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

  • Diablo Cody and Her Fempire. Today in Film Bloggery 03/24/09

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

    “When you read a screenplay, it doesn’t come with a picture on the cover,” said Adam Siegel, president of Marc Platt Productions, a producer who is friends with all four women and has worked with all except Ms. Cody. “I know a few beautiful women, but none of them write like Dana, Liz, Lorene or Diablo.”

    The above quote is the best part of a New York Times piece from the weekend that made me throw up a bit in my mouth despite how delicious it is (this happens a lot to me with Mexican food, but rarely Times articles, even those in the Sunday Styles section). I would have used it for the Bloggery earlier, but of course Nikki Finke was more important yesterday. Coincidentally, there’s something about this profile on Diablo Cody and her “Fempire” that relates to the Finke story, at least to how Jeff Wells responded to Kim Masters’ take, claiming that if Finke was a guy she never would have been attacked in such a way.

    Similarly, Cody and Co. wouldn’t be written about if they were men. But more importantly, they probably wouldn’t have been written about if they weren’t such good-looking women. So, while there’s something empowering about this foursome of female screenwriters who each boldly wear an identical necklace with an inscription that reads “**** My Face,” it was quite necessary to include a lot of tantalizing quotes about them seeing each other naked and sometimes being “super porno” like. And of course that double-edged quote from Siegel above. And another condescending (to men and women) bit from the piece’s author, Deborah Schoeneman, describing Elizabeth Meriwether (scribe of the upcoming Friends With Benefits) as “a thinking man’s Scarlett Johansson.”

    If you recall, some had believed Cody only won so many awards from critics and peers because of what she looks like (and the profession she used to have). So, perhaps Oscar nominations should have also gone to Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist and What Happens in Vegas? Related, would this article have been as interesting if the “Fempire” included Cody’s less-hot Oscar competitors Tamara Jenkins and Nancy Oliver?

    More reactions to the piece from others from the last few days after the jump:

    • First of all, kudos to Vulture for being the first to find out what those necklaces say.
    • And secondly, kudos to Ryan Tate at Defamer for pointing out that “the photogenic, novelist author of the Times piece would fit snugly into such a project.”
    • Melissa Silverstein at Women & Hollywood is thrilled about the Fempire (which she’d actually already written about last fall), though she does have the same issue with the way the Times piece portrays them:

      Do I wish that the sexuality stuff was not a part of these women’s stories? Sure. Do I wish that the entire beginning of the NY Times piece would have talked about their films instead of what they looked like? Yup. But being a dancer in a strip club is part of Diablo’s backstory and it will never go away. I’m not going to let the sex talk stop me from admiring that these women are friends, real friends, and they are fighting against a difficult culture that does a damn good job of pitting women against each other.

    • On the other side of the fence, The Blotter’s Emily Kaiser sees Cody’s celebration of her past as to blame for the tone of the piece:

      The ladies go on to complain about how they feel pressured to look good all the time… more so than their male counterparts. Perhaps using and flaunting your sexuality and stripper days isn’t the best way to try to have others focus on your work rather than your body?

    • Jossip’s David Hauslaib also sees Cody as worthy of blame, for the whole article’s existence:

      Now, I’m as much for an anti-Apatow antidote as the next girl, but it’s a little bit obvious that the linchpin of these ladies’ coverage comes from Diablo. Would the Times ever run a profile piece on the man who co-wrote Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist? Or, god forbid, What Happens in Vegas (like one of Diablo’s Fempires?) It’s a condescending “Good for you ladies!” item that only got written up because one of the four women is a legitimate household name.

    • Annalee Schafranek of Bitch magazine’s Love/Shove blog is another excited about the Fempire and sees some uplifting parts in the article. She concludes, “In a time where a bro-mantic comedy gets you number two at the box office, I am totally looking forward to the Fempire takeover.”
    • Add Laurie at Bust Blog to the list of people with a positive response to the piece: “it’s about 4 female writers that support each other and are actually doing something for us girls by writing smart and funny scripts for women.”
    • But add Mosa of Super Hella Awesome to the anti-Fempire list:

      Being a woman, I’m all about the empowerment of women, obviously - but there are times when women just make it too easy to not take them seriously…are we really bragging about “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” and “What Happens in Vegas”?

