Trying in vain to outdo Waterman by sheer volume, here's....

Film as Counterpoint: The Quandary of Inherent Violence

A Review/Ponderance of Straw Dogs: Criterion Collection by Mike Meyer

I never saw a Sam Peckinpah film before Straw Dogs. All I knew was that his films were more or less a punch line in film history jokes, having raised the bar for gore and violence in films with his ultra-violent western The Wild Bunch. I bought the DVD sight unseen simply because I had a gift certificate and eager to learn more about the man Sam Peckinpah with the Disc 2 documentaries/interviews than the actual film. But the film was as jaw dropping as it was eye opening. My whole face was tired after running through both DVDs within a few short hours.

The film itself is a cautionary tale that explores viewpoints and subject matter usually written off in this day and age. A meek mathematics professor David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) settles in with his visibly sexual wife Amy (Susan George) settle in a small Cornish village. Over the course of the film, it’s established that the professor tries to avoid conflict in every situation. Amy even illustrates that this failure to face conflict is the reason he’s retreated to the village in the first place. Meanwhile, the local village lads take a liking to Mrs. Sumner and begin to pitch woo like the only way they know how…like beasts. Less of a romantic woo, these men do what they can to debase and weaken both the professor and his wife to the point of helplessness, viewing Amy’s sexual abstinence towards them as almost a fight-like physical defensive formed by high society which they have to combat with a matching fight-like offensive, more like akin to conquering an enemy than a mate. As not to spoil the main crux of the film, the constant battle of the Polite Abstinence vs. Violent Release rages on to illustrate very graphically the absolute horrors of absolute abstinence, how it breeds the more violent release, and how a balance must be struck between the two.

What’s absolutely astounding about this film is that it takes the ideals of it’s era (late 60s, early 70s) and turns them on it’s ear, stating that using an across-the-board peace policy prevents real issues from being faced and ultimately breeds more violence, at least in terms of the human being. This idealism is way ahead of its time (or classic idealism, depending on how you look at it) in terms of acknowledging this practical need of the human to experience anger, violence, and most of all healthy necessary confrontation. True to form, the film itself proves it’s point by confronting the audience outright. According to Peckinpah himself, Straw Dogs wasn’t designed for audience empathy. Just the opposite. You were supposed to cringe in horror when David snaps and exacts unwarranted violence on innocent villagers in what the audience knows is the defense of a murderer. He wanted you to experience as vividly as possible that there is nothing glamorous about true violence but confrontation needs to be explored or else more violence is bred. The film accepts the need for confrontation and even the male predilection for violence, sexually and otherwise, as an unavoidable entity, something to be dealt with rather than suppressed. Straw Dogs is also one of the most biting satires I’ve seen. Pekinpah absolutely refuses to wink at the audience to give them a “heads up, we’re being ironic” like even the greatest film satirists of the age can be accused of doing (read: Kubrick).

If the film weren’t enough (or if you just didn’t get it and are appalled), Disc 2 is as enlightening about the film and its father and just fascinating. At the top of the list, the documentary Sam Peckinpah: Man of Iron gives people a look into not only into the mind of a crazed genius but one that helps explain why he made what he made and how we can use his life and work as a way to help understand the modern day Peckinpah’s like Oliver Stone, people who are committed to bringing the ugly truth for the sincere purpose of make the audience say “That WAS ugly!” breeding much more than entertainment, but grimly effective argument through counterpoint.

I know this is very Larry King stream of consciousness of me, but what the hell....Michael Moore's films are not documentaries, they're experiments. Not experimental films, just experiments. Social experiments. They test the world in which they "document" to try and acheive a better understanding of it. They're scientific experiments. The only other movie of late that could be grouped in this category is Jackass The Movie. Done for different purposes but still utilitzing the same mindset and similar methods. Oh yeah, and to those who are trying to revoke Moore's Oscar because of negative portrayal of Charleton Heston and such need to watch the Fox News Network who feel that calling Moore a fatso is hardline objective journalism. News is just as subjective as anything else and lame junior high digs are stark proof of that.

FYI, if you guys are reading that David Wain interview and want to learn more, the sites have changed. Stella's website is www.stellacomedy.com and to get more info on The State, go to www.statemedia.net. All of the Stella shorts are available (and beyond hilarious) on the site and you can also get them on DVD.

