Movie That Can't Movie

Clever marketing I'll give them that. That's about all I'll give them.

So where do I begin ...I threw up, and I came home shaking. And no this wasn't from a night of heavy drinking. I don't drink anymore but after seeing Mother! I wish someone had stuck a bottle of vodka up my ass. So many things bother me about this absolute garbage presented as art, (and I should know, I wrote my graduate thesis on Warhol). So, let's start with the big one: ripping off so many filmmakers I can't even count. I'll take you through the short list. The obvious one is Polanski, in particular Rosemary's Baby, then the body horror sub-genre created by one David Cronenberg which was totally bastardized. The pseudo-realism of Michelle Gondry, and the female protagonist suffering and being unconscionably passive a la Cassavetes (who is one of my favorite filmmakers).

'What have you done to its eyes!?' The iconic ending of Rosemary's Baby proving that the real horror is on the face of the person reacting, therefore there is no need to actually show it. What the human mind can imagine is always worse than any horror you can show. Again, epic fail Mother!

Horror movie that took forever to horror was not so much a fright or a smart unraveling of a mystery like say Get Out, which breathed new life into a dying genre. This was just torture. I paid Aronofsky to torture me for 2 hours and three showers couldn't shake that shit off of me. 

This blog post might not make much sense but that's how disoriented I am. Fuck this movie, seriously. I know that Aronofsky has a penchant for religious symbolism and imagery but pick a fucking lane. You either utilize the symbolism or you go full monty on the blood and guts. This was the latter as if I was watching a film student ripping off the SAW franchise. To say that this was an unpleasant experience is an understatement, but back to the religion stuff. There's a shit ton of it and he's spreading it thick like cement; he's layering it like a parfait; pick a metaphor. 

This was in the trailer so it's fair game. Really driving the Garden of Eden metaphor all the way home. 

One thing that my friend and I agreed on was this whole idea that Aronofsky seems to be obsessed with is the parable from the Old Testament where God is apparently drunk on the job and keeps creating societies that he disapproves of, boom comes a flood, and clean new start. That's actually explored and nuanced (somewhat sloppily in his prior film; Noah), but that sentiment is crammed down our throats so hard with a chimney sweep's brush. Apparently Aronofsky has never heard of nor is familiar with the concept of subtlety. I really can't go further into it without revealing the plot and the marketing department made so sure that they weren't going to give away ANYTHING to trick people into shelving out 12 dollars to see CENSORED CENSORED of fucking CENSORED CENSORED. Here are a few biblical themes that I'm just going to shuffle for you just to confuse you because I'm confused and I don't want to be the only one: Cain and Abel, immaculate conception, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jesus healing the blind, lots of Jesus actually; garden of Eden, forbidden fruit, original sin, there's some myth of Sisyphus sprinkled on it as well. It literally just builds until even the most well versed graduate student in Divinity would go; fuck this shit. 

Director David Cronenberg in between takes with his star James Woods on the set of the film Videodrome; which this film steals heavily from and as a Cronenberg superfan, it's infuriating. 

Want to watch a competent film with religious allegory check out Fellini's Satyricon, Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures, Todd Hayne's Poison, ANYTHING by Ingmar Bergman, or even some episodes of 'Lost' will do. 

Another thing that really pissed me off was that Aronofsky decided to throw out structure all together. You really would think that this was some bullshit made by a first year film student at a bottom tier film school (sorry film schools). Movie takes two and a half acts to movie and most of the first 110 or so minutes are following Jennifer Lawrence with a shaky hand held, camera making me more nauseous than watching Blair Witch on the big screen. It was done so much ad nauseam that I actually got to study her cool updo's and french braids pretty well because there was little else to do. 

Again, I really can't go into the plot, and if I did, you wouldn't see the film, but how about this; take my word for it. I'll even throw money into the pot. Don't see this movie. Or do, you might be a masochist, whatever. 

The golden rule of filmmaking that was first coined by the late great Billy Wilder and echoed by filmmakers worth their salt for generations is; 'respect your audience'. You're not making a film for yourself, you're making it so others will see it otherwise, what's the damned point? Aronofsky apparently didn't get that memo. 

