Movie City Indie Archive for April, 2009

The sound of Antwerp

Indie is recuperating


No comment: Where film criticism belongs

The randomness that is the internets provides this student emanation on “Where Film Criticism Belongs by Sam Watermeier of the Carmel High School HiLite, Indiana. Sounds like the run-of-the-mill blog to me: “Film critics rarely if ever actually make a significant impact on any one film or filmmaker. People need to realize this. Like I was saying earlier, people try too hard to attach a sense of purpose to film criticism. Film hatefilmcritics.jpgcriticism is not supposed to change or influence film. It’s not even really supposed to influence readers because it is not the critic’s job to market films. A lot of critics don’t realize this. Like Peter Travers, they think they are supposed to “sell” films to their readers. Film criticism should be viewed as simply another form of personal expression like poetry or painting. It is ideally meant to be an extremely personal, uncompromising, intimate form of art, yet many critics try too hard to form a relationship with their audience and take on a conversational stlye [sic]. They care too much about other people’s movie tastes and focus on what the audience may or may not like. They don’t own their opinion and these days, their reviews are not introspective enough. Now, I’m not saying I hate film critics. They are my heroes. There are many I admire: Roger Ebert of course, Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly, Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson from the radio show, Filmspotting. However, they are the only critics that really say something with their reviews. They are the kinds of critics I can only dream of being. I worry though that with all these shallow critics around these days and their unfortunately pedestrian views, the field of work I dream of being involved in may be slowly fading away and losing the integrity it once had.”

1 Comment »

Forebears: who's Seth Rogen channeling in Observe and Report?


Tetro times 2: Gallo on fathers; Coppola on boys

Francis calls in the rocking chair.

Fox's statement about the Wolverine situation

“Last night, a stolen, incomplete and early version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine was posted illegally on a website. It was without many effects, had missing and unedited scenes and temporary sound and music. We immediately xx242-x-men_wolverine_007.jpgcontacted the appropriate legal authorities and had it removed. We forensically mark our content so we can identify sources that make it available or download it. The source of the initial leak and any subsequent postings will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – the courts have handed down significant criminal sentences for such acts in the past. The FBI and the MPAA also are actively investigating this crime. We are encouraged by the support of fansites condemning this illegal posting and pointing out that such theft undermines the enormous efforts of the filmmakers and actors, and above all, hurts the fans of the film.”

Fifth Third Ballpark Burger ought to be a hoax; isn't

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Roger Ebert claimed that the re-editing of The Brown Bunny after Cannes allowed him a difference of opinion so vast that he first called it the worst film in history and eventually gave it a thumbs up. This is both far fetched and an outright lie. The truth is, unlike the many claims that the unfinished film that showed at Cannes was 24 minutes shorter than the finished film, it was only 8 minutes shorter. The running time I filled out on the Cannes submission form was arbitrary. The running time I chose was just a number I liked. I had no idea where in the process I would actually be when I needed to stop cutting to meet the screening deadline. So whatever running time was printed in the program, I promise you, was not the actual running time. And the cuts I made to finish the film after Cannes were not many. I shortened the opening race scene once I was able to do so digitally. After rewatching the last 4 minutes of the film over and over again, somewhere within those 4 minutes, I froze the picture and just ended the film there, cutting out everything after that point, which was about 3 minutes. Originally in the salt flats scene, the motorcycle returned from the white. I removed the return portion of that shot, which seemed too literal. And I cut a scene of me putting on a sweater. That’s pretty much it. Plus the usual frame here, frame there, final tweaks. If you didn’t like the unfinished film at Cannes, you didn’t like the finished film, and vice versa. Roger Ebert made up his story and his premise because after calling my film literally the worst film ever made, he eventually realized it was not in his best interest to be stuck with that mantra. Stuck with a brutal, dismissive review of a film that other, more serious critics eventually felt differently about. He also took attention away from what he actually did at the press screening. It is outrageous that a single critic disrupted a press screening for a film chosen in main competition at such a high profile festival and even more outrageous that Ebert was ever allowed into another screening at Cannes. His ranting, moaning and eventual loud singing happened within the first 20 minutes, completely disrupting and manipulating the press screening of my film. Afterwards, at the first public screening, booing, laughing and hissing started during the open credits, even before the first scene of the film. The public, who had heard and read rumors about the Ebert incident and about me personally, heckled from frame one and never stopped. To make things weirder, I got a record-setting standing ovation from the supporters of the film who were trying to show up the distractors who had been disrupting the film. It was not the cut nor the film itself that drew blood. It was something suspicious about me. Something offensive to certain ideologues.”
~ Vincent Gallo

“I think [technology has[ its made my life faster, it’s made the ability to succeed easier. But has that made my life better? Is it better now than it was in the eighties or seventies? I don’t think we are happier. Maybe because I’m 55, I really am asking these questions… I really want to do meaningful things! This is also the time that I really want to focus on directing. I think that I will act less and less. I’ve been doing it for 52 years. It’s a long time to do one thing and I feel like there are a lot of stories that I got out of my system that I don’t need to tell anymore. I don’t need to ever do The Accused again! That is never going to happen again! You hit these milestones as an actor, and then you say, ‘Now what? Now what do I have to say?'”
~ Jodie Foster