OLR – “Quantum Solace”

Quantum Solace is the best Bond film of the last 10 years. Far more real-world and flawed, Craig’s Bond shows the conflicted side of an agent turned cold killer turned redeemed agent again. Beautifully photographed and the Scorcese-type quick succession of shots is well-done.

Posted in Film by minademian

OLR – “Funny People”

Funny People is a really funny film in now the established school of Apatow comedy. Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler make a good comedic duo, and the film didn’t rely on gags or too many cliches. Relying on a good script and a solid story won the day. Loads of hilarious cameos and walk on’s as celebrities play themselves. Adam Sandler in his most serious role, in the spirit of “Reign Over Me” and “Punch Drunk Love”.

Review by New York Times – do you guys agree or disagree?

Posted in Film by minademian

Introducing One Line Reviews

It started from my regular status updates on Facebook where I would post one line reviews in my status about films I’ve watched.

I thought that it would be a good way to ensure regular content on here, since I watch a lot of films, and to then prompt me to write longer, more complete reviews later.

So, you’ll see One Line Reviews (OLRs for short) and then the name of the film I’ve watched. Sometimes, it will literally be one line and other times it will be a “journalistic” one line, maybe held together by a few commas or periods. Grammar purists, relax before you go on the prowl. 🙂

Hope you enjoy them. 🙂

Posted in Film by minademian

King George and I

I tend not to capture my ideas or seize upon them, especially the good ones, when they reveal themselves to me. I’ll either store it away in my strangely powerful aural and photographic memory, or I’ll just remember the situation or event and I’ll tag the idea somehow to it.

This post is written in retrospect and it’s really a pivotal blog post. The contents that will be explored here is perhaps that first flash of an idea that got me to set up this blog.

It started in a very humane place: the bathroom. I like to read while I’m in there and I picked up a magazine from the stack of many, and it turns out to be the American Express magazine my parents get in return for lining the credit monster’s stomach.

The cover story (King George, Expressions Magazine, Issue 2/2006) is about George Clooney, a man I really respected after Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and more recently, Syriana. Both films are not ones I always put down when I’m filling out a social networking profile or in conversation about film, but images from both films sit somewhere silently in my memory. And when I do think or talk about them, those images jump out as if summoned by a angry despot to show themselves.

It’s a regular cover story that overall touches all the bases for an interview with a celebrity: the customary introduction where they will be witty and give you a quick character analysis, then the discussion about where they met for the interview, and then the rest of the interview is (most usually) a set of interesting questions to give you an insight into the person covered.

I think it was mostly the setting in which I first read this article. I mean, one of the most human things we as a species do. From that place, I categorically was captured by the story, mostly because I could see myself reflected in a lot of things.

“Clooney creates a subtle screen of smoke and mirrors to make sure you don’t get too close to the bone. Most of the interview segues into one big entertaining joke.”

“In hindsight, I realise what he actually does is deflect, deflect, deflect. Every personal question is answered with rapid-fire banter. Heaven forbid he should lower his groomed guard and show any real emotion.”

I was watching an old video of my sister’s naming ceremony, filmed in 1985 in our old apartment in Egypt, and I, in between laughing at my antics and how much hair I used to have, observed my behaviour at that stage. Man, I craved attention. And man, I was just one big walking joke. It was sobering, to know that some things are permanent, and sad, to realize that the permanence can be destructive later on, to see myself doing anything to keep eyes transfixed on me. Looking into my child eyes, I could see I really just didn’t feel comfortable and by acting like a court jester, it kept people focused on me.

I related to George Clooney. I’m not going to go out now and pitch a tent in his garden though.

As I grew up, perhaps especially now, I do that too – deflect with verbal dexterity, talk my way out of awkward situations or lame discussions by deflecting insults, witt-izing, and keeping myself always mysterious by being so loud and larger-than-life it drowns out the possibility that I’m just a regular, simple guy.

Back to that moment reading the article, the words themselves or the concepts covered weren’t groundbreaking or new. But it spoke to me.

“[George] allegedly came to physical blows with David O’Russell, the director of Three Kings, when Clooney caught him verbally abusing a member of staff.”

“It’s about a career, building a set of films you’re proud of. Period.”

Not just someone I can personally relate to, but someone who shares the principles I’m putting into place now, at the beginning of my film career, and the ones I communicate when people ask me about my aspirations for film. On another level, as if George Clooney formalizing a whole bunch of thoughts and words I’d said before, but not in that concise elegance.

“I’m a hybrid. I try to succeed in all worlds.”

[Ed. quoting Matt Damon] … Look at what that Clooney did and we didn’t even realize it was happening.”