Sofia's Epic Fail

4 out of these 7 women have speaking roles. 

Was that harsh? Well, watching her new film The Beguiled felt like a one and a half torture ride to nowhere's-ville. I want my time back, and my money. And I want her to make better films, but that's not going to happen is it? 

The film was marketed as a radical feminist revenge story, perfect for the chauvinist rhetoric of the Trump era, but Valerie Solanas it is not. It's not even a 'hell hath no fury…' kind of thing. As I said, it's about an hour and a half of nothing. Which is a fair assessment of basically all of her films, yeah I said it. It had such great potential. It's a Misery meets Gone with the Wind story based on a Clint Eastwood movie from the 70's (arguably the best era of America filmmaking). With a stellar cast like Kirsten Dunst, Colin Farrell, and the up-and-coming Elle Fanning, you were thinking how could this go wrong? In all respects apparently.

Admit it, this part from the trailer is why we all wanted to see it. 'Get me the anatomy book'.

I have to give it up to the marketing department. They did a great job with the theater art, the promo art, the trailers, etc. Basically building up this turd in a dress so that people would shelve out 11 dollars to see it. I saw it with a friend earlier today and we witnessed quite a few walk outs. At first we thought it was because we were basically screaming at the screen, but we couldn't help ourselves. Eventually, we realized that the walk outs had the right idea. 

So stop fucking with us, Coppola. Just because you're Hollywood royalty doesn't mean you can do no wrong. In fact you can do so much wrong to some seriously ripe and brilliant material that it kind of taints your family's legacy.

The film is photographed beautifully; with low-lit interiors, candlelight and sunshine, and dressing that looks like it's actually a house that has been lived in and not a matte painting that was put up the day before. Costumes are en pointe and that's about the only positive things I have to say about the film. I know it was just released, so unlike most of my reviews I'm not giving away the plot. Here's what we know. Colin Farrell is a Union deserter; a Irish mercenary who has been badly injured and is found on the outskirts of a large Southern plantation in Virginia. He is taken in by the children and their headmistress who have had to lay low three years into the Civil War. It's pretty obvious that 6 girls in their sexual prime or in puberty and a woman a bit past her prime but still hot AF (Nicole Kidman) would create sexual tension with the one man they're keeping in the house so palpable you could cut it with a bread knife.

I will give her the director of photography a lot of credit. He managed to make a dull film very pretty. So you have that to look forward to. 

Firstly, this house she runs with 6 pupils seems to have an endless supply of food and wine. What the actual fuck? Every movie about the Civil War, or any war for that matter is about people having no food or rations. Also, three of the girls don't even have speaking parts. That's a waste of space, they literally do nothing. You could just cut them out of the film and save the budget. For an hour and a half run time, I would say there's about 20 minutes of dialogue which is par for the course for a Sofia Copolla film. Every single time there is a moment for potential pathos, drama, and hubris, she builds that moment and then kills it. It's like getting really close to orgasm, and then the person falls asleep on you.

Although it appears deliciously sexually devious, the actually sexuality of this film has about as much erotica as a 13 year old's vampire fan fiction.  

It's almost as if Sofia is afraid of the sexuality of this film, which is basically the driving force of the plot. Even scenes that should be highly erotic are creepy and weird. Scarlet O'Hara crying on Ashley's chest was more erotic than anything in this movie. For a mostly silent film with no plot and no nuance of the main characters it seems to kind of move into the category of Avant-Garde, which I believe is actually Sofia's calling. But go Avant-Garde all the way. Film on 16mm silent Bolex cameras, with a 10 minute run time, and save us the grief. She so desperately wants to be considered a serious artist, but she comes off as uber-pretentious. She breaks so many film rules that it's just not right. 

I know breaking film rules can be fine, but what we think of as breaking is actually bending. Tarantino does it, Scorsese does it. But rules are there for a reason. Example: Your main characters have to be nuanced. They have to be three dimensional. They have to have motive good or bad. There has to be a plot that moves forward and doesn't just meander around waiting for shit to happen. I don't care how pretty it looks. 

