit, but mostly they are exposing the seethe and snarl of an unhappy country, releasing bad feeling but little laughter,” and goes on to cite with no apparent humour intended the nine elements that make snark so dangerous.  A short time after Snark was published, Denby wrote off The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — a film which might rightly be considered to embody the bloated sincerity that finely calibrated snark so successfully deflates –– with the witty rejoinder, “who cares?” Denby then went on to point out, clearly without “bad feeling”, that “many people in Hollywood endlessly have ‘work’ done to put off aging, and here’s a movie that begins with a wizened baby and ends with physical perfection, a progression that may encapsulate both the nightmares and the dreams of half the Academy.” Up until this point, about once a year, every year of this decade, someone somewhere declared something an example of The New Sincerity. Radio/podcast host Jesse Thorn once called it a “cultural movement founded by yours truly.” As described by Thorn, The New Sincerity is all about “a willingness to earnestly appreciate something even if it’s bigger than something someone would earnestly feel comfortable earnestly appreciating. Even if it means taking the risk of someone thinking it’s ridiculous because, ultimately, it’s more important to be awesome than to be cool.” This desire for sincerity pops up in various corners of the culture every now and then, usually as a self-conscious reaction to what was called in the 90s “irony”, and only became “snark” after everyone said that after 9/11, irony couldn’t exist. For whatever reason, The New Sinceritists have failed to embrace Denby’s attack on snark, which has not often been described as either “awesome” or “cool,” as far as I am aware. However, I will admit that the most intensive criticism of Snark that I’ve consumed has been that blogged/vlogged/Twittered by Ana Marie Cox, who took exception to Denby’s comments about her former blog Wonkette, and who described the book as one “about getting kids off his lawn.” Emily Gould, former editor of Gawker and, in some circles, the poster girl for snark without substance, memorably eviscerated Swanberg’s Hannah Takes the Stairs in concert with its premiere at the IFC Center. In that review, Gould refered to Hannah as “megahyped” and generally sold the fiction that that the film was some kind of corporate ploy to sell her generation back to itself, and that it got that representation wrong; she specifically complained that a scene in which one character remarks on another’s blog-to-book deal “made the movie seem at least two years old.” This was before Gould had a bit of a scandal involving boys and blogs, which she funneled into her own book deal; she now says that when she edited Gawker, she “really did not ever think of the person I was writing about sitting there and reading what I’d written. I sincerely thought that the kind of people who got written about were somehow different from me.” One wonders what she might think of Hannah on a second viewing after all that has happened to all of us since that heady summer of 2007. But let’s just confine this argument to that moment: in that moment, Emily Gould was New York media’s highest profile snarkist, and of Joe Swanberg, she didn’t approve. So if there is an imaginary line in the sand between snark and sincerity which informs much of our contemporary conversation and most of our popular culture, then anti-snark crusader Denby is now only pointing to what we may have known in our hearts for awhile, which is that a handful of filmmakers and their slightly larger number of fans are on one side of this line, and the tastemakers of young adult media consumption and most of the consumers the trickle down to are irrevocably on the other. It’s maybe a no brainer which side the David Denbys of the world gravitate to. Are these films, which strive for a certain realism regarding life as a twenty-something today (and, in many cases, I think, achieve it) fundamentally at odds with what really real people of that generation accept as either art or entertainment? And if the whole point of working on a small scale is to be able to do things and say things that they wouldn’t be able to do if their creative decisions were dictated by demographic research and corporate synergy and the financial passions of fifty-somethings — well, isn’t that the point? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:00:46 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog3/9/2009 5:00:46 PMIt would take a certain amount of energy and emotional strength to produce a full consideration of David Denby’s piece in today’s New Yorker, which swiftly traces the lineage of the last seven years of American micro-independent film up to and including Joe Swanberg’s upcoming SXSW and IFC VOD debut, Alexander the Last. I currently feel that this variety of strength and quantity of energy are resources that I cannot access, and if I could, I’m not sure the best target to point them at would be a piece that has already been declared late to the party by two reliable sources.  However, in case it seems imperative to take up this task at some point in the future, here are the vague bases I would try to touch in such a consideration: Prior to this, David Denby has produced two notable works in the past six months (in this case, we’ll take “notable” to be equivalent to “provoking of blog posts and/or mocking on The Daily Show“; if there is another definition of the word here on Planet Earth in 2009, I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it). Most recently, there was Snark, a polemical book in which the film critic argues that “snarkers like to think they are deploying wit, but mostly they are exposing the seethe and snarl of an unhappy country, releasing bad feeling but little laughter,” and goes on to cite with no apparent humour intended the nine elements that make snark so dangerous.  