The Real Cancun
Review by Jon Waterman

*

Do you love all of that reality TV that’s taking over the airwaves? Do you wish someone would transfer the magic to the big screen? Well, today is your lucky day! Thanks to the creative hands of Bunim & Murray (the tag team that brought you all those wonderful reality shows on MTV), we now have “reality film.” It’s revolutionary. I believe they call it a documentary. Don’t quote me on that, though. Being that this bunch is the first to do it, they can’t do any wrong, but I’ll still dissect this new art form to see what it’s all about.

The concept behind the movie is that sixteen college kids have been handpicked to live in a house down in Cancun during Spring Break. The cameras will then follow their adventures and the audience gets to learn about what this week long vacation actually entails. Being the smart people they are, the casting director found a nice representation of the population. A cross hash. A cornucopia. Let’s see…there’s the partier…the partier…the twin partiers…the partier…skip a few…and the clean cut kid who’s never tasted alcohol before in his life. Just like real life! The real Cancun has nothing else to offer.

From here on out, I’m going to call this movie “Chicks and Beer: The Motion Picture.” It’s a huge advertisement from “The Board of Alcohol is the Best Thing Ever.” No “real” negative repercussions were shown involving it. If you drink, you will have fun and you will be much, much more attractive to the opposite sex. And if you don’t drink, then you are a pansy and you will be a loser for the rest of your life. So, knowing this, the non-drinker starts drinking and I’ll be damned if his life didn’t improve drastically. Suddenly, there are women all around and money to the ceiling (from all the future booze endorsements he’ll do).

Obviously, he was the star of the piece. They focused on him so much so, that a few of the sixteen were practically completely cut out. You never really heard them speak. Too many people were in that house. If they can fill a whole season of television with only seven people, what made them think that 90 minutes should be filled with more than twice as many people? Speaking of the house, did we really need to see an aerial shot of it before every scene that takes place there?

Is there any good in this thing? Sure. It’s hilarious. Not completely on purpose, but it is. There are some sequences that were edited together well and would have brought about some emotion if I actually cared about anyone. However, I couldn’t for the life of me remember what they are, because that’s how memorable this film is. Blech! Special appearance by Snoop Dogg.

