Wednesday, October 8, 2008

October's Screening: Tokyo Godfathers


Most of you know me well enough to be acquainted with my love of Anime, and I have to give those of you who’ve sat through FLCL marathons and Miyazaki movies and the occasional episode of Outlaw Star a lot of credit. There is a lot of Anime out there, and not all of it is great. A lot of people have preconceived notions about Anime, and a lot of them are true. Most Anime I love does have giant robots, buxom animal-girl hybrids, weird ninja sex, and plenty of upskirt shots of school girls. But those cliché elements are not the bits that draw me to Anime. I love that a lot of Anime really subverts traditional Western forms of storytelling but, even more essentially, I love it because I am an adult, and I love animation. You may know that a lot of the cartoons you watched growing up were Japanese imports, like Voltron or Robotech. Moreover, though there would be no Anime without Hollywood, there would be no Saturday Morning Cartoons without Anime. In 60s due to the creation of cable television, suddenly broadcasters had many more channels and a lot more airtime to fill. Producer Fred Ladd worked with NBC and brought Astro Boy and Gigantor to the US starting in 1963, and the translated versions of Japanese hits found their greatest success with American kids on Saturday mornings. In the US animation never shook a stigma of entertainment for kids, but over the last 10 years thanks to programming on Cartoon Network like Adult Swim and some intrepid film distributors, that has started to change. If you loved Anime on Saturday mornings when you were ten, I encourage you to try some cartoons for grown ups.

The movie we’re watching this month was directed by Satoshi Kon, a newish fave of mine. I first encountered his work watching Paranoia Agent on Adult Swim, and last year saw his most recent film Paprika. For the most part Kon’s work is highly realistic in style, and deals mostly with modern, urban or suburban life, but in doing so delves into the stress, the repression, the palpable pressure that isn't unique to Japanese society, but is present in modern life universally. Kon’s movies and television series are post-modern and creepy-- kind of in a David Lynch way-- but with a clean, bright, humorous undercurrent. We’ll be watching Tokyo Godfathers (2003, 92min) which is about as charming a movie as you can get. Based on the John Ford film 3 Godfathers, Tokyo Godfathers follows a similar premise, replacing outlaw thieves with a rag-tag assemblage of Tokyo’s homeless, who find a baby on Christmas Eve, and set out to reunite her with her mother. And lest you think you’re about to enter some twisted world of tentacle rape and space pirates with unexplainable ambiguities, this movie is highly narrative, there are no ninjas, and it’s so damn heartwarming it made Dan’s Dad cry. As an additional challenge to you, friends, this month we’re switching our nights—we’ll be watching Tokyo Godfathers on Sunday October 19th at 7pm. Happy Hour will still be in effect, we’ll still be at Heathers Bar 506 E 13th St btw A and B, and I’ll even bring some Japanese snacks to share just to make this even more enticing. Come change your mind about Anime and next thing you know we might be hitting up Comicon together…

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

September's Screening: Bunny Lake Is Missing


I Like to Watch is back, apologies for being slow on the blog, but please come back to Heathers on Monday September 29th, 7pm as usual. This month’s film Bunny Lake Is Missing (1965, 107 min) was directed by Otto Preminger, and is coming to us by way of Lisa. The movie is starring (Sir) Laurence Olivier, and Carol Lynley, with Noel Coward and The Zombies. Lisa’s description: A woman reports that her young daughter is missing, but there seems to be no evidence she ever existed. IMPORTANT NOTE: I highly recommend you DO NOT Google this movie, because pretty much everything I’ve seen about it includes major spoilers. I’ve never seen this movie, so that’s all we have to go on, folks. Complicating things a bit more, I’m realizing just now that I have seen almost none of Preminger’s films. Therefore, I’m falling back on Bordwell once again, (well, BordwellThompsonStaiger, that holy trifecta of film history, from here on: BTS) I’ll crib a bit for all of us from the lengthy, wordy, heavy and kind of expensive The Classical Hollywood Cinema. BTS characterizes Preminger’s style as kind of cinematic pokerface. BTS put forth Hitchcock as a counterpoint to Preminger’s style: Hitch being the kind of director who draws attention to his hand in a film. Hitch uses very visible and intentioned camera movements, and careful framing to bring your attention to details he wants you to see, and sometimes to make a show of the details he doesn’t want you to see. (As an example BTS use the scene in Shadow of a Doubt when Uncle Charlie is reading the newspaper, and discovers article he doesn’t want his family to see, tearing it out of the paper. The audience sees the article eventually, when young Charlie goes to the library, but Hitch makes a point of drawing the audience in by witnessing Uncle Charlie tearing the paper, but then keeping the most vital information from the audience until it is discovered by young Charlie.) In comparison BTS suggest that Preminger “planes classical narration down to a flat, almost inexpressive ground…” and through his visual style demonstrates an “unwillingness to specify character psychology…” Combined with Lisa’s cryptic description, I can only surmise that we’ll all be kept guessing until the last moment of Bunny Lake.


A secret, a mystery, or a twist is one of the most satisfying narrative devices, and the often quite difficult to pull off successfully. With the widespread dissemination of all kinds of important information on the internet (like that most vital information: the twists and turns of our favorite movies and TV shows) it’s becoming harder and harder to keep a narrative twist a secret. But learning the secret of a plot doesn’t always destroy the pleasure of a film, if that film has something more to offer than the simple thrill of the twist.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Giving Laura Mulvey Her Due


Jezebel linked to Stanley Fish's NYT Opinion piece about Kim Novak asking "Does Kim Novak get ignored by film critics because she was "the object of voyeuristic male gaze" in the '50s?" I clicked through thinking that Fish's piece was going to be some kind of reclaiming of Novak, lauding her as an actress in her own right and not just a pretty face steered around by powerful directors. (And in answer to Jezebel's question: Kim Novak is hardly ignored by film theory and criticism and when she is discussed, its usually only in the context of the male gaze. Please, Ladies.)

Fish's Op Ed "Giving Kim Novak Her Due" is a pretty tribute to a beautiful actress, a star who put up with more than her fair share of bullying through her career at the hands of Hitchcock, Preminger, Wilder, some of Hollywood's most famous auteurs. I agree that in the company of cinematic authors of that caliber, history never quite includes Novak as a driving force in the landmark films in which she stars. Nevertheless, upon finishing Fish's article I am left with but one screaming, rage-filled thought: "Holy crap! Did I just read an article about Kim Novak and the male gaze written in two-thousand-and-freaking-eight with not one single mention of Laura Mulvey?????" I mean, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema is such a primary text in Film Theory (not just Feminist Film Theory), I resist even summarizing it in a blog. However, I know that one person's seminal text is another's petty diversion, as academic fields and interests vary. (This exemption does not apply to the NYT, however.) In a nutshell, Mulvey uses psychoanalytic theory (Freud, Lacan) to equate the camera's view with the desirous male gaze, consequently the cinematic spectator's gaze becomes aligned with the male gaze. I'm a little to riled up right now to really discuss it in full, maybe later when I've taken the rage down a few notches I'll have a more thoughtful analysis of Mulvey v. Fish. Nevertheless, Fish's summation "[Novak] was something that has gone out of fashion and even become suspect in an era of feminist strictures: she was the object of a voyeuristic male gaze..." both flagrantly talks around Mulvey and blames her (without naming names) for the destruction of Novak's celebrity and the type of woman she portrayed on the screen. But wasn't that entirely the point? I'm all for nostalgia but why should a woman movie goer with her wits about her be complacent in worshiping an actress as a "glittering something beheld from afar." Mulvey set out to change that for women, and in turn put spectatorship into question for all audience members who watch through the eyes of a camera lens who aren't heterosexual white and male.

image above from Masters of Media. More hilarious smartypants jokes there.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Even more fun places to watch movies!


After my last post, Kim and Mike both emailed me about some summertime funtime movie nights they frequent. Having this many options is the best and worst thing about New York in the summertime-- but what a fantastic conundrum to be in! Turns out I'll be watching several movies a week through the end of August. And most of them for free. Darn.

This Friday I'll be checking out Gandahar at the Rubin Museum, a film I can not believe somehow has evaded me all these years: French animated scifi craziness. YES. Picture to the right, is enough for me. Films at The Rubin start at 9:30 and are free with a $7 bar minimum.

And don't forget about movies under the Brooklyn Bridge on Thursday nights! On the 22nd they're showing one of my faves-- Being There. If you've never seen it, its a charming movie with Peter Sellers in one of his final roles. Bring a plastic cup if you come so I don't drink an entire bottle of wine by myself and end up too drunken and melancholy. Movies at Brooklyn Bridge Park are free and start around 8.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Things to watch in the summertime



Heathers will be closed for renovations on our usual night, so there won’t be a screening this month. Robbed of this opportunity to force people to see movies, I’d like to take a moment and really encourage people to go to a Rooftop Films movie. I’ve been volunteering for them this summer a few times a month, and as far as I know everyone I’ve coerced into coming to watch movies has really enjoyed eating chocolate* and hanging out on a nice roof watching a movie. You can check out some of the shorts they’ve shown online at IFC (but none of the ones I’ve really loved, you can look at those here and here.)

Consequently, I strongly encourage attending Song Sung Blue at Roosevelt Island on August 16, if you love Neil Diamond as much as I do (and its free!), or Flying on One Engine on August 22 if you can’t bear to leave Williamsburg and you also must have free booze. I’ll be at both these screenings helping out in whatever way I can which usually involves stacking chairs. I must note however, that both the films I’ve recommended aren’t actually showing on a roof. The roof above is the Rooftop homebase, the Old American Can Factory. Find a screening that’s happening there, in the schedule—it’s a really pleasant roof. Actually, I also feel compelled to mention that last Saturday there was a screening not on a roof-- at The Yard -- and magically these Mexican food people who are usually at the Redhook Ballfields showed up and were making incredible tacos, so if you go to a screening that’s happening there, this good fortune may befall you. Also, bring bug spray. Or find me, I’ll have some.

I Like to Watch will be back in September. Email me if you want to watch something specific.

*chocolate doesn’t come with the movie, you have to bring your own. You can also most likely sneak in your own booze, and get drunk for free after the movie.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Movie This Monday

You can drink this heatwave away at Heathers this Monday with The Killer. The movie starts at 7, Heathers is located on 13th St btw A & B, and here's a map if you need one. Screenings are always free, but come prepared to buy a cooling drink or two from the bar.

Monday, July 14, 2008

July's Screening: The Killer


This month, Raechy is bringing us John Woo’s classic Hong Kong action film The Killer (1989, 104 minutes.) Like Hitchcock, Woo often focuses on Man’s dual nature in his films. However, while Hitchcock constructed scenes with a meticulous mise en scene and traditional (for the most part) Hollywood editing, Woo incorporates amore modern shooting style that throws rules of editing, like the 180° rule, out the window in service of Woo’s poetic vision. In his book Planet Hong Kong, the eminent David Bordwell finds that in a scene between assassin, John (Chow Yun-Fat), detective, Li (Danny Lee) and (recently blinded) singer, Jenny (Sally Yeh), Woo uses framing and jump cutting to emphasize the dual nature of John and Li: “They are in the same situation and they’ve got the same feeling and they’ve got the same positions. It’s like looking in a mirror.” (Bordwell) Woo emphasizes throughout the film that killer and cop, John and Li, are both men with integrity, but simply on opposite sides of the law. This story becomes as hyperbolic as it sounds: naturally there’s some betrayal by the respective allies of both John and Li, and of course the criminal and the law bringer come to respect each other more than they’d ever thought possible. It is Woo’s visual splendor and bold telling that makes The Killer an epic story, rather than one with a predictable plot twist.

The Killer brought Woo overseas success, and introduced American audiences to a kind of Hong Kong action film that left behind campy Kung Fu of the 70s. Nevertheless, Woo’s films are hardly realistic, Bordwell aptly uses the term ‘hyperstylized’ to describe Woo’s shooting style. Renowned Hong Kong based film critic Li Cheuk-to suggested Woo’s over-the-top characters and visuals that drew American viewers to his films. In the early 90s he remarked: “A lot of times we cannot take the passionate action films of John Woo, but Western genre film fans love them precisely because such uninhibited wildness is almost impossible to find in Western genre films.” (Bordwell) Woo opened the floodgates for an American cinema of ‘uninhibited wildness’ and you can see his visual and narrative style reflected in the films of the Wachowski Brothers, Robert Rodriguez, and most blatantly, Quentin Tarantino.

photo from loveandbullets.com

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The Truth About the Wonderful Prospect


I thought interested parties might like to check out this interview with Werner Herzog on Gothamist where he talks about Encounters at the End of the World, and blows the lid off the rumors about his remaking Bad Lieutenant . Below is my favorite excerpt:

True, much of it is very funny but what stuck with me most at the end are the sublime aspects of it. The latter part, where you get the sounds of the seals and the underwater footage, to me they suggest not just otherworldliness, but a divine intelligence. Do you agree? Are you trying to persuade me to become an adherent of creationism?

Not necessarily, but to me the sounds of the seals, for instance, suggests something supernatural. No, it doesn’t. It only suggests the sounds, and they are wonderful and sublime. I wouldn’t read anything God-like into it. However, creation itself, as it is, has something magnificent, and the film celebrates it, the film names it, the films shows it. And the film ends like that. And I like this notion; you do not often have a chance in a movie to show things that are of utmost beauty, and of course the music has a big part in showing a certain sacredness in what we have in front of us.

Also head over to American/Mexican for Natasha's take on the Moving Image Source event we both worked very hard drinking wine at.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Movie this Monday

With all the summer fun that's going on don't forget to come to Heathers Bar this Monday for Shadow of a Doubt. The movie is 108 min long and starts increasingly-not-so-promptly at 7pm. Heathers is located on 13th St btw A & B, and here's a map if you need one. Screenings are always free, but come prepared to buy a drink or two from the bar to support Heathers.

Monday, June 9, 2008

What's In the Hearts of Men

Last week I had the opportunity to meet one of my idols. An opportunity I totally balked at, of course, because I couldn’t come up with anything to say to him. Anything other than to tell him that a recent episode of Metalocalypse referenced Fitzcarraldo, and Cary Jones fed that to me. Anything that came straight from my heart, from what I really felt, would sound too gushing to be sincere. ‘Werner Herzog you are the most brilliant filmmaker, the most daring creative force walking this planet. Everything you say about cinema is exactly what I feel.’ He even left Jonathan Demme a little star struck in the clip I’ve linked to. The only fitting tribute to Werner Herzog and his grand cinematic vision was a totally unintentional one. While we assembled to hear a man who has moved mountains for movies (and boats across them) a man who has grappled with humanity’s alienation from the earth, God, and his own often alien society, another man, (less poetically the second of the day) scaled the exterior of the 52 story Times Building where we waited in the basement auditorium. I would climb a building for Werner Herzog, but I chose three glasses of free wine instead.

As usual everything Herzog said was the perfect combination of bananas, brilliance and poetry. He told Demme “I know what’s in the hearts of men.” Then he told a story about recording interviews for Wild Blue Yonder wherein he entered a room full of astronauts who seemed a bit standoffish. He looked around and then told them about growing up in the mountains of Bavaria and how he became very adept at milking cows. Every since then he could always pick out a man who could milk a cow by looking at his face. He pointed at one man and declared ‘you, sir, know how to milk a cow!’ which was true. He told Demme that to be a filmmaker you must know what is in the hearts of men, and know what frightens them.

Of most interest to me were his thoughts on what is becoming a running theme of this blog. Herzog declared “If you don’t understand how to collaborate you’ll never understand the real essence of moviemaking.” Werner Herzog is a poet (and I don’t bestow that lightly or without a bit of irony, however it cannot be denied that the man has a way with language and a sense of drama like none other) of singular vision, and he makes more than liberal use of the poetic license that comes along with the title. Nevertheless, no matter how much truth is stretched, no matter how much embellishment is added or midgets enlisted to portray the human struggle, Herzog is a man who has worked intimately with some great and famously difficult artists in their own right, Klaus Kinski being the most famously infamous. During his talk with Demme, Herzog told of his collaboration with musician Florian Fricke (until he discovered New Age music later in life, and Herzog let him go his own way, b/c that kind of music is not to Dear Werner’s liking) and his years working with Peter Zeitlinger, a cinematographer on nearly 10 (or possibly 17—Herzog said that number but I can’t corroborate that) films. Filmmaking is an art that involves the most amount of industry and consequently the most cooperation between artists of varying fields. Where collaboration can dilute an artistic vision, where it can corrupt what makes something special about an idiosyncratic visual artist or author, as Herzog states, to truly be a filmmaker you must be someone who will allow collaboration to broaden a vision. Great directors or writers or editors to blossom under the pressures of cooperation by focus most on their strongest skills, relying on what makes their vision singular and what that brings to an artistic endeavor as massive as a move. Despite, or perhaps because of his passion for music, when working with a great musician Herzog told Demme that he sits in the same room as someone like Fricke, but just to inhabit the space, to feel the creativity, but was adamant that ‘his world is his world’ and Herzog stays, in the same room, but in a world of his own. Rather than controlling another’s vision, Herzog finds inspiration in chance and the things that ‘fall into his lap.’

Ostensibly the night was in celebration of the launch of The Museum of the Moving Image’s new web resource, the Moving Image Source. When Demme posed a question about YouTube (‘too small and quick’ for Herzog’s liking) and upped his hipster cred by name-dropping Dan Deacon, Herzog paid delightful tribute to my former employer. Herzog declared that with the launch of the Moving Image Source, “all of a sudden the web gains significant depth... the web was so shallow and uniformed now you can use it to go to the deep bottoms of the unknown in cinema.”

video from The Film Panel Notetaker

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Thrown to the Owls


Watching The Daily Show last night it hit me who Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe reminds me of: Leland Palmer, from Twin Peaks. Now, I’m not comfortable making any wild thematic comparisons between a fictional character created by David Lynch and real life person with a career in politics, mostly because I’m a Clinton supporter. Moreover, because finding similarities between Palmer (a man who is simultaneously wild with grief over the death of his daughter and is embodied with a murderous incarnation of evil in its truest form), and McAuliffe (a man who has been placed as the face of a campaign that --even I, a Clinton girl will admit-- is all but lost and is representing that campaign with a kind of delusional zeal and political posturing that played a part in bringing our girl down) doesn’t take that much real effort. However, I’m going to throw comfort aside in this instance. As we move into the general election, I know my candidate won’t be at the top of the Democratic ticket, but I find solace in that the death of the campaign for The First Woman President was perhaps heralded by the same sinister, invisible forces at work in everyday American society that murdered Laura Palmer. McAuliffe’s performance on The Daily Show-- and a performance of epic proportions it was-- echoed the maniacal delusion of possessed Leland Palmer. McAuliffe’s stubborn refusal to reckon with the realities of the all but lost Clinton campaign, and insistence on repeating well-vetted political rhetoric that has become an ineffective trope from most of Clinton’s aides (aside from those who choose to speak more from the hip and are thrown to the owls, just to keep my metaphors within the theme) left me feeling like he was moments away from bursting into Mairzy Doats within sight of Jon Stewart.

June's Screening: Shadow of a Doubt


As skeptical as my outlook is on collaboration in service of The Dark Crystal sequel, cooperation doesn’t always have to result in robbing a movie of its vitality. Alfred Hitchcock was a frequent collaborator, employing graphic designer Saul Bass on innovative credit sequences, working closely with composer Bernard Hermann to revolutionize movie scoring. On this month’s movie, Shadow of a Doubt (1943, 108min), Hitchcock worked with playwright Thornton Wilder (most famously author of quintessential high school theater production, Our Town) on the film’s screenplay. Hitchcock told Francois Truffaut, Thornton Wilder was memorable as the first American writer who agreed to work together to pen a film after Hitch’s move to direct films in America. In Hollywood, he said “I was turned down by many stars and writers who looked down their noses at the genre I worked in. That’s why it was so gratifying to for me to find out that one of America’s most eminent playwrights was willing to work with me and, indeed, he took the whole thing quite seriously.” No doubt Wilder’s willingness to collaborate with Hitchcock on the film lent credibility that would open doors for the director with future creative partners.

Throughout his films Hitchcock frequently enlists many thematic devices, and most the kind that lend themselves very easily to psychoanalytic interpretations for those of us with less even than an armchair analysts knowledge of Freud. Doubling and Doppelgangers abound in Hitch’s films, from the two title characters in Strangers on a Train whose paths intersect and then become mortally involved in the lives of the other, to Madeline and Judy, two women who seem to be separate but uncannily similar in the eyes of Scottie in Vertigo. Shadow of a Doubt is one of the most literal representations of Hitchcock’s frequent theme of doubling with two main characters sharing the name Charlie. One Charlie, played by Teresa Wright embodies the milkfed ideal small town American teenage girl, the other Charlie her middle aged uncle played by Joseph Cotton, a vagabond bachelor with a mysterious past. For a more thorough analysis of thematic dualities in Hitchcock’s films, see Mladen Dolar’s essay “Hitchcock’s Objects,” but here, briefly, “Some interpreters… have suggested that the duality is nothing but the dichotomy of good and evil, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ side, which makes it possible to get rid of the bad side to wind up with a traditional Hollywood happy ending…[In this interpretation] the link between good and evil remains an external one, the idyllic small town life has no connection with the ‘dark side’, the nightmare comes from some other place.” Dolar goes on to break down this analysis to reveal what he believes to be the truest sinister force that joins the good and the bad together in small town America: money.

Finally, watching Shadow of a Doubt one can easily see Hitchcock’s influence on David Lynch’s films. Much like most of Lynch’s work, which also frequently utilizes doubles and doppelgangers, the most sinister forces find their way to work their depravity on the pastoral setting of small town America. Its hard for me to give too much of a summary of Shadow of a Doubt without giving away too much of the fun, but by now you’ve probably figured out, in movies a visiting favorite uncle is not always what he appears to be.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Kira in the 21st Century


After May’s screening of the Dark Crystal, Ami informed me that a long planned sequel to the film was being made. I discovered when doing some research on the 1982 film that The Dark Crystal is, rather unsurprisingly a film with quite a cult following. Like website upon blog cult following. The fittingly extensive Power of the Dark Crystal blog has meticulously tracked the status of the film’s preproduction through late last fall. The film is being directed by Gendy Tartovsky, of Dexter’s Lab, Powerpuff Girls, and Samurai Jack fame, and if anything bodes well for a quality sequel-- or rather re-imagining of the Dark Crystal world, as Tartovsky himself is pitching it—it’s having one of the premiere western animation directors as the auteur. But how much Tartovsky aesthetic will be at play in The Power of the Dark Crystal? Tartovsky supposedly only agreed to direct the film if Brian Froud, the nutty 70s fantasy illustrator, designed the films characters, as he did in the original Crystal. Moreover, the Power of the Dark Crystal is of course a Jim Henson Co. Production. Since Henson Productions’ recent collaboration with Neil Gaiman, MirrorMask, was such an incoherent mash of weird psychedelic CGI, and decidedly un-Gaimanlike in its aesthetic (or maybe I’m just expecting all Sandman all the time from him) and since the director of MirrorMask, Dave McKean was originally slated to direct Power of the Dark Crystal and backed out, I can only imagine that Tartovsky will merely serve as a hollow vessel for supposedly channeling Jim Henson himself back from the beyond. In fact even Frank Oz responded to the idea of a Dark Crystal sequel with only “Why?” Sometimes collaboration can lead to great cinema, and sometimes it just becomes a horribly diluted power struggle.