    • “The totally not-condescending article then goes on to compare them to Entourage and the Apatow posse, and it’s all very empowering, because it communicates the message that girls can indeed do many of the things boys can do. *Spice girls pose*,” writes FilmDrunk’s Vince Mancini, who needs to lay off my favorite ’90s pop group, even if he’s right to see a comparison. Cody’s obviously Ginger.
    • Althea at TheFrisky sees another comparison: “The New York Times just cannot quit ‘Sex and the City.’ It seems like the Sunday Style section is always in search of the next Carrie & Co., which resulted in this weekend’s profile…”
    • Ryan Adams of Awards Daily, on the other hand, can’t help but compare the foursome to the parodied version from MadTV, “Sluts and the City.” He shares both that sketch and then nearly apologizes:

      I’d feel bad about posting that, except for this other enlightening slice from the Times about these four “glamorous” writers who “can command seven figures to write a movie that makes it into theaters with big stars.”

      Then came Ms. Meriwether, a successful playwright in New York. Her agent, Cliff Roberts of William Morris, sent her first television pilot, “Sluts” — about a group of recent college graduates who move to New York —


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • ROADSWORTH, SXSW 2009 review.

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

    ROADSWORTH, SXSW 2009 review.

    Peter Gibson is a modest guy in Montreal who didn’t think of himself as an artist when he started spray-painting stencils on the street; he just had inchoate notions about public space and was fueled by a post-9/11 desire to enter what seemed like a new era of discussion — about, seemingly, everything, but never mind; now seemed like the time to get serious. So he took his cardboard stencils out at night, laid them down on the road and spray-painted mischievous additions to Montreal’s roads: turning cross-walks into gigantic shoe-prints or adding zippers to them, even a mysterious “On” button with no obvious function. Non sequiturs were his mode of choice, explicit verbal statements pretty much not on the table. Then he got arrested and was forced to think, seriously, about whether or not he was an artist or just a guy with a weird compulsion.

    At any rate, that’s how Alan Kohl’s zippy documentary Roadsworth: Crossing The Line approaches Gibson; it’s one of the most modest artist profiles I’ve seen, and precisely modesty makes it exciting. Gibson doesn’t have a manifesto; he’s against cars, but he’s not sure what he has to add to that conversation. He allows that maybe his work is “raising questions,” but qualifies with “I guess.” He doesn’t think of his stencils as significant: “This is closer to cartoons than it is to high art,” he offers. (Cue the sputtering of 1,000 outraged comix nerds.) He’s not going to tackle heady theoretical questions, because he doesn’t feel intellectually qualified: “I’ve never read Heidegger or, uh, Kant.” This makes Gibson the perfect artist for that genre of SXSW movies we can’t label anymore: bright and funny, but self-consciously hedging around what he’s doing. (As it happens, it sold out its first screening in the underattended, underpromoted SXGlobal section — shunted off to the 70-seat-capacity Hideout — and got an additional screening. So a hit of sorts. SXSW should do much more to promote this slate, which had uniformly stronger selections than any of the other ones I hit up.)

    I should probably admit I don’t care about art in general and don’t connect to 99% of it; Gibson (or Roadsworth, his artistic nom-de-plume) is said to be Canada’s answer to Banksy, which only matters to me abstractly. But I got a big kick out of Roadsworth, partially because the unassuming Gibson is good company, and partially because Alan Kohl is a jazzy doc director; together, they made me care about stuff out of my normal routine (rut?). I don’t know what they put in Canada’s proverbial water, but whenever I see one of their documentaries (and it’s always at SXSW) it’s a cut above what the American equivalent — talking heads, still shots, blatantly staged meetings, officious titles — would be. Kohl begins at nightfall: the clouds time-lapse away, the streetlights click in sympathy with the score, and then there’s just one man out on the street, laying down his tools while constantly watching for police surveillance. As it happens, the day after Kohl started shooting, Gibson got arrested, and the whole project became a different movie.