People think that she's so unique because she plays up the subtlety which is actually giving her audience a giant middle finger. There's being subtle, which is fine, and then there's saying nothing at all, and that's what this film does. I don't need resolution, I can leave a film without closure as long as the film presents interesting questions to consider later. This film does not. You leave the theater thinking…'well, that happened'. Sofia is should really stop writing her own films because she writes about 30 pages and stretches it to an hour and a half run time (I keep mentioning that because it felt way longer). It's kind of sad that coming from such a talented family, we'll think of The Bling Ring as 'the good one'. Hard pass.

Trailer below...I mean...whatever.

Christine Didn't Make It

This is Christine Chubbuck coming to you live from WZRB in Sarasota, back to you George.

I don't usually take a somber tone, I mean 99% of what I say and write is sarcasm. But I watched a movie recently that really affected me, and I've seen quite a few of those. Contemporarily speaking, this was perhaps the most overlooked film of this past year. It's called Christine starring Rebecca Hall as the titular character of Christine Chubbuck who is famous for shooting herself on air at the network where she worked. Rebecca Hall could very well be the most underrated actress of our time. People kind of lost interest in her after she was upstaged by Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johansson in Vicky Christina, Barcelona. 

It's one of those films that makes you immediately go on Wikipedia because you think to yourself that no way is this based on a true story, but it is. The tragedy of Christine is very much steered by the patriarchy that is constantly in her way. The film is meditative and a strong character piece and if you don't know what happens in the climax it can seem to drag, and yet Hall carries it so brilliantly. 

Christine is a co-anchor at some local station in Sarasota, Florida…jealous? And she's interested in positive human interest stories, alas her boss doesn't give a shit because it doesn't sell. One could say that it's the female Nightcrawler but the opposite of that. She doesn't want to sensationalize the news, in fact she calls it exploitative.

'Jesus Christ, just make your stories juicy!'

What's truly tragic is that she is optimistic to the very end. In the opening scene (this film takes place in the 70's btw) she imagines she's interviewing Richard Nixon, knowing she'll never even get close. We learn throughout the film that she lives with her mother, and about to hit 30, is still a virgin. She hates pot smoking, which her mother regularly engages in, and has a general disdain for the shall we say 'free love' of the times. She is so determined to not be famous per se, but to succeed in the job that she so much loves to do; a job dominated by male culture. She even volunteers at a children's hospital and is desperate for human connection. The lead anchor she frequently works with is the handsome George played my Michael C. Hall, whom she is desperately in love with, but because of her awkward workaholic demeanor, she doesn't really have a chance until he invites her out to dinner only to tell her that despite her hard work and cooperation with the whole 'if it bleeds it leads' attitude the station has taken on, that George has been promoted to anchor in Baltimore in a top 20 market over her. What makes it worse is that he was able to choose someone to take with him and surprise surprise it's not her. Things are made worse when she find out that she a cyst on her ovary and the entire thing has to come out. 

The fake flowers that symbolize a lot more than you think. 

Over time, Christine realizes that everything is working against her. We don't really get a sense that she's suicidal but we get clues that she has some mental issues that are only exasperated by her circumstances. 

Aside from Hall, it's the direction of the movie that is truly special. The camera follows her into an abyss surrounded by 70's glamour. There is a brilliant scene where she's clearly distracted in an interview on air by the fake flowers on her desk. She abruptly stops the interview and throws the flowers at the camera operator saying that it's all she can think about right now. 

I suppose there's a tenacious stubbornness to her that a lot of us, especially women can relate to. She works in a highly sexist environment where her abstaining from drinking and partying is looked upon as weird and she herself is looked upon as aloof. The amount of time she spends working shows how passionate she is, but left and right she is shut down even when she is cooperative. Her boss has nothing but disdain for her, and they are at odds almost constantly.

The way the film is directed, we can see that not only is Christine at the end of her rope towards the climax, but she sees no other way out. We don't see the gun, not really. We see it in her bag, but we don't see her staring at it contemplating what she's about to do, which is the lazy way out. 

Her final and only revenge is to put on a very false and somewhat creepy facade by going to her boss' office and asking to be lead on the following Monday about the weekend news. She promises that it will be sensational, and in the most prophetic and unforgettable way, through the strangest smile she tells him; 'I'm agreeing with you'.

