Yes!! Tuesday night.7:00pm. My house.2407 Chilcombe Ave. St.Paul.(near hgwy 280 and Como Ave.) Call 612 508-8174 if
you need directions. Okay, movie choice, let's see, ahh, mmm, oh yeh, no, I mean, I don't want to say. I will have to talk to
Bjorn about Film Club rules and or etiquette or what members want or expect. Personally I like to know nothing (exept in
the case Davin mentioned where knowing historical context or other info would add to deeper understanding more
enjoyment etc.....)( not to mention that I haven't made my selection yet Ha!) IT"S VERRRY DIFFICULLLT!!!
SK
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Holiday Weekend.
Anna and I went to see two movies over the holidays. Eragon on Christmas Day and For Your Consideration yesterday (the 26th).
We both agreed, Eragon was the more worthwhile film.
I considered just leaving it at that, but I feel that our judgements were more or less ruled by both our expectations of the films, and the circumstances in which we saw them, so making a head to head comparison is hardly fair.
---
1. Anna and I had passed a number of cineplexes on our way out from the city on Christmas Day and had thought it would be fun to stop at one on the way home, perhaps as a way to extend the holiday. We hadn't checked ahead for showtimes and just expected to go to whatever was playing when we got to the theater.
"Eragon?"
We were still a bit hesitant, but after a few tense moments we took the plunge. And I'll remember it as a worthwhile experience. It wasn't a great movie, by any means, but I was able to laugh at it (instead of along with it, at times) and not knowing anything about the story ahead of time, I kept giving the film the benefit of the doubt (when the plot would fall apart, for instance). I likened our viewing of the film to that of someone going to see The Return of the King without knowing who Tolkien was. I'm pretty sure that's a generous critique of Eragon, but it's really all that I want to put into it.
---
2. I was lucky enough to have the next day off as well, and Anna and I spent much of it reading and relaxing, but we planned to go see an afternoon show of For Your Consideration before dinner in Uptown. You might say we were planning the rest of our vacation around seeing what we assumed would be a good movie. Needless to say, we built this one up.
Only to have it crash down all around us! Boom!
I don't really have the spirit to pan this film right now, and you may have noticed that this entry has been sitting as a 'draft' for a while... So -I'll go quickly- the film begins as most other Guest productions do - all of the characters in seemingly separate stories and situations - the anticipation building as we realize the [quirky/awkward] roles they're all about to play in each other's lives. But this time the film never really takes us anywhere. We stay stuck in undeveloped roles and over-developed jokes. It just wasn't as fun as it should be.
What was fun though, was seeing a bit of A Few Good Men the other week and realizing that the witness on the stand (Dr. Stone) is, in fact, Christopher Guest!
Hrmmmm.
We both agreed, Eragon was the more worthwhile film.
I considered just leaving it at that, but I feel that our judgements were more or less ruled by both our expectations of the films, and the circumstances in which we saw them, so making a head to head comparison is hardly fair.
---
1. Anna and I had passed a number of cineplexes on our way out from the city on Christmas Day and had thought it would be fun to stop at one on the way home, perhaps as a way to extend the holiday. We hadn't checked ahead for showtimes and just expected to go to whatever was playing when we got to the theater.
"Eragon?"
We were still a bit hesitant, but after a few tense moments we took the plunge. And I'll remember it as a worthwhile experience. It wasn't a great movie, by any means, but I was able to laugh at it (instead of along with it, at times) and not knowing anything about the story ahead of time, I kept giving the film the benefit of the doubt (when the plot would fall apart, for instance). I likened our viewing of the film to that of someone going to see The Return of the King without knowing who Tolkien was. I'm pretty sure that's a generous critique of Eragon, but it's really all that I want to put into it.
---
2. I was lucky enough to have the next day off as well, and Anna and I spent much of it reading and relaxing, but we planned to go see an afternoon show of For Your Consideration before dinner in Uptown. You might say we were planning the rest of our vacation around seeing what we assumed would be a good movie. Needless to say, we built this one up.
Only to have it crash down all around us! Boom!
I don't really have the spirit to pan this film right now, and you may have noticed that this entry has been sitting as a 'draft' for a while... So -I'll go quickly- the film begins as most other Guest productions do - all of the characters in seemingly separate stories and situations - the anticipation building as we realize the [quirky/awkward] roles they're all about to play in each other's lives. But this time the film never really takes us anywhere. We stay stuck in undeveloped roles and over-developed jokes. It just wasn't as fun as it should be.
What was fun though, was seeing a bit of A Few Good Men the other week and realizing that the witness on the stand (Dr. Stone) is, in fact, Christopher Guest!
