Ramin Bahrani is the new great American director. After three films, each a master work, he has established himself as a gifted, confident filmmaker with ideas that involve who and where we are at this time. His films pay great attention to ordinary lives that are not so ordinary at all. His subjects so far have been immigrants working hard to make a living in America. His fourth film, now in preparation, will be a Western. His hero will be named Tom. Well, he couldn't very well be named Huckleberry.
The Old West, too, was a land of immigrants, many of them speaking no English. But Bahrani never refers to his characters as immigrants. They are new Americans, climbing the lower rungs of the economic ladder. There is the Pakistani in "Man Push Cart," who operates a coffee-and-bagel wagon in Manhattan. The Latino kid in "Chop Shop," surviving in a vast auto parts bazaar in the shadow of Shea Stadium. The taxi driver from Senegal in "Goodbye Solo," who works long hours in Winston-Salem, N.C. ["Solo" opens March 27 in Chicago and New York.] These people are not grim and depressed, but hopeful when they have little to be hopeful about. They aren't walking around angry. Wounded, sometimes. They plan to prevail.
Bahrani doesn't categorize his characters. I called them outsiders in one of our conversations at Toronto 2008, and he said he liked that. "It's not just 'emigrant.' It's different. Their lives are asking, How should I be as a person, how should I be behaving, why is the world this way? You could put me in a room full of people who look just like me and I would feel like I don't understand. Those are the questions. It's in every Herzog film: How do you live in this world? How is the world like this? What else is there to think about?"
Red West and Souleymane Sy Savané in "Goodbye Solo:" Why do I keep getting you?
Bahrani was born in Winston-Salem. His parents emigrated from Iran. "Growing up, it was mainly black, white and me and my brother." His father was a psychiatrist, working much among poor whites and blacks. After graduating from Columbia University, he went for a few weeks' visit to his parents' homeland, and found himself staying several years. He was an outsider there, too. Coming home, he knew he had to make films. "Man Push Cart" was made for a few tens of thousands, a small crew, no permits, and the "catering" sometimes consisted of coffee and pastries from the cart. When it looks like his hero is pushing the heavy cart, that's because he is. In Pakistan he was something of a rock star. He is trying his fortune in America.
I saw that film at its world premiere at Sundance 2006. Low budget, unheralded. I felt strongly that I was seeing the work of a great director. I felt the same way after seeing Scorsese's first film. There was an artistic intelligence alive beneath the immediate vision. The images were of real lives on real streets ("mean streets," Scorsese would call them, quoting Raymond Chandler). In an article about Bahrani and his contemporaries in the latest New York Times Magazine, A. O. Scott calls them "neo-neo realists." Well, okay. Neorealism was the Italian postwar movement that argued that everyone has one role they are perfect for--themselves. And stories that are perfect for them, about how they live in this world.
Bahrani works with Alejandro Polanco, the star of "Chop Shop," and Michael Simmonds, who is always his cinematographer
Bahrani has very rarely used professional actors; none in his first two films, only two in "Goodbye Solo." They are not playing themselves, but they're playing people they might have been. Consider the leads in "Goodbye Solo." We meet Solo, the North Carolina taxi driver from Senegal (Souleymane Sy Savané). By nature he is cheerful, warm-hearted. He lives with a Mexican-American woman and dotes on her daughter. He observes people and cares about them. One day a white man named William (Red West), about 70, gets into his cab, and offers a deal: He'll pay Solo $1,000 if, in ten days, he'll give him a ride to the top of a nearby mountain and leave him there. Solo isn't sure he likes the sound of this.
Souleymane Sy Savané is from the Ivory Coast. Red West is from Memphis. We believe it. They fit into their roles like hands into gloves. You look at Red West and think, this man has been waiting all his life to play this role. He is 72, stands 6'2." You may have heard the name. He was a member of Elvis Presley's Memphis Mafia, a friend, driver and bodyguard starting in 1955, who appeared in bit parts in 16 Elvis movies. Since then he has worked for such directors as Robert Altman and Oliver Stone.