The real Christine Chubbuck

I've already told you what ends up happening to Christine, and sometimes when you're not quite ready for that moment even though you know that it's coming, you need to see it again. But I couldn't watch this again. It was directed so viscerally that I literally jumped …off of the exercise equipment I was on, but give me a break. 

Back to Hall, I really thought she'd be at least nominated, but the film was small, the film was dark, and if anyone should have won, it should have been Natalie Portman for her haunting portrayal of Jackie Kennedy, but Hall needs to be acknowledged not only for the aesthetics of Christine; the walking style, the hair, the mannerisms, etc. But it was one in a few times where an actor inhabits a character so intimately that it really bothers you. You want so much to know what's going on inside Christine's head and her descent into making the decision that she finally does, and yet you don't want to know; that's great acting. Hall did Christine Chubbuck justice in a subdued, understated performance of a woman who is pushed into a corner by her male colleagues and no matter how hard she fights and how much she compromises, she feels that she's left with no choice and no other way out. And there's a strangeness in that part of you that actually does understand that.

Trailer below, streaming on Netflix, highly recommended.

I Have Something For You to Watch on Halloween

One of the more memorable scenes from the film. Can't tell you what's going on though, and it's hurting my soul.

The VVitch came out of nowhere, and I do mean nowhere. Shot in some desolate woods in Canada over 25 days by a freshman director who looks like he just stumbled out of the most hipster hipster bar in Los Angeles, I had heard things about it. Mostly that it was legit the most terrifying, unsettling film that will make your blood run cold. I was assuming this was coming from people who had never seen The Shining, or Rosemary's Baby, or The Exorcist. But now that I too have seen it, I will gladly put The VVitch into that group. I've read Arthur Miller's The Crucible more times than I care to remember and the Salem Witch Trials were never handled with that much honesty and brevity since. 

Does this not remind you of a certain famous painting?

But this is not about that. And the parallels between it and the New Testament were so subtle, nuanced, and brilliant it made me think; 'wow, hipsters can direct'. Robert Eggers, barely 32 (so exactly my age) cast a film with an all British (with the exception of one Scot) cast for this unsettling horror-type movie. I'm hesitant to call it a horror movie, even though that's how it's been marketed. To me, it's a period piece; a bleak drama much like There Will Be Blood with a lot of seriously disturbing images and themes. This is not a film for your parents or for the faint of heart, seriously you've been warned. 

I am not going to give away any spoilers, what I will give you is the premise. Set maybe a few years prior to Salem, a Puritan family is banished for the patriarch's disagreements with his elders about interpretations in the Bible. Defiant, he moves his family; wife Catherine, daughter Thomasin, son Caleb, and two really annoying twins around 5 or so to the wilderness...oh and there's a newborn who's pivotal to the story. What he was thinking I don't know, but it's his pride that spurred the journey and that's already giving stuff away. Now, anyone who is a horror purist knows that only bad shit can happen to you in isolation in the woods. The daughter Thomasin is the central character, who is about to reach 'womanhood' i.e. puberty, and the parents discuss selling her to another family so she can properly deal with it, which was not uncommon at the time. They are completely isolated save for their farm animals one of which is a surly black goat with giant horns called Black Phillip. The twins claim that he speaks to them and they speak back, and as we know, when animals do that and only little kids notice it, it's a common horror trope. But then it launches into a whirlwind of bizarre and such visceral happenings that you WILL have trouble sleeping at night. Even though you live in the middle of the city and don't own any goats. 

Black Phillip

What is beautiful about the film is the pacing (borrowed no doubt from Ingmar Bergman) where it emphasizes the feeling of degradation and isolation and eventually hopelessness and loss of faith. The other major aesthetic (borrowed from Kubrick no doubt) is the decision to shoot exclusively with natural light. And anyone who has ever made a movie, whether a 3-hour opus or a student film knows that negating your Omni's is basically film suicide. But to get the authentic feel the director strove for, it paid off.

Again, can't say what's happening. It's not a cliché exorcism I can tell you that much.

