Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Film-Makers’ Cooperative Threatened With Eviction

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Art Radio International renegotiated the terms of its lease of the Clocktower Gallery with MoMA recently, consequently serving subleasers The Film-Maker’s Co-op (FMC) with an eviction notice. Founded nearly 50 years ago, FMC is one of the longest-running distributors of experimental and independent film in the world, its offices operating in the same building since 2000. The organization houses thousands of 16mm prints, many of them unique and irreplaceable including those by Stan Brakhage, Paul Sharits, Carolee Schneeman, Tony Conrad, Hollis Frampton, Jennifer Reeves, Jack Smith, Ken Jacobs, Peggy Ahwesh, Joyce Wieland, Michael Snow, Maya Deren, Marie Menken, Jonas Mekas, Shirley Clarke, Martha Colburn, Leslie Thornton, and literally hundreds of other artists, as well as an invaluable paper archive of letters, program notes and other materials. According to sources moving these fragile prints will take thousands of dollars the Co-op simply can’t afford.

    Art Fag City passes along word that a significant archive devoted to art and experimental film is in danger of becoming homeless. The FMC is petitioning Department of Cultural Affairs Commissioner Kate D. Levin in the hopes she’ll help them either stay in the Clocktower or find a new space (and presumably the resources for the move). More details at the link.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Etta James and Beyonce, Blind Comparison

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cadillac Records  (2008)

    So Etta James doesn’t like Beyonce’s redition of her signature song, “At Last”, and that reminded me that I’ve never linked to Andrew Chan’s piece on Cadillac Records, the only serious appraisal of the film that I saw concurrent with its release. To quote at length, Chan has nothing but praise for Beyonce:

    In the film’s climactic number, Beyoncé seals the deal with her rendition of “I’d Rather Go Blind”…as an actress and a singer, she finds ways to make her interpretation both faithful and fresh. Sung directly to an impossible, already-married love interest, label founder Leonard Chess (Adrien Brody), the performance begins from the point-of-view of the male, gazing at Etta from behind with his puppy-dog eyes. From the start, the pace and phrasing of Beyoncé’s vocals follow Etta’s with surprising fidelity. Then, as the camera inches forward, eventually framing the singer’s face in close-up, the scene builds in intensity, climaxing with a sneer at the corner of her mouth, and a few defiant, gut-wrenching wails. It’s clear her version is not the original’s moan of resignation, but an enactment of all the bitterness and resentment on which Etta James based her take-no-prisoners persona….

    By the time Beyoncé is finished with “I’d Rather Go Blind,” she has achieved what neither Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles nor Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash could manage: a respectful embodiment as well an expansion of a mythic figure. She takes us across a curiously underexplored frontier, where the emotional and physical abandon of an R&B performance becomes both the means and the substance of great melodramatic acting.

    Etta’s version of “I’d Rather Go Blind” is embedded above, and Beyonce’s is down below. Judge for yourself.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • FANBOYS: Will Even Fanboys Say ‘Whatever’?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Fanboys  (2009)

    If you’re a guy who lives in your parent’s basement, writes a movie blog, even vaguely resembles the Comic Book Store Guy’s tumescent mien, and have actually watched one of the Star Wars prequels in the last five years by choice, chances are you’ll probably enjoy Kyle Newman’s long-delayed (and for good reason) Fanboys… If you’re an adult, who refuses (or better yet forgets how) to quote episodes of The Simpsons, chances are you won’t.

    That’s 75 of the 165 words The Playlist devotes to reviewing Fanboys, in a post appropriately titled ‘Fanboys’… Whatever.

    It makes a certain kind of sense that *I* never bothered to see this film (although we did cover its Kevin Spacey-presented screening at Comic-Con last summer) and forgot it was even coming out this week. But I wonder if even the target audience alluded to in that pullquote is still desperate (if they ever were) to see this thing? After all the rigamarole with the Weinsteins and the cancer subplot, and literal years of chatter about it online, is it possible that Fanboys peaked long before it was released?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • PUSH Drama, ARLEN FABER sells to Magnolia

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Arlen Faber  (2009)

    To loosely paraphrase Journey: the Sundance movie deals never end, they go on and on and on and on. As Magnolia announces (via indieWIRE) that they’ve picked up Sundance Narrative Competition title Arlen Faber (starring Jeff Daniels, Lauren Graham and Olivia Thirlby) the biggest deal of the festival is getting infinitely more complicated. We’ve added Faber to our Sundance 2009 deal chart, and have also ammended the purchase price of Humpday. We’ll hold off on ammending the Push entry to reflect Harvey Weinstein’s claims, at least for now.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Harvey Weinstein Pulls on Push. Today in Film Bloggery 02/05/09

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Watchmen  (2009)

    Push  (2009)

    In a turn of events that recalls an infamous Sundance story of yore, Harvey Weinstein is insisting that The Weinstein Co. locked down rights to Push (not that one, the Sundance one) before Lionsgate made its deal. Fortunately for everyone in Park City, this fight waited until after the film festival ended and ol’ Harv was nowhere near making a scene in a restaurant. Instead, the rights tug-of-war is going to the courts (on both coasts), making everyone think this is the indie version of the Watchmen battle and giving the blogs something more interesting than actors’ rants and masquerades to comment on:

