Film Club

Hi again everyone, as I said last post, this summer we will be watching 3 sci-fi films for Film Club.  The first film will be shown this month on Thursday, June 21st @ 6:15pm.  We will be watching Ridley Scott's:  Blade Runner.

Blade Runner is a 1982 American science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott and starring Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer and Sean Young.  The screenplay, written by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, is loosely based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick.  The film depicts a dystopian Los Angeles in November 2019 in which genetically engineered robots called replicants-visually indistinguishable from adult humans- are manufactured by the powerful Tyrell Corporation as well as by other "mega-manufacturers" around the world.  Their use on Earth is banned and replicants are exclusively used for dangerous, menial or leisure work on off-world colonies.  Replicants who defy the ban and return to Earth are hunted down and "retired" by police special operatives know as "Blade Runners".  The plot focuses on a brutal and cunning group of recently escaped replicants hiding in Los Angeles and the burnt out expert Blade Runner, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who reluctantly agrees to take on one more assignment to hunt them down.

Although Blade Runner is ostensibly an action film, it operates on multiple dramatic and narrative levels.  It is indebted to film noir conventions: the femme fatale, dark and shadowy cinematography, and the questionable moral outlook of the hero-in this case, extended to include reflections upon the nature of his own humanity. (from Wikipedia)

Like much of Philip K. Dick's work, Blade Runner deals with not only what it means to be human but also the implications that arise with the creation of non-organic life and it's status as "human" or "non-human".  Do synthetics have souls?  Do they feel the same emotions as humans?  Are robots aware of their inorganic nature?  Does this make them any more or less "human"?  and as the novel on which the film is based asks, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Blade Runner is a beautiful mixture of science fiction and a sub-genre of film noir referred to as "neo-noir" (it also happens to be a personal favorite of mine).  This is a film you will not want to miss.

Summer Sci-Fi Spectacular

Hey folks, this is your Film Club summer update!  For the duration of the summer we will be meeting at our regular time (unless otherwise stated) 6:15pm on the third Thursday of each month.  This summer we will be doing something a little different than last summer.  This summer we will be watching some of my personal favorite (as well as critically acclaimed and important) science fiction films.  The first film starts this month and will be shown on Thursday, June 21st, and that film is: Blade Runner directed by Ridley Scott (another post will follow to further explain what Blade Runner is all about, for those unfortunate enough to have never seen it).  Hope you guys have a great summer and I look forward to seeing you all at Film Club!

Resurrect Dead

Yesterday I had an opportunity to sit down and watch a new documentary entitled: Resurrect Dead.  The movie is about strange tiles that have popped up in different cities along the East-coast and as far west as Kansas City, since the early 1980s.  The tiles are referred to as "Toynbee Tiles" because of the cryptic message each bears.

 The film initially follows a man named Justin who has been a "fan" of the tiles since he first saw one back in the 1980s while living in Philadelphia.  With the advent of the internet at his public library, Justin was able to find others like him, who had seen these tiles, and meet up with them.  When he searched the internet he discovered the tiles were not only found in Philadelphia but in cities all over.  With the help of a few other guys and the documentary team, Justin embarks on an investigation into the mysterious tiles, and where it leads him is very interesting.  The mysterious nature of the tiles, in idea, message and purpose, is what really drives this film.  I was kept in a state of almost perpetual anticipation for the whole 90 mins of this film.  Each clue, each lead, each suspect, each dead end just pushes you further into this strange and fascinating world as you, along with the guys in the film, speculate as to what the meaning behind these tiles is.  Who did it?  How did they do it?  What are they trying to accomplish?  OR is it just some elaborate guerrilla/street art project masquerading as something more?  The film addresses these questions and I think it does it very well.  I was at first overwhelmed with internal questioning and rationalizing when the film started, the whole thing was just sooo bizarre to me, especially if the creator was indeed serious about the message he was conveying.  What type of person does this?  It just gets weirder as they dig deeper and it really gets you into it.  I felt myself sharing the emotions of the "detectives", the frustration as they come so close again and again and then lose the trail, the excitement when something clicked and they made progress, it feels like you (the audience) are going on this adventure together with these three guys, and really you are, the film does a great job of capturing this.  When it ends, you'll be satisfied, but there will still be that undercurrent of the mysterious that can not be done away with no matter what the explanation, and I'm glad, because it's nice to wonder sometimes.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I highly recommend it.  If you happen to check it out, let me know what you thought!

Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7g-7x-Ib60

Film Club for the Month of May

Hey everyone, May is just about here, so this is your official Film Club update.  For April we watched David Lynch's wonderful film: The Straight Story, thanks to everyone who made it, we had a pretty good sized group.  For everyone wasn't able to make it we do own the film at the Crete Library if you would like to check it out, otherwise, hope to see you next time!

For the month of May I've chosen the outstanding, moving, and beautiful film: Children of Men directed by Alfonso Cuarón (director of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Y Tu Mamá También).  Children of Men is a 2006 British dystopian science fiction film loosely adapted from P.D. James's 1992 novel The Children of Men.  In 2027, two decades of human infertility have left society on the brink of collapse.  Illegal immigrants seek sanctuary in England, where the last functioning government imposes oppressive immigration laws on refugees.  Clive Owen plays civil servant Theo Faron, who must help a pregnant West African refugee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) escape the chaos.  Children of Men also stars Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, Pam Ferris, and Chiwetel Ejiofor.  Children of Men received critical acclaim and was recognized for its achievements in screenwriting, cinematography, art direction and innovative single-shot action sequences.  It was nominated for three Academy Awards:  Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing.  It was nominated for three BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) Awards, winning Best Cinematography and Best Production Design, and for three Saturn Awards, winning Best Science Fiction Film.

This film is technically science fiction but is very grounded in reality.  The vision of Britain in 2027 is incredibly realistic and draws from the situations of today and brings them to their worst-case scenarios, with added female infertility as a driving plot device.  This is a remarkable cinematic achievement that you will not want to miss.  Come on out and join us May 17th at 6:15pm!

