Cuckoo Ka Choo: An Arts Review.

AMC's THE KILLING Redefines Cop Show Genre

2011-04-20T11:22:00.000-07:00

I recently screened the first two episodes of AMC's new original series, THE KILLING. Basically, this series is originally Danish (does that make AMC's version an "original series?") but regardless, the show has been expertly adapted for American television's favorite genre: the cop show.

While at first it seems to fit the cop show procedural formula (two cop partners of opposite style find a body and proceed to follow the clues), it sets it's self apart. Yes, the two leads Mireille Enos playing Sarah Linden and Joel Kinnaman playing Stephen Holder are cop partners, and yes they are opposites. Linden is a by-the-book sorta cop and Holder is more unconventional (read: controversial). At one point, Holder offers pot to some teens to get them to talk (we find out later it's not really pot, but still...). And while this is a convention (read: cliche) common to all cop TV series, this show does it differently. The two play off one another casually, with minor power struggles, it's not over-bearing or in your face. In fact, it's pretty realistic.

This whole let's-make-TV-realistic thing continues when we see the family of the young girl who has been recently murdered. The scenes where the grief takes over them and we see some truly raw emotion is difficult to watch, it's that good.

The other way the show manages to redefine the cop show is the fact that for the thirteen episodes of the series, they will only follow this one murder and each episode is one day after the death. So this makes the series feel more like novel or a detective story then a cop TV procedural. This is serialized drama (where the story continues every episode and doesn't wrap up at the end of one episode, like say House or Law & Order) which makes this cop show completely different to any other cop show on TV.

I saw the first two episodes and then later found that AMC is allowing the first four episodes to be viewed online for free until May. When I heard this I immediately watched them - and was hooked.

And while this show is reminiscent of TWIN PEAKS, the network has chosen to embrace this comparison to arguably the greatest show that never found a large fanbase. So, AMC has chosen to lean-into the comparison by spinning-off TWIN PEAKS's tagline for THE KILLING. And so that is how the very blunt but very enthralling tagline emerged: WHO KILLED ROSIE LARSEN?

Watch a trailer of THE KILLING here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZg34UArZyM
Then, when you're hooked, watch the first few episodes (UNTIL MAY!) here:
http://www.amctv.com/

Alvin Ailey: American Dance Theatre

2011-04-19T10:58:00.000-07:00

The Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre returned to Los Angeles's Dorothy Chandler Pavilion for ten performances of their mixed repertoire. Founded by Alvin Ailey in 1958, this ballet company has grown into one of the largest American dance companies and the most lauded of African-American dance companies. It is estimated that since it's conception, the company has reached 23 million audience members in 48 states and 71 countries. Needless to say, this company is the most-toured dance company from the United States, and they represent us well.

With Artistic Director Judith Jamison, the company has soared. And Friday April 15th's performance was no different as they presented "Program B" which included: "Memoria (1979)," "Three Black Kings (1976)," "Cry (1971)," and "Revelations (1960)." Of these pieces, the ones that stood out the most to me were "Three Black Kings (1976)" and "Revelations (1960)."

"Three Black Kings (1976)" contains three movements about three kings that have affected the black race. The first movement is dedicated to King Balthazar (the black king present at the nativity), followed by King Solomon, and Martin Luther King. The music comes from Duke Ellington's final work and so continues the African-American spirit in the piece.

"Revelations (1960)" is Ailey's most well-known and most lauded piece. In fact, the word masterpiece is not overstating the power and emotions that this mini-ballet contains. There are three sections, and each contains three movements. Some stand out pieces are "Didn't My Lord Deliver Daniel" from the first section, "Pilgrim of Sorrow," "Wade In The Water" from the second section, "Take Me To The Water," and "I Wanna Be Ready," also from the second section.

My personal favorite piece is "I Wanna Be Ready" as it is a solo for a man in pure white clothing. The anguish that he feels is so visceral that we see it not in just his emotion, but through the choreography. And all it is, is just him alone in the middle of the stage, in a pool of light. Brilliant. (See link below to see a video).

These pieces in particular were especially riveting. Since "Revelations (1960)" uses all Gospel music, the pieces already feel quintessentially African-American. And then, with the progression of the movements, we see the story of the African-American play out. Ailey's movements are considered modern dance, but they have a unique way of not only embodying the spirit of the piece, but of a people and of a culture.

Revelations is also celebrating an anniversary. It was first created in 1960 and (as of 2010) is celebrating it's 50th year. So, to commemorate this, there was a presentation of a five minute film about the conception of the masterpiece, with Ailey himself (prior to his death in 1989) discussing his inspirations, his muse, and his past.

Considered a "Cultural Ambassador to the World," The Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre Company will continue to inspire and perpetuate a new appreciation of this completely American art form and company.

Check out CBS's story on their 50th Anniversary here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veRjhWO84d0

Check out my favorite piece from "Revelations (1960)," "I Wanna Be Ready" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bADQzyg00g

Documentary: Exporting Raymond

2011-04-18T13:43:00.000-07:00

"Even if you've never seen the TV show,

this is the funniest movie of the year."

-David Young (tonightatthemovies.com)

"And the best part is...it's all real."

-Pete Hammond (Box Office Magazine)

EXPORTING RAYMOND is a documentary directed by and starring Philip Rosenthal (creator of EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND). The film chronicles Rosenthal's experience going to Russia and adapting EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND into a Russian sitcom, complete with Russian actors and adjusted plot lines and speeches to fit in with the Russian culture.

This documentary is hilarious as it is not so much about the sitcom, but about the culture clash and culture shock that Rosenthal experiences. With an extreme amount of deadpan humor, Rosenthal finds that show business is the same in every country - run by the suits. We see him struggling to explain American concepts to Russians and vice versa. At the end of the film, we learn that this newly-adapted Russian sitcom is the most popular and longest running series in the country's history.

However, that success comes after a lot of trials. Apparently, Russia does not understand the "everyman" quality that Ray Ramono's sitcom illustrates. You see, Russia's previous best-sitcom was an adapted version of THE NANNY. This show of course uses broad humor and a lot of slapstick schtick. But with EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND, the humor is more based in the reality of average people, about the little things in life. Evidently Russia was not familiar with this prior to Rosenthal's appearance in the country. There are many hilarious scenes where Rosenthal is trying to explain why his Emmy winning show is so funny and why it is accessible (and why it can travel across borders).

Now, of course EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND is not my favorite (or even within the realm of shows I watch), but this film was enjoyable regardless. This film is NOT about EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND. It is about transferring a quintessentially American idea overseas, and the chaos that ensues. Its about understanding other cultures and other entertainment mediums and audiences. This film is about culture and the entertainment industry, not about a has-been sitcom.

You should see EXPORTING RAYMOND if...

-You like EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND
-You hate EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND
-You like Russia
-You like deadpan humor and culture clash
-You like entertainment industry issues and current events
-You like Britney Spears (there is a killer Britney scene about her "artistry")
-You like vodka (there's a lot of it)

Check out the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBbg8oP7_Q0

Find it on amazon here:
Exporting Raymond

Rent/Buy This Weekend: Beatles Docu-Drama: Nowhere Boy

2011-04-15T14:59:00.000-07:00

"Why couldn't God make me Elvis!?!"

"Cause he was saving you for John Lennon!"

NOWHERE BOY is a 2009 British Indie film about John Lennon's adolescence. Mostly about the women in his life, we see John torn between his Aunt Mimi (who raised him) and his mother, Julia, (who abandon him, but reappears in his early teens). The film chronicles these early experiences that shaped one of the most captivating and talented icons in popular culture.

With some amazing performances by Aaron Johnson (as John Lennon), Kristin Scott Thomas (as Aunt Mimi), Anne-Marie Duff (as Julia) and Thomas Brodie-Sangster (as Paul McCartney, best known as the cute kid from LOVE ACTUALLY), this film is a must watch. However, I must warn that the film is NOT about The Beatles, but about the young man who starts arguably the greatest band in history.

The film explains John's upbringing and the influences these women have had on his life. And then, starts the music. We find that Aunt Mimi bought John Lennon his first guitar and allowed his first band (The Quarrymen) to practice at her home. And then, we see the moment John Lennon meets Paul McCartney and the start of the complicated friendship of arguably 20th century's finest musical pairing: Lennon/McCartney. And just as soon as we meet George Harrison, the film reels us back in for a quiet finish. This film is not so much about how The Beatles got their start, but how John Lennon got his start.

