film phlegm

There’s no doubt I am officially done with Web 2.0. However, every time I think I’m done, a new, fun, and amazing site appears out of nowhere…so below is my attempt to categorize my current favorite Web 2.0 sites (with links to my profiles in case you feel so compelled to follow/add/fan/stalk me). I will update this list periodically as I get tired of certain sites and ejaculate over others.

Web 2.0 List (Version 1.0)

1. Facebook (Profile) - Still the champion of Web 2.0 sites, Facebook is using its strength in sheer size, breadth, and numbers to allow other Web 2.0 sites to plug in, which is a compelling proposition since people are sick and tired of having profiles on a bajillion sites and having to log into each to burn inordinate amounts of valuable time doing nothing. Luckily, all the sites I mention below have Facebook applications which allow me to, if not update, then at least view activity on them in one single place. Facebook is also the first Web 2.0 site on which a good majority of my friends, even the technophobes from the middle of Kansas, reside.
2. Twitter (Feed) - The most brilliant and simple concept to hit Web 2.0 since this whole disgusting phenomenon started. It’s essentially a personal RSS feed of my status/random thought/rant at any point in time, easily updatable from a cell phone. Considered by those in the industry a “microblog”, Twitter boasts an update field that is limited to only 140 characters, so you literally can’t write more than 15 words. I think it’s badass…and it plugs directly into my Facebook status message which is ideal.  UPDATE: I use Twitter so much now, I’m sure it’s annoying the crap out of my Facebook friends…so I pulled it from Facebook.
3. GoodReads (Profile) - This site is allowing me to give away all my real books when I’m done reading them. I used to have a sentimental attachment to them, but what I realized is that attachment was purely a display of egotism and self-worth to others. When friends visited my apartment, I wanted them to physically see what I had read and I wanted to be proud of my literary accomplishments. Well, isn’t that what Web 2.0 is about anyway? Everyone claims to keep their books so they can reread them. I call bullshit, asshole. You keep them so you can feel smart around people you’re trying to impress. With GoodReads, I can just point my friends to my profile and they can see how fucking smart I am. It’s also a good place for reviewing the books you’ve read, connecting with your friends and getting their recommendations and providing them with your own. The UI isn’t great, but it’s still the best book review site out there.
4. Yelp (Profile) - Ugh yes I opened a new account with Yelp after deleting my first one. Ugh it’s sucking up my life again. And no, I have not become more reserved the second time around. I’m just as obnoxious and incoherent as I always was. There are many levels on which Yelp succeeds. Unfortunately, as a local review site, which is its primary purpose, it’s not as successful. However, Yelp is a big reason why I’m in this Web 2.0 space and why I’m somewhat enjoying it (I think). It does a great job of providing a local San Francisco venue where I can converse with like-minded intellectuals. I’ve managed to make some amazingly close friends over the past two years and I thank Yelp for that. Unfortunately, it’s been matched by an equal amount of time-sucking frustration. My reviews have become far more useful, and I am enjoying conversing with my closer friends the second time around. If you want to see my frustrations with Yelp, check out my review of it.
5. Tumblr (Blog) - It’s blogging at its simplest. No frills, no crap. It’s a step above the microblogging that is Twitter, but it’s not the rich blogging that you see on Blogger or TypePad. Personally, when I want to jot down a few thoughts and get all philosophical, this is where I like to do it. It’s good for the casual blogger like me. And as we’ve seen in Web 2.0 over and over again, it’s “the simpler, the better” that succeeds.
6. Spout (Filmblog) - Honestly, the UI is total crap. You can tell this site was not created in Silicon Valley. It would drown. Some asshole could come up with a better site from their living room on a weekend (like Pierre Omidyar did with eBay back in 1995). In fact, this site even looks as janky as eBay. But that said, there is NO GOOD WEB 2.0 site for film reviews (one that’s completely user-generated content I mean). So Spout is the best thing we’ve got and I don’t mind it. The conversation threads are fun and interesting. Get that many film buffs in a room and it’s bound to. As a Spout Maven, I’m a part of this elite crew of film buffs that gets a FREE MOVIE every month on DVD which I need to review on the site. They’re lesser known films by smaller, independent production companies which makes it even more fun. For that reason alone, they get a huge thumbs up. I think it’s a brilliant idea.

Under discussion:

American Teen  (2008)

Have you ever been catapulted head first into a brick wall at 150 mph? Now imagine that brick wall was high school, and imagine that catapult was American Teen.