"That's what I'm talkin' bout, dog!"
"I wanted a real Southerner," Bahrani told me after the film's premiere at Toronto 2008. "I wanted the accent, I wanted the mentality of the South. Red sent a video of himself doing a reading of the first scene. I think I watched it for three seconds; I hit pause and said, this is the guy that I wrote about. This is the guy. I called him; I said, 'Red, can you not point when you do the reading?' And I gave him one other direction, just to see, would he hear what I said and would he do it? He did it, he taped it, he sent it back; he had listened to everything I said. I brought the guy in and, I mean, there was just no doubt about it. He was the man."
Bahrani only asked him once about Elvis. "He told a great story. I think it was Elvis' cousin that was bringing drugs to him in the end, and Red didn't like it, which was one of the big conflicts of their falling-out. He said, the guy brought drugs, and Red broke his foot and said, 'I'll work my way from your foot up to your face.'
"The whole movie is in Red's face. Especially that lifestyle, you know. The strange thing is he's really friendly and he loves doing comedic things. He used to apologize to Solo when he was getting mad at him, like, 'I'm sorry, Solo, I have to do it for the film.' Only by the fourth week--we did five weeks--did I start to tell him he was doing really good. He knew it by then; he knew he was up to something. After we shot the finale, I had to leave him alone. He went up into that forest and he cried for almost an hour. He was very affected by it. I think he's great. 'I'm gonna be discovered at the age 72!' he tells me.
Chop shop slumdog
"Solo, he just walked in one day. Didn't know me, did not know about my films. Just like he's in the film; charming, warm, open. I liked him immediately. I learned he had been a flight attendant for two years for Air Afrique. I said, 'do you smoke pot?' He said yes. I said, 'do you like reggae music?' He said yes. I said this has gotta be the guy. Of course, I put him through seven months of hell before I said yes."
Working with him for months, that's a key to Bahrani's approach. His films may feel like scenes from real lives, but they're meticulously crafted. He doesn't make them up as he goes along. Before "Chop Shop," he hung around for a year in that strange alternate New York that the fans in Shea Stadium never see: Blocks upon blocks of shabby buildings with auto repair and salvage shops. Preparing for "Goodbye Solo," Bahrani rode around Winston-Salem for six months with a real cab driver from Africa: "Charming, friendly, giving--everything that kinda inspiring the character."
"Goodbye Solo" seems to be about what William will finally do. But the movie is about what happens before. The daily life of Solo. The sealed-off life of William. Solo's partner and her daughter. William's lonely movie going. Solo's concern. William's hostility toward it. Racism has nothing to do with them. It doesn't in Bahrani's films. His characters are wholly absorbed in how they live in this world.
Ahmad Razvi in "Man Push Cart"
"Of course I was always an outsider in Winston-Salem. Increasingly I see how my parents are outsiders, how they really don't seem to belong there. They get along with everyone, everyone gets along with them; there's never been any instance of latent racism towards them, never. They were always accepted; they love my Dad in the community, he's a psychiatrist. He never saw wealthy people, he came from Iran with nothing. He'd mainly see the mountain people and the very poor, some poor whites and a lot of poor blacks. They loved him. But I can see how my parents don't belong and how they're getting isolated there."
Bahrani went to Columbia University as an undergraduate. "Then I worked at the North Carolina School for the Arts for one and a half years on staff. I didn't know how I was gonna get to make a film so I went back to Winston-Salem and thought I should figure it out while I'm writing scripts and things. I worked there on staff at the same time David Gordon Green was there, Craig Zobel, and all these other great people." Then he moved back to New York, and now teaches a graduate course at Columbia on film directing. One of his tools is to go through the films of his students a shot, sometimes even a frame, at a time.
Sisyphus in Manhattan
"I tell students the difference between me and you is I made the film and you didn't. You can make a movie right now with just this hi-def camera and your computer. If it's gonna be good, I don't know. That's a whole different story; that's a different game."
