RVANews

Building groove mansions

Scott Burton — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:00:38 +0000

Recently, bassist Jason Ajemian and his group High Life released a new record on Jason's Sundmagi label called "Riding the Light into the Bird's Eye." I'm always interested in a band's approach to composition and improvising, and thought it'd be cool to give everyone a peek into the truly unique approach that Ajemian has taken with the High Life.

Jason uses AUTOCAD, a program traditionally employed by architects, to create graphic notation that the musicians follow as if they were walking through a house. By combining traditional notation with symbols, cues, and written instruction, Ajemian has literally become a sound architect, building groove mansions that the band "walk through" during any given concert.

It seems daunting, but when you actually study the score and follow along with the music, the idea becomes much more clear, and the genius and humor of the process is revealed. As an example, let's look at the first of three scores the band perform on the new record, called "Fear Dings." The entire album is one long performance, and this score contains what would become tracks 2 and 3, "Bliss is This" and "Spectacle" respectively.

You can follow along by starting at the upper left-hand corner of the chart, and traveling down the page and then to the right and up...you'll know it's time to turn the page when you hear this sound...(jk).

Listen to Bliss is This:
[audio:http://media.rvanews.com/02 Bliss Is This.mp3|titles=Bliss is This|artists=Jason Ajemian and HighLife]
Listen to Spectacle:
[audio:http://media.rvanews.com/03 Spectacle.mp3|titles=Spectacle|artists=Jason Ajemian and HighLife]

The wine bottle is popped and the song starts with some "swirling Ab wonderness" until Jason brings in more structure with the line, "You live in fear inside your eyes," at which point the rhythm section hold down a steady quarter note pulse while the horns play around the theme. You can follow the bass and melody lines until the band breaks into free time after Jason sings "Un Decide." The words "Archs Up" signal Ajemian's rising arco bass line, and the band quickly "walk" left and down the score, playing each of the short written themes in free time while improvising flourishes through out. They arrive at "Breath Slow Walk Leading to Concrete" and Jason brings the band back into time as he sings "This Concrete" etc. The horns flowing freely adding backgrounds and improvising around the key of A flat. After Ajemian sings a repeated chorus of, "Your Soul Oh Lord," he and drummer Marc Riordan create a seamless transition into the tight groove of the next track "Spectacle."

You can view several Jason Ajemian scores here.

"Spectacle" finds the rhythm section holding down a solid groove with Owen Stewart-Robertson interjecting some funk scratch on guitar, while Peter Hanson on sax and Jacob Wick on trumpet improvise shouts and atonal lines. The lyrics start with, "Dings in your Head" and move up. Jason and the band follow the singing cues until they end with a big hit as Jason sings "Bubble Big Sky." and then they improvise out and onto the next gigantic AUTOCAD chart.

What makes this approach so intriguing, is that it truly does accurately depict the flow of the music in a more organic and creative way, and the music still works just as well in a live setting. No one in the audience has to follow these charts to get the full feeling and emotion being translated. And you don't need the charts to help you dance either.

With "Riding the Light into the Bird's Eye" Jason Ajemian and the High Life have taken Jason's compositional approach to another level, and created a set of truly exciting and unpredictable jazz and funk for maximum thought and movement. I recommend everyone pick this album up as soon as possible. This is rare indeed, some great new original music.

Click here to buy Jason Ajemian's music.

Ho there, reader of RSS feeds! Do you ever want to support RVANews in a real and tangible way? Or at least pay a small penance for reading ad-free content? If so, support us on Patreon for a couple bucks a month!

Ninja Assassin: Kind of fun…

Scott Burton — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:00:15 +0000

Every Sunday night, a big group of my friends gets together to watch Kung Fu films. We've been doing this for about two years now and have seen many, many, many movies. Some good, some not so good, some terrible, but we always have great fun. As a result we know way too much about way too many aspects of martial arts cinema. When we heard about Ninja Assassin, it seemed like the perfect film to get the group of regulars out to the theater. And it was... but for very different reasons than the filmmakers intended.

Over the two years of watching films each week, we quickly exhausted the genre classics. Films like Crippled Avengers, Fist of Fury, Enter the 36th Chamber, and even Police Story were dealt with pretty swiftly, and to great reaction. We watched more and more Shaw Bros. films, and we quickly discovered that when you're a film studio that produced over 700 films in little more than 5 decades, you sometimes don't have time for things like story and continuity. This led us to some of the crazier films of the early 80s. One in particular that will forever be one of most ridiculous films ever is Descendant of the Sun. This was a Shaw Bros. attempt to cash in on the Superman craze and mix it with fantasy Kung Fu. The result is so nonsensical and baffling, that it became amazing.

It is because of Descendant of the Sun that we were able to enjoy Ninja Assassin so much.

Ninja Assassin opens with a tense conversation between a couple people that leads to one of the goriest deaths I've seen in a long time. This firmly establishes that ninjas are badass. I don't want to give away specific details because they barely exist in the film and really aren't worth the time. The story follows a ninja (played by Korean pop star Rain) as he protects an investigator (Naomie Harris) from certain doom at the hands of ninjas. So the movie establishes early that it's one ninja versus a small army of ninjas versus some sort of government cover up versus the leader of the ninja clan (Sho Kosugi) versus the audience.

Basically the film is an excuse to watch ridiculous amounts of ninja action, and in that it succeeds. There is much ninja combat, though at times the frenetic shooting style makes it hard to figure out what's going on. Personally, I would have liked more time to appreciate the guy that got his legs cut off and fell off of them, or the army guy whose head was mowed off by a cloud of shruiken. It’s hard to convey how much blood is in the film. Blood flies all over the place, CG style, and people bleed oceans before dying. Sometimes people bleed oceans and live.

Yes, it's that kind of a movie, but if you know that going in, it actually is a lot of fun.

Now, why did I give it a low rating? Isn't having fun enough? Ordinarily yes, but the big flaw in this movie, is its false portrayal of ninja as a less-than-invincible force. In this film we see: a ninja caught with his mask off by surveillance cameras (wtf?), multiple ninjas hit with bullets, one hit by a car, and we even see a ninja cry. In the world of ninjas that I am familiar with ninjas are invincible, are invisible to cameras, can definitely not be stopped with a handgun, don’t get in traffic accidents, and never ever cry... not even a little bit. Also, again, this movie looks very expensive and legitimately makes no sense.

None.

But then again, ninjas rule so much! Just remember to proceed with caution...you’ve been warned.

Ninja Assassin is rated R and runs 1 hour and 39 minutes. It is currently playing at Movieland, Commonwealth 20, UA West Tower 10, Westchester Commons 16, Virginia Center 20, Southpark Mall 16, Carmike 10, and Short Pump 15.

Bergman 101: So there’s this Swedish director…

Scott Burton — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:00:43 +0000

Through a Glass Darkly is a 1961 film by Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. It follows one family for 24 hours as they vacation on a small island. That’s it. How can a movie with such a simple set up be so simultaneously entertaining and deep? The answer lies in the details and subtlety, and in the way all of the film’s contributors (actors, director, crew) come together in perfect harmony to deliver a seriously powerful film.

Ingmar Bergman is the director that you love to hate. On the surface, he embodies “art” film-making, and pretentiousness. Black and white, subtitled, small cast, long silences, not to mention film titles taken from Bible verses. Add a healthy dose of misanthropy, and you’ve got some serious elitist art. The thing that’s easy to miss is that the man tells a great story, and no matter how much he gets spoofed (MST3K, SCTV, Family Guy, Field of Dreams) his movies still hold up.

In this, his first installment in a trilogy dealing with spirituality, we follow Karin (Harriet Andersson) as she has recently been released from an asylum where she received treatment for schizophrenia. Her husband (Max von Sydow) has joined her dad (Gunnar Bjornstrand) and brother (Lars Passgard) for a get-away vacation on a small island just off the coast. Karin’s family thinks that a little time away from the city will do her some good and help her recovery.

What follows is a descent into a sea of passive aggression.

Because the family is alone on the island, it’s not long before they start bickering and airing out the dirty laundry. Karin’s father is a hack writer that keeps his distance from his family, but has nothing to show for it. Karin’s husband can’t stand her dad’s psychological hold on his daughter, and her brother is caught in the middle and unprepared to deal with his sister’s disease. As tensions increase, Karin’s mental state starts to deteriorate, and the family must try to come to an understanding and deal with her condition.

The fact that they are on the island alone starts to become important as we see the family members, each in their own way, slowly lose touch with reality. This is not done with hypnotic dream sequences or CG fighting robots, but simply stellar acting. Over the course of 24 hours, Karin and each member of her family are permanently changed in some way.

Even as I describe the story, the movie sounds like a Lars von Trier exercise in depression, but it really isn’t. Somehow Bergman follows the family through all of their ups and downs without judging anyone, leaving room for the viewer to interpret things as they will. The sparse atmosphere and focus on character has the effect of putting every little action under a microscope, and somehow makes every action or inaction infinitely complex. I’ve watched many Bergman films, and each time I’m impressed by how the man can make any situation interesting. He kept a small group of regular actors, and as a result was able to get some truly unique and amazing performances. Nowhere is this more evident than in Harriet Andersson’s portrayal of Karin and her descent into madness.

