World's Fastest Indian

A recent interview with Anthony Hopkins by Charlie Rose revealed the well known actor to be a most humble and down to earth individual, which I found to be rather surprising. I suppose I always assumed him to be one to look down his nose at us commoners, what with his title and all. But the in the interview last night, I saw him to be a pretty likeable fellow.

The interview with Rose was prompted by Hopkins’ recent role in the forthcoming ‘The World’s Fastest Indian’ – a film which dramatizes the real life story of Burt Monroe, a retired New Zealander who set the land-speed world record at Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats in 1967 on a souped-up 1920 Indian Motorcycle.

In the interview, Hopkins relates something that Katharine Hepburn said to him about acting. She said, “Just say your lines. Don’t act.” He believes that the great performances one sees are just that – saying the lines as though for the first time, and not (over)acting the part.

In his role as Burt Monroe, Hopkins seems to be following Hepburn’s advice, for he falls right into the role, and we feel as though we are seeing real events unfold before us. Onscreen we see Burt Monroe, not Sir Anthony Hopkins playing Burt Monroe. In one telling scene, the people around Burt don’t want him to go ahead with his daredevil plan, to which he replies, “After all, it’s my bloody life, isn’t it? (They) want me to crawl in some corner and die. Well, Burt Monroe is not ready for that!”

Fans of Anthony Hopkins will love this film, and I think everyone else will be pleasantly surprised.

Breakfast with Cillian Murphy

Be on the lookout for Soren Anderson’s review of the new film 'Breakfast on Pluto.' A special piece will run in Friday’s News Tribune - an interview with prolific Irish actor Cillian Murphy, who makes the switch from the scary Scarecrow in Batman Begins to an Irish cabaret-singing transvestite. I’m tempted to say something funny about St. Patrick’s day, but I don’t want any trouble with the Irish.

Cache - European mystery/thriller

This film made me mad. Really mad. Mad enough to do a lot of research, and then to completely change my mind. Here’s the deal with Cache–

I will not spoil it by getting too detailed, but basically the plot follows a couple, played very well by Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil. They are being watched by someone who videotapes their home, leaves the videos and weird scary drawings for them to find, and basically starts to really freak them out. Auteuil’s character, George, starts to remember things that he wishes he could keep hidden from himself, and the tension mounts…

My first thought was that David Lynch already did this film, but I suppose that is not a fair assessment. I have spoken to many who really liked the film, and it has won several awards in Europe: Cannes Best Director, European Film Awards Best Actor, Director, Editor and Best Film.

What bothered me about the film, and perhaps closed me off from really getting into it was the fact that an animal is killed during the course of the story, on-screen. I have always felt that animal abuse has no place in art and film, especially since it can be faked. We don’t actually shoot people in a western, so why should we hurt animals? (who didn’t sign up for this)

Well, as far as I can tell from my research and speaking with others who saw the film, the scene with the animal was faked and is a special effect, and is used on purpose to provoke your anger as a metaphor for the apathy and violence towards ethnic minorities. As soon as I found that out, I was and am no longer mad at Cache. I think I have also learned to keep an open mind until I have all the facts. (How many times have I learned that one?) And without slamming people with my own beliefs about respecting our fellow creatures on Earth, here is some info about animals and filmmaking, for those who are interested:

www.americanhumane.org

We are looking forward to playing Cache sometime soon, and you shall have your own opportunity to see if you agree with those who have been intrigued by the film’s mystery and elevated psychological tension.

Sci-fi Short Film Festival

Hey Sci-fi fans, I just found out about this – check it out -

First Annual Science Fiction Short Film Festival 2006
Saturday. Feb 4th 2006 at the Cinerama in Seattle (2100 4th Ave)

First session 4-6pm; second session 7-9pm

Here’s some details:

Twenty original short films will be showcased in competition to win a development pitch with the SCI FI Channel. The films in competition represent a diverse slice of experience, budget and nationality, with locally produced and other American-made films competing against international entries.

More info at: www.sfhomeworld.org

There is nothing like a dream to create the future.
Utopia to-day, flesh and blood tomorrow.
- Victor Hugo

The Squid is back!

Back by popular demand is Noah Baumbach's 'The Squid and the Wale.' Yes, we already played this film, so no, you're not having 'remembering problems.' This is a great little film with Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney trying to navigate the troubled waters of their marriage. Oh man I can't believe I just wrote that. terrible.