The friendship between John and Paul is seen in this film and depicted fairly. We see Paul's admiration for the older, wiser and brasher John, but we see John's insecurities with Paul's abilities and leadership skills. The two have heartwarming moments just as they have arguments, making it likely accurate.

The film is lauded as being "A Terrific Film! Insightful and Moving!" by Entertainment Weekly. They also add that "Aaron Johnson as John Lennon is a Revelation."

Nominated for four BAFTA awards (the UK's Oscars, that is) and winner for British Independent Film Award 2009 for Best Supporting Actress Anne-Marie Duff, the film is soulful and filled with wit.

Seeing where "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" grew inspiration is a treat. Not to mention, for any major Beatle fan out there, there are so many hidden gems of references to watch and re-watch for.

NOWHERE BOY is (as the subtitle claims) "the untold story of John Lennon and the creation of The Beatles," but beyond all that, this film is the only docu-drama about Lennon and The Beatles worth any salt. Beatle fan or not, this is a must-see.

You Should See NOWHERE BOY if:
-You like/love/obsess over The Beatles
-You recognize the significance of The Beatles and John Lennon
-You enjoy character pieces with some truly fine acting
-You wanna see "Penny Lane"

Check out the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzvS78qO0uI

The Beatles and MTV

2011-04-14T14:00:00.000-07:00

With the Beatlemania, now a global phenomenon, The Beatles were exhausted and yet were constantly being asked to appear on television programs all across the globe. They simply couldn’t be everywhere. And then there is the added issue of the music. As the band progressed, so did the technology used to create the music. Soon, The Beatles were using tape loops, over-dubbing, and other in-studio effects. And while this helped progress the sound and the music, it made it difficult to tour and perform live. And so, as George Harrison explains, out of “convenience we decided we are just not gonna go in to the TV studios to promote our records so much. It was too much of a hassle, what we’ll do is just go and make our own little films and we’ll put them out” (qtd. in Anthology DVD).

And so began the period when The Beatles created promotional films of their singles. As Neil Aspinall (The Beatles’s road manager turned executive) explains, “so to accommodate those people [at the televisions shows around the world] we decided to make promo films…and sent that to the TV stations around the world and that would fulfill that obligation” (qtd. in Anthology DVD). For instance, the singles “Paperback Writer” and “Rain” (also later “Hello Goodbye”) were sent via promotional films to The Ed Sullivan Show with an introduction of the four Beatles apologizing for not being in attendance (Anthology DVD).

These films were the start of something new for the music industry: music videos. The Beatles would sometimes be seen playing their instruments and singing their songs as though performing on a stage. However, many of the promotional films were much more artistic, with the band not singing or playing, but embodying an abstract story related to the song. The idea of taking abstract images and combining them with music was new. As George Harrison describes the intention, “[we thought] we’ll send these things out to promote the record. And obviously these days now everybody does that, its just part of your promotion for a single. So I suppose in a way we invented MTV” (qtd. in Anthology DVD). And while that last statement may be grandiose, The Beatles certainly invented (and were the first to use these techniques on a large scale) the basic building blocks of what would become the music video which led to MTV and to how the music industry functions today.

Check out the promo for "Day Tripper" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N85P4_p880w

Check out the promo for "Paperback Writer"here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skL1Hwgnatc

Check out the promo for "Hello Goodbye" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPJltZLH78Q

References:

-The Beatles Anthology, Dir. Kevin Godley
-Blaney, John. John Lennon: In His Life.
-Davies, Hunter. The Beatles.

-Miles, Barry. Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now.

The Beatles: All You Need Is Love (...and a TV).

2011-04-13T12:41:00.000-07:00

A landmark moment for The Beatles and television was BBC and a program called Our World in 1967. “The BBC had come up with the idea of using the newly installed relays to connect the national television networks of countries all around the world” (Miles 354). This major technological feat meant that all around the world, people would tune in to see humanity from across the globe. Twenty-six countries participated and were connected to the sattelite coverage and each country chose a representative to embody the country and their people. “As the BBC put it, ‘for the first time ever, linking five continents and bringing man face to face with mankind, in places as far apart as Canberra and Cape Kennedy, Moscow and Montreal, Samarkand and Soderfors, Takamatsu and Tunis’” (qtd. in Miles 354). Britain chose The Beatles. “Rather than play one of their existing hits, or something off Sgt. Pepper [the album they were currently working on], they composed a new single specially for the programme" (Miles 354). Wanting to create a song that would resonate with many cultures (and many who did not speak English), the idea was to make the chorus simple so as to be able to follow it. “In June, The Beatles performed Lennon’s ‘All You Need Is Love’ …to an audience of 400 million people” (Blaney 59). Paul explains the song:

“All You Need Is Love” was John’s song. I threw in a few ideas, as did other members of the group, but it was largely ad libs like singing “She Loves You” or “Green Sleeves” or silly little things at the end and we made those up on the spot. Knowing that millions of the viewers would not understand English, John kept the chorus as simple as possible. It was the philosophy of Sgt. Pepper and the era reduced to five words…The chorus “All You Need Is Love” is simple, but the verse is quite complex…[with an] anthemic chorus…(Miles 354).

The technological feat of reproducing The Beatles’s tracks for a live performance was complicated as many of their more recent music required mixing in a studio, and would be hard to reproduce live. “It took five days of recording and mixing to get the song right but Paul’s bass, John’s vocal, George’s solo and Ringo’s drums, as well as the orchestra, were all broadcast live during the event” (Miles 354). And since this television event was to represent England and the various artistic contributions the country has made, The Beatles chose to include a chorus of various British icons. “The Beatles invited Brian Jones, Keith Richards, Mick [Jagger] and Marianne [Faithfull] and dozens of other friends to the session, which was staged as a party in Studio One at Abbey Road” (Miles 354). Here is a moment when The Beatles were served by television by playing for a global audience. The evidence of this is clear: “the single was released two weeks later and became a hit all around the world.” (Miles 354). And then television was served because this was the first major all-world broadcast, a moment in television history where a broadcast of this size, magnitude and logistics were realized successfully.

Check out this clip of the band on the worldwide event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMbIjsUMFrY

References:

-The Beatles Anthology, Dir. Kevin Godley
-Blaney, John. John Lennon: In His Life.
-Davies, Hunter. The Beatles.
-Miles, Barry. Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now.

Beatles: Ed Sullivan Show

2011-04-12T10:34:00.000-07:00

The most important television show The Beatles ever played on was of course, The Ed Sullivan Show. But, Ed Sullivan needed to be convinced that a British band that had mediocre record sales with “She Loves You” was worth hiring on for a major televison show. Of course, this was prior to “I Want To Hold Your Hand” hitting the number one spot in America. “Brian [The Beatles’s manager]…got an appointment with Ed Sullivan, whose TV show is the biggest of its kind...[Sullivan’s] talent scouts had passed on…The Beatles’s success in Britain. After a lot of discussion, Ed Sullivan agreed to book the Beatles for two of his shows” (Davies 237).

But for the biggest band in Britain, just booking the show was not enough. The smart and savvy Brian Epstein (The Beatles’s manager) never allowed the band to be anything but the headliner. “Brian insisted that they should get top billing on both shows…[Sullivan] agreed in the end, but his producer later [said] that Sullivan had said it was ridiculous to give a British group top billing when a British group had never made it big in the States before” (Davies 237). But the States had never met The Beatles before.

And soon enough the buzz of the British invasion hit mainstreet America. “Five million ‘The Beatles Are Coming’ posters were plastered throughout the States” (Davies 239). With all this hype (including a countdown in “Beatle Time”), the group’s reputation preceded them. And so, “Ed Sullivan couldn’t cope with the demand for tickets – 50,000 applied for 728 seats.” (Davies 239-40). And with this mania came merchandise and profit. “It was estimated that in 1964, 50 million dollars worth of Beatle goods was sold in the States.” (Davies 243). With all of this demand to be in the presence of The Beatles, of course came the screaming fans of full-blown American Beatlemania. “On February 7, 1964, The Beatles were greeted at Kennedy Airport, New York, by hundreds...Beatlemania was now a global phenomenon.” (Blaney 58).