Last night, I was instantly transported back 13 years to my high school days. The nervous tick came back. The pain pulled from the very depths of my innermost, repressed soul came shooting to the surface. I was reminded of my own high school experiences, the same experiences that molded me, the tough love I received from my peers, and the thick skin I developed as a result. But I was also reminded of how unhealthy an environment adolescence can be in the US for those living it.

Nanette Burstein documented the lives of Warsaw, Indiana high school students, immaculately picking out what almost seemed like caricatures of the different types of students we all knew in high school. We follow four main students: the jock, the popular girl, the artsy girl, and the band geek. We become intimately involved in all aspects their high school lives; the pressures they face from their peers, their parents, and their futures. However, these students weren’t caricatures, they were real, dealing with the reality that has become the disgusting state of American teen culture taken from American pop culture and exploited in the worst manner ever in our public schools.

What this film made very clear, is that the state of parenting, of education, of adolescence, of human values is so amazingly warped, that American families have completely lost touch with reality. The things that matter most are the things that should matter least and vice versa. We’ve led such sheltered lives that we forgot what it means to be human, and American Teen documents this reality very well.

I realized that high school was no longer about getting a scholastic education, rather high school has taken on a far larger role of parenting - forcing our kids into the harshest of environments into a sort of “baptism by fire”. Parents have forgotten how to raise kids, and teachers have forgotten how to teach them. The best education a kid is getting in high school is from other kids.

I could pontificate on the deplorable state of American families and American education, but all you need to do is watch this film to realize how scary a state it’s in.

That said, Nanette Burstein did a fantastic job of filming American Teen. There were warmer moments throughout the film, but the dark undercurrent of each of these moments was never swept under the rug, and lingered uncomfortably among the viewers. I feel like this film is like taking medicine, it’s something you hate to do, but you know you have to…if for no other reason than to educate and remind yourself what it means to be young, to be human, to be a parent, and to influence the fragile and vulnerable lives of those around you.

Under discussion:

Solitary Fragments  (2007)

To call this film brilliant would be an understatement.

Few films come out nowadays which attempt to breach the boundaries of the status quo and explore the idea of radical, new filmmaking.

Solitary Fragments is one of those films.  And it inspires on so many levels.  It is a film which excels in subtlety and uses this subtlety to evoke strong, deep emotion out of its viewers.

The plot follows two parallel storylines which share nothing more than a relationship between three characters that live together.  The first storyline is that of a woman, Adela, who leaves her small town life to forget her past and to forge a new future in Madrid with her one-year old son.  The second is that of Ines and her family and the strong, but tense relationship they all share.  Tragedy strikes twice through out the film, once on each storyline, and the characters are forced to pick up the pieces in order to move on with their lives.

The film is a feat in storytelling.  It prides itself on the ability to set aside acting in favor of true emotion and real dialogue using silence, awkwardness, joy, sadness.  I'm not sure I've ever seen a film where I felt like I was sitting in the living room with the characters and sharing their emotions as if I were talking to them directly.  Solitary Fragments accomplishes this better than any film I've seen.

And the basic storytelling is only a small part of it.  It's hard to ignore the many technical innovations the director and editor chose to employ to tell the story further.  The use of multiple cameras to film a single scene and to cut them together simultaneously and splitting the screen was really incredible.  I've never seen anything like it.  There wasn't a single moment of music.  Silence was the film's score.  Finally, there wasn't a single tracking shot or pan throughout the entire film.  The cameras were always stationary (with the exception of the POV shots from within the vehicles, where the vehicles moved, but the camera was still stationary).  Every shot was filmed from a stationary camera and the characters moved in and out of the frame.  I've never seen anything like it before.

It's a film I can only watch once for a myriad of reasons.  But it only takes one viewing to fully appreciate the enormity of such a film.

Under discussion:

2001: A Space Odyssey  (1968)

The Birth of a Nation  (1915)

Citizen Kane  (1941)

The Godfather  (1972)

Star Wars  (1977)

1. YOU CAN'T GIVE MORE THAN 5.  Five is the absolute limit.
2. IMPORTANT means it had a profound impact on the film industry, on art, on social change, on mankind.
   

My choices:

Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith):

The first American epic.  It was longer than any film and invented the "feature-length" film.

The single most controversial American film ever made.  Some credit it with reinvigorating the KKK and inspiring a new wave of racism to take hold in the US.