    Roadsworth tracks Gibson’s progression from compulsive street annotater by night/waiter by day to professional artist: it’s less interested in what Gibson’s art might signify than what it means to become a pro, which remains a mysterious process to those of us on the outside. While the mechanics of Gibson’s trial — some 53 separate charges of mischief, with a financial penalty (ostensibly for clean-up purposes) attached to each — grind away internally, Gibson has to figure out whether he feels he’s worthy of turning himself into a cause celebre or should just suck up whatever punishment he’s given. He’s invited to France and, for the first time, is forced to work on commission with a deadline; he goes to Amsterdam for the hell of it and gets arrested again. By the time the trial comes around, he’s no longer an unlikely amateur thrust into the spotlight; he’s making a living off the things he had to do illegally to get started.

    Kohl likes to perk up footage by animating Gibson’s work, though sometimes he doesn’t seem to realize he’s undercutting his own points: when the citizens of England’s Ashford roundly revile a line of birds flying down an asphalt road, Gibson has them fly off the road and into the sky, a moment of “magic” (I presume) that doesn’t really fit. But this isn’t just a filmed New Yorker profile: it’s important to see Gibson working in real time. Kohl gets the dramatic proportions exactly right: Gibson chooses not to fight the city but take their deal and get to work on commissions for them. He’s bored by questions about whether or not he’s “sold out,” which people actually ask him with a straight face. Yet for all his unassuming nature, Gibson does eventually raise the questions he wanted to raise, even if he couldn’t quite formulate them at the outset: if you’re an anti-establishment artist, do you have to get arrested to get credibility? When you’re “reclaiming” public space, are you really starting a conversation with the city or just doing it for yourself? If it has to be cleaned up, who pays? And what does it mean to call yourself an “artist,” assuming you’re not a deluded art school kid? Roadsworth tackles all those questions, but it never announces itself as doing so; show, not tell. More (American) documentaries should trust their audiences this much.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • GUEST OF CINDY SHERMAN Review

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

    GUEST OF CINDY SHERMAN Review

    Guest of Cindy Sherman is a dense and fast-paced portrait of one man’s loss of innocence at the hands of his beloved –– at least, as far as “innocence” can be taken as synonymous with “unpunctured ego”, and “beloved” can be taken to refer to the big bad art world in addition to, and perhaps ahead of, the famous photographer namechecked in the title. Co-directed by Tom Donahue and Paul H-O (shortened from Hasegawa-Overacker), the film trails the latter’s self-engineered insinuation (based on a formula of 2 parts brattiness, 1 part careerist ambition) into the social scene surrounding the Soho art scene of the 90s, which eventually took over his own social life when he began a five year romantic relationship with Sherman, which in turn absorbed his personal and professional identity.  The premise alone sounds too navel-gazing by half, but at its best Guest offers H-O’s story as a parable for the universal loss of self that every long-term relationship portends. The film also plays as a kind of easily digestible time capsule of several decades worth of contemporary art, tracking a move towards mass market mania and concurrent, undeniable bleeding of personal idiosyncrasy. Paul H-O enters the story as a party crasher; by the time he exits, it seems there’s no longer a party to crash.

    Blending archival footage into new interviews at a rapid clip and yet taking their time to get to the juicy part of the narrative, Donahue and H-O devote nearly the entire first half of their film to placing both members of the couple in their appropriate historical context. Already an art star when she meets Paul in the early 00’s but seemingly ever ascendant, Sherman began to build notoriety and market cachet with her breakout Untitled Film Stills series, which questioned traditional female roles as dictated/reinforced by Hollywood movies, and which happened to coincide with the emergence of second-wave feminism in the 1970s. She then tread water through the next decade, as the macho boy painters of the age –– Eric Fischl, Robert Longo, Julian Schnabel –– hogged the media spotlight and attracted all the Wall Street cash. When the market fell in 1987, the male artists associated with the boom fell out somewhat out of fashion, and Sherman’s work emerged at the height of her boldness.
    H-O, at one time a mixed-media sculptor whose work was largely influenced by his passion for surfing, joined up with friend and Art in America editor Walter Robinson in the early 90s to produce a semi-regular local cable access show called Gallery Beat, in which the pair filmed each other stumbling into gallery openings, asking pointedly pedestrian questions in a gleeful attempt to deflate pretensions, even as they clearly coasted on charm. In the film, Robinson throws out the label “Beavis and Butthead go to the art world”  to excuse (and appreciate) both the show’s barely-there production values and the duo’s harmless enfant terrible attitude; in archival Gallery Beat footage, Julian Schnabel calls the show “a masturbatory exercise in stupidity.” Schnabel’s somewhat uncreative dis, even as it misses the irony of Gallery Beat, somehow gets its mission exactly right: as one talking head in the film puts it, the art world revolves around “one blow job after another.” In filming its denizens, even in a way that allows for some measure of mocking, the Gallery Beat gang fed into the figurative fellatio.