With this newfound American mania, the band took The Ed Sullivan Show stage and then took on the world “before a television audience of 73,000,000 people” (Miles 209). And while rock ‘n roll had appeared on television before, though not nearly as saturated as the country was for The Bealtes’s performance, it was Ed Sullivan’s stamp of approval that really solidified rock ‘n roll’s place on television. Ed Sullivan was a upstanding citizen and a presenter of good taste through the very prevalence of his television variety show. The country was so captivated by The Beatles appearing on his show, that it wasn’t so much a show, as an event. In fact, “in New York, during the show, not one hubcap from a car was stolen. Throughout America, so it was reported, not one major crime was committed by a teenager” (Davies 241). This tidbit may seem trivial and perhaps circumstantial, but it illustrates how effective The Beatles were in enchanting an audience and how monumental this appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show really was. In an interview for The Beatles Anthology documentary film, George Harrison claims, it was the “least reported crime [period], even the criminals had a rest when we were on! ” (Anthology).

But besides this, the show legitimized not only The Beatles as a band, but rock ‘n roll as an art form worthy of time on mainstream television. This illustrated by Ed Sullivan’s introduction of The Beatles on his show and his comments about them as individuals. Ed Sullivan states in archival footage from The Ed Sullivan Show:

Thank you very, very much, thank you! Well its very nice to be here…and now this has happened again, last Sunday on our show in New York, The Beatles played to the greatest TV audience that’s ever been assembled in the history of American TV. Now tonight …again The Beatles face a record busting audience ladies and gentlemen, here are four of the nicest youngsters we’ve ever had on our stage…THE BEATLES! (Anthology).

And again, Ed Sullivan reiterates the upstanding qualities that these young men possess, “these youngsters from Liverpool, England, and their conduct over here, not only as fine professional singers but as a group of fine youngsters, well they leave an imprint with everyone over here who’s met ‘em” (Anthology).

Clearly, this unabashed endorsement of The Beatles went a long way in helping The Beatles gain a following. But also, Ed Sullivan’s support of The Beatles implies that he is saying to the over-40 set in America that rock ‘n roll is really not all that bad, look at these youngsters with their clean suits and clean lyrics! This proclamation and the show itself propelled The Beatles as bonafide rockstars and allowed them to saturate the USA with their records and their charm. And then, The Beatles paved the way for more rock ‘n roll groups to appear on The Ed Sullivan Show like The Rolling Stones and The Who. The relationship between television and The Beatles proved to be beneficial for all involved.

Check out this video of The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoZ18rO1Rj0&feature=fvwrel

References:

-The Beatles Anthology, Dir. Kevin Godley
-Blaney, John. John Lennon: In His Life.
-Davies, Hunter. The Beatles.
-Miles, Barry. Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now.

Beatles: 1965 TV Special

2011-04-11T14:47:00.000-07:00

In 1965, there was a television special devoted to the songwriters of The Beatles. The special was entitled, The Music of Lennon & McCartney. The unique aspect of this television event was that it was centered on the music, not the band. For instance, The Beatles (mostly John Lennon and Paul McCartney) would introduce other bands and singers who would then play their music. “Granada Television had proposed a big-budget fifty-minute television special called The Music of Lennon and McCartney, featuring Peter and Gordon, Billy J. Kramer, Cilla Black and other top stars famous for singing their songs, with the Beatles themselves introducing the acts” (Miles 222).

This was unusual in that this was the first time that The Beatles (or any rock ‘n roll group) were seen as musical composers worthy of a special, rather than pure entertainment; they were seen as artists. This was also unusal because in a way, The Beatles were promoting other artists. They self-lessly chose to only sing, “‘Day Tripper” and ‘We Can Work It Out’” (Miles 222). And while Lennon/McCartney received royalties based off of any records sold by these artists covering their songs, the special was not so much about The Beatles as it was about two composers.

Marianne Faithfull, a young singer at the time befriend Paul McCartney and then sang “Yesterday” on this special. In Paul McCartney’s authorized biography by Barry Miles she says, “Paul really helped me by putting me on the thing that the Beatles did with Granada. It was really great, because he started [the song] off” (Miles 223). It was as if Paul McCartney was endorsing not only her version of his hit song, but also her as an artist. “Paul began the solo alone, sitting on a stool, strumming his guitar and singing, then after a half-minute the song faded into Marianne’s version, complete with choir and orchestra” (Miles 223). But this is not the end of Paul’s generosity. “Marianne was eight months pregnant…and in those days it would have been considered shocking to see a pregnant woman on television, particularly an entertainer. In what was probably a historic first, Paul insisted that she be allowed to go on the programme – though the cameras filmed only her head and shoulders or angled views from above” (Miles 223). It was his star power that allowed her that opportunity. In fact, Marianne’s version of “Yesterday” “charted at number 36” (Miles 223).

This television special helped The Beatles become seen in a new light, as artists and composers worthy of recognition and respect above and beyond just a rock ‘n roll group. This program made them artists in the eyes of the public, and not just another band.

Check out this video from the special which includes Peter Sellers (a favorite comedian of the fab four) performing "A Hard Day's Night" as a monologue, and then The Beatles perform "We Can Work It Out." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO49DoEGjz8&feature=related

References:

McCartney, Paul. Interview by Barry Miles. Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now.

By Barry Miles. New York: A Holt Paperback: Henry Holt and Company, 1997.

Print.

Rent/Buy This Weekend: TANGLED

2011-04-08T17:08:00.000-07:00

Get TANGLED up in this delightful animated film! Based on the well-known fairy tale Rapunzel, this spin on the classic is imaginative, beautiful, and hilarious. Voiced by Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi (from NBC's CHUCK), the film's characters are well defined and well executed. And while the songs are not the film's best attributes, the story more than makes up for it.

Best of all, the main character (yep, you guessed it, Rapunzel), is not the typical-classic Disney Princess. Unlike Belle, Cinderella, and Aurora, Rapunzel is not a damsel in distress. She leaves her tower on her own two feet and manages to use a frying pan to fend off bad guys all by herself. In fact, there are many times when Rapunzel manages to save Flynn Rider (this young buck, Robin Hood-esque character pays homage to the most famous Robin Hood of all time, Errol Flyn is voiced by Levi). For once (with perhaps the exception of Mulan, though she was dressed as a man at the time...) a princess in a Disney movie is well rounded: smart, funny, and can save herself and those around her.

The other notable difference between this film and other Disney princess films is that unlike the more recent attempts (the highly, highly anticipated THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG) TANGLED is actually depicted like the more classic Disney films. TANGLED looks like an older animated film, and not in a negative way. With the emphasis on light and 2-D techniques, the film has a classic look that will not go out of style anytime soon. For instance, the lantern scene in the film is some of the most beautiful animation I have ever seen. And while it was released in both 2-D and 3-D versions, the animation staff has made it clear they like the 2-D version better as it is brighter and more beautiful than the 3-D version. But no matter which dimension you prefer, TANGLED has the classic fairy tale look that made Disney so famous in the first place.

You should see it if...
-You like Disney, fairy tales, and princesses.
-You enjoy beautiful, classic animation.
-You believe the Academy (it was nominated for Best Original Song).
-You liked BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and CINDERELLA.
-You like long hair.

Check out the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD84Uq9XVXA

MAD MEN: An Update On The Critical Darling's Future

2011-04-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

So after numerous back-and-forth negotiations, AMC, Lionsgate, and Creator/Exec. Producer Matthew Weiner have come to a conclusion for contract negotiations for MAD MEN just this past week. Thankfully, after some hardball on Weiner's part, the AMC critically acclaimed darling of a show has been scheduled in for a total of seven seasons (provided the numbers remain the same, of course). But the biggest concern in the talks were the salaries and the number of series regulars cast members. Weiner fought hard to retain the large cast and their higher salaries as the series enters it's fifth season, even willing to take a lower pay himself. Though these arduous talks were long and tedious, some entering the wee-hours, the decision has been made, and the show is saved. However, all this power-talk means time has been wasted while making deals. This means that there is to be a long hiatus between season four (which concluded in the fall) and season five (which won't begin until 2012).

So, hoping to keep MAD MEN fresh and relevant (and maybe help the hype of the much-anticipated season five), Lionsgate TV and Netflix have cut a syndication deal. Basically, Netflix now owns the exclusive rights to non-internet MAD MEN content. By non-internet, I mean subscriber based, which is of course is what Netflix does best. This means that starting July 27th, 2011 any Netflix subscriber can watch season one thru four thru instant streaming. This is a huge deal and the numbers are coming in around $1 million per episode paid to Lionsgate TV. And to make a sweet deal even sweeter, Netflix has secured the rights to the remaining seasons (five thru seven) for the next five years. So until 2016, all MAD MEN episodes can be available via Netflix. The only hitch (though this is not surprising) is that the seasons yet to come will only be available on Netflix after the season has concluded.

