1. "31 Screams: Maria Giovannini": Anatomy of a shriek, from Arbogast on Film.
["The secret, of course, is that Gabor's descendant (Brandi again) was not only a ravening vampire but still is a ravening vampire, who considers the so-called (if only in America) playgirls to be a moveable feast. The first to go is saucy Katia (Maria Giovannini), who sees in the rather morose but stylin' and nonetheless dreamy Gabor a potential meal ticket. Unwisely, she goes wandering off into the castle late at night..."]
2. "Man Meat": House contributor Adam Nayman on The Wrestler for Reverse Shot.
["If it sounds like I’m being unduly mean to Aronofsky and his fourth feature, that’s because I am: Aronofsky does well to tone down his rampaging technique (save for some conspicuous Dardenne shaky-cam at the beginning) and the film is pretty effective within its flea-bitten conception. And, as a showcase for Rourke, it’s downright terrific. There are those who might argue that casting is more than half the battle here, and that Rourke’s eroded physique and almost cubist facial features do most of the heavy lifting in eliciting the right combination of empathy, pity, and awe. That’s true enough, but more memorable performances have pivoted on an ideal marriage of performer and role than benefited from flagrant miscasting. Rourke isn’t just well cast in The Wrestler: he’s perfectly cast, and the performance is pretty much flawless, too. Randy the Ram exists in three dimensions, even though the narrative is framed as a solemn modern-Christ parable cartoon, a dichotomy that’s unintentionally literalized in the scene where Rourke plays a vintage NES wrestling game featuring his own pixelated doppelganger."]
3. The latest episode of Vinyl is Podcast, featuring House contributor Ryland Walker Knight and Mark Haslam (4 listening options available).
["RWK here. We're back this episode to talk about some films we've seen but haven't finished writing about despite our due diligence (we promise) and a certain setback specific to Mark, which you'll just have to hear to believe. The episode starts with a talk of a recent advance screening in Berkeley of Synecdoche, New York that Mark was able to attend, which leads to a host of issues, including that trope of the/a title. In fact, I make passing reference to Michael Sicinski's review of Hunger, in which he makes passing reference to Charlie Kaufman's "regrettable" appropriation of the term as opposed to Steve McQueen's "mindbogglingly simple" solution to making the "Issue picture" viable though "cinema as synecdoche," which I then turn into talk about Bresson's cinema of metonymy, even metonymy of sensation, which somehow leads into (an altogether too brief) talk of our recent adventures with the current Jean Eustache series at PFA, which continues this weekend with, yes, a soft-titled presentation of Numéro Zéro on Sunday evening. There's also room for more talk of On Dangerous Ground and the Jia Zhang-Ke films I've been seeing, too, with special attention (at the close) to The World, which I hope to write about soon. Oh, and, there's two songs this episode, which you can find on my imeem page right here. (Again, if you want them gone, just shake a hand via email.) So, please, listen and tell us things. First, though, while our words (down)load, maybe look at these things--"]
4. "The Seven Doctors?": From The Doctor Who News Page, via Ross Ruediger.
["News services are reporting that this year's Children in Need will feature a special to include all seven living Doctor Who lead actors. ... The actors are getting together for the BBC charity Children in Need in a programme to be broadcast on November 14. An insider at the BBC said: "It's a pretty ambitious idea and it's still being finalised. Everything is being kept under wraps but Doctor Who fans are in for a big treat.""]
5. "Berta Singerman in Nothing More Than a Woman at UCLA": By Andre Soares for the Alternative Film Guide.
[""Once sound films had become firmly established in the late ’20s," wrote film historian Robert Dickson in the program for UCLA’s 1998 film preservation festival, "and before the advent of acceptable dubbing and subtitling, all of the major studios as well as several independent producers, fearful of losing their international audiences, began to make films in various foreign languages. The Fox studio elected to produce its foreign language releases almost exclusively in Spanish and, in the beginning, simply remade some of its English-language films, although it would later produce certain films only in Spanish. Between 1930 and 1935, Fox made [forty] features and [five] shorts in Spanish. Of these, only [around a quarter] appear to have survived." (The corrections in brackets are from Bob Dickson; Bob — who was a great help while I was working on the Ramon Novarro bio Beyond Paradise — also explains that when Fox merged with 20th Century in 1935 its production of Spanish-language films was abandoned.) Now, why is Nothing More Than a Woman unique among the surviving films?"]
Quote of the Day: Antiphanes
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): What happens when the debt clock runs out of numbers?