This is one of those movies that just needs to be seen to be believed. My description can’t do it justice, as even I don’t know how and why it works so well. It’s just one that’s always good to come back to when I need some inspiration; that’s the sign of a seriously great film. Seriously, fear not the Swedish Master!

(Also, because you care David C., I wrote a tune based on this movie in my band Glows in the Dark.)

Manhunt aka Polizio-what???

Scott Burton — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:00:59 +0000

One genre of film that I recently discovered (and have become mildly obsessed with) is called Poliziotteschi. These were Italian action/crime films made in the late 60s through the early 80s that focused on organized crime and cops that took the law into their own hands. It's certainly fair to say that these films were inspired by their American counterparts, like Dirty Harry and The Godfather, but Italian directors like Umberto Lenzi, Enzo G. Castellari, Sergio Sollima, and Fernando Di Leo created their own rules for the crime genre. "What did they do different, and why should I care?" you might ask. I shall do my best to answer...

Unfortunately, not many of these films are available in the US, but there are some greats that you should be able to track down. One in particular is Fernando Di Leo's 1972 film Manhunt, aka The Italian Connection, aka Black Kingpin. The movie stars Mario Adorf as Luca Canali, a small time crook who is unknowingly being pursued by the mob and by two American hitmen played by Woody Strode and Henry Silva. The closer they get to catching Luca, the more powerful he becomes, and he ends up becoming much more of a problem than anyone expected.

The most interesting aspect of poliziotteschi films, and Di Leo's in particular, is the view of the mafia that you get. In America at this time, movies like Coppola's Godfather glorified the mob, making it look like an organization that's above the law and one you'd be proud to be a part of. While the mafia in poliziotteschi films is certainly above the law, its members are often seen as petty. Here, the mob is something that's always teetering on the edge of falling apart, and the only incentive anyone has to play by the rules is staying alive. Add to that the racial divide between North and South Italy, and you further complicate matters by giving a clear picture of who makes the rules and who follows them. In Manhunt, Luca is a petty criminal that doesn't even know why he's being pursued, and in fact you learn that he's just a name given to the Americans after a botched heroin transfer. The Italian mob had to blame it on someone and they chose Luca because he's so small-time that no one would miss him. No one except for the people he loves, who the mob also tries to take care of.

Luca slowly realizes how big of a mess he's been put in, and fights back as much as he can. He quickly realizes he can’t trust anyone and, consequently, is doomed. The two hitmen (obviously the inspiration for Tarantino's Jules and Vincent) treat the matter like any other job, don't ask any questions, and just try to find Luca and send him to meet his maker. Dave Catania (Silva) is the hitman who parties too much, and Frank Webster (Strode) is the hitman that keeps Catania in line and makes sure they get the job done. The dynamic is great, and a lot of fun to watch as they keep almost getting their man. All of this leads to a final showdown that is pretty amazing.

Again, this is an action movie, and the action is very well done. The Italians were always great at taking concepts from American films and going bigger: bigger explosions, crazier stunts, more deaths, longer action sequences. But the most refreshing part is that the poliziotteschi films have good stories as well, particularly Fernando Di Leo's movies. Manhunt is part of a trilogy of films Di Leo called his Mileau Trilogy, the other films being The Boss (Il Boss) and Caliber 9 (Milano Calibro 9). All three films are great and they each deal with different aspects of organized crime, specifically how fragile and trifling it can be.

From time to time I will definitely be revisiting this genre, as I was mainly only familiar with Italian horror from this period and had no idea how much better the crime films were. Don’t get me wrong, I still love the Italian horror, but there is so much more going on in just about any poliziotteschi film you come across.

I definitely recommend tracking this one down.

Zombie’s Land

Scott Burton — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:00:03 +0000

I wanted to talk about Zombie (a 1979 film directed by Lucio Fulci) because a couple weeks ago I actually got to see it at The Byrd in a midnight screening organized by a new group called Gorehound Features. The best part about the event was that we got to see an actual 35mm film print. I can't stress enough how awesome that is, especially after seeing DVD projections in the theater, or worse, when The Byrd showed Led Zeppelin's The Song Remains the Same on a crappy old VHS tape.

I first saw the iconic cover for this film as a kid in Fredericksburg, VA. My mom used to take us to Erol's Video a lot to rent the latest and greatest to watch on our Beta-max VCR (that's right, and we still have it, AND it still works). I used to beg my mom to rent movies solely based on my impression of the covers. It was this that led to my childhood obsession with The Dark Crystal, a film that I begged my mom to rent EVERY time we went to Erol's. She actually had to force me to watch different stuff like The Goonies, and Breakin (the latter became my second great childhood obsession film). I knew where to find Zombie because I had just learned the alphabet and knew that "Z" meant the bottom right. Even though I saw it a lot, the cover freaked me out every time. I was just too young to be actively seeking out pictures of worms crawling out of corpse eyes, but alas.

Years later, Resident Evil (the game) led me on a hunt for zombie movies to watch with my friends (college creates these types of situations). I found a new version of Zombie at SunCoast and bought it after seeing the cover. I couldn't believe that the movie that freaked me out as a kid was just at a store and I could just buy it. I had pretty high expectations, and for once this film actually surpassed them!

The movie opens with an abandoned boat floating just outside of New York City. Slow creepy camera work sets the template for the rest of the film. Two guys from the Coast Guard find the boat and hop on...only to be attacked by a super fat zombie that looks like Kingpin!!! We then find out that the boat belonged to Anne's (Tisa Farrow) father, and they quickly get an ad hoc group of adventurers together to journey to the island where her father was last seen. On the way, they encounter a shark just outside the island which leads to one of the all time great scenes and battles:

!Zombie Vs. Shark!

Real shark the whole way through, too! When they get to the island, they find a doctor that has been trying to cure an epidemic that has led to the dead coming back to life, and that this epidemic took Anne's father. From here on out, this movie is almost one big action scene as the dead return to kill the living. The film is very gory, and often times looks realistic, as in the famous eye gouging scene, so be warned. I think one element that really made me like this film more than many other zombie films, was the atmosphere. The island is really a great setting, and the fact that voodoo is believed to be the cause also strengthens the film to me. For some reason I've never liked when radioactive stuff leads to zombies. My favorite cause for zombies has always been the slightly more organic(?) voodoo/magical explanation.

As a director, Lucio Fulci can definitely be hit or miss, but in Zombie, he was able to get everything right (and with him this always means a few unintentional laughs). Check it out.

The Two Halloween 2’s

Scott Burton — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:00:19 +0000

Because comparing the two Inglourious Basterds films was fun, I thought it’d be cool to write a similar article comparing the original Halloween 2 and the new, Rob Zombie Halloween 2. The problem with this idea is that I had to see the new, Rob Zombie Halloween 2. Ouch. I’ll get to that, but let’s talk about the original Halloween 2 first.

With the original Halloween, John Carpenter and crew changed the game in horror movies, making a small, independently-financed movie about a killer in a small town. The film was so successful that it practically created the template for what would be known as the slasher genre. In its wake, many, many cheap imitations were made to cash in on the initial idea. Ironically, Halloween 2 was also an attempted cash-in. To best understand the process of creating the follow up to a classic, let’s hear from Carpenter himself:

“I will say that what got me through writing that script was... Budweiser. Six pack of beer a night, sitting in front of the typewriter saying, "What in the hell can I put down?" I had no idea. We're remaking the same film, only not as good.”
-John Carpenter (from the 2003 documentary Halloween: A Cut Above the Rest)

That is Halloween 2 in a nutshell. Because of that fact, the film is enjoyable as a comedy. The idea is great, starting just after the first one ends. But the film is literally Michael Myers walking around trying to think of things to do, and Laurie Strode freaking out in a hospital. So much of the film centers around a hospital with several unexplained phenomenon: two people work there, there’s a room of newborn babies that’s quickly abandoned, and there are no working lights. It’s supposed to look creepy, but it’s the equivalent of Carpenter holding a flashlight under his chin and going, “Ooooooh scaaaaaarrrryyy.” I wish that had actually happened, but sadly it did not. But I do want to stress that this film is definitely enjoyable in that MST3K way...very enjoyable. I also want to stress that Carpenter did not direct this movie, he only co-wrote it.

Rob Zombie’s remake does not fair as well. It’s almost as if he read the above Carpenter quote and decided to use the same method of writing. Almost.