This is a major deal for both sides. For Lionsgate TV, it gets to place MAD MEN (a coveted drama, yes, but an obscure one that may have trouble finding syndication deals in traditional routes and markets) in a syndicated arena while still maintaing TV syndication rights, just in case. And then for Netflix, MAD MEN<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a7Msfq1u7ug/TZ33DpCSZxI/AAAAAAAAALc/uZdkBEGBqQs/s1600/mad-men.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; float: right; margin-left: 1em; "><img border="0" height="207" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a7Msfq1u7ug/TZ33DpCSZxI/AAAAAAAAALc/uZdkBEGBqQs/s320/mad-men.jpg" width="320" style=""></a> adds a lot to its sometimes disappointing content for instant streaming. Sure, there's DOCTOR WHO and some other notable television shows, but really, the content is subpar. With MAD MEN, Netflix gains some prestige in the eyes of TV and film execs since the show is so revered and thus may help to gain further content of the same quality. All in all, MAD MEN is here to stay, and thank God cause there is finally something good to watch on TV (and Netflix).

Check out the trailer for an earlier season here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTmIw_Ns2Gw&feature=related

And check this out, a little parody of MAD MEN. Check out MAD MEN IN 60 SECONDS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X654tkCvoQ&feature=related

THE KING'S SPEECH Writer: "It's Brokeback Mountain at the Palace."

2011-04-06T11:09:00.000-07:00

The oldest winner of the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, David Seidler, fresh off his Oscar win for THE KING'S SPEECH, sat down in the George Lucas building at the University of Southern California for a Q&A. His jovial spirit and quick wit made the evening immensely enjoyable. He let us in on a few great secrets of the success of the Best Picture film.

First, he explained how the scene when Bertie (Colin Firth) is antagonized while reading by his father (Michael Gambon). This was actually a scene that Seidler did not write ("though I take credit for it" he claims with a smile). Apparently this was something that Gambon and Firth improvised during a rehearsal that then made its way into the film. Seidler claims that when you have some truly fine actors, you must listen to their questions because it will make you a better writer, and then you take credit for it.

With this humor and wry wit, he explains that the crux of the story lies between the two lead actors, newly-minted Academy Award Winner Colin Firth as the stammering would-be King and his speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Seidler claims "It's Brokeback Mountain at the palace." With this laughter, he continues explaining how the power struggle between these characters can almost be a parent-child relationship. And while they navigate their friendship, high stakes surround them. High stakes, like you know, World War II.

Seidler continues on saying how surprised he is by all the fuss over him after his Oscar win. He claims that the distributor wasn't planning on flying him out to LA for the premier of the film, but now he's done 15 interviews per day. With his own life so closely dovetailing that of Bertie (the stammering part, not the royalty part), he finds himself bare in these interviews. And while he has enjoyed this success, he claims he is elated to be a "late bloomer" as he called himself in his acceptance speech (poking fun at the fact that he was the eldest winner for the category). And yet, he realizes that if this occurred when he was a younger man, he could see how it would go to his head. So, with that, he left for a one month vacation in New Zealand after his win.

And while he carries both UK and USA passports, apparently when he first approached the Queen Mum (and a character in the film played by the illustrious Helena Bonham Carter, finally playing a role that's not creepy) she was less than thrilled. In fact the Queen Mum requested the film not be completed in her lifetime as the events were still too painful. And so, Seidler wrote the project off because he was no young man when he asked her this in the 1980s. So, when the project finally was written and was completed, Seidler claims he wrote his "last will and testament" to the world. And with that, the evening concluded with him claiming "this was my dream project."

If you haven't seen THE KING'S SPEECH, (what planet do you live on?) see it if...

-You enjoy historical events
-You like rooting for the underdog
-You want to see some serious Brit-Wit
-You like a good bro-mance

Check out the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAm7gRXFiRo

Showtime's New Tudors: The Borgias.

2011-04-05T15:32:00.000-07:00

Last evening I had the privilege to screen the first two episodes of Showtime's THE BORGIAS. This period piece about The Borgias family (basically the inspiration for THE GODFATHER'S Corleon family). As we see the evil and manipulative Cardinal Borgias rise to the role of the papacy, we see that the world of the Church is not as clean as it appears.

With some truly fine acting by lead Jeremy Irons and his clan (Francois Arnaud, David Oakes, and Holliday Grainger) the series soars like it's predecessor, THE TUDORS. Clearly Showtime is attempting to rein in the same demographic from the other successful period piece. After THE TUDORS concluded, this was the next major historical piece for the cable network. And while the writer and executive producers are new to Showtime, the directors for subsequent episodes are all in the Showtime family and fresh off their successful run with THE TUDORS. And with that "all in the family" vibe, comes a docu-drama all about the family.

The story begins with a pope on his death bed (foreshadowing how the series will end, perhaps?) and the two would-be popes are chomping at the bit. With some clever manipulation (which is historically accurate) Cardinal Borgia places bribes in cooked meats for the other Cardinals to insure that his votes will come in as planned. And soon, he rises to the top creating some enemies (one of which is murdered by the new pope's son's lackey) and some confidants. The air in the Vatican is tense as we see the Cardinals falling in line to insure their own safety, regardless of what this will do to the Church. And for those who fear this may be too pope-y for you, don't worry, cause apparently even the pope and his underlings (bishops and cardinals) had sex. And quite a bit, apparently.

And just like THE TUDORS, Showtime presents historical accuracy right down to the costumes and the sets. While it was filmed in Budapest on a backlot of a studio, the effect is seamless. And while some may complain that the Showtime "look" is too flashy, at least there is thought put in to it. Each scene and every action sequence has been modified to give a cohesive look and feel to the show. And while each scene may be to "pretty" to be realistic, it serves well as historical narrative and particularly well as entertainment.

See this if you...
-Love THE TUDORS
-Watch Showtime
-Like historical fiction
-Enjoy watching controversial moments of the Church's history

FACEBOOK To Offer Movie Streaming.

2011-03-09T22:30:00.000-08:00

So, epic social networking site Facebook has joined the content streaming bandwagon. Just like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and other Video-On-Demand (VOD) sites Facebook has decided to offer movies via their fan pages for their consumers. This means that companies like Netflix and Red Box will have some difficulties retaining their audiences (Netflix's stock has decreased 6% due to this news).

Facebook has decided to start slowly. They have begun with Nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT as a guinea pig, selling the full film content for three Facebook credits (about $3.00). This means that after the transaction has occurred, within about 48 hours you will have access to the content. Facebook (and WB execs) think that if you create a habit of visiting Facebook anyways (like 600 million people do), why not have streaming content available to 1) keep you on Facebook longer, and 2) to gain more profit from what you already do (watch movies and visit Facebook).

If the results are deemed successful, then the content streaming abilities will be rolled out to other Warner Bros. films, and then since Hollywood works best on peer pressure, others are sure to follow. But the real question is if consumers will really want to watch films on Facebook. I think the jury is still out on that one, but my guess is that it will become wildly popular, further distancing Facebook from it's original purpose, connecting friends.

So, what do you think? Do you like that Facebook is offering streamed content online? Or is it too far out of Facebook's realm?

Recent Grammy Winner: Esperanza Spalding Serenades USC

2011-02-27T15:58:00.000-08:00

Coming off of her Grammy win for Best New Artist, Esperanza Spalding visited USC's Bovard Auditorium to serenade the students and the general public. While she is well-deserving of the Grammy win, many were shocked by her win. Justin Bieber (the somewhat "favorite" for the category) fans apparently trashed her Wikipedia page post-win in typical pre-teen rebellion. However, after hearing her in concert, her win was not that surprising.

Born in 1984, the young artist has been hitting the jazz circuit hard. She received a full scholarship to Berklee School of Music (the preeminent music school, right up there with Juilliard). However, this wouldn't be the only time this school has been in her life, she then became the youngest professor at the school at the age of 20.

Now, her music is definitely jazz-y. With clear jazz techniques of improvisation, solos from all of the members of the band, and scatting, Spalding continues the jazz tradition. Her combo band in concert included piano, violin, viola, cello, drums, back up singer and of course Spalding on vocals and string bass. But with her soulful, dreamy voice, the scatting sounded more like a waterfall than abrasive as it sometimes can sound. And then her string bass acts as a character himself on the stage. She plays him with dexterity of a professor at a major school of music, but with the emotion of a true artist. In many ways, she dances with the string bass, swaying side to side with it as though wooing the large instrument.

