Film Club

Oscars '08

2008-01-22T09:33:00.000-06:00

Woot! The nominations are out, and for the most part, look great.

http://a.oscar.abc.com/media/2008/html/printer.html

I AM GOING TO SEE THERE WILL BE BLOOD BEFORE THE OSCARS. That's my mantra for the time being. :) Otherwise I've done better than usual at seeing all of this year's "top" films.

What was your favorite film of '08?

Over the Holidays...

2008-01-01T09:07:00.000-06:00

Sweeny Todd ****
I really enjoyed it. Will probably make my Top 10 for this year.
Superbad ***
I thought that I'd get more from this one after hearing it billed as the year's funniest film... It was funny, but didn't leave a big impact. (I'd rather re-watch Juno, Knocked Up... and Super Troopers to get the jokes the first time around.) :)
Blob [1958] & Blob [1988] ***
I re-watched the classic horror the other night and enjoyed a Steve McQueen lead performance I'd forgotten about, then I watched the 80's remake with Kevin Dillon (Johnny Drama, for all you Entourage fans) taking over as the hero. Best if seen back to back (and for free with ON DEMAND).
Shindler's List ****
Yeah, I'd never seen it before! Definitely a more conventional story than I imaged for this one (but what should have I expected, from Speilberg, after all?). Easy to watch, which is an interesting (not necessarily good or bad) thing to say about a holocaust film.

Ratings. Better than nothing.

2007-12-19T11:30:00.000-06:00

OK. So I thought that I'd start rating movies that I've seen on a simple 5 star scale. That way, when I don't take the time to actually write a review of a film, at least some information will be displayed here. Hopefully it encourages some of you to share you're thoughts/ratings too.

Also, it would be fun to have another movie night sometime soon. (Especially with the Holiday Upgrades made to the basement at 581.) Stay tuned.

Also also, because the OCD part of me likes to list/order things, I'll be working on my Rankings-of-Movies-Released-in-2007-[That-I-Saw] list in the next couple weeks. At last count, there are more movies that I want to see than I have seen in '07, but I'll try my hardest to rectify that as the awards season comes into full swing.

So without further ado: Movies I've seen semi-recently...
No Country for Old Men ****1/2
I loved it, and was going to write up something about it, but what I wanted to write about would probably spoil it for those of you who haven't seen it. So see it!
Michael Clayton ****
Like No Country, one of the few movies that lived up to the hype. In any year that's saying something, and this year especially because of all the great stuff that came out.
The Darjeeling Limited ****
Probably only scores so high because the wife and I are such Wes Anderson fans, but really an entertaining movie. (An interesting suggestion about how to see Wes' films: Each of his movies could be taking place simultaneously in an alternate Wes universe. Each story opens a portal into which we get to see these highly stylized, quirky, character-comedies. But I guess if you don't dig it, you don't...
Juno ****
Like in Knocked Up, the scenarios, characters, and dialog are often completely over-the-top, but still manage to convey some really truthful ideas. More specific to Juno is the great writing that's so consistent without being predictable, and persistently witty. We laughed through half the jokes at our showing.
The Mist *** (But barely.)
The more I let go (in terms of plot, etc) and freely interacted with the movie, the more I enjoyed it. Classic King ending. (Good or bad is up to you.)
Eastern Promises **1/2
I was mostly underwhelmed and didn't really get into the story or its characters. But I guess I didn't exactly see the end coming either... meh.
3:10 to Yuma ***
Pretty entertaining western remake. But why didn't he just get on that damn train at the end!!! (Parts of the story bothered me when I should just been happy watching the gun battles. :)
Dan in Real Life ***
Cute, nice and fun. And I mostly forgot that I was watching Steve Carrel and Dane Cook. Which is impressive.

Want to see:
There Will Be Blood, Once, Into the Wild, I'm Not There, Atonement, I am Legend, Superbad...

American Gangster

2007-11-07T13:27:00.000-06:00

I went to see American Gangster the other night with Jeff, Steve, Jon, and Cutler, and came out wondering what I was supposed to take away from the film. The story definitely had it's messages and points to make, but at the end, I felt as if the would-be strongest message (something about the real effects of drugs and drug trafficking in America) was over shadowed by the "Denzel is a Bad Ass" message. I wonder what the original intent/message of the filmmakers was before this film became the (more-palatable) cop drama that I saw?

But yes, the movie is entertaining, and in terms of story-telling, pretty good. I especially enjoyed watching how the film crafted the Crowe/Denzel characters to be so ideally and principally(?) similar. I thought that that aspect of the film was one of the more interesting/effective. I just wish that the film wouldn't have left the ending hanging (morally) wide open. Are we supposed to think that Lucas (Washington): has gotten what he deserved; gets off easy; feels any remorse; should feel any remorse; is to blame; or is just a cog in a faceless machine? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Impromptu Movie Night?!

2007-10-10T08:40:00.000-06:00

Summer's over. Let's face it.

Did it go faster than usual? Well, of course not, really... But our 2-month break became 3-, and I thought, before we fall completely off this wagon, we should try to have a movie night.

Does this weekend work well for people? Saturday night?

