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

  • Chelsea On The Rocks NY Debut No Longer On

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

    Anthology Film Archives regretfully announces that it will not be able to open the new feature CHELSEA ON THE ROCKS for its premiere engagement, which had been scheduled to screen daily from March 20 to 26. Anthology has been informed that the distributor with whom it booked the film, Empire Film Group / Hannover House, has decided not to, or is unable to, follow through on its plans to represent the film. The producers have thus canceled the engagement despite the prior commitment for the NY Theatrical Premiere which was announced by Anthology. Citing contractual reasons, the producers have declined to honor this commitment.

    An (all-too-rare) Reeler post informs us that Abel Ferrara’s Chelsea Hotel documentary Chelsea on the Rocks, which we covered at Cannes, has been pulled from its planned one week run at Anthology Film Archives later this month.

    What could they mean by “contractual obligations”? A “misplaced” (or more likely, never obtained) release? Complaints from the people behind the hotel itself, which was in the middle of a management change while Ferrara was filming in 2007? Condiering Chelsea’s relative lack of freshness, we’ll assume it’s not the same kind of contractual obligation that AFI Dallas’ John Wildman blogged about today, the kind that causes a film to drop out of one festival so it an play another … although it is interesting that the Ferrara news comes within 24 hours of Wildman going public about a film dropping out of his festival so it can play Tribeca. In any case, we’ll keep our ears open…


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Waiting On That Avatar Trailer. Today in Film Bloggery 03/10/09

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

    Aliens  (1986)

    Titanic  (1997)

    Watchmen  (2009)

    Avatar  (2009)

    With all the blockbuster movie trailers that debuted last week (they were officially released to be placed ahead of Watchmen), were you surprised not to see one for James Cameron’s Avatar? I wasn’t, but that’s because the to-be-groundbreaking 3-D sci-fi film won’t be released until this fall, and I’m expecting to see very little from it until at least midsummer. Well, it turns out that the main reason we didn’t see a trailer isn’t because it’s so early in the year; rather, it’s (rumored to be) because Cameron apparently can’t decide on how to market the thing. He’s supposedly passed on eight attempts at a trailer and is now at work on his own cut.

    Here’s my idea: show as little as possible. You’re James Cameron and you haven’t given us a feature film in 12 years. And this one’s a return to outer-space sci-fi, not another sappy romantic disaster film. You really don’t need to show one second of footage. Because we’ll be there no matter what.

    However you do it, though, as a result of this rumor you have to give us something. The geeks are restless:

    • “Hate to say this, but now the anticipation and expectation is greater for AVATAR’s trailer than many MOVIES!” claims the rumor’s source, Jim Dorey of MarketSaw.
    • Liam at Filmonic agrees that the delay is only building us up more:

      Getting to see our first look at Avatar in trailer form has been a desire of mine (and probably lots of other people) for the past year. The cast and crew have been hyping this thing up like crazy, and when the technology is described as 20x more advanced than what we have today I want my retinas to get a glimpse of that ASAP!

    • Coming to Cameron’s defense a bit is Ryan Parsons at CanMag: “With the years of hype around Avatar it comes as no surprise that James Cameron wants everything to be perfect.”
    • “We can only assume,” writes Mark Graham at Vulture, “that it’s pretty difficult to make this boring plot treatment seem interesting: ‘Follow an ex-marine as he is thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.’”
    • Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture wonders if there is truth to the “news” or if it even matters: “Is rejecting eight different trailers really such a big deal? I doubt that the studios keep statistics on this sort of thing, but I’m guessing that if there’s a record for most rejected trailers, David Fincher still has Cameron beat by a mile.”
    • Rod at The Playlist sarcastically hints that it’s not simply Cameron being a perfectionist so much as the eight trailers sucking so much: “Poor guy, it’s hard to find good help these days.”
    • In lieu of a trailer, at least some blogs are handing out descriptions of clips they haven’t yet seen. I won’t bother quoting spoilers, but here’s an interesting bit of info from io9’s Charlie Jane Anders: “MarketSaw’s source says Avatar is ‘like Aliens, but from the POV of the Aliens.’”
    • IGN’s Jim Vejvoda gives us more reason not to worry about the trailer, because he passes on word that in about a year from now, we’ll be able to watch Avatar on 3-D Blu-ray!