I sense that every film, for Bahrani, is like the man pushing the cart. It's hard to find financing, and sometimes he has had to shut down to raise funds. He's not making his "latest project." He's deciding how he will live for a couple of years. Yet every film looks beautiful. He works with the cinematographer Michael Simmonds. They compose elegantly. You can see their mastery of film grammar. There is never a shot only for style; every shot engages their characters. They are not calling your attention to the film but to its story.
"After finishing this film," he said, "I was just very depressed and I didn't understand what was going on in the film industry, or how do you make a film. I was very dark for two or three months; I was like, what am I gonna do? And then I read that that Herzog interview, where he told you that if the world were ending tomorrow, he would start a film. And I said, I'm gonna make a film."
With Bahrani and Razvi at Ebertfest 2006
It is a tonic to talk with Ramin Bahrani. He has none of the zealous ego of some filmmakers. No matter what he says, he has found a way to live in this world. He speaks like a friendly young teacher; I'm sure his students regard him as a mentor. Sometimes you hear a faint whisper of a Southern accent, but you have to listen for it. What I hear is the casual friendliness of someone who grew up in Middle America and is driven, not by ambition, but by optimism.
On that afternoon in Toronto, he told me: "I'm starting to realize that no matter if they say film is dying--no matter if they're telling me you have to do this, you have to do that--I think they're wrong. I think the more you risk, the better. Did you like the Darren Aronofsky film, 'Pi?' Because it risked everything. What the hell is it? I mean, who came up with this thing? The more you risk the better. You just have to find someone who is going to believe, who will put the money up, because it's usually the opposite of what they tell you have to do. How many people told me 'no' to 'Goodbye Solo?' How many people told me 'no, no money, no, no, no.' Finally, a handful of people said 'yes.' They already made their money back at the Venice film festival because I made it so inexpensively. I thank all those people who told me 'no.' The more they tell me 'no' the happier I become. It makes me angry and I make the movie."
¶
"Goodbye Solo" opens in Chicago and New York on March 27, and will roll out nationally. Ramin Bahrani, Jim Emerson and I will go through "Chop Shop" with the shot-by-shot approach from 4 to 6 p.m. every day April 6-10 at the Conference on World Affairs at the University of Colorado at Boulder (free and open to the public). "Chop Shop" is also one of my selections at Ebertfest 2009, April 22-26 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All passes have been sold, but not all pass-holders attend every screening and in ten years no one in the rush line has ever failed to get a seat.
¶William wonders why Solo always seems to be his driver:
¶
Solo wants to keep a closer eye on William:
¶
Alejandro Polanco and Isamar Gonzales in "Chop Shop"
¶
Ahmad Razvi in "Man Push Cart"
¶
I rush to your blog for your writing, your insight, your thoughts, but the comments as well. Its sad to see none here yet. I'll check back later, just like always.
Ebert: There's a reason for the lack of comments. The comment form was disabled. Damn. It's working now, as you have demonstrated.
Anyone who couldn't post earlier: We're back in business.
Ugetsu Monogatari(1953) not unlike Chopshop---the passion for life, the poetry and depth of ordinary life,(pottery instead of automobiles, basic money and needs dominate),real people,the salt, the soil rather than the pathetic pampered darlings( or victims)of superfluity----poles from the perplexed abstraction of Synecdoche(for which you need a computer's brain). Scarface and the Godfathers also the immigrant's experience.
Who would have thought that some of the brightest young directors in American movies would come out of North Carolina. I like David Gordon Green and Ramin Bahrani, but it's almost a little more satisfying to see great directors coming from somewhere other than LA and New York. In music and literature it seems like great artists can spring from anywhere, but in film it seems that if your not based in one of those two cities, you will have to work triply hard to get your work out. Now, I can only dream of a true explosion of midwestern film directors.
