HOM:

Giving you something to read on the toilet since 2009.

"The mistake lies in seeing debate and discussion as secondary to the recovery of meaning. Rather, we should see them as primary: art and literature do not exist to be understood or appreciated, but to be discussed and argued over, to function as a focus for social dialogue. The discourse of literary or art criticism is not to recover meaning, but to create and contest it. Our primal scene should not be the solitary figure in the dark of the cinema but the group of friends arguing afterwards in the pub."
-Don Fowler (1996) "Even Better Than The Real Thing"

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Empathy for the Ectoplasmic - Buck


We ‘ve all seen him. Up in the attic or down in the basement of some somber structure. Wearing his white sheet, peeping out of his eye holes, rattling the Dickensian chain that binds him to eternal suffering. Thanks to countless movies, it seems a given that ghost are at best pathetic and at worst evil. But like the clown that laughs to mask his tears, the ghost moans for want of a song and rattles his chain to show his spirit unbroken.

Contrary to popular belief, horror movies are not the natural habitat of the ghostly. Horror movies are built around violence and, by nature, ghosts abhor violence. Although by definition a ghost is born of a turbulent end, it does not mean that they enjoy or propagate violence—especially all of that accompanying blood, guts, and gore. It seems obvious that a ghost would want to forget it’s untimely and traumatic end and instead move forward into a new, excited life (afterlife) of materializing through walls, playing lovable tricks on new home owners, and transcending space and time. But, unfortunately, we are all too eager to keep these poor creatures out of comedies, romances, and dramas, and instead limit them to the company of serial killers, vampires, monsters and other Horror movie beings of questionable repute. Like a person looking for paradise and realizing that it is all around, let’s enable the ghost to realize his exorcism in the here and now through good movie roles.

To understand the need for correcting the injustices inflicted on the undead, we will look at examples of both offending and praiseworthy ghost-based movies.

A Haunting in Connecticut, or any of the other identically offensive movies of its ilk. Based on a true story that occurred exclusively in the toxic flora and fauna of the writer/director/producer’s brain, A Haunting in Connecticut tells the story of a teenager stricken with cancer (too serious a topic to be in a film this bad) who moves with his parents to a house that formerly happened to be a funeral home/Séance Club/gruesome murder site. As his condition worsens, our teenage hero begins to teeter between the lands of the living and the dead, and before long, he and his family are battling evil spirits with the help of a kindly ghost occupying the house. Like any standard Hollywood horror movie there are two kinds of ghosts: the good ghosts and the bad ghosts. Simply put, the evil ghosts only care about initially unsettling and then eternally damning their living victims, while good ghosts are sadly creatures (typically past victims of said evil spirits) who provide assistance to the living and our rewarded at film’s end with a release from their ghostly state. The most often cited example of the “good ghost” is Grandpa from Troll 2. At the moment when the trolls’ clever use of Nilbog (goblin spelled backwards) milk finally has rendered our heroic family vulnerable to supernatural digestion, Grandpa materializes to stop them with bolts of lightening—a trick, he explains to his worried grandson in one of Troll 2’s many classic lines, that he did not learn in hell, “but from someone I knew who had been there”. Whew! Thanks grandpa. The good ghosts remain completely good and the evil ghosts completely evil. With such a boring trope, it’s no wonder that filmmakers feel compelled to fill any movie involving ghosts with blood, sex, and special effects.

Ghostbusters and Ghost

In the hit movie Ghost, however, Patrick Swayze plays a good man whose good spirit seeks to save his true love, Demmie Moore. Thankfully in this film, the ghost has escaped its “proper” role in the horror movie across the lot and materialized in a romantic drama. Here the ghost is not exploited for mere shock value but plays a role both poetic and compelling. You only have to see the “Unchained Melody scene” to know the emotional depths of which I speak. From Ghost, we realize that spirits aren’t all that different from the living because fundamental to any life or afterlife is a need for meaningful connection. The very human need to communicate or touch or be known by another provides the impetus of any good ghost story.

It’s important, however, to remember that ghosts are not just humans lacking breath. In fact, they have a psychological complexity unique to their supernatural state. No one speaks more eloquently of this than Ghostbuster’s Slimer. Aside from the occasional hotel cake or sliming, Slimer wants nothing to do with the world of the living. He acts on his own unique desires and motives. Not only does he appear different than a typical human turned ghost, but also from other ghosts in the same film! It took a comedy to reveal that ghosts can act, think, and look different, as well as be unconcerned with what the living think of them (“No more Dana, only Zul”). Wizards (Harry Potter), vampires (True Blood) and others have finally gotten their creative due; it seems only fair to give the sophisticated and versatile ghost a try too.