Screening suggestions? A new theme for this 'club season'? Let me know.
I've been itching to re-watch a couple of favorites from last year (The Fountain, Stranger Than Fiction, Children of Men...), so those are possibilities. Something fairly light and entertaining.

Reply [to hagstrbh@yahoo.com] YES or NO if you think you could make it Saturday. I'll email again if we have enough interested.

Thanks.
Bjorn

ps- I was introduced to another film discussion resource. http://www.armchairdirector.org/ It looks like a little up-start web periodical, all about movies. The reviews look fairly well written. Take a look.

2 Month Break

2007-07-03T14:39:00.000-06:00

Film Club is going to take a 2 month break (this July and August) to let people catch up on their out-of-doors activities and Summer Blockbusters in the theaters. We'll return stronger than ever in September. If you see anything good in the mean time, feel free to post about it here. It's always nice to have suggestions!

Bjorn

P R I M E R

2007-06-18T08:09:00.000-06:00

We watched Primer on Saturday night, and I'm glad that everyone was at least as befuddled by the movie as I was the first time I saw it. I enjoyed it just as much the third time through too, so I'd definitely recommend additional viewings.

For more info, Wikipedia has a sizable entry on the film. Also, www.primermovie.com is the film's official sight with a link to a discussion board that is administered by Shane Caruth (he no longer has the forum open to new users, because of spammers, but all of the content is still up).

I own the film now, so let me know if you'd like to borrow it.
Bjorn

JUNE!

2007-06-05T10:38:00.001-06:00

Well, Film Clubbers, I've challenged myself for June. My challenge: to pick a movie to screen from the 21st century.

I don't think that it will be a challenge due to any lack of quality film-making so far this century, but it will be challenging to find a film that has as much of a universal impact as some of the movies we've seen so far in this club.

As a club, I'd say that we've stuck to some pretty prevalent themes, although not without variety and contrast... or, to summarize, I think that we could safely categorize the films screened thus far as a bit 'grown up' in taste. So I'm going to breath some life into this group! :) Just kidding. But I would like to find something contemporary (even futuristic!), or funny... something we haven't yet seen.

I'm thinking that the 16th or the 30th look like good dates. Let me know if you have a preference.
And I'll let you know when I have a selection.

Thanks.
Bjorn

Ps- anybody seen anything good recently? Let us know!

Disturbia

2007-05-21T08:29:00.000-06:00

Saturday night the wife, Kirsta and I went out to the Rosedale Mall to grab a bite to eat and see a movie at the 'new' AMC theater. Being at a mall is always pretty awkward, I feel, as we're just not far enough removed from the high school crowds that regular that scene. But that's a topic for another blog...

Anyway, we had a very decent dinner at Big Bowl where each of us partook in their homemade ginger drink specialties. The ginger tea was delicious. But we had to hurry out of there because I was in charge of the movies, and, of course, I didn't remember any of the start times to the movies we wanted to see -- and my assumption that "there'll be a 9 o'clock show of any of 'em..." was completely wrong. :) The timing worked out amazingly well, however, and we sat down at maybe 7:50 for the 7:45 showing of Disturbia... still catching 10 of the 15 minutes of previews before the feature presentation.

Now, I don't know what you've heard of this film, but what I heard was that I was a rather weak adaptation of Rear Window, but with decent performances by Lebouf, Moss, and Morse... And where I can kind of see where that kind of review is coming from, I really couldn't say that any individual's performance was the reason I ended up enjoying myself in this film.

...I suppose that these actors were all good enough here not to 'screw it up,' which is - now that I think of it - more of a feat than I at first recognized. Especially in a teen-thriller type of movie...

But I did really like this movie. I certainly enjoyed myself during Disturbia more than I have at most of the movies I've seen so far this year (Hot Fuzz being a notable exception). And from what I heard, so did the rest of the people in the theater. Änna, for one, spent much of the last half of the movie so far down in her seat that only her head was touching the backrest... which doesn't sound at first like an "enjoying-oneself-posture," but she was both laughing and screaming out of the fearful pleasure that Disturbia delivered. I didn't get up to see, but I had fun imagining how many of the other people in the theater were in similarly hilarious positions when they let out their own joyous screams.

The last time that I remember that same kind of energy in a movie theater was back in high school when some friends and I went into the first Scream movie, to do just that... (We even brought in large tubs of popcorn to throw into the air at the most appropriate moments.) I don't really see any valuable comparisons between Scream and Disturbia, but I do suppose that the better cast helped out a bit. Especially in the first part of the film. Really though, it was the writing, directing and camera work that made Disturbia an effective movie. I loved the Rear Window references (and others, Blair Witch, even the Matrix) that were introduced with a reasonable mixture of subtlety and in-your-face-ness. I also appreciated the way that the film 'wrapped up' at the end. Maybe I give the director too much credit, because I've heard that some people took the ending to be rushed, out of the blue, and convenient, but I felt like the story pulled up before it delved too deeply into potentially inappropriate/harmful (to the story), or boring territory.

In conclusion: Hurry up and see this one while it's still in the theaters. And try to bring 50 of your closest (more easily startled) friends. You'll have a good time.

Hot Fuzz, 28 Weeks Later.

2007-05-14T08:05:00.000-06:00

I've decided that I can recommend both of these movies, but not without reservation...

Both are lesser movies than their predecessors -- Shawn of the Dead tops Hot Fuzz as both a comedy AND as an example of genre film making -- 28 Weeks, although as well shot and directed as 28 Days, losses a lot of credibility with a much weak[er] storyline.

Some credit still should be given in both cases.

True: Shawn is a much better example zombie movie making than Fuzz is of action/cop movies (and I'd agree with the guys at Filmspotting when they point out that Shawn is even a better action movie than the action driven, Hot Fuzz...), BUT these filmmakers have done a pretty good job of not following in the steps of so many others... With the addition of more money, talent, etc., 'young' writers/directors can easily overlook their own, unique brand of work to try to create a conventional Hollywood blow-out of a movie... (Just take the boys at Broken Lizard who went from the awesome Super Troopers to the awful Club Dread.) Simon Pegg et al have seemed to pulled up short of selling themselves out, and it works.
Especially if you enjoy [way, way] over the top cop-action-drama.

28 Weeks Later was a little more disappointing... and actually that's mostly because it starts off so well... or maybe because I can't let things go. Hmm.

Anyway, the opening scenes are really great in 28 Weeks Later, and I found myself totally pulled into the story -- only to have it go off in directions I thought were below the 28 ___ Later franchise's vision... I feel like this movie has come out too recently for me to spoil any more of the plot for those of you still waiting to see it, so I'll pull up, saying only that kids usually ruin movies like this because it gives the director/writer too many outs. (Why did this character do that obviously dangerous and stupid thing? Oh, because it's just a kid... "Move in the out field. Easy out.")

May Movie Night

2007-04-24T07:23:00.000-06:00

Mr. Jim Hagstrom is going to host the screening for May. He's choosen the movie The Caine Mutiny (1954), directed by Edward Dmytryk (a favorite noir director of mine!).

When: 7:00 pm, Saturday the 19th.
Where: Way out in Afton! But in a great screening/home theater set up.
(Google Maps: 3637 Trading Post Trail, Afton, MN 55001)

General Directions, from 94:
Take exit 253 for Manning Ave/CR-15/MN-95 S - Go South 4.2 miles.
Turn left at 40th St S/CR-18 - Go East 2.4 miles.
Turn left at Trading Post Trail S - Go North > .5 miles.
Arrive at 3637 Trading Post Trail - It's the first driveway on the right.

So Many Movies, So Little Time

2007-04-20T13:48:00.000-06:00

Playing this weekend...

---St.Paul---
Highland Theater just got The Lives of Others - I didn't expect that I'd be able to see this film in the theaters anymore. Highland's sister theater, the Grandview, is showing The Namesake right now too. You really have to give it to the theater owners around here for showing really quality movies. The Riverview is playing both The Queen and The Last King of Scotland, so if you're like me and need to catch up on your '06 Ocsar Award winners... here's your chance. Oh, and on that note, the Riverview is having a special Earth Day screening of An Inconvenient Truth. (12:30pm, Sunday)

---Lagoon--- (and others, semi-wide release)
The Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie sounds like it's strictly for the fans of the show... so I'd probably enjoy it... (Hey, if it's playing at Lagoon it has to be good right?) Also showing: The Hoax and Hot Fuzz, the second of which I'm very excited to see (as a big fan of Shawn of the Dead). The Hoax looked horrible from the ads but has gotten pretty great reviews (?). Any thoughts?

In wide release, Disturbia sounds like it'll be everything you expect from a modern/teen update of Rear Window... although Shia LaBeouf, Carrie Ann Moss and David Morse are said to give very decent performances.

Let us know if you go to see any of these!
Thanks.

9/11: Press for Truth. FREE SHOWING!

2007-04-11T07:39:00.000-06:00

A couple of community members and the management at the Riverview Theater have gotten together to put on a FREE showing of the documentary 9/11: Press for Truth. 10:45 am, Saturday (4/14) morning.

Apparently public showings like this one have been happening all over the country as some of the victims' (of 9/11) families want to share what they've found out about what really led up to 9/11 happening, and what has been done since (and why). To find out more about this documentary and the The 9/11 Timeline project that started this grassroots movement, check out http://www.911pressfortruth.com/.

Maybe I'll see you at Riverview.

The Namesake

2007-04-10T23:12:00.000-06:00

So I'm unemployed in case you didn't know... and if I didn't already see enough movies, I definitely am now. Today I saw The Namesake starring Kal Penn as Gogol, a young Indian American son of immigrant parents struggling to tear away from their traditional cultural values, yet eventually coming to terms with his place in the world and their importance to him. I won't recap the plot, as you can read that elsewhere.

Overall the film seemed to try to cover a little too much time, eventually feeling a bit disjointed, but when it was effective, it was very effective. The actors who play his parents were shown in perhaps a 25 year time span. They aged with the use of makeup, hair alteration, and wardrobe changes, and pulled it off very effectively. I really appreciated them a lot.

Sadly, a few of the other characters were a little thinly portrayed. I found myself very engaged in the subject matter for most of the movie, but sadly in an effort to span Gogol's entire life, the movie offered a few less than stellar moments with some fairly boring interjections.

I recommend the movie on it's efforts to draw out the way a family can be sometimes stretched thin because of cultural and generational differences. These were especially vivid thru the eyes of an immigrant family coming to the United States in the late 70's from India. Sadly the film as a whole fell just a bit short of it's promising premise in an effort to do just a bit too much.

The Lookout

2007-04-08T17:16:00.000-06:00

Saw The Lookout today, and was quite pleased. I really liked it a lot. I didn't know too much about it, other than what I had read in few quick one-liners about its quality. What I thought was going to be a well developed caper movie was actually more of an examination of the main character's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) fall from grace and struggle to co-exist in the the very new adult world that he has created for himself in a fleeting moment of adolescent irresponsibility.

Jeff Daniels was also very good as a sort of mentor/buddy figure, playing one of the more convincing blind men I've seen in a long time, such that it's not just a caricature of the sardonic old man, but a true friend bearing some warmth and wisdom in a seemingly bleak existence for the both of them.

Best Movie I've seen this year so far.

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

2007-04-07T13:18:00.000-06:00

Bea became this month's movie picker, selecting 1962's To Kill a Mockingbird - a classic for sure - with an Academy Award winning performance by Gregory Peck. It will be fun to see where our conversation goes when we discuss this piece of cinematic history.

On top of that, I have some interesting supporting material that deals with Mockingbird that I've decided I have to share along with tonight's screening. (I couldn't resist...) Let's just say it will (hopefully) add a uniqueness to our understanding of this film.

To Kill a Mockingbird
Tonight - 4/7/07 @ 7pm.
Anna and Bjorn's House.

April will be better.

2007-04-02T15:09:00.000-06:00

March was a pretty sad month for this blog... only 3 posts. At least one of them wasn't by me. :)

Well, back on March 2nd I wrote a post called "Movies to see..." How did we do?

Zodiac - I did see this one, with Änna while we were out in Boulder. I was very excited to see it, and it didn't quite live up to my expectations. Could have been that we were annoyed after not being able to find the theatre and missing the first couple minutes... although even with those minutes missing I thought a weakness of the film was how long it was. I'm not usually one to complain about the length of a movie either, but Zodiac seemed long for the wrong reasons... -or- Maybe it was long because there was a lot of content, but not long as a way to enhance the content...

All in all it was definitly a very well crafted film, and the writing was good, as was the acting. But as good as it was to watch, I never felt like I got into the characters' heads... I didn't empathise with their addictions/afflictions... I wanted them to get over it. And I didn't feel like that's where I should have been at the end of this one. Especially if you consider Fincher's Se7en and even Fight Club, two movies that really put you in the characters' shoes (whether or not you like being there). I would be interested in hearing what others thought about this one, and I'd probably interested in seeing it again to re-evaluate. Cool. Share your thoughts.

Lives of Others & The Queen - I never made it to either of these. They are both sitting in my Netflix waiting list. What can I say?

Sweetland - Änna and I also got to this one a couple minutes late. Weird.
Sweetland was beautifully shot and pretty fun/easy overall to watch. Actually, it was a lot funnier and lighter than I thought it would be. What I'd heard about Sweetland led me to believe that it was a drama about a man who pays for a mail order bride, but then isn't allowed to marry her because it turns out she's German (WWI time), but they end up living together anyway and are consequently dis-owned by the town - not allowed to buy/sell anything - and they end up withering away... All of which is true, except there are jokes throughout and you can substitute that last part for "- but they overcome all odds in the end and live happily ever after." So I wasn't expecting that, but the film doesn't come off as overly cheesy at all, in spite of how I made it sound. :)

So, I want to do better this month, but we'll see...

Movies to see - 4/02/07
300 (the Frank Miller graphic novel adaptation), Dreamgirls (at Riverview now), The Lookout (with Joeseph Gordon-Levitt who was awesome in Brick), The Host (South Korean horror with possible socio-political undertones), The Namesake (Indian - American culture clash), Shooter (Marky Mark has been good, but this might suck? Still fun?) & Reign Over Me (Adam Sandler, hit or miss?)... Oh, and I forgot Grindhouse! (The latest Tarantino/Rodriguez looks ridiculous. In the best kind of ways.) And, no, I didn't forget Blades of Glory. (I have no interest in seeing Farrel fall on his face. Oh, but I guess I mean that only figuratively.)

Primed.

2007-03-04T21:12:00.000-06:00

Ok, so I just got done watching the 2004 film Primer for the second time, and where that might not sound all that impressive/post-worthy at first, the fact that I hadn't seen one time 4 hours ago should tell you where I'm going with this post....

Yes: as soon as I finished Primer this afternoon (and before I even let the credits role), I immediately watched it again, pausing only to turn on the director's commentary. I can't remember the last time I watched a film back to back like that... and what's really crazy is that I want to watch it again! NOW!

It did really help that Primer is only 78 minutes long, but are a number of other reasons that made this film compelling enough to "require" (at least for me) multiple viewings.

Subject/ideas/story: The film is about... well, maybe you don't want to know before seeing it, although I personally don't think that knowing the plot really matters - especially because Primer deals with the subject pretty originally. Anyway, I guess I'll kinda skip this for now, saying only that it's a sci-fi flick that deals with a subject/idea that I really like, but that, if meant to be taken seriously, sometimes doesn't go over too well because of the number of questions that come up while you're watching... maybe you know what I mean... But this film and its characters are as involved with these questions as you are, and the film deals with them in a way that is pretty intriguing - if not vaguely believable.

...and MAN! I'm still not sure about everything that happened in this one, and especially what it all implied...!! Argh! (Heh Heh. In a good way!)

That was a ramble. Sorry.

Also, this was a personal, impassioned, incredibly involved independent film that eventually premiered at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival. It was the baby of director, producer, writer, actor, and sometimes reluctant cameraman, Shane Carruth (not to mention cinematographer, casting agent, editor, sound designer...). The film's actors and extras were mainly Shane's friends and family. The sets were his family's houses and workplaces.

The scale of this film's accomplishments certainly matches its creator's intentions, but reaches far beyond the means of the men and women who stood behind it.

Needless to say, I was impressed. Right now (in my excited state) I'd even be willing to say this is one of my favorite films of all time. And I [really] think you should see it.

HAS anyone else seen it? Remember it? Love/hate it? (BTW- If you hated it, you are wrong.) :)

2007-03-02T17:08:00.000-06:00

Re: Oscars, I was delighted that The Departed got best picture. I loved the movie, smart acting, tightly constructed plot, great fun. I haven't enjoyed Leonardo DiCaprio since What's Eating Gilbert Grape? ( by which I mean I liked him in) but here he was at his best as an undercover detective.
The only other oscar movie I saw was The Queen which just isn't my kind of movie so I didn't love it.

I hope to make it Saturday, Tom's at state wrestling tourney, so I doubt he will.
That is all,
Juli

Movies to see - 3.02.07

2007-03-02T09:18:00.000-06:00

My movie suggestions for this wintery weekend in March.

Come to Steve's for a movie night tomorrow, of course...

...but if you're looking for shelter from the snowblowers and shovelers this weekend, or if you're looking for a relaxing night after a day of skiing, snow forts and snow men, here's a couple of films that are out around town - probably at a location near you.

New Releases:
Zodiac - Wide Release - From David Fincher, another crime thiller that's supposed to deliver where his previous films (Se7en, Fight Club, Panic Room, The Game) might have fallen short. My first Must See for 2007.
The Lives of Others - Uptown - Has been in the area for a couple weeks, I think. (Has been out in select theaters longer.) I want to see the film that stopped Pan's Labyrinth from winning for the Best Foriegn Film.

Other Films:
Children of Men - Riverview & Roseville 4 - Should have been a Best Film of '06 contender.
The Queen - Still pretty wide release - If you're like me, you put this one off again and again, and you're going to punch yourself when it leaves the theaters and you miss your chance! :)
Sweetland - Riverview & Roseville 4 - I don't see myself renting this one ahead of most of the films in my Netflix queue, so I'd like to get to Riverview after work some night to see it.

Movie Night!

2007-02-27T11:11:00.000-06:00

Steve's hosting another movie night! He's screening Color of Paradise (as promised, it's shorter than An Angel at My Table). The show starts at 7pm this Saturday (March 3rd). I hope you can make it.

Steve's house:
2407 Chilcombe Ave, St. Paul
(near hwy 280 and Como Ave.)
Call 612 508-8174 [Steve] or 612-414-7661 [Bjorn] if you need directions.

*Hey, anyone see any of the 2007 movies yet? What did you guys and gals think about the Oscar results?

**The much over-looked Children of Men is playing at Riverview. In my opinion this was one of the best films of 2006. Let me know if you want to go see it.

Oscar Party!

2007-02-13T12:13:00.000-06:00

Where: Änna and Bjorn's. 581 Pelham Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55001
When: Oscar night. Sunday, February 25th. The show starts at 7pm, but come at 6 if you're interested in the Red Carpet festivities.
What else? Last year I had a prize for the person(s) who picked the most award winners on the ballot, and I think I'll try to do that again. (You can get a printable ballot here.) Ballots have to be in by 7pm to count. Good luck!

We'll probably have light snacks and drinks, so just bring yourselves!

Favorite Films of 2006.

2007-02-05T20:30:00.000-06:00

As a warm up to The Oscars, I wanted to hear what all of your favorite films from last year were.
Click "_ comments" to share your thoughts.
Thanks.

Silent Service - Le Samourai

2007-02-05T09:21:00.000-06:00

There is no solitude greater than the samurai's, unless perhaps it be that of a tiger in the jungle.

-Book of Bushido

Honor, Pride, Service and death. Words for a warrior. Whether a soldier in an army or a lone assassin, these words are the code that has bound warriors for thousands of mankind's years. In film, as well as history, the Samurai have served as the archetypes for warriors that follow a strict code. There is a special fascination that film audiences hold for the Samurai. They are embraced for their supernatural combat skills and unbreakable Zen, yet it is these mechanical qualities that serve to distance them from the audience as well as the other characters. Characterized by solitude and inevitable death, Samurai have become some of film's great tragic characters and no film emphasizes their tragedy better than Le Samourai.

Jef Costello (played by Alain Delon ), is not the typical Samurai. For one, this is set in 1967 Paris and Costello is not a robe-clad martial artist. The title of the film as well as the opening passage from the Book of Boshido serve to create a metaphor for the audience that will connect Costello to the notions of a Samurai outside the usual combat and culture. Costello is a hitman. A killer that is so methodical and focused that he does not even have a criminal record (since he is never caught.) His drab, sparse apartment and cold, deliberate interactions with other characters reflect his complete dedication to his work. There is no sense of happiness in this character, giving the impression that his solitude is a necessary aspect of his duty.

