Movie tickets #10

The Lensic

Sometimes you fall in love with a theatre the moment you see it and you keep on loving it even though you never or rarely see a film there. The Lensic is such a theatre for me. I missed its days as a movie theatre and have only seen a couple of films there while passing through Santa Fe, New Mexico. I've seen two films at the Lensic but it will be hard to forget either of those screenings.

Located very near Santa Fe's plaza and opened in 1931, the 834 seat Spanish Colonial theatre is now doing what so many old theatres do--musicals and theatre take up its days and nights. This always makes me a little sad for the projection booth and the movie screen. I like to see films in these places, not singing and dancing. The flickering arc of light is what these buildings were built for. The Lensic also has a balcony although I haven't gotten to sit in it as it was closed both times I've watched movies there. I'd love to watch something from the front row and middle in the balcony.

In the early 1990s I saw Silence of the Lambs at the Lensic. I'd seen the film once already but it's very good and worth watching a second time--especially in the walls of a theatre like this. My brother Luke, cousin Kenny and I somehow talked my mom into watching it despite the fact it isn't her kind of film at all. She didn't make it to the halfway mark before she took off for the exits, the sunlight and the lure of the plaza shops close by.

A few months ago I was in Santa Fe again and got to see my second feature at The Lensic: Jaws. Film print! It was screened as part of a summer series (American Graffiti was the other film) and the place was packed. The crowd was a mix of two types of people--those that knew and cherished Jaws and those who hadn't seen it. I was with SJ and she had her doubts to its greatness but left the theatre singing its praises after being jolted a few times in her seat by on screen bolts of fear. I left the theatre happy, I love Jaws but no doubt part of the appeal on this night was seeing it in downtown Santa Fe in a historic, beautiful theatre like the Lensic.

District 9 + (500) Days of Summer back to back

One of my favorite things about watching movies is the fact if you like a particular genre you can watch wildly different films in a row and enjoy them both. A few nights ago I did just such a thing. I saw a 7.15 screening of the science fiction thriller District 9 with Tim and when it ended, I went across the street to see the romantic comedy (500) Days of Summer with Sarah. These two films would seem to be at opposite ends of the movie spectrum and while that is true on the surface--they have one major element in common that make them a great double feature: they are both good movies. If the movie is going to be good, it doesn't matter if you watch it with one or two other films. Good movies are always a rewarding experience, no matter when or where.

I had high hopes for District 9 and it did not disappoint. The film's early portions uses the technique of faux documentary to set up the back story--1.5 million aliens from another planet live in the shanty ghettoes of Johannesburg, South Africa after their ship comes to a stop above the city. They've been there for twenty years and the locals are sick of them so a forced relocation is about to begin. The documentary follows this relocation until the story flips into a more traditional narrative with a South African and a couple of the aliens. I was pretty happy when the documentary portion ended as it is difficult for me to get emotionally attached to characters when that tactic is employed.

There's so many good things about District 9--the infection story, the crazed Nigerian gang in the slums, the apartheid connection, the science fiction aspect of aliens + space ship + technology, the story of human becoming alien and aliens wanting to get home. All of it good. The film is blessed with some amazing editing that allows it to piece together multiple stories in a lot of formats. District 9 gets better as the film goes along and when films pick up steam to deliver wonderful, powerful endings, that's a good movie. District 9 delivered a great ending.

What better way to follow up a dark, futuristic and violent science fiction film than going to see an indie romantic comedy? (500) Days of Summer is a sweet, smart, romantic ode to love, the loss of love and just being with another person. The story jumps all over the place in the relationship between Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as we see their good, their bad and in between from the very start. The narrator warns us--this might not be the happy ending kind of love story that is a pre-requisite in most Hollywood romantic comedies and the narrator is largely right.

I loved the non-linear aspects of the script. The film is well-written, witty and Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel have a great chemistry and deliver nice performances as the star crossed couple. I loved the use of split screen a few times and the musical number was one of the most joyous scenes I've seen in a film all year. This scene filled me with happiness as I watched it. I was envious of Gordon-Levitt's endless supply of cool ties too.