Zombie’s Halloween 2 opens in a similar style to the original, but quickly splits into three half-baked stories following different characters. The first being Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) trying to deal with the tragedy of the Halloween murders a year later. The second being Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) on a book tour and enjoying the fame he received from exploiting his psychological studies of young Michael Myers. The third is simply Myers walking back to the small town of Haddonfield to finish what he started a year ago and bring his family together again. The problem I have is that I really want to like Rob Zombie (I loved his movie The Devil’s Rejects) and he has a lot of great ideas, but there’s no content and no commitment to anything. There are so many plot holes and only glimpses of the greatness that Zombie has achieved in the past. There’s great casting (Margot Kidder... Weird Al!?!), great atmosphere, great music, and no suspense. By trying to get into the psychology of Myers, Zombie loses what made the original films so great....the total lack of motive. It’s a shame, because there’s a good film in here somewhere, but no follow-through. The best part is Brad Dourif’s Sheriff Lee Brackett. Every scene with Dourif is an acting master class, doing the best with what he’s got. Unfortunately he’s not a bigger part of the story.

I really wanted to like this one, but it just seems very rushed and like Zombie just couldn’t decide what he wanted it to be. He uses references in a similar way to Tarantino, but where as Tarantino references films no one has seen AND makes them his own, Zombie references films everyone has seen and doesn’t change anything. The inconsistency makes it hard, because there are some truly great ideas, but they don't go anywhere.

In the end, both films are similar in that they are both amazingly underdeveloped. But, the original Halloween 2 IS a really fun watch. The new one is just mostly silly.

Inglorious/Inglourious Review/Revue

Scott Burton — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:00:54 +0000

In honor of Quentin Tarantino’s new movie Inglourious Basterds, I thought it’d be cool to do a comparison with the movie it was inspired by: Inglorious Bastards.

Inglorious Bastards is a 1978 Italian war movie directed by Enzo Castellari, starring Bo Svenson and Fred Williamson. The film follows a group of escaped army convicts who accidently kill a squad of Americans and inherit its suicide mission of hijacking a Nazi train full of advanced weaponry. This is a pretty standard “men on a mission” movie and has a light-hearted feel, even while hundreds of Nazi’s are being shot. It’s great to see former professional football player Fred Williamson gunning down rows of bad guys, always while laughing or smoking a cigar. Bo Svenson is also great as the convicts’ self-appointed leader. Director Castellari puts as much action as possible into the film, and somehow even manages to find room to throw some naked girls with machine guns in as well.

It’s Williamson and Svenson’s charisma that make this movie so much fun. It’s fast and fun and slightly forgettable, but good enough to check out. Not real thought-provoking stuff here, but a great sense of fun mixed with violence keeps it good. There is also an epic score by Francesco De Masi and giant explosions and great effects by Gino De Rossi. I give this one 3 out of 5 stars.

The director Enzo Castellari first rose to fame in Italy with a string of successful spaghetti westerns. His films became known for their gunfights and amazing amounts of action, often filmed in slow motion to great effect. Through the years he has directed movies in almost every genre, from crime dramas to sci-fi and comedy, always with emphasis on action. Castellari makes a cameo in Inglorious Bastards as a Nazi general, and of course, Tarantino has him reprise the role in his version, which brings us to Inglourious Basterds.

Inglourious Basterds is the new war film from Quentin Tarantino that follows a group of freedom fighters and a young French woman as they separately hatch plans to kill many, many Nazis in a movie theater in France. Let me start by saying that this movie was great (hence the 4.5 star rating), and I actually think it might be Tarantino’s best. He’s managed to take a key scene in the original “Bastards” and center his version around it. Like I said, in the original there is a scene where the Bastards gun down a squad of Americans. This happens because the Americans are in full Nazi uniforms and are speaking German. Tarantino expands on this language barrier to develop some of the most tense scenes ever filmed. There are no less than four different languages heard in Basterds, and most of the movie is subtitled. This is something that Spielberg didn’t even deal with in Schindler’s List. It’s interesting that so many war movies ignore the language barrier issue all together, even as they try to be realistic. Inglourious Basterds puts language front and center to great effect.

The movie is divided into 5 chapters which are made up of a few very long dialogue sequences. Tarantino’s seems to have hit on something with this film that you can see the seeds of throughout his career. He’s always had long dialogue sequences, and some of them were very tense, but with the new film he has taken this to another level, all while playing with structure, violence, and interesting music (as usual). As an audience member, you are conscious of what he’s doing, and that actually makes the film stronger.

In the character Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, Tarantino has created the most subtle evil person to ever grace the screens of mainstream theaters. Landa is nicknamed the “Jew Hunter” and is essentially a detective that uses deductive reasoning to stay at least three steps ahead of everyone else. Waltz owns every scene he’s in, and after seeing him in action, you almost forget about Brad Pitt’s Aldo Raine and his gang of Nazi slaying basterds. On that note, Pitt and even actor/director Eli Roth do great jobs in their roles, but the film is so much more than that.

I could talk for a very long time about so many aspects of it, but in short, Tarantino has taken a seed planted in Castellari’s original, and turned it into something completely original, and completely amazing.

Scott Burton is a tireless composer and guitarist in Richmond. He writes reviews about obscure movies for RVANews, and he writes music about obscure movies for the avant jazz group Glows in the Dark.

The Thing: Remakes can be good!

Scott Burton — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:00:34 +0000

These days, you’ll notice that there are very few original ideas being made into movies. This year alone we’ve had My Bloody Valentine, Friday the 13th, The Taking of Pelham 123, Last House on the Left, and many many more are on the way. With this flood of old ideas, it’s easy to get angry and wonder why no one is trying anymore. It’s also easy to forget that sometimes remakes can be great, and in 1982 John Carpenter got it right with his retelling of the 1951 classic The Thing from Another World.

After a brief glimpse of a crashing spacecraft, The Thing opens in Antarctica with a dog being shot at by Norwegian scientists. As far as unsentimental openings go, it’s hard to top the attempted murder of a dog. The dog makes its way to a US army base, where the language barrier creates confusion that leads to the deaths of the Norwegians at the hands of the US scientists. The Americans soon discover that they made a grave mistake, and that the dog is actually a shape shifting alien trying to take over everything in its path.

The set up might sound crazy, but by playing everything seriously, Carpenter and composer Ennio Morricone create a sense of dread that spans the entire film. Because the creature is a shape shifter, it could have taken over any one of the 12 scientists, and the breakdown in trust slowly leads to their undoing. The cast, led by Kurt Russell and his awesome hat*, includes Keith David, Wilford Brimley, Donald Moffat, all give great tense performances. The other star of this film is Rob Bottin, who at 22 led a team of effects artist to create some of film’s scariest and most unique monster effects. These effects hold up today and will still shock first time viewers.

For me, this is one of those perfect films that I discovered pretty late in my film nerd career (by “career” I mean, “spending money on DVDs”). It blends everything I love about Hitchcock with creative gore and amazing music. Like Felicia’s Journey it’s a horror film that is actually scary, and again, I can’t stress how rare that is in this genre. Can you imagine if this problem affected other genres? Action films without action? Historical dramas without historics? Again, I don’t want to give too much away, except to say that if you haven’t seen The Thing yet, you need to.

On the subject of remakes, I think Carpenter was able to find his own voice in this material, and was ultimately able to give much more than a simple retelling. His version is much darker, but not in the way that so many newer horror remakes are dark. This newer crop of remakes thrive on the gritty look and feel of the film, but miss the point by casting mostly bad actors who give mostly bad performances. There are always exceptions, notably the Last House on the Left remake which had great acting, but usually these films concentrate more on the kills, leaving that acting business alone. In The Thing everything works together: great acting, great music, great locations, and great effects. It’s the exception to the rule that rises above the schlock.

I’m a huge John Carpenter fan, and will definitely be focusing on more of his films in the future. Big Trouble in Little China was one of my favorite films growing up, and it’s been great as an adult going back and seeing all the Rated “R” Carpenter films I wasn’t allowed to watch. I’ve been constantly surprised at just how good his older films are. Halloween was so much better than I thought it’d be, and is also actually scary. For those that have yet to explore the world of John Carpenter, The Thing is a great place to start. Here are some others (that I’m sure I’ll discuss further in the future):

*For the life of me I COULD NOT find a picture of this hat. But I remember it, and it is awesome. If anyone finds a good image, leave a link in the comments.

Schizopolis

Scott Burton — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:00:44 +0000

Schizopolis is a 1996 experimental comedy written and directed by and starring Steven Soderbergh. The film tells two different stories about two different sides of the same person (through three perspectives), and both characters are played by Soderbergh. One Soderbergh is Fletcher Munson, a speech writer for a self help guru named T. Azimuth Schwitters, and the other is a tracksuit-wearing, smooth jazz-listening dentist named Jeffrey Korchek. The film has many more characters and layers, and to make it even more confusing, is told in a non-linear fashion. It’s this non-linear narrative, however, that leads to great lines like, “Oh My God...I’m having an affair with my wife.”

I actually discovered this film in college when a local video store was going out of business. I really liked Soderbergh and had never heard of this film, but it looked like it was worth the 3 dollar price tag. The movie was hard to decipher on the first viewing, but there was so much good happening, I had to try again. It was the second viewing that really grabbed me, as I was able to appreciate all the social satire and sight gags. Plus, any movie that aggressively insults Scientology is automatically my friend.

Schizopolis deals with Scientology in the form of T. Azimuth Schwitters and his self-help religion Eventualism. Nothing Schwitters teaches has any meaning, and as his speech writer, Soderbergh’s character has the impossible task of writing a lengthy talk that doesn’t say anything. Examples of these random parables include:

“Eventualism isn’t designed to answer all questions, it’s designed to question all answers.”

“It’s not about healing pain. It’s about the pain of healing.”

“The general thrust should be embedded in one’s mind forever... but specific words should be forgotten the moment they are heard.”

“It should contain nothing that can’t be confirmed nor denied.”

I don’t know if Eventualism is an influence, but many self-help and success-oriented blogs and Twitter feeds seem greatly indebted to it. This fine art of saying nothing is alive and well on the Internets.

There is so much wordplay in this film that it definitely reminds me of the great screwball comedies in the 30s. There are also so many great ideas. Too many to keep up with. The movie does tackle some serious subjects, like divorce, but in a fresh and interesting way, by breaking down husband/wife communication to its essence to show boredom:

Fletcher: Generic greeting.
Wife: Generic greeting returned.
Fletcher: Imminent sustenance.
Wife: Overly dramatic statement regarding upcoming meal.
Fletcher: Oooh, false reaction indicating hunger and excitement!

Among the other things happening in the film, there is an exterminator that goes through a suburban neighborhood sleeping with all the housewives and speaking in his own language, a psychologist that is trying to explain the film while being treated poorly by the film crew, a character named “Nameless Numberhead Man” that becomes obsessed with obese women, and even a half-naked guy on a bicycle being chased by net-wielding hospital workers!

The ideas are constant, but are worth keeping up with. It’s also worth noting that this film was released on DVD a few years ago by the Criterion Collection. The DVD has one of the best commentaries I’ve ever heard, featuring Soderbergh interviewing himself about how he’s the greatest filmmaker alive. He says that all the great ideas are his, and that most of Hollywood’s giant budgets are spent merely to purchase these ideas... like Spider-man and Fight Club. Amazing stuff!

It’s interesting to watch this film again after the tremendous success Soderbergh’s had with the Ocean's 11 films, Traffic, Erin Brockovich and more. You can see the seed of so many great techniques on full display here, in a film he made on a shoe string budget with his friends.

Worth tracking down.

Smart Horror. They Make Those? They Make Those!

Scott Burton — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:00:49 +0000

Felicia's Journey is a 1999 horror film directed by Atom Egoyan. I don't want to say too much about the plot, because it's best to experience this movie without knowing anything. I'll talk a little bit about the director, and then a little bit about the film. Hopefully I won't spoil anything (i.e. Bob Hoskins is really dead Bruce Willis helping weirdo kids).

Atom Egoyan is a Canadian director that has made an art out of making films that with-hold key information from the audience. His narratives are typically told out of order in a way that produces tension out of curiosity. It helps that his movies are usually funny too. The stories come from the characters, how they relate to each other, and what drives them. Egoyan has a way of keeping you interested, even though you don't always know why characters are acting a certain way. He's always leading you somewhere, and it's usually a place you wouldn't normally go in movies.

The first Egoyan movie I saw was The Sweet Hereafter (1997). It’s a film about a school bus crash in a small town and how the people deal with the aftermath. I was instantly intrigued by the jumbled storytelling method. Even though it’s told out of order, the movie had a very real emotional arc that somehow remained in tact. After seeing that movie and Felicia’s Journey, I had to track down and watch the rest. My favorites are probably Exotica (1994), Family Viewing (1987), and Ararat (a 2002 film dealing with the Armenian Genocide by dissecting a movie being made about the subject). If there is one word to describe Egoyan’s films, it’d have to be “Meta.” This guy using so many different media to tell a story that you’re often not sure if your watching through his eyes or the eyes of his characters.

In Calendar (1993), for example, the director himself plays a photographer hired to go to Armenia to take photos for a calendar. The film is divided into 12 sections using the months in a year intercut with handheld video footage he shot of his wife (played by Egoyan’s real wife Arsinee Khanjian) being seduced by their tour guide. This is mixed with scenes of him watching the footage and scenes of him bringing different women back to his house. The serious tone is lightened as he offers each woman a glass of wine, they respond by asking to use his phone, and they all end up having passionate phone conversations in his kitchen while he is left to awkwardly listen. It all adds up to this weird system of human insight and comedy that is totally unique to Egoyan.

Felicia’s Journey is a great first Atom Egoyan film to watch because it’s his only straight genre film to date.

The movie follows Mr. Hilditch (Bob Hoskins) and Felicia (Elaine Cassidy) as their paths intersect in an industrial part of London. The story is adapted from the novel by William Trevor, but Egoyan has made several changes, including adding elements of video (an obsession of his no doubt). The best way to describe this movie without spoiling anything is to talk about the effect it had on a friend that I showed it to years ago.

This friend is a self-proclaimed horror nut. She unashamedly loves everything with zombies (except Day of the Dead) and anything with gore. You know who I'm talking about: she collects toys from movies, has seen all the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, can quote lines from the original Halloween, has at least 10 pairs of black boots, etc. So when I brought up watching this little movie, she was amazed that she had never heard of it. It's rated PG-13, so she was a little bummed, but we started the film anyway. What followed was one of those rare instances where I was actually able to see her being terrified; she was speechless after the movie and had nightmares about it that night. She was almost mad at me for showing it to her because it had such a strong effect. And all this from a PG-13 movie? But how?

Well if that situation sounds at all desirable then you have to see this film. It's smart horror that doesn't pander, and definitely worth a watch. Unlike the last movie I discussed, this one should be pretty easy to track down. Also keep an eye out for Egoyan’s new film, Adoration. Oh wait, it was only in Richmond for a week. Dammit.

The Man From Hong Kong and an Intro to Ozploitation

Scott Burton — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:00:26 +0000

The Man From Hong Kong is a 1975 Ozploitation movie directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith and starring Jimmy Wang Yu. It's basically an Australian version of Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon but the beauty of this film is in the details. Before getting into the movie, a few words about Ozploitation.

Ozploitation is a name given to Australian exploitation movies of the 70's and 80's. The term was actually coined by director Mark Hartley, whose documentary Not Quite Hollywood is essential viewing for shedding more light on the subject. These films were a reaction to high "art" movies that were coming out of Australia at the time and an attempt to show the world that they had more to offer than deep thoughts during picnics. Movies like Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout and Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock are great, but definitely not as fun as Ozploitation films would become. Like Hong Kong martial arts films of the 80's and Thai films now, there was constant competition between film makers, and a need to push the envelope, particularly with death defying stunts and explosions. Stuntmen routinely risked their lives (with no insurance) to outdo each other, and the results are amazing to watch (though sometimes they did prove fatal). Out of this slew of crazy movies, which includes the Mad Max films, one man emerged as a central figure in the action side of the genre: Brian Trenchard-Smith.

Trenchard-Smith led the pack with many classics in the genre, including Turkey Shoot, Stunt Rock, Dead End Drive In and Deathcheaters. With The Man From Hong Kong he wanted to co-produce this movie with Hong Kong’s Golden Harvest studio with the specific goal of getting the film a bigger international audience. The results are not artsy in the slightest, but a lot of fun.

Warning: Trailer NSFW

“See Jimmy Wang Yu as the cop that learned every trick in the book, then threw the book away.”

The film opens with a fight on the famous Ayres Rock featuring a young Sammo Hung. The set up is a drug deal gone bad, and the sequence ends with a car explosion where the door of the car is hurtled directly at the camera. Scenes like this one are thrilling because it's actually an exploding car, and you can tell that aside from the explosion, no one knew what was going to happen. We are then introduced to Inspector Fang Sing Leng (Jimmy Wang Yu) a special forces policeman who has been sent to Australia to question Sammo Hung, and get to the bottom of an international drug ring. Fang is a smooth talking Dirty Harry-type with one of the deepest most hilarious dubbed voice ever. He sounds like a complete badass, but looks like just a normal guy. He basically fights his way through this organization in an attempt to bring it down for good.

Some highlights include, George Lazenby fighting while on fire, Wang Yu kicking a guy off of a fast moving motorcycle, very long realistic fight sequences, and ridiculous car crashes. Noel Quinlan's soundtrack is also amazing. The main theme "Sky High" became a hit and now appears in the Dance Dance Revolution games!
The real highlight is the sense of fun that the film presents. There’s an energy here that is rare these days, and a sense of humor that is ever-present. This film does not take itself too seriously, and so they never have to explain Wang Yu jumping 15 feet in the air over a fence, or an opponent’s pants splitting while Wang Yu throws him around a kitchen. They don’t even have to explain why Wang Yu is a big jerk to literally everyone he interacts with (although apparently that was how he acted for real).

To wrap up, this is a movie that is pure fun. Nothing deep happening, but fun enough to watch with friends. For more info on Ozploitation, definitely check out Not Quite Hollywood.

Also, this movie is hard to find, so check the internet or get Video Fan to order it...it's worth it...trust me.

