Arcade Fire Sprawl 2 Interactive Music Video

Arcade Fire released the music video of their 2010 song “Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains)” yesterday, and as I consider putting together a best music videos of the year list, this video unlike anything I’ve ever seen, or better yet experienced, just jumped to the top of my list.

It’s an interactive web based music video directed by Vincent Morisset (he also directed this year’s “Inni,” an art house concert film) in which the viewer makes the video come alive by dancing or moving in front of a web cam, and it can be found at www.sprawl2.com. It’s constructed using still frames and HTML such that as the user moves faster or slower to the song, the characters on screen move accordingly in their patterned choreography.

“For a long time, I’ve been wanting to do an interactive project without any interface. Something really primitive and fun. A web experience free of clicks or buttons,” Morisset said on his website. “The idea is to affect the pacing of the film with your movements. You are invited to dance in front of your webcam. There is no specific rules, no complicated “minority report” tricks. Just an invitation to move your arms or your butt on the music. The quicker you move, the faster the frames play. You slow down, the characters in the video slow down. You freeze and the video starts to loop on the beat, creating a new choreography in the choreography.” Continue reading “Arcade Fire Sprawl 2 Interactive Music Video”

2011 Recap: Seeing film’s future in 3-D

Reflecting on the year in film in 2011.

2011 was a backwards looking year for film, and only in recent weeks have we begun to climb out of our nostalgic holes and emerge rejuvenated.

Hollywood is historically bad at correcting former mistakes, and at the dawn of each new technological advancement in film, we forget how to run or even walk and start by crawling once again.

2011’s culprit was 3-D, which bombarded us in more movies than any year in history. The words “Shot in 3-D” nearly lost their meaning, and the technology was almost considered dead, written off as another rising and falling fad in the cycle of Hollywood gimmickry.

But as films like “Hugo” finally emerge, we get a good sense not just of how 3-D can improve the visual aesthetic of a film but how it can actually be incorporated to tell stories differently. And interestingly enough, this growth is part of a Hollywood cycle all its own. Continue reading “2011 Recap: Seeing film’s future in 3-D”

Let’s talk about Sexploitation: The Stewardesses

What’s the most number of people you’ve ever watched porn with? None? Five? 10? More?

How about 200?

Last night I saw a special screening of “The Stewardesses,” a 1969 sexploitation film shown in 3-D. The exploitation genre is an expansive one of many forms of horror, action and campy comedy, but in an article I wrote for the IDS Weekend here, I said that some of these sexploitation films “bordered on soft and hardcore pornography.”

There’s nothing “bordered” about “The Stewardesses,” a full-fledged softcore adult film with flashes of a plot (amongst more gratuitous flashes of other things) so that it could be slightly more accessible to a wider audience, despite the fact that it had a self-assigned X-rating in the then new MPAA rating system that restricted it to select grindhouse theaters.

The movie is a barrel of laughs and has enough moments of unadulterated sex that aren’t exactly thought provoking. But there’s a temptation to not want to analyze the movie, simply because it is so fun. But “The Stewardesses” is important in one of two ways. It is firstly a cinematic relic and time capsule, and it is secondly an example of how people react to pornography in group settings.

“The Stewardesses’s” place in history is a peculiar one. In 1969, it was the first 3-D adult film ever made.

And believe it or not, it was more profitable than “Avatar.” Made for merely $100,000, it grossed $25 million worldwide, and with a profit of 250 times more than its budget, it is still the most profitable 3-D film ever made.

Although, the film’s box office performance is not exactly a good indicator of the film’s quality. It’s quite bad actually, in a wonderfully campy and fun way.

In terms of film, it’s poorly photographed (even for a porno, with crucial body parts often poorly cut out), the 3-D is a laughable gimmick (typically with feet, pool cues, cups and not boobs poking out of the frame), the story is flimsy and inserted at the front and back ends of the numerous sex scenes in between, and the dialogue is corny, blunt and awkward in the best way possible.

In terms of pornography, it’s even dated on our standards. Male genitalia and even the image of penetration were strictly off limits and would not even become legal until a few years later. At one point, a stewardess is tripping on acid (“The whole house to myself. Well if my parents are on a trip, maybe I should take a trip too. I can do acid!”) and picks up a lamp with a bust in the shape of a head from what looks like a Greek statue. A woman in the audience said “uh oh” and seemed to telegraph her dirty thought that this character would be shoving the top of that phallic lamp where it didn’t belong.

Although strangely, that may have been less odd and shocking than what actually happened, in which this naked woman began making out with the lamp as bad special effects flashed colored silhouettes of a man having sex with her, suggesting her mind trip.