The director, Jean-Pierre Melville, distinctly styles this movie to speak of the character. Drab color and ugly mornings reflect an overall mood of melancholy. The film is nearly silent, which caused me to listen to the thoughts in my head (or passing through the character's?) and methodically be weighted down by his troubles. Perhaps most importantly, Melville leaves out intense action scenes. Roger Ebert states the reasoning better than I can.

Action is the enemy of suspense. Action releases tension, instead of building it. Better to wait for a whole movie for something to happen (assuming we really care whether it happens) than to sit through a film where things we don't care about are happening constantly.

The calm Costello, after being betrayed by his employer and chased by the police, is wearing down. We can see the exhaustion in his eyes. An exhaustion not a result of 15 straight fights (like in a typical film), but because honor and pride are battling inside his head and he is desperately (yet deftly) planning his own salvation.

Costello faces a mortal decision of conflicting honor. On one hand there is a woman who saved him from incrimination, therefore, in the case of a murder conviction, likely owes a life debt. On the other hand is an employer who has hired him to kill her. This decision is a little blurry to the audience who does not know exactly who he must kill, we only sense that he is deeply troubled and see many reasons to be so. Costello settles on a solution (unbeknownst to the viewers) that leads him up to the point where he could have certainly completed his mission, but also would be killed by the police. By doing so, he keeps his honor and pride with everyone certain he could have finished, but dies before he can be dishonored by pulling the trigger. Again, the tragic samurai is doomed, as he often is, by his own hand. Whether it is the blade in the stomach of seppuku or calmly walking into the line of your enemies, a samurai will always choose honor over life.

Oscar Nominations

2007-01-23T14:30:00.000-06:00

Nominations are out. What does everybody think?

While I thought that a couple of films were overlooked by the Academy, seeing the list of nominations made me realize what I overlooked this year...

1. Children of Men. From what I hear, this one should have been in the Best Picture/Director categories. Fortunately, it's still playing and I definitely want to see it before the Oscars.
2. "Royal Films" - I saw Marie Antoinette, but not The Last King of Scotland or The Queen.
3. Little Children I know nothing about.
4. Volver, The Devil Wears Prada, Half Nelson, Letters from Iwo Jima - The latter is still playing at Highland now, and the others are in my Netflix queue... There's now way I'll see them all anytime soon.

My Beef(s) with the Academy?
- To nominate the big tickets - Superman, Pirates, and Poseiden - for something like Best Visual Effects... just to get their names in the mix? When really The Fountain offers at least as much... no, more because of the unique, personal look the relatively small scale effects produce...
- Also, I'm not sure Little Miss Sunshine belongs in the Best Picture category. I hate to say that I think so just because it's a comedy, but maybe that's all it is. To me, Little Miss Sunshine doesn't carry enough weight to stick in the category, at least not this year. Could any comedy? I guess Fargo did it. Often in this category it seems like we're comparing apples and oranges.
- And it seems like the Academy felt bad for not nominating Dreamgirls for Best Picture and instead gave it spots in every other available category... The academy knew Dreamgirls wasn't Oscar worthy, I think this is their way of acknowledging the hype. But what other films had their nominations sacrificed for that to happen?
- Also overlooked? Besides what I heard about Children of Men, for Best Picture... Who Killed the Electric Car, and maybe Dave Chapelle's Block Party for Best Documentary. Aaron Eckhardt, Thank You for Smoking, but that was crowded territory.... The Fountain! for [at least] Cinematography, Score. Was Everything is Illuminated out in time for last year?

What else?

Printable Ballots can be found here. Keep tuned for Oscar party information!

Feb Selection

2007-01-22T10:14:00.000-06:00

Alright, here is the selection for our next screening.
(drumroll)
...
Le Samourai (1967)

Streep makes two saves

2007-01-18T12:14:00.000-06:00

There are three reasons to see the Prairie Home movie: Dusty and Lefty (The always fabulous John C. Reilly and sometimes good Woody Harelson) and Meryl Streep as one of the Johnson sisters. Otherwise, the movie serves only to remind the audience why it is a radio show. There is no story, no plot is developed. Imagine the stellar Tommy Lee Jones wasted on a role where he takes a few drinks of water while we watch him watching some singers with guitars on stage. Wasting his talent is like taking a box of handmade exquisite truffles and giving them to your dog.

When she was bantering with Streep, Lily Tomlin was good as the other Johnson sister, but her singing voice is so bad that she wasn't believable playing the role of a radio singer.

Meryl Streep’s performance almost made the movie worth it for me. She had a lot of fun doing the role, singing, improvising lines, playing Minnesota girl, she was entirely convincing.

As she was in The Devil Wears Prada. With these two movies, Streep is back on my A-list. (I didn't think I'd forgive her after Bridges of Madison County.) She inhabited both roles so completely. In this Prada role, she was smooth and svelte, caustic and unflappable. The movie itself, unfortunately, was boringly predictable and vapid.