My stand out favorite songs from her concert was "Apple Blossom" (from her CD entitled Chamber Music Society) and "Fall In" (from her earlier CD entitled Esperanza). She is really more emoting these songs then singing them, making jazz accessible to a diverse audience. Speaking of diverse, she clearly has many cultural influences depicted in her music. This reminds me of another jazz icon, Miles Davis's amazing record: Sketches of Spain, which uses flamenco influences. Like Davis, Spalding uses other musical styles (everything from hip hop to soul) to create her unique sound.

And even more special in the jazz community is the fact that Spalding is a bassist. Usually and more traditionally, instrumental jazz groups generally revolve around a brass instrument. With such famous jazz musicians as Miles Davis (trumpet), Dizzy Gillespie (trumpet), and Charlie "Bird" Parker (saxophone). Or if not brass, then piano, like famed eccentric Thelonius Monk. But how many bassist can you name? That's right, not many. So, Spalding with her youthful energy and appreciation for her genre really is becoming a stand-out on the jazz scene. She is definitely the next it-thing in the jazz world, and if the pop/hip hop crazed Grammy's giving top awards to her? Spalding must be something special indeed.

Listen to Esperanza Spalding singing "Fall In" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuKSM5XvFfU&feature=related

Listen to Esperanza Spalding singing various songs here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBZa7-2bG2I

What Are Your (boy) FRIENDS Up To?

2011-02-17T13:36:00.000-08:00

So, since our FRIENDS have all been up to such interesting projects since their time at Central Perk, I thought a friendly check-in was due.

THE ONE WITH TWO PARTS: PART TWO: THE BOYS.

MATT LeBLANC: While his other FRIENDS were heading off pursuing non-FRIENDS related careers, LeBlanc chose to continue playing his famed-role, Joey in the ill-advised JOEY. This premise was about FRIENDS character Joey Tribbiani spinning off into La La Land to pursue his acting career. However, JOEY just proved that without the support of the full ensemble cast of FRIENDS, Joey was not viable. So, after this went south, he remained low profile (understandably if you ever saw JOEY). However, recently he has graced the small screen with a new role: himself. Yes, he actually plays Matt LeBlanc in Showtime's EPISODES. With its premier in early 2011, the show has been received well. Similar to Kirstie Alley's FAT ACTRESS the show chronicles LeBlanc's love/hate relationship with fame. However, unlike FAT ACTRESS (also on Showtime), EPISODES is not solely about LeBlanc. It's really about this British couple (played by Stephen Mangan and Tamsin Greig) who have a hit comedic television show in the UK and are convinced to adapt it for American audiences in Los Angeles (basically what Gervais's THE OFFICE did). However, (like THE OFFICE), the UK version is superior to the American counterpart in almost every way. And when the studio forces lead actor Matt LeBlanc onto the writers, the show within a show goes from bad to worse. Soon its about a hockey coach's one-liners and a librarian with short skirts. EPISODES really soars and LeBlanc is actually funny without resorting to Joey-esque humor. Bravo, LeBlanc, for playing a non-FRIENDly role. The show is certainly a better bet than JOEY ever was and will have a larger arc than FAT ACTRESS (which literally only focused on her weight). I would highly recommend watching LeBlanc's new show: EPISODES.

MATTHEW PERRY: Matthew Perry was always my favorite male cast member of FRIENDS because of his dry, sarcastic wit. So when I heard his latest project MR. SUNSHINE was airing on ABC (in the timeslot of FRIENDS friend Courtney Cox), I was excited. His previous television series post-FRIENDS was STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP. A show that was definitely much better than it was given credit for. But with the ratings subpar, the show was cancelled. But now with MR. SUNSHINE, our sarcastic bestie is back. However, despite the fact that the cast is promising (hilarious Allison Janney leads the group), the pilot and second episode were mediocre. And I really wanted to love this show. You see, the premise explains that Matthew Perry's character is the general manager of the Sunshine Center (sort of like the Staples Center) where sports and entertainment are supplied to the masses. However, since no outside life is established for our funny lead, it becomes a work-place comedy complete with nepotistic assistants, crazy bosses, and little substance. Sure, it has it's comedic moments, but is not my bet for best comedy of the year. That probably goes to MODERN FAMILY and while this hilarious show leads into MR. SUNSHINE, it's not enough to make it a hit. Plus, like a lot of his FRIENDS are trying to avoid, Perry still keeps Chandler-esque humor alive and well, which may be his downfall.

DAVID SCHWIMMER: Schwimmer's post-FRIENDS life has been fairly underwraps. Known for wanting to direct more (he directed a few episodes on FRIENDS), he's done a few projects, but nothing really well-known besides his HBO series LITTLE BRITAIN USA. However, he has been the voice of Melman in MADAGASCAR the animated feature films and shorts. Onto his third feature for this animated family series, Schwimmer keeps busy, but remains quiet. But with his one-episode role on 30 ROCK, Schwimmer proves he doesn't need a Ross-and-Rachel role to keep it interesting. Yet with this, he has been active in his somewhat native Chicago (he attended Northwestern University) with Lookingglass Theatre. As a co-founder of this theatre company he has acted and directed numerous shows and guides the company. Schwimmer is quoted to have said: "I've made a good amount of money. I'm very happy that I can now support my theatre company and support friends and family, and I'm ready to maybe go back to school and change careers." So, who knows what will come next for Schwimmer, but we are looking forward to it.

What are your (girl) FRIENDS up to?

2011-02-14T14:10:00.000-08:00

So, since our FRIENDS have all been up to such interesting projects since their time at Central Perk, I thought a friendly check-in was due.

THE ONE WITH TWO PARTS: PART ONE: THE GIRLS.

JENNIFER ANISTON: Aniston has had a string of successful/semi-successful romantic comedies as of late. Just coming out this weekend was JUST GO WITH IT, co-starring Adam Sandler. While jury is out on how well this will really go over, the reviews have been mixed. Rotten Tomatoes critic forum gives it a terrible 18%, leading me to conclude it can't be that good. But previous rom-coms THE SWITCH (co-starring Jason Bateman) and THE BOUNTY HUNTER (co-starring Gerald Butler) have been more successful. The question is, if she is 42, why is she doing romantic comedies? Now ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you that adore Ms. Aniston, but why is she still doing these movies? Her days as a dramatic actress in a film like THE GOOD GIRL were strong, but fleeting. Where have these juicer roles gone for her? She needs to do more roles like this. And while I appreciated her stint opposite bff Courtney Cox in sitcom COUGAR TOWN, this is not her arena anymore. Aniston needs to sink her teeth into some serious meat.

(Though on a side note, I appreciate her outspoken friend Chelsea Handler, who denounced Angelina Jolie on her E late night show, Chelsea Lately, for Aniston, something Cox couldn't do).

COURTNEY COX: Cox has been keeping very busy, just like gal-pal Aniston. She has been starring in her suburban cul-de-sac of a show called COUGAR TOWN on ABC. In it's second season, Cox is the only friend who has really done the sitcom game again. With this show (though hideously titled) Cox plays an older woman, looking for love. With its off-beat humor and notable one-liners, the show can soar. However, it is certainly not as endearing as FRIENDS was as it often times lacks depth and heart. But, between another sitcom, like TWO AND A HALF MEN, COUGAR TOWN this show will win out every time. Why? Because TWO AND A HALF MEN is sitcom-slime to the tenth degree and really dumbs down it's audience. Even though COUGAR TOWN doesn't take itself seriously, just like it's Sheen-starring counterpart, it does have really interesting characters and a new take on the love triangle plot line. Plus with guest stars like Emmy-gold Aniston, and series regular tv-icon Busy Philips, the show has some street-cred. But, only a bit. Will it last 10 season like FRIENDS? Hell no. Does it add to the fun of Comedy Wednesday on ABC, yes. And to Cox's credit, she does not play Monica in this sitcom. Something her other FRIENDS have been pigeonholed into.

LISA KUDROW: Kudrow has kept her recent activity fairly quiet, though guest spot on Cox's COUGAR TOWN did keep her busy for a week or so in 2010. But beyond that, and that terrible movie HOTEL FOR DOGS, she has been keeping a low-profile. The most recent film she was in (that was of worth) was EASY A, starring the newcomer (and now red carpet maven) Emma Stone. Kudrow plays a guidance counselor at Stone's high school. This off-beat character fits Kudrow, but isn't too much like her alter-ego Phoebe. She has some great actors to play off of in this film including Stanley Tucci, Malcolm McDowell and Thomas Haden Church.