Ghost, Ghostbusters, The Sixth Sense, and a handful of other movies reveal that the ghost has outgrown the haunted house. They are ready for candle-light dinners, car chases, sweeping epics, cast-parties with Tracy Morgan, and anything else that the bright lights of Hollywood have to offer. Contrary to the movies you’ve seen, ghosts have nothing to do with vampires—let them into the light and give them their close-ups.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Box-office futures: Land of the Lost, for once Hollywood is right to oppose innovation



As Tim and I commented on in an earlier post, there is something going on with the release of films world-wide. Hollywood is indeed, on hard times financially. I realized this recently while seeing a full-screen advertisement for 'Avatar on DVD' after clicking on a link to the box score from the Cincinnati Reds vs. Pittsburgh Pirates stitch-ball game. How on earth does Avatar need to completely consume my computer screen while I'm trying to check RBIs and ERAs? Then it hit me, Hollywood executives had already paid for that advertisement, years ago, back when James Cameron walked in their office with the script of Ferngulley and uttered the words, "Picture this dudes, things floating around in-front of the movie-goers face while shit is being blown up in the background."

I am often really torn while I'm enjoying a 'blockbuster'--and I do enjoy them (I even enjoyed Land of the Lost). I believe in a simple life as a good thing. We probably shouldn't rely on natural resources being processed on the other side of the world for our own consumption. That is, if we believe that our earth is on hard times. As it is, a blockbuster is probably not the most 'sustainable' thing--on many levels. First off, the sheer existance of a blockbuster implies and necessitates a lot of 'not-simple'/'un-sustainable' stuff. Most likely, going to see a movie means that you live in a city. That city probably has a lot of concrete. It probably has fruits and vegetables year round. It probably has internal combustion engines in it. Most likely, you did not walk to the theater. You probably checked movie times on your computer. The theater probably has air conditioning. Depending on if you purchased drinks and food or snuck them in, you are going to throw them away or leave them on the floor for a zitty 16 year-old to pick up after the movie. The theater probably does not sell compostable-only foods. The studio responsible for producing the movie probably are in Los Angeles which is ruled by cars and highways and has no immediate water source for it 17 million inhabitants. In other words, sustenance farmers in Costa Rica are not putting on a community play for you after a hard days work of harvesting fair-trade coffee beans.

So, as one who, in theory (definitely not in practice), supports the idea of sustenance farming and simple agrarian living I have to sqaure my own ridiculousness with enjoying a multi-million dollar movie. Afterall, if I did not pay £16 to see Avatar in 3-D then the movie producers and executives that predicted I would, would not have received funding from the banks and investors that paid for Avatar to be made. And so when I saw this full screen ad for Avatar (which btdub, the DVD will have to be in 2-D because I have not dropped three grand on a 3-D flat screen yet and Avatar in 2-D is just not worth it) I realized that the inter-connectivity of ESPN, ABC, FOX, Ingenious Media, Foreign release dates, my computer, MAC, the internet, Al Gore, Ford, and 3-D comic books; is really complicated.

This being so complicated makes predicting the success (or not) of a movie really interesting. And then today I read this article about America’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). They approved the second of two exchanges that would allow trading of contracts based on films’ box-office takings. What is interesting about this is that trading on the 'risk' of a movie being good or not relies on movie executives like the Weinstein Brothers projecting how good or bad a movie is going to be. If they, or Disney, or Fox, or whomever decides that it is going to be good then it is going to get good press and lots of rights to advertising. And, in theory, the movie will be successful for one of two reasons, either 1) the media told the mass public that this movie is good, or 2) It really was 'good'.

And so this is where I get even more frustrated with the idea of movies being 'good' or not and this is why I started this blog. The indie world and the blockbuster world are often at odds with each other. My point here, and I don't think I made it very well, is that both worlds are kind of ridiculous and rely on one thing that no one can control: talent. And when it comes to 'talent' I think we should be the judge; we being those that make up this blog. It is only in a community of friends that a film should be enjoyed and judged. It is my escape from the extravagance of movie making and Hollywood and all the jumbled mess of our capitalism. And this important, I think. It is worthwhile to me especially as I see my neice and nephew enjoying movies as much as I do. The ability of Disney to make stuff that kids love is as phenomenal as the happy meal. On that note, I recently read about an evangelical christian group that is making films pro-bono as a protest to the ill-values dominating current flims--as they see it that is. But this is really interesting. In a way, it is kind of what we are doing by blogging about movies, we are just doing it as a post-script.