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

Scott Burton — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:30:15 +0000

I really like Woody Allen, and like all fans of Allen, I’m an apologist. The first film of his I remember seeing in its entirety was Mighty Aphrodite (1995). At that point, I didn’t understand any of the references and didn’t know why there was a Greek chorus narrating. But I thought it was funny for some reason and was hooked ever since. I got into Allen around the same time I was getting into jazz which is why after seeing Everyone Says I Love You (1996), (the ultimate jazz nerd musical with a story built around jazz standard songs) I knew this guy had to be some kind of genius...occasionally.

Allen is an acquired taste to be sure. Every year, like clockwork, he makes a new film, and almost every year he makes it harder for people to appreciate his work. Great films like Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008) sit next to mediocre sentimental schlock like The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001), seemingly daring audiences to like the next film he gives us. On top of that, he’s the ultimate example of life imitating art, you know, because of the whole dating your semi-adopted daughter thing (I only added the word “semi” because I’m a dedicated fan). But if you look at each film on an individual basis, Allen has given us some real gems, and 1986’s Hannah and Her Sisters is one of his best.

The movie focuses on three sisters and their extended family. Holly (Diane Wiest) is the youngest sister who works as a caterer to support her awesome cocaine habit, though she dreams of acting and/or writing maybe. Lee (Barbara Hershey) lives with a reclusive artist (Max von Sydow) and struggles to find her own identity outside of her boyfriend’s huge personality. And Hannah (Mia Farrow) is the anchor of the family. She’s the successful actress that holds everything together with a strong sense of responsibility and understated passive aggression. The film deals primarily with 2 years in the life of this family, and their extended family, including Michael Caine as Hannah’s cheating husband Elliot, and Woody himself as Hannah’s ex-husband Mickey, a hypochondriac going through a near death experience.

What I love about Allen is the way he incorporates outside influences into his own storytelling. He’s always been a big fan of Swedish Director Ingmar Bergman, and in this film he really finds the perfect balance between Bergman’s dramatic longing and his own neurotic comedy. The perfect example of this is in Caine’s character Elliot. He wants desperately to cheat on his wife with her own sister, and Allen finds a way to make this hilarious, with Elliot constantly psyching himself up through voice over and then doing the exact wrong thing every time. Mickey’s story is also very serious, about a guy dealing with the fact that he probably has brain cancer and trying to find meaning in his life - but told through Allen’s sensibility it becomes a funny series of whining and testing out different religions by buying all the necessary trinkets.

In this movie Allen makes emo funny. Every character is dealing with some kind of emotional crisis. Weist’s Holly tries to compete with her friend (Carrie Fisher) for the affections of an architect (Sam Waterston) and has to deal with being second fiddle. Hershey’s Lee struggles with infidelity and being her husband’s only link to the outside world. Farrow’s Hannah is over-nurturing and drives everyone in her life away because of it. Their mom is a raging alcoholic who talks about her various love affairs in front of her husband. This is all serious stuff that could easy turn into a cry-fest, but Allen somehow makes it funny...really funny.

I’ve seen this movie way too many times, and one thing that you don’t notice at first is how rigidly structured it is. The film spans 2 years, starting and ending with a Thanksgiving dinner with the family, and is divided by title cards that bookmark certain character’s arcs. This works because you get lost in the journey of each individual, and the constant cutting between stories is perfectly paced. You get the sense that each character is interesting enough to warrant their own film, so the brief glimpses into their lives works really well.

Overall, this might just be my favorite Woody Allen film. It’s definitely the one I’ve watched the most. Even though his films are often hit or miss, when he’s at his best, he’s hard to beat. And this is one of the best.

It’s definitely worth noting that our own Movieland will be showing Hannah and Her Sisters as part of their Movies and Mimosas series this Sunday (5/31) at 11am. I will be there geeking out and maybe drinking!

The movie is amazing...just ignore that 10 year old extra, Soon-Yi.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Scott Burton — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:30:45 +0000

The original Dawn of the Dead is a true masterpiece. It took me forever to discover this though. For years, I knew it only as was one of those movies with the really creepy box art that my mom wouldn’t let me rent.

The Horror section of the video store always intrigued me. Being led around by my mom, I would only catch glimpses of these films and every once in awhile I’d sneak a peek at the back of a box, only to be freaked out by a scary monster, or someone bleeding to death. As a kid these movies seemed so frightening. I just knew that the films where the scary images came from had to be pure nightmare fuel. As an adult I actually started watching these movies and, no surprise here, found that most of them were bad. REAL bad. The monster that was terrifying in a still image, was, in motion, nothing but a dude with no balance in a suit he couldn’t see out of. The movies were slow, and the acting was terrible... I realized that most of these video horror films had one cheap scare, and developed 89 minutes of padding.

It took me so long to finally rent Dawn of the Dead primarily because the box for the video didn’t even have images from the film on the back. I thought that if all of these movies with great scary images could turn out bad, a movie with no scary images had to be worse. I was very, very wrong.

Dawn of the Dead is one of those rare horror films that works on so many levels. George Romero’s 1978 story of four unlikely companions that take shelter in a mall after there has been a zombie outbreak remains a highlight of the genre. I think that one of the reasons it’s so hard to give this film a chance might be the thousands of crappy imitations that completely miss the point and horror of the original. So what is the point and where does the horror come from?

The set up for the film is also the tagline used on the posters, “When there’s no more room in HELL the dead will walk the EARTH.” So the movie opens in Philadelphia with chaos, as a local news station tries to deal with reporting this incident to the public. Tensions are high, and everyone is yelling. Fran (Gaylen Ross) and Stephen (David Emge) decide to take a helicopter to try and escape, and they are unwillingly joined by two police officers (Ken Foree and Scott H. Reiniger). The group decides to hole up in a local shopping mall and wait out the zombie outbreak.

The zombies in this film are slow and dealt with in the now classic “head shot” manner. They are also not immediately scary to look at, being basically greenish in skin tone. What makes the zombies scary is how similar they are to people. And that’s what makes this film many steps above the rest: subtle social commentary.

When the survivors take residence in a shopping mall, zombies fill the place. There are several shots of zombies wandering around with no purpose, and David gives the explanation that they are in the mall because it was a place that was important to them in the past. Not surprisingly, the goal of the survivors is now to get all of the zombies out so they can have the mall to themselves. This is a slow task, but one that is worth questioning because you start to see how empty the survivors lives are too. Once the mall is clear, they are bored. They have everything in the world they need, but with no threat and endless money and clothes, everything, they become increasingly similar to the zombies that they are running from. Later, a motorcycle gang tries to take over the mall, and suddenly the four survivors are defending their home from humans.

Many questions about human nature are raised, but there are no easy answers. The real horror is in seeing Romero’s vision of what the average person would do in a time of crisis. He made this movie before shopping malls were even popular, and before George W. Bush encouraged Americans to shop immediately following 9-11. Romero’s genius is in tapping into this instinct we have for owning things and the problems that it creates.

If you’ve avoided this movie, I’d seriously give it a chance. It has a great story, much humor, and an amazing soundtrack by Goblin (who I mentioned in my review of Deep Red). Sure there is plenty of gore and great make up effects by a young Tom Savini, but the true genius of the film is how it depicts the effect of consumerism on people in crisis.

Django (1966)

Scott Burton — Fri, 01 May 2009 11:44:55 +0000

Django is a Spaghetti Western directed by Sergio Corbucci and starring Franco Nero. Before we get too much into the film, let's look at where it came from.

Before Gran Torino, Letters to Iwo Jima, Unforgiven, or even Dirty Harry, Clint Eastwood helped put Italy on the map with a 1964 film called A Fistful of Dollars directed by Sergio Leone. In the film, Eastwood played the Man with No Name, a quiet guy with a slightly warped moral code. The movie was a huge success in its Italian home, and internationally, launching a new genre in Italy that the press dubbed "Spaghetti Western." Basically that meant that following the success of A Fistful of Dollars, many Italian directors were suddenly making Westerns about silent types. The Italian film community had never been shy about jumping onto trends, and they did this in spades, with hundreds of cheap imitations and unofficial sequels. It was from this string of cheap cash-ins that one film would rise above the imitators, and a pupil of director Leone would emerge as an exciting new talent in the genre.

Django opens with a man in black dragging a coffin across the desert set to an amazing theme song by composer Ennio Morricone. The song sets up the mysterious drifter’s back story, and opens the film up in a way that basically gives director Sergio Corbucci freedom to show you whatever he wants. Corbucci uses this freedom to take the violence to new heights, as we follow Django into a small town where he puts together a plan to rob a rival gang of their gold. That's right, Django's about two things: violence and treasure! This movie earned Corbucci his reputation for creating dark, brutal films that pushed the limits of good taste. Ever wonder where Tarantino got the idea to have a guy cut off another guy’s ear (in 1992’s Reservoir Dogs)? Look no further than Django.

The movie marked actor Franco Nero's first major starring role and his first of many collaborations with Corbucci. While the character of Django is basically a blank slate, Nero does a great job of breathing life into him with that look and natural talent that is impossible to ignore. Even with the dialogue being dubbed, Nero manages to captivate. He even managed to inspire me to write a tune for my band.

Listen

[audio: http://rvanews.net/sounds/2009/04/Nero.mp3]

Django's coffin starts as a MacGuffin, inspiring awesome exchanges like:

Maria: Is there someone inside?
Django: Yeah, and his name is Django.

But when the reveal happens at about the 35 minute mark, the film makes the transition from cool to completely badass! Corbucci throws so much awesomeness against the wall, and almost all of it sticks as Django leads the town in a rebellion against the mask wearing gang that’s been oppressing them. There is torture, explosions, horses being shot, quick sand, bad guys that look like TMNT foot soldiers, and amazing one-liners holding it all together.

The film was so well received that it immediately inspired over 30 unofficial sequels and made stars out of both Corbucci and Nero. Though it had it’s origins as a quick cash in on the Western craze, Django was and is good enough to stand on it’s own as a pillar of the genre.

If you like action and exploitation cinema, you should check out this movie. And for fun, as with Hard Boiled try counting the on screen deaths. Good Luck!

Fans of Django should also check out the recent film by Japanese director Takashi Miike called Sukiyaki Western Django. This movie is Miike’s modern mashup of all things Corbucci, and is good, but better appreciated after seeing the works that inspired it (notably Django, and The Great Silence). I went into greater detail on that film here.

DJANGO!

Nuts in May (1976)

Scott Burton — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:30:57 +0000

I've been wanting to talk about this movie for a long time now, and with the recent DVD release of another Mike Leigh film (Happy-Go-Lucky), I figure it's as good a time as any to talk about one of Leigh's early masterpieces and the method behind this British director's madness.

Mike Leigh started his film career in the 1970's with 9 television plays that changed the rules of how film narrative worked. Instead of focusing on a traditional story arc, Leigh's films relied intensely on characters. He and his actors would go to great lengths to provide honest characters that were so real they would become the story. We'll get into the mechanics of this later, but for now it's important to note that Leigh still follows this method he developed in the 70's, and still there is no one else making films this way.

Nuts in May was Leigh's fourth film. In it we meet Keith and Candice Marie: two health-conscience hippies/yuppies on holiday looking for a relaxing week of camping and site-seeing in Southwest England. Keith has planned a trip for them and aims for the couple to have as much organized fun as possible. When things happen that he didn't plan for, like campers setting up too close or playing loud music, Keith can't handle it. That's the movie: A couple goes camping, and it's hilarious. The only way Leigh makes this work is by collaborating with the actors to create solid characters, so nothing ever feels forced and it's always interesting.

"Economics are at the root of quite a few of the world's problems."
-Keith Pratt on the accredation system for cow herds and how it relates to the pasteurization process.

We learn very early in the film that Keith is a control freak, and his wife is naive to the point of being childlike. Keith basically tells Candice Marie to do something, and she either does it or asks a million questions about it. Neither outcome is really satisfactory to Keith, and we learn that basically he is unable to have fun in any real way. There is always a right way to do things, and Keith has to have it that way or no way at all. Much of the comedy comes from moments where Keith tries to teach someone something that they either already know how to do, or are not at all interested in learning. Disinterest is something that Keith doesn't even notice, and so we are treated to long-winded explanations on everything from shot composition when using a camera to the inner workings of a thermometer. Keith takes any subject and exhausts it beyond comprehension. In one scene, Keith and Candice Marie sing one of their original songs for a completely uninterested camper. As they sing the song, Keith explains the verse/chorus structure, and never stops playing his banjo. Even mid song, he manages to destroy any sense of joy or fun. Keith's ability to humiliate himself and everyone around him has to be seen to be believed.

Issues of class and social structure are explored in great detail. Keith and Candice Marie are people we know well. Late twenties/early thirties, upper middle class, healthy in that fun judgmental way, and if they lived in Richmond, could be found bringing their reusable bags to Ellwood Thompson's for produce (instead of the Farmers Market because of the lack of accreditation). In the country they meet people of a lower class, and Keith always makes sure they know it. His meticulous analyzing of the smallest details reveals just how much better he thinks he and Candice Marie are. The supporting cast adds to Keith's neurosis by putting him in situations that he clearly can't handle. This produces a growing sense of tension that builds to an encounter that in any other film would be over dramatized, but in Nuts in May is dealt with in a completely believable way. Pandering is not to be found in a Mike Leigh film.

"Sorry to trouble you but I was just wondering if you'd like to have a look at the pebbles I've just collected?"
-Candice Marie

Dialogue like that is only possible when spoken sincerely, and Mike Leigh goes to great lengths in all of his films to create sincere characters that we can believe in. He starts with actors that he is interested in working with. Leigh works individually with the main actors to create unique characters through a process of writing and improvisation. Each actor is encouraged to do research based on what their character will be, including everything from reading books that the character would have read to spending a day as the character wandering around and interacting with locals. The actors are not allowed to meet until after their characters have been developed, so the interactions always generate many ideas. Leigh and the actors develop a story around these ideas, but they never write a complete, finalized script (which always makes Leigh's Oscar nominations for best screenplay amusing). This process creates completely character driven stories that are not for everyone (including Daniel Neman) but for people interested in something different, the results are always fascinating.

If Mike Leigh or this movie sound at all interesting, I definitely encourage you to check out more of the man's work. Netflix Watch Instantly has many of Leigh's older films (including this one), and even more can be found at Video Fan. Here are some additional favorites of mine: Happy-Go-Lucky, Life is Sweet, Naked, Secrets and Lies, and The Kiss of Death.

Hard Boiled (1992)

Scott Burton — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:30:25 +0000

Hard Boiled was one of those classic films, like Evil Dead 2, that I just stumbled onto in the video store and that forever changed my taste in movies. I remember first seeing the box on the rack and thinking that the movie just looked silly. I think what finally won me over was the fact that I had run out of "Youth Restricted" movies to rent, and this was one of the last ones that I hadn't yet seen. Like Evil Dead 2, I ended up watching this one so many times that I gave the VCR a serious run for its money. The action was so unlike anything I'd ever seen before, with the fast grace of martial arts mixed with the gun battles of 80's shoot ‘em ups. I showed it to all my friends, and still try to do so if I find out that people I know haven't seen it.

Hard Boiled fits into the unique Hong Kong sub genre called "heroic bloodshed." This was a genre John Woo created with the 1986 film A Better Tomorrow, also with Chow Yun Fat, and one that he mastered with this film. Woo, along with director Ringo Lam and others, created bloody action films that dealt with gangs and police with their own code of ethics...and with lots of guns. It's not unusual in these films to see 20 people get killed and then immediately the two killers discuss their inner demons and girl troubles amid the sea of dead. Crime bosses are loaded with armies of henchmen that are only there to be killed by the heroes. Everyone also uses every type of firearm imaginable, and guns rarely need reloading. Because of the fast-paced style, these films have often been labled “gun fu.”

With Hard Boiled, John Woo helped not only put Hong Kong on the film map but he, along with the endlessly charismatic Chow Yun Fat, created the ultimate movie badass in the character of Tequila. How can you not love a guy that plays clarinet in a jazz bar then kills dozens of people within minutes? And his name’s Tequila! Through the intense action, Woo laid the groundwork for the way action would be shot in the US and other countries. Yes, this movie is one of the reasons films like Hitman exist, but all the greats create hundreds of cheap stupid knockoffs, right?

The movie opens with an amazing shootout in an old fashioned Hong Kong teahouse. Tequila is after a suspect in an arms case and will literally do anything to get his man. Shots are fired over and over again, and after about the fifteenth death in the first 10 minutes, you realize that this action is as over the top as possible - that's when director Woo really starts to have fun. He manages to mix violent gunplay, honor, and humor in a way that no other heroic bloodshed movies ever managed. He somehow convinces us to take these people seriously, even when they fire rocket launchers at each other, or drive around in fast cars bobbing their heads to bad 80's music. The action is so good and the motivations so varied that it works on many levels. Woo will set up a conflict, building up emotional tension before resolving it in these massive action set pieces where at least 50 people will be killed. And he'll make you care about the killers, which is a pretty amazing feat.

Tony Leung plays an undercover cop who is in so deep that he’s in danger of losing his identity. Leung is an amazing actor and steals every scene that he’s in. He conveys so much through his face and definitely raises the movie to another level. Early on, Leung is forced to betray one crime boss for another, killing his old boss in cold blood before we even find out that he’s a cop. There is a layer of ambiguity in his performance that holds the film together in a way that didn’t exist in action films at the time. Leung and Yun Fat make a great pair, and are so good that it creates an odd mix of high drama and action. The American equivalent would be like watching Sean Penn and Johnny Depp team up for a Commando remake.

Also, for fans of old school kung fu, keep an eye out for Kuo Chui (The Lizard from Five Deadly Venoms) as crime boss Johnny’s lead henchman. And check out John Woo himself as the owner of the jazz club where Tequila plays.

This movie came out in 1992, and I still haven't seen another film top its ridiculous bloodshed. The only thing that comes close are video games, and even those haven't yet been able to deliver a story with quite the same mix of honor and humor. Definitely check this one out as soon as possible.

For those curious about heroic bloodshed, here are some more films worth seeking out:

A Better Tomorrow (1986)
City on Fire (1987) (which Quentin Tarantino virtually remade as Reservoir Dogs)
The Killer (1989)
Full Contact (1993)

Giallo + Goblin + Gongs = Great

Scott Burton — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:30:43 +0000

In the current climate of adaptations and genre remakes, I thought it'd be a good idea to review something original. This week we take a look at Dario Argento's 1975 giallo classic, Deep Red. Before we get too far into the review, let's talk about giallo. Giallo is an Italian term used to describe a particular genre of crime/mystery and "pulp" that first became popular in the 20's and 30's. In film, starting in the late 50's and early 60's through the 70's, Italians created many many movies in this genre, which thrived on setting up a murder and keeping audiences guessing who the mystery killer was until the inevitable twist ending. Wikipedia expands the definition:

"'Giallo' films are characterized by extended murder sequences featuring excessive bloodletting, stylish camerawork and unusual musical arrangements. The literary whodunit element is retained, but combined with modern slasher horror, while being filtered through Italy's longstanding tradition of opera and staged grand guignol drama."

In Deep Red, Marcus Daly (David Hemmings) is a jazz pianist that gets mixed up in a mystery when he witnesses the first in a series of brutal murders. He meets a journalist (Daria Nicolodi), and the two slowly bond as they try to solve the case and stop the murders. There are many interesting twists and a lot of foreshadowing that definitely make this film worth checking out many, many times. With those familiar with giallo, you'll get even more out of the film as you see how Argento plays with the genre and creates something new.

Even though I sincerely love this film, I typically don't like it's director Dario Argento. He's one of those guys that horror fans love because of his stylish death sequences and crazy camerawork. Fans can give you a million explanations of the true meaning of scenes, but on the surface most of his films don't make much sense. I remember actually buying his film Suspiria based on word of mouth, only to be hugely disappointed by it's lack of interesting characters and the sloppiness of its presentation. I kept trying to find what it was that people saw in him. I watched Phenomena, The Bird with the Crystal Plummage, Inferno, and Trauma, so by the time I finally saw Deep Red I was fully prepared to hate it. I ended up loving it, and after re-watching, I think I've figured out why.

Not only does this film have one of the best soundtracks of all time (performed by Italian prog rock legends Goblin), but it also has a sense of humor. None of the other Argento films have humor. There are attempts at humor in his other films, but in this movie you get the real deal. It's fun watching Hemmings and Nicolodi play off of each other, and all of the scenes in Nicolodi's car are hilarious. Believe it or not, the juxtaposition of brutal murders and romantic hijinks can actually work sometimes too.

Music is one of the distinguishing aspects of giallo, and Deep Red has some of the best music in the weirdest places I've seen. It's hard to get used to at first, but giallos always have really intense music during the murder scenes. This seems odd because the genre puts an emphasis on thrills and tension, but the music takes away the tension immediately. Goblin's score for the film centers around a heavy groove that is played over every murder sequence. While the groove does hurt the tension, it's so catchy that it rises above this criticism and ultimately works. Gong blasts are even added to the groove during key moments in a given sequence, making the whole thing just ridiculous enough to be amazing!

The death sequences are also well shot and imagined. Even though the violence is nothing compared to today's films, you do really feel it in scenes. I don't want to give too much away, but for the most part all of the murders involve exaggerations of everyday things that happen to everyone, so there is definitely something there to identify with. There are also some genuinely creepy moments that you will immediately try to forget so that they don't pop up in dreams.

If you're intrigued by this "giallo" concept, I definitely recommend giving this movie a shot. Then, for more information, check out the now defunct Bloody Italiana. The site is no longer updated, but they have a great archive of reviews, and it's easily navigated. The big directors in this genre are Mario Bava, Dario Argento, and Lucio Fulci and these films are actually getting easier to find thanks to sweet labels like Blue Underground, Anchor Bay, and Severin Films.

Hopefully we can get Movieland to screen this at some point, but for now you can pick it up on Netflix.

A Girl and Her Dog

Scott Burton — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:15:04 +0000

From the outset Wendy and Lucy is a simple tale of Wendy (Michelle Williams) and her dog (Lucy) on a cross country road trip. Problems arise when her car breaks down and she gets stranded in unfamiliar territory.

Director Kelly Reichardt has touched on a subject that is at the center of America right now: economics. Wendy has just enough money to complete her journey from Indiana to Alaska (where she is looking for summer work), and that's if nothing goes wrong. She spends her days driving and playing with her dog, and her nights sleeping in the car. There is the sense that she is on an unplanned trip, and because of this little things have a tremendous effect on Wendy. The problem lies in the fact that she just doesn't have enough money to deal with the simple problems that arise on long trips in old cars.

One morning her car won't start, and things go from bad to worse. She gets caught shop lifting dog food by a young employee, only to be tossed in jail just long enough for Lucy to go missing. She then goes looking for her dog with a quiet resolve that is amazing to watch. Michelle Williams's Wendy is a fully realized character from the start, and through Reichardt's great direction and Williams's acting, we never need back story or plot to appreciate Wendy's plight. Wendy doesn't go around stumbling into plot points and learning lessons, she just stays focused on finding her dog. The tension comes out of her naivete and unprepared nature, but even then, there is only one scary encounter. Most people are nice to her, and offer as much as their own economic positions allow. This movie is about quiet moments where things go unspoken - and not in that lame "Lost" way, but more like real encounters that any of us would have at a Walgreens or a Shell station. Wendy's face immediately tells us what's going on with her character and she never has to say a word.

Along the way, she meets some great characters. Will Oldam's homeless drifter is creepy and oddly helpful, telling Wendy where she might find work once she gets to Alaska. Walter Dalton's security guard takes an early liking to Wendy, telling her where the dog pound is and letting her use his cell phone. In one scene, he feels so bad that he quietly sneaks some money into her hand and won't let her give it back. In any other movie, she would look down and find that he had given her at least $100, but in this film she gets $7. And you know that that was a lot for him to give. Will Patton's mechanic also tries his best to help Wendy by discounting his fee for working on her car, but even he can't give away his services.

The film works because of the amazing atmosphere it creates coupled with real human interaction. There is no sentimentality and no dramatic monologue to take you out of the experience. Yes, this might be the first unsentimental dog movie. The pace is slow, but always interesting. Reichardt gives the audience time to take in the scenery, and like all great directors, doesn't insult our intelligence. The events are shown, and you can read as much or as little into them as you want. The film recalls the atmosphere created by director Monte Hellman in films like Two Lane Blacktop and Cockfighter, with its emphasis on location over plot and small focused story telling. You definitely feel like you've met these people before, and they're all treated fairly and without judgment (except for John Robinson's store clerk...but still).

This was one of the more refreshing cinematic experiences I've had in awhile. The movie tells a simple story, and the drama is all in the details. See it at Movieland* quickly before it’s gone.

*Unfortunately the onslaught of Watchmen has knocked Wendy and Lucy out of theaters, and now it's not in RVA anymore. Luckily it will be out on DVD in May (Netflix, Netflix).

Selling truth door-to-door

Scott Burton — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:00:03 +0000

"The best seller in the world is the Bible for one reason: it's the greatest piece of literature of all time."
-Paul "The Badger" Brennan

This is the opening line from Salesman, the Maylses Brothers' and Charlotte Zwerin's 1968 "direct cinema" film about a group of Bible salesmen as they travel through the country, joking and lying their ways into the pocketbooks of middle America.

I was reminded of this great film during the two minutes of the Oscars that I accidentally caught, in which Albert Maysles made a documentary about the nominees for Best Documentary. Seeing in those two minutes how the Academy was able to convince Maysles to do something so self referential and forgettable not only increased my disdain for Hollywood, but also increased my desire to watch one of this genius's great early works with his late brother David who passed in 1987.

To better understand the effectiveness of the method, let me talk briefly about "direct cinema." The term refers to the presentation of a documentary without voice-overs or situations affected by the filmmakers, showing life as it really happened. The Maysles Brothers accomplished this as best they could by following people and simply capturing as much footage as possible, which they would then edit into a narrative. The problem is that once you make that first edit, you are showing the audience what you want them to see, and not necessarily the truth. Michael Moore gets a lot of flack for this, and often deservedly so, because he never tries to present the truth and in many cases creates his own facts to heighten the drama and get his point across. This all works because America almost always believes its documentaries, usually more than it's books on the same subject. The Maysles Brothers strived for the most honest approach, and in this film they got as close as any documentary I've seen.