Kudrow has some phenomenal lines in this film including my personal favorite:

"He brought a knife to school. It's just a butter knife,

but you know what they say, it's a gateway knife."

Read the review for EASY A here: http://cuckookachooanartsreview.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

But Kudrow has also been creating a one-woman improvised webisode WEB THERAPY where she plays a therapist. You can visit the site here: http://www.lstudio.com/web-therapy/ Though I haven't heard too much about it, at least she is doing something and keeping her comedy alive.

NEXT UP? What are your (boy) FRIENDS up to?

SUNDANCE 2011: JESS + MOSS

2011-02-11T12:52:00.000-08:00

JESS + MOSS is a really wonderful film about two kids (Jess is 18, Moss is 12) and their summer in Kentucky. While the two seem an unlikely duo due to their age difference, they are actually the best of friends and know each other better than anyone. Dealing with tragedy (Moss's parents passed away tragically) they find ways to relate. But the story is not really why you should see this film. It's really more of a concept film than an actual plot-driven film. Because, nothing really happens. Yep, there is no plot. However, you do learn an awful lot about these characters throughout the course of the film. In a way, it sort of reminds me Kristen Dunst's MARIE ANTOINETTE in that nothing happens, but then so much happened, too. However, unlike MARIE ANTOINETTE, these characters have a real arc and history (no pun intended).

The film concentrates on the theme of memory. A fascinating choice when you consider that memories are probably the most precious personal commodity we have, but the least tangible. With dealing with the families and their lives we see these two connect in unusual and unexpected ways. And the film holds true to using memory not just in the front-of-camera arena, but behind the camera, too. Well, really its IN the camera. You see, this film uses expired and degraded film stocks. What does this mean? Well, first off, in the new era of digital media, this film is actually shot on 16mm film. Shocker for a low-budget indie shot on the director's parent's farm in Kentucky. But the "expired and degraded" part means that this was film that was not supposed to be used. The effect is magical. With a film all about memory, the partially destroyed, weakened, and sometimes grainy film evokes the theme of memory. It's as if we as an audience are remembering the story of JESS + MOSS and the details are fuzzy. Its absolutely brilliant.

The actors, Jess (played by Sarah Hagen, best known for BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, and FREAKS AND GEEKS) and Moss (newcomer Austin Vickers) are a vibrant pair. With Hagen's street cred and unusual looks and voice, she lends a whimsical, vintage hispter vibe to the young Kentucky native, in a realistic and also moving way. And then Vickers presents Moss sweetly and naively but we see him grow and develop over the film and his acting, though clearly he was a novice, is really not too bad. But I must say without Hagen there to lend support, Vickers would have fallen short. But there are some real moments when Vickers is honest and vulnerable, a difficult task for such a new actor.

Overall, this film is highly worth the watch. Though it certainly would not be for everyone. It's artsy, but not annoyingly so. It's plotless, but has an arc. And it is a fantastic study on memories and how we keep people and things alive after they've gone.

Rent/Buy/Go See JESS + MOSS if...
-you like Sarah Hagen (you will not be disappointed).
-you like "plot less" shows that are really just an exploration of character.
-you like good cinema without the flash and whirlygigs of tentpoles.

See the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ9PJ7zRLTU&feature=youtube_gdata

Friday Night Lights: Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose.

2011-02-10T14:44:00.000-08:00

I interrupt the SUNDANCE 2011 reviews to bring you a goodbye to a phenomenal show, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS.

This is the best show that no one saw.

No one saw, huh? That's right. This show which has garnered 35 nominations from various award ceremonies over the past five seasons and was a show that no one saw. Why you ask? Well, this show has had an interesting past. It premiered on NBC (the owner of the rights), to flop-like ratings. However, with such tremendous support from critics and NBC execs, the show found a new distribution pathway - DirecTV. Yes, unusual. This means that only those who get DirecTV can see what happens with Jason Street, Tim Riggins, Matt Saracen and Coach Taylor in the following seasons. So, after the season airs on DirecTV, NBC then re-runs them on NBC months later but at a less-than-prestigious time slot. That actually sounds like a decent compromise, because if the DirecTV deal didn't go through, there would have been only one season, instead of five.

So, now that we understand why this show didn't hold an audience due to its unfamiliar distribution strategy, we must turn to the story itself. FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS (FNL) is a drama that is shot in a documentary-style. It follows Coach Eric Taylor (football coach in a small town of Dillon, TX) and his wife, Tami, and daughter, Julie, as they deal with high school, football, and living large in Texas. Sounds terrible, right? Or at least it sounds like any old primetime soap, right? Well you are wrong. This show is not over the top, this show is probably the most realistic depiction of small town, USA on television. There is so much heart and courage in not just the stories, but in the style and acting that the show resonates with numerous, die-hard fans of all ages. First off, the football is accurate, not just "played at" but is the most accurate of any sports I have seen depicted on television. Second, the relationships between the high school sweethearts, the best friends, the married couples and the town are all well within the realm of reality and are probably too accurate. This is why the show did not succeed on its first run on NBC. The show is too accurate.

Today, our television waves are too full of sensationalism (oh my! there's a bomb inside a body! or... oh my! there's a pike running thru a person, but they can still walk!), that any accurate television sends us into sleep mode. Well, FNL is here to combat this and finally present some critically acclaimed sports drama to network television. But unfortunately, not enough heard this call to duty. This show is heart wrenching. There are so many moments I can count that have made me reflect on my own time in a small town, and the people I met there. And beyond that, the characters you meet in FNL are by far some of the most relatable characters that when you get to see them grow, you feel like you've known them your whole life.

Finally, this show (though now it just finished its series finale last night on DirecTV), has received the credit it deserves, though a bit late. It has been nominated for 8 Emmy's, finally winning 1 (for outstanding casting). But you know how award shows work, the viewers at home have to know the winner, and so this "little engine that could" was passed over for the big win numerous times in favor of more well-known shows. However, in 2010, Kyle Chandler (Coach Eric Taylor) and Connie Britton (Tami Taylor) finally (FINALLY!) got nominated for their work with an Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor and Actress, respectively. Now, they didn't win, but the nomination was a lot of validation for these two actors who have by far created the most realistic marriage on screen. By far.

Now, I know, I know, you all must think that I am over-exaggerating this, but I assure you, I am not.

This is the best television show that no one saw.

You should rent/buy FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS on dvd if...
-you enjoy football or sports in general.
-you enjoy small town portrayals that are accurate.
-you enjoy really well-acted and well-crafted television.
-you want to see a marriage depicted actually realistically by some fine actors.

This is a show that hopefully will live on through dvd sales:

http://www.amazon.com/Friday-Night-Lights-First-Season/dp/B000RF1QE2

SUNDANCE SHORT: THIS IS NOT A SUIT

2011-02-01T11:53:00.000-08:00

SUNDANCE 2011: SHORT FILMS: THIS IS NOT A SUIT.

THIS IS NOT A SUIT is a short film by A. Sauvage is part advertisement part art. A. Sauvage is a tailor who presents fashion shows at the world's largest arenas, like London Fashion Week. His clean cut style and classic lines transfers to not only his clothing lines (entitled THIS IS NOT A SUIT), but also to his short film.

The film explores what it means to be an artist, a designer, and a tastemaker. Best of all, the film itself is artistic with design aesthetics, and a tastemaker itself. With it's white background, the suit stands forward as the main character - seconded only by the man who wears it. The film not only is a character study into the designer himself, but into the idea of what an artist is. With a smirk and a wink, the short not only manages to advertise his suits (which are classically gorgeous), but it makes a statement about arts and where artists are in our society. With its dated (yes, dated, but with nostalgia, too) voiceover the film feels like it came out of the 1960s instead of the 21st century. This gives the film some wit, some charm, and some real class. With its MAD MEN feel, the film reminds us of the importance of art in our daily lives - including what we wear. And like the big tent-pole movies, the combination of art and commerce is entangled in this short. This short is a MUST-SEE.

See it if:

You like design and fashion.

You like quirky, smirking shorts.

You like Mad Men.

You find the journey and charisma of the artist fascinating.

BEST OF ALL: See it on You Tube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2HfNg3ScM0

SUNDANCE 2011: SUBMARINE IS A MUST-SEE.