I got nothing.

Here is the link to the Economist article on projected movie revenue trading.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Kick-Ass - Jeremy Levan

I had big expectations for this movie and I am still not sure (after a night of sleeping on it) if they were met or not.

I think the question: why are there not super heroes? is a good and hilarious question. This question is the premise for the movie. From this question there is a lot of cool stuff that an ensuing story can do. You can dip into classic comic book lore and create a character that goes from nerd to hero. Have a group of nerd friends that toe the line between keeping the story going and adding some funny lines. You can develop the characters that have real vengeance and take the movie to the surreal level. You can give shout-outs to a lot of classic stories and make fun of them at the same time. You can basically just have a lot of fun with this question and that is what this movie is--fun.

I love Nick Cage! He was the absolute perfect choice to play 'Big Daddy'. Sure, he makes movies that are claimed to be lame but they are all lame movies that I love and watch over and over. I mean check out this list of just great movies: Raising Arizona, Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds, Adaptation, Grindhouse, Face Off, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Rumble Fish, Honeymoon in Vegas, Kiss of Death, Leaving Las Vegas, The (freaking) Rock, City of Angels, Snake Eyes, Adaptation!, Matchstick Men, National Treasure. And these are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head. He takes a lot of crap in Hollywood, I think. In my opinion, he should rule Hollywood. He probably won't ever be invited to do the Newsweek Oscar Roundtable, at least unless he some how fools everyone with a Blindside-esque performance, but until then he'll have to remain one of the best of all time in my book only.

So back to this movie, he plays the real super hero that kicks ass way more than Kick-Ass (Aaron Johnson) does. He is cast as this guy that has been blinded by revenge and has possibly pulled his child, Hit-Girl, into a life of vigilante crime. But he is just so dang likeable, and the culminating events of the movie pay tribute to the rightful elevated status of super heroes, human or not. They get a pass card for all things that dictate societal norms. And maybe this is what the premise question begs. In a world where everyone is normal and boring, why do only athletes and movie stars live the perceived life of super heroes? On this level, I think my expectations for this movie were met. I really wanted the movie to be about this question and then to answer with a bunch of blow-em-up, shoot-em-up scenes. And these scenes were great.

The only thing that kept me from getting super jacked about this movie is that it dragged along for a while. Aaron Johnson plays Kick-Ass and sifting through his transformation into a super hero took a while. Christopher Mintz-Plasse's evolution into Red-Mist also took a while, but when it did, it was really fun. Clark Duke also seems to be getting his deserved parts. Ever since he and Michael Cera made their on-line episodes about life in L.A. I though he was funnier than Cera. He wasn't that great in Hot Tub Time Machine but I thought he was really good in this.

Overall, I think I really liked this movie. I think I'll like it more the next time I see it. Definitely check it out though if you want to see a movie that is fun and not The Hurtlocker or Avatar.

The Messenger - Tim Johnston


If the Iraq War was a trilogy, Green Zone would be the first part, The Hurt Locker the centerpiece and The Messenger the final act. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster), was injured in Iraq and is reassigned to the Army’s Casualty Notification service. Along with his partner Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) it is his unenviable job to inform the next of kin about the death of their loved one. While attempting to cope with Tony's austere discipline, Will is attracted to a women that he has informed of her husband's death - despite all the moral conflicts this entails.

Israeli filmmaker Oren Moverman combines a brilliant script with amazing cinematography. Most remarkable is the length of sequences without cuts. There are scenes that carry one for five minutes (leave the car, enter the house, deliver the message, deal with grieving parent, leave house, drive off) with no cuts - immersive, skillful cinema at its best. Equally astonishing is the fact that try as you might you cannot predict what will happen next - a rarity in Hollywood.

The Messenger is the first big role for Ben Foster who previously has been known for his roles in the Six Feet Under TV series and X-Men: The Last Stand. His portrayal of a shell-shocked vet, trying to find his place in Americana is stunning. The scenes in which he - overcome with rage and paying homage to Raging Bull - punches the white walls of his sterile apartment while listening to death metal are as honest as they are raw. After shocking night-vision images of US soldiers shooting non-threatening Iraqis while listening to Drowning Pool raised the old question whether violent lyrics spawn violence, this film shows what Heavy Metal is really about: Letting go of anger.