    • “Harvey Weinstein constantly pleads poverty on behalf of his The Weinstein Co so that filmmakers will dig into their own wallets for re-shoots that he demands yet won’t fund. But suddenly he’s got big bucks to spend on the nation’s highest priced lawyers,” writes an almost angry Nikki Finke.
    • “Of course what all this points up is just how informal those Sundance negotiations are,” writes Risky Biz Blog, “Back of the envelope, middle of an alley, front of a bar. That’s usually where a lot of these discussions take place. Was there enough of a discussion, or agreement, to give TWC a claim? A judge will decide. We just can’t wait until he does — it’s not everyday the judicial system parses the finer points of a night at the Riverhorse.”
    • indieWIRE received a joint statement from Cinetic Media’s John Sloss and Bart Walker: “We respect Harvey tremendously. In this case he is over-reaching. There was never a deal with The Weinstein Company, there were numerous material unresolved points.”
    • Also at indieWIRE, Eric Kohn discusses the Watchmen parallel: “Push is also a highly anticipated adaptation, one that will also raise the voices of unsatisfied future audience if the fate of its distribution remains in peril. Both movies have pop culture forces enhancing their commercial appeal, although we’re talking about vastly different cultures here: Watchmen has Kevin Smith and Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, among others, while Push will supposedly get boosted by support from Oprah and Tyler Perry.”
    • Vulture points out that, unlike Watchmen, Push is a film that won’t make a lot of money. Referencing yesterday’s NY Times piece on its marketing challenges, they have this bit of snarky inquiry: “Which studio will win the right to distribute Push in like, five theaters? How much additional money will the film lose now that its budget might include a protracted legal battle? Also, who owns the sequel rights?”
    • Also on the marketing issue, The Playlist simply says, “Maybe Weinstein should just count his blessings and cut n’ run.” Seriously, he doesn’t need another flop and this isn’t a guaranteed film.
    • Defamer also references the Times piece, but argues in favor of its box office appeal: “this film is poised to hit its key money demographic: not black audiences, but women. There’s no way this film won’t be enormously talked about in the press, and Mo’Nique is a sure frontrunner for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, which ensures that the film will stay in the public eye long enough to far exceed some industry watchers’ expectations.”
    • Sticking to the “urban” demographic stance, David Poland notes that Push is better off with Lionsgate than TWC: “Unlike Lionsgate, TWC is NOT a company with a strong history of releasing films for black audiences. On the other hand, they now have Tom Ortenberg, who was probably drooling at the opportunity to top Lionsgate with TWC’s first real urban film.”
    • Finally, Cinematical’s Peter Martin asks the big question: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Harvey Weintein was actually fighting to get the rights solely because he thought he could mastermind a better release than Oprah, Tyler Perry, and Lionsgate?”

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • HE’S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU Review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Having seen the trailer for the Ken Kwapis’ cast-of-a-thousand stars self help book dramatization He’s Just Not That Into You many, many times (I watch a lot of SoapNET, Lifetime and, uh, MSNBC), I felt reasonably certain going in that I knew exactly what kind of film it was going to be: a wacky, light romantic comedy of mating manners, set in an alternate universe in which otherwise cosmopolitan adults can’t figure out how to use MySpace, and in which all normal and abnormal interpersonal neuroses and difficulties with intimacy are transposed into total paralysis over text messaging. I hope that someday soon, someone in Hollywood makes the film that He’s Not That Into You Was advertised as, because that’s sounds like the exact kind of science fiction that I really enjoy. But He’s Not That Into You is definitely not that film. The question is: what the hell is it?

    That Into You fails to fit neatly into assumptions bred by its advertising and its genre makes it somewhat more interesting, if only because it forces us to contend with it what our expectations actually are when we go to see a romantic comedy, and what it would actually mean to subvert them. Screenwriters Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein seem to be very aware of contemporary romantic comedy conventions, as well as a certain tradition of final inning moral clean-up that dates back to the very earliest examples of the genre produced under the Hayes Code. But they have no interest in depriving a mass audience of the crack hit of cinematic junk food that they were promised by the promos. The film’s ultimate willingness to pander to expectation may make it a disappointment on a critical level, but I’m not sure making the audience conscious of the way their guilty pleasure works before giving it to them is something for which the filmmakers should be reprimanded.


    The underlying theoretical tenet of Into You is that women spend their whole lives in a state of wishful delusion, and that this is largely the fault of other women. Mothers and teachers tell us before we can read that boys who hit us and pick on us actually love us. In adult female friendships, we’re generally too polite (and/or scared) to puncture a friend’s “but don’t you think he’ll call?” fantasies when we know her phone isn’t going to ring. These universal anxieties are channeled on screen by a young copywriter named Gigi, played by Ginnifer Goodwin. Like many young women, Gigi is so concerned with the minutia of “signs”, the nonexistent meaning that she reads into a man’s every gesture and inflection, that though she’s constantly worked up into a frenzy over one potential love or another, she’s completely out of touch with what it feels like to … feel.