2011-01-31T12:52:00.000-08:00

SUNDANCE 2011: SUBMARINE

SUBMARINE (directed by Richard Ayoade, executive produced by Ben Stiller) is a must-see from the 2011 Sundance line up. This brit comedy is about an adolescent boy who must deal with his mother's infidelities and his girlfriend's mother's illness. In this quick-witted and quirky film, lead actor Craig Roberts plays the precocious Oliver Tate with style and effectiveness. Opposite Roberts is young actress Yasmin Paige who plays a strong-willed teen with grace and serious acting chops. These two shine in this world where sometimes keeping the outside at a distance is the only way to survive, until eventually you must deal with it.

However, the real star is the film's style. With it's independent vibe, but commercial appeal, it may be 2011's version of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. The editing is fantastic. Using freeze-frames, eye-contact with the camera, and separate monologues with black backgrounds break the classic narrative flow, but are incredibly effective. These moments allow the audience to focus on a small change in the scene, emphasizing a reaction or plot point. All in all, this film's editing and execution is what drives it and sets it apart from other coming of age stories.

This film has charm. That's probably the best way to describe it. Charm. And with it's Brit humor and confidence, I am sure it will be picked up for a (at the very least) a limited engagement in NY and LA theatres. However, if it doesn't get to a city near you, keep it on your Netflix and DVD list, it's worth it.

GO SEE IT IF:
You like coming of age stories.
You like Brit humor.
You like a little quirk and charm.
You like self-reflexive films (ie films that know they are films, and are not edited classically).

Below is a humorous description of the film from the perspective of the lead character, Oliver Tate (the precocious 15 year old):

I have been waiting too long for the film of my life. My name is Oliver Tate. This film will capture my particular idiosyncrasies, for example, the way I seduce my classmate Jordana Bevan using only my mind. Also, since my parents’ marriage is being threatened by a man who runs courses on Mental and Physical Wellbeing, the film will probably feature some elaborate set-pieces of me taking him down. There will be helicopter shots. There will be slow-mo, but also transcendent moments, like when I cure my father’s depression. Knowing me as I do, I will be surprised if this film runs to less than three hours. Note to the press: appropriate adjectives to describe this film include “breath-taking” and “irresistible” as well the phrase: “a monumental achievement”.

SEE TRAILER AND DIRECTOR INTERVIEW AT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L6p3ZU2EeU

STAY TUNED FOR MORE SUNDANCE 2011 REVIEWS!

SUNDANCE 2011: THE NINE MUSES Is UnInspired

2011-01-28T09:54:00.000-08:00

Sundance 2011: Reviews: THE NINE MUSES

So, I watched John Akomfrah's THE NINE MUSES at the Yarrow Theatre in Park City, Utah during the ten day festival. And I must say, "A" for the concept, "F" for the execution. The film is based on Homer's THE ODYSSEY (a great start to a film) and uses text from the lyrical and poetic classic to discuss the life of an immigrant. Since Homer's THE ODYSSEY is all about coming home, this suits the immigrant-tale since he is always searching for home or for a new home. Great.

This is where it gets a little rocky. Akomfrah starts to use quoted passages not from THE ODYSSEY, but from passages from such authors as: Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, and Emily Dickinson. Now, I have no problem quoting other works, especially as important as these and the others he quoted. However, my problem results when there lacks focus. When each section of the film (which corresponds to the nine muses) is diverse it can be difficult to hold them together. Not to mention that he uses the most chiched passages from these authors. Most of which I could quote myself from memory. Now I understand that the familiarity can breed a connection to the work. It can also breed a lot of unimagined cliches.

Now, add to the pile of stuff, some music. Don't get me wrong its great soothing, mysterious original tones, but it was present the whole movie. Which then becomes repetitive. Now, add to this the static (and I mean static) images of a man in a yellow (sometimes blue, sometimes red) parka standing in the middle of a path looking at a mountain (sometimes a road, sometimes on a boat). Now I understand isolated individuals looking out contemplatively can work to create a feeling of solidarity, but when it is the entire 90 minutes (and did I mention they were static) it becomes trite. I literally thought they were photographs (not moving film) until I saw a bird fly by, which reminded me that Akomfrah did this static style on purpose. For the entire film.

Now, some of the more interesting parts were when they intercut BBC archival footage of various things. However, it was so haphazard and difficult to follow along that I often did not know what was in the footage and how it related. Perhaps intertitles with the situation and the date could have been useful to connect the dots for us. Which is too bad, cause that could have saved the film.

Like I said, the idea was particularly interesting and if it took it upon itself to follow one man on his own odyssey (much like Homer did), using the music and Homer's words, with some explained inter-splicing of the BBC footage, the film could have been a knockout. So concept was amazing (and the write up in the SUNDANCE book, too), but the film did not hold up in person, which is a real shame.

STAY TUNED: For more SUNDANCE 2011 Reviews!

SUNDANCE 2011

2011-01-27T11:33:00.001-08:00

This is the first of many reviews of SUNDANCE 2011. I plan on reviewing the various feature length and short films that I saw over the four days I was at the festival, but first, I want to give a little background information for any SUNDANCE novices out there.

The SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL is a festival that occurs for 10 days in January. The festival is located in Park City, Utah, just 45 minutes from Salt Lake City. It is the largest and most well-known independent film festival in the United States. The festival was founded in 1978 by Sterling Van Wagenen under the name Utah/US Film Festival. However, with the involvement of Robert Redford (for all intensive purposes, the real founder) in 1981 it moved from September to January, hoping to attract Hollywood types with it's ski resort location and timing. Then, in 1991 Redford changed the name to SUNDANCE, named after his break out role opposite long-time cohort Paul Newman in BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID. In this film Redford played the Sundance Kid and thus the name of the festival was solidified.

Many directors and films have had their big break come from being a part of the coveted official selection of SUNDANCE. This list includes but is not limited to: Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, Darren Aronofsky, SAW, GARDEN STATE, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, RESERVOIR DOGS, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, WAITING FOR SUPERMAN, CLERKS, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING, PRECIOUS and NAPOLEON DYNOMITE (just to name a few).

The festival has a competition as each of the selections are divided into categories (dramatic, comedic, documentary etc...). The most coveted award is the Grand Jury Award, followed by the Audience Award (voted on by the audience at the festival). These awards help these small films find an audience and perhaps even a distribution company.

That brings me to: Why SUNDANCE? Well, the point of film festivals is for small films and green talent to gain some exposure. The best scenario for any film or filmmaker is to find a distributor for their film. A great example of this is LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, which played at SUNDANCE and then was distributed for a theatrical release. It then went on to win two Oscars. For the actors, its a way to rub elbows with Hollywood and gain some networking perks. For anyone, getting into SUNDANCE is a big deal and an important step for their career.

How does it work? Well there are numerous theaters where each film plays a few times (usually 4-5 times). You buy a ticket (or wait in the waitlist line) and see the film. After the film, the director (and often times the cast and crew) are there to lead a Q&A with the audience. Perhaps they will even stick around for photos and additional one-on-one time with audience members. Then SUNDANCE also hosts various panel discussions, further Q&A's, concerts and parties. SUNDANCE is a great way to network with film buffs, execs, and stars.

STAY TUNED: for reviews on the films I screened in the next postings.

Why The Golden Globes Are Crap.

2011-01-17T18:36:00.000-08:00

The Golden Globes are crap. Yes, you heard it here. Why, you as? While the Globes have been around awhile (since 1944), they are not reputable. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association are the hosts, which pretty much makes no sense. Foreign Press? Foreign Press?! What does that have to do with film and actual talent? Not much. Plus since it has the word "Press" in the title, that really makes me think it is a marketing ploy, rather than an actual determination of talent from actual style makers (like say, the Oscars).

Basically the awards show was designed to make money. Ya see, the HFPA puts on this shendig to rub elbows with the rich and famous. Basically, the movie makers of Hollywood lobby and recruit votes because if they don't then they don't get nominated. If they don't get nominated, they don't get to go to the event and then they don't get the fake "prestige." And since everyone (the stars, E! Channel, reputable press sources etc..) is playing along with this scam (ie that the Globes matter), then it DOES matter if your film is not nominated. So, basically the Golden Globes is a way for the HFPA to seem important and the movie makers get to win fake awards they lobbied for. In all reality, the Golden Globes are a three hour event that advertises movies. You are basically watching one big long trailer.

So why do the stars go then, you ask? Well, they have to. They are under contract to promote their movies, which includes "award" shows, and sit there, smiling the whole way through.

You seemed shocked, right?

Well, here's some proof. If you watched last evening, host Ricky Gervais presented an opening monologue with a serious, serious party foul: He basically outed the scam of the Globes, to those in the know. While, I am sure HFPA is not thrilled with Gervais, everyone who's in the know had a moment to acknowlede that "we are all just playing along."