    By the time he drifted into Sherman’s orbit, Paul H-O had years of experience using his camera as a path to the charming of artists of various degrees of power and prestige, and he’s got the footage to prove it, as when his happenstance flirtation with Tracy Emin becomes the subject of a Gallery Beat episode. Documentation of his relationship with Sherman actually takes up very little screentime in Guest, which seems like a wise move; as with any romance, beyond the moment of consummation Paul and Cindy’s loses some of its appeal. But the most compelling footage in the film documents their courtship, from a couple of gallery run-ins to a series of one-on-one interviews Paul conducted with the famously press-shy artist in her home studio. It’s in the footage of the ostensibly formal interview sessions that we watch them both fall into … something H-O doesn’t break down Sherman’s defenses, exactly — he seems as surprised as we are that she’s letting him in as far as she is. And yet it doesn’t *look* like love, even at the heady outset. The vibe is a classic push-pull, but we never forget that in the pecking order, Paul is a fan and Cindy is a star.

    Paul and Cindy were able to forget that, at least temporarily, but soon enough Gallery Beat starts to fall apart as the art world (which he’s no longer a full-on interloper to, thanks to his girlfriend), becomes more elitist and closed-off to amateur documentation. When he tries to produce a higher-gloss spin-off of Gallery Beat that retains the old show’s cheeky spirit, it’s a massive failure. With no work of his own to stand behind, H-O feels reduced to Sherman’s consort, tagging along increasingly bitterly as she’s being honored at museums and galas, as photographers are nudging him out of pictures. After channeling his feelings of inadequacy into both a one-man one-night-only show and an appearance on his favorite radio show, H-O decides his struggle to assert himself in the shadow of his art star girlfriend is the perfect subject for his next work of art.

    This is where Guest starts to trip over its own meta a bit. Collecting testimony from other second-banana love interests to famous creatives (Elton John’s husband, Molly Ringwald’s husband, Eric Fischl’s wife), H-O half-heartedly makes a case that Celebrity Boyfriend Syndrome is an epidemic about which the star watchers of the world should be concerned, and of course in his case, we’re to read a certain poignancy into the irony that his own identity has vanished under the towering presence of a woman who, in her work, takes all pains to hide any genuine identity of her own. But then he and Sherman break up, and H-O’s identity crisis suddenly seems easily solved. He retreats from the art world, surfs, moves on. The film we see him working on within the film seems to resolve in anti-climax.

    But the directors regain the reigns in the clutch. Far more interesting than his personal ups and downs is the way Guest reveals the art world as an increasingly fast churn, one which lures the starry-eyed as ever, but is increasingly efficient at chewing up their dreams and spitting them out. Guest of Cindy Sherman ends with a rumination on how art as commerce has evolved into a ever-higher stakes business in just the couple of decades since H-O took up his first camera. As the co-director/star comments in a final-inning voice over, he’s watched through his prosumer lens as the art sales have expanded from intimate exhibition spaces to giant marketplaces, “critics don’t seem to matter,” and the individual, idiosyncratic artist has seemingly shrunk off into oblivion. Sound familiar? Substitute “artist” for “auteur”, and you’ve got a fair parallel to the film industry.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • WATCHMEN, and The Clothes That Make Them

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

    WATCHMEN, and The Clothes That Make Them

    Watchmen is a film that concerns itself with details that, while not strictly relevant to the narrative, result in a textile world that is remarkably richer and more realistic than recent superhero movies like The Dark Knight and Iron Man. With high regard paid to the nature of costumes, both philosophically and literally, the film and the graphic novel deal intricately with the nature of a “mask” and the relationship a hero has with themselves when in costume.

