A reminder for those who were in class last week, and news for those who weren't: If all of you have one lived experience blog posted by Friday, April 4th, I will drop the number of required posts to 2 total, and the required comments to 2 total. But YOU ALL need to participate in this effort, so don't hesitate...blog one for the team!
Kudos to everyone who has already posted a blog entry - great work!
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Christopher Nolan's "Following" by Gino Gaglianello
In light of discussing directors today that started out independently, I figured I would blog about my favorite director. Similarly to how Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith got their start, Christopher Nolan first started with a low budget independent film before he became a house hold name. In 1996, Christopher Nolan directed his first feature film by the name of "Following." As with most of Nolan's film, the storyline is non-linear, meaning that the scenes are shown out of chronological order and the viewer is trying to figure out what is going on during the entirety of the film. The story centers around a man, Bill (Jeremy Theobald) who follows people around to learn more about them. He encounters a rather interesting man, Cobb (Alex Haw), and decides to follow him more so than others. After the two finally meet, Cobb reveals to Bill that he is a burglar, and so the storyline progresses and we are now in the world of Christopher Nolan.
Although the film was not released until 1998, Nolan filmed it in 1996 with friends that he had met the at the University College London film society. Nolan made the film on a $6,000 budget, and only shot on Saturday's because all of his actors were working full-time jobs. Because of his tight budget, Nolan was having his actors rehearse for up to six months before shooting, because he could only film about one or two takes. After Nolan got recognition for the film, Zeitgeist purchased the filmed and sent it to a limited release. He made "Following" as a chance to look for investors for his next feature film, "Memento," and Newmarket eventually picked up and financed it.
This film has very independent qualities to it, and the movie is interesting, and keeps very much with the style that Christopher Nolan has become famous for. The film is entirely in black and white, it had a $6,000 budget, the actors were friends of Nolan's, and the runtime of the film is a mere 70 minutes. The great storyline and directing techniques is what pushed this film in to the recognition of others, and is the reason Christopher Nolan could go on to make yet another independent film with "Memento" and eventually go on to revitalize the Batman franchise with "Batman Begins" and the forthcoming sequel "The Dark Knight." Other works of Christopher Nolan include "Insomnia" and "The Prestige."
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
'No Country For Old Men' by Rob McBride
click pic for trailer
On the second viewing i decided to take a closer examination to figure out why exactly this won best picture. In doing this i couldn't help but put it in context with the films that i have watched in class recently and i think that helped shape my new opinion about the film as a whole. This film has a very independent sensibility. The locations such as the barren desert and the small towns look as if they would be rather easy to get and for cheap. Alot of the action is done using old techniques such as blood squibs and prosthetic effects, and doesn't rely on cgi. But the main reason this film is so unique is the characters. The characters involved might be cliched but they way they are acted are so unique and what they say and react are unlike anything you would normally see in film, especially a Hollywood studio one. The reason i wouldn't recommend this film to your standard movie goer is the same reason i wouldn't recommend most other independent films to others. And that is basically because the characters and events that are shown arn't very mainstream in the fact that the hero doesn't win and the world isn't a great and wonderful place its filled with violence and it isn't pretty.
For anybody who is a film major or in this class i highly recommend getting the dvd, it comes with bonus features that are really amazing. There is one on the actors describing there characters and working on the film and there is a really good short on the Coen Brothers and how they work. All in all i thought the film was rather good, it had alot of things that i think make a great movie; acting, location, dialog and story. Its just the violence and its sensibility that i feel the general public wouldn't like, but then again who cares about them i rather see a good movie.
On Go Fish
Readings:
B. Ruby Rich, "Comings and Goings"
Christina Lane, "Just Another Girl Outside the Neo-Indie"
Questions:
1. B. Ruby Rich mentions her unrestrained use of adjectives in describing Go Fish in the Sundance film festival's catalogue. Which of her adjectives do you find the most or least applicable to the film? Citing specific examples from the film, make an argument that supports your choice/perspective.
2. After reading Christina Lane's article, what do you perceive to be the biggest challenge facing women filmmakers who hope to follow up their first independent feature with a successful and enduring career in the film industry?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Spike Lee In Boston
Over my spring break I took a trip out to Boston, Massachusetts and due to a lucky coincidence, Spike Lee was speaking at a nearby college. After bashing the Patriots and conceding to the Red Sox he told many stories from his life about how he got into filmmaking. His message seemed to mostly be about taking things into your own hands and that there is no overnight success. He also talked about the state of the nation from a state of fear perspective. His most interesting story to myself that I had not heard before was about his making of the film Malcolm X. During the postproduction his studio had cut his funding because he was not making changes they had asked. So the studio hired a Bond company to go in and fire everyone and shut down production of his film. He picked up the phone and chose to call Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Magic Johnson, “his boy” Michael Jordan and others, to ask for a “gift” to continue making his film. And they had a large public appearance announcing that all of these prominent black figures had banded together to release their version of Malcolm X how they wanted it to be. Miraculously of course, the studio then began funding the project again.
After his speech was over he took questions from the audience, and considering that we have to write a paper for this class I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to ask him a question similar to the topic of our paper. I wanted to ask him something like, “what are the differences between studio and independent film making” but as I am not that much of a public speaker I ended up asking him something that he seemed to take as though I were asking him why he sold out to the Studios. He gave me this answer, “To answer your question sir, I like to think of myself as an independent film maker who sometimes uses studios to finance and distribute [his work].” I thought about this answer for a while because I was disappointed with how I asked the question. I began to try to apply it to the stories he told us about his life and I came back to his film Malcolm X. His studio pulled out on him, who had been financing the film so instead of giving into the studio’s demands and making the film they wanted, he did whatever he could to not have money influence his story. So I think what he was saying in so many words was that if the only difference is where the money comes from there is no difference at all.
After his speech was over he took questions from the audience, and considering that we have to write a paper for this class I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to ask him a question similar to the topic of our paper. I wanted to ask him something like, “what are the differences between studio and independent film making” but as I am not that much of a public speaker I ended up asking him something that he seemed to take as though I were asking him why he sold out to the Studios. He gave me this answer, “To answer your question sir, I like to think of myself as an independent film maker who sometimes uses studios to finance and distribute [his work].” I thought about this answer for a while because I was disappointed with how I asked the question. I began to try to apply it to the stories he told us about his life and I came back to his film Malcolm X. His studio pulled out on him, who had been financing the film so instead of giving into the studio’s demands and making the film they wanted, he did whatever he could to not have money influence his story. So I think what he was saying in so many words was that if the only difference is where the money comes from there is no difference at all.
The Non-Hollywood Machine - "The Painted Veil"
My sister rented the film “The Painted Veil” (2006) a few nights ago, and I decided to watch it because Edward Norton is one of my favorite actors. When the credits first started up, I was happy to see that Warner Independent Pictures distributed the film. I got all excited that the film was independent and that I could write about it in the Lived Experience blogs. The film was wonderful. Beautiful cinematography, great story, and an extraordinary cast. When it was over, I told my sister that I was going to write about “The Painted Veil” for this class. I told her what we have been observing so far: Independent films are unlike Hollywood films because they have a limited budget, location, and use of actors. When told this, my sister paused and asked, “ So…how is this independent?” She was right. “The Painted Veil” was anything but independent. The film screamed expensive and powerful.
I knew from the start that “The Painted Veil” had big name actors. The cast list included Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, and Liev Schreiber. The film is also set in the 1920s, so costume and props were extremely important to the production. I went onto imdb.com to do a little more research on the film. It turns out that the film had a budget of $19,400,0000 and the film was shot in four different locations in China.
I do admit that the story is quite unconventional. “The Painted Veil” is about a troubled marriage that later develops into a relationship of mutual respect and compassion. Its not your typical “boy meets girl” scenario. Its more of a “girl marries boy to get away from family, girl betrays boy by having affair, and then boy forces girl to travel to a cholera-striken China to help the suffering poor.” Its very unique, which is what I think kept me so intrigued. It shows how complex characters can be, and how the audience’s feelings toward the protagonist can move from hatred, to indifference, to sympathy, and finally admiration. The film is also based off a novel written by W. Somerset Maugham. As we have learned in class Hollywood is well known for trying to recreate or reinterpret someone else’s vision. “The Painted Veil” also reinterprets someone else’s work.
Even though the film was a great experience, I can’t help but wonder how this is allowed to be called an independent film. Granted, this class is only up to the early/mid 1990s but I just can’t believe how much independent and mainstream have blended in recent years. “The Painted Veil” was not made by one of the major studios, but it was funded by nine production companies. Actually, according to imdb.com, the production even added on a Chinese production company during production in order to help with the growing finances and expenses. “The Painted Veil” is not part of the “Hollywood Machine,” but it is certainly part of some sort of machine. A machine that involves numerous business transactions, connections, and negotiating. I really do believe that the filmmakers are still artists, but I am also skeptical of the newly created “Non-Hollywood Machine.” Going through this class, I find the screened films empowering to learn about. It is wonderful to think one artist or group of artists can be so influential in the industry. I now wonder what will happen to these artists when the “Non-Hollywood Machine” takes over completely. How can a single camera production even compete with a multi-million dollar budget? How can they compete with a film like “The Painted Veil,” which has an unconventional film premise…and the budget to back it up? What does an artist do when they don’t have the privilege of money or the connection in the business world? I’m seeing the direction that independent cinema is going, and I don’t think I like it. What once seemed optimistic and inspiring now seems intimidating and discouraging.
I knew from the start that “The Painted Veil” had big name actors. The cast list included Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, and Liev Schreiber. The film is also set in the 1920s, so costume and props were extremely important to the production. I went onto imdb.com to do a little more research on the film. It turns out that the film had a budget of $19,400,0000 and the film was shot in four different locations in China.
I do admit that the story is quite unconventional. “The Painted Veil” is about a troubled marriage that later develops into a relationship of mutual respect and compassion. Its not your typical “boy meets girl” scenario. Its more of a “girl marries boy to get away from family, girl betrays boy by having affair, and then boy forces girl to travel to a cholera-striken China to help the suffering poor.” Its very unique, which is what I think kept me so intrigued. It shows how complex characters can be, and how the audience’s feelings toward the protagonist can move from hatred, to indifference, to sympathy, and finally admiration. The film is also based off a novel written by W. Somerset Maugham. As we have learned in class Hollywood is well known for trying to recreate or reinterpret someone else’s vision. “The Painted Veil” also reinterprets someone else’s work.
Even though the film was a great experience, I can’t help but wonder how this is allowed to be called an independent film. Granted, this class is only up to the early/mid 1990s but I just can’t believe how much independent and mainstream have blended in recent years. “The Painted Veil” was not made by one of the major studios, but it was funded by nine production companies. Actually, according to imdb.com, the production even added on a Chinese production company during production in order to help with the growing finances and expenses. “The Painted Veil” is not part of the “Hollywood Machine,” but it is certainly part of some sort of machine. A machine that involves numerous business transactions, connections, and negotiating. I really do believe that the filmmakers are still artists, but I am also skeptical of the newly created “Non-Hollywood Machine.” Going through this class, I find the screened films empowering to learn about. It is wonderful to think one artist or group of artists can be so influential in the industry. I now wonder what will happen to these artists when the “Non-Hollywood Machine” takes over completely. How can a single camera production even compete with a multi-million dollar budget? How can they compete with a film like “The Painted Veil,” which has an unconventional film premise…and the budget to back it up? What does an artist do when they don’t have the privilege of money or the connection in the business world? I’m seeing the direction that independent cinema is going, and I don’t think I like it. What once seemed optimistic and inspiring now seems intimidating and discouraging.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly-What Makes a Film Independent?
Jacob Feiring
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Watching The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was quite interesting after assessing what makes an independent film for half a semester. While I’m not quite sure of the cost of the film, different sources on the internet have said that it cost between 7-13 million dollars to make. This film is probably considered independent by most standards despite a budget that is quite a bit higher than many independent films. The cast that was originally going to include Johnny Depp was a group of primarily unknown actors. Once Depp dropped off the cast it seems that film was forced to take a more “independent” route not receiving as much financial backing and going through a more independent company for its release. I think this film is interesting because it questions where to draw the line, as far as what makes a production independent and what makes it Hollywood cinema, an issue that has been discussed all semester.
What stood out the most to me about this film as far as its “independent qualities” was the way it was shot. It definitely wasn’t shot in a typical fast cut, fast edit Hollywood” style. The cuts weren’t seamless nor were they meant to be. While the film’s topic probably had a bit to do with the style, this film clearly wasn’t intentionally polished to cater to the masses. Many of the shots lingered and required patience to watch.
The film is about Jean-Dominique Bauby, the prominent editor of French ELLE magazinein who in the prime of his career had a stroke and became completely paralyzed. His only way of communicating was through one of his eyes. He used a system of blinks to converse with others.
As the film starts we already notice the simplistic style of the film through the credits. They’re not flashy computer animated like many blockbusters but rather a series of stills, almost like a slide show giving the basic information of names over pictures of X-rays.
As the story begins, the viewer is forced to learn patience just like Mathieu Amalric, who plays the character of Jean-Dominique Bauby, someone struggling to cope with paralysis, as the camera goes in and out of focus mimicking his eye. We also get a sense of the man’s attempt to understand the world around him through an eye alone as the camera pans back and forth with choppy motions, again mimicking the eye.
As the film progresses the viewer is treated to an array of beautiful yet simplistic shots. The camera work is often times choppy and the film is shot in a more “artful” manner. A majority of the film is shot through the eyes of a quadriplegic and how he perceives the world in addition to his memories before the accident. There are rare shots of Amalric. Instead we either see the film through his eyes or shots of the other characters.
While the film is a true story, there are various ways that it could have been shot. In a Hollywood setting I feel that the production would have been flashier with more quick edits and a faster paced story in order to appeal to the masses.
Another important aspect to the film in my opinion was that it was made by an American director but shot and filmed in French. Apparently Julian Scharbel learned French on the set in France when it was being made to stay to true to the sentiment of the book and the story. Would a Hollywood film go through this kind of effort? It’s hard to say, however, it seems that this kind of work ethic and attitude towards creating something that resembles reality is more of an independent sentiment.
The overall feeling of the film in my opinion was independent. The shots were challenging and sometimes required patience to watch. Perhaps, the budget is what make film “less” independent, however, the cost to make the film in comparison to other big budget films was still relatively low. There were little to no flashy special effects and the film relied on the simplistic yet rich cinematography to carry the story and ideas.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Watching The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was quite interesting after assessing what makes an independent film for half a semester. While I’m not quite sure of the cost of the film, different sources on the internet have said that it cost between 7-13 million dollars to make. This film is probably considered independent by most standards despite a budget that is quite a bit higher than many independent films. The cast that was originally going to include Johnny Depp was a group of primarily unknown actors. Once Depp dropped off the cast it seems that film was forced to take a more “independent” route not receiving as much financial backing and going through a more independent company for its release. I think this film is interesting because it questions where to draw the line, as far as what makes a production independent and what makes it Hollywood cinema, an issue that has been discussed all semester.
What stood out the most to me about this film as far as its “independent qualities” was the way it was shot. It definitely wasn’t shot in a typical fast cut, fast edit Hollywood” style. The cuts weren’t seamless nor were they meant to be. While the film’s topic probably had a bit to do with the style, this film clearly wasn’t intentionally polished to cater to the masses. Many of the shots lingered and required patience to watch.
The film is about Jean-Dominique Bauby, the prominent editor of French ELLE magazinein who in the prime of his career had a stroke and became completely paralyzed. His only way of communicating was through one of his eyes. He used a system of blinks to converse with others.
As the film starts we already notice the simplistic style of the film through the credits. They’re not flashy computer animated like many blockbusters but rather a series of stills, almost like a slide show giving the basic information of names over pictures of X-rays.
As the story begins, the viewer is forced to learn patience just like Mathieu Amalric, who plays the character of Jean-Dominique Bauby, someone struggling to cope with paralysis, as the camera goes in and out of focus mimicking his eye. We also get a sense of the man’s attempt to understand the world around him through an eye alone as the camera pans back and forth with choppy motions, again mimicking the eye.
As the film progresses the viewer is treated to an array of beautiful yet simplistic shots. The camera work is often times choppy and the film is shot in a more “artful” manner. A majority of the film is shot through the eyes of a quadriplegic and how he perceives the world in addition to his memories before the accident. There are rare shots of Amalric. Instead we either see the film through his eyes or shots of the other characters.
While the film is a true story, there are various ways that it could have been shot. In a Hollywood setting I feel that the production would have been flashier with more quick edits and a faster paced story in order to appeal to the masses.
Another important aspect to the film in my opinion was that it was made by an American director but shot and filmed in French. Apparently Julian Scharbel learned French on the set in France when it was being made to stay to true to the sentiment of the book and the story. Would a Hollywood film go through this kind of effort? It’s hard to say, however, it seems that this kind of work ethic and attitude towards creating something that resembles reality is more of an independent sentiment.
The overall feeling of the film in my opinion was independent. The shots were challenging and sometimes required patience to watch. Perhaps, the budget is what make film “less” independent, however, the cost to make the film in comparison to other big budget films was still relatively low. There were little to no flashy special effects and the film relied on the simplistic yet rich cinematography to carry the story and ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)