A short time after Snark was published, Denby wrote off The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — a film which might rightly be considered to embody the bloated sincerity that finely calibrated snark so successfully deflates –– with the witty rejoinder, “who cares?” Denby then went on to point out, clearly without “bad feeling”, that “many people in Hollywood endlessly have ‘work’ done to put off aging, and here’s a movie that begins with a wizened baby and ends with physical perfection, a progression that may encapsulate both the nightmares and the dreams of half the Academy.” Up until this point, about once a year, every year of this decade, someone somewhere declared something an example of The New Sincerity. Radio/podcast host Jesse Thorn once called it a “cultural movement founded by yours truly.” As described by Thorn, The New Sincerity is all about “a willingness to earnestly appreciate something even if it’s bigger than something someone would earnestly feel comfortable earnestly appreciating. Even if it means taking the risk of someone thinking it’s ridiculous because, ultimately, it’s more important to be awesome than to be cool.” This desire for sincerity pops up in various corners of the culture every now and then, usually as a self-conscious reaction to what was called in the 90s “irony”, and only became “snark” after everyone said that after 9/11, irony couldn’t exist. For whatever reason, The New Sinceritists have failed to embrace Denby’s attack on snark, which has not often been described as either “awesome” or “cool,” as far as I am aware. However, I will admit that the most intensive criticism of Snark that I’ve consumed has been that blogged/vlogged/Twittered by Ana Marie Cox, who took exception to Denby’s comments about her former blog Wonkette, and who described the book as one “about getting kids off his lawn.” Emily Gould, former editor of Gawker and, in some circles, the poster girl for snark without substance, memorably eviscerated Swanberg’s Hannah Takes the Stairs in concert with its premiere at the IFC Center. In that review, Gould refered to Hannah as “megahyped” and generally sold the fiction that that the film was some kind of corporate ploy to sell her generation back to itself, and that it got that representation wrong; she specifically complained that a scene in which one character remarks on another’s blog-to-book deal “made the movie seem at least two years old.” This was before Gould had a bit of a scandal involving boys and blogs, which she funneled into her own book deal; she now says that when she edited Gawker, she “really did not ever think of the person I was writing about sitting there and reading what I’d written. I sincerely thought that the kind of people who got written about were somehow different from me.” One wonders what she might think of Hannah on a second viewing after all that has happened to all of us since that heady summer of 2007. But let’s just confine this argument to that moment: in that moment, Emily Gould was New York media’s highest profile snarkist, and of Joe Swanberg, she didn’t approve. So if there is an imaginary line in the sand between snark and sincerity which informs much of our contemporary conversation and most of our popular culture, then anti-snark crusader Denby is now only pointing to what we may have known in our hearts for awhile, which is that a handful of filmmakers and their slightly larger number of fans are on one side of this line, and the tastemakers of young adult media consumption and most of the consumers the trickle down to are irrevocably on the other. It’s maybe a no brainer which side the David Denbys of the world gravitate to. Are these films, which strive for a certain realism regarding life as a twenty-something today (and, in many cases, I think, achieve it) fundamentally at odds with what really real people of that generation accept as either art or entertainment? And if the whole point of working on a small scale is to be able to do things and say things that they wouldn’t be able to do if their creative decisions were dictated by demographic research and corporate synergy and the financial passions of fifty-somethings — well, isn’t that the point? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/9/40912.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/9/2009 5:00:32 PM
Body: It would take a certain amount of energy and emotional strength to produce a full consideration of David Denby’s piece in today’s New Yorker, which swiftly traces the lineage of the last seven years of American micro-independent film up to and including Joe Swanberg’s upcoming SXSW and IFC VOD debut, Alexander the Last. I currently feel that this variety of strength and quantity of energy are resources that I cannot access, and if I could, I’m not sure the best target to point them at would be a piece that has already been declared late to the party by two reliable sources.  However, in case it seems imperative to take up this task at some point in the future, here are the vague bases I would try to touch in such a consideration: Prior to this, David Denby has produced two notable works in the past six months (in this case, we’ll take “notable” to be equivalent to “provoking of blog posts and/or mocking on The Daily Show“; if there is another definition of the word here on Planet Earth in 2009, I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it). Most recently, there was Snark, a polemical book in which the film critic argues that “snarkers like to think they are deploying wit, but mostly they are exposing the seethe and snarl of an unhappy country, releasing bad feeling but little laughter,” and goes on to cite with no apparent humour intended the nine elements that make snark so dangerous.  