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 10 Defenses for Howard the Duck

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

    10 Defenses for Howard the Duck

    If you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation.

    For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so.



    1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production

    Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point…




    2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant

    Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens).




    3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI

    Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful.




    4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy

    Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds.




    5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord

    Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner.




    6. The Diner Scene

    Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever.




    7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler

    I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever.




    8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack

    Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score.




    9. It’s For Kids

    Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to.




    10. It’s Not Redundant

    Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles).

    Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu:


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 5 Comic Strips That Should Never Be Turned Into Movies

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

    5 Comic Strips That Should Never Be Turned Into Movies

    Last Friday, Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Fox will bring the comic strip Marmaduke to the big screen. One the one hand, this is baffling. The comic, a series of crudely rendered half-jokes, makes very little sense, and has no story whatsoever. The fact that Marmaduke is a mischievous great dane barely even qualifies as a premise. On the other hand, studios have sunk massive amounts of money into comic strip movies like Garfield and Dennis the Menace, and money-making dog movies like Marley & Me, which has earned $166 million worldwide since its Christmas ‘08 release.

    So Marmaduke might make economic sense, but it makes little sense otherwise. The green-lighting of this project is a peek into the bizarre minds of studio executives. If movies like Wall-E and the Harry Potter series bring home the bacon and earn critical acclaim, why empty the coffers for family tent-pole movies based on the crappiest of source material available? I have a theory. Just as Zack Snyder was goaded on by the allegedly “unfilmable” quality of the Watchmen graphic novel, the executives at Fox must see the production of a Marmaduke film as an act of artistic defiance. Let’s turn and unreadable comic into an unwatchable movie, they say, and laugh all the way to the bank when it destroys the competition at the box office!

    In that vein, I challenge the major studios to make the following comic strips into movies, just to see if people will pay to see the resulting crap. If they should choose to accept this challenge, may God help us all.


    Family Circus

    Bil Keane’s gentile tales of misspoken children and familial bliss have graced the funny pages for decades. They are never funny. At best, the panels hint at a vague Kids Say The Darndest Things kind of cuteness. At worst, they are astoundingly bland statements about how families are generally a good thing. In some ways, a Family Circus movie would be a safer bet than Marmaduke, due to better brand recognition. On second thought, the lack of a slobbering, CGI dog would be a strike against its box office chances.

    How it could actually work: Family Circus’s dopey simplicity and complete lack of self-awareness has made it the ideal fodder for parody. So far this has mostly existed on the internet, a few examples being Dysfunctional Family Circus, Scott Meets Family Circus, and the hilariously overwrought fake reviews that appeared on Amazon a few years ago. Of course Keane would never allow a vulgar distortion of his work to be made into a movie. If a straight-laced movie were made, however, I’m sure we could look forward to hilarious home-brew commentary tracks and endless trailer mash-ups.


    Cathy

    Cathy is a long-running strip about a woman dealing with “the four basic guilt groups,” defined by the strip’s creator, Cathy Guisewite, as Food, Love, Mom, and Work. For most of the comic’s runtime, it chronicled the foibles of being a single woman in the modern world. GoComics.com sums up the strip by saying, “She personifies the young career woman and her typical daily obstacles. Ice cream, panic attacks, stress and love are all in a day’s work.” But alas, Cathy and longtime boyfriend Irving were married in 2004. The wacky hi-jinks continue, however, now with biting commentary on modern relationships, i.e., “AAAACK! Men like iPods!”

    How it could actually work: While there would be something incredible about watching a frizzy-haried Renée Zellweger arguing with her mom and trying to resist the temptation of fudge for ninety minutes, there’s really only one way a Cathy movie could succeed. Two words: Andy Samberg.

    Hagar the Horrible

    A comic about a viking would seem to be ripe for a big-screen, action-packed film adaptation, except for the fact that the comic is mostly about Hagar bickering with his wife Helga and his hapless lieutenant, Lucky Eddie. The movie would be the perfect chance for Brendan Gleeson to squander his first leading role in a big-budget picture.