Here is the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VT2apoX90o

Director Spotlight: Werner Herzog

Since the beginning of this year I have been on a quest to watch the complete filmography of Werner H. Stipetic better known as Werner Herzog.  When I started this adventure I had already seen a few of his films...a decent amount actually (or so I thought), but it turned out he had FAR more I had never seen, mainly his short films and documentaries (of which I had only seen a couple).  I decided to look him up on Wikipedia to see if I could get an actual count of how many films I would be watching (I like to print out a director's filmography and check them off as I go), to my surprise the number of films he has directed comes to 57....57 films!  It has been a long and tiresome process trying to get a hold of his older works and some of his short films, nearly impossible it seems, actually impossible in some cases.  His second short film Game in the Sand was never actually released.  The Transformation of the World into Music exists but has apparently been made unavailable to me, the same can be said of Christ and Demons in New Spain.  Scream of Stone, which Herzog has disowned because of his lack of creative control is seemingly only available on a Region 2 PAL DVD format, which conveniently doesn't play on our NTSC DVD players and TVs (I may have to purchase a region-less DVD player so I can view this film, for completion purposes).  Despite all these setbacks and difficulties, I feel I've done quite well, rounding out at about 40 something films I've seen, so, here's hoping the future brings release of these impossible-to-find DVDs so they can be enjoyed by the world (but mostly me).  I am nearing the end of this quest and I felt I should reflect on what I have experienced so far.  I feel a connection to this 69 year old German man known as Herzog.  His films are strange to most people, I can recognize this, but instead of being repelled as most people are (when it comes to the bizarre), I am attracted.  I don't just see the inane dancing chicken at the end of Stroszek, I see the lunacy, the stupidity, the folly of the American Dream as it is presented in this film.  I don't mean to imply that only I can understand his films, I'm saying I immediately look past the weird to what the director is trying to say, if he's saying anything at all, rather than condemn him for not making sense.  I have watched several interviews about Herzog on top of just watching his films and I feel the same at the core of my being as he describes the way he feels about things:  His absolute loathing for commercials, talk shows, shows that pander to the stupidity of the masses.  The importance of dreams, without which there would be no point in living.  He says he doesn't like the idea of watching his own films, he says it's bad enough other people are allowed to see his films, which is akin to, according to him, "catching him with his pants down".  I was at first startled by this because he is so obvious (at least to me) with what he is trying to convey, so open about the way he feels on certain subjects and themes, yet so hesitant to share.  I respect him for this, and relate on a smaller scale.  It is this idea of putting your very self on film, or video or digital image, bearing your beliefs and thoughts to the public that is a scary thing, welcoming judgment from detractors and fans alike, it can wear on your nerves.  I have felt that his films have always been great, not all of them (even he has his bad days) but most of them have impressed me or even overwhelmed me with how grand and wonderful they are.  I'm thinking particularly of The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser which is spectacular, and funny, and heartbreaking and genuine.  The actor portraying Hauser, a man named Bruno S., was a victim of child abuse and Nazi experimentation in real life and was partially deaf from being beat so much by his mother.  In the film he plays a man who has been locked in a prison his entire life, for no reason, by a madman, only eating bread and drinking water, never learning to speak or even walk, one day the man takes him and leaves him on the outskirts of a town in Germany where he is found and eventually taught the things he never experienced.  Even with the absence of formal acting lessons he is a marvel to watch.  Another film that has so moved me was his newest film Into the Abyss which is about the death penalty.  I wrote about this on Facebook after I had watched it and so I'm going to retype those words here because they reflect my feelings immediately upon completion of the viewing.  "Into the Abyss, here is a sad, moving unbiased look at the death penalty; those involved in the crimes, the families of the victims, the guards, the chaplains, and the perpetrators themselves.  Though opposed to the death penalty, Herzog has no agenda, he simply lets them tell their stories, lets us reflect on the events that have transpired, and on their lives, and lets us have a glimpse into it all.  The "abyss" seems to refer less to capital punishment and more to the depths of pain and suffering human beings not only deal to one another but also endure."  It is interesting to watch Herzog interview these very manly, blue collar men in Texas, people very different than an artistic German film director.  Herzog is such a presence you can hear it in the way they answer him always saying "sir" and being very respectful to a man they have no real reason to respect (also a testament to their general kindness).  His previous film Cave of Forgotten Dreams is about a cave in France that was discovered and contained some of the oldest cave drawings of which we are aware.  Herzog was given exclusive rights to come in and film the cave to share with the world.  Not only do I admire Herzog's films and ideas but also his tenacity for film-making.  He allows nothing to stop him from achieving his dreams.  Pull a riverboat over a mountain?  DONE.  Film a town on the base of a then-active volcano, basically condemning yourself and crew to certain death if the volcano were to erupt? DONE. Fly with a man in a prototype airship risking death?  DONE.  Nothing stops him.  He made his own production company in 1963 and has worked that way since!  He stole a camera so he could make his films, until he could afford one of his own.  He called Errol Morris a coward who would never finish a film and said he would eat his shoe if the film became a reality.  Morris made the film, Herzog ate his shoe.  He's a man of his word who isn't afraid of anything, just watching him is an inspiration and has encouraged me to get back on track and make a film of my own.  I have always been interested in Herzog, but now, as I feel I have almost become acquainted with him, I place him in my very top list of favorite directors, you owe it to yourself to watch his films.

Suggested films for the casual viewer:

The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser

Aguirre, the Wrath of God

Fitzcarraldo

Woyzeck

Heart of Glass

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

Into the Abyss

Nosferatu the Vampyre

Fata Morgana

Film Club

Hey everyone, looks like it's already April, so here's the info on the next film club:

We will be meeting Thursday, April 19th at 6:15pm and we will be watching:

The Straight Story
Directed by-David Lynch

The Straight Story is based on the true story of Alvin Straight's journey across Iowa and Wisconsin on a lawnmower.  Alvin (Richard Farnsworth) is an elderly World War II veteran who lives with his daughter Rose (Sissy Spacek), a kind woman with a mental disability.  When he hears that this estranged brother Lyle (Harry Dean Stanton) has suffered a stroke, Alvin makes up his mind to go visit him and hopefully make amends before he dies.  But because Alvin's legs and eyes are too impaired for him to receive a driver's license, he hitches a trailer to his recently purchased thirty year-old John Deere 110 Lawn tractor and sets off on the 240 mile journey from Laurens, Iowa to Mount Zion, Wisconsin.

David Lynch's 8th feature film departs from his abstract and bizarre themes seen in previous films (Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and instead offers a portrayal of the indomitable human spirit with a film filled with honesty, compassion and depth; a simple and pure portrait of the Midwest.  That said, The Straight Story is not without it's odd characters but they seem right at home as Alvin encounters them one-by-one.  You will not want to miss this wonderful film.

Here's the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OnsVDKjhpc

"May the odds be ever in your favor"

The Hunger Games was released this past weekend and I had an opportunity to go check it out.  I don't know about you, but before I see an adaptation, I like to be familiar with the source material, so I read the book, and the second book, and I've just started reading the third book.  I have to say, they're pretty good.  They read very quickly and the story comes alive without much hesitation.  On to the film.  For those unfamiliar with the universe of The Hunger Games, allow me to set the scene.  It is the future, North America no longer exists in the capacity with which we are familiar.  Instead, the continent, renamed Panem, is divided up into 13 districts and a capitol.  At the first book what we know is this:  There was some kind of uprising against the government that ended in district 13 being destroyed, leaving 12 functioning districts.  This was 74 years ago.  As punishment, and a constant reminder to the districts, two "tributes" are offered each year to fight in a game to the death, you guessed it, The Hunger Games.  (All the 12 districts are known for the manufacturing of various good and raw materials.  The capitol is a center of wealth and decadence and the districts get poorer the farther out you go).  Cut to district 12.  The story follows 16 year old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a skilled hunter from the poverty stricken district 12, who finds herself "tribute" for the Hunger Games when she volunteers to take her 12 year old sister's place.  She is taken, along with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) to the capitol, where they are showered with food and accommodations...and also showers.  They are groomed, well fed and tailored to present an image to the rest of Panem.  The games have become more than just a punishment for the rebellion, now a televised event that everyone in Panem watches, for the sake of entertainment or to keep tabs on the loved ones battling to the death.  I won't go any further into the plot because that's basically all you need to know without really ruining anything.
One "problem" that can arise from reading the book before seeing the movie is that you are always weighing the adaptation against the source, and 9 times out of 10 the adaptation is a disappointment.  I don't know exactly what is was about this film that made it a good adaptation but it was quite enjoyable.  I was pleasantly surprised with some of the content they included from the book, stuff I wasn't sure they were going to try to replicate (some of the more fantastical stuff), but they did, and I thought they pulled it off well, I really enjoyed that.  I kind of wished they would've gone into the importance of the Mockingjay pin but that's a minor flaw that I have no doubt will be taken care of in the next film.
One of the big issues I have heard buzzing about this film is that it's basically the same thing as the Japanese film Battle Royale.  It is a bunch of kids killing each other, sure, but the idea is in no way original.  We have Lord of the Flies before both of these films.  The idea of people in an arena fighting to the death has been throughout history all over the place and the subject of film more than a few times, with Gladiator and the Spartacus television series and before all that the actual Spartacus film from Stanley Kubrick (technically Gladiator and Battle Royale both saw release in 2000, but that's irrelevant). I understand the reason the comparison is made is because of the fact that it's kids killing each other but who cares, the story is derivative, I know, but that didn't matter when I was watching it or reading it because I was enjoying it all the time.  One cool thing that differed from the book in the film was the lack of 1st person narrative.  In the book we see things only from Katniss' perspective, filtered through her consciousness with her own feelings mixed in.  In the film we have a 3rd person omniscient narrator so we can see events that are happening away from Katniss.  There are some scenes involving President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and the Gamemaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley) that I really enjoyed. It's one of those rare instances where the filmmaker diverted from the source material and added something else and it actually worked for the film.
One minor technical thing that I feel I should bring up is the camera-work.  It is very shaky, sometimes to the  point of being annoying but they either toned it down later or I just got used to it because it only bothered me in the beginning.  The one time I think it was used effectively was during the initial bloodbath, much of the violence occurs off-screen (while it would've been more effective to show the carnage, I understand why he didn't) but the frenetic movement of the camera coupled with the ferocity of the tributes and the screams of the victims, makes the scene very effective.
One last thing before I finish up here.  Personally I found the supporting actors very fun to watch.  Elizabeth Banks as the ever-on-schedule Effie Trinket, Woody Harrelson as the drunk, former Hunger Games victor Haymitch Abernathy and especially Stanley Tucci as the eccentric television show host Ceasar Flickerman.

BOTTOM LINE

The Hunger Games is, while not original, a very entertaining, fun, and occasionally moving film that I think any demographic can enjoy.  Those that read the books will be a bit more on the up and up but those who haven't can enjoy it just the same.  I recommend it and would gladly see it again.