Support Street Fighting Man

There's a lot of stories about Detroit in the news today. Mostly bad, some good. They often talk about the broad implications of certain policies expected to go into effect, or policies that have damaged the city. Frequently, reporters and journalists discuss the decreasing population and the crime that is rampant in the city.

There are other stories that come from the suburbs, where non-Detroiters (like myself) talk about how they can renovate the city, make the public transportation better, revive the economy of Detroit. Without paying for city taxes, I'm sure...

But rarely do I see a story like the one that Andrew James is trying to tell with his next documentary project, Street Fighting Man. It's a personal tale of a group of citizens that decide to take the city's problems in their own hands. They are Detroiters. They are making their city a better place.

These are the kind of stories that people need to see, and as a suburbanite that wants to try to do what's best to help the city, I believe that one of the important things that people can do is help support filmmakers like James show what happens in Detroit today on the personal level. More and more in Documentary film, there is a sense that "personal is political." While this might not be Andrew James intent, so many many issues can and most likely will be at play in Street Fighting Man, and the delicacy with which James handles the subjects (some footage is shown at the kickstarter site as incentive to back the film) is in many ways beautiful. It's tragic, but beautiful nonetheless.

This is why I've decided to pledge $30 to back Andrew James' Street Fighting Man. As a Michigander, I want to see this film be made. I ask you to please check out the preview of the film and see if you too can support the film.

Let's dissect all the films that I've done.

Today I e-mailed a directing idol of mine. I had e-mailed her previously and she responded immediately and with a warmth that caught me off guard. It was wonderful and the gesture alone is one that encourages me.

In the e-mail that I sent this morning, I happened to include a link to my youtube page...selfishly perhaps. Either way, it resulted in me returning to my shorts and looking at them with a different lens. I've done a lot of film watching, film studying, and film working this summer and my views have changed somewhat. I'd like to believe that I've improved my eye and the way in which I do things.

When I finished looking at my films, I discovered I had become somewhat embarrassed that I had sent one of my idols this incredibly flawed films. Don't get me wrong, I think there are good things to all of my work, but I've definitely improved. I also really hope I can finish what I'm working on currently so I can feel less bad about my catalogue as a whole.

I decided I could make a fun entry out of my feelings, and change the review after review business of this blog. Please, join me whilst I critique all of my films. Ready? Go:

1. Eternal Return
This was my first film. Over ambitious and over written. It plays like a really shitty Woody Allen film. I love the look of it, but not the quality of my old DV camera. We filmed it all in a single night, and I do believe that if I we had more time to do this film (and if I had any sense of self-editing at the time) that this would be a film with a little better shelf life. The source material is great and I think the ideas are there. The music is matched very well. I'd actually love to remake this film.

2. ¿Bebes? A Drama in Spanish
Funny enough, this film got me into a film program at MSU. In hindsight, although I still think its a bizarre riot, it's not due to my shitty directorial work. I still do not understand why the puddle of water looks like urine, but I didn't have the ability to edit the color. The music is matched well, but that's about the only good thing that I did. The writing was top notch and the acting is so over the top that it's perfect. Again, now that I have a camera that's decent and understand how to film things, this could be a lot better short. It was also filmed in an afternoon, so time probably harms it, too. But, really, I'm the only one that holds this film back.

3. 2.7.5.
This is probably the one short that I find the least fault in. It's a little over dramatic and my acting it's solid throughout, but I think it's a lot stronger than I even anticipated it would be. I was watching a lot of Brakhage (can you tell?) and was really into the "I'm a film major!"feel...which you can also see, I'm sure ("I'm a Film Major" could easily be an alternative title to this short). The footage is mostly pretty nice. I love the shot of my girlfriend, although I really regret not getting a man to also fill in her same place, as I originally planned. Those images were meant to be about wanting a connection, and I worry that it becomes a hetero-sexualized thing. It's not meant to be.

The film is about isolation, and the intentional documenting of this loneliness. The camera becomes an enemy, as the character realizes it's merely an extension of himself, not a substitute for a connection. For the most part, I feel it conveys these feelings pretty darn well.

4. Royal Oak: An Alternative City
The Footage looks nice, the the music is great, but quite honestly I was overreaching. I don't know how to properly edit footage like this. I didn't have a microphone to properly get sound. I didn't have the time to travel from campus to Royal Oak to put enough time into this. Like my first two shorts, time and poor planning got the best of this short. For better or worse, though, this was easily the best project in the course that I used it for. Perhaps it deserves more credit than I am giving it?

5.  TCFF Bumper Entry
I didn't know that when the Traverse City Film Festival was asking for entries for the past film festival surrounding the theme "Why Traverse City? Why not!" that it wanted really heart-warming, tourism-ready Traverse City footage. The shorts that were accepted were all great, and none were inspired by Tim and Eric like mine was. All of the shorts that I saw that were accepted also incorporated local footage, something I did not have access to.

Is it funny? Yes, but I don't think it really makes any sense. Abbi and Emily went all out in this short, and I really wish I had written something better for them to do. They gave their all, I threw a bunch of junk against a wall.

6. Unseen
I loved all the absurd extra footage from shooting our bumper entry that I made a short video that is a hybrid outtake footage, but it also deals with the concept of filmic bodies. I really focused on creepy faces and bizarre movements that the footage and mechanisms at play created. They weren't things that Abbi and Emily did, they were things that the film did to them. Also, isn't the Beach Boys music great? This isn't bad, but, like the bumper entry, I don't know if it really adds up to much.

With that being said, I hope I can deliver stronger stuff. I'm still mostly a one-person crew, so as I continue to meet people and start working with others, I'm sure the quality will improve. This wasn't meant to be a post about why all my shit sucks. I still think there's a lot of good in this stuff, but I've not only recently been able to look at this stuff critically.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The Mainstream

In one way, I hope to not sound like a broken record, but I must begin this entry the way that I did my last, which was a review about the film Inception. Edgar Wright is a fantastic director, and it's hard to ignore in films like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. The film Hot Fuzz was saved by Wright's excellent direction, managing to effectively make shots of paperwork and minute police work absolutely hilarious. Edgar Wright's trailer in Grindhouse, Don't, was my particular favorite, laughing continuously even thinking about it.

When it comes to direction, Scott Pilgrim is perhaps Wright's best work. It often feels exactly like a video game or a comic book, taking ideas and imagery directly from both mediums. It does this in a much less serious way that Ang Lee's The Hulk did. The film already has you by the opening credits, which are absolutely glorious. It's rare in today's age to get an opening credit sequence that is enjoyable, let alone tolerable.While this credit sequence doesn't really hint at the rest of the film's contents (Despite the style and feeling of the film that will be carried through out), it's fun. I was ready to go.

And then the film continued, and I must say that I was deeply offended by much of this film. Lifting imagery and plot lines from video games and comic books, Scott Pilgrim also lifts the male-centric and homophobic problems of most video games and many comic books.

The film took every single opportunity to other Kieran Culkin's character, Wallace Wells. His tokenism was insulting, as his character could not speak or be brought up without making a joke about his homosexuality. When a joke was needed and there was no joke to be made, the film went to Wells for easy laughs. It was cheap and offensive.

But perhaps the most jarring moment of the film is the battle between Cera's Scott Pilgrim and Mae Whitman's Roxie Richter. Whitman's character is a scene stealer (like many of the minor characters), and she happens to also be the only evil-ex of Ramona's that is a woman. Pilgrim is confused. But, in the end, he defeats her by giving her an orgasm.

Yep, the only way to beat a lesbian is to give her a heterosexual orgasm. Incredibly confusing considering it is the only battle that is sexualized. But, it has to be, right? I mean, there cannot be a single fair depiction of homosexuality in this film. That'd be weird...

From a strictly filmic standpoint, the writing is weak. It would have been better anchored by someone that isn't Michael Cera, who I am finally convinced has no range. The character itself, Pilgrim, is written to be unlikable, yet the script calls for the audience to be on his side come the end of the film. Utterly confusing.

What is disappointing about Cera's casting is the fact that most people in this film give wonderful performances. Culkin is a riot, Whitman deserves some awards, and Allison Pill is also brilliant. Ramona Flowers, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, is also fantastic, but isn't really given a character. I'm not sure how she is depicted in the comic books (Which I hear are fantastic), but she is no more than eye candy for Cera's character and the audience.

In the end, this film is the best proof of the similarities between Mainstream culture and the "alternative." Both are written for white male audiences, are homophobic, and sexist.

This film is wonderfully directed and has some great acting provided by underused minor characters. Beyond that, I do not believe I have any kind words for Scott Pilgrim.

I was Disappointed by Inception

I, like many film goers, critics, and filmmakers believe that Christopher Nolan deserves a lot more credit than he's been given. It seems like that credit has finally come with his massive blockbuster hit, Inception. A film about the mind, memory, and reality...it fits right in with the rest of Nolan's work up to this point, which seems to all rest on the question of how we can trust ourselves if our memory is faulty. Is creating the past harmful? How harmful is it?

You cannot necessarily reduce Nolan's work to this question, but it is one of the most prevalent. Many might become tired with Christopher Nolan's search for uncovering what absolute truth is and what reality really entails. But, as his films Memento and The Dark Knight show, Nolan has an incredible ability to look at various angles of the workings of the mind, looking at different ideas more intimately throughout his film career. With this in mind, Inception feels like his Mind/Memory Magnum Opus, and if that's the case, I'm a little disappointed.

First, let me say that this movie is fun. It's incredibly fun. It's absurdly fun. I haven't had this much fun watching a film in at least a year. While some of the special effects seemed forced and simply looked bad (see: a tornado of French objects exploding), most of the special effects were mesmerizing. The audience literally gasped in awe. Not since Little Miss Sunshine had I seen such crazed audience participation in a film. People were screaming. The intensity of the room was palpable. Through the last 45 minutes of the film, it appeared as if everyone was on the edge of their seats. The credits began rolling and everyone released a deep breathe reminiscent of the ending of a roller coaster ride. For these reasons, I can say that I recommend seeing this film in theatres while people are still going to see it. It is a true theatre film that works best on the big screen. While I think it'd still be fun at home, I think some of the film's hugeness, in both visual style and ideas, would be lost with an at-home viewing.

However, I can only recommend seeing it for the matinee price, or even the before noon price. Of course, it'd be better to see it when you aren't the only person in the theatre, but I have to say that besides it's visual appeal, there is little for me to say that I liked about this film. The mind game in which this movie is based, extracting information from an individuals mind in their sleep, is a joy, but it lacks depth on numerous levels.

To begin, the characters are merely pawns, pieces necessary to carry on the concept of this dream-hunting, which was clearly what Christopher Nolan spent the better half of the ten years he spent crafting the screenplay. There is absolutely no character development and very little depth to the characters. The only exception to this is Ellen Paige and Leonardo DiCaprio's roles, but their depth only goes as far as necessary to understand their motivation for doing what they must in the dream world. DiCaprio cannot be an "architect" of these dreamscapes, for his deceased wife's memory (played by Marion Cotillard) is at the core of his subconscious and contaminates the dreamworld. Ellen is the best mind that DiCaprio's idol (played by Michael Cain) can offer, so she thinks rationally and sensibly.

(HUGE ASIDE: I've read on some feminist blogs that they take issue with the female characterizations in this film. Yes, Ellen Paige and Marion Cotillard's characters bring nothing new to female presentation in film...but I wouldn't say they are bad for women. Paige is the only person that appears to have a mind in this film, and Cotillard's character becomes the villain only because DiCaprio's character does terrible things to her. Experimentation is done on her, and the film makes it clear that she is not in the wrong. Of course, we feel no ill will towards Leo; he just wants his kids back [like Tom Jane in Arrested Development!]. But, the real reason we do not have the slightest of anger towards DiCaprio is simply because his character, like most of those in this film, is terribly underwritten.)

I also found some issues with the dream hunting itself. This film, like many of those that deal with dreams, attempts to make this a somewhat "realistic" depiction of dreams. They suddenly begin, they are often without a middle, and they rarely have an end. Yet, somehow, the individuals within the film that DiCaprio's gang of mind tweakers manipulate never seem to realize that they are dreaming. Aren't we all at least a little aware of our dream state, no matter how real the dream may be? A huge flaw, but one that is also needed for the film to work.

In speaking about this dream issue, one often thinks about the issue of many films; time warp. An hour and a half film can span one day, one week, one month, seven years. Films manipulate our sense of time like dreams do. We also participate in films the way we do film in; the entire scenario is controlled, yet we feel like we are a part of it. None of it is real, but we can communicate with it nonetheless. It often depicts real locations, yet they are entirely fake, manipulated to do things that would never happen in real life. This is the most exciting thing about the film Inception from a critical stand point, in that it is a film that is about film and all of the perils that come with a completed film. It finds all of these issues within the games of the mind and finds a way for them to not only become non-issue, but to become the most exciting part of the film. Embrace the power of film!

However, this brings to mind my greatest issue with the film, which is that this film has nothing to say about our world today. Where The Dark Knight was all about the politically perilous dark world in which we live today, Inception seems to be absolutely about nothing but popcorn sales. While DiCaprio's character is hired by a billionaire to sabotage his biggest competition (in the hopes of getting his kids back, that's all he wants!), there is nary a comment to be made by the power that this billionaire corporate man is planning to by. There is no danger in this film but the danger of one's own mind. In this sense, films like The Matrix and Last Year at Marienbad are better mind games than Inception because they have something to say.

While Inception may have nothing to say, it is impossible for me to say that I didn't have fun. It was an absolute blast watching this film. But to call it smart is an insult to smart movies. The spectacle that is at the core of this film is smartly conceived, and in that sense it is slightly above most summer films, not the instant classic that many have drummed this film up to be.

How to Fold a Flag: Adjusting to Civilian Life

Some films are difficult to watch. Some topics are difficult to discuss. Despite this, it is often those topics... films... issues... that are necessary to discuss. If there is one topic today that isn't discussed enough, it's the issue of how our country takes care of veterans coming home from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Perhaps this is why so few people were in attendance for the screening of "How to Fold a Flag," the most interesting and compelling documentary that I watched at TCFF. The film is from Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein, directors of another documentary called "Gunner Palace." "How to Fold a Flag" is actually a sequel to their "Palace," an incredibly raw film that followed American soldiers in the 2/3 field artillery during their tour in the Iraq war. In "How to Fold," these troops have returned home, having to pick up where they left off.

Of course they've changed, but these four people that are followed throughout the film attempt to return to a sense of normal, whatever that may be. Javorn Drummond is going to college, living in his barely livable home. Stuart Wilf is working at a convenience store. Jon Powers is running for Congress. Michael Goss is wresting in an MMA circuit.

The four show a varied experience of adjusting to civilian life, something that our government does not really provide a service, or assistance, in adjusting to. Michael Goss tells the story of his suicidal tendencies and attempts to seek help. Wilf seems aimless, though somewhat content, but vocally aggravated by how some fellow veterans are handling their adjust to civilian life. Javorn talks humorously and intelligently about the issues of media coverage of the war and his feelings of unimportance, of lacking value in the America that he's returned to. Powers' portrayal is from a distance, clearly keeping focusing his energy entirely on an election that was toughly fought and eventually lost.

While their roads are vastly different, all of the people in this documentary share a common thread. Drummond, Powers, Wilf, and Goss are all looking for ways to come to terms and deal with the difficulties of war while attempting to find purpose in a country that has shipped them away and returned them home with nothing. How can we do this to people that put their lives on the line? Despite any issues about the purpose of any war, how can you ignore the pain of these people?

From my perspective, the issue of mental help is especially important. Still relatively taboo in mainstream US culture (See: parody of Ron Artest thank his therapist after winning the NBA championship.), the issue of depression, anxiety, and various other mental difficulties result from war are still under diagnosed, resulting in an even greater difficulty adjusting to civilian life. In the year 2010, I think it's about time that we realize our internal works include our mental workings, as well. For veterans and citizens alike, this film highlights the importances of seeking help.

If there is one issue that is unfortunately not addressed at in this film (as a veteran in the audience pointed out at the Q&A following the film), it is the issues that are specific to military women and veterans face at home and in the service. But this could quite possibly be due to the fact that the military is still largely viewed as a male-only institution. However, with articles like Nancy Gibbs essay published in Time magazine this past March, I feel like this issue will become more frequently discussed.

When looking at this documentary from a film standpoint, I cannot help but be in awe from time to time as Epperlein and Tucker craft some beautiful moments on film. Like "Gunner Palace," it seems that there is little manipulation or control of the situations in which they document; it appears that the people in the film are truly telling their story. As a young filmmaker, I find this to be quite a daunting thing. As a director, my want for control is endless. It takes real talented directors to be able to let their focus tell the story themselves. The best stories can.

In a film like "How to Fold a Flag," this is important. If we are ever going to talk about the issues of civilian adjust for veterans on a national level, we will need to understand, through the eyes of those that are experiencing difficulty, what needs to be done. This film is a touching work that argues this is quite a lot to be done.

Cleanflix: a Movie for Lovers of Film

I attended the Traverse City Film Festival last week, and I will be spending my first couple of posts on some films that I saw.

When the Festival came to an end, I knew immediately what film I had to talk about first and foremost. As a fan of film, and being a current film major, I could not help but become completely immersed with the film issues at play in the film Cleanflix. The film, written and directed by Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi, documents the film editing culture that grew rapidly in Utah. The film puts most of its focus on the entrepreneurs that began these businesses, but James and Ligairi ground the film in that belief that without the Mormon church, such a business would never exist.

The film comments least on the issues of the Mormon church and censorship in accordance with obedience (If you want a serious film about the issues of the Mormon church, 8: The Mormon Proposition is a pretty emotional comment.). In the beginning, the film shows that a living Mormon prophet in the '80's banned R-rated films (why trust those outside of the Mormon church to decide what is good?) for providing viewers with "suggestive material" that would dirty the mind forever.

The major issues at play, however, are issues that can be found outside of the Mormon church. Many claim that Hollywood has some kind of "agenda" that involves desensitizing us all to sex and violence, especially sex. For those that are religious, violence and sex are often scary, sinful things. Businesses, like the incredibly popular Clean flicks, wanted to eliminate all of the "nasty" junk from those movies. What's the harm?

Of course, there are numerous problems with this, legally and philosophically. These businesses "cleansed" the films of violence and sex without the permission of anyone involved with the film. Many directors, producers, and a large portion of Hollywood, were absolutely upset about the concept at the core of these businesses. Legally, they had a just reason for it: these businesses were violating copyright.

There is also the issue of morality, and who gets to decide what is "good." To directors, these businesses tarnished their vision. Films like Fight Club, for example, have violence for what some may call a moral comment. Without the violence, there is no comment, and the film is altered in a way that it doesn't represent its original self. But, if one community, mormon or otherwise, believes that sex and violence has no place in their community, should they be able to alter art, or is this completely selfish? Do they have an argument?

The film makes a point of stating that the larger issue here is sexual imagery. Anything even commenting on biological fact that a penis and a vagina exist is often edited out. One particular college professor proposes an important question. If we aren't to learn about sex somewhere, where will our mind take us?

Politically, this is the most interesting issue in the film to me. If people are worried about sexual and violent images in film, do they not already preexist in their head? Is it better to completely ignore these visuals and fetishize them, or is it better to see and come to terms? Is not seeing mean not having a conversation? If conversations aren't being had, then how is sex and violence understood? In this sense, "R-Rated" films are important.

Of course, there is one other glaring issue in Cleanflix that I have not discussed, and it is the issue of digital technology. Without digital technology, businesses like Clean Flicks could have never been possible. James and Ligairi did a Q&A after the film and touched on the effect of digital technology. Both directors disagree with what the businesses did, selling illegal copies of films (and the way in which the film is presented is very much an anti-editing space. The design often reminds the viewer of Cold War, Red Scare era artwork.), but Ligairi believes that with time, businesses like Clean Flicks are inevitable. As digital technology grows and grows, what will ownership mean? In the music industry, the term already means very little when it comes to records and MP3s. Perhaps no medium is safe, and it is quite possible that film is next.

As you can see, I've thought a lot about this film. It was very well done, and quite complex, as the issues at play were unraveling during their shooting of the film. Cleanflix's prime focus is Daniel Thompson, and his downfall and criminal issues begin unfolding during production of the movie in a entertaining and surprising way.

From a filmmaker's viewpoint, I think this will become a very important film to movie lovers and movie makers alike. I cannot stop thinking about what the future holds for unknowns like myself. How much control can we have? Will there be such a thing as creative control? That, coupled with the issue of what is "suggestive" keeps haunting me. Seeing the film, I found it odd that the logos of many of these companies were suggestive in and of themselves. The Clean Flicks logo is a winking face. It's as if they themselves are selling sexuality!

Not to mention that while the film does not shame the Mormon church, the profitable entity in this case is the Mormon community. Who were the people that edited these films for the Mormon community? Surely it wasn't practicing Mormons; that'd be sinful. So, are people outside of the Mormon community profiting off these sensitive people? Is that moral?

The questions never end, and they are certainly worth asking. If you love film, you need to seek out Cleanflix.