The film follows four Bible salesman: Paul "The Badger" Brennan, Charles "The Gipper" McDevitt, James "The Rabbit" Baker, and Raymond "The Bull" Martos as they use different techniques to try and "place" $50 Bibles in the homes of people that seem to never be able to afford them. Each salesmen is nicknamed for their respective selling techniques, and each displayed prominently for the audience. The film is almost overwhelming at times in how much it reveals, particularly because you're made aware of how easily some customers get roped in, agonizing over the purchase, while the seller continues raising the stakes. You just know that some of these people can't afford it, but the salesmen can't afford to lose the sale.

Eventually the film settles on Paul Brennan. Paul hasn't been able to close many sales, and his three colleagues start to worry about him. He goes from house to house and most of the time doesn't even make it in the door. When he does get inside, he has the people in his grasp until he tells them the price of his product - then he's almost always shown out. It gets interesting as the story goes on because Paul deals with these snubs in increasingly hostile ways. He will throw out snide comments for the benefit of only himself and even demeans himself and the customer because he just can't deal with things. His lying increases. He goes to a house to collect money from a sale that James "The Rabbit" Baker made, only to be told by the wife that the family can't afford it, and she can't make any decisions until her husband gets back from work. To counteract this, Paul quickly lies and tells her that not only is he a district manager, but that if she doesn't pay then he'll have to charge Mr. Baker out of his own pocket for false reporting. She pleads with him to come back after her husband gets home, and Paul says he can't because the salesmen are leaving the area...another lie. In the end, Paul gets his money, but won't even get credit because he didn't make the initial sale in the first place.

The film works so well because we are never told what to think; we are simply shown how these people act. There is a lot to love and a lot to hate, and it always feels like you're watching a real story unfold. It also works as a time capsule of a bygone era and profession. Human behavior is key, and you'll recognize all of the traits on display. It's interesting to see how little has changed, particularly in how people take advantage of each other. "Salesman" is also still groundbreaking in its display of honesty and really can still be held up among the constantly growing crop of "informative" documentaries. This movie comes from a small team that wanted to follow a select group of people and tell their story. Not a politician on a "green" quest for profit (An Inconvenient Truth). Not a comedian trying to shake things up with smartly cut "man on the street" interviews (Religilous). Not even by a conspiracy theorist using loosely connecting facts from very few sources to create his own version of the real truth. (Zeitgeist). This film just feels so much better.

Bad Timing: bad plot saved by great director

Scott Burton — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:15:43 +0000

Editor's note: This is the second installment in Scott's new column here at RVANews, where he sheds some light on some little-seen art house and genre classics. Most of the films he's covering can be found at Video Fan or on Netflix.

On paper, Nicolas Roeg's 1980 film Bad Timing shouldn't be interesting. A story about a man and a woman dealing with a mutual sexual obsession that leads to their undoing sounds more like a late night Cinemax film than the masterpiece that it is. The reason this movie rises above the cookie cutter plot is the director: Nicolas Roeg.

Roeg arrived on the scene with 1970's Performance featuring Mick Jagger and immediately got attention with his unorthodox filming/editing style. Combining camera zooms and pans with rapid-fire editing, Roeg showed an ability to convey emotion and heighten tension in even the most mundane sequences. He followed this gem with 1971's Walkabout, the Daphne Du Maurier horror adaptation Don't Look Now from 1973, and the David Bowie anti-sci-fi epic The Man Who Fell to Earth in 1976. These films solidified his reputation as a non-linear filmmaker that challenged audiences.

Enter 1980's Bad Timing. I first discovered this movie 4 years ago when going through a huge Jim O'Rourke phase. O'Rourke is an amazing musician that has done everything from playing in Sonic Youth to arranging music for film (School of Rock, Grizzly Man). My three favorite albums of his were all named after Nicolas Roeg films in order of their release (Bad Timing, Eureka, and Insignificance). After discovering this, I quickly watched as much Roeg as I could find. I'm glad O'Rourke did that because he helped at least one person discover Roeg's genius.

From the very beginning, Bad Timing puts you in the middle of a complex tale of mutual obsession between Alex Linden (Art Garfunkel) and Milena Flaherty (Theresa Russell), and uses a different cinematic language to tell its tale. Scenes are juxtaposed in an initially confusing manner. The fascinating thing is that the narrative is propelled by the cuts, not by the story. The first time you hear The Who's "Who Are You" playing over scenes of Alex spying on Milena, it seems almost cheesy. The second time this happens (the song picks up where the previous cut left off 20 minutes prior) you have a completely different understanding of both characters, and hopefully a deeper appreciation for Roeg's storytelling. There is even a conversation that uses continuous dialogue, but cuts between shots of the actual conversation and shots of the characters before they start talking, that adds an unsettling effect perfect for the scene.

Plot barely shows itself until the second half of the film, yet Roeg's use of various techniques creates a completely new way to keep you interested. The characters are much more important than the plot, and the theme of commitment keeps things going. The more we find out about everyone, the less we like them. Alex is everyone's favorite manipulative academic, and Milena is everyone's favorite drug-addled free spirit. They love each other on the surface, but it never goes beyond that, even as they both try to change themselves and each other. This leads the audience down a dark path that results in both characters taking their personalities to the extreme with near catastrophic results. Most of this is inter cut throughout the film, so we know mostly "what" happens, but it's the "how" and "why" that's so interesting.

I really admire Nicolas Roeg's ability to show and not tell us what we need to know. When the couple goes to Morocco, they don't say, "Morocco sure is great." Instead Roeg shows us Morocco through shots of locals charming snakes and the atmosphere at street level. There is no narration and very little exposition as well. I like it when the director doesn't treat the audience like idiots...it feels cool. Roeg has created an 120 minute puzzle that merits many viewings.

Also, the soundtrack is great. Tom Waits, Keith Jarrett, Harry Partch, Billy Holiday and The Who. This one's well worth tracking down.

A heart-friendly Atkins diet

Scott Burton — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:30:26 +0000

(The 4 star rating applies only to the 3D adaptation of this movie. The 2D version gets 1 star.)

My Bloody Valentine 3D is the first film of 2009 that I got excited about. I had heard so many good things from people, that going in I knew it would be a good time. Having said this, the film is not without its problems. To understand what makes it so much fun though, let's first get familiar with the term "fan service."

Fan Service: "...scenes designed to excite or titillate the viewer. Basically, if it has little plot-redeeming value, but makes the viewer sit up and take notice, it's probably fan service in one form or another." -UrbanDictionary.com

That is the definition of fan service, and fan service is the definition of MBV3D. This movie fits nicely into the "slasher" genre of films, never tries to be anything more, and is better as a result. A loose remake of 1981's My Bloody Valentine (which is actually much better), the film takes place in a mining town where Tom, played by Supernatural's Jensen Ackles, returns after a ten-year absence. He fled in fear following a crazy-ass massacre. Now he's back and just in time for more murders. Almost everyone suspects him of being the mysterious killer, except his old gf played by Jaime King. Add a pick axe wielding killer in a mining suit, a little person being stabbed and electrocuted, a completely naked woman with a gun, a human heart in a Valentine's Day box, and the THIRD DIMENSION, and you have a slasher film that oozes fan service.

The Third Dimension

That's right, this movie is really in 3D, and not the blue and red glasses kind. Not even the clear glasses from 7-11 that you got in the early 90's to watch that live Rolling Stones concert. It jumps out at you in full color and truly delivers the goods. The filmmakers took the gimmick of 3D and developed the whole movie around it, so you get so many gags and surprises that you totally forget about things like "plot" and "acting." The best part was seeing how they took advantage of the depth of field, and of course how they made human body parts fly out into the audience. The downside is that the film is projected digitally, which means that when people start running around on screen, it gets very confusing. Another down side would have to be the acting of every one. Every one except:

Tom Atkins (aka "That Guy" from many random movies)

The last film I saw with Tom Atkins was Halloween 3, and I doubt that he's done much work since then. Having said that, his inclusion in the film is true horror nerd fan service. In MBV3D Atkins plays Burke, an old town crony that nabbed the killer 10 years ago - OR DID HE? While Tom's mustache may be less glorious than in days past, he makes up for it by acting the snot out of every scene he's in. Somehow this old pro has risen from the ashes of 80's misogyny to dominate a new millennium teen slasher remake! He brings his "A" game and forces the rest of the cast to do the same...when they share a scene. Unfortunately, when Atkins is not on camera, the acting goes back to being terrible. He also gets the best death in the film, which has to be seen in 3D to be believed. Ultimate 3D fan service!

The worst part of the film is the last 15 minutes. No spoilers, but basically they run out of ideas before the movie ends. The ending reminded me a lot of Wes Craven's Scream. I loved that movie when I first saw it because for random reasons I was forced to leave 15 minutes before the end. When I finally saw the end, it was just lame, and the same is true of MBV3D...luckily the rest of the film more than justifies a three dimensional viewing.

My Bloody Valentine 3D is a great movie going experience. I will not say it is a great movie, because it wouldn't work in 2D, but I will say that I haven't had that much fun at the movies in a long time.

Catch it at VA Center Commons or Carmike for the actual 3D experience.