A short time after Snark was published, Denby wrote off The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — a film which might rightly be considered to embody the bloated sincerity that finely calibrated snark so successfully deflates –– with the witty rejoinder, “who cares?” Denby then went on to point out, clearly without “bad feeling”, that “many people in Hollywood endlessly have ‘work’ done to put off aging, and here’s a movie that begins with a wizened baby and ends with physical perfection, a progression that may encapsulate both the nightmares and the dreams of half the Academy.” Up until this point, about once a year, every year of this decade, someone somewhere declared something an example of The New Sincerity. Radio/podcast host Jesse Thorn once called it a “cultural movement founded by yours truly.” As described by Thorn, The New Sincerity is all about “a willingness to earnestly appreciate something even if it’s bigger than something someone would earnestly feel comfortable earnestly appreciating. Even if it means taking the risk of someone thinking it’s ridiculous because, ultimately, it’s more important to be awesome than to be cool.” This desire for sincerity pops up in various corners of the culture every now and then, usually as a self-conscious reaction to what was called in the 90s “irony”, and only became “snark” after everyone said that after 9/11, irony couldn’t exist. For whatever reason, The New Sinceritists have failed to embrace Denby’s attack on snark, which has not often been described as either “awesome” or “cool,” as far as I am aware. However, I will admit that the most intensive criticism of Snark that I’ve consumed has been that blogged/vlogged/Twittered by Ana Marie Cox, who took exception to Denby’s comments about her former blog Wonkette, and who described the book as one “about getting kids off his lawn.” Emily Gould, former editor of Gawker and, in some circles, the poster girl for snark without substance, memorably eviscerated Swanberg’s Hannah Takes the Stairs in concert with its premiere at the IFC Center. In that review, Gould refered to Hannah as “megahyped” and generally sold the fiction that that the film was some kind of corporate ploy to sell her generation back to itself, and that it got that representation wrong; she specifically complained that a scene in which one character remarks on another’s blog-to-book deal “made the movie seem at least two years old.” This was before Gould had a bit of a scandal involving boys and blogs, which she funneled into her own book deal; she now says that when she edited Gawker, she “really did not ever think of the person I was writing about sitting there and reading what I’d written. I sincerely thought that the kind of people who got written about were somehow different from me.” One wonders what she might think of Hannah on a second viewing after all that has happened to all of us since that heady summer of 2007. But let’s just confine this argument to that moment: in that moment, Emily Gould was New York media’s highest profile snarkist, and of Joe Swanberg, she didn’t approve. So if there is an imaginary line in the sand between snark and sincerity which informs much of our contemporary conversation and most of our popular culture, then anti-snark crusader Denby is now only pointing to what we may have known in our hearts for awhile, which is that a handful of filmmakers and their slightly larger number of fans are on one side of this line, and the tastemakers of young adult media consumption and most of the consumers the trickle down to are irrevocably on the other. It’s maybe a no brainer which side the David Denbys of the world gravitate to. Are these films, which strive for a certain realism regarding life as a twenty-something today (and, in many cases, I think, achieve it) fundamentally at odds with what really real people of that generation accept as either art or entertainment? And if the whole point of working on a small scale is to be able to do things and say things that they wouldn’t be able to do if their creative decisions were dictated by demographic research and corporate synergy and the financial passions of fifty-somethings — well, isn’t that the point? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:00:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/9/2009 5:00:32 PMIt would take a certain amount of energy and emotional strength to produce a full consideration of David Denby’s piece in today’s New Yorker, which swiftly traces the lineage of the last seven years of American micro-independent film up to and including Joe Swanberg’s upcoming SXSW and IFC VOD debut, Alexander the Last. I currently feel that this variety of strength and quantity of energy are resources that I cannot access, and if I could, I’m not sure the best target to point them at would be a piece that has already been declared late to the party by two reliable sources.  However, in case it seems imperative to take up this task at some point in the future, here are the vague bases I would try to touch in such a consideration: Prior to this, David Denby has produced two notable works in the past six months (in this case, we’ll take “notable” to be equivalent to “provoking of blog posts and/or mocking on The Daily Show“; if there is another definition of the word here on Planet Earth in 2009, I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it). Most recently, there was Snark, a polemical book in which the film critic argues that “snarkers like to think they are deploying wit, but mostly they are exposing the seethe and snarl of an unhappy country, releasing bad feeling but little laughter,” and goes on to cite with no apparent humour intended the nine elements that make snark so dangerous.  A short time after Snark was published, Denby wrote off The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — a film which might rightly be considered to embody the bloated sincerity that finely calibrated snark so successfully deflates –– with the witty rejoinder, “who cares?” Denby then went on to point out, clearly without “bad feeling”, that “many people in Hollywood endlessly have ‘work’ done to put off aging, and here’s a movie that begins with a wizened baby and ends with physical perfection, a progression that may encapsulate both the nightmares and the dreams of half the Academy.” Up until this point, about once a year, every year of this decade, someone somewhere declared something an example of The New Sincerity. Radio/podcast host Jesse Thorn once called it a “cultural movement founded by yours truly.” As described by Thorn, The New Sincerity is all about “a willingness to earnestly appreciate something even if it’s bigger than something someone would earnestly feel comfortable earnestly