Hi, Greg here as the sole remaining link to filmbrats at this years Ebertfest.
Friday peaked early with Haskell Wexler's film MEDIUM COOL. I had never seen
it before nor had I any idea what it was about, but after viewing it I could
not stop stop thinking about it for the rest of the day. I think Ebert likes
to weave mini-themes through his festival on occasion, and both THE GREY
AUTOMOBILE on Thursday and MEDIUM COOL Friday mixed documentary footage with
actors and fictional stories in a way that I do not believe I had encountered
before. Equally as great as the film was Wexler's on-stage conversation with
Roger, which ended up being more like a half hour monologue of thought's
running through the director's head. He made a lot of interesting connections
between the 1968 political climate of his film and the situation we find
ourselves in today. He also emphasized the fact that any film/television
product we consume is a fiction, packaged to send a certain political message,
no matter how real the images are that are being packaged. He built on that
point to criticize the way that films and the media like to create
well-defined good guys and bad guys and allow the good guy to get away with
all kinds of bad deeds because he has received this fantastic sanction, using
Dubya and Saddam as contemporary examples of this phenomenon.
This idea of unrealisticly clear-cut distinctions between good and bad arose
at the panel discussion that morning on women in the film industry. Having had
the opportunity to see several of these discussions over the past few days, I
have realized how artificial these supposedly spontaneous conversations are. I
have seen Sprecher sisters, Jill and Karen, co-writers (and Jill also as
director) of THIRTEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONE THING, showing Saturday night at
the festival, talk in two different situations about their experiences making
films as women. And each time they repeated the same stories, even
interjecting comments in the same places. What felt so specific to the moment
and real the first time was completely flipped the next day. This does make me
upset with them or think they are any less great, because hearing all these
discussion has also made me aware of how many inane questions these people are
forced to acknowledge and to which they must formulate legitimate answers.
Still I think that if I tape recorded every one of these conversations over
the course of the weekend, I could probably edit together several of my own
personal panel discussions made up of the personnel of my choosing and about
whatever topics I liked, and they would probably be pretty close to what the
reality would be. So if I had any idea reinforced today, it is that I should
be skeptical of all media presented to me, whether it be on film or video or
just a group of authorities on a subject communicating in front of an
audience.
As for the rest of the films, I felt that WHAT'S COOKING? was ok, but while I
was entertained and interested in it throughout, I did not ever understand
what made it special enough to be in this festival. I imaging it was also hurt
by having the unenviable position of following not only MEDIUM COOL but also
Haskell Wexler himself. Unfortunately, the director of WHAT'S COOKING?,
Gurinder Chadna, could not make it to the festival, and while Ebert's bringing
his wife Chaz on stage to discuss the film with him was a nice gesture, I do
not feel that the audience gained a whole from the conversation.
I unfortunately had to miss THE BLACK PIRATE with the accompaniment by the
Alloy Orchestra, but those I talked to said that the the trio's performance
with the film was great as always as was the movie itself. If you ever
discover that this group is performing anywhere near you, I would certainly
recommend venturing to check them out. They have made some DVD’s of their
performances, and while those are cool, they obviously cannot replicate live
performance.
I returned to the festival for Bertrand Tavernier's L.627, but unfortunately
it was definitely my least favorite of the film's I have seen thus far. The
movie takes place in Paris and deals with the problems of the drug enforcement
system there. The message I gleaned from the film was that the real criminals
are the dealers, not the users, and that the beauracracy of the system creates
crippling red tape and contributes to laziness on the part of the officers.
Now, I do not really disagree with any of those points, but all the film
seemed to offer a solution was that if the system simply aided the officers in
efficiently targeting the dealers, they would be able to effectively attack
and eradicate the drug problem. This felt far too simplistic to me, especially
when films made in recent years like TRAFFIC more accurately portray the
complexities of the drug situation, calling for more radical changes.
Another aspect of the film that I found troubling was that these cops
constantly targeted black people as the drug dealers when they would attempt
to make their busts. They unashamedly racially profiled and were incredibly
never wrong. They would bust into apartment buildings, flat out ask if any
blacks lived there, and would charge into their apartments to, without fail,
find them in possession of at least a small amount of drugs. Additionally, we
are made to feel sorry throughout the film for a white woman who is an addict,
a prostitute, and HIV positive. The blame for her situation is made to rest
primarily with the drug dealers, who are protrayed as black males, which
obviously contributes to the myth of young black men as threats, especially to
the stereotypical innocent white woman. Now, the disclaimer I must attach to
my opinions of this film is that I was tired as hell throughout the whole
thing and my ride home was intent on leaving before the discussion with
Tavernier, so I do not know if he offered any sort of explanation for this
representation. Admittedly, I did not resist the decision to leave too greatly
at the time as it was late, I was sleepy, and I was pretty turned off by the
film, but in retrospect I wonder if anything valuable was said. So if anyone
out there has seen L.627 and had a different response from mine, I would
really love to hear it. And now I'm off to bed as more movies are less than
seven hours away, be back tomorrow.

Joe here, reporting from Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival. The festival is shaping up nicely, with an amazing surprise coming today in the form of a Benshi performance. This little known (or overlooked, if you want to call it that) Japanese tradition is alive and well in Mexico City, where Benshi is undergoing a revival. Look for it in a town near you. I must sleep in order to prepare for the panel discussions in the morning. Look for more updates tomorrow evening.

Hey Joe. I'm feeling particularly saucy today. Slap this overweight bastard love child up on that review page!

Halloween and Skulls, Yeah!: Why Moving Beyond Your Own Paradigm Isn’t Always the Greatest Thing

A Review/Ponderance of House of 1000 Corpses by Mike Meyer

I recall a conversation I had a few years back with a friend about the differences between Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson, back when both were at least marginally relevant to pop culture. As someone who never really sold into the whole Goth thing even at its peak, I explained that I liked Rob Zombie a lot more just because he has more fun with his material, even if his music maybe isn’t as prolific or at the same level of quality. There wasn’t any anger in Rob’s stuff. It’s all Halloween and ghosts and plastic skulls and neon paint and yelling “yeah!” a lot. Nothing complicated but way more fun that most out there. Plus, he’s a fellow horror and B movie fan so I just ate it up when he’d send up Cabinet of Dr Caligari or Faster, Pussycat, Kill Kill! in his videos. And when I heard he was writing and directing a movie, I knew I’d be the first in line. And years of constant debate over content was like putting a cherry on top…and then adding a few more.

The movie itself was a conceptual feast. The first 5 minutes itself is truly Rob Zombie fun with a beyond hilarious poke at public access horror shows. As a former one of those, I salute him. Then Syd Haig…WOW! Not to say that the dialogue he’s given is Shakespeare (or even the best Rob Zombie is probably capable of) but you cannot deny he has an amazing presence. His B movie fame has only been able to land him a bit cameo part in a Tarantino movie, so let’s hope this performance is the one that wakes the world up. From the title to the very end scene was like unleashing the panache of kitschiest Broadway in a Halloween shop. Everything from the editing to the elaborate Dr. Satan design to the simplest costume sight gags makes this a fun movie to take in. Unfortunately though, the design and everything else were hindered under the weight of other creative decisions that really wore the fun of this movie to the nubs.