Now, you're probably thinking, they are in the wilderness near creepy woods, the film is called The VVitch...there's a witch in the woods, bam, you solved the puzzle...NOPE! And if you want to know what's actually up, guess what, WATCH IT. Stay home from the lame Halloween party you were invited to where everyone will be dressed as either Donald Trump or someone from Orange is the New Black, and just cuddle up with a pet or a stuffed animal like a child because no matter how tough you think you are, this movie will crawl under your skin and scare the life out of you. 

The climax of the film...have I left a good cliffhanger?

It was so impressive to see a film that was not only shot for under 2 million, made the rounds at Sundance and got picked up by A24, but that resurrected a genre that's basically become a parody of itself. If we label it a horror film, it's definitely up there with the aforementioned Rosemary's Baby, The Shining, etc. And it was directed by a guy who's basically the bastard child of Polanski, Bergman, and Kubrick; not a bad label to have. AND it's his first film. This was such a relief and single handedly restored my faith in the genre while making me slightly suicidal. Just kidding, but it did stick with me for so long and so strongly that I'm still not able to shake it off. 

Oh and in its defense, people were wondering why the fuck it's spelled the way it's spelled and that's because that's what pamphlets that made rounds in the colonies around that time looked like when they were asking people to beware of VVitches. It's not a hipster thing...well maybe a little bit. There I just gave you Halloween plans, you're welcome. 

Trailer below. 

A New Film About The 'C' Word That You Need to See

Still from The Cancer Conflict

Many moons ago (last year), while I was the publicist for a festival in the Bay Area, I chanced on a really amazing filmmaker. I chanced on quite a few amazing talents, though this guy stood out in many ways. He was hilarious; a presence. And his film,  How to Lose Jobs and Alienate Girlfriends was his own brand of comedy. It was so unique in fact, that I made it a point to promote it to the fullest of my abilities, and no matter which interview I sent him to, he managed to kill it, to no surprise on my part. I got to know him better over the run of the festival and I'm very happy to say that we remained friends.

Director Thomas Meadmore on set.

He recently told me about a new doc that he's working on. In contrast to the aforementioned film, it takes a rather serious tone. I have to be honest (cover your ears, Thomas) when I first heard the title, my gut instinct was 'well interesting, but how do you plan to make this different?' And it didn't take me long after he sent me the trailer to figure it out. Here it is in his own words: 

The front line experience of what it's like going through cancer is horrendous. I had no idea. I thought chemo was like showing up and getting an injection that made you vomit afterward. But the emotional stress people experience astounded me. Often this stress is created by the uncertainty of where their life is suddenly going, what choices to make on how to treat their cancer, the treatment itself, or even the process behind co-ordinating it all. It's not so simple and going through this when trying to heal seems counter intuitive. This film is as much about these emotional challenges as much as the treatments they are taking.
There seems to be a divide, a war or sorts going on between western and eastern medicine, especially when it comes to cancer. With the western system struggling financially and the treatments themselves often creating problems where its argued they can be helped, and with chronic illness putting immense pressure on acute based systems, it makes logical sense to look at how alternatives could work 'with' orthodox, especially in a preventative sense. I don't know what the solution is long term, but I see a strong case for conversation and I'm hoping this film will be a catalyst for this.

I am a pretty harsh critic, probably because I'm so freakin' smart. (eye roll emoji), and there are few people I chance upon whom when they succeed it comes as no shock to me, because although a lot of this industry is based on dumb luck, there is some sincere talent that shines through. Such is the case with filmmaker Thomas Meadmore. His style and his eye are both incredibly distinct. His tenacity and passion shines through, and the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding is delicious. 

Another haunting still from the film. 

This new film promises one that will not only be thought-provoking and profound, and unlike most retrospectives you're likely to get about something horrible that we'd rather keep out of sight and out of mind unless directly or indirectly affected by it, it lures you in with a stripped down narrative of the courage and grace of the human spirit. It somewhat reminds me of a film I recently watched called We Were Here. It's a film about the AIDS pandemic, of which there have been many. Many concern themselves with  everything surrounding the crisis; the ineffectiveness of the Reagan government, the ACT UP movement, the AZT trials, the NAMES quilt...the list goes on. But this film reaches out and grabs you at your core and almost electrifies you. It's about what is the most important about these tragedies; the affected people themselves; their struggle, and their triumph, even if they end up losing the fight, the fight is valiant. That's what comes through in Meadmore's new documentary. It's an important film made by a very impassioned director. Where's the downside? 