Has anyone seen Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang? I highly recommend.

That is all,

Juli Hagstrom

The Scent of Vice and Virtue

2007-01-17T20:28:00.000-06:00

A specific analysis of Tom Tykwer’s new film, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.

While the theater filled with the laughter that often erupts when an audience is not sure how to react to a particular scene, I remained quiet, filling with excitement from a series of revelations that had suddenly come together. Amidst the laughter I witnessed one of my favorite paintings coming alive on the screen, Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights. Before my eyes was an R-rated version of the famous triptych’s lust-filled center panel. Every moment became increasingly painterly and left me reaching at more deep meaning than I had sensed before. Up until this moment I was watching a film about a gifted, perhaps autistic, murderer with a knack for winning over his theater audience. After this scene, however, the film was about all of the characters and their cumulative embodiment of vice and virtue.

Bosch’s well-known paintings usually revolve around the seven deadly sins: luxuria (lust), gula (gluttony), avaritia (greed), acedia (sloth), ira (wrath), invidia (envy), and superbia (pride). His depiction of mankind’s history with these vices was most often monstrous and chaotic. Unlike Bosch, however, Perfume, does not outright mention sin, only eludes to flaws and consequences generated by all of the character’s actions. This subtlety provides an interesting way of presenting these themes to the audience. Vice and virtue are not typically as cut and dry as films often make them out to be. Perfume requires the audience to look deep to decide which is which. Good and evil skirt along a vague line where either could be equally revered or despised. The main strength of this film is allowing the audience the opportunity to decide their own conclusion without the comfort of knowing what is morally correct.

According to Catholic scripture, the seven sins are opposed by the seven contrary virtues: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, forgiveness, kindness and humility. If Perfume is reflective of reality, those virtues are breed from sin, polar opposites made apparent by mutual existence. For example, where greed reigns, charity is apparent if only by the horror of its absence. My personal reflections have allowed me to find examples of these interactions through the film that have truly shaped its interest for me.

Sloth: Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, the gifted murderer, was born of Sloth. Discarded by his mother almost before he left her womb, he was consistently threatened by those who would rather see him dead than deal with his existence. The sloth of others would have easily killed Grenouille, if not for his extraordinary diligence to survive and eventually his unstoppable ambitions to capture scent. Sloth appears again as Grenouille is on the verge of capture, but suddenly the town gives up the search because their apparent sloth outweighs the diligence of one citizen’s cries. Sloth breeds diligence, but it is interesting to realize that villains often are far more diligent than anyone else.

Greed: The only sin mentioned outright is greed. The narrator refers to Grenouille as greedy to posses every scent. He was not driven by money or material wealth. Grenouille was a collector obsessed with the need to collect scent. Greed also appears in Giuseppe Baldini, a master perfumer played by Dustin Hoffman. He wishes to earn back his wealth by taking in Grenouille to help him design perfumes under his name. The two characters have a mucky form of charity for each other that I would probably rather coin “mutually beneficial greediness.”

Pride: This is the real sin of Hoffman’s character. The master perfumer is vain and will not allow the idea that he has lost his creative nose. The humble Grenouille appears in his life, turning out to be more vain than he realizes. The relationship truly leaves the master perfumer humbled by his supernaturally talented student. Though Giuseppe is allowed the chance to flaunt his great nose to the public more than before.

Lust: Skirting close to greed often enough, Grenouille lusts after scent. Driven by the smell of beautiful women, he appears to only be lusting after their scent. He is a sexual predator of scent, unstoppable once he decides to have a smell. The women that embody the most powerful scents for Grenouille are those that are most chaste, the contrary virtue to lust. It appears that lust wins the battle in this film, especially when the center panel of Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights is reenacted.

Gluttony: Giving in to greed and lust is dangerous to some extent, but it was Grenouille’s gluttony that was shocking. He would stop at nothing to satisfy his primal urges, completely addicted to the sensations. Temperance does come eventually, ending the film. Blinded by his gluttony, Grenouille realizes that he captured his supposed desires only to realize he cannot really have what he needs to be happy. Temperance, in this case, is relatively close to giving up a dream.

Envy: The least addressed sin in this film. Grenouille, despite his hard life, does not appear to envy anyone. That is, until the end when he looks over the nude bodies and realizes his loneliness. The crowd, surprisingly envies him, but this is more of a hypnotic envy, beyond anyone’s control. Envy, in the case of this film, leads to kindness and respect.

Wrath: An expected sin when a murderer is involved. The murderer himself is almost without this sin. It is the other six sins that drive him. The father of the last murder is the epitome of wrath in this film, but even he is swayed to forgiveness under the pressure of some supernatural and hypnotic force of scent. This breaks the father, watching everyone envy the killer and eventually begging his forgiveness for the murder of his only daughter.

With vice and virtue so intermingled and protagonists and antagonists sharing them all, it is hard to define this movie's message with definite answers of morality. Perfume: The Story of a Murderer exists outside the usually clear-cut storyline of mainstream cinema, allowing emotional responses that, like in genuine life, are unsure. Bosch Would have been proud to see such intermingling of vices and virtues, muddying the waters of morality with a monstrous story of a most unusual nature.