appreciating. Even if it means taking the risk of someone thinking it’s ridiculous because, ultimately, it’s more important to be awesome than to be cool.” This desire for sincerity pops up in various corners of the culture every now and then, usually as a self-conscious reaction to what was called in the 90s “irony”, and only became “snark” after everyone said that after 9/11, irony couldn’t exist. For whatever reason, The New Sinceritists have failed to embrace Denby’s attack on snark, which has not often been described as either “awesome” or “cool,” as far as I am aware. However, I will admit that the most intensive criticism of Snark that I’ve consumed has been that blogged/vlogged/Twittered by Ana Marie Cox, who took exception to Denby’s comments about her former blog Wonkette, and who described the book as one “about getting kids off his lawn.” Emily Gould, former editor of Gawker and, in some circles, the poster girl for snark without substance, memorably eviscerated Swanberg’s Hannah Takes the Stairs in concert with its premiere at the IFC Center. In that review, Gould refered to Hannah as “megahyped” and generally sold the fiction that that the film was some kind of corporate ploy to sell her generation back to itself, and that it got that representation wrong; she specifically complained that a scene in which one character remarks on another’s blog-to-book deal “made the movie seem at least two years old.” This was before Gould had a bit of a scandal involving boys and blogs, which she funneled into her own book deal; she now says that when she edited Gawker, she “really did not ever think of the person I was writing about sitting there and reading what I’d written. I sincerely thought that the kind of people who got written about were somehow different from me.” One wonders what she might think of Hannah on a second viewing after all that has happened to all of us since that heady summer of 2007. But let’s just confine this argument to that moment: in that moment, Emily Gould was New York media’s highest profile snarkist, and of Joe Swanberg, she didn’t approve. So if there is an imaginary line in the sand between snark and sincerity which informs much of our contemporary conversation and most of our popular culture, then anti-snark crusader Denby is now only pointing to what we may have known in our hearts for awhile, which is that a handful of filmmakers and their slightly larger number of fans are on one side of this line, and the tastemakers of young adult media consumption and most of the consumers the trickle down to are irrevocably on the other. It’s maybe a no brainer which side the David Denbys of the world gravitate to. Are these films, which strive for a certain realism regarding life as a twenty-something today (and, in many cases, I think, achieve it) fundamentally at odds with what really real people of that generation accept as either art or entertainment? And if the whole point of working on a small scale is to be able to do things and say things that they wouldn’t be able to do if their creative decisions were dictated by demographic research and corporate synergy and the financial passions of fifty-somethings — well, isn’t that the point? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/27/34473.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/27/2008 6:01:12 PM
Body: I’m a relative late-comer to the Joe Swanberg film offerings specifically and to “mumblecore” as a sub-genre as a whole, having only really discovered the films in the last year or so. But in that time I’ve become a big fan of Swanberg’s style of filmmaking and the relatively realistic emotions that come through to the audience via a combination of his writing and directing and the fact that the actors in these pictures are often non-professionals or, if they are, seem to be capable of reaching into places that elude most top-tier stars. Hannah Takes the Stairs was one that I was very much looking forward to, having been a big fan of (most of) the campaign that had been mounted for its theatrical release. The movie, about a young woman and her group of friends, co-workers and lovers - all of whom are looking for “happiness” in some form or another, mainly through coital pairings. This leads to relationships and friendships that cross all sorts of established boundaries, intentional breaks that are made in spite of what could be called social patterns or other good manners. While I greatly admire the talents of Swanberg and his group of fellow movement makers, when I reflect upon the films after watching them I find most of the characters to be insufferable twits. There is so much navel-gazing about themselves feeling happy and fulfilled that they are completely unaware of the people around them, leading to the self-motivated actions. Not one of these characters seems to believe that hard work, faith in God or anything else that might not be delivered to them on a silver platter are even options. So while Hannah Takes the Stairs is exemplary film-making that remains interesting and engaging, the characters more often than not are insufferable twits. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:01:12 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/27/2008 6:01:12 PMI’m a relative late-comer to the Joe Swanberg film offerings specifically and to “mumblecore” as a sub-genre as a whole, having only really discovered the films in the last year or so. But in that time I’ve become a big fan of Swanberg’s style of filmmaking and the relatively realistic emotions that come through to the audience via a combination of his writing and directing and the fact that the actors in these pictures are often non-professionals or, if they are, seem to be capable of reaching into places that elude most top-tier stars. Hannah Takes the Stairs was one that I was very much looking forward to, having been a big fan of (most of) the campaign that had been mounted for its theatrical release. The movie, about a young woman and her group of friends, co-workers and lovers - all of whom are looking for “happiness” in some form or another, mainly through coital pairings. This leads to relationships and friendships that cross all sorts of established boundaries, intentional breaks that are made in spite of what could be called social patterns or other good manners. While I greatly admire the talents of Swanberg and his group of fellow movement makers, when I reflect upon the films after watching them I find most of the characters to be insufferable twits. There is so much navel-gazing about themselves feeling happy and fulfilled that they are completely unaware of the people around them, leading to the self-motivated actions. Not one of these characters seems to believe that hard work, faith in God or anything else that might not be delivered to them on a silver platter are even options. So while Hannah Takes the Stairs is exemplary film-making that remains interesting and engaging, the characters more often than not are insufferable twits. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/4/22/27630.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 4/22/2008 11:02:01 AM
Body: Hannah Takes the Stairs comes out on DVD today (see bloggy debate over the package’s generic rom-com design at FILMMAKER and Cinematical), which means that my Google Alert for “mumblecore” has been on fire for a number of days. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small release, and most publications reviewing it as a part of a Tuesday new release round-up don’t have much space to give. But IFC’s website (sister to the company that released the film theatrically) gives critic Michael Atkinson 500 words––and though he ultimately gets around to a positive review of this movie, he devotes the first 230 words or so to explaining why mumblecore is shit. “Is it even a movement?” Atkinson grumbles. “Is anyone outside of the ticket buyers at a handful of smallish American film festivals passionate about these movies, and if not, why are they getting so much press?” Surely, Atkinson knows that the mumble-hate contingent has tread and re-tread this terrirory many times over––after all, Amy Taubin (no fan of Joe Swanberg, but a supporter of other filmmakers who have been lumped into the genre, including Andrew Bujalski and Aaron Katz), declared the “movement” dead a full five months ago. Why is it still necessary to qualify praise of a specific mumblecore-associated film by defaming the M-word itself, to the point where a critic actually devotes more space of a DVD review to explaining why those other films are bad than he devotes to explaining why this film is good?  When will individual films and filmmakers be able to shrug off this baggage––and by writing about it at all, am I part of the problem? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:02:01 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog4/22/2008 11:02:01 AMHannah Takes the Stairs comes out on DVD today (see bloggy debate over the package’s generic rom-com design at FILMMAKER and Cinematical), which means that my Google Alert for “mumblecore” has been on fire for a number of days. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small release, and most publications reviewing it as a part of a Tuesday new release round-up don’t have much space to give. But IFC’s website (sister to the company that released the film theatrically) gives critic Michael Atkinson 500 words––and though he ultimately gets around to a positive review of this movie, he devotes the first 230 words or so to explaining why mumblecore is shit. “Is it even a movement?” Atkinson grumbles. “Is anyone outside of the ticket buyers at a handful of smallish American film festivals passionate about these movies, and if not, why are they getting so much press?” Surely, Atkinson knows that the mumble-hate contingent has tread and re-tread this terrirory many times over––after all, Amy Taubin (no fan of Joe Swanberg, but a supporter of other filmmakers who have been lumped into the genre, including Andrew Bujalski and Aaron Katz), declared the “movement” dead a full five months ago. Why is it still necessary to qualify praise of a specific mumblecore-associated film by defaming the M-word itself, to the point where a critic actually devotes more space of a DVD review to explaining why those other films are bad than he devotes to explaining why this film is good?  When will individual films and filmmakers be able to shrug off this baggage––and by writing about it at all, am I part of the problem? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/22/27629.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/22/2008 11:01:46 AM
Body: Hannah Takes the Stairs comes out on DVD today (see bloggy debate over the package’s generic rom-com design at FILMMAKER and Cinematical), which means that my Google Alert for “mumblecore” has been on fire for a number of days. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small release, and most publications reviewing it as a part of a Tuesday new release round-up don’t have much space to give. But IFC’s website (sister to the company that released the film theatrically) gives critic Michael Atkinson 500 words––and though he ultimately gets around to a positive review of this movie, he devotes the first 230 words or so to explaining why mumblecore is shit. “Is it even a movement?” Atkinson grumbles. “Is anyone outside of the ticket buyers at a handful of smallish American film festivals passionate about these movies, and if not, why are they getting so much press?” Surely, Atkinson knows that the mumble-hate contingent has tread and re-tread this terrirory many times over––after all, Amy Taubin (no fan of Joe Swanberg, but a supporter of other filmmakers who have been lumped into the genre, including Andrew Bujalski and Aaron Katz), declared the “movement” dead a full five months ago. Why is it still necessary to qualify praise of a specific mumblecore-associated film by defaming the M-word itself, to the point where a critic actually devotes more space of a DVD review to explaining why those other films are bad than he devotes to explaining why this film is good?  When will individual films and filmmakers be able to shrug off this baggage––and by writing about it at all, am I part of the problem? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:01:46 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/22/2008 11:01:46 AMHannah Takes the Stairs comes out on DVD today (see bloggy debate over the package’s generic rom-com design at FILMMAKER and Cinematical), which means that my Google Alert for “mumblecore” has been on fire for a number of days. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small release, and most publications reviewing it as a part of a Tuesday new release round-up don’t have much space to give. But IFC’s website (sister to the company that released the film theatrically) gives critic Michael Atkinson 500 words––and though he ultimately gets around to a positive review of this movie, he devotes the first 230 words or so to explaining why mumblecore is shit. “Is it even a movement?” Atkinson grumbles. “Is anyone outside of the ticket buyers at a handful of smallish American film festivals passionate about these movies, and if not, why are they getting so much press?” Surely, Atkinson knows that the mumble-hate contingent has tread and re-tread this terrirory many times over––after all, Amy Taubin (no fan of Joe Swanberg, but a supporter of other filmmakers who have been lumped into the genre, including Andrew Bujalski and Aaron Katz), declared the “movement” dead a full five months ago. Why is it still necessary to qualify praise of a specific mumblecore-associated film by defaming the M-word itself, to the point where a critic actually devotes more space of a DVD review to explaining why those other films are bad than he devotes to explaining why this film is good?  When will individual films and filmmakers be able to shrug off this baggage––and by writing about it at all, am I part of the problem? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog 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/groups/Butterknife/Re_Episode_5_LAUGH_ATTACK/498/25650/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mattypro
Post To: Butterknife
Post Date: 2/27/2008 4:13:41 PM
Body: I get it. The formula that is. Stuff happens at work. Stuff happens at home. They relate to and effect one another. The element I have responded to on each episode is the reaction of Ron vs. the reaction of Mary. (As a side note, its weird how they are listed as un-named, and yet they are called by name in the episodes ??) We get to see Ron's day job and then we get to hear about Mary's time at work. This is very familiar to me as when at home I rarely bring up work while my wife seems to speak of nothing else. I wonder if this is just coincidence but it seems likely that Swanberg has hit upon another tidbit of relationship realism that gives this series its charm and "truthiness." I found myself chuckling uncomfortably or grimacing during the first section of each short and then grinning during the home interactions. However, after reading the comments of the other posters from previous episodes, I have begun to wonder if this series is meant for or somehow just more accessible to people in “committed relationships.” I’m not even talking about the artistic parts of this. I mean just basic enjoyment. Going home to a spouse is an experience that not everyone has. Does that give me a leg up on enjoying this set of shorts? Are single people less likely to like it?
]]>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:13:41 GMTmattyproButterknife2/27/2008 4:13:41 PMI get it. The formula that is. Stuff happens at work. Stuff happens at home. They relate to and effect one another. The element I have responded to on each episode is the reaction of Ron vs. the reaction of Mary. (As a side note, its weird how they are listed as un-named, and yet they are called by name in the episodes ??) We get to see Ron&#39;s day job and then we get to hear about Mary&#39;s time at work. This is very familiar to me as when at home I rarely bring up work while my wife seems to speak of nothing else. I wonder if this is just coincidence but it seems likely that Swanberg has hit upon another tidbit of relationship realism that gives this series its charm and "truthiness." I found myself chuckling uncomfortably or grimacing during the first section of each short and then grinning during the home interactions. However, after reading the comments of the other posters from previous episodes, I have begun to wonder if this series is meant for or somehow just more accessible to people in &ldquo;committed relationships.&rdquo; I&rsquo;m not even talking about the artistic parts of this. I mean just basic enjoyment. Going home to a spouse is an experience that not everyone has. Does that give me a leg up on enjoying this set of shorts? Are single people less likely to like it? http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/2/18/25271.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 2/18/2008 1:01:35 PM
Body: Yeast [trailer]Add to My Profile | More Videos Welcome to the first of many posts that we’ll be doing over the next couple of weeks, previewing upcoming SXSW premieres and profiling their makers. I’m so excited to start this plug fest with the work of a good friend of Spout, Mary Bronstein’s Yeast. Mary, of course, is the co-star of the Spout current webseries Butterknife, and she also starred in her husband Ronnie Bronstein’s debut feature, Frownland (which, incidentally, will be running for a week at the IFC Center in New York concurrent with Yeast’s debut in Austin). Mary stars again in Yeast, alongside Greta Gerwig (Hannah Takes the Stairs), and together they explore friendships that are, according to the SXSW synopsis, “Ebola-infested, maggot-filled and bursting at the seams.” You can watch the trailer for Yeast above. Below, check out Mary’s answers to the 4 Questions We’re Asking Everybody (heretofore known as the 4QWAE). Yeast, which is screening in the Narrative Competition at SXSW, premieres at 7pm on Monday, March 10 at the Alamo Ritz; for more information, go here. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. ???It???s like Laverne and Shirley meets Mike Leigh???s Nuts in May???on PCP!!??? Sorry???here???s the real 25 word-or-less: Yeast is a film about a maddeningly oblivious, tyrannical and stunted young woman trying to negotiate two toxic friendships. Something that the synopsis doesn???t say is that Yeast turned out to be a lot funnier than I had originally anticipated. Another thing to know is that it isn???t a study in realism, or the way people ???really??? behave. It is more hyper-realism. We were interested in telling the story from the inside-out. Showing on the outside what the character is feeling on the outside. I find this more interesting than dialog about how characters feel. For example, sometimes you may be so frustrated at someone you wish you could just hit that person in the face. In real life you don???t, but you might say ???You know, you are like, kind of being a little bit annoying right now.??? In this movie you would actually hit the person. I decided to make this film after I realized that I didn???t want to wait around for other people to make projects. I wanted to make a film about female friendships that dealt with the issues of resentment, hostility and emotional manipulation that often are present in too-close enmeshed friendships of either sex. I wanted to make a film about women that I???ve never seen before, about people who have no business being friends with each other but don???t know how to stop. And I wanted to see if I could pull it off. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:01:35 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog2/18/2008 1:01:35 PMYeast [trailer]Add to My Profile | More Videos Welcome to the first of many posts that we’ll be doing over the next couple of weeks, previewing upcoming SXSW premieres and profiling their makers. I’m so excited to start this plug fest with the work of a good friend of Spout, Mary Bronstein’s Yeast. Mary, of course, is the co-star of the Spout current webseries Butterknife, and she also starred in her husband Ronnie Bronstein’s debut feature, Frownland (which, incidentally, will be running for a week at the IFC Center in New York concurrent with Yeast’s debut in Austin). Mary stars again in Yeast, alongside Greta Gerwig (Hannah Takes the Stairs), and together they explore friendships that are, according to the SXSW synopsis, “Ebola-infested, maggot-filled and bursting at the seams.” You can watch the trailer for Yeast above. Below, check out Mary’s answers to the 4 Questions We’re Asking Everybody (heretofore known as the 4QWAE). Yeast, which is screening in the Narrative Competition at SXSW, premieres at 7pm on Monday, March 10 at the Alamo Ritz; for more information, go here. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. ???It???s like Laverne and Shirley meets Mike Leigh???s Nuts in May???on PCP!!??? Sorry???here???s the real 25 word-or-less: Yeast is a film about a maddeningly oblivious, tyrannical and stunted young woman trying to negotiate two toxic friendships. Something that the synopsis doesn???t say is that Yeast turned out to be a lot funnier than I had originally anticipated. Another thing to know is that it isn???t a study in realism, or the way people ???really??? behave. It is more hyper-realism. We were interested in telling the story from the inside-out. Showing on the outside what the character is feeling on the outside. I find this more interesting than dialog about how characters feel. For example, sometimes you may be so frustrated at someone you wish you could just hit that person in the face. In real life you don???t, but you might say ???You know, you are like, kind of being a little bit annoying right now.??? In this movie you would actually hit the person. I decided to make this film after I realized that I didn???t want to wait around for other people to make projects. I wanted to make a film about female friendships that dealt with the issues of resentment, hostility and emotional manipulation that often are present in too-close enmeshed friendships of either sex. I wanted to make a film about women that I???ve never seen before, about people who have no business being friends with each other but don???t know how to stop. And I wanted to see if I could pull it off. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/18/25270.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/18/2008 1:00:54 PM
Body: Yeast [trailer]Add to My Profile | More Videos Welcome to the first of many posts that we’ll be doing over the next couple of weeks, previewing upcoming SXSW premieres and profiling their makers. I’m so excited to start this plug fest with the work of a good friend of Spout, Mary Bronstein’s Yeast. Mary, of course, is the co-star of the Spout current webseries Butterknife, and she also starred in her husband Ronnie Bronstein’s debut feature, Frownland (which, incidentally, will be running for a week at the IFC Center in New York concurrent with Yeast’s debut in Austin). Mary stars again in Yeast, alongside Greta Gerwig (Hannah Takes the Stairs), and together they explore friendships that are, according to the SXSW synopsis, “Ebola-infested, maggot-filled and bursting at the seams.” You can watch the trailer for Yeast above. Below, check out Mary’s answers to the 4 Questions We’re Asking Everybody (heretofore known as the 4QWAE). Yeast, which is screening in the Narrative Competition at SXSW, premieres at 7pm on Monday, March 10 at the Alamo Ritz; for more information, go here. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. ???It???s like Laverne and Shirley meets Mike Leigh???s Nuts in May???on PCP!!??? Sorry???here???s the real 25 word-or-less: Yeast is a film about a maddeningly oblivious, tyrannical and stunted young woman trying to negotiate two toxic friendships. Something that the synopsis doesn???t say is that Yeast turned out to be a lot funnier than I had originally anticipated. Another thing to know is that it isn???t a study in realism, or the way people ???really??? behave. It is more hyper-realism. We were interested in telling the story from the inside-out. Showing on the outside what the character is feeling on the outside. I find this more interesting than dialog about how characters feel. For example, sometimes you may be so frustrated at someone you wish you could just hit that person in the face. In real life you don???t, but you might say ???You know, you are like, kind of being a little bit annoying right now.??? In this movie you would actually hit the person. I decided to make this film after I realized that I didn???t want to wait around for other people to make projects. I wanted to make a film about female friendships that dealt with the issues of resentment, hostility and emotional manipulation that often are present in too-close enmeshed friendships of either sex. I wanted to make a film about women that I???ve never seen before, about people who have no business being friends with each other but don???t know how to stop. And I wanted to see if I could pull it off. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/18/2008 1:00:54 PMYeast [trailer]Add to My Profile | More Videos Welcome to the first of many posts that we’ll be doing over the next couple of weeks, previewing upcoming SXSW premieres and profiling their makers. I’m so excited to start this plug fest with the work of a good friend of Spout, Mary Bronstein’s Yeast. Mary, of course, is the co-star of the Spout current webseries Butterknife, and she also starred in her husband Ronnie Bronstein’s debut feature, Frownland (which, incidentally, will be running for a week at the IFC Center in New York concurrent with Yeast’s debut in Austin). Mary stars again in Yeast, alongside Greta Gerwig (Hannah Takes the Stairs), and together they explore friendships that are, according to the SXSW synopsis, “Ebola-infested, maggot-filled and bursting at the seams.” You can watch the trailer for Yeast above. Below, check out Mary’s answers to the 4 Questions We’re Asking Everybody (heretofore known as the 4QWAE). Yeast, which is screening in the Narrative Competition at SXSW, premieres at 7pm on Monday, March 10 at the Alamo Ritz; for more information, go here. Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out. ???It???s like Laverne and Shirley meets Mike Leigh???s Nuts in May???on PCP!!??? Sorry???here???s the real 25 word-or-less: Yeast is a film about a maddeningly oblivious, tyrannical and stunted young woman trying to negotiate two toxic friendships. Something that the synopsis doesn???t say is that Yeast turned out to be a lot funnier than I had originally anticipated. Another thing to know is that it isn???t a study in realism, or the way people ???really??? behave. It is more hyper-realism. We were interested in telling the story from the inside-out. Showing on the outside what the character is feeling on the outside. I find this more interesting than dialog about how characters feel. For example, sometimes you may be so frustrated at someone you wish you could just hit that person in the face. In real life you don???t, but you might say ???You know, you are like, kind of being a little bit annoying right now.??? In this movie you would actually hit the person. I decided to make this film after I realized that I didn???t want to wait around for other people to make projects. I wanted to make a film about female friendships that dealt with the issues of resentment, hostility and emotional manipulation that often are present in too-close enmeshed friendships of either sex. I wanted to make a film about women that I???ve never seen before, about people who have no business being friends with each other but don???t know how to stop. And I wanted to see if I could pull it off. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag 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/awkward/MemberTagFilms.aspxawkward
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 72

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:23 GMT494772Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dating/MemberTagFilms.aspxdating
Number of films tagged: 325

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 87

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:23 GMT3253987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/independent/MemberTagFilms.aspxindependent
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 55

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:24 GMT482955Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/newyork/MemberTagFilms.aspxnewyork
Number of films tagged: 38

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 46

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:41:54 GMT382746Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/writing/MemberTagFilms.aspxwriting
Number of films tagged: 1300

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 43

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:17:22 GMT13002543Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/youth/MemberTagFilms.aspxyouth
Number of films tagged: 895

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 67

]]>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:18:01 GMT8952567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/summer/MemberTagFilms.aspxsummer
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 31

]]>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:13:15 GMT2601931Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/office/MemberTagFilms.aspxoffice
Number of films tagged: 168

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 26

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:23 GMT1681726Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/work/MemberTagFilms.aspxwork
Number of films tagged: 26

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 29

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:22 GMT261629Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/real-moments/MemberTagFilms.aspxreal-moments
Number of films tagged: 33

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 36

]]>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:32:48 GMT331536Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/good-time/MemberTagFilms.aspxgood-time
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 19

]]>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:25:11 GMT141419Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/insightful/MemberTagFilms.aspxinsightful
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 32

]]>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:55:15 GMT321232Tag