Clip of the Day: The official trailer for House reader Stephen Cone's feature The Christians, premiering Friday, November 7th, 7:45 pm at The Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago. Mark your calendars.
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Links for the Day (October 13th, 2008)
Labels:
Links for the Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Re: #2: "Aronofsky does well to tone down his rampaging technique (save for some conspicuous Dardenne shaky-cam at the beginning)"
It seems like everyone forgot about The Fountain, which you know, already cooled-off his crazy cutting, etc a great deal. It really seems like critics just have some sort of table or formula to plug in or something. Since this movie is getting more press than 'Fountain', it's easier to pretend like this shift in content and style is immediate and not gradual and contemplative. I basically hated Aronofsky before 'Fountain' and now I'm quite excited about this Rourke movie. If 'Fountain' hadn't existed, I'd expect another obnoxious, MTV-style dive into meaningless degradation...now, not so much.
Excuse the rant. As Keith knows, the very mention of Aronofsky gets a big negative reaction out of me.
I really don't like Aronofsky's films -- any of them -- and THE FOUNTAIN was no exception.
--- it's easier to pretend like this shift in content and style is immediate and not gradual and contemplative ---
The problem is, THE FOUNTAIN is really not a contemplative movie per se. The characters say dialogue that is on-the-nose, minus any subtext or subtlety, so it would be tremendously emotional on a surface level if Aronofsky was willing to delve into the messiness of being a human being.
But my criticism of his movie is really one of Aronofsky's generation -- at film school, you see so many kids using technique but having nothing real to say about this big idea: Human Condition. So what we're left with are a bunch of camera tricks.
In REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, he uses camera tricks and rubs degradation in our face but never gets to the soul of these addicts (a film nobody saw called DOWN TO THE BONE starring Vera Farmiga was less sensational, but more in touch with its subjects -- track that one down on Netflix!)
In THE FOUNTAIN, Aronofsky's love story is a style exercise. I got so bored with the content of the film, I started checking off when he'd use his two signature shots: (a) slow dolly backwards, or (b) God's eye view. Technique should not play first violin -- you *use* it to say something!
--- I basically hated Aronofsky before 'Fountain' and now I'm quite excited about this Rourke movie ---
However, I do agree with you that the possibility of Aronofsky and Rourke working together is intriguing...
I swore I'd never again get bamboozled by another Aronofsky movie, but Mickey Rourke is one of those actors -- a Frankenstein with experience burned into his face. Even if Aronofsky is lifting from the Dardenne Bros (or whoever), Rourke may be able to elevate the material. If he is the movie, even if the rest of it is flimsy, he'll be able to bring something to it.
Jeremiah
Thanks for posting the trailer, Keith! I really, really appreciate it.
I'm somewhat enamored of Aronofsky. I could dismiss him as an empty film school formalist whose mannerisms add up to less than he likes to think they do if there wasn't such a raw sincerity at the core of his stuff that makes even his most superficial stylistic gestures lovably precocious to me.
The Fountain, despite its Tai Chi and conquistador-related problems (I know the 1500s segments are supposed to be the book within the film and nobody actually says Weisz's character is a good writer, but the disconnect between the amateur hour writing and the ornateness of the visuals distracts), manages to conjure for me a very real sense of loss, and as much as some of his techniques don't pay off, they still add to that sense. But not everybody is on its wavelength and I understand completely why so many are nonplussed by it. However, I must at least ask that you admit we're dealing with something special when it has "Tai Chi and conquistador-related problems."
I have a hard time defending Requiem for a Dream on an intellectual level, but taken just as experiential cinema it's a great film. It's definitely not the anti-drug movie that it's often reductively labeled as, since Aronofsky links TV and caffeine to hard drugs. It's more about a peculiarly American cultural malaise (or perhaps a self-conscious embodiment of it). But that's what passes for my intellectual defense. It's cinema from the pelvis.
And Pi is a good little film. While not restrained by any means, it isn't pitched at the same emotional level as the films that follow, and though the math is bullshit it's still intriguing.
I'm looking forward to seeing The Wrestler and am happy he's finally got one that most people can agree is pretty good, but I kind of wish he didn't opt for restraint. I really want to see what old Aronofsky would have done with wrestling.
You're very welcome, Stephen. Wish you best of luck with the movie.
I agree with all of those comments in regards to his first two films but 'The Fountain' is on some different shit. And even if it's still a style exercise, it's not the rapid fire style exercise that you've used to define a "generation" of filmmakers that I too, sort of despise...
Post a Comment