    In the beginning, there was Hooded Justice. Acknowledged in the graphic novel to have been the first costumed hero, his true identity was never revealed, even to his fellow crime fighters. Behind the all-black costume and decorative noose around his neck is the essential mystery; the allure of fighting crime anonymously, removed from one’s true self. Among the supplementary materials in the graphic novel are excerpts from Hollis Mason’s (the first Nite Owl) Under the Hood. In it, Mason speculates as to the identity of the man “beneath the hood,” establishing the dichotomy between ‘mask’ and ‘man.’

    Dollar Bill, another superhero in the original ‘Minutemen’ team whose fate is linked to the clothes he chooses to wear. The classic superhero cape is his downfall - it gets caught in a revolving door, resulting in his murder by gunfire, glimpsed briefly in the film’s staggering opening montage. Perhaps the most dependent relationship between character and costume is that of the first Silk Spectre, Sally Jupiter (Carla Gugino). In the film, we see her clad in variations of her trademark yellow and black outfit, including a maternity gown and a set of pajamas. She reveals her dependence on the disguise by continually wearing the costume, whether she’s stopping crooks on the street or arguing with her husband at home.

    Legacy of legs.

    In the 1970s, Sally’s daughter Laurie (Malin Akerman) has inherited both the mantle and color scheme of her mother, updating the look from classic pin-up to fetishistic leather and latex. Despite Laurie’s seeming unwillingness to embrace her past, she still shows up at the home of Dan Drieberg/Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) with her outfit packed, because … you never know. Simultaneously embracing the legacy of “the look” and making it her own, Laurie’s dependence upon her costume is brought to a head during a dream sequence where the soon-to-be-lovers stand naked before one another, only to peel off their “skin” and reveal the costumes within. Later, having sex in Nite Owl’s ship, Laurie leaves her knee- high boots on. Daniel gets completely naked.

    The costumes of both Silk Spectre and Nite Owl are palpably composed of fabric and thread. Zippers are obviously visible on both, a sharp distinction from the cartoonishly unrealistic costumes worn by Tobey Maguire in the Spider-Man films (really, such a costume could never be constructed by a high schooler) or Christian Bale’s body-armor batsuit in the new Batman movies. Dreiberg’s relationship to his costume is made clear when he stands in front of it, naked and sexually impotent, lamenting that he is tired of “needing” to wear it. The slick, robust Nite Owl costume, zippers and all, does indeed seem an improvement over Drieberg’s usual outfit of rumpled corduroy blazers, knit ties and oversize sweaters.

    Zippers.

    Dreiberg’s “street clothes” recalled another recent, fully-realized beacon of cinematic loneliness – Joaquin Phoenix’s Leonard in Two Lovers. Both men are characterized by a distinct abundance of blandness: clothes that have been picked for their practicality as opposed to quality. Browns and grays permeate the wardrobes of both men — Daniel and Leonard are stuck at some point in the past, beyond which neither their conscience or their clothes ever progressed. Both have a child’s idea of what it means to “dress like an adult.”


    Of course, no character has a relationship to their mask quite like Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who goes so far as to refer to his mask as his “face.” Rorshach’s mask feels so real and textured, you almost want to reach out and touch it. The bumps and imperfections in the fabric, the worn out patches -– it’s in staggering contrast to the false plasticity of Spider-Man’s mask. Rorschach’s trench coat and fedora could be bought at Sears. Dreiberg’s ties and jackets can be found in the closet of any vintage connoisseur, or lonely Jewish boy from Brighton Beach. Silk Spectre’s costume (mother or daughter) could be found in the closet of any fetishist from the 1950s to the present.

    The only real “super being” in the picture, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) is also the only character to forsake the false sense of security playing dress up affords his colleagues. Detailed in the novel, and reduced drastically in the film, is Manhattan’s eventual shift from wearing a leotard to trunks, to full nudity. The more in touch with the elements and inner working of the universe Manhattan becomes, the less emphasis he puts on the superficiality of outward appearances, the implication being that Dr. Manhattan, and he alone, has distilled day-to-day existence to its true essence, and this does not involve a costume or a mask.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog