It seems the production team behind Dead Snow, the Sundance 2009 genre pic soon to be released in the states by IFC, has put together a promotional video to plug the Norwegian DVD release . . . and opted for a video sans nazis or zombies. Instead they got Norwegian FHM model/FHM columnist/Survivor contestant/Popstar Linni Meister to turn the music video for her new hit single, My Ass, into promotional material for the film. I’m just gonna throw it out there that I think IFC should ride this absolutely hilarious advertising wave. Anyone with me?:
A lot of fantastic, creative docs were produced in 2008 - Margaret Brown’s The Order of Myths and Marina Zenovich’s Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired come to mind -, but nothing was quite like the big screen experience of Jeremiah Zagar’s In a Dream. It is a rare occurrence when a portrait is able to intimately capture both the public and private details of an artist on an equally grand scale. But when documentary filmmaker Jeremiah Zagar set out to make a portrait of his father Isaiah, a brilliant and prolific mosaic mural artist from Philadelphia, he never could have predicted the secrets he would uncover. Quickly turning from a character study to an incredibly personal, powerful and stirring drama, “In a Dream” is an unparalleled visceral and emotional experience. Shot over the course of several years, Zagar’s film is the kind of brutally honest and often beautiful look at a tumultuous time in his parents’ marriage that only a son could have captured. Boasting beautiful widescreen cinematography and a haunting score, this most insightful of documentaries is a touching glimpse into the life of the world’s most eclectic and ingenious large-scale artists. Now, finally, after it’s long journey since SXSW 2008, In a Dream comes to the big screen this weekend at Cinema Village in New York City. Run, don’t walk. You don’t want to miss this.
1. Absolutely, absolutely, whatever you do, take some time out of your day, go on iTunes and purchase a copy of Thing with No Name. No matter how sad you might think it will be (and, trust me, it is), you won’t regret supporting this beautifully humanistic and touching portrait of HIV positive women in South Africa that leaves all others of its kind dead in their tracks. Beautiful cinematography, careful editing and a perfectly non-preachy directorial vision make this the online purchase pick for the week.
2. If you live in New York City and you haven’t seen Goodbye Solo yet, what the hell have you been doing with yourself since last Friday? Ramin Bahrani’s third feature is the epitome of good, independent entertainment - smart, funny, emotional and subtle. The film plays like Taste of Cherry meets Prince of Broadway. Now, in it’s second week, the film expands out from the Angelika to the Lincoln Plaza cinemas where lead actor Souleymane Sy Savane (well worth falling in love with from this performance) will be doing a Q & A at the 6:05 PM show tomorrow night. Don’t miss it! P.S.: If you live in Chicago, it’s showing in two theaters there too so you have no excuse.
3. Last, but certainly not least, is the third feature film by director Greg Mottola. Though not the riotous romp promised off the success of his last movie, Superbad, Mottola’s Adventureland is all the better film for it, making very real comedy out of the touching coming-of-age story of very real characters. Cleverly drawn and incredibly personal, Adventureland brings together the independent spirit of Daytrippers with the hilarity of Superbad to make what might be his most mature work yet.
I want to apologize in advance for adding to the complete oversaturation of the blogging about this film. I had some things I wanted to say and, at this point, I’m not even sure their original anymore, but here goes.
Following the precedent set by Cinematical’s Scott Weinberg, I’ve waited through the opening weekend (and then some) to say anything about Zack Snyder’s film “adaptation” of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ legendary graphic novel, “Watchmen.” Now it’s past Monday, so I guess all bets are off. I should mention, though, that while I have plenty to say on the film, this will be far from a review, so I recommend seeing it first. Or not, as the case may be.
I remember when Sam Mendes’ Revolutionary Road came out around Christmas, I heard a lot of criticism from devotees of the book. I, having not read the novel myself, was left with just an odd feeling about the film, one that I couldn’t put my finger on. It wasn’t until I saw Snyder’s carefully re-rendered rendition of Watchmen that understood. Mendes had taken the details from the book – leaving out the all of the heart and thematic weight – and presented the audience with a mere skeleton, non-cinematic plot structure and all. And now here I was, made to suffer through the same thing with one of my favorites graphic novels of all time.
Without giving too much away, I will say that at some point, in a wholly disheartening turn of events, Snyder and co. throw it all out the window, completely changing the third act from what Moore wrote and leaving me wondering why I sat through this painful recreation with every panel being honored by slowing down motion shots so that frames match book pages, every episodic piece of graphic novel structure allowing the film to have 20 minute flashbacks and every mediocre line of dialog that was never written to come out of the mouth of an actual human being - all stunting the creativity and promise that Snyder once displayed in his smart interpretation of George A. Romero’s classic Dawn of the Dead.
Is it pressure? Do we damage these adaptations ourselves by showing the world that we watch them because of our love for the source material? It scares me to think that every time a Hollywood writer/director reads a post on a blog or a message board about how disappointed we as viewers are with the fact that our favorite detail got left out of the film version of our favorite book, they get closer to thinking that the only way to please the fans is to create a moving carbon copy, usually, one that, quite frankly, displays no understanding of the reasons why the original piece is loved in the first place.
While watching the film, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the final product would have been so much better if it was penned by David Simon and the rest of The Wire’s writing staff. At it’s core, Watchmen and The Wire share a lot of the same crucial qualities – deconstructing well-known character archetypes and giving them complex emotional landscapes, making them morally ambiguous players in a Shakespearean structure that isn’t afraid of bold and blunt societal allegories paying references to the darker politics in the world around us. But then I realized that, because of all these reasons, given enough creative freedom, Simon and his team may have produced something extremely close to a film version of The Wire itself and just called it Watchmen.
Even if you think that’s a bit of a stretch, and despite the completely frustrating derail of a misstep in the third act, the film still left me posing this question: Is it more accurate a interpretation of a great work to meticulously recreate every detail of the original within a new medium, or is it more astute (and perhaps even more respectful) to adapt the spirit of the original into a new coherent version, paying recognition to the new medium in which you are working? In other words, should the film be the book on film? Or should it be a film that accomplishes everything the book does but with a new artistic vision – one suited to filmmaking?
I’m posting this on behalf of Eric Kohn who pointed me towards the story, but was not in a position to blog about it today.
Associated Press reported today that Sarah Palin received a prank call from a Montreal radio DJ posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Clocking in at just over five and a half minutes, the scheme carried on until the culprit revealed himself.
It kind of goes without saying that this shows how horribly mismanaged the campaign is. What’s more, though, is that Palin seems utterly unable to to comprehend that this is clearly a fake. This is partly out of Palin’s stupidity, but also out of the genius of the way the premise of the rouse was built. As Eric pointed out, “I doubt Sacha Baron Cohen could pull it off. He would get too outlandish and offensive from the get-go and the gig would be up.”
If you want to hear it, here it is. And, in case you’re questioning the validity, read the AP piece. It’s been confirmed by the campaign.
Syndicate this site