House of 1000 Corpses is not so much a horror movie as it is a revival of sorts of a smaller genre of films that saw light in the 1970s…revenge movies. I Spit on Your Grave. Last House on the Left. Can’t say I’m a huge fan of the genre on the whole, they’re mean, joyless movies about “eye for an eye” brutal underground, barely snuff film revenge. They’re not a jolly bowl of blood and guts like the mainstream horror serials or their Italian counterparts involving mystical creatures or serial killers who attack the innocent and the innocents’ inevitable escape with a few laughs along the way. Nope, this is the sick doing sick things and then being sicked upon in ways that boggle your senses. And that seemed to be the center of House. It's a revenge picture minus the revenge. There are a lot of scenes of brutal torture and dismemberment that, though they try to add a kitschy funny twist by having them done to the strains of "Brick House" by the Commodores, ultimately turns the audience from jumping up in their seats in fear to just plain tears. One ultimately way-too-effective-for-the-wrong-reason choice Zombie made was to use video when shooting/recording audio for torture scenes to make them more real. And boy, did they. But for all the things that happened to these kids, there was no payback or revenge even in a sick form. Just sadism winning over everything. From a person whose artistic center of joy comes from horror movies comes a horror movie without a whole lot of joy. The best horror films are usually chase movies or a race to conquer/escape the impending doom, punctuated with gore. This one there was almost no chase or suspense at all…just a huge celebration of torture. And that’s only really good for as sideshows for the disturbed, not the center of a movie.

In all, I did enjoy myself. Though the cake itself wasn’t terribly good, the frosting went down smooth and decadent. For the hardcore horror fans, see it to see something you haven’t seen in quite a while. For the casual viewers, you may want to catch something that leaves you with a little less baggage when you leave the theater….and when you drive home….and while asleep in your bed….and the next few weeks.

YEAH!

On Starship Troopers vs Operation Iraqi Freedumb...Starship Troopers only works so well. The one twist that would have made the analogy complete is if the bugs kept throwing their explosive spores at Earth, but all of a sudden we decide we're bored with these bugs, so we decide to pick on a different, less formidable species of bug and lead a huge intergalactic squash match to boost our self esteem.

Paully V is your manmade god.

That picture of Ebert on the front page is a watershed moment in film history. It's this country's first recognition of Andrez Vamitof's now internationally infamous triangular frame. Though virtually unheard of in this country, filmmakers in Austria, Germany, and all over Europe are experimenting with how to best use this breakthrough framing, trying to create a film that does what Lawrence of Arabia did for the wider screen formats.

What the hell is he doing in that picture?

I got my press pass to Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival today. I am so pumped. This is one of the best movie events in the world. For 5 days you just hang out at the same theatre and watch movies. Ebert always has the best guests there too. It's so great. Check out more on the fest at the Official Website

If you want a 2-hour run down of the current world situation you ought to watch Starship Troopers. I am not kidding. The film is about some bugs who are upset that humans have been interfering with them, so they send a meteor that hits planet earth and kills a huge number of people (read: September 11). Instead of considering that the bugs just want to be left alone without human interference, and working toward some kind of resolution to the problem, the Earth's government immediately launches a retaliation effort. The Earth's government expects the military to waltz in and eliminate the problem, but they underestimate the number, ability, and most importantly, the intelligence of the Arachnids (sounds like Iraqis doesn't it). The result is a lot bloodier and more terrible than expected. The film ends with the capture of one of the "brain bugs," or intelligent bug leaders. The troops are reinvigorated and confident, but the war is not over. Just before the credits roll, there is a propoganda commercial asking the audience to "join up" to help eliminate the Arachnid species. Yikes.

Special thanks to Roger Avary for calling this to my attention.

I just found out that Universal is now putting trailers on theier DVDs that come on after the menu! My friend Mike just told me that there is a trailer before Far From Heaven, and you CAN'T FAST FORWARD through it. When you hit the "play movie" button on the main menu, you HAVE TO WATCH THE TRAILER before the movie comes on. There will be a special place in hell for whoever the fuck face at Universal was who decided to do that. You better believe I am going to think long and hard before I buy my next DVD from that company.

Down with remakes, sequels, and adaptations. It's gone too far.