Woody Harrelson as the seemingly emotionless Captain, whose abandoning of alcohol is just another symptom of commitment to the job, is once again terrific. Despite the graveness of the subject matter, Harrelson adds a subliminal element of comic relief that is hard to put one's finger on - is it perhaps nothing more than his tooth gap? He was rightfully Oscar-nominated and would have won if it wasn't for Christoph Waltz.

Like The Hurt Locker and Green Zone, The Messenger takes a self-reflective, non-glorifying stand on the Iraq War. This new generation of war movies replaces the nerve-wracking battle scenes of Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line with gut-wrenching moral conflicts, solitude and doubt. If these are forerunners of things to come, at least the cinematic department will be able to say: 'Mission Accomplished'.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Cemetery Junction - JK Simmons

I saw Cemetery Junction tonight and upon leaving the theatre decided to put it in my Top 5. Don't get your expectations too high... it may not be for everybody, but I loved it.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Whip-It - Robbie Culpepper (Not Worth Seeing)


Let it be said from the start that I only half-watched this movie, and by that I mean: I was on an airplane. The screens were not in the backs of the headrest but about 6 rows ahead of me. I was reading a book. And they served dinner (pasta) with drinks (ginger ale). Also, I didn't bother to put in the headphones because I figured that even without sound I could understand what was happening, between bits of spaghetti and Zorba the Greek.

Whip It exactly follows your typical, run-of-the-mill, predictable, and completely boring teen-movie storyline. The main character (Ellen Page) is a badass who wants tattoos and wears Poison t-shirts, but her overbearing parents want her to be a pageant girl. Actually, only her mom is overbearing. Her father is a shell of a man who lost his will to act for himself long ago. After showing up to a pageant with blue hair, Ellen has a fallout with her folks. Somehow she sees a roller derby match...I think she went with her friend who wants to be a badass but is only a supporting character. Anyhow, Ellen decides she wants to become a derby girl because those girls have attitude and do what they want, etc. So she tries out, and because she's really fast, she makes the team.

They do make roller derby look cool, and the cast of derby girls is great: Drew Barrymore, Kristen Wiig, Eve, et. al. And Jimmy Fallon is the announcer, if that makes it any cooler (I honestly don't know). And the tricks they do to generate speed are neat enough. But that's where it stops.

So Ellen gets in with these older girls and they teach her how to party and have fun but also not be a total hussy, which you can tell is what they all were. The best scene, as far as I could tell, was when they all went to this party--a classic, hollywood-typical where everybody is good-looking and drinking tons of beer and sitting in hot tubs hooking up--and Ellen meets this guy who is in a band. And the band rocks, blah blah blah.

So they start hooking up, the derby team does well, she gets in tons of fights with her parents (who don't know about the derby), and all the teenage girls in the audience are getting pumped.

You can probably guess what happens: Ellen and the dude get into some rough waters, the roller derby team makes it to the finals, Ellen's parents find out and forbid her to compete, etc. What's going to happen?

You guessed it. Ellen is backstage at a beauty pageant, totally pissed and depressed. Dad, who finally gets some balls, picks up the whole derby team in his decidedly creepy van, and rescues Ellen from the blasted pageant and delivers her just in time for the big match. Dad, with kid sister, nestles in among some rough-looking dudes and watches the match, which is intense and involves some slow motion crashes. Mom, at some point, wanders in looking completely lost. You know the look if you ever seen a disney movie.

Anyhow, SPOILER ALERT, Ellen crashes at the end, the good gals lose, but they keep their pride and Ellen is popular and she gets back with the dude and her parents decide that they can support what she's doing.

I've heard it said that a movie is really good visually speaking if you can watch it without sound and still get what's happening. Because then the cinematography is doing its fair share of the work of storytelling. But this movie succeeded on those grounds because it was so freaking cliché.

That said, if I had a daughter and she and her 13 year old friends wanted to go see this, I'd probably sit a couple rows behind them and let them feel empowered for a bit. I'm sure my mom felt the same way about Last Action Hero and Three Ninjas, which I rented relentlessly for about 3 years in my early teens. But God help me if I ever become such a pusillanimous kind of man as that father. Eeesh.

The September Issue - Robert Culpepper


KDJ reviewed this movie back in October (here: http://hashingoutmovies.blogspot.com/2009/09/september-issue-worth-seeing.html) but I think it's worth revisiting because it's a well-made doc about a part of our culture that really fascinates me. And I think ideas of 'fashion' and clothes and style pervade our lives whether or not we're aware of it.