It’s these sort of outbursts and reactions that make exploitation films so much fun. Watching it in a group setting, a good number of chuckles were had at the expense of pilot Brad Masters (what a great porn name) or the lesbian Jo Peters, who made a hilariously bad attempt to convince one woman to strip down to imagine she was swimming.

Another audience might get particularly quiet or be shocked at the hardcore stuff we see today, but the tame rubbing and kissing that makes up these softcore films elicits a whole different reaction. It doesn’t help that many of the sex scenes are not filled with erotic grunting and moaning but rather gentle elevator music, Indian mantras or other eerie soundtracks.

Contemporary audiences perhaps have never seen something like this, least of all in a group setting as large as this one and given the pervasive amounts of porn on the Internet, which I need not go into any further.

But “The Stewardesses” was not one of its kind in the 60’s and it was not the last either. Other sex films about women in actual jobs followed this one, rather than more films in which women were merely punished and abused for lurid amusement. And many received equally large distribution and attracted huge crowds of people.

The fact of the matter is, that type of audience does not exist any longer. The audience I saw it with maybe did act like teenage boys, but they were all mature film students looking to watch an amusing relic of cinema. I can only imagine what a screening of this would be with an ordinary audience, but those groups have dissipated to bedrooms and basements, and that fun has gone away from the movies.

Short of recommending that I’d rather see porn than “Jack and Jill” in the multiplex, I don’t really know what to do with that information, but I can recommend that if you are given the opportunity to see “The Stewardesses” in a setting such as I did, do so.

Pictures of People: Thoughts on Biopics

How do biopics shape our memory of historical figures?

“Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth.”

Lou Gehrig spoke these words and was immortalized.

But Gary Cooper spoke them too. His wonderful monologue at the end of “The Pride of the Yankees” forever shaped and dramatized the image of Gehrig. In fact, the last thing Gehrig said at the end of his speech were not those infamous words but “I may have been given a bad break, but I’ve got an awful lot to live for.”

Had it been these words Gehrig wanted to be remembered, he might not consider himself quite as lucky.

The biopic is a peculiar genre in film with the power to influence historical perception more than reality itself. If a director’s goal is typically to entertain or make a statement through a work of art, then the biopic is not often viewed as a director intended but as a recreation of a true moment in time.

How will audiences going to see “J. Edgar” this weekend react? Perhaps several generations now have no memory of J. Edgar Hoover or what people thought of him as he was alive. Their imagination of the man will be limited to Leonardo DiCaprio and the story Clint Eastwood tells. Continue reading “Pictures of People: Thoughts on Biopics”

Fall Movie Preview (November and December)

2011 is such a promising year for film, I devoted a film preview to all the movies of just November and December.

Don’t think I forgot about you November and December. Just because you don’t have two Oscar bait movies starring Fuck Yeah Ryan Gosling doesn’t mean I’m not excited for all the pedigree films you have to offer.

Here are the end-of-year movies that can now demand my attention since the quite strong September/October I wrote about last time is over.

November 11

J. Edgar (11/9)

Leo working with Clint on the political biopic of J. Edgar Hoover is enough of a sale for me, but “J. Edgar” is also penned by the Oscar winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (“Milk”) and co-stars Armie Hammer, the breakout star from “The Social Network” who was so memorable as both of the Winklevi.

Melancholia

Lars von Trier’s unfortunate Nazi comments have practically erased “Melancholia’s” positive buzz from Cannes. Kirsten Dunst is supposed to be brilliant in a pessimistic but elegant sci-fi about a wedding on the day a planet is set to collide with the Earth and end mankind.

Into the Abyss

The state of Texas executed Michael Perry on July 1, 2010. After “Grizzly Man” and “Cave of Forgotten Dreams,” Werner Herzog has immortalized Perry in his latest documentary that explores death and why we kill. Continue reading “Fall Movie Preview (November and December)”

Debunking Silent Film Myths

Many silent films are considered old and dated despite a number of misconceptions and a lack of viewing options to watch all these classics.

The last and biggest hurdle to overcome to becoming a real lover of cinema is learning to appreciate silent films.

Stick enough violence or action in a movie and you can get anyone reading subtitles. Show them “Singin’ in the Rain” and they’ll be able to watch any musical ever made. Watch a movie timeless enough and you’ll forget that it’s in black and white.

But silent films are different. They’re a hard sell for a number of reasons, and there are a few myths and cultural problems to address before we notice a change.