But the film is great, despite my kitsch description. Writer/Director Baumbach has a distinct style which I think he has just now realized with this film. Echoes of 'Life Aquatic' can be heard in the dialogue of 'Squid,' especially with most of the great lines going to the youngest kid. Baumbach is one of the few writers who can bring what he hears in the script to the screen, and you can feel his presence, as though he is just off camera, mouthing the words along with the actors with each take. I guess that's what makes a film like this work - the obvious love that went into the project.

We might only have this one for a week, so, this is your chance!

Brokeback Mountain

Something about Brokeback Mountain has hit a nerve in the collective American sub-conscious. Some are praising the film and are overjoyed to see an aspect of their lives revealed in a way which is respectful and informed. Susanne Salkind of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group: "The more people who are exposed to authentic stories about our lives, the more support we'll get throughout the fabric of American culture," (Associated Press)

Others are speaking out against the film, urging theaters to not show it. (I can’t help but think of Clockwork Orange – ban that which scares you.) A megaplex near Salt Lake City pulled the film without explanation last Friday. No explanation is really needed.

Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute, wrote on their website about the film: "It's a mockery of the Western genre embodied by every movie cowboy from John Wayne to Gene Autry to Kevin Costner." (Unfortunately, Mr. Knight doesn’t realize that technically, Brokeback Mountain isn’t a Western. And it’s funny that he mentions John Wayne, what with all the rumors that he was gay).

It seems to me that discussion of a film is a healthy thing, whether one agrees with the film’s message or not. Freedom of speech is good. But keeping people from having the opportunity to make their own decisions is such a decidedly uneducated approach that I don’t even know where to start. So I won’t. Just glad I don’t live in Utah. (Great Utah film: SLC Punk. Best opening scene.)

I suppose I am surprised at the response to Brokeback Mountain because I don’t really see what the big deal is. What I saw was a beautifully shot and superbly acted film about a couple of people who fall in love, and against the odds, try to make it work. Like Romeo and Juliet. Or Heaven. Or Princess Bride. Or any love story ever told.

So, what really bothers the nay-sayers about this film? Is it the cowboy thing? The fact that a man could possibly be gay and not be wearing a pink shirt and speaking with an 80’s valley girl accent? The characters in Brokeback are rough, tough, blue jeans and boots American cowboys. And they’re gay. This seems to be the nerve which has been hit – that the Marlboro Man could be gay. It scares people.

The funny thing is that the theaters and people banning the film are actually advertising for it, because they are making the news and creating even more buzz and interest. It’s too bad for those who are not afforded the opportunity to see this powerful love story, but for those of you who do have the chance, you really ought to see it. I think anyone will be able to relate to the story, even if you’re not a gay cowboy.

Top film of 2005

Ok, so everybody is doing their top ten movie list for last year. I was going to avoid this, just to be a rebel, but a good friend of mine prompted me to at least give my favorite film of the year. So I shall acquiesce and name my #1 film of 2005:

Me and You and Everyone We Know

Now, for anyone who knows (or is) a film student, we always reserve the right to have more than one favorite film. So, also at #1 is:

YES

Oh, and at #1 for comedy is a tie between The Aristocrats and Sarah Silverman : Jesus is Magic. These two are also a tie for the film most likely to embarrass your date.

#1 documentary of the year is Earthling

In the Repo Man category (films about street kids, with a rockin soundtrack): Threat

#1 short: Joe Blow

Which leads me to my #1 film of the year: Broken Flowers

Geisha more than pretty

I have read a few reviews of ‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ which basically describe the film as pretty, but lacking substance. I have to disagree here. What I think has happened is something we have seen in the various fields of art for some time. Cubism, for example, was to a certain degree a reaction to the advent of photography. Why bother to paint something exactly as it is when you can just take a picture? There were other factors of course, but artists like Picasso and Brach were no longer interested in painting lovely, pretty things, and became drawn to what initially appear to be grotesque distortions of the world.
Art that was pretty was for a time looked down upon, as though a serious artist would not lower himself to the mundanity of beautiful brush strokes. Have we perhaps accepted this as a kind of truth in the art world? Paintings which are shocking and raw and “ugly” have more artistic value? It reminds me of Charlize Theron’s Oscar for ‘Monster.’ She is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful and talented actresses, and I wonder how much attention she received because she was made up to be unattractive in the film. She must be doing something right if she is so ugly. Or so it would seem.
I am not at all saying it is wrong to see the artistic value in raw, ‘real,’ even grotesque art: I simply suggest that it is not necessarily so.
‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ is indeed pretty, but I found much more to it than that. It’s like the old saying “Not all that glitters is gold” – indeed, but just because it glitters, doesn’t mean it’s not.