Hrmmmm.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
How I watch a film
So the first viewing was last night. I did not make the trek from Eau Claire this round, however the film is in my queue. I hope that there was a sellout crowd for the basement on Pelham Blvd. I have been feeling an urge and/or obligation to post, but I really have not seen much for movies recently. Absent of a film to discuss, I will opt to discuss some of my viewing and reviewing criteria.
Going into a film, I only want to know enough about it to get me in the door. I avoid all reviews until I have made my own, as I prefer to first find my own conclusions. Afterwards, reviews are an excellent resource. I will either agree with their additional insight, or I will strengthen my opinions in contrast to the reviewer’s. When it comes to friends’ opinions, I am content with “I liked it” or “I did not like it.” After I see it, we can talk all night, but not until. Any reference to plot, especially about the end, can be a killer for me.
Friend: “You’ll never guess the ending…”
Me: “Well, now that you said that, I just might.”
Sorry, I like my surprises. If I expect a certain outcome, then my mind will work double time to figure it out. Such a mental expenditure can detract from the viewing experience. This is not to say I want to be completely naïve to a film. It sure helps to know and understand the greater context (if it does exist). Knowing a little bit about the Russian Revolution aided my viewing of Dr. Zhivago. But beyond context, I prefer to have a clean pallet.
A typical film is about a two hour commitment. There are many things I could do, but I choose to watch this film. That said, I expect to be moved. When the credits roll I will still be sitting in my chair, but if the feature was successful, something should be different. In most situations the success of a film over me can be measured by how much I have been moved. The director typically has a message that they are trying to get across. And I should hope that it pushes me in some direction. Anything. I am content to become excited, sad, inspired, sore from laughing, enraged, shamed, and anything in between. Not all of the emotions I receive from films are pleasant ones, but I would rather be in a foul mood than an apathetic one. Within this mantra every genre has its value, from drama to comedy to documentary. After watching the film, my first action would be to take note of how I feel toward it. This is a very superficial and reflex response to the feature (and a very honest review). After making that conclusion, I can then take a more analytical approach. Here is the point where I would read reviews, engage discussion, and basically tear apart the film. So, emotions first, then intellectual perspective. Some movies may strike a strong chord in one court, and fall rather short in the other.
It almost cannot be helped, that when the movie is playing, you feel the director pulling your interests one way. I like to consciously notice this, and ask why? Or, why is this working/not working for me? They (the studio man) make some of these movies into such intense emotional roller-coasters. As viewers they really can take us for a ride. It is like pop music. You know the song sucks, but it is so catchy, and it completely relates to your life specifically. The fun part is catching when this happens. It is as if you see the machine for what it is. And it feels very empowering for the viewer to see the gears in motion. Perhaps there is a great competition taking place between film makers and viewers. Can they create such an illusion that we can not see through it? My mind is wandering now, so I think I will take this opportunity to shut up. Sorry I missed It’s a Wonderful Life, but it sounds as though everyone loved it.
Going into a film, I only want to know enough about it to get me in the door. I avoid all reviews until I have made my own, as I prefer to first find my own conclusions. Afterwards, reviews are an excellent resource. I will either agree with their additional insight, or I will strengthen my opinions in contrast to the reviewer’s. When it comes to friends’ opinions, I am content with “I liked it” or “I did not like it.” After I see it, we can talk all night, but not until. Any reference to plot, especially about the end, can be a killer for me.
Friend: “You’ll never guess the ending…”
Me: “Well, now that you said that, I just might.”
Sorry, I like my surprises. If I expect a certain outcome, then my mind will work double time to figure it out. Such a mental expenditure can detract from the viewing experience. This is not to say I want to be completely naïve to a film. It sure helps to know and understand the greater context (if it does exist). Knowing a little bit about the Russian Revolution aided my viewing of Dr. Zhivago. But beyond context, I prefer to have a clean pallet.
A typical film is about a two hour commitment. There are many things I could do, but I choose to watch this film. That said, I expect to be moved. When the credits roll I will still be sitting in my chair, but if the feature was successful, something should be different. In most situations the success of a film over me can be measured by how much I have been moved. The director typically has a message that they are trying to get across. And I should hope that it pushes me in some direction. Anything. I am content to become excited, sad, inspired, sore from laughing, enraged, shamed, and anything in between. Not all of the emotions I receive from films are pleasant ones, but I would rather be in a foul mood than an apathetic one. Within this mantra every genre has its value, from drama to comedy to documentary. After watching the film, my first action would be to take note of how I feel toward it. This is a very superficial and reflex response to the feature (and a very honest review). After making that conclusion, I can then take a more analytical approach. Here is the point where I would read reviews, engage discussion, and basically tear apart the film. So, emotions first, then intellectual perspective. Some movies may strike a strong chord in one court, and fall rather short in the other.
It almost cannot be helped, that when the movie is playing, you feel the director pulling your interests one way. I like to consciously notice this, and ask why? Or, why is this working/not working for me? They (the studio man) make some of these movies into such intense emotional roller-coasters. As viewers they really can take us for a ride. It is like pop music. You know the song sucks, but it is so catchy, and it completely relates to your life specifically. The fun part is catching when this happens. It is as if you see the machine for what it is. And it feels very empowering for the viewer to see the gears in motion. Perhaps there is a great competition taking place between film makers and viewers. Can they create such an illusion that we can not see through it? My mind is wandering now, so I think I will take this opportunity to shut up. Sorry I missed It’s a Wonderful Life, but it sounds as though everyone loved it.
It's a Wonderful Film.
Well, it happened. Our first screening. And I think we all had fun, and more importantly, I think we all enjoyed the film. I, for one, thought it was pretty incredible for a number of reasons, and certainly not for the reasons I thought I'd be writing about in my post of this film.
What I did know (from common knowledge/what I'd heard) about It's a Wonderful Life:
- It received five Academy Award nominations in 1946, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. The film The Best Years of Our Lives "stole" the awards after doing better at the box office that year, and perhaps by dealing with post-WWII times less subversively.
- It's a Wonderful Life comes in at #11 on the AFI's 100 Years, 100 Films List.
- Besides having a less-than-optimistic view of post-WWII America, It's a Wonderful Life is further credited as having Communist Sympathies, with it's over-the-top portrayal of the Evil Bourgeois Potter character, and later, of Pottersfield - the would-be town that would exist if it weren't for the socialist successes of Bailey & Co.
These elements were significant in this film, no doubt, but what really caught my attention were maybe a bit subtler.
• Water - How many times did we see someone falling/jumping into water? It starts with George's younger brother, Harry, and his trip into the pond. We are urged to remember this incident by the films narrators, because it's the start of George's sacrificial streak (he loses half his hearing here), but also, I think, because we're supposed to key in on the (many) water-related events that transpire in the retelling of George's life story.
The watery scenes I can remember...
- The swimming pool - meant to embarrass, almost leads to "unique situation" with George and Mary, but George cannot capitalize, and has to run off to be by his father after a stoke.
- When it rains it pours - most noticeably on their wedding day. Marks another "Almost Day" for George. Instead of going on his honeymoon, George has to liquidate his assets to keep his business alive, and the town out of the clutches of Potter. Also noteworthy - Mary is able to ignore, and even thrive (look at that rotisserie!) in their honeymoon suite, in spite of the drippy conditions. Her life isn't as directly tied to water? (Or, she's more in tune with her sub-conscience?)
- Snow - when George ceases to exist (gets his wish) it stops snowing. George's life is tied to precipitation!
- I jumped in to save YOU! - Clarence and George save each other from watery demise.
And these next two are stretching it...
- Harry is in combat over water - shoots down enemy planes to save ships full of men.
- The Big Drink - How many times do we here "I need a drink" in this film. These characters couldn't live without their fire water.
The water theme, and being under water is often used in films to suggest the sub-conscience (under the surface), so it could be said that George is repeatedly diving into not only his past (his youth, a time before he has to sacrifice) when he encounters water, but also his desires, and his fears. Furthermore, the water theme is often put to use when George has to make a decision between what would benefit him most (Mary, to marry) versus what would benefit the town. The water element might be reminding us, therefore, that George's usual decision to do what is best for the greater good (instead of going to Mary/to marry) might be born partially of his fears of commitment and settling down (further hampering his wanderlust).
Thoughts?
• Crows and Squirrels - I'm a little lost here. It was an obvious intention of the filmmakers to include the crow in the office in several scenes. The addition of the squirrel made it seem like we were definitely supposed to catch something here. Could it be that we were supposed to tie in Bailey Building & Loan with nature? Or, that there's was the more natural, positive, wholesome business? The squirrel, at least, gave the impression of the-pure-and-innocent-Disney-princess-in-the-forest sort of vibe, but crows are generally associative of intelligence, if not clever, trickster-type intelligence.
Needless to say, I'm having a hard time piecing this one together.
I really appreciated It's a Wonderful Life's use of symbolism, but equally impressive was the film's cinematography. The beginning of the film, for example, blew me away. To start, I did not realize that the blinking, speaking galaxies, that I've seen countless times (see Wikipedia's "Appearances and References in Pop Culture" for It's a Wonderful Life), originated here. It was pretty cutting-edge of Capra to include multiple minutes of a nearly blank screen with voices as a pivotal, foundational scene in his film.
To follow up that scene, and to transition into "the real world," Capra uses an out-of-focus shot that slowly becomes clearer to simulate Clarence's improving vision. On the surface, and with 60 years of hindsight, this may not seem revolutionary, but I thought it pretty unique of this film to so bluntly draw attention to the film-making process at a time where movies were supposed to project an absolutely consistent reality. By including a shot like this (and to a lesser extent, the previous scene), Capra is yelling at us "Hey, you're watching a movie!" So the risk of including this shot is that the audience might automatically lose focus (attention, haha), if not respect, for the actions, words and messages said in the film if the reality they've bought into suddenly suspends.
I considered this a daring move.
Excellent. That's the end of my thoughts on It's a Wonderful Life (for now, so I guess it's also the beginning). I'd love to hear what others thought of the film, including those of you that couldn't make it to last night's screening.
I'm really looking forward to what comes next. Again, if people need to switch months for whatever reason, that's cool. Also, the "First Tuesday of Every Month" is a good guideline, but it's only that. If the screening day needs to be bumped around a little bit, just let us know far enough in advance that we can plan around it. Also, I'd like to know whether or not Anna and I will be hosting a bit in advance, if possible.
Lastly, I liked that I got to see another of the AFI's 100 Years, 100 Films.
We can always keep that list in mind when thinking of films to watch. So besides that list, and the seasonal theme that I adopted, this blog seems like the perfect place for brainstorming other ways to pick films. I'm sure there'll be more of that to come.
Happy Holidays.
What I did know (from common knowledge/what I'd heard) about It's a Wonderful Life:
- It received five Academy Award nominations in 1946, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. The film The Best Years of Our Lives "stole" the awards after doing better at the box office that year, and perhaps by dealing with post-WWII times less subversively.
- It's a Wonderful Life comes in at #11 on the AFI's 100 Years, 100 Films List.
- Besides having a less-than-optimistic view of post-WWII America, It's a Wonderful Life is further credited as having Communist Sympathies, with it's over-the-top portrayal of the Evil Bourgeois Potter character, and later, of Pottersfield - the would-be town that would exist if it weren't for the socialist successes of Bailey & Co.
These elements were significant in this film, no doubt, but what really caught my attention were maybe a bit subtler.
• Water - How many times did we see someone falling/jumping into water? It starts with George's younger brother, Harry, and his trip into the pond. We are urged to remember this incident by the films narrators, because it's the start of George's sacrificial streak (he loses half his hearing here), but also, I think, because we're supposed to key in on the (many) water-related events that transpire in the retelling of George's life story.
The watery scenes I can remember...
- The swimming pool - meant to embarrass, almost leads to "unique situation" with George and Mary, but George cannot capitalize, and has to run off to be by his father after a stoke.
- When it rains it pours - most noticeably on their wedding day. Marks another "Almost Day" for George. Instead of going on his honeymoon, George has to liquidate his assets to keep his business alive, and the town out of the clutches of Potter. Also noteworthy - Mary is able to ignore, and even thrive (look at that rotisserie!) in their honeymoon suite, in spite of the drippy conditions. Her life isn't as directly tied to water? (Or, she's more in tune with her sub-conscience?)
- Snow - when George ceases to exist (gets his wish) it stops snowing. George's life is tied to precipitation!
- I jumped in to save YOU! - Clarence and George save each other from watery demise.
And these next two are stretching it...
- Harry is in combat over water - shoots down enemy planes to save ships full of men.
- The Big Drink - How many times do we here "I need a drink" in this film. These characters couldn't live without their fire water.
The water theme, and being under water is often used in films to suggest the sub-conscience (under the surface), so it could be said that George is repeatedly diving into not only his past (his youth, a time before he has to sacrifice) when he encounters water, but also his desires, and his fears. Furthermore, the water theme is often put to use when George has to make a decision between what would benefit him most (Mary, to marry) versus what would benefit the town. The water element might be reminding us, therefore, that George's usual decision to do what is best for the greater good (instead of going to Mary/to marry) might be born partially of his fears of commitment and settling down (further hampering his wanderlust).
Thoughts?
• Crows and Squirrels - I'm a little lost here. It was an obvious intention of the filmmakers to include the crow in the office in several scenes. The addition of the squirrel made it seem like we were definitely supposed to catch something here. Could it be that we were supposed to tie in Bailey Building & Loan with nature? Or, that there's was the more natural, positive, wholesome business? The squirrel, at least, gave the impression of the-pure-and-innocent-Disney-princess-in-the-forest sort of vibe, but crows are generally associative of intelligence, if not clever, trickster-type intelligence.
Needless to say, I'm having a hard time piecing this one together.
I really appreciated It's a Wonderful Life's use of symbolism, but equally impressive was the film's cinematography. The beginning of the film, for example, blew me away. To start, I did not realize that the blinking, speaking galaxies, that I've seen countless times (see Wikipedia's "Appearances and References in Pop Culture" for It's a Wonderful Life), originated here. It was pretty cutting-edge of Capra to include multiple minutes of a nearly blank screen with voices as a pivotal, foundational scene in his film.
To follow up that scene, and to transition into "the real world," Capra uses an out-of-focus shot that slowly becomes clearer to simulate Clarence's improving vision. On the surface, and with 60 years of hindsight, this may not seem revolutionary, but I thought it pretty unique of this film to so bluntly draw attention to the film-making process at a time where movies were supposed to project an absolutely consistent reality. By including a shot like this (and to a lesser extent, the previous scene), Capra is yelling at us "Hey, you're watching a movie!" So the risk of including this shot is that the audience might automatically lose focus (attention, haha), if not respect, for the actions, words and messages said in the film if the reality they've bought into suddenly suspends.
I considered this a daring move.
Excellent. That's the end of my thoughts on It's a Wonderful Life (for now, so I guess it's also the beginning). I'd love to hear what others thought of the film, including those of you that couldn't make it to last night's screening.
I'm really looking forward to what comes next. Again, if people need to switch months for whatever reason, that's cool. Also, the "First Tuesday of Every Month" is a good guideline, but it's only that. If the screening day needs to be bumped around a little bit, just let us know far enough in advance that we can plan around it. Also, I'd like to know whether or not Anna and I will be hosting a bit in advance, if possible.
Lastly, I liked that I got to see another of the AFI's 100 Years, 100 Films.
We can always keep that list in mind when thinking of films to watch. So besides that list, and the seasonal theme that I adopted, this blog seems like the perfect place for brainstorming other ways to pick films. I'm sure there'll be more of that to come.
Happy Holidays.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
DaVinci Passwords
Hello All.
Bjorn sets the bar pretty high for film talk, but we should give it a shot too. I haven't been watching many films lately, but did watch The DaVinci Code on Sunday and can manage a few words.
Many of you have probably seen this film and almost certainly read the book so I may be assuming a few things as I speak... I apologize if I leave something out. I did like the book, not loved, but liked. It made a really nice book for the ride to and from Montana. Interesting, suspenseful, and a great conversation starter with my friends who are more devout than I.
Like many of us I did not expect the movie to have even a part of the impact of the book and I suppose that worked in its favor in that the bar was set low for me. Compared to the book, every clue led very quickly and conveniently to the next (and the book was quite convenient), but to fit a 16 hour book into a 2.5 hour movie it makes sense. It did serve to diminish the understanding of the background content and not much time for the viewer to conclude anything on their own. Before one can really guess who did what, you get to see it.
That is my gripe. Not too bad actually. Visually, the film made up a lot of ground. I loved Langdon visualizing his thought process; literally projecting beautiful holograms of archaic puzzles and vast orbiting planets. Dusty holograms that wavered, cast shadow, and were effected by bits of ambient light. Also, when Langdon would look at a sculpture or art piece the part of focus would light up, showing the audience exactly the symbols he was looking for. Really simple, effective ways to make things clear.
I would like to see some of the visuals tied into a different film. Many a imaginative scientists and investigator's audiences would benefit from these clever visual effects.
I would see it if you liked the book and have some time to kill, but it is not a must. I do know that I will be avoiding Angels and Demons when it arrives in theaters... gagged on that book, but that is another rant entirely. Feel free to argue, I don't mind at all. And sorry if this is sorta gibberishy, i'm rusty.
Bjorn sets the bar pretty high for film talk, but we should give it a shot too. I haven't been watching many films lately, but did watch The DaVinci Code on Sunday and can manage a few words.
Many of you have probably seen this film and almost certainly read the book so I may be assuming a few things as I speak... I apologize if I leave something out. I did like the book, not loved, but liked. It made a really nice book for the ride to and from Montana. Interesting, suspenseful, and a great conversation starter with my friends who are more devout than I.
Like many of us I did not expect the movie to have even a part of the impact of the book and I suppose that worked in its favor in that the bar was set low for me. Compared to the book, every clue led very quickly and conveniently to the next (and the book was quite convenient), but to fit a 16 hour book into a 2.5 hour movie it makes sense. It did serve to diminish the understanding of the background content and not much time for the viewer to conclude anything on their own. Before one can really guess who did what, you get to see it.
That is my gripe. Not too bad actually. Visually, the film made up a lot of ground. I loved Langdon visualizing his thought process; literally projecting beautiful holograms of archaic puzzles and vast orbiting planets. Dusty holograms that wavered, cast shadow, and were effected by bits of ambient light. Also, when Langdon would look at a sculpture or art piece the part of focus would light up, showing the audience exactly the symbols he was looking for. Really simple, effective ways to make things clear.
I would like to see some of the visuals tied into a different film. Many a imaginative scientists and investigator's audiences would benefit from these clever visual effects.
I would see it if you liked the book and have some time to kill, but it is not a must. I do know that I will be avoiding Angels and Demons when it arrives in theaters... gagged on that book, but that is another rant entirely. Feel free to argue, I don't mind at all. And sorry if this is sorta gibberishy, i'm rusty.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Screening Assignments
I've made up the first 12 screening assignments. The months and people were paired randomly, although I have doubled up some people to make a nice even 12. If some drop out, or if some add, this all should be pretty easy to adjust over the next year. And I suppose month trading is OK too. :)
The 2007 Film Club Screening Schedule!
January - Steve Kramer
February - Davin Haukebo-Bol
March - Drew and Genevieve Hirschboeck
April - Sarah Berseth
May - Dana Johnson
June - Anna (and maybe me) Hagstrom
July - Laura Steinkraus
August - Bess and local representative Jay Gould
September - Lou Abramowski
October - Juli Hagstrom and Tom Wendt
November - Bea Melby and maybe Jim Hagstrom
December - Tom Walker
If we want to talk about yearly or seasonal themes at all, now would be the time. Or we can let our first couple films guide the later selections.
Ok, now I'm going to try not to post anything until someone else starts a topic here!
Bjorn
The 2007 Film Club Screening Schedule!
January - Steve Kramer
February - Davin Haukebo-Bol
March - Drew and Genevieve Hirschboeck
April - Sarah Berseth
May - Dana Johnson
June - Anna (and maybe me) Hagstrom
July - Laura Steinkraus
August - Bess and local representative Jay Gould
September - Lou Abramowski
October - Juli Hagstrom and Tom Wendt
November - Bea Melby and maybe Jim Hagstrom
December - Tom Walker
If we want to talk about yearly or seasonal themes at all, now would be the time. Or we can let our first couple films guide the later selections.
Ok, now I'm going to try not to post anything until someone else starts a topic here!
Bjorn
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Who Killed the Electric Car?
*Warning* - This isn't a exactly a cinematic review about this movie... more just information that I gathered while watching it. I think it's still appropriate to have on this club's blog(?).
I'm glad that I decided to go to this movie while it was still playing at Riverview. It's doubtful that I would have ever gotten around to renting it, and I would have missed out on the sense of entitlement that is the driving force behing this post. I feel entitled to share with you some of the bullet points (Get it? Bullet... Who Killed...), or some of the points that I found particularily interesting as I watched last night.
But maybe I should first start with what the movie was all about.
- Basically, in 1996 GM commericially released its EV1, available by lease only to a very limited number of customers (many of them "stars").
- The car companies were motivated to go electric by the California Air Resources Board's (C.A.R.B.) 1995 decision (the Zero-Emissions Vehicles mandate) to implement a plan to increase the % of emissions-free vehicles on the road.
- In the following years, although GM claimed to be commited to electric vehicles, the company began to fire its EV1 sales teams and denied EV1 owners of their lease renewel options.
- In the meantime, C.A.R.B. is pressured to lessen its standards to accomidate car manufacturers. Then, in 2002, when the car companies decided to sue the C.A.R.B. to futher reduce the emissions standards, the federal government backed them, claiming that the C.A.R.B.'s ZEV mandate could disrupt the fuel economy.
- In 2003 (the very next year), the Chairman of the C.A.R.B., who some might say bowed to easily to car manufacturer's demands, was appointed to chair the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Also, George W. Bush singles out the Fuel Cell as the future for America's independance on foreign oil.
- GM takes all of its EV1's off the road, under the protest of their celebrity owners (this is where the film gets its drama), and groups are formed to try to stop GM from taking away and crushing all of these perfectly functioning cars. Enter documentary crew.
There are too many interesting bullet points to really mention here, but here are a couple (and these are all according to the film, I haven't done any other research on the subject).
• Fuel Cells are powered by hydrogen, which is more difficult to produce, store, and use than gas.
• The current hydrogen fuel cell run car isn't even close to the mass production stage (now costing ~$1,000,000/car to make).
• The energy and pollution required to make hydrogen usable for cars is close to that the energy/pollution expended by cars on the road today. (Compare to electric cars that pollute less, even if they were solely powered by electricity from coal burning plants.)
• The Fuel Cell car requires the building and maintainence of a re-fueling infastructure (10,000-20,000 hydrogen stations across the U.S.).
-BUT-
• The fuel cell market is one that can be taken over by the oil industry (by buying up fuel cell related patents), whereas electricity is something they can't dip into. No wonder George W. is backing the fuel cell. Oil will run out someday, but if the only future technology promoted (allowed) is the fuel cell, these companies will be able to keep their monopoloy on the motor vehicle energy market.
• *GOOD NEWS* Ironically, because the Asian car companies saw the EV1 and other steps being taken by American car companies in the 90s, they began production on the Hybrids which are now out-selling all of the U.S.'s best efforts in Hybrid/high-MPG cars. The plug-in Hybrid is on the way too. A car that, like the EV1, can be plugged in at home and travel hundreds of miles on one charge. The government and the U.S. auto industry won't be able to compete in this market very long by just repeating the word HYDROGEN over and over and over.
• The EV1 was a watered down version of what car companies could produce if they put their best efforts into making/selling it. For instance, the battery patent that GM bought to use in the production of the EV1 was better than the one that it was eventually sold with.
• Range was a major concern of electric car consumers, and even with the 'weak' EV1 battery, a person could go 60-70 miles per charge, which sounds like a little, but is over twice that the average American goes in a day. Plus, plugging in the car at night instead of NEVER going to the gas station, never getting an oil change (no internal combustion engine)... not too bad.
• Not that any of those range figures really matter, because since the '90s individual researchers/developers have created electric cars that they can charge personally, where the charge lasts over 300 miles (at 70 m.p.h.), and Oh yeah, these same cars can go from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds! ...these are not the toy-like, putt-around cars GM was marketing and the general public envisions.
So, a question I had at the end of this movie: "Why isn't the electric company in bed with GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc?! Wouldn't they have a lot to gain by backing the production of the electric car?
I'm glad that I decided to go to this movie while it was still playing at Riverview. It's doubtful that I would have ever gotten around to renting it, and I would have missed out on the sense of entitlement that is the driving force behing this post. I feel entitled to share with you some of the bullet points (Get it? Bullet... Who Killed...), or some of the points that I found particularily interesting as I watched last night.But maybe I should first start with what the movie was all about.
- Basically, in 1996 GM commericially released its EV1, available by lease only to a very limited number of customers (many of them "stars").
- The car companies were motivated to go electric by the California Air Resources Board's (C.A.R.B.) 1995 decision (the Zero-Emissions Vehicles mandate) to implement a plan to increase the % of emissions-free vehicles on the road.
- In the following years, although GM claimed to be commited to electric vehicles, the company began to fire its EV1 sales teams and denied EV1 owners of their lease renewel options.
- In the meantime, C.A.R.B. is pressured to lessen its standards to accomidate car manufacturers. Then, in 2002, when the car companies decided to sue the C.A.R.B. to futher reduce the emissions standards, the federal government backed them, claiming that the C.A.R.B.'s ZEV mandate could disrupt the fuel economy.
- In 2003 (the very next year), the Chairman of the C.A.R.B., who some might say bowed to easily to car manufacturer's demands, was appointed to chair the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Also, George W. Bush singles out the Fuel Cell as the future for America's independance on foreign oil.
- GM takes all of its EV1's off the road, under the protest of their celebrity owners (this is where the film gets its drama), and groups are formed to try to stop GM from taking away and crushing all of these perfectly functioning cars. Enter documentary crew.
There are too many interesting bullet points to really mention here, but here are a couple (and these are all according to the film, I haven't done any other research on the subject).
• Fuel Cells are powered by hydrogen, which is more difficult to produce, store, and use than gas.
• The current hydrogen fuel cell run car isn't even close to the mass production stage (now costing ~$1,000,000/car to make).
• The energy and pollution required to make hydrogen usable for cars is close to that the energy/pollution expended by cars on the road today. (Compare to electric cars that pollute less, even if they were solely powered by electricity from coal burning plants.)
• The Fuel Cell car requires the building and maintainence of a re-fueling infastructure (10,000-20,000 hydrogen stations across the U.S.).
-BUT-
• The fuel cell market is one that can be taken over by the oil industry (by buying up fuel cell related patents), whereas electricity is something they can't dip into. No wonder George W. is backing the fuel cell. Oil will run out someday, but if the only future technology promoted (allowed) is the fuel cell, these companies will be able to keep their monopoloy on the motor vehicle energy market.
• *GOOD NEWS* Ironically, because the Asian car companies saw the EV1 and other steps being taken by American car companies in the 90s, they began production on the Hybrids which are now out-selling all of the U.S.'s best efforts in Hybrid/high-MPG cars. The plug-in Hybrid is on the way too. A car that, like the EV1, can be plugged in at home and travel hundreds of miles on one charge. The government and the U.S. auto industry won't be able to compete in this market very long by just repeating the word HYDROGEN over and over and over.
• The EV1 was a watered down version of what car companies could produce if they put their best efforts into making/selling it. For instance, the battery patent that GM bought to use in the production of the EV1 was better than the one that it was eventually sold with.
• Range was a major concern of electric car consumers, and even with the 'weak' EV1 battery, a person could go 60-70 miles per charge, which sounds like a little, but is over twice that the average American goes in a day. Plus, plugging in the car at night instead of NEVER going to the gas station, never getting an oil change (no internal combustion engine)... not too bad.