    How it could actually work: The world is hungry for a good viking movie, and Hagar the Horrible could provide the brand recognition needed. If Pirates of the Caribbean was able to build an entertaining and financially successful franchise from an amusement park ride, I don’t see why Haggar couldn’t do the same. A few things would be key: First of all, it has to be pretty violent, a PG-13 rating would be best. Also, the film would have to really delve into Hagar and Helga’s tense gender conflicts, which the comic only hints at. How does Hagar behave on long trips away from his overbearing wife, as his men rape and pillage?


    The Lockhorns

    There’s no way around it: a Lockhorns movie would be soul-crushingly depressing. The single panel comic satires marriage, showing the various squabbles of middle-aged couple Leroy and Loretta. While some optimistic fan has injected the Lockhorns‘ Wikipedia page with this ray of sunshine –– “Leroy and Loretta show how foolish it is to be unkind to the people we love” –– I don’t buy it. The comic is clearly about the inevitable misery of long-term relationships, and the futility of trying to find something better. Why don’t they get a divorce? They’ve covered that, it’s too expensive. Ugh.

    How it could actually work: In order to avoid making millions of children cry, the movie would have to spurn the young audience usually associated with comic strip movies. The Lockhorns could work as a dark comedy, with a heavy dose of gut-punching drama. It would delve into the relationship in the least sexy way possible, exposing layer after calloused layer. While I’d like to say that they learn to truly love one another in the end, that wouldn’t be true to the source material. The film would end with the two slowly drifting off to sleep on opposite ends of the couch after yet another petty argument, utterly resigned to their shared fate.


    Calvin and Hobbes

    Calvin and Hobbes is the Watchmen of comic strips, except more people have actually read it. The tales of mischievous young Calvin and his toy tiger Hobbes are the definitive love letter to the imagination for an entire generation. This comic makes the list not because it’s dopey and unfunny like the others, rather, it’s here because it’s so good. A movie of Calvin and Hobbes would almost certainly be a total disaster, bitterly offending millions. Why, you ask? Calvin and Hobbes is one of those comics where the genius is in the details. There’s nothing particularly interesting about a boy who pretends his toy tiger is alive. But Bill Watterson wrote a chemistry between the two that could not be replicated in another medium, or by another artist.

    How it could actually work: The only way a Calvin and Hobbes movie could possibly work is if they did it in the same way they did the Charlie Brown Specials. They would need to do a traditional hand-drawn animation, replicating the look of comic as much as possible. The voices would be hard to nail, but it would be doable. If the movie had too much of a plot, it would feel forced. Instead, it would follow Calvin and Hobbes through a series of small adventures: sledding, killing time in the back yard on a Saturday, making fun of Susie Derkins, all while making smart observations about life. The most important element of a successful Calvin and Hobbes movie would be this: Bill Watterson gets final cut.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • BOMBER. SXSW Preview.

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

    Bomber  (2009)

    BOMBER. SXSW Preview.

    Screening in Narrative Competition at SXSW, Paul Cotter’s Bomber is a family roadtrip comedy about a “lovelorn and useless” adult son who agrees to drive his father to the village in Germany that he accidentally bombed during World War II. Below the jump, Cotter answers The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone, with thoughts on Kurosawa and Kieslowski, working with actors and non-actors, and the politics of festivals. The trailer’s down there, too.

    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.

    Bomber’s a bittersweet comedy about an 83 year old man who goes back to Germany to apologise to a village he accidentally bombed during the war.

    I grew the film from ground up, convincing a group of 10 people to come with me to Germany for a month to make a film.  Three of them were English actors.  Almost everyone else who acts in the film is a real person.  From in and around the village we shot in.

    I made it because I’ve done 5 shorts that had given me the confidence to go for something bigger.  I just needed to get my feet wet with making a feature.  No one was going to help me make it, so i just made it myself.

    I find it hard to do the reductive cross reference thing.  Anything I compare it to just makes me feel not worthy.  I think other people might be better placed to say what it is.  What I can tell you is that  I’m very influenced by Kurosawa, Ashby, Payne, Kieslowski and Polanksi… so maybe a bit of their stuff creeps into my work.  Maybe.

    Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it.

    Considering I haven’t worked in 12 months apart from on Bomber… that’s a hard one to say with any accuracy.  I’ve saved like crazy for the past few years to give me the breathing space to do this.  Last job I did was to write a radio play for the BBC.  That was my first, so hopefully I’ll get more.

    Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin?

    No.  Never.  I had a short film in the festival last year, but I was delivering the radio play, so I couldn’t come.  This will be my first time.

    Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature?

    Ikiru (aka “Living”) by Akira Kurosawa.  This is the greatest film I’ve ever watched, and I never tire of seeing it.  It’s so small, yet so big.  A tiny film about a clerk in a city municipal office who is dying of cancer.  It is small in where the plot goes, but massive in where it takes you as a human being.  If I could ever get close to what Kurosawa did in that film, I would die a happy man.

    The second film would be harder to say.  Kieslowski’s Dekalog maybe, because there’s a lot in there, but that’s kind of a depressing collection isn’t it.  So maybe “Zulu” because it’s a mindless war film with lots of bright colours and that might cheer me up - especially if I’m about to get executed.

    There’s been some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?)

    I read this article and it’s a hard one for me to judge, as I don’t know SXSW that well.  I can tell you this.  I made 5 short films over the past 5 years and entered all of them into SXSW.  The first 4 were rejected and the final one was accepted, by Matt Dentler, last year.  This year I entered my first feature, and Janet Pierson accepted it.

    I do know some of the filmmakers mentioned because we’ve met each other on the festival circuit.  The Duplass Brothers, Joe Swanberg - they are stellar guys.   Really good people.  And inspirational too.  Making an independent feature is such a massive undertaking, and these guys are nothing but supportive.  You can call them and they share tips, lend you knowledge.  Even lend you gear.  I’ve found some really good allies, but whether that extends to getting you into festivals, I’m not sure.  Festivals are a funny old beast.  I’ve played a lot of them with my shorts, but what people don’t see is the ones you get rejected from.  I’d say for every one I’ve been accepted into, I’ve been rejected by four.  But that’s okay.  That’s just the way it is.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • BROCK ENRIGHT: GOOD TIMES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. SXSW Preview

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

    BROCK ENRIGHT: GOOD TIMES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. SXSW Preview

    Jody Lee Lipes, cinematographer of Antonio CamposAfterschool, makes his feature length directorial debut with the SXSW Emerging Visions selection Brock Enright: Good Times Will Never Be the Same, a beautifully shot doc about an artist struggling to maintain a somewhat normal domestic relationship while producing a half-baked, largely inscrutable but still vaguely offensive installation for a New York gallery. Below the jump, check out the film’s trailer, as well as Lipes’ answers to The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone.

    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.

    Brock Enright: Good Times Will Never Be The Same is like Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse meets American Movie. It’s a verite love story about the emerging artist Brock Enright, and his girlfriend Kirsten Deirup trying to put together the most significant gallery show of his career, and hold onto each other, the family, and the gallery in the process.  The fact that it’s about an artist is secondary, it’s really about someone striving to make it, and how his blind dedication to craft affects the people around him.

    Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it.

    My day job is cinematography, so I don’t have an occupation outside the film industry. I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to support myself as a shooter since I finished college, and in the process I’ve had the opportunity to really develop my sensibilities and learn a lot from everyone I’ve collaborated with over the last 8 or 9 years, including this film’s producer, Kyle Martin, and editor, Lance Edmands who were both in my class at NYU.

    Being a cameraman can be a little stifling to me at times, but I genuinely feel that I’ve been able to find my own voice because of it, and for that reason Brock Enright: Good Times Will Never Be The Same doesn’t feel like a first time director’s work to me.

    Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin ?

    I haven’t been to SXSW film before, so this is a pretty great introduction.  It’s our world premiere for the Brock Enright film, and another narrative feature that I shot called Afterschool, which premiered at Cannes ‘08, is screening as well.

    I’m really looking forward to watching Brock deal with the audience after the film screens, he’s one of the most charismatic human beings I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, and I have a feeling he will defy people’s expectations.

    Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature?

    My death row double feature would definitely be Barry Lyndon followed by My Cousin Vinny.

    There’s been some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?)

    I don’t consider myself part of the SXSW scene, but there are people that have been very supportive of my project, and really gone above and beyond the call of duty to urge programmers all over the world to watch my film.  However, I don’t know what good that does unless the work is on par with the festival’s standards, and program.  I look at the documentary films included in SXSW this year, and I’m honored to be a part of the team in any way shape or form. To me that means nobody is getting in just cause they are fucking someone; the work has to be good.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog