PLAYING AT BEAUTIFULSTUDIO 35
Wednesday, April 30th @ 10:30pm
Grace Lee is an up-and-coming name in the world of independent documentary films. Her 2002 film Barrier Device won several regional awards, and made her one of Filmmaker Magazine's "Top 25 To Watch." Her followup film, a documentary titled Best of the Wurst, was a quirky little number focused on the delicious German currywurst and its symbiotic relationship with its home. 2005 brought The Grace Lee project, where she turned the camera on herself (in a manner of speaking), exploring a handful of the thousands of people who share her name.
I mean, I guess. I culled all that off the web just now. I honestly had no idea who Grace Lee was before being asked to review American Zombie. I don't have a lot of time to watch movies about condoms, I’m not convinced that a filmmaker's name is a strong enough topic for a full-length documentary (although it made an alright throwaway observation in American Splendor), and my preference would be to eat currywurst rather than watch a quirky documentary on it.
Still, I love zombies, and I like talking nice about Studio 35. So I sat down to watch this movie last night from a screener DVD. Then I wrote this review. Then I deleted about half of this review. Here is my review.
Media clipping services working for Grace Lee should probably stop reading now. Thanks.
American Zombie: "It’s Okay, But Not Great."
With American Zombie, Grace Lee is looking to move back into fiction, a format she has eschewed since her MFA short-film days.
American Zombie is a movie about making a movie, starring Grace Lee as herself. This should result in a nice bit of cognitive dissonance for the viewer, as a documentary usually has at its core a wholehearted earnestness to expose the truth, rather than a "hidden agenda" of moving from plot point to plot point. Additionally, because the movie is about making a movie, the film appears to be all the more concerned about giving the audience the whole story, making the lie that much stronger.
Unfortunately, the fake meta-documentary has already been tackled, and by one of the world's most infamous filmmakers to boot (i.e. Werner Herzog and Zak Penn's Incident at Loch Ness).
Doubly unfortunately, Incident at Loch Ness and American Zombie share quite a few plot points--from the mythical/supernatural subject of the documentary, to the friction of two directors working on the same documentary, and even in the eventual "turn" when the filmmakers' lives come into danger. So where American Zombie could have been groundbreaking and fresh, or judged on its own merits, it instead falls into a genre where it is immediately dominated by stronger entries.
Grace Lee is an MFA, guys. I am sure she's seen Incident at Loch Ness. She's also probably seen (or at least heard of) Ghostwatch, The Blair Witch Project, and Behind The Mask. If she is trying to help turn the "fake meta-documentary about monsters" into its own genre, then that's one thing. But to be quite honest, I was a little disappointed that it followed the template so closely.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
It's a little hard for me to accurately judge the cinematography of the film. The screener DVD I was provided with had compressed the widescreen movie to a 4:3 aspect ratio, effectively squishing the image and making everything look tall. I would blame this on my failure to set my DVD player correctly, but the text at the bottom of the screen reading "FOR SCREENING PURPOSES ONLY" seemed to be at the right ratio.
Which reminds me: Attention directors and producers! If your movie has a scene with subtitles, DO NOT LET your distribution company overwrite the subtitles with a notice that I am watching a screener! It won't stop me from putting the movie on PirateBay, and it makes me think that the old Chinese man only likes to use zombies for screening purposes. I will make a joke about it, and then be frustrated for the next two minutes as I miss out on whatever he’s saying.
Incidentally, that is why there aren't any screenshots in this review. I tried, it looked dumb. This is a little dry though, so I'll try adding in a picture I made for my last movie review.
"By the time the movie gets interesting, you will have already figured out the plot twist." -Me, in about 10 paragraphs
Much better. Want to know what a zombie wearing a hat looks like? Go watch the movie!
With that caveat, everything seemed quite visually solid. Like I said, Lee has proven herself to be an adept director in previous movies, and I don't know why that would change with the introduction of storyboards. Because the story's premise allows for a professional camera and sound crew (although the fictional crew is much smaller, of course, than the actual crew who worked on the film), even the shots on cheap hand-held cameras look good.
The "documentary" setting necessarily limits the director and cinematographer, preventing the use of any crane shots or slice-of-life rotating cameras—the Tony Hawk "900" of the movie world.
There are a few memorable, striking shots--I'd say about three per act--which tend to come at the most interesting or emotional plot points. Every other scene is beautiful enough to give a smooth viewing experience, without overdoing the fact that the shots have been deliberately planned. If you're looking to film a false documentary, you could certainly do a lot worse than emulating this movie shot-for-shot.
I should close out this section before I use the phrase "Errol Morrisian." Whoops! Too late.
SOUND
As could be expected of a documentary, there was very little dubbed-in music used so as not to detract from the moment. However, the three major pieces used were all pretty excellent. I can’t say too much in this area without giving away a plot point or two, but there is not a whole lot to criticize here. The music was well-chosen, tightly edited, and served to heighten the scenes it was in.
My movie-watching companion was ready to stab the rock version of "We’re Zombies (and we want equal rights)" that played during the credits, but then again she was already feeling kind of stabby at the time.
STORY
The storyline is where I found the movie to be the most disappointing. As I hope I've made abundantly clear, Grace Lee sure seems to know how to work the technical aspects of a film. What she's missing in this movie--and based on the reviews, what she's also missing in her previous documentaries--is either a good writer, or a producer who's willing to crack the whip and force her to tighten things up.
Before starting the movie, I watched the trailer, and I figured there were two ways that they could run with the premise. It could either be a straight-faced fake documentary, or it could have a twist and turn into a different genre (horror, comedy, romance, whatever).
American Zombie plays the first few scenes absolutely straight. Not coincidentally, these are also the most boring scenes in the movie.
By the time the movie gets interesting, you will have already figured out the plot twist.
But honestly, that doesn’t matter so much in this day and age. By now, America's movie-watching brain-sphincter has been stretched by M. Night Shyamalan to such an extent that you could drive a truck full of Twilight Zone episodes through it.
So having a good grip on what the twist was going to be, I kept watching because I wanted answers to a couple of questions that caught me by surprise. Minor things that were interesting ideas, rather than huge whiz-bang "the movie has been playing in reverse!" reveals.
Imagine my dissatisfaction when the movie rolled right past the answers to my questions without so much as a sideways glance. "Oh, did you want to know what the drug is? It’s some drug they use to get high. Want to know why they love voids? Oh, it’s because they’re zombies. What was in that cabinet in Ivan’s apartment? Who knows. Who cares?"
And then, infuriatingly, the final shots raised even more questions. Not good questions, just unanswered ones. Questions that would, in real life, become the subject of the documentary rather than an afterthought. The film falls into the infamous false-document trap of "how did they get their hands on that footage? What legal team would allow this to be shown?" and then drops the audience right into the credits.
Yes, sure, documentaries tend to leave unanswered questions at the end because they're impartial and life has no end and BLAH BLAH BLAH. But this is not a documentary, and the near-disdain for the things I found interesting says to me that neither Ms. Lee nor her five producers knew what was going to make this movie interesting before they began.
I'd like to name-check another horror movie at this point: Session 9. Like Session 9, American Zombie has all the ingredients for a good movie. But like Session 9, American Zombie misses the entire point of its own existence. Session 9 drowned in its visuals, leaving its "big reveal" to fall flat compared to the impossible atmosphere of Danvers State Hospital. American Zombie drowns in scenes that are too long, talking to characters who don’t become interesting, setting up conspiracies that never fruit. Eventually its "big reveal" also falls flat in the face of what could have been.
Honestly, I have to boil down the review to this: If you like zombie movies, or zombie books, or zombies in general, you would enjoy seeing this at least once.
Although I want to punch George Romero in the face for introducing the idea of the "intelligent zombie" to cinema, this movie deals with the subject in a way that's still fresh and interesting, and brings some cool ideas to the table to boot.
It's interesting in the same way that The Zombie Survival Guide is interesting. Sadly, it’s lacking in exactly the way that World War Z is not.
If you don't enjoy zombies, you can probably afford to skip it.
American Zombie isn't a movie I'll give much thought to in the future. I don't really have a desire to see it again, and I wouldn't go out of my way to share it with friends. But it had its good moments, it was well made, and it was enjoyable. It's certainly a good enough excuse to patronize Studio 35 if you don't have anything better to do.
Remember: Any movie is a good movie if you drink enough beer first!
And hey, I hear it’s playing back-to-back with Animation Show #4, which is something you definitely don’t want to miss. I couldn’t get a screener for it, because there aren’t any screeners for it, because it’s still being edited... Columbus is a test market for what to take out. After it plays at Studio 35, it will never be the same movie again.
Why, maybe Mike Judge will be there. Maybe you’ll show him your Daria fanfiction and he’ll say "I wasn’t actually involved with that show, but I like the cut of your jib" and then he’ll fly you back to Austin in his private plane and you’ll get to hang out and be best friends forever and meet The Munsters or whoever.
Or maybe he’ll stay in Austin and watch it at the Alamo Drafthouse. What the hell do I know? I’ve got another ten minutes before I have to post this and I am going to use every one of them writing instead of editing, dammit.
Remember: Any postscript to a review is funny if you drink enough beer first!
Posted by
travis
on
Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:21 pm in
Featured Movie ReviewsThe 80th Academy Awards on Sunday night brought no huge surprises for moviegoers, with No Country for Old Men sweeping the big ones, and a variety of flicks sharing the small ones. Jon Stewart was hilarious – redeeming himself from any scorn he may have received before – and Ellen Page is at the top of my new “People I Wish I Could Hang Out With” List. “O, Canada” indeed!
But for every winner in the Academy game, there were losers, too: Paul Thomas Anderson was clearly due something for There Will Be Blood, but received nothing; Julie Christie missed out for Away From Her, in a time when older actresses don’t have it easy; Philip Seymour Hoffman got nil for stealing the well-pieced comedic show, Charlie Wilson’s War; Cate Blanchett lost twice; and above all, Rick Baker and Kazuhiro Tsuji were completely forgotten for doing make-up on Norbit. Spending that much time with Eddie Murphy deserves something, people, really.
The awards also reliably gave us the always-entertaining awkward moments – when people who weren’t used to speaking English or being in front of others led to speeches being cut short by Bill Conti and his magic wand. If only they had a montage of those moments from the past 80 years… it would have to be cut off with music, too.
The film tribute to Hollywood’s dead was also a similar spectacle, with Sunday night’s topping the list. While the audience clapped along to the images of their favorite dead celebrities, they would also typically remain silent for the visual effects artist who did those movies with Cher in the ‘80s, or the guy who produced that one movie with Charles Bronson. And the Oscar for best Hollywood death goes to… Heath Ledger!
(Heath couldn’t be here tonight, and we accept this award on his behalf.)
Interestingly, with Hollywood’s biggest accolades recently going to such violent movies as No Country for Old Men, and The Departed (in 2007), one has to wonder why those films’ morals – like “America is going to Hell” or “there are rats in every City Hall in the nation” – don’t bring up at the awards the real violence the U.S. is causing in other parts of the world. Not to get preachy, but no one in Hollywood got preachy last night – like there was some montage summarizing life since 2003 and now everything’s back to normal.
I felt the night could have used a “Sopranos” finale moment, where the writers built the whole show up to say, “It’s all fake, by the way! There’s real stuff going on in the world, too!” But perhaps David Chase is still on strike.
Yes, even with Bruce Vilanch confidently back in the Oscars writing room, and Jon Stewart’s team all over the backstage happenings, the only good moments involving reality came with the documentary awards, when U.S. troops in Iraq presented the Oscars to the winners via satellite or tape delay of some sort; along with one short, political acceptance speech. No surprises in the troops’ wardrobes by the way – they wore stunning beige camouflage by the U.S. Military! Simply glamorous!
Sunday night there were no risky political speeches from Michael Moore, no peace symbols from Susan Sarandon, and no tears from Clint Eastwood’s sound editors. For me, it remains amazing that in a time of war, economic uncertainty and political division, Hollywood is able to once again put on the old costumes from the attic, look the other way and do their yearly show of self-congratulation. Yea Team! We did it!
If America is going to hell for all the rats in the capital buildings, like No Country and The Departed suggest, I’m sure Hollywood will still have singing grannies on stage and Regis Philbin stroking egos at the entrance.
And the award for the best Oscars Ceremony goes to…!
Posted by
th0m
on
Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:12 am in
Featured Movie ReviewsHey there, I'm Thomas. This is You Suck at Movie Watching. A lot of you on Columbus Underground don't watch old movies, so today we're going to be going through the TCM schedule for this weekend. This is at an intermediate level, but I mean, for you, this is going to be stupid hard. So, ya know... just try to follow.
Tonight (early Saturday morning) at 2am, we have TCM Underground, where they show uncut cult horror classics and other films TCM usually doesn't show... with tonight being The Who's The Kids are Alright.
Wow, okay, for you, I would recommend that *you* pull out that VCR with the broken tracking wheel I sent out with the materials last week, and when this comes on, put in the Care Bears, and just watch that. Maybe while you're watching that, the uh, flying car they have can cloud-fart you some taste.
Now, first thing Saturday morning. Get up, have your milk and cookies, and get started before 6:15am, this is when The Outrage starts featuring Paul Newman, Claire Bloom, and Edward G. Robinson. This movie deals with Mexicans, and well, there are a lot of political aspects to movies, and since you're probably the reason why we're still in this war, just take a nap while this is showing and dream about a time where you maybe participated in democracy, and like, where you actually knew what you were talking about. Get all comfy with your blankey, and just imagine Edward G. Robinson with Bugs Bunny or something.
Next we have Cat on a Hot Tin Roof... again, I dunno if you can follow these... this was shot well before Elizabeth Taylor had that accident while filming a Pepsi commercial, catching her hair on fire, and the resulting numerous plastic surgeries where she told everyone she just wanted to look like Michael Jackson. So, again, just continue napping.
12:45pm, John Wayne in The Fighting Kentuckian... I mean... this is from a time when being afraid was *un* patriotic. It may be hard for you to follow because of that.
2:30, dead poets society... a lot of people will get a lot of things out of this one, but you'll probably just see Mork's hairy arms. Try to write down the big words you hear and look them up later.
6:15pm, its the original Thomas Crown Affair... I dunno... TV-14, I mean, Steve McQueen told Sinatra and the Rat Pack to get lost, so this one will probably scar your unprepared mind, and ruin all of the Bourne movies for you. This one I usually save for the stupid sick advanced level that you'll never get to.
9:49pm there's a 10 minute short about the Nazi bombings of London... I know this won't make sense because it will show regular citizens actually feeling the affects of war. To you, this will be upsetting, so just flip on Headline News or something until you're disconnected from reality again. You know, until you're convinced that the powers in charge aren't really just playing you like their own 200 year old violin. Like you actually have a choice and are being represented in what happens in the world. Like there's something you can do that can actually make a difference.
Wow. Okay, lets see... Later, at 2am Sunday morning, we have a Hitchcock film, so that's probably going to be our stopping point. Don't even try that film. His camera angles will probably just trigger seizures.
Okay, hopefully you learned something, but probably not. Keep practicing, and I dunno... TCM doesn't show commercials, so if you miss those, flip around every 15 minutes while watching any of these films... that's it for this week, next week it'll be all letterbox movies, so don't do anything strenuous until then so you can make it through the sickness and disorientation you'll feel... like when you elect the wrong President.
For anyone paying attention to the top moneymaking movies of 2007, they will see one common trait: sequels! And not just second installments – 2007 was the year for the rule of three to take effect.
Just take a look at the top two blockbusters of the year – Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third. Both flicks completed the trilogy of their equally profitable franchises, with Spider-Man netting $336 million and Shrek grabbing some $326 million. Any producer in Hollywood hesitating to go for a trilogy on their desk at this point should take a frickin’ hint.
Of course, this doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try new things. The third biggest blockbuster of the year, Transformers, clobbered the competition as the biggest non-sequel of the year, garnering over $319 million. Needless to say, Jerry Bruckheimer will be morphing this one time success into a lucrative trilogy robot in due time.
However, the next three biggest blockbusters continued the success of sequels – Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End looted $309 million from audiences to finish off the trilogy, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix magically brought in $292 million to finish off whatever number of movies its done. The Bourne Ultimatum punched its way through to get $227 million and round out its three-peat, too.
The next movie on the list, 300, wasn’t a sequel and probably won’t breed any given its historical content, but it DID have three in the title. Coincidence? I think not! Yes, 300 was the second most successful non-sequel movie of 2007, and the most successful one with an R-rating, slashing away with $210 million. This is a sign that blockbuster-seekers should probably avoid R-ratings, unless your movie is totally awesomely bloody and deserves it.
Two animated flicks came in next on the list, with Ratatouille being the surprise hit, sneaking off with $206 million, compared to the movie below it, The Simpsons Movie, which brought in $183 million. The Simpsons was the most profitable non-computer-animated movie of the year, but with the name recognition The Simpsons have, Fox is probably scratching their blue-haired, yellow heads on how they got beat by an adorable, unknown rat.
This all culminates down to the tenth most profitable movie of the year, Wild Hogs, which raised $168 million and was the most successful live-action comedy of the year. I guess people just can’t resist Tim Allen on a motorcycle or William H. Macy in leather. Heck, neither can I. I’m sure a shitty-awful sequel is in the works.
One has to wonder what these top ten moneymakers say about the movie-going public of 2007. They obviously like consistency. And they may not buy in to the Academy Award nominated flicks as much as some would hope, or go for movies with a message. But when it comes to characters they know, animated adventures and sweet-ass action sequences, they will open up their wallets.
And ultimately, the year also allowed for some of the biggest weekend crowd and franchise records to be broken – Spider-Man 3 had the biggest opening weekend ever, and Shrek did the same for animated movies. Harry Potter is now the second most successful franchise of all time, and the Bourne franchise is the most profitable spy collection ever. 2007 was a year for the third time to be a charm.
Maybe the WGA strikers should start earning more money by turning in three scripts at once instead of one.
If you thought questionable politicians in irregular circumstances couldn’t change the course of modern history, see Charlie Wilson’s War and think again. If you thought that a proportionally smaller group of determined people couldn’t bring down an empire, see Charlie Wilson’s War and think again. And, if you thought Congress couldn’t be as much fun as a swinging bachelor party, see Charlie Wilson’s War and think again.
Yes, Mike Nichols’ adaptation of the bestselling book is as fantastic as everyone says it is, and not for just bringing a fun, well-made flick to the movie-going public, but for telling the movie-going public a true story without delving into ideologies and messages, unlike the less-hailed Lions Eat Lambs, or whatever that Robert Redford flop was called.
Charlie Wilson’s War gives us the story – very well adapted by Aaron Sorkin of “The West Wing” fame – of a Texas congressman, Wilson (Tom Hanks), who’s biggest achievement in six terms of Congress was, as the movie says, getting re-elected five times. He loves a good whisky, which he drinks at several points in the movie at several different times of day, and has a passion for beautiful broads, which fill up his office in various… shall we say, positions. If that’s what Congress is like, sign me up!
Soon enough, Wilson meets with a wealthy and influential Texas socialite named Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) who sees Wilson as a means to get funding for her cause in Afghanistan. Wilson sits on several committees in Congress – most notably the one dealing with covert CIA operations’ budgets. Herring’s cause? To funnel more money to the CIA’s covert operation in Afghanistan, so that Afghan rebels fighting the USSR’s forces can get better weapons and win, thus bringing about the end of the Soviet Empire and the Cold War. Anybody need a shot of whisky with that?
And yet, as it happened in real life, Wilson meets another unlikely hero of sorts, a chain-smoking CIA agent named Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who finds himself working on the CIA’s conflict in Afghanistan after his Finland plans fall through. Both men have a knack for telling it like it is and for getting results. Herring provides the connections, Avrakotos provides the intel, and Wilson, as promised, brings the Congressional funding. The rest is literally history.
As with any typical “West Wing” episode, Sorkin’s fast and witty dialogue provides the perfect structure for a fun, intelligent story to evolve. And Nichols, a master of letting pieces fall into place, guides us along for the enjoyable ride. There wasn’t a scene that felt unnecessary, all of them leading to some aspect of the story or characters. And the characters are equally brilliant – Hanks gives a performance that completely makes you forget he was Forrest Gump (equally brilliant, but oh, so different) and Hoffman provides some of his best acting since… well he’s pretty much always good. Thanks to these two leads, I didn’t even mind that Julia Roberts was in it.
The only awkward hush in the theater throughout the whole flick came when Roberts’ character introduces the Pakistani President at a fundraiser by saying “he didn’t kill Bhutto.” Now the movie, taking place in 1980, meant former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. But I, though the movie had been out for a week, saw it after the recent assassination of current Pakistani political figure Benezir Bhutto, and naturally, there were murmurs in the audience following that moment for people to figure it out. Beyond that unavoidable hiccup, everything went down as smoothly as a shot of whisky, a true Charlie Wilson movie for any fan of politics and history in cinema.
Heck, want a way to enjoy it even more? Take a shot of whisky each time you laugh.
Tim Burton has invented a new film genre, the splatter musical. Sweeney Todd is a great film, although certainly not for everyone. It is, at times, bleak, beautiful, grisly, angry, tragic, and funny.
As with all of Tim Burton's movies, the visual components are amazing. The dark smokey dystopian vision of Victorian England suits perfectly Burton's grotesque and beautiful sense of design and palette, dominated by grays, black, muddled browns, and of course blood red.
The songs are Sondheim, taken directly from the Broadway musical that the film is based upon, but with a much darker vision and execution. And execution it is, with class warfare as its rallying cry. Johnny Depp is the wrongly transported barber, who loses his wife and child to the dastardly Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman). Depp, who starts out in true Shakespearean fashion as a sympathetic character, goes mad while reeking his vengeance upon all of London. Hamlet's tragedy echoes throughout this film. Helena Bonham Carter (as Mrs. Lovett) is at times darkly funny, murderous, and moving. It is Mrs. Lovett who decides to get rid of the bodies by baking them into meat pies and selling them in her shop, which Todd seizes on as a bloody metaphor meditating on class warfare:
TODD:
The history of the world, my love --
Is those below serving those up above!
How gratifying for once to know
That those above will serve those down below!
This is a great film, with Tim Burton and Johnny Depp in full swing, doing what they do best (and yes, Depp can sing). I can't say that is appropriate for everyone, and it is an odd choice for a Christmas release. I expect this film to do poorly at the box office, as that who exactly is the audience for grisly horror musicals? Besides me that is. I think it is one of the best films of the year but do not take the kids to this one.
Posted by
travis
on
Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:36 am in
Featured Movie ReviewsBecoming a Woman in Zanskar, showing at the Columbus International Film and Video Festival Review by Travis Irvine
I don’t want the title of my review to mislead people – I loved Becoming a Woman in Zanskar, and I do mean the movie, not my own experience. But my love comes from a deep appreciation for documentaries from foreign countries – from years of seeing them in film festivals, film classes and even making them myself. Those with a learned eye for documentaries with subtitles will probably feel the same way, but anyone outside this niche may not be able to get through the movie.
I mention this because I fell asleep each of the first two times I viewed the flick, and only made it through the third time to get some notes for a review. So the title is somewhat representative.
However, while Becoming made it hard not to be swayed to the sleepy side, it was not because of a lack of story. As the movie begins, the viewer is immediately thrust into a whole different world – a remote kingdom called Zanskar, tucked away on a steep, snowy slope of the Himalayas. As low, monk-like music moans overhead, images of Zanskar’s residents doing hard work in the cold against a stunning mountain landscape could make any Ohioan want to hibernate.
But don’t cuddle up with that blanket just yet, because you could miss everything this movie and the Zanskar community have to offer, including the moving story director Jean-Michel Corillion has depicted, originally produced for ZED in France and shot in pristine HD.
Palkit and Tenzin are two adolescent girls and best friends in Zanskar. As is the custom in the culture, at their age they must make a choice between living a life with a husband picked for them by their parents, or, as several woman do, becoming a nun with the respected Buddhist monastery.
Palkit, against the wishes of her father and grandmother, is choosing the latter. She does not want to be confined to a life chosen for her with a man she probably will not love. To choose the life of a nun means joining the “refuge of broken hearts”, but as Palkit discusses the option with her aunt (a nun) and another Buddhist mentor, she feels it is the only option she has to remain free.
Palkit’s story is contrasted with her best friend Tenzin’s, who, while being one of the most popular girls in the village, has had a life with a husband from another village chosen for her by her parents. In a traditional practice of the culture, Tenzin’s parents accept the invitation to drink a substance called “chang” from suitors and agree to promise Tenzin away.
Chang is also heavily involved with the traditional ceremony of giving Tenzin away. In a medieval-feeling ritual, one must watch as Tenzin is dressed in preparation for the riders of the neighboring village to come and “kidnap” her. The kidnapping ceremony is very sadly symbolic of what life is like for any woman in Zanskar who is married away.
Palkit is only encouraged with her decision after Tenzin’s “wedding”, and continues on a harrowing trek to the famed holy city, Dharran Sala, which is home to the Dali Lama (whom we get a glimpse of riding in a car). There, she must find a monastery that will accept her, so she can prepare for a life of servitude and study. Most monasteries do this with a rigorous education in Tibetan, English, philosophy and computers. Palkit’s admirable determination keeps the viewer determined to find out what happens.
The story of the detachment between Palkit and Tenzin is moving and works on several levels. My only complaint about the storytelling occurs during a few specific shots, when Palkit or Tenzin appear to be in a candid moment, but the atmosphere seems staged. Normally documentaries of this nature have gritty, handheld shots for these moments, but certain candid shots in the movie were perfectly framed, well lit, and Palkit and Tenzin have dialogue that seems almost written – “Today our lives go their separate ways.” “It’s always like that for girls… we’re forced to leave our family and friends.” Heart wrenching, but as a filmmaker, I felt something wasn’t totally natural.
Nevertheless, the story doesn’t falter and the beautiful landscape and photography only rejuvenates the product. The scenery makes one want to pack up and leave the bland Midwest for the Himalayas – if only it wasn’t for the difficult lives the residents of Zanskar have to lead.
Becoming a Woman in Zanskar is visually stunning, and the story is a unique tale told in the way only a documentary can tell it. The French filmmakers should receive deserved worldwide accolades, and audiences should down a healthy dose of chang to make sure they don’t miss this gem.
Posted by
Manatee
on
Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:44 pm in
Featured Movie ReviewsThe Danish Poet, showing at the Columbus International Film and Video Festival
Running time 14:23
Review by Mandy Henderson
My daughter Greta and her father watched the Oscar-winning animated short The Danish Poet. Then she elected to watch it again with both of us-- then we watched it again together tonight. Not only did this film hold up to repeated viewings, it kept our attention as well as revealing new layers of charm the more we watched it. I know from past experience that it is a rare animated film, particularly one that children can enjoy, that performs so well. It is also rare to find a film that delivers a deep message without being didactic.
The film is narrated by long-time Ingmar Bergman actress and collaborator, Liv Ullmann. She is very supportive of independent cinema and graciously lends her lilting accent. The stories-within-stories take place in Scandinavia and are romantic comedies of errors. One novel creates a ripple effect through many generations of relationships and circumstances, leading to the narrator’s conception. The character’s lives appear chaotic on the surface, but the larger arc of the plot shows a unity with transcendence. All of these attributes immediately bring to mind echoes of Bergman and Woody Allen films. Although many find Bergman’s (and somewhat Allen’s) films to be bleak, I have always found them to be humorous, frightening, and transcendent, and to hold some kind of timeless message for humanity. Never did I think I would see a film like this that my daughter enjoyed with me.
The animation is hand-drawn, a little shaky, and skillfully colored. Photographic shots of sky are used whenever the sky is shown. I have a deeply held belief that hand animation and drawing work on a part of our psyches unavailable to most time-based photography or computer-generated animation. I think this is the same part of our psyches that is activated by, say, the cave paintings at Lascaux, France, or Eastern Orthodox ikon paintings. I believe that our minds process these kinds of images as inherently magical, or spiritual. It is easier, with these “flat” sort of images, for the mind to see that our everyday lives can be rote and unsatisfying, but that there is a rich emotional and spiritual life “behind the curtain”. Then, it is shown that these two exist simultaneously, and that it is bittersweet and graceful. Hand drawing, like runes, hieroglyphs, and handwriting, is the language of symbolism. This film’s wiggly animation conveyed a sense of lively emotion, tempered with a uniquely Scandinavian elegance and propriety.
It is remarkable what The Danish Poet accomplishes in its short length. I recommend it highly to dreamers of all ages and look forward to many more projects from these artists.
Warning! This review uses the pretentious "theatre" spelling of "theater!"
When I was told I would be sent to review an eight-hour long movie marathon, I got really excited. Not about the chance to watch semi-rare horror movies on the big screen. Not about being forced to do what I love--namely writing a review that I'd otherwise be too lazy or too content to write. Not even about the chance to get out of my filthy bachelor-ridden apartment's stale air for eight hours, and into a theatre's stale air for eight hours.
No, as usual, I got really excited about something really stupid.
Because the marathon was to be held Friday night and Walker wanted a review written by Sunday afternoon, I was to be working on a tight schedule, and Walker offered to do the images for me. Immediately I jumped on this one-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a legitimate graphic artist to illuminate my written works.
JimL2, in an email, wrote:
"I want an image of Peter Jackson smoking a bong with the word 'trenchcoat' on it!!!"
Walker immediately retracted his offer, and I later made this image by myself:
Now I'm sure at this point, some of you are confused. It's certainly a confusing image. This is where I'd typically like to explain some complicated and convoluted pun or short story about Peter Jackson and why, exactly, he'd be smoking a bong labelled "trenchcoat."
Unfortunately, I don't have any answers for you. By the time I'd finished making it, I had completely forgotten what I thought it would contribute to this article. And that follows a pattern laid down by the entire night at Studio 35: My expectations were exceeded again, and again, and again.
Studio 35 itself is located on Indianola Avenue, near Midgard, to the north of the city core. Technically it's situated inside of Clintonville, and their advertisement is rightly proud of the fact that they've been "Serving Clintonville for Over 60 Years." In fact, next year will be their 70th anniversary in the same location, and the building shows it.
Built at a time when Hollywood was producing few, quality movies, the single screen at Studio 35 was perfect. And even today, while Hollywood is churning out hundreds of shitty movies a year, the single screen is an idea that makes sense. Because Studio 35 can only show ~6-8 movies a day, they have to be really excited about those six to eight movies. From talking to the employees, everyone who works there knows movies. So you can be assured that if it's playing at Studio 35, it's worth seeing. It may not be your type of movie, but it's still going to be well-made.
Although Studio 35 has stood for 69 years, the building itself has changed very little. The exterior is squat and fraught with the design baroque that necessarily adorned movie houses during the period that Charlie Chaplin was still making movies. If you aren't looking carefully, you could easily drive right past it. The only thing that sets it apart from its neighbors are its flashing lights and adorable marquee. And let's face it; any more, audience don't immediately connect that with the idea of a movie theatre.
Inside the lobby, there is a photograph of the theatre's interior as it once stood: Subtle art deco design on the walls, comfortable red chairs in rows, and murals displaying the potential grandeur of Film on the walls. Today, however, the theatre seating area tells a much different story, with its subtle art deco design on the walls, comfortable red chairs in rows, and murals displaying the potential grandeur of Film on the walls.
Alright, I lied in that last paragraph. Sorry. The reason the current owners of Studio 35 are able to proudly display that photograph of their heritage is that they still follow it, and revere it. The paint on the walls is somewhat work--just enough to give the theatre "cred"--and the murals have been repainted in the recent past with more subdued versions. However, the surrounding is still beautiful and one-of-a-kind in this interchangeable plastic world, and the seats--while new--are still comfortable, red faux leather, with the modern addition of large cupholders in every armrest.
Also adorning the lobby are three stand-up arcade games: Rampage, Centipede, and Ms. Pac-Man. This won me instant love, although my reviewing duties prevented me from dropping any quarters. The Rampage machine is currently either out of order or unplugged, but as the thrust of this article is about cinema part of this cinema, that's really not something that should concern you. There is also a comfortable (very comfortable) red faux-leather couch, coffee table with industry magazines, cork board supporting local businesses, and snack bar.
I'd like to mention that couch again before I move on to the snack bar, because I think it really represents what Studio 35 is about. There is no real reason for that couch to be there. They could have simply thrown a poster up, or some retro stuff, and pushed people into their seats. After all, the movies nowadays seem to be about maximizing turnover. However, Studio 35 seems honestly concerned that their patrons are happy and comfortable in every way from the get-go. It's a small detail, but one that I believe speaks volumes about Studio 35's integrity and love of what it does.
Now, on to the snack bar. Blah blah popcorn, blah blah candy. Standard stuff. While I've seen some small theatres slam their customers on snacks, Studio 35's are about in line with their big-box counterparts. $3.00 for a liter of Frostop is pretty expensive, sure.
But it's nothing to be surprised at in this day and age, and let's face it, moviegoers are a captive audience. Studio 35 could easily charge twice that.
What makes the snack bar interesting is that--if you've ever noticed their banner ads at the top of ColumbusUndergound (notice of fairness: The author of this review receives no money from ColumbusUnderground or any of its owners and in fact has a tense hate-hate relationship with Walker and should in no way be considered to be influenced by advertisers on this site)--they are a "drafthouse." That means they serve beer. Not just beer, but nice beer. High-quality beer. You can go in there expecting hard cider, a framboise lambic, a handful of porters and ales, and even Pabst Blue Ribbon if you’re a Philistine like I am. This is an idea that is most associated with the venerable Alamo Drafthouse of Austin (whether correct or not), but it's really an idea that just makes sense. An independent movie theatre that also sells draught beer? Gee, is that a good idea? Hmm, combining two awesome things to make something that's even more awesome? Absolute no-brainer.
The "drafthouse" idea really comes in handy when you have a no-brainer of a movie, as well. As in, the movie requires no brain to watch, and may in fact have been created by a talented team of Hollywood technicians who, were you to take a quick survey, would not (per capita) have two brain cells to rub together.
An idiotic explosion-fest where the storyline is pre-fab, and can easily be loaded up with cheap scares and unassailable moral actors. A movie like, say, Resident Evil: Extinction.
Brand Upon The Brain!
by Michael Paull
ColumbusUnderground.com
Guy Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain! is a treat for those who enjoy experimental cinema. Shot as a silent film for display with live music, narration and sound effects, the June 2007 theatrical release that the Wexner Center will be presenting tonight includes narration by Isabella Rossellini. To call the film unique doesn't quite make the point: at once engrossing and challenging, produced in a powerfully historical way but unmistakably modern, this is a cinematic experience tailored to those looking for something completely different than everything else they'll see this year.
The plot is beautifully surreal, but not without a disturbing aftertaste. The main character, Guy Maddin (Erik Steffen Maahs), returns to the island where his parents ran a nefarious orphanage in a lighthouse when he was a young boy. As he paints the lighthouse to fulfill his mother's dying wish, the poetry of the production and narration draw the audience into his memories of his childhood on the island: a hyper-sexual tale of his mad-scientist father and youth-crazed mother, a teen detective's lesbian trysts with Guy's cruel older sister, and a messianic uprising among the orphans.
The acting, direction and production are all spot on, and the effect is just interesting enough to convince you to suspend your disbelief and take it all seriously. Brand Upon The Brain! manages to squeeze all of the psychological melodrama out of the silent format possible without feeling like a historical experience. The narration may induce an eye-roll now and then, and you may wince at Guy's mother's manic expressions of passion towards her young son, but you'll do it all from the edge of your seat.
Brand Upon The Brain! isn't for everyone. The artistry of the film is well done but indulgent, it begins to drag along a bit at the end, and the building sense that it is all going somewhere interesting falls in on itself disappointingly at the end. However, film buffs in search of something odd to start off the Autumn season with and fans of Maddin's techniques and world view looking to whet their appetites for My Winnipeg, which is currently impressing critics at the Toronto International Film Festival, won't be let down.
The Columbus Underground is your number one source for all things local in Columbus, Ohio. We supply you with constant updates on local news, events, food, nightlife, shopping, and more.
Click on the topic you're most interested in on the left, or try a search below for something more specific.
To post your thoughts on any topic, you must Register a free account with us. If you've already got a username, what are you waiting for? Sign In!
Our users have posted a total of 140298 articles.
We have 3203 registered users.
The Columbus Underground has served up over
pages and counting.
The 80th Academy Awards on Sunday night brought no huge surprises for moviegoers, with No Country for Old Men sweeping the big ones, and a variety of flicks sharing the small ones. Jon Stewart was hilarious – redeeming himself from any scorn he may have received before – and Ellen Page is at the top of my new “People I Wish I Could Hang Out With” List. “O, Canada” indeed!
Hey there, I'm Thomas. This is You Suck at Movie Watching. A lot of you on Columbus Underground don't watch old movies, so today we're going to be going through the TCM schedule for this weekend. This is at an intermediate level, but I mean, for you, this is going to be stupid hard. So, ya know... just try to follow.
Of course, this doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try new things. The third biggest blockbuster of the year, Transformers, clobbered the competition as the biggest non-sequel of the year, garnering over $319 million. Needless to say, Jerry Bruckheimer will be morphing this one time success into a lucrative trilogy robot in due time.
However, the next three biggest blockbusters continued the success of sequels – Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End looted $309 million from audiences to finish off the trilogy, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix magically brought in $292 million to finish off whatever number of movies its done. The Bourne Ultimatum punched its way through to get $227 million and round out its three-peat, too.
The next movie on the list, 300, wasn’t a sequel and probably won’t breed any given its historical content, but it DID have three in the title. Coincidence? I think not! Yes, 300 was the second most successful non-sequel movie of 2007, and the most successful one with an R-rating, slashing away with $210 million. This is a sign that blockbuster-seekers should probably avoid R-ratings, unless your movie is totally awesomely bloody and deserves it.
Two animated flicks came in next on the list, with Ratatouille being the surprise hit, sneaking off with $206 million, compared to the movie below it, The Simpsons Movie, which brought in $183 million. The Simpsons was the most profitable non-computer-animated movie of the year, but with the name recognition The Simpsons have, Fox is probably scratching their blue-haired, yellow heads on how they got beat by an adorable, unknown rat.
This all culminates down to the tenth most profitable movie of the year, Wild Hogs, which raised $168 million and was the most successful live-action comedy of the year. I guess people just can’t resist Tim Allen on a motorcycle or William H. Macy in leather. Heck, neither can I. I’m sure a shitty-awful sequel is in the works.
