The serious trailer:
Download a high-quality version at drop.io.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Transmissions - Trailer 2
The serious trailer:
Download a high-quality version at drop.io.
And if you missed the teaser trailer:
Transmissions - The Teaser Trailer from Jack Kentala on Vimeo.
Download a high-quality version at drop.io.
And if you missed the teaser trailer:
Transmissions - The Teaser Trailer from Jack Kentala on Vimeo.
Impressions: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
My prior post still holds: a mediocre film that, worst of all, does very little with its central, bizarre premise. The entirety of Benjamin's backward-aging only holds weight in small parts of the story, and the story is mostly the life of a man who had a few world travels but very few interesting stories gleaned from it.
It's an odd turn for director David Fincher, though. After establishing himself suspenseful works like Se7en, Fight Club, Panic Room, and Zodiac, here he tries to have a crossover, mainstream success with lighter fare. But the mainstream audience I expect will be even more disappointed than I am.
The film is trapped in sort of a limbo. By its nature and story, it can't - or shouldn't - be conventional, but it tries. There are the emotional cues of the overt score, the pretty cinematography, and the movie stars. But what if it embraced a different aesthetic? An impossible question to ask, I suppose, or pointless; like asking what it would be like directed by another director? Or, simply put, structured as linear and not a bookended flashback?
I'll give it this, though: a brilliant montage of Benjamin's journey through India and, presumably, mountainous Asia, as well as slumming it in some undefined urbanscape. But that's it: a montage probably only a minute or so long in a film with a TRT much longer than that. (Update: I imagine that Terrence Malick's mysterious Tree of Life, starring Pitt and Sean Penn, will expand that one montage into a gorgeous feature. It's been rumored that, while the film was publicly shot in Texas, other parts take place in India.)
The whole inclusion of Hurricane Katrina seemed entirely unnecessary. It made the last shots of the ending quite frightening in an abstract way (in particular, the camera pushing back from the hospital room into the crowded, noisy hall), only to resolve with a tacked-on epilogue that completely (albeit necessarily?) changed tones.
And here's a semi-spoiler beyond, so stop here if you're going to see the movie:
I have to call out shenanigans for getting children to play the "old" Benjamin Button, whereas such a fuss was made to get Pitt into old-man makeup during Benjamin's youth. It almost retroactively un-sold the convincing effects of the film's beginning, and with the presence of a slightly-aging Cate Blanchette, it only served as a distraction and doesn't lend any believability that the string of progressively-younger children could pass off as Brad Pitt-esque.
Update: From IMDb, which, sadly, discredits the most positive thing I had to say about the film:
It's an odd turn for director David Fincher, though. After establishing himself suspenseful works like Se7en, Fight Club, Panic Room, and Zodiac, here he tries to have a crossover, mainstream success with lighter fare. But the mainstream audience I expect will be even more disappointed than I am.
The film is trapped in sort of a limbo. By its nature and story, it can't - or shouldn't - be conventional, but it tries. There are the emotional cues of the overt score, the pretty cinematography, and the movie stars. But what if it embraced a different aesthetic? An impossible question to ask, I suppose, or pointless; like asking what it would be like directed by another director? Or, simply put, structured as linear and not a bookended flashback?
I'll give it this, though: a brilliant montage of Benjamin's journey through India and, presumably, mountainous Asia, as well as slumming it in some undefined urbanscape. But that's it: a montage probably only a minute or so long in a film with a TRT much longer than that. (Update: I imagine that Terrence Malick's mysterious Tree of Life, starring Pitt and Sean Penn, will expand that one montage into a gorgeous feature. It's been rumored that, while the film was publicly shot in Texas, other parts take place in India.)
The whole inclusion of Hurricane Katrina seemed entirely unnecessary. It made the last shots of the ending quite frightening in an abstract way (in particular, the camera pushing back from the hospital room into the crowded, noisy hall), only to resolve with a tacked-on epilogue that completely (albeit necessarily?) changed tones.
And here's a semi-spoiler beyond, so stop here if you're going to see the movie:
I have to call out shenanigans for getting children to play the "old" Benjamin Button, whereas such a fuss was made to get Pitt into old-man makeup during Benjamin's youth. It almost retroactively un-sold the convincing effects of the film's beginning, and with the presence of a slightly-aging Cate Blanchette, it only served as a distraction and doesn't lend any believability that the string of progressively-younger children could pass off as Brad Pitt-esque.
Update: From IMDb, which, sadly, discredits the most positive thing I had to say about the film:
Director Tarsem Singh was enlisted to shoot the brief handheld montage of Benjamin backpacking through India and Cambodia, after David Fincher learned that Tarsem and Brad Pitt were both already planning to be in Southeast Asia at the same time.
In brief: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
A mediocre film masquerading as something worth watching.
Top five / Soderbergh interview
I've been poked, prodded, and given a number of threats that mostly involve injury via puncture, so here it is, you jackals. My five favorite movies of 2008, in a ranked list. And here's a bonus: a single word I'd use to describe why I chose each.
1. Che - Ambitious
2. The Wrestler - Soul-baring
3. Frost/Nixon - Taut
4. Milk - Inspiring
5. Doubt - Elegant
The only surprise might be The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which I'm slated to see tonight. Already I'm going in with a player-hater attitude for some reason; probably because it was slathered in Oscar nominations that I can only assume was by sheer laziness on the nomination peoples' behalf. That, and anything made for over $150 million pisses me off by sheer jealousy that I'll never get to touch that much skrilla. (Did I just say skrilla?)
Also, here's a great interview with Steven Soderbergh that goes beyond just a rote discussion about Che, both man and film. In particular, he weighs in on why the endless warring over the holy land is pointless (Soderbergh is a self-described "hardcore atheist") and he, quite surprisingly, expresses some doubt that filmmaking, as a medium, can achieve anything worthwhile.
Tangent: That last bit reminds me of the tearjerking confessional near the end of JCVD, where Jean-Claude laments that, while he's a world-famous movie star, he's done nothing in his life that means anything.
1. Che - Ambitious
2. The Wrestler - Soul-baring
3. Frost/Nixon - Taut
4. Milk - Inspiring
5. Doubt - Elegant
The only surprise might be The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which I'm slated to see tonight. Already I'm going in with a player-hater attitude for some reason; probably because it was slathered in Oscar nominations that I can only assume was by sheer laziness on the nomination peoples' behalf. That, and anything made for over $150 million pisses me off by sheer jealousy that I'll never get to touch that much skrilla. (Did I just say skrilla?)
Also, here's a great interview with Steven Soderbergh that goes beyond just a rote discussion about Che, both man and film. In particular, he weighs in on why the endless warring over the holy land is pointless (Soderbergh is a self-described "hardcore atheist") and he, quite surprisingly, expresses some doubt that filmmaking, as a medium, can achieve anything worthwhile.
Tangent: That last bit reminds me of the tearjerking confessional near the end of JCVD, where Jean-Claude laments that, while he's a world-famous movie star, he's done nothing in his life that means anything.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
In brief: The Reader
Bogged down by a source book that, presumably, digs deeper than the movie. Here are just a few sketches of characters and many montage-scenes that probably filled pages. Again, just like Revolutionary Road, Winslet gets some nominations and awards for repeating the same few, melancholy notes over the course of a feature film. Also baffling is her Golden Globe win for her role as "supporting," when the Academy acknowledges that she was the lead actress in the film (which she certainly was).
But as mentioned, the film crosses over a few time periods and only lets a few characters talk from each, and the narrative feels simultaneously overstuffed and threadbare. There are equal, scant story parts of an affair, a trial, some nostalgia, WWII dredging, coming-of-age-ness, and obligatory Kate Winslet nudity.
Also, if exactly 76% of the musical score was removed, the film would be precisely 43% better.
Good luck at best picture. I haven't seen Benjamin Button yet, but with the top honors of the Golden Globes, Producers Guild Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards, and completely-unwarranted hype surrounding it, Slumdog Millionaire - a film I found equally lukewarm and only entertaining enough to prevent snores - will probably win everything worth winning. (At least it's not The Dark fucking Knight.)
But as mentioned, the film crosses over a few time periods and only lets a few characters talk from each, and the narrative feels simultaneously overstuffed and threadbare. There are equal, scant story parts of an affair, a trial, some nostalgia, WWII dredging, coming-of-age-ness, and obligatory Kate Winslet nudity.
Also, if exactly 76% of the musical score was removed, the film would be precisely 43% better.
Good luck at best picture. I haven't seen Benjamin Button yet, but with the top honors of the Golden Globes, Producers Guild Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards, and completely-unwarranted hype surrounding it, Slumdog Millionaire - a film I found equally lukewarm and only entertaining enough to prevent snores - will probably win everything worth winning. (At least it's not The Dark fucking Knight.)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Three-sentence microimpressions: The Blair Witch Project
I watched The Blair Witch Project for the first time yesterday, after having spent the decade since its release only seeing bits, pieces, and other shows and movies parodying it. My first thought was, "Wow. This is like a really good Cloverfield." My second was the obvious realization that Cloverfield is really a subpar rip-off of The Blair Witch Project.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Progress report: Rough cut, fine cutting
The other night I watched a full rough cut of Transmissions, which has a TRT of about 105 minutes.
"Rough cut" is a bit of a misnomer, though, since I usually go for the jugular and have rough cuts that are pretty close to picture lock and with varying degrees of sound work already finished. So, barring some possible major revisions, I intend on trimming down the overlong bits and getting to a picture-lock sweet spot between 80 and 90 minutes.
It was a bit surreal watching it all. Not that it unveiled some grand epiphany of genius filmmaking, but it was simply the first time I had watched it all at once. The genesis of the project was that Transmissions would manifest itself in nine, ten-minute shorts, if only to fit the time limits of YouTube. That later changed, but the idea carried over into production and post-production, in which I'm editing the nine chunks separately, most of which hover around the ten-minutes-long mark. And since I assembled my rough cut in this manner, only once, fairly early in the process, did I watch multiple Transmissions - specifically, 1, 2, and 3 - in a row.
Seeing it all in full finally cemented an abstract reality for me: Transmissions is a feature film, and the uninitiated probably wouldn't see it as ten unrelated parts strung together. Not that that matters, since the inherent structure of any story is three acts, or simply a beginning, middle, and end; most screenplays follow a time/page limit for each part, and, within the three parts, a few of my screenwriting teachers said that most films consist of eight sequences.
But that's moot now. What matters is how the film unfolds in real-time, as a single piece of storytelling, and which I watched for 1 hour and 45 minutes straight through the other night.
And what surprised me is how quickly it went past. I thought my redundant familiarity with the source material would create a very long mental viewing time, but it rushed past. Maybe watching it starting at 11 p.m. had something to do with the effect, but I feel somewhat relieved that, if nothing else, I don't think the film is slow. And regardless, I'll probably cut fifteen to twenty-five minutes out of it, depending on when/how/if I find a perfect sweet spot for the length. (After all, I can kid and delude myself all I want, but how long can someone simply watch one human on screen? My assumption is: as short as possible.)
Now here's the part where I come into conflict with some of my peers. Throughout film school and going through the editing program, there's always several points when my teachers advised that an overt familiarity with the material becomes a pitfall, and that it's advisable to get others to watch the film with "a fresh set of eyes." And I've rejected this argument on pretty much everything I've done. And no, it's not because I think I'm immune to error or that anything I concoct has an innate, effortless perfection. It's that I believe in a sort of purity of vision that needs to gestate in relative isolation; simply put, I don't like to show my cuts, or my scripts, or share too many of my ideas. Part of it is the surprise of showing others a finished product.
Part of it is a willing desire to go so deep into the film's own rabbit hole that, when I finally emerge, it's something completely unexpected. Right now, after living with the project every day for seven months, I have lost a degree of perspective. I accept the bizarre parts of the story with little hesitation; I see it as normal and as a creative strength. But I have the common sense to sort of emulate the mindset of a third party upon watching my story. I have broken my own rule to Not Show Anyone the film until it's done: one case was a rare exception for a friend who was in Minnesota for the holiday break and wouldn't be able to see the rest until I sent out a DVD. I was generous and showed him the rough cuts of Transmissions 1 and 2, which lasted about thirty minutes. I said nothing during the screening, and neither did he. Once it finished, he turned to me and said, "I don't want this to sound negative, because it's not, but this is like watching a movie from another planet." Success, I thought, holding back a grin. He could sense that was my intention.
So, after spending yesterday completely avoiding any editing, letting the film just sort of marinate in my brain, I'm starting my fine cut, all while doing some sound work and preparing the material for my last "reshoot," which is mostly for some additional sound work. Later today I'm going to rewatch my rough cut and see if something else jumps out at me. As it stands, I'm confident in the story, and I just have to determine where I should cut the fat and where I should leave it.
Edit: Something I totally forgot - It was definitely strange seeing my film with TV-safe cropping. My camera shoots in a sort of extreme, unchangeable TV-safe mode, so when I was shooting, I had no idea that my edges of my frames were totally different when viewed in full-frame on my Mac. It was actually disappointing the first time I loaded in my footage and saw that stuff I didn't want in frame was clearly in frame. Now, though, after months spent watching Quicktimes on my machine, I'm used to the uncropped image.
Also, I only render out 640 x 480 Quicktimes of my rough cuts, so when I full-screen them on my 24" iMac, there's a distinct grain in the shadows and on the whole of the image. It doesn't look badly artifacted, though, since I use minimal compression. I imagine it's an extrapolation from the way I intentionally shot the film with the gain setting jacked up two stops on my camera; a poor man's way of getting a "grainy" look on video. (And spare me the argument that it could be done in post without affecting the masters. I like shooting dangerously.) But on the standard-def DVD I watched, the grain seemed relatively absent. Strange that, after my prior post about "definitive versions," I'll have my own personal quandary: which is the definitive version - the standard-def, "smooth" DVD or the grainy Quicktimes?
"Rough cut" is a bit of a misnomer, though, since I usually go for the jugular and have rough cuts that are pretty close to picture lock and with varying degrees of sound work already finished. So, barring some possible major revisions, I intend on trimming down the overlong bits and getting to a picture-lock sweet spot between 80 and 90 minutes.
It was a bit surreal watching it all. Not that it unveiled some grand epiphany of genius filmmaking, but it was simply the first time I had watched it all at once. The genesis of the project was that Transmissions would manifest itself in nine, ten-minute shorts, if only to fit the time limits of YouTube. That later changed, but the idea carried over into production and post-production, in which I'm editing the nine chunks separately, most of which hover around the ten-minutes-long mark. And since I assembled my rough cut in this manner, only once, fairly early in the process, did I watch multiple Transmissions - specifically, 1, 2, and 3 - in a row.
Seeing it all in full finally cemented an abstract reality for me: Transmissions is a feature film, and the uninitiated probably wouldn't see it as ten unrelated parts strung together. Not that that matters, since the inherent structure of any story is three acts, or simply a beginning, middle, and end; most screenplays follow a time/page limit for each part, and, within the three parts, a few of my screenwriting teachers said that most films consist of eight sequences.
But that's moot now. What matters is how the film unfolds in real-time, as a single piece of storytelling, and which I watched for 1 hour and 45 minutes straight through the other night.
And what surprised me is how quickly it went past. I thought my redundant familiarity with the source material would create a very long mental viewing time, but it rushed past. Maybe watching it starting at 11 p.m. had something to do with the effect, but I feel somewhat relieved that, if nothing else, I don't think the film is slow. And regardless, I'll probably cut fifteen to twenty-five minutes out of it, depending on when/how/if I find a perfect sweet spot for the length. (After all, I can kid and delude myself all I want, but how long can someone simply watch one human on screen? My assumption is: as short as possible.)
Now here's the part where I come into conflict with some of my peers. Throughout film school and going through the editing program, there's always several points when my teachers advised that an overt familiarity with the material becomes a pitfall, and that it's advisable to get others to watch the film with "a fresh set of eyes." And I've rejected this argument on pretty much everything I've done. And no, it's not because I think I'm immune to error or that anything I concoct has an innate, effortless perfection. It's that I believe in a sort of purity of vision that needs to gestate in relative isolation; simply put, I don't like to show my cuts, or my scripts, or share too many of my ideas. Part of it is the surprise of showing others a finished product.
Part of it is a willing desire to go so deep into the film's own rabbit hole that, when I finally emerge, it's something completely unexpected. Right now, after living with the project every day for seven months, I have lost a degree of perspective. I accept the bizarre parts of the story with little hesitation; I see it as normal and as a creative strength. But I have the common sense to sort of emulate the mindset of a third party upon watching my story. I have broken my own rule to Not Show Anyone the film until it's done: one case was a rare exception for a friend who was in Minnesota for the holiday break and wouldn't be able to see the rest until I sent out a DVD. I was generous and showed him the rough cuts of Transmissions 1 and 2, which lasted about thirty minutes. I said nothing during the screening, and neither did he. Once it finished, he turned to me and said, "I don't want this to sound negative, because it's not, but this is like watching a movie from another planet." Success, I thought, holding back a grin. He could sense that was my intention.
So, after spending yesterday completely avoiding any editing, letting the film just sort of marinate in my brain, I'm starting my fine cut, all while doing some sound work and preparing the material for my last "reshoot," which is mostly for some additional sound work. Later today I'm going to rewatch my rough cut and see if something else jumps out at me. As it stands, I'm confident in the story, and I just have to determine where I should cut the fat and where I should leave it.
Edit: Something I totally forgot - It was definitely strange seeing my film with TV-safe cropping. My camera shoots in a sort of extreme, unchangeable TV-safe mode, so when I was shooting, I had no idea that my edges of my frames were totally different when viewed in full-frame on my Mac. It was actually disappointing the first time I loaded in my footage and saw that stuff I didn't want in frame was clearly in frame. Now, though, after months spent watching Quicktimes on my machine, I'm used to the uncropped image.
Also, I only render out 640 x 480 Quicktimes of my rough cuts, so when I full-screen them on my 24" iMac, there's a distinct grain in the shadows and on the whole of the image. It doesn't look badly artifacted, though, since I use minimal compression. I imagine it's an extrapolation from the way I intentionally shot the film with the gain setting jacked up two stops on my camera; a poor man's way of getting a "grainy" look on video. (And spare me the argument that it could be done in post without affecting the masters. I like shooting dangerously.) But on the standard-def DVD I watched, the grain seemed relatively absent. Strange that, after my prior post about "definitive versions," I'll have my own personal quandary: which is the definitive version - the standard-def, "smooth" DVD or the grainy Quicktimes?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Mux017
Like any good procrastinating casual-hipster, this is culled from an eclectic group of Best of 2008 albums and the like. And also the Pitchfork 500 book I got for Christmas.
Download the zip via drop.io:
1. The Magnetic Fields - Take Ecstasy With Me
2. The New Pornographers - Sing Me Spanish Techno
3. The Kills - Last Day of Magic
4. Frightened Rabbit - The Twist
5. Mount Eerie - Voice In Headphones
6. Modest Mouse - Broke
7. Hot Chip - One Pure Thought
8. Friendly Fires - On Board
9. Why? - A Sky For Shoeing Horses Under
10. Animal Collective - Brothersport
11. The Dodos - The Season
12. Max Tundra - Which Song
Download the zip via drop.io:
1. The Magnetic Fields - Take Ecstasy With Me
2. The New Pornographers - Sing Me Spanish Techno
3. The Kills - Last Day of Magic
4. Frightened Rabbit - The Twist
5. Mount Eerie - Voice In Headphones
6. Modest Mouse - Broke
7. Hot Chip - One Pure Thought
8. Friendly Fires - On Board
9. Why? - A Sky For Shoeing Horses Under
10. Animal Collective - Brothersport
11. The Dodos - The Season
12. Max Tundra - Which Song
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Definitive versions
Here's a great article about "definitive" versions of film and the nature of films "restored" through a re-edit. Of note, it mentions Apocalypse Now Redux, Stanley Kubrick's semi-covert edits to 2001 and The Shining, and how The Thin Red Line (or The New World, certainly) could've been an entirely different film if the cutting-room scraps were spliced together.
It's a topic I've thought about for as long as I've been seriously interested in film, and something I'm very conscious of when cutting my current film - am I going to revisit it in ten, twenty, thirty years and make some re-edits that I'll claim make it better but that others feel adds little or nothing to the original?
It's a topic I've thought about for as long as I've been seriously interested in film, and something I'm very conscious of when cutting my current film - am I going to revisit it in ten, twenty, thirty years and make some re-edits that I'll claim make it better but that others feel adds little or nothing to the original?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Transmissions - The Teaser Trailer
Transmissions - The Teaser Trailer from Jack Kentala on Vimeo.
Download the high quality trailer. (141.73 MB via Megaupload)
Transmissions - The Teaser Trailer
Transmissions - The Teaser Trailer from Jack Kentala on Vimeo.
Download the high quality trailer. (141.73 MB via Megaupload)
A supposed high-quality "hack" for my YouTube embed:
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
In brief: Doubt / Roger Deakins
One of the few plays-turned-films that I don't writhe though, mentally screaming, "It's just talking! They're not using the medium!" True, there were a few centerpiece, long-conversation scenes probably ripped verbatim from the source play, but when you have Philip Seymour Hoffman going toe-to-toe with Meryl Streep, and with Amy Adams playing a genuine naivete, it works. Also, Viola Davis steals her two scenes, snot and tears and all.
Cinematographer Roger Deakins, in this and Revolutionary Road, shows his master's hand with palette and restraint. There's a reason why a well-shot film is done by a guy who's been around the block a few times. Even though the reviews are mixed, I might have to see The Reader just to see if/how Deakins gave his magic touch to not one, nor two, but three high-profile films this year. (Interesting fact: He's been nominated for seven Oscars for Best Cinematography and has won zero. He's the [pre-The Departed] Scorsese and [discounting Best Visual Effects for 2001] Kubrick of non-Oscar-winning greats. As much as I loved the Oscar-winning camera and lighting of There Will Be Blood, Deakins deserved equal propers last year for his stark work in No Country For Old Men.)
Also: Points for an ambiguous ending that doesn't cop out.
Cinematographer Roger Deakins, in this and Revolutionary Road, shows his master's hand with palette and restraint. There's a reason why a well-shot film is done by a guy who's been around the block a few times. Even though the reviews are mixed, I might have to see The Reader just to see if/how Deakins gave his magic touch to not one, nor two, but three high-profile films this year. (Interesting fact: He's been nominated for seven Oscars for Best Cinematography and has won zero. He's the [pre-The Departed] Scorsese and [discounting Best Visual Effects for 2001] Kubrick of non-Oscar-winning greats. As much as I loved the Oscar-winning camera and lighting of There Will Be Blood, Deakins deserved equal propers last year for his stark work in No Country For Old Men.)
Also: Points for an ambiguous ending that doesn't cop out.
Monday, January 5, 2009
In brief: Gran Torino
Eastwood is a parody of himself: an old man with no inner monologue. He can't direct non-actors to save his life.
All the humor was completely unintentional; Eastwood grunting and groaning and growling turning into punchlines at the end of pretty much every scene. Him singing over the end credits put the cherry on top.
All the humor was completely unintentional; Eastwood grunting and groaning and growling turning into punchlines at the end of pretty much every scene. Him singing over the end credits put the cherry on top.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
In brief: W.
Too soon. There's an Uncanny Valley effect at work for the main players: the closer some actor looks like their real-life counterpoint, the more it pulls away from the story. This was especially the case for Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice [whoa - a search on how to spell her name revealed we have the same birthday; creepy], in which they came off as caricatures of the politicos instead of characters. Exception for Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, which was a terrifying resemblance.
The film tries to be apolitical but, considering that the titular W. is one of the most polarizing figures in contemporary American history, that's impossible. Director Stone confuses his own view toward the man: empathy for being played as a puppet by puppetmasters Cheney and Rove, or the dejected failure as labeled by his father; or radical Christian / rodeo cowboy who charmed his way into the most powerful office in the western world? It doesn't help that, like most Stone films, this was overscored, and the score gives an obvious slant toward how the audience should feel.
Still, reiteration: Too soon. Make this film again in fifty years and after we can look back on the shock and awe of his presidency once the current round of Middle East mishaps ends. (If it ever does, as the film gloomily posits in movie-Cheney's admission that we'll stay in Iraq forever.) The movie was weirdly timed, anyway; why make a film that's not really a pre-election political statement when it was aimed at release before the election?
But it was very entertaining, and in the opinion of this filmmaker, that always counts for something.
The film tries to be apolitical but, considering that the titular W. is one of the most polarizing figures in contemporary American history, that's impossible. Director Stone confuses his own view toward the man: empathy for being played as a puppet by puppetmasters Cheney and Rove, or the dejected failure as labeled by his father; or radical Christian / rodeo cowboy who charmed his way into the most powerful office in the western world? It doesn't help that, like most Stone films, this was overscored, and the score gives an obvious slant toward how the audience should feel.
Still, reiteration: Too soon. Make this film again in fifty years and after we can look back on the shock and awe of his presidency once the current round of Middle East mishaps ends. (If it ever does, as the film gloomily posits in movie-Cheney's admission that we'll stay in Iraq forever.) The movie was weirdly timed, anyway; why make a film that's not really a pre-election political statement when it was aimed at release before the election?
But it was very entertaining, and in the opinion of this filmmaker, that always counts for something.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
JDK's Favorite Music of 2008 Part V: Some Old Mixes / Most Disappointing Albums of the Year
A few things I forgot to post:
Mux016: January 2009
1. Hot Chip - Out at the Pictures
2. The Mae Shi - Lamb And The Lion
3. Titus Andronicus - Titus Andronicus
4. Why? - Good Friday
5. Deerhunter - VHS Dream
6. Beastie Boys - Intergalactic (Edit)
7. Gorillaz - Clint Eastwood
8. Rivers Cuomo - Can't Stop Partying
9. Belle & Sebastian - Like Dylan in the Movies
10. Fleet Foxes - Blue Ridge Mountains
11. Portishead - The Rip
Mux015: December 2009
1. Caesars - Strawberry Weed
2. Los Campesinos! - We Are Beautiful, We Are Doomed
3. Tokyo Police Club - Tessellate
4. M83 - Graveyard Girl
5. David Holmes - Melanie
6. Rivers Cuomo - I Don't Want To Let You Go
7. The National - Ada
8. My Bloody Valentine - Don't Ask Why (Edit)
9. Jay Reatard - Let It All Go
10. Rogue Wave - 10:1
11. Marie Stern - Roads? Where We're Going We Don't Need Roads
12. Deerhunter - Oh, It's Such A Shame (Jay Reatard cover)
Mux014: Chillin'
1. TV on the Radio - Cryin'
2. Hot Chip - Boy From School
3. Simian Mobile Disco - Hustler
4. Eyedea & Abilities - Exhausted Love
5. David Holmes - Theme / I.M.C.
6. Crystal Castles - Vanished
7. Prefuse 73 - Gratis
8. RjD2 - Here's What's Left
9. DJ Earworm - Reckoner Lockdown (Kanye West vs. Radiohead)
10. Cut Copy - Lights and Music
11. Justice - One Minute To Midnight
12. Aesop Rock - Daylight
Also, some 2008 albums I've listened to recently and have enjoyed:
Black Kids - Partie Traumatic
Everyone loved Black Kids' EP Wizard of Ahhhs. So what happened when the full-length came out? Did everyone decide to be a hater overnight? Was the EP simply four great songs that never should've been given the shell of an album? Did everyone get tired of Reggie Youngblood's fucking terrible singing? Did cleaning up the production strip away all the charm of the DIY EP?
The answer is a little Yes from each category. Whereas the hate with Vampire Weekend seemed to diminished, it snowballed with Black Kids (and, to an extent, Tokyo Police Club), culminating in a near-revolt by hipsters everywhere. Sure, the consensus is pretty positive, whereas Pitchfork went so far as to slap a 3.3 on their review and simply defend the low mark with a goddamn lolpugs picture with "sorry" and a frownie emoticon. (As though they owe the band a positive review and can't bring themselves to type it?)
I'm jumping back and forth between the EP and LP right now. I think I pinned it down. Yeah, Youngblood is a terrible singer, and the crummy, near-mono mix of the EP drags the vocals down into the mud and lets the synths and sunshine guitars gloss over the top. Also, there were some weird, almost-imperceptible artistic choices between the E- and LP. For instance, not long into "Hit the Heartbreaks," the LP version's call-and-response of the joke has the female vocalist sound like a goddamn robot on the fully-produced version, while the EP is much more playful.
To make a quick blow: What the hell happened to favorite "I'm Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfriend How To Dance With You"? A modest guitar riff and funky bassline on the EP turned into a full-blown synth-horn orchestra with Youngblood picking up fragments of a Bloc Party-y accent and the female vocals turning into Go! Team extras? And shouldn't the ending just coast along on an awesome riff instead of throw the entire song in a blender and hard-flange the keyboard at the very end? Whatever. Just give me the surf-guitar intro on the EP and I'll still have some happiness.
Also about the mix: it hides some really atrocious lyrics. Really odd, though, that some hipster-yardstick like Pitchfork seemed to love the goofiness (e.g. "Knock, knock?" "Who's there?" "Caught a ghost in your underwear," etc.) in their glowing review of the EP, then reverse and rip their judgment to shreds in their 3.3 of the whole of Partie Traumatic.
I'm trying to think of an equatable buzz band on the level of Black Kids. Whereas Tokyo Police Club proved their legitimate chops from EP to LP (see "Your English Is Good" as proof positive that this band has some fun) albeit while sticking to only one of their many EP-sampled genres, Black Kids re-recorded and shoved all four EP favorites amid a sea of drifters on Partie Traumatic. The only track that doesn't lose all its charm is "Hurricane Jane," probably since Youngblood has a legitimate croon and keeps the cacophonous yelps to a desperate minimum.
So before I keep chasing my own tail, I'll just point up a few paragraphs as my reasons for why Partie Traumatic, as a whole, is rather unmemorable. Not terrible, but not as bombastic and pop-anthem-filled as Wizard of Ahhhs teased. And since when has an artist ever re-recorded a track that makes it sound better? Hell, even Jay Reatard's cleaned-up versions of "Oh, It's Such A Shame" and "Turning Blue" (on his "updated" Singles 06-07 versus their Blood Visions originals) are aurally more competent (stereo instead of mono, in the red but not in the red) but completely pedestrian in their execution. Maybe there's something to be said of the elusive X factor that bands hit when they're jonesin' to record some good tracks with shoddy equipment and end up giving it their all instead of waiting their turn in a label-financed studio to do their overdubs. Who knows?
All I know is that Partie Traumatic is relegated to the purgatory of my music library with the dreaded "Skip When Shuffling" iTunes preset. If I want a shuffled surprise by Black Kids, it damn well better be from Wizard of Ahhhs.
Mux016: January 2009
1. Hot Chip - Out at the Pictures
2. The Mae Shi - Lamb And The Lion
3. Titus Andronicus - Titus Andronicus
4. Why? - Good Friday
5. Deerhunter - VHS Dream
6. Beastie Boys - Intergalactic (Edit)
7. Gorillaz - Clint Eastwood
8. Rivers Cuomo - Can't Stop Partying
9. Belle & Sebastian - Like Dylan in the Movies
10. Fleet Foxes - Blue Ridge Mountains
11. Portishead - The Rip
Mux015: December 2009
1. Caesars - Strawberry Weed
2. Los Campesinos! - We Are Beautiful, We Are Doomed
3. Tokyo Police Club - Tessellate
4. M83 - Graveyard Girl
5. David Holmes - Melanie
6. Rivers Cuomo - I Don't Want To Let You Go
7. The National - Ada
8. My Bloody Valentine - Don't Ask Why (Edit)
9. Jay Reatard - Let It All Go
10. Rogue Wave - 10:1
11. Marie Stern - Roads? Where We're Going We Don't Need Roads
12. Deerhunter - Oh, It's Such A Shame (Jay Reatard cover)
Mux014: Chillin'
1. TV on the Radio - Cryin'
2. Hot Chip - Boy From School
3. Simian Mobile Disco - Hustler
4. Eyedea & Abilities - Exhausted Love
5. David Holmes - Theme / I.M.C.
6. Crystal Castles - Vanished
7. Prefuse 73 - Gratis
8. RjD2 - Here's What's Left
9. DJ Earworm - Reckoner Lockdown (Kanye West vs. Radiohead)
10. Cut Copy - Lights and Music
11. Justice - One Minute To Midnight
12. Aesop Rock - Daylight
Also, some 2008 albums I've listened to recently and have enjoyed:
- Fuck Buttons - Street Horrrsing
- Hot Chip - Made In The Dark
- Lil Wayne - Tha Carter III
- Lindstrom - Where I Go You Go Too
- The Mae Shi - Hlllyh
- Santogold
- Titus Andronicus - The Airing of Grievances
- Why? - Alopecia
Black Kids - Partie Traumatic
Everyone loved Black Kids' EP Wizard of Ahhhs. So what happened when the full-length came out? Did everyone decide to be a hater overnight? Was the EP simply four great songs that never should've been given the shell of an album? Did everyone get tired of Reggie Youngblood's fucking terrible singing? Did cleaning up the production strip away all the charm of the DIY EP?
The answer is a little Yes from each category. Whereas the hate with Vampire Weekend seemed to diminished, it snowballed with Black Kids (and, to an extent, Tokyo Police Club), culminating in a near-revolt by hipsters everywhere. Sure, the consensus is pretty positive, whereas Pitchfork went so far as to slap a 3.3 on their review and simply defend the low mark with a goddamn lolpugs picture with "sorry" and a frownie emoticon. (As though they owe the band a positive review and can't bring themselves to type it?)
I'm jumping back and forth between the EP and LP right now. I think I pinned it down. Yeah, Youngblood is a terrible singer, and the crummy, near-mono mix of the EP drags the vocals down into the mud and lets the synths and sunshine guitars gloss over the top. Also, there were some weird, almost-imperceptible artistic choices between the E- and LP. For instance, not long into "Hit the Heartbreaks," the LP version's call-and-response of the joke has the female vocalist sound like a goddamn robot on the fully-produced version, while the EP is much more playful.
To make a quick blow: What the hell happened to favorite "I'm Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfriend How To Dance With You"? A modest guitar riff and funky bassline on the EP turned into a full-blown synth-horn orchestra with Youngblood picking up fragments of a Bloc Party-y accent and the female vocals turning into Go! Team extras? And shouldn't the ending just coast along on an awesome riff instead of throw the entire song in a blender and hard-flange the keyboard at the very end? Whatever. Just give me the surf-guitar intro on the EP and I'll still have some happiness.
Also about the mix: it hides some really atrocious lyrics. Really odd, though, that some hipster-yardstick like Pitchfork seemed to love the goofiness (e.g. "Knock, knock?" "Who's there?" "Caught a ghost in your underwear," etc.) in their glowing review of the EP, then reverse and rip their judgment to shreds in their 3.3 of the whole of Partie Traumatic.
I'm trying to think of an equatable buzz band on the level of Black Kids. Whereas Tokyo Police Club proved their legitimate chops from EP to LP (see "Your English Is Good" as proof positive that this band has some fun) albeit while sticking to only one of their many EP-sampled genres, Black Kids re-recorded and shoved all four EP favorites amid a sea of drifters on Partie Traumatic. The only track that doesn't lose all its charm is "Hurricane Jane," probably since Youngblood has a legitimate croon and keeps the cacophonous yelps to a desperate minimum.
So before I keep chasing my own tail, I'll just point up a few paragraphs as my reasons for why Partie Traumatic, as a whole, is rather unmemorable. Not terrible, but not as bombastic and pop-anthem-filled as Wizard of Ahhhs teased. And since when has an artist ever re-recorded a track that makes it sound better? Hell, even Jay Reatard's cleaned-up versions of "Oh, It's Such A Shame" and "Turning Blue" (on his "updated" Singles 06-07 versus their Blood Visions originals) are aurally more competent (stereo instead of mono, in the red but not in the red) but completely pedestrian in their execution. Maybe there's something to be said of the elusive X factor that bands hit when they're jonesin' to record some good tracks with shoddy equipment and end up giving it their all instead of waiting their turn in a label-financed studio to do their overdubs. Who knows?
All I know is that Partie Traumatic is relegated to the purgatory of my music library with the dreaded "Skip When Shuffling" iTunes preset. If I want a shuffled surprise by Black Kids, it damn well better be from Wizard of Ahhhs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