• Not that any of those range figures really matter, because since the '90s individual researchers/developers have created electric cars that they can charge personally, where the charge lasts over 300 miles (at 70 m.p.h.), and Oh yeah, these same cars can go from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds! ...these are not the toy-like, putt-around cars GM was marketing and the general public envisions.
So, a question I had at the end of this movie: "Why isn't the electric company in bed with GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc?! Wouldn't they have a lot to gain by backing the production of the electric car?
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
First Screening!
When: Wednesday, December 20th @ 8pm
Where: 581 Pelham Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55104
What: I will be screening It's a Wonderful Life (1946).
Plot Summary: An angel helps a compassionate but despairingly frustrated businessman by showing what life would had been like if he never existed.
Ok, I hope you don't all hate me for choosing this film after (I'm sure) many of you have seen it every Christmas since you were 2 on NBC, but I've never seen it in full, and I just read Death of a Salesman (and heard James Stewart speaking all of Willy's lines in my head) so I'm in the mood for this one. Besides, I've heard that the film can take on a a whole different meaning in a more "academic" setting for people who have seen it as kids and/or with commercial interuption. So get ready, our first screening is only 2 weeks away!
Where: 581 Pelham Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55104
What: I will be screening It's a Wonderful Life (1946).
Plot Summary: An angel helps a compassionate but despairingly frustrated businessman by showing what life would had been like if he never existed.
Ok, I hope you don't all hate me for choosing this film after (I'm sure) many of you have seen it every Christmas since you were 2 on NBC, but I've never seen it in full, and I just read Death of a Salesman (and heard James Stewart speaking all of Willy's lines in my head) so I'm in the mood for this one. Besides, I've heard that the film can take on a a whole different meaning in a more "academic" setting for people who have seen it as kids and/or with commercial interuption. So get ready, our first screening is only 2 weeks away!
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Let's Begin.
All,
I'm really excited for this little Club to start, and it sounds like it's something that has been a dream for many of us for years. I think we can have our first screening as early as this month, and then starting in '07 we can settle into a First Tuesday of the Month sort of schedule (I like that day, are there any major concerns about it?).
To start things off, I'll be choosing the movie. As more people join the blog, I'll create a list of who's turn it is to select the film for each month. Like I said before, we can go with anything in terms of kinds of films to watch - the broader the spectrum the more interesting the Club will be.
For my first choice, and to start off the Club, I've been given the thematic suggestions of: My Favorite Film of All Time; Something with a Strong/Central Theme for An Easy Start; Something New (or At Least New to Us); and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Needless to say, there's a lot of pressure! (Haha!)
I don't have my selection picked yet, or a date nailed down, so let me know if you have any more advice in those areas. And because I'm leaning towards Tuesdays, maybe the 19th will be our first screening of this month(?). Check back soon for updates.
Also, if you are reading this blog, but are not yet a member (and would like to become one), comment here and let us know! Or you could just show up at a screening. :)
The first screening will take place at 581 Pelham Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55104.
Thanks,
Bjorn
I'm really excited for this little Club to start, and it sounds like it's something that has been a dream for many of us for years. I think we can have our first screening as early as this month, and then starting in '07 we can settle into a First Tuesday of the Month sort of schedule (I like that day, are there any major concerns about it?).
To start things off, I'll be choosing the movie. As more people join the blog, I'll create a list of who's turn it is to select the film for each month. Like I said before, we can go with anything in terms of kinds of films to watch - the broader the spectrum the more interesting the Club will be.
For my first choice, and to start off the Club, I've been given the thematic suggestions of: My Favorite Film of All Time; Something with a Strong/Central Theme for An Easy Start; Something New (or At Least New to Us); and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Needless to say, there's a lot of pressure! (Haha!)
I don't have my selection picked yet, or a date nailed down, so let me know if you have any more advice in those areas. And because I'm leaning towards Tuesdays, maybe the 19th will be our first screening of this month(?). Check back soon for updates.
Also, if you are reading this blog, but are not yet a member (and would like to become one), comment here and let us know! Or you could just show up at a screening. :)
The first screening will take place at 581 Pelham Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55104.
Thanks,
Bjorn
The Rules of Film Club.
1. The First Rule of Film Club is, you do not talk during the screenings.
2. The Second Rule of Film Club is, you do not talk during the screenings!
3. If screen shows "THE END", goes black, or rolls credits, the film is over.
4. A screening can happen with just one person.
5. One film at a time, fellas.
6. No cell phones.
7. The films will go on as long as they have to.
8. If this is your first night at Film Club, you have to bring the popcorn.
2. The Second Rule of Film Club is, you do not talk during the screenings!
3. If screen shows "THE END", goes black, or rolls credits, the film is over.
4. A screening can happen with just one person.
5. One film at a time, fellas.
6. No cell phones.
7. The films will go on as long as they have to.
8. If this is your first night at Film Club, you have to bring the popcorn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