    So far, so good! But then, whilst stalking a blind date who never called, Gigi meets a bartender (Justin Long) who tells her that everything she thinks she knows about men is wrong. And then Gigi’s 40-something coworker (Jennifer Aniston) breaks up with her boyfriend because he says he doesn’t believe in marriage. And then her other 40-something coworker (Jennifer Connelly) becomes obsessed with the idea that her dudely husband (Bradley Cooper) has been secretly smoking, yet is oblivious to the fact that he’s actually been secretly sleeping with an unabashed temptress (Scarlett Johannsson), whose seduction of the married man has been encouraged by her hippie-flower friend (Drew Barrymore), who also helps the mistress fend off the advances of the guy who plays the manager on Entourage, who is also the blind date that our original heroine was moved to stalk. I’m fairly certain there are seven or eight other stars that I’m forgetting who are also tangled in this web of sexual intrigue, but the only one I remember is Luis Guzman, who has one very funny scene, and who doesn’t have sex with anyone (unfortunately). Though not more than two hours, Into You feels twice as long, even as plotlines have clearly been truncated and scenes redacted in the interest of brevity.

    It must be said that in illustrating these tangles, Into You is tougher, slower, less interested in easy laughs and much more patiently talky than you’d expect it to be, and even when that “talk” reads clearly as lines straight off the self-help page, the film’s unflinching attention to paranoia and misery is, in its way, refreshing.

    But it might be easier to take Into You seriously as a sincere statement on contemporary life and dating rituals if it wasn’t so hard to confuse its imagery with a “Stars — they’re just like US!” spread in US Weekly. There are so many celebrities in this thing that it’s impossible to think of the celestial presences on screen as characters; either each actor has been cast with laser-guided precision for what they best bring, or else there is no acting in this picture whatsoever. And in the case of some of the actors, there’s such a blurring between certain aspects of the character and certain aspects of the persona of the star who plays them, that it almost has to be intentional.

    Most glaringly: Jennifer Aniston steps out of a Lonely Jen spread and into a plot that has her walking away from her boyfriend of seven years (Ben Affleck, full of the moldability, desperation to please yet reticence to marry that the tabloids would have us believe marked his relationship with Jennifer Lopez). Aniston’s character eventually, improbably gets her happy ending in the final reel, but the bulk of the film is about watching her be alone and miserable while everyone around her tells her there’s something wrong with her because she’s not married. Whatever kind of pleasure it is that people get from consuming that tabloid image of a terminally unlucky-in-love Jennifer Aniston, that pleasure is pumped directly into this film.

    In fact, throughout Into You, the pleasures offered are not conventionally pleasurable at all. We’ve been talking quite a bit lately about comedies of uncomfortability — films which don’t seek to provoke laughs through “jokes” or traditional laugh lines as much as they seek to provoke squirming, and laughter comes as a by-product of the squirms. Instead of laugh lines, Into You has gasp lines –– scenes continually build up to a narrative revelation or statement of raw honesty that seem designed to elicit an audible intake of air from the audience –– and the laughs come as a by-product of the gasps. Sometimes, as in a scene where Jennifer Connolly’s repressed anger over her husband’s affair comes to the surface, Into You will strain for absolute seriousness for a genuinely uncomfortable length of time, and then break the mood with a single joke, in a “just playin’” concession to the audience.

    But there’s no greater audience concession than those final-reel happy endings. For much of its running time, Into You is very –– how to put it –– European in its attitudes towards sex, infidelity, and commitment, in that it allows people to be people and to make the mistakes that real people realistically make. And for a while, it seems like the point of the thing is to suck you into the tropes of movie love, only to throw those tropes in your face. But in the end, the cheaters and seducers are punished, and anyone who isn’t on a one-way track to an airtight marriage ends up alone. This screwball dramedy –– in which a plucky girl with bobbed, wavy hair talks fast and moves fast and gets her man in the end –– hews to the exact pattern of the post-Code romance of Classical Hollywood, in which the last few minutes of the film would be devoted to restoring the moral social order torn asunder by working women (career girls and girls of the night alike), economic desparation (represented here by Johansson’s character, who lives in a one-room apartment and wears raggy hair extensions and ill-fitting, ripped jeans which are perhaps suppossed to look sexy, but actually make her look like a street urchin), and the torments of the ego.

    Into You, of course, doesn’t go for the last-minute turnaround in order to fit to a censorship code –– although today’s romantic films are so homogenously safe in their vision of morality that the Hayes Office could reopen without incident. No, Into You gives everyone sudden magic rosy endings because it understands who its audience is, and that ultimately, that audience doesn’t come to the movies to get their expectations subverted. They don’t want to think about the way the world works, or the way movies work, while sitting in front of that screen; they come to the movies to sink in the fantasy that It Could Happen To Them. He’s Just Not That Into You is smart for what it is, but it refuses to be condescendingly smarter than the people it exists to please. And that makes it even smarter.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

 


Advertisement