Davin's Showing

2007-01-16T09:28:00.000-06:00

Hey all,

Finally I will be showing up to one of these screenings. We are going to try something different as well. A weekend showing. oooOOOOoooo exciting! Saturday February 3rd, 7:00 at Anna & Bjorn's. Hopefully this can work for many people. I am still kicking some film ideas through my head, and it will be decided upon/posted soonish.

-Davin

Red Hats

2007-01-15T10:12:00.000-06:00

We had a pretty good discussion of the film An Angel at My Table at Steve's screening (held back on the 2nd of this month). Since then, I've thought about and briefly researched the film, but during these explorations I encountered a startling series of events that seem beyond coincidence! I'll tell my story and let you decide what it all really means...

The film, to me, mainly spoke in colors. Red. Janet's hair was outrageous. In her youth especially the red was so bright... It was like a punch in the face. "THIS COLOR/HAIR MEANS SOMETHING," the film screamed at me. The bright red hair became symbolic of [young] Janet's uniqueness, her unspoiled imagination, the bright/fiery/intense world that she lived in, but that was only alive in her head. What we get is just a peak, through her hair (what's leaked out), of Janet's inner-world.

The contrast between Janet's inner-world and the real, outer-world is turned up with the filmmakers choice to work in complementary color schemes. In some scenes, everything around Janet (the walls, furniture, and clothing) is bathed in various shades of green ("opposite" of red). In France (maybe in other places too), Janet often wears green herself, as if we're to believe that she's integrated herself into this new life, or that she's found out who she really is. We can see, however, that she's only fooling herself into believing that she's a happy citizen of earth (France). She cannot fight the fact that she comes from planet Janet, and that she can only return there to find out who she really is.

Even as she grows older, but before she fully enters and is affected by the real world, her hair begins to fade. Like E.T.'s glowing heart, her hair is a sign of her well-being, her life-force. Some people even "steal" her life-force directly, by wearing bright red dresses, hats and shoes in her presence (her sisters do this for sure). These people now have the confidence, or at least optimism that Janet once possessed in childhood.

Janet's red hair got me thinking of another person in Literature (No, not Carrot Top, a fictional character.) who is identifiable by a red cap. In Catcher In the Rye, Holden Caulfield dons a red hunting cap when he goes out on the town. Like Ms. Frame's hair, I gather that Holden's red cap is significant in the way it visually separates the passionate Holden from the comparatively drab world. But I also remembered something my high school English teacher told us about the historical/cultural significance of a red cap and how it relates to death, especially in Scotland. Because Holden and Janet share a similar ancestry (Scotland/UK), I thought it would be pertinent, but I couldn't find anymore info on that track. Maybe that was a long shot anyway.

But this is where it gets weird.

I grew tired of looking through my fruitless search results for various combinations of "red cap symbolism Scottish," and found myself, once again, on Wikipedia where I found a page about Red Hat. A very general page where different entities, clubs, brands, etc., were listed because they somehow affiliated themselves with, well... red hats.

I spent some time looking over the entry on the linux distribution Red Hat, clarifying for myself, exactly what that was, and then I took a quick look at The Red Hat Society entry. I was tickled purple to see that this group was nothing much more than a bunch of older ladies wearing purple clothing and red hats... with no other real function than to get together and... wear purple clothing and red hats. I didn't think about the group again, until the next day.

That next day (last Saturday) Anna and I were being our opulent selves, walking through the Walker Art gallery and luncheoning at the Asian inspired, California gourmet restaurant 20.21 when, low do I behold, a group of ~50 year old ladies, in purple, wearing red hats! It clicked instantly. This was a group of Red Hatters! I told Anna what I could remember from what I happened to read the night before about the ladies, and we both agreed that it was very strange that I see this after just learning about it. We both spend time contemplating our existence and the function of coincidences like this in life, pay our check, and leave, never to be the same again.

You may have realized by now that I am no longer talking about An Angle at My Table, and I confess that I never intended to go back to the subject again in this post. I did enjoy that film, however, and I'm grateful to Steve to choosing a film I would have not seen on my own. And as much as I want to share my thoughts and hear yours about it, I also wanted to share this story that probably wouldn't be possible with out the Film Club, and seeing Steve's film choice in particular.

An Angel at My Table

2007-01-04T08:26:00.000-06:00

We had a great screening over at Steve's the other night. I wasn't able to write my thoughts yet (and now I can't for a week!), but for those of you who couldn't make the screening and want to see the film, we watched An Angel at My Table (1990).

Happy Viewing!
Bjorn

I'ts getting down to the wire

2006-12-31T15:13:00.000-06:00

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

Holiday Weekend.

2006-12-27T08:59:00.000-06:00

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.

How I watch a film

2006-12-21T14:20:00.000-06:00

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.

It's a Wonderful Film.

2006-12-21T08:36:00.000-06:00

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.

DaVinci Passwords

2006-12-12T20:58:00.000-06:00

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.

Screening Assignments

2006-12-11T09:40:00.000-06:00

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

Who Killed the Electric Car?

2006-12-07T11:52:00.000-06:00

*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?

First Screening!

2006-12-06T10:39:00.000-06:00

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!

Let's Begin.

2006-12-05T11:30:00.000-06:00

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

The Rules of Film Club.

2006-12-05T10:52:00.000-06:00

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.