Here is the transcript of what he said:

Ricky Gervais:

It was a big year for 3-D movies: Toy Story, Despicable Me, Tron. Seems like everything this year was 3 dimensional. Except the characters in The Tourist, um...I feel bad about that joke...no...no I tell you what, I am jumping on the bandwagon! Cause I haven't even seen The Tourist. Who has?! Um, but no! It must be good cause it's nominated. So shut up, okay? And I'd like to crush this ridiculous rumor going around that the only reason The Tourist was nominated was so that the Hollywood Foreign Press could hang out with Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie. That is rubbish! That is not the only reason. They also accepted bribes. (camera pans to Depp who is having a hard time not laughing, and quiet applause starts to be heard).

With such a sarcastic host, how else do you take this?

All this being said, the best part of the evening was seeing and hearing from Michael Douglas, cancer-free.

THE OTHER CITY: An AIDS Epidemic in D.C.

2010-12-12T14:53:00.000-08:00

The Other City is an American documentary directed by Susan Koch and was released in 2010. The documentary crew follows individuals in Washington D.C. who suffer from HIV or AIDS, revealing that at least 3% (perhaps up to 5%) of the Washington D.C. population is infected with HIV or AIDS. The title comes from the notion that tourists see the pristine White House, the cherry blossoms, and the proud Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, but rarely see the “other” city, the one riddled with poverty and disease. The heart-wrenching stories of a young infected mother battling the system just trying to find a place to live with her children, the young white man who dies in an AIDS home surrounded by family, and a man who is trying to help, by providing clean needles in exchange for dirty ones. All of these stories show strife, but they also show how the system that is in place that is suppose to help these individuals is actually doing anything but. The film advocates awareness by opening the viewers’ eyes to a problem that no one seems to be discussing in our nation’s capital, the symbol for the United States of America.

Susan Koch and her documentary filmmaking crew express concern for the nation’s capital. This film is no-doubt an advocacy film (rather than a complete cinema verite without an agenda) in that it is strongly skewed to make a point. The point is that no one is talking about this issue. Like the “other” part of the city, the issue gets swept aside and ignored. And now that the problem has reached epidemic levels, action is needed. The film’s message is that the issues that are swept under the rug come back and are worse because we have ignored them in their infancies. The film criticizes the fact that since Washington D.C. is separate from the states so the delineation of a state governance and federal governance is murky compared to other regions, thus bureaucratic red tape is even more pronounced. It also implies that the government’s lack of action has brought this problem to its full height. Regardless of whether or not the audience agrees with these specific concerns, no one can deny (based on the facts presented in the film) that HIV and AIDS is an issue in Washington D.C. And the theme of The Other City is a clear vehicle for their message of hidden issues within a society.

The film uses personal stories to effectively relate a larger issue to the viewers. And a strategy it uses is diversity amongst the subjects. In The Other City, J’Mia, a single mother of three, is suffering with AIDS, but that is nothing to her struggle, searching for housing. The crew follows J’Mia and discovers that some of the subsidized housing (designed for situations like J’Mia’s) will be a two-year wait, or else are already filled. Again, this shows the magnitude of the issue. And then there is Jose, a young Hispanic man who is HIV positive. He has turned his struggles into advocacy by reaching out to Hispanic-dominated schools to teach teens about HIV and safe sex. But even different still is the staff of an AIDS hospice, Joseph’s House, a place where people can come, free of charge, if they, according to the workers, “don’t have a place to die.” The film follows the funding issues this organization goes through as their grants may not be renewed, another example of how the system is failing to help. And then there’s Ron, a former addict and current AIDS victim, who runs a program where for each dirty needle a person gives anonymously, new needles are given to him. This controversial program (some feel it is propagating drug use, when really it is just trying to advocate health) was outlawed in Washington D.C. for some time, but has now been instated (though without much funding – Ron works out of a van). These diverse subjects cover a wealth of demographics, showing the magnitude of the problem.

The film makes great use out of one particular filmic device: intertitles. These titles and text placed below the film’s action on the screen and interspersed throughout the film serve multiple purposes. Practically, they delineate characters to make the plot lines easier to follow, but they also contribute to the advocacy goal of the film. For instance, intertitles are used to present facts about the social issue. In The Other City, the intertitles drop such cold-hard facts like 3-5% are infected with HIV or AIDS or that Obama’s administration was the first to create an AIDS strategy for the United States (while we’ve required an AIDS strategy for the countries we give aid to for years). When, where and how these intertitles appear is based on the auteur of the film, but can change how the scene is perceived. The effect garners sympathy for the subjects. These intertitles in the film contribute to an overall pessimistic note, asking for change and reform for their respective causes.

The film uses another convention: speaking to both those directly affected by these issues, and representatives of those who may have propagated them. In The Other City, the film shows Representative Todd Tiahrt (a Republican from Kansas) claiming he didn’t make people use dirty needles or have sex with infected people and thus it is not his fault that this epidemic has spread. Conversely, there’s Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman from Washington D.C. who says in the film, “failure to have needle exchange allowed the disease to be silently passed through the population, for that the Congress of the United States is chiefly responsible.” A trait of advocacy films is showing where the problem began, so showing the government’s role in this issue signals to the viewer that more should have been done. Again, this use of a government official helps to advocate change as they lend some validity to the filmmakers’ statements.Documentaries are often difficult to edit and have difficulties finding an audience. For The Other City the filmmakers chose to interweave the stories of the subjects, intermixed with hard facts. This editing style suits the advocacy film genre well as the viewer sees the larger idea (with the facts) but also sees the faces involved (with the subjects’ stories). In a Q&A with the director, Koch explained that there were more stories filmed, that just couldn’t make the cut. She reiterated that finding the story within the footage and working to create a cohesive film with enough intrigue and climax is key for documentaries. And as far as finding an audience, the film has done well at film festivals. The Other City premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and is now receiving limited theatrical openings in select cities (Washington D.C., New York, and Los Angeles). The film’s still racy topic of HIV and AIDS undoubtedly contains references to sex, drug use, and homosexuality, which can be too controversial for some viewers and thus it is harder to find an audience.

The documentary The Other City is a fascinating look at a Washington D.C. most of us never see. The heart and soul of the film lies in the subjects who bravely face not only the disease, but also the stigma attached to it in a society where the system in place that is suppose to help is only a hindrance. The film is a tearjerker but only because you know that the disease is preventable and that no one educated or reformed the city, instead the disease slowly became an epidemic. The film is an excellent example of advocacy filmmaking and really stirs an audience not just for change in the way AIDS is spreading, but how our government handles the disease. The cold-hard facts, the lives of those affected, and the families struggling with this disease leaves the iconic symbols of the United States’s capital a bit more tarnished in my eyes.

RENT THIS WEEKEND: CLUELESS

2010-12-03T14:42:00.000-08:00

An example of sarcastic and witty comedy using outside knowledge to create a community is the adaptation of Jane Austen’s Emma as a film: Clueless. Dripping with irony, the entire film has a sarcastic tone, though the characters may not speak sarcastically. While on the surface this film seems to be just a teen comedy loosely based on Jane Austen’s novel, but it actually defines a generation.

Through its pop culture references (using a slang-driven language) and its exaggerated storyline (Cher is comedically held up at gunpoint and then ends up romantically entangled with her stepbrother), the film uses its style to reach out to a generation. Though the Jane Austen references are mostly in the characters and plot, there will be a group of viewers who form a community based on understanding these references.

However, most of the other viewers will form a different community. This community will be based on the generational aspects and pop culture references that require inside knowledge to fully understand. Through the language (i.e. slang: “That’s like so five years ago,” “Check it,” and “As If!”), the clothing (bare midriffs, platform shoes, the 90’s Seattle grunge look), and the music (“Rolling With My Homies” by Coolio, references to Nine Inch Nails and The Cranberries), this film creates an in-crowd feel because some viewers (older generations) will not understand these references. Sitting and watching this film with my parents a few years ago ended up being a futile effort since I found a deep connection to it and laughed consistently, but they didn’t. They are not of the generation who would appreciate this mix of literary history, pop culture, and generational nostalgia. The film thus creates a generation-specific community. The message here is about understanding and participating in your generation’s community through understanding inside jokes and references. Each generation will have a defining style and Clueless epitomizes this. Best of all, the film reminds us that it is okay to stand-alone as a generation and rebel from the previous generations, a requirement for society to progress.