The trailer is not up yet, but to give you a better idea of what you're in for here are some clips of Meadmore and his prior work: 

Below, an interview I set up for Thomas and fellow filmmaker from the festival Jack James (pats thyself on back) 

The Oscars are Coming Up and I Have a Bone to Pick

Todd Solondz

Let's be honest, I have many bones to pick (keep your dirty jokes to yourself). The snub list goes on and on. Can you believe that Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Monroe and PT Anderson have never won jack shit? Can you believe that Stanley Kubrick only won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects? Why is it that I keep watching this show, honestly? We all know it's so political it's almost rigged and that The Weinstein's run such expensive Oscar campaigns for their films that they are guaranteed nominations every year? Yeah, I'm saying it; you can buy a nomination if you have the money. It's clearly not based on merit, I mean come on. One anonymous member of the academy once said publicly that the way it works is that they receive all of these DVD's in the mail, with a watermark on them saying 'consider this...' Any one who has ever illegally downloaded a film (which is all of us) has seen that watermark. Anyway, he said that if they don't have the time, or they are bored, or don't get a DVD, it doesn't get watched, ergo it doesn't get voted for. A lot of the time, votes go to a person that an Academy voter likes, regardless if the performance was shitty or not. Why do you think Joaquin Phoenix never wins anything? I remember very well when esteemed documentarian Errol Morris who has been working for over 20 years on some of the most iconic documentaries in the American idiom FINALLY won for The Fog of War in 2004. The first words that came out of his mouth at the podium said it all; 'I want to thank the academy for finally paying attention to my films'. This is the man that made The Thin Blue Line and A Brief History of Time amongst a plethora of genius documentaries and only in 2004 did they finally give him the honors he well deserved. 

But my bone to pick I have to focus on one filmmaker because if I focused it on all the snubs this blog post would never end. One of my favorite filmmakers is Todd Solondz. I met him once when I was working at the New York Film Festival. I touched his arm, and I swear you guys, I saw Jesus. That's a lie, and even if it wasn't it wouldn't mean that much to me because I'm Jewish, but it was like a regular person meeting...Brad Pitt I don't know. This filmmaker has always worked slightly on the fringes of Hollywood and every film he's made has been strictly independent. Over time, he has garnered a cult following, and status as a rebel. He's quirky, funny, and undeniably weird. Even in real life he just looks like he'd rather be in his room staring into space. But this introverted man completely lacking of social skills has given us such gargantuan gifts of cinema that if only more people paid attention to, would have status as a reputable filmmaker, but he doesn't, except for his niche cult followers (myself included). 

Dawn Wiener in front of her locker at school.

In 1995, he made what I consider to be one of the best films of all time; Welcome to the Dollhouse. It concerns a lowly pre-teen loser named Dawn Wiener played impeccably by Heather Matarazzo. She lives in the whiter than white suburbs of some unknown Midwestern town, is constantly bullied by her classmates, and resented if not totally ignored by her family. Her plight as a woman (albeit a very young woman) is comparable to that of those great female characters that overcome insurmountable odds that we all applaud and shower with awards. Out of the twisted mind of Todd Solondz, this character rebels in her own very special way, which none of us would imagine anyone in her situation doing. She lusts after a popular guy that she has no chance with to the point of out right asking him for sex, almost kills her baby sister with a hammer, and has perhaps one of the most memorable and disgusting masterbation scenes in cinema. Suffice it to say she never gets her comeuppance. SPOILER ALERT: the film ends with her on a school bus driving to a summer camp her parents are making her go to, singing to herself, implying that no matter what she does, nothing in her life will change and she's doomed to be miserable for the rest of it. 

Something happened between director and star over time, because in the next series of films we learn that she has committed suicide. Solondz didn't make any direct sequels to Dollhouse, but made films about people that somehow knew about her. 

The image of Dawn Wiener in her 'sexy clothes' trying to seduce Steve Rogers has become iconic, well in niche circles.

As I said, over time Solodnz has garnered a following and with his much anticipated new film Wiener-Dog (Dawn's horribly offensive nickname in Welcome to the Dollhouse), the cast consists of much bigger industry names than when he first started working. I mean, Greta Gerwig is in it for chrissake. I just hope this doesn't mean he's sold out, but that he's finally being taken seriously. 

The only award this director has EVER won was 'A Filmmaker on the Edge' award (whatever that means) at the Provincetown Film Festival. That basically says it all. Even the Indie Spirit awards are afraid of him. If there's a filmmaker who truly displays an indie spirit, it's Solondz (and Harmony Korine) but that's a whole different story.

Solondz's biting indictment of suburban culture is hilarious and tragic.

He's a true Hollywood rebel in that unlike filmmakers that we consider to be rebellious we still constantly hear about because, yeah they are rebelling but somewhere along the line the acquiesced to the rules of the business. Solondz on the other hand, seriously does not give a shit. He barely gives a shit about his audience. He makes films about people that he finds interesting, and because he's such a social outcast, they are barely relatable, but my god they are fascinating. And whatever even the most liberal mind might deem 'too much' he'll throw into the plot. Because it's his baby, it's his project, and it's him on celluloid. Over almost two decades, this man has never lost sight of who he was, and his abiding belief in his talent as a filmmaker and dedication to his marginalized stories have brought him a success he probably never imagined or cared about. Now I know that if his fellow 'rebels' like PT Anderson, Harmony Korine, and Jim Jarmusch get no love from the Academy, it's almost ridiculous that I demand that he does. In fact, he probably not only doesn't care but doesn't want it. He does what he sought out to do and he did it on his own terms and continues to. Inadvertently, his films have become cult if not iconic. I for one definitely consider Welcome to the Dollhouse to be an integral part of my adolescence. And Dawn Wiener is just as much a feminist icon as anyone Meryl Streep has ever played. At barely 11 I was able to recognize that this was an iconoclast, and that his films though not all good were something to behold. So perhaps it's best that The Academy and basically all awards continue to ignore him, giving him total free license to do whatever the fuck he wants on film. Keep the money, the glory, and the false sense of entitlement out of his ego and away from his movies. But please acknowledge to me, and more importantly yourself, that Solondz is one of the most unique, galvanizing, and intriguing filmmakers of our time. 

Below, the trailer for Welcome to the Dollhouse.

Below, someone made a music video. Go them. 

The Most Self Indulgent Blog Post Imaginable: My Top 10

As some of you know, I have a definitive top 250 films list. And as less of you know, I'm a fickle bitch and I change it whenever I have time. But the top 10 remain the same somehow. Because I have no life, this is something I'm constantly tweaking and would like to share it with you now, not all 250 that's just rude, but how about just the top 10. I'm sure everyone who loves films have their own, and hey if A.O. Scott can put one out every year why not me? Because he works for the New York Times is why. Hurray for free blogging! Here we go. Remember it's totally subjective, but also very real. Before we go any further, I'm a film snob, so be forewarned. 

1.     La Regle du jeu "The Rules of the Game" (Jean Renoir) 1939 

Jean Renoir could perhaps be the greatest filmmaker of all time, he’s not my personal favorite, but this puckish satire about the Euro-upper class in between the two world wars is a subtle masterpiece in artistry, writing, and a scathing commentary on the human condition. A comedy of manners if you will, with brilliant performances and with Renoir at the helm, it’s nothing short of a masterpiece. It's a timeless commentary on how decadence, self-indulgence, and arrogance is inevitably the end of our souls, but when clouded by money and cocktails, we can go on not caring forever.

2. The Third Man (Carol Reed) 1949 

On the heels of Citizen Kane, Orson Welles put in arguably his best performance on screen, in what he referred to as a ‘star role’. His character doesn’t appear until the end of the third act, but is talked about throughout the entirety of the film. Set against the bleak backdrop of Vienna right after World War II, he’s teamed up with his bestie Joseph Cotton who acted opposite him in Kane in one hell of a mystery caper with one of the best twist endings of all time.

3. Some Like it Hot (Billy Wilder) 1959 

I just blogged about Wilder, so what can I say. All of his films found a place on my top 250, but this one ranks highest because I’ve never in my life experienced such a perfect comedy. It’s a constant stream of set-up to punch line, and not one time is it not funny. From the writing to the indelible performances from Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe, it is consummate in its perfection.

4. Fanny och Alexander "Fanny and Alexander" (Ingmar Bergman) 1982

 As with Wilder, there are quite a few Bergman films on my list. I honestly don’t know why I prefer this one above the rest, it’s of his later catalogue, where most would say he started slipping, but it’s so deeply personal and so artfully crafted that I believe it to be his best. And if you have 5 hours and about 130$, you can watch the unedited version on Criterion.

5.  8 1/2 (Federico Fellini) 1963 

What can I say about Fellini, Wilder may be my favorite director, but Fellini is whom my heart really belongs to. Here’s a man who said, what does it matter, it’s only life. A man who’s films reflect not his reality but the endless bizarre nature of his imagination. This film is his most self-indulgent considering it’s basically about him not being able to figure out what to direct next, so he wrote a film about it. But with Fellini, it never feels self-indulgent. His attitude is so carefree and whimsical towards filmmaking, though on set he’s known as a bit of a dictator, that every thing he directs seems like a gift.

6. La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (Carl Theodore Dryer) 1928

This film was band in almost every country upon release and the director died thinking the last print had been burned and his greatest masterpiece never to be seen again until by some miracle it was found in the insane asylum closet in Holland. Turns out the doctors had ordered it when it was still legal, and forgot about it. Historians and archivists slaved to not only put it back together but to restore it so that we could all bask in its glory. I have no idea what the film community today would be without it. It’s more than a film; it’s a piece of history.

7. A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes) 1974 

John Cassavetes is perhaps the one director whom I think anyone should aspire to be like. Known as the paragon of the American independent film, this actor turned director would take no salary, and work on improve with his wife Gena Rowlands and his small group of acting buddies on a story that they would later film in his apartment. This story of a woman quietly unraveling is so gut wrenching that it absolutely eats away at your core even if you can’t relate to it. To be able to do that is what separates the hacks from the artists. Besides, if I didn't put this film on the list, my mother (who is Gena Rowlands' #1 fan) would kill me. 

8. Cabaret (Bob Fosse) 1971

Yay! A musical. Me personally, I worship the ground Bob Fosse walks on. This was his first feature and has become iconic since. Films like Chicago, Burlesque, basically any musical that exists today borrow from its aesthetic. Fosse was the first one to use editing to free the dancer from gravity rather than shooting them on a presidium arch like we see in the 50’s. Taking place in the troubled Weimar Republic of Berlin between the two wars, it concerns a lowly cabaret performer (Liza Minelli) but really is a social commentary on people’s desperate need to remain ignorant, coupled with some of the most memorable choreography and musical numbers in film history. It’s definitely my favorite musical of all time, and though there will never be another Fosse, it’s fun to watch people try. 

9. Ladri dei biciclette "The Bicycle Thieves" (Vittorio De Sica) 1948 

If you went to film school, read critic blogs or know anything about the catalogue of classic films, this film usually is seen as #1. It’s the birth of the Italian Neo-Realist movement, telling the heartbreaking story of a desperate father in post-war torn-apart Italy who just wants to be able to take care of his family. If the world was ending and we had only one film to put into a time capsule so the mutants in silver jumpsuits would know what cinema was, we would throw a copy of this one into it. 

10. Notorious (Alfred Hitchcock) 1946

I know I’ve said that Rebecca is my favorite Hitchcock film, but this is in my opinion his ‘best’. Best and favorite are vastly different. It stars two of his favorite collaborators; Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant as star-crossed lovers in a spy thriller that with it’s signature Hitchcockian flair will put you on the edge of your seat. This is the film that in my opinion defines Hitchcock as the Master of Suspense and cements his status as an auteur. 

Below some clips to drive my points home...