“He was so poor he slept in a friend’s cupboard”

As I read more, I grew more fascinated with this guy. That second quote really came to me. I learned after all these years, people’s affirmation and agreement is not what should drive me. It’s my own vision and commitment to whatever I want to achieve. I want people to say that same line for me.

I put in that third quote because it wraps up in one dramatic image what it’s like to be in this business. Maybe it will never be like that for me, but I’ve had a different kind of stark poverty which has brought me to this point today. And rather cosmically, summarized in the following quote:

[Ed. quoting Joel Schumacher] I think anyone who has been locked out for a while, who’s been rejected, suffers. […] And I think that kind of suffering doesn’t build character, it reveals it.”

That quote, when I read it first time, consoled me.

I read on and it says Clooney took $2 as fees on Good Night and Good Luck, one dollar for writing the script and directing each. Phenomenal. With all this celebrity glut and one of the glut’s distinguished members able to take symbolic compensation for his efforts. And signing away all his rights to get the film out there in the market. And doing anything to be plain and regular with his posse of guy friends.

“I’m afraid that if you put the bubble around yourself believing in the myth of a movie star, then you lose touch with everything else going on. And that is not living to me.”

With the author of that article, I agree and say I like this king. I want to work with him, sooner rather than never.

And this is the story of why I started this blog.

I read one article one day while in the bathroom, doing what a lot of comedians pay their bills making fun of, and I wanted to set something up where I can show my film credentials and reveal the mind of an aspiring filmmaker in a tangible way to a guy like George Clooney.

Without having to pitch a tent in his garden or sifting through his sewage looking for clues to his success.

Posted in Film by minademian

Armenian Genocide

Type: documentary

Summary: overall unconvincing, technically weak, boring as 

A couple of days ago, I found a DVD lying in my sister's room. This nondescript said Armenian Genocide, I got curious and popped it in to watch.

This is a visually boring documentary. It was very hard to keep your attention constant for the whole 2 hours, as you came to expect the same scripted pattern of zoom in and out, and pan shots on a large selection of otherwise interesting images. To me, the documentary quickly devolved into a stream of moving, animated images with running narration that definitely was learned, but added no value to the film.

The driving force was undoubtedly the narration and there is no real connection or correlation between the shots (very loosely used here) and the narration. In a way, the shots,  almost all images and archive video fottage, are like forgettable supporting actors.

Apart from a few primary sources such as letters and first-person accounts, there are no other supporting sources or reference materials. Not even an interview with a historian, political commentator, or writer. Questions that came to my mind, especially in critical parts of the film: why doesn't he explore the reasons for why the discrimination started – causes, contexts etc? I barely knew anything about the whole topic, apart from a few items gleaned from recent news.  Why were these things done? Why did the Turks do this? There must be some motivation! Anything, anything, just show or tell me anything. Explore! Something. As a special feature, there's a long, detailed interview with Yves Ternon, discussing the history and background to the Armenian question, as it's called. Now, why this wasn't incorporated or woven into the documentary storyline is a mystery and gross oversight.

This article deems the docu as one-sided, recommending instead The Armenian Revolt (1894-1920) as more balanced and includes the Turkish side of the story. And I find myself agreeing with that. Laurence Jordan ends up relying solely on one person's interviews – an aged, Armenian survivor of the genocide. This reeks of sensationalism. You just wonder, you couldn't get an Armenian historian, on both sides ie. affirming the genocide and perhaps a revisionist?  Where's the historical fact?

Nowhere near the same caliber as The Corporation (review & analysis of that to follow).

Posted in Film by minademian

An Actor’s Actor

A very well-written article about one of my favorite female acctresses, Jennifer Connelly about her new film with Joaquen Phoenix, Reservation Road.

” Most young mothers can’t even contemplate their children’s death, let alone spend weeks acting out the scenario under hot lights with a film crew watching. “I absolutely thought about it,” she says, “especially when I was about two days into it and I was like, What am I doing? Why am I here? What was I thinking making this film, this subject matter? I guess it’s like why we watch horror films or films that scare us. I’m not even going to pretend to know why we put ourselves through such things, but I suppose it’s a controlled environment in which to experience emotions that come up, unfortunately, in life. This film looks at the fallout of grief and loss and the need to act out, and revenge and where that comes from. Who responds that way. I thought that part of it was interesting.”

It’s fascinating and inspiring at the same time. And I feel when I make it slowly into the acting game, I want to work on the same intellectual and cognitive level she seems to do.

Do read the article, it talks about Joaquin Phoenix dubbing Jennifer “an actor’s actor” because of her deep technical knowledge and methodology for going about her work.

Posted in Film by minademian

Verified by ExactMetrics