Wild genre jumping won't work every time like it did with District 9 and (500) Days of Summer--you have to make sure you are in the mood and the films are both worth seeing. This time doubling up worked for me. One night, two great movies that made me feel a diverse stream of emotions. As we drove home I just felt so love with cinema and that is a magical feeling.

Porky's, Pryor Creek, 1982

It was a different world in 1982. This was a pre-Internet universe where films that offered a hint of nudity or debauchery were latched onto by teenage boys everywhere due to the difficulty of getting to see such things. There were no Google searches for us, as we had to work hard to see nude women on a movie screen. My friends and I knew about Porky's through word of mouth but we hadn't seen it. The more we heard it discussed, the more legendary it sounded to us. Porky's promised lots of skin and lots of filthy jokes--just the sort of thing any regular 13 year old wants to see. I was one of those 13 year olds.

The first time I got a chance to see Porky's was late at night at my friend Scott's house. His family had HBO and we'd mentally circled the late night screening the moment we saw it in the monthly guide. I got permission to stay over and hoped the rest of his family would be asleep by the time the movie started so we could watch it in the middle of the night. As it grew later Scott's dad went off to work the graveyard shift, his mom went to bed after the news and finally his sisters did too. It was exciting and an adrenaline rush. Could it be? Would we soon be watching Porky's?

This being 1982, Scott didn't have a remote control for their TV (this detail of the story makes me feel old!), so we had to come up with a plan to watch a film that we weren't allowed to see but were watching anyway. During an earlier super-late screening of Lady Chatterley's Lover (lots of flesh on display but a bit on the dull side for teenagers) we figured out we needed one person by the TV and one person to serve as lookout. I positioned myself at the edge of the living room so I could see anyone walking down the hall toward where we were; Scott took the spot right in front of the TV. A code word was agreed upon that would signal a quick channel change so we wouldn't be busted watching the infamous shower scene or during some other naughty shenanigans. We test ran it a few times and decided we had about five seconds to spot someone, say the code word and then flip the channel to avoid being caught.

It took seemingly forever for the last few minutes to go by and for Porky's to start. When it began Scott and I had giddy grins plastered on our faces and we gave each other an enthusiastic high five and took our assigned spots. Porky's delivered everything we'd heard about and more. Here's my synopsis: nudity, teenage pranks, near nudity, drunken antics and oh, yeah, nudity. When the movie ended around three in the morning we went to bed, thankful we'd pulled it off and that no one came down the hall to interrupt the film. Our plan had worked like a charm and we got to brag that we'd seen Porky's to our friends who still hadn't seen it. We were kings.

Popcorn

The Egyptian

Seattle, Washington

May 2009

I'm thinking of posting some popcorn/concession related photos from various theatres I go see films in--this is the first one.

The Hurt Locker

Kathryn Bigelow has done something no one seemed to be able to do until now--make a film set in the Iraq conflict that is entertaining and worth watching. Other films based in or around this subject--Stop-Loss, In the Valley of Elah, Grace is Gone, etc--have mostly been a collection of mediocre, dour message films trying to hammer home a particular point from the writer/director. Bigelow dispenses with all the extraneous in The Hurt Locker and has made not only the best film about combat in Iraq but the best war film I've seen in years. The Hurt Locker is a non-stop adrenaline rush and is so expertly made I left the theatre in kind of a punch-drunk state of appreciation for what I'd just experienced.

The film is set among a small group of soldiers in an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit as they go out and attempt to defuse a variety of complicated bombs on the streets of Baghdad. Some of the bombs are very tricky and involve people, cars, garbage, bags and just anything that can go unseen or is able to draw out American targets for attack. Watching people defuse bombs is a built in tension generator so seeing this happen again and again in varying ways only aided the film's suspense level.

Written by Mark Boal, the film smartly doesn't try to address all the preconceptions or messages about war, either the Iraq War or war in general. In fact, Boal and Bigelow not only avoid those things, they embrace the entire nature of war and what it is to be a soldier by focusing on this small group and what they do everyday. War is dangerous, it is terrifying, it is exciting, it is destructive, it is a bonding experience and it is completely life changing for the people who have to go through it. Some people, as crazy as it might sound, are soldiers for a reason--they are good at doing something the vast majority of us could never do. The Hurt Locker puts all of these emotions on the screen in two hours without even trying to say "war is bad" and you know what--that's more effective, gripping and powerful when done with the absolute unbridled confidence that is on display here from Bigelow. The film tells its story and lets the viewer's intelligence make up its own mind. How refreshing!

The cast in The Hurt Locker is remarkable. Jeremy Renner, an actor I've honestly never even noticed before this, delivers a stunning, blistering performance as the leader of the team. Renner is riveting and dominates every scene that he's in and deserves talk of Oscars for this role. Very good support in the other two main roles is given by Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty. I love that the three leads are not well known actors that might distract us--choosing more anonymous performers to base the story around gives a tone of reality to the film. Three well known heavy hitters show up for small roles--Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes and David Morse--but I almost wish that their parts would have been done by unknowns. Although, seeing Morse chew up dialogue in one scene was one of my favorite things in the film as I am a big fan of his.

Bigelow, who is the only female director I can think of who has made a career of making tough, ramped up and interesting action films (Near Dark, Point Break, Strange Days) has unleashed the best, most thought out, and frankly, the most bad-ass film of her career. There are moments in The Hurt Locker when I was so entranced in what I was witnessing that I couldn't believe it when the scene was over. There's no better feeling when you watch a lot of films over the year to be blown away by a film from the start all the way to the finish. Bigelow does not let up on the throttle the entire movie and I'm incredibly impressed by her directing in this.

The Hurt Locker will be in the running for my best of in 2009. It's thrilling, honest, gripping, exhausting, tender, intelligent and aggressive. The film grabs you by the shoulders and throws you back in your seat from the moment it starts, never lets go and when its over, it stays with you. I can't stop thinking about it. That's great filmmaking. The Hurt Locker is a stunning piece of work and highly, highly recommended.

John Hughes 1950-2009

I became a teenager in the early 1980s and the teen comedy/drama may have hit its apex in that decade thanks to John Hughes. Teen marketed films released now pale mightily from what he did in terms of wit, charm, humor, romance and idealized realism. If you were alive and young in the 1980s, you were taken into the world of Hughes no matter your cultural leanings. His impact on what my friends and I watched was unavoidable as he unleashed film after film that made us laugh, made us feel connected to other teens, made us have serious crushes and entertained us. It's with great sadness that I write this as Hughes recently died of a heart attack.

Hughes' fingerprints are all over numerous classic films from 1983 to 1990 as a writer or director (sometimes both): Mr. Mom, Vacation, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, European Vacation, Weird Science, Pretty In Pink, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Some Kind of Wonderful, Planes Trains & Automobiles, She's Having A Baby, The Great Outdoors, Uncle Buck, Christmas Vacation and Home Alone. All of those films in only eight years. Eight years!

Go over that list of films again and let it sink in. Hughes started to lose me toward the end of the list but nine out of the first ten are undeniable comedic benchmarks for the time (European Vacation is the lone exception). That's nine out of ten films (some might say ten out of ten) where Hughes just nailed it. Nine. Try doing anything nine times out of ten, it's a hard percentage to maintain with something small, now imagine nine out of ten when involved in massive creative endeavors. And to think this is the fickle, unpredictable world of Hollywood that Hughes accomplished this in? That makes it all the more amazing.

Even a couple of his later decade films I've always loved simply because Hughes put one of my favorites, John Candy, in a lead role. While Planes, Trains & Automobiles is worth watching repeatedly, lesser films like The Great Outdoors and Uncle Buck aren't considered "classic" like some of the earlier films, yet I think they are worth seeing as part of the Hughes/Candy trilogy of the period. Actually, I really like Uncle Buck a lot now that I think about it. Hughes also helped create the brat pack group in the '80s by casting a revolving group of young actors for his films. Most of their careers hit the skids the second he stopped writing material for them as they got older.

The John Hughes of my youth has long since gone as once the 1990s came he stopped writing/ directing films that entertained me or got to me. But, in the 1980s, particularly the early to mid 1980s--John Hughes owned me as much as any mainstream filmmaker could.

Movie tickets #9

Method viewing

I'm a big fan of the acting philosophy known as "method." Some of my favorite performers have embraced this strategy, from in his prime Robert De Niro to Jennifer Jason Leigh to Daniel Day Lewis. These kinds of actors try to literally inhabit the character they are portraying--from gaining/losing crazy amounts of weight or learning strange skills for the role or getting into a similar psychological frame of mind just for this specific role. I love it.

Daniel Day Lewis is hands down at the top of the method ladder. From living in the woods and using muskets, learning butchering techniques from two hundred years ago, refusing to get up from a wheel chair, hiring street thugs to harass him all night to get that certain unhinged quality--he's done these things and a lot more (way more!) just to further understand his character. If you see Day Lewis in a film one of the things he brings is 100% commitment and authenticity to the role via method.

It's time to add a fresh term to film that is completely new: method viewing! Method viewing is a way of applying the method strategy of acting to the movie watching experience. It's a way for film fanatics to take their zeal for movies to a completely new level.

I've had two method viewing experiences in the past couple of weeks. After staying up all night for Slumber Party I went home and got a few hours sleep. In the afternoon I decided to go see Moon to test out my new theory. Moon is about a astronaut on the moon who might be losing his mind (see most recent post for full review). My sleepless daze was the perfect foggy mental accompaniment for a film like Moon. Method viewing helped the film go over like gangbusters.

My second method viewing happened unexpectedly but sometimes these things need to happen organically. While at the Circle about to watch Tyson, a documentary about pugilist Mike Tyson, I dropped a twenty-five pound cast iron kettle on my foot. I broke one of my toes and damaged several others. I hobbled into the theatre with a bag of ice, removed my sock/shoe and watched Tyson with ice on my foot/toes. I was in pain as I watched Tyson talk about painful events, beat up people in the ring and even bite off a chunk of Evander Holyfield's ear. Method viewing my friends.

There's a whole world of opportunity for future method viewings. It can be as simple as watching a movie where it was shot--recently Rumblefish was projected against a building in downtown Tulsa and that's method viewing. The Rolling Roadhouse by Alamo Draft House a few years ago offered up things like Close Encounters of the Third Kind at the Devil's Tower in Wyoming or The Goonies in Astoria, Oregon. Also method viewing.

Any experiences worth sharing? Any ideas for future screenings? I'm thinking of locking a couple of friends in my hot, dark, cobwebbed garage; starving them for a few days and then making them watch Rescue Dawn in the middle of the night. Any volunteers?

Moon

I like my science fiction when the "less is more" philosophy is embraced. Bloated budgets, rampant use of CGI and over the top action sequences aren't really my thing. Unfortunately, those elements grace the majority of the science fiction centered films now so I don't get to see a lot of them I truly enjoy despite my love for the genre. My favorite sci-fi is more connected to ideas, the future and the emptiness of space. Moon is such a sci-fi film.

Set in the future on a base on the moon operated by one man, Sam (Sam Rockwell) is nearing the end of his three year hitch on the energy farm. He lives alone, sleeps alone, eats food out of plastic pouches alone, checks outlying equipment on the moon's surface alone, wastes time on his various hobbies alone--all of which is starting to make him crack up. Sure, he has a mechanized robot helper to talk to (voiced by Kevin Spacey), his incoming video messages from earth and his TV to keep him company but it's a lonely life.

The best thing Moon has going for it is Rockwell. Always a solid actor, Rockwell may deliver the finest performance he's ever given and he's been good in a lot of movies. One thing that makes this a challenge for an actor is he has to carry the film. Other than the video sections, where has cuts back to Rockwell watching the screen so he's still in the scene, and a few flashbacks, Rockwell is in every second of Moon. At times he's even double good as he has to create multiple levels and personalities to the same character. It's an impressive performance.

Moon kind of gets lost in its own loneliness and I liked it all the more for that. It's spare, simple, gets the feeling of isolation down and is slow--all good things in a science fiction movie! Directed by Duncan Jones, he smartly dwells on the little things that make this interesting--the character, the workmanlike setting and the bleak but beautiful moonscape. The moon is the next frontier space and Jones' exteriors look as desolate as any dusty western. There's something about seeing a man in a spacesuit walking around on a planet's surface that gets me right in the heart.

Moon is a smart little film with a terrific acting performance by Sam Rockwell. It's complex yet restrained. It's futuristic with a retro edge. It's emotional yet still icy. It's a well done genre picture that knows its a genre picture but isn't afraid embrace what it is. Instead of trying to do too much--it looks inward and gives us a very rewarding look at life on the moon.

July movies

Obviously the high point of the month of July was the all-night, five film marathon that was Slumber Party. Wow, that was a lot of fun! If you were in the Tulsa area and didn't go--you missed a night of unhinged horror film related glee. I also really enjoyed the music documentary Anvil and thought Bruno was funny (and very filthy) but not the electric charge that was Borat. Two five star films: Metropolitan and Sullivan's Travels (Preston Sturges I am in awe of you!). Here's the rundown for the month.

Away We Go---2009---usa ***1/2

Lights in the Dark---2005---finland ***

Metropolitan---1990---usa *****!

Anvil---2009---usa ****

The Gates---2007---usa ***

Blue Thunder---1983---usa ***1/2

Dixie Dynamite---1976---usa **1/2

Return of the Living Dead---1985---usa ****

Hausu---1977---japan ****

The Burning---1981---usa ***

Night Warning---1983---usa ***1/2

Race With the Devil---1975---usa ***1/2

Moon---2009---england ****

Bruno---2009---usa ***1/2

Tyson---2009---usa ***1/2

Sullivan's Travels---1941---usa *****!

Funny People---2009---usa ***

Warren Oates double feature

I love Warren Oates! If there is one actor that goes with the phrase "double feature"--that actor is Oates. I mention him a lot (or it seems I do) on CineRobot and for good reason--he's an extremely watchable character actor. He anchored the last film during Slumber Party recently in Race With the Devil so you know I must love him. The more you watch him, the more you appreciate him. Vern Snackwell and I had a Sunday night double feature of Oates recently and this is how it went.

First up was the 1983 helicopter action film Blue Thunder from director John Badham. I saw this when I was 14 but didn't remember it at all--I didn't remember who Oates was then I'm sure except he was Sgt. Hulka from Stripes (a film I love). Blue Thunder is a fun film that has held up pretty well through the years. It looks good with all the neon lights of Los Angeles at night and has some rousing helicopter action scenes.

How is Oates in this? He's sporting a great cop 'stache, plays an angry police captain and gets to snarl some good one liners such as: answer your fucking beeper! Blue Thunder is a solid genre film from the early 1980s that is worth checking out.

Film two for us was the 1976 low budget drive-in styled Dixie Dynamite. I love the title and the image pictured of Oates and two women on a motorcycle. The film is just so-so though. You'd think a film that has car chases, scantily clad women, really bad dialogue by not so hot actors, moonshine swilling, motocross racing, lots of sweating and numerous dynamite explosions would be off the charts entertaining in a 1970s sort of way. It wasn't.

Dixie Dynamite has some fun moments but it's PG rated. This screams for an R rating--more violence, more cursing and let's be honest, more nudity would have made it truly more worthy of its title and premise. It's a 1976 drive-in movie after all. How would adding any of the things I mentioned damage this film's marketability? It wouldn't. Those additions would have just made a better film and although it's worth seeing for Oates nuts like me and Vern, it should have been better.

Relationship with a film robot

Dating a film robot should leave the imprint of a glamorous lifestyle in your mind. Right? It's the secret world of endless trivia about such and such actor/ director/ producer/ actress/ writer/ production designer etc etc. It's the invitation to participate in conversations that start with things like: What are your three favorite sub-genres? What do you think of Errol Morris' interview technique versus traditional documentary questioning? Let's watch Hal Ashby's films in order of release! What's your favorite Whit Stillman film? These questions and statements are endless.

I've recently been seeing SJ (pictured, in the midst of a studying session), a culturally with it girl who likes movies but has never embraced them the way I have. They entertain her but she is "normal" as they don't consume her free time the way they do with me at times. In a way I feel kind of sorry for her when I want to blather on about some small character actor role or when I try to convince her of the artistic genius of The Bad News Bears or The Terminator (two no-brainers!). She listens, I'm just not sure she's really listening.

As you can see by the photo--SJ has taken to the challenge of being involved with a person who watches a couple hundred films a year. I have high hopes of introducing her to enough great older films that she will one day embrace my love for 1930s movies. First screwball and then who knows what? She loves documentaries, even the bleak and the depressing ones, so that's something we have to build our future on.

I also kind of envy her because as we talk more about film I discover what she hasn't seen that I will try to talk (or coerce!) her into watching in the future. After my exclamations ring out, "You haven't seen Pulp Fiction! You haven't seen A Fish Called Wanda! You haven't seen Hands on a Hard Body!" I add these films to a growing list that is tacked up on my frig: SJ's MUST SEES!!! I'm envious too because she gets to see incredible films for the first time and the first time, no matter what you are doing, is always the most magical, memorable time.

10 nominations for best film?

A few weeks ago the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (also known as the Oscars) announced that they were doubling the number of best picture nominees from five to ten. What a terrible, terrible idea! First off, they didn't just add one or two they decided to go all in and just double the damn thing to ten. I'm trying to make sense of it the best I can and admit I'm having a tough time figuring it out.

The first thing that pops in my head is that this group got in cahoots with film company bigwigs and came up with this bright idea to help promote more movies. It's all about increasing the box office of more movies. The more films in the running for the top prize means more people will try to see that year's better films. Usually there is a spike in tickets sold for the best film nominees after the nominations are announced. More films equals more public relations onslaught for the pictures, the stars, the directors, the magazines and websites devoted to celebrity culture and events--like I said: more money for the entire industry.

Do we really need to have ten nominations? The answer: no. Let's think about the film industry in the year 2009 and the majority of films that are hoisted upon us. Hollywood releases an endless stream of sequels, remakes, comic book or graphic novel adaptations or pure by the numbers formula pictures (just pick the genre and you'll be bombarded by formula). Every so often a wild card slips in like some bastard bad seed that takes off and shocks and surprises us with a nomination and wins (Slumdog Millionaire). The film industry at this point in time is a cesspool of mediocrity, regurgitation, strategic marketing and no imagination. It's usually a struggle to find five films that are truly worthy of best film status so to double it to ten is just plain crazy.

This move will cheapen the award for best picture by turning it into some kind of Golden Globes or People's Choice award where they hand out nominations at such a dizzying rate it's hard to keep up with just who wasn't nominated. Do you want to see the actual best films nominated (granted, I am using this term loosely because they have issues in this regard too but just for the sake of this argument I'm assuming that they nominate the best five films) or do you want to see some great films nominated, some good films nominated and then some that have absolutely no business being touted as lasting works of art?

Why stop at ten nominations? Why not increase the number of actors or actresses or directors to ten? More publicity! More happy botoxed actors/actresses! More money! Why not just increase the total to 15 or 20 nominations? Heck, with all these increases the film anti-Christ himself, Michael Bay, might find himself nominated for a best picture or best director. Naw, they'd have to increase it to 150 nominations per category for that hack to get a chance at an award for anything other than blowing stuff up (this wasn't a planned attack on Bay, honest, it just popped out at the end). Nice job Oscars--you've made your ultimate award mean less than it ever has before. That's smart.

Slumber Party update

We held the first ever Slumber Party at the Circle over the weekend. We had a complete sell-out and had to turn people away. We actually had 77 people stay all night long to get refunds. I don't know what was more surprising--the amount of people who came or the amount to stay all night long. Everyone seemed to have a blast. The first surprise film, Hausu (House) was the hit of the evening I think. It is just such a deranged, bizarre spectacle that gets only better when watched with a full house in the middle of the night.

Here are a couple of photos--one of the crowd at the start of the night and the other of a group of people who took to the floor with sleeping bags and pillows.

Movie tickets #8

Slumber Party!

If you've ever dreamed of spending the entire night in a movie theatre watching obscure cult films, hanging out with other night owls, eating free pizza and bagels--well, this July 18th at Circle Cinema will give you that opportunity! We are throwing our first ever Slumber Party that night starting at 10pm and going until approximately 9am (depending on the lengths of the breaks during the night). Here's some of the details.

The cost will be $20 at the door but if you stay ALL night for all five films you get $10 cash back in your hand. There will be five films--two of which will be surprises unknown to the audience until the film starts. Here are the films in the order they are running: Return of the Living Dead, film #2 will be a surprise--it is something from the 1970s that is ultra rare and seen by few, The Burning, Night Warning, film #5 is the second surprise film--a hint is Satanists! So, it's kind of sub-genres of the horror/exploitation/drive-in genres if you want to have a theme to the evening.

There will be free pizza between Return of the Living Dead and the surprise film #2 thanks to Joe Momma's Pizza. There will be free bagels before or after the last film courtesy of Old School Bagels. There will be a quiz before the fifth film to test your mental stamina after dedicating your night to cult movies with prizes handed out. If you can make it all night long it's a heck of a deal--spending quality late night time with other film geeks while watching five films, free pizza, free bagels--all for only $10 (well, $20 if you can't hack it and leave early). Anyway, what else do you have to do on a summer night in Tulsa?

***Poster design by Dan Fritschie***

Metropolitan

You could hardly pick a film set in a world more foreign than the way I grew up than you see in Whit Stillman's 1990 drama Metropolitan. I grew up in rural Oklahoma and sometimes speak with a drawl; Metropolitan is filled with WASPs from upscale Manhattan locales. Yet, I love this movie so much I included it in my all-time top 100 a few years ago. That's the beauty of watching films--they can reach you no matter what kind of barriers (real or otherwise) that exist to stop you from enjoying the story.

If you know me at all it's no surprise that I love Metropolitan as it is very "Woody Allen" to me (there should be a new genre known simply as: woody). Because I grew up in rural Oklahoma I gravitated to Allen's films to escape the place I was at. His characters and sense of humor was so completely opposite of everything that existed around me in the 1980s. I dreamed of living in New York, drowning in the culture of the bustling city and falling in love. Rather than move there I watched Annie Hall over and over (although I did end up living in New York later and Seattle and London). I had the neurotic thing down from a young age so what did it matter whether I'd been to any of these places Allen was filming--his stories found resonance in me even though I had never come close to stepping on the island.

Stillman's Metropolitan, a low budget talkfest set among a group of college students who call themselves the Sally Fowler Rat Pack, is a wonderful movie. Their evenings are spent going to debutante balls, hanging out in various apartments in Manhattan drinking and smoking, wearing gowns and tuxedos and espousing lots of opinions. Expect multiple references to things like the relevance of socialist theories by Charles Fourier or the emergence of the "urban haute bourgeoisie" underclass that they believe they are firmly entrenched among. Prepare to use your brain some when listening to Stillman's dialogue.

These men and women are lost in their own late-night preppy haze full of witticisms and sadness. Stillman makes it plain as day that they all realize these are possibly the last moments of their youth. Some are ready to move on to the next phase, some are not. A catalyst for much discussion in the SFRP is the emergence of a newcomer in their midst--Tom Townsend. Tom claims he doesn't believe in the debutante social life yet finds himself in tux and tails nearly every night. Despite his reservations, Tom bonds with the group, especially Nick (Chris Eigeman--watching this I'd forgotten how much I like Eigeman) and Audrey (Carolyn Farina). It never hurts when joining a group if there is a really cute girl who is interested in you--this is a universal truth whether in New York, Oklahoma or Mongolia.

Metropolitan is just one of those small films that you'll either take to or you won't. I love it and can hardly wait to rewatch Stillman's next two similar films--Barcelona and The Last Days of Disco. Metropolitan has little in the way of action as it is just people waxing erudite about lots of highbrow topics. It's got some romance and even a little violence (okay, there's a tiny bit of action!). It's got one-liners and has a very scripted feel that might turn some off. Me? I find it utterly charming and sweet and can find a permanent place for it in the newly coined genre of woody films.

Sooner Cinema

I have shed the Replicant moniker for a freshly out book called Sooner Cinema. It is a book of a group of essays on films about, set, featuring Oklahoma written by Oklahomans. I wrote an essay on the film Tulsa. Other films that are discussed are The Outsiders, The Grapes of Wrath, Oklahoma Crude, True Grit, Okie Noodling and many others. Sooner Cinema was published by a small book company out of Oklahoma City called Forty Sixth Star Press. 

There will be some upcoming events related to the book that includes free film screenings, talks by some of the writers and traditional book signings--I will be at a couple of them if you are in the area and want to come say hello. I will be at the July 15 and July 17 events. Here's the schedule.

July 11: 1pm at Hastings, Bartlesville, Okla.; book signing with editor Larry Van Meter.

July 15: 7pm at Circle Cinema, Tulsa, Okla.; book signing/discussion with Katrina Boyd, Joshua Peck (aka Replicant!) and Larry Van Meter; free screening of Oklahoma Crude.

July 17: 7pm at The Canebrake, Wagoner, Okla.; book signing/discussion with Joshua Peck, Katrina Boyd and Larry Van Meter; free screening of Tulsa.

August 7: 7pm at Oklahoma History Center, Oklahoma City, Okla.; book signing/discussion with Paul Varner and Larry Van Meter; free screening of True Grit.

August 8: 10am at Best of Books, Edmond, Okla.; book signing with Paul Varner and Larry Van Meter.

August 15: 1pm at Wagoner Civic Center, Wagoner, Okla.; book signing/discussion with Doug Bentin; free screening of Oklahoma Kidding.

August 30: 2pm at Ronald J. Norick Downtown Library, Oklahoma City, Okla.; book discussion with Doug Bentin, Larry Johnson and Larry Van Meter; free screening of The Grapes of Wrath. 

Shooting in HD ruined Public Enemies

This is not a review but a complaint. I saw Public Enemies yesterday afternoon. Director Michael Mann chose to shoot the movie in HD and this was a catastrophic choice that distracted me, made me angry as I watched it and pretty much damaged the film beyond all repair.

Public Enemies at times, thanks to the HD, looked like watching a high priced TV show beamed up on the screen. If I wanted that kind of photography when I go to a theatre, I'd just skip paying and stay home and watch something on my TV. But even then it would probably look better than what Mann has done with his latest as I'm not sure he's even remotely aware how bad this looks. The HD in Public Enemies is too crisp, too plastic, too digital.

The film is set in the mid 1930s in the world of bank robbers, John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson, and the early days of the FBI but by choosing to go the route of HD he has chosen to strip some of the nostalgia of that era. That's fine. I've got no problem with trying to play with our preconceived notions of how history should "appear" but does it then have to look like absolute garbage? The film just looks awful. The interiors are dark and look like crap with over/under saturated pixels blinking away. The clinical, over crispness of the HD is distracting and just comes off as a gimmicky, attention grabbing gesture by Mann.

Public Enemies is the new poster child for digital v. film for me. Vern Snackwell mentioned to me how good Zodiac looked and that's true, when I saw Zodiac a couple of years ago I was surprised something filmed in HD could look so good--this is a major step back. While I wasn't completely enamored by the movie--shooting it in HD ruined it. Shooting this in film would have made it more inviting, more warm, more realistic and more pleasing to the eye. Nice job destroying your movie Michael Mann. Film wins again!