It proved that film could be as important a social medium as an entertainment medium.

The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola):

No film epitomizes the golden age of American cinema more than this film.

This film pioneered the frontier of American epics and changed the face of American filmmaking on an artistic level, giving American film it's first ever unique look and feel.

Star Wars: A New Hope (George Lucas):

This film redefined the Hollywood genre with groundbreaking special effects, mass appeal.  This was the first American blockbuster.

For better or for worse, this film sent Hollywood into spiraling into the 80s with summer special effects blockbusters driving much of it's annual revenue.

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick):

It was so technologically advanced, it inspired everyone to start looking into their own future with a different light.

Few realize that this film kicked NASA into high gear propelling our space program into the forefront of the Cold War.

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles):

It wasn't just the greatest American film ever made, it was the first American film that proved that film was a legitimate art form and not just an entertainment medium.

Orson Welles was 26 when he made it.  Seriously.  26.

Under discussion:

The Bank Job  (2007)

My expectations were pretty low going in, but I left entertained.  I think what intrigued me more about this film is that it was based on a true story.  The plot was a little more complex than your average bank heist plot because it's based on the fact that by breaking into the safe deposit vault of this bank the villains (as they were often called throughout the film) opened a Pandora's Box of lies, deceit, treachery, politics-gone-bad, bad cops, porn and all the juicy details of the corrupt lifestyles of the rich and famous.

Jason Statham was pretty subdued in this role thankfully.  In fact, he's made it to be quite the James Bond character in this film.  Charisma.  Good Looks.  Intelligent.  Saffron Burrows was stunning.  She did well.  But truth be told, I think I was too taken aback by her amazing beauty.

It was a well-shot film with a more complex plot.  I think there were up to four parties that got incriminated and had a stake in making sure these bank robbers were killed.  Technically, it gave a retro feel at points...but didn't stick as consistently close as I would've expected.  Jason Statham did not look like a 70s bankrobbing villain.  That said...the film does little more than provide filmmaking eye candy, with a light layer of substance on top.

Under discussion:

The Savages  (2007)

Laura Linney can annoy me.  Her attempt at playing a blue collar wife in Mystic River fell flat because she's too refined for that.  She's doing well in John Adams because she's a very plain and simple actress.  However, I really liked her in The Savages because it gave her a chance to push the limits with her personality to make bring to the surface what the average middle-aged, single woman with a dying father would go through.

Philip Seymour Hoffman does a fantastic job as usual playing the self-absorbed older brother who doesn't want to deal with anything because he's got his own personality issues.

The two of them together generated a great on-scene chemistry as brother and sister because they were both subdued and acting more from the heart without the flare that you might see from them in other bigger budget films.  If you were to ask me what made the film, it was this chemistry.

The story was rich.  I wouldn't say it was terribly original, but Tamara Jenkins does an excellent job on the screenplay as well as the direction.  I'm not sure I would see it in the theatre again, as I think independent films, particularly independent family dramas are best enjoyed at home.

Under discussion:

City of God  (2002)

Plot
Many directors and screenwriters have tried to create a gang violence film depicting the lifestyles of youths engaged in these gangs. None of these films light a match to the realism portrayed in this film. Perhaps none of them have tried or meant to try. What few of them fail to depict is the difficulty of youth in being able to escape their fate as slum rats. As they are born into gangs, they fail in trying to escape it. Those that manage to escape it, never really escape. It's the vicious cycle of the rich becoming richer, and the poor becoming poorer. This film portrays it amazingly as we see the children joining these gangs becoming younger and younger.

Mise-en-Scene...
As much of the film takes place in the 70s, the crew does an amazing job of transporting you there. Costumes, lighting, backdrop (all shot on location). I truly felt like I was watching a film made in the 70s. To truly get a feel for things, many of the actors spent much of their time in the slums of Rio De Janeiro to get a real feel for how these people lived. Some of the cast, to my understanding, even grew up there. A thorough amount of research went into replicating the detail of what we see.

Direction...
My favorite aspect of this film. There are many scenes that stand out. I will mention two. The scene where L'il Ze takes over the drug business. It's shot from about 4 different angles and each are edited into the film. The scene at the rave with Bene (won't say anymore). The film gets five stars for these two scenes alone. Other scenes to look out for are the final scene with L'il Ze and one of the more powerful scenes with the two very young children.

City of God is truly one of the best films ever made.