As its title suggests, the movie follows the editors of Vogue through the creation of its September Issue, which is like the beginning of the year in fashion. It's always the largest issue in terms of paper, and this specific one is the largest magazine ever created. No pressure, right? At the center of the film is Anna Wintour, a difficult woman who fits her surname so well she could easily be a character in an Austen novel. She's basically a super-bitch: very demanding, hard to work for/with, merciless. She decides what flies in fashion, even advising noted designers like Oscar de la Renta on what they should put in their shows.

Yes, she dictates. All the time. And she always gets her way.

Opposite her is a woman named Grace Coddington, Vogue's Creative Director. (Interestingly, both women are British and together run American Vogue--I found this mildly offensive). They are certainly equals in abilities, and they often clash. But the difference between Grace and Anna--and I think, the reason I like Grace better--is that Anna never concedes. Grace must bow out sometimes (though once or twice in the film she makes a call behind Anna's back to hold on to an artistic principle).

I would say the film is just as much about Grace as it is about Anna, but only because Anna is so cold and stoic. Grace opens up and shares her feelings. Anna only lets us in at the end of the movie when she's being interviewed directly, sitting in a chair in a set up kind of environment. Kyle referenced the moment when she's talking about how her brothers and sisters all do 'beneficial' things like edit newspapers or work for NGOs, and how none of them respect what she does. This, despite the fact that she is the author, almost like God, of the fashion world.

When asked what her greatest strength is, she says decisiveness. She says her greatest weakness is her children. I don't know if by that means she wished she didn't have them, or if she realized she was never available to them physically/emotionally/etc. Regardless, while I want to judge her really hard for being a bitch to her family, designers, and the people she works with, you get the sense that for her genius to come out like it has, there was no other option. She couldn't be a better mother, friend, boss, whatever--and achieve the level of expertise that she has. You can decide if that's good, bad, or neutral.

Aside from the human drama of making a killer magazine, I think this movie is really about art and commerce and how they fight and then go get a drink together. Equally, the idea of style as a means of expression (such that even having no 'fashion sense' telling of a person) is as important as the way we speak, how well read we are, the kinds of movies we watch, what kind of car we drive or wish we drove, where we live, what we do on the weekends, etc. And the idea of wearing someone else's art is the ultimate act of appropriation. And that's actually really cool. And somehow that helps explain a woman like Anna Wintour.

For the record, I set out to talk about Grace in this movie and really got off track. Just goes to show you how powerful Anna Wintour is.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Whatever Works - Stephen A. Sansom


I really like Woody Allen movies. They're clever; they are often meta-textual, like they reference other movies or talk to the camera (see ode to Fellini's 8 ½ in Stardust Memories' u.f.o. scene); they sometimes make me feel like I'm watching a really heady play at a fringe theatre.


Yet even when I was 18 and first began checking out his movies en masse from Hoover Public Library, I realized there was a undeniable pessimistic streak in Allen's films, like everything must be a downer to be legitimate. They even inspired me to create a (truncated) list of a pessimist's media-musts: for film, watch Woody Allen; for music, listento Pavement; for books, read Vonnegut.


It seems like Allen smashed all his pessimistic tendencies into a single character in his latest film, Whatever Works. Boris Yellnikof, the downbeat protagonist, is a septuagenarian hyper-cynic with a failed marriage, fatherhood, suicide, and apparently a failed career for 'almost but not quite wining the nobel prize for physics'. He however is easy to receive as an Allen stand-in and has an enjoyable wit that is as quick as he is to call one of his eight-year-old chess students a neanderthal.


Unfortunately I only just got

used to his likeable unlikeability when the worst thing I've ever heard popped into the movie and stayed: Melodie St. Ann Celestine's atrocious, inauthentic, insulting southern accent. Basically she's a wayward southern bell from “Meeseeseepee” who left a broken family for the “Ceetee.”


This is where my review ends. Seriously. After listening to her talk for twenty more minutes, we turned off the movie and sent it back to the netflix tupelo-via-santa monica hell from whence it came. It's like she learned her accent from an accent coach who had never been east of beverly hills, who in turn had learned it from an off broadway tour of gone with the wind. I thought that any second she would drop it for the privledged hollywood shallow chitter I knew came natural but it never happened. Instead the movie dragged on with her blabbing about Mississippian 'feesh faystivals' and how 'straynge' New York is. Evan Rachel Wood (the actress) is from Raleigh, North Carolina; she should know better.


So, I have to admit, we turned off the movie. I'd like to know how it ends though. I'm hoping a certain character has an 'ayceedent' that does irreparable destruction to her 'vocahl' chords.


Amen Matt. I'll never watch the Blindside without bitter resistance and earplugs.