Debunking silent film myths

Myth #1: Sound Movies are Better

The biggest misconception about film is that it was once seen as nothing more than a novelty, and only later did it become art.

Anyone who believes that transition happened between silents to talkies is wrong.

Of course sound and dialogue is a good thing. Movies would not be the same if we had been denied the clever dialogue of modern wordsmiths like the Coen Brothers, Quentin Tarantino, Aaron Sorkin and more.

Rather, silent films hardly told stories the same way as talkies, even to the point that storytelling had to be reinvented with the introduction of sound.

But this form of silent storytelling was not primitive or inferior.

The best directors of the silent screen were gifted at telling a story through purely visual means, minimizing intertitles and composing moods through facial cues and striking shot placement.

Consider the chilling images of “The Passion of Joan of Arc,” the cinematic ballet of any of Charlie Chaplin’s slapstick, the mesmerizing first-ever montage of “The Battleship Potemkin” or the simple love story behind “Sunrise.”

I can’t think of more elegant, poetic or even easier ways of telling any of those stories, and I certainly can’t imagine how words would help. Continue reading “Debunking Silent Film Myths”

Finding solace through cinematic suffering

 

I didn’t get much sleep that night.

I was a bit hungover, my neck was hurting, and I was quite busy.

Keeping all that in mind, I don’t think any level of readiness would have prepared me for what I endured Sunday at the IU Cinema.

“Shoah,” the harrowing and mostly subtitled Holocaust documentary approaching 10 hours in length, proved to be the roughest, most demanding cinematic marathon of my life.

And yet, I’m more than glad to have experienced it. “Shoah” is a masterpiece no doubt, but where most people would feel as though they were sitting (or napping) through hell, even the most torturous movies provide for me a sort of solace many don’t know. Continue reading “Finding solace through cinematic suffering”

The Netflix and Qwikster debacle

I messed up. I owe you an explanation.

It’s not because I myself potentially jeopardized and certainly embarrassed a media entity that single-handedly revolutionized the way people in the 21st Century watch movies and TV.

It’s because I didn’t write about this mess sooner.

The opening statement comes verbatim from an email that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sent to all subscribers apologizing for first raising Netflix’s prices, sweeping this news under the radar until it hit everyone by surprise, and then spin it in press releases that this was actually a good thing.

That was a mistake Netflix made, and now they’re back in the news again two months later with Phase 2 of their “frustrate everyone who has already sold their souls to us” campaign.

They’ve announced that the two components of Netflix that has made the company what it is is now splitting into two separate entities. The site that manages the streaming will still be called Netflix, and the completely different site that handles only DVD streaming will be called Qwikster. Continue reading “The Netflix and Qwikster debacle”

Does the cult film still exist?

The definition of a cult film has changed from the ’70s to today to simply mean something nerdy that’s underrated and under the radar.

 

A look inside the IU Cinema Saturday night may have convinced you that the cult film is alive and well.

A sold out audience sat in rapt attention of Stanley Kubrick’s Orwellian mind-bender “A Clockwork Orange.” As the first ever midnight showing at the IU Cinema, this audience had perhaps never seen a film not only as lavish, colorful and alive in cinematic spectacle but also as ironically sadistic.

This is a polite way of saying there is no director alive today like Stanley Kubrick and no cult film that represents what his films once did.

The definition of the cult film has changed along with the industry. For a movie to have achieved cult status in 1971 when “A Clockwork Orange” was released, it needed to build its fan base almost exclusively through midnight shows. Controversial art films like Kubrick’s X-rated masterpiece were quickly pulled from first run theaters and received the most attention on college campuses. Continue reading “Does the cult film still exist?”

Making a small stand for quality

If “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” can make over a billion dollars worldwide, does anyone even care anymore?

The truth is, yes, some do.

This summer, a small group of American moviegoers spoke with their wallets and demanded something more from our Hollywood studio system.

These people made a stand for quality in their films, and behind the haze of more sequels, remakes and reboots than any year in history (we’ll have 27 by year’s end), we’ve found a glimmer of hope in our studio system.

Hollywood knows it’s limping. Their answer to get people to see movies on the big screen has been 3-D, and 40 films have been released in this medium in 2011 alone. But the technology has yet to prove itself in any film this side of “Avatar,” a large number of the movies in 3-D were shoddily converted from 2-D in post production, and no one looks forward to paying an extra three dollars at the box office.

But when “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” makes only 37 percent of its $239 million gross from 3-D sales, Hollywood takes that as a sign; We won’t put up with three dimensions if the junk they’re delivering is no better than it is in two. Continue reading “Making a small stand for quality”