I also enjoyed what Bahrani had so say about "PI". Aranofsky, P.T. Anderson, and others have made films that are extremely daring. Some of them ("Magnolia", "Requiem for a Dream", "All the Real Girls") have been marvelous while others ("The Fountian", and "Undertow" - I know you've championed that one, but I was left cold) have been less than satisfactory. But I almost never care, because there is so much ambition and passion, even in the failures, that I am compelled. It takes nerves of steel to make these films, to believe in your vision so strongly. Two years ago I wrote a script that is the embodiment of a movie I would like to go see, but I'm not sure who else would. Will I ever have the courage to make it? Will anyone ever have the courage to underwrite it?
This is a good post on Bahrani.
Ebert: There's almost a North Carolina Mafia now--like the Austin filmmakers. The NC School of the Arts has been hot for a decade or so.
Banrani mentioned Craig Zobel from there. This is a good one:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/REVIEWS/71025002/1023
Main Point: According to IMDB Bahrani has directed four feature length films, the first being a movie called Strangers in 2000. Are you familiar with this film? Have you seen it?
Side Note: It's interesting to acknowledge the major directors whose entire body of work exists in the 21st century. David Gordon Green being the other principal figure. But I still believe that Paul Thomas Anderson with his five films is the greatest director of his generation. Magnolia being one of the best films of the 90's, There Will Be Blood as perhaps the greatest film from this decade.
Ebert: Have not seen it. Stars Bahrani himself as a young Iranian-American searching for his father's roots. Has not received a proper release.
Ranking directors, and all lists of "best movies," are distasteful to me. Notice I said "Bahrani" is "the new great American director," which he certainly is. That means he has a place on the roll of greatness. So, IMHO, do Anderson, Green and Aronofsky. And others, of course. Bahrani's films proceed directly from his heart and are deeply, deeply humanistic.
I never saw "Chop Shop", but I have visited the Iron Triangle where it takes place several times. Not 5 years ago I drove a 1988 Mazda RX-7 (a performance car far ahead of its time) over the 3 foot potholes and lake-like puddles into a random garage near the Northern side. I had a giant rust hole in my dual cat back exhaust. The non-English speaking workforce there cut off the mufflers and piping, then made me a new one from melted metal, rolled and cooled right in front of my eyes. It took 45 minutes end to end. They overcharged me on materials, and the cost was still less than half of what I would have paid anywhere else.
Having crashed the car, I haven't been back there in a few years, and I've heard that as Shea Stadium is being rebuilt, the triangle is being torn down. A terrible shame. The place was a landmark and had a culture all its own. "Chop Shop" may be the last (only?) record of its history.
Jeez, and it just now hits me, it would've been the perfect place to pick up a solid rear axel for the '86 hatchback corolla I bought this year...
Bahrani: "I thank all those people who told me 'no.' The more they tell me 'no' the happier I become. It makes me angry and I make the movie."
I always seem to read about how Hollywood is corrupted by marketing: expensive faces, sex, cheap laughs, whatever it takes to get asses in the seats. But I think sometimes money is thrown in the right direction ("Dark Knight"), and that funding seems to allow the director's vision that much easier to be put to film. If Bahrani ended up getting three times the money he did for all his films, what would be the result? Would it be better? I can not think any reason it shouldn't be, unless half the point of the film is that the film itself is poor and struggling to survive. Are independent films better simply because they are independent?
Ebert: I imagine Bahrani would naturally love to have more money, or even the same money without sweating blood to raise it. What every director wants is an idea for a good film, and the means to make it. His films are finished, complete, and mature. There is nothing "low budget" about them. Nor are low budgets an advantage. Simply a fact. You never see him doing anything that you think was necessary for budgetary reasons.
This is sort of a random comment, but I recall reading reviews you wrote in 2007 to catch up on films you missed while you were sick. What's troubling is you never reviewed "Apocalypto." The only reason I think the film deserves a review is it's Gibson's first film after "The Passion of the Christ," which critics hated and you piously defended. Did you get around to seeing "Apocalypto?" I'm a pretty big fan, but my friends 'n I have made bets on what you will think of it, and, well, we're anxious to see who wins.
Ebert: "Piously defended?" How about "sincerely praised?"
There are so many new movies opening I simply don't have time to double back for everything.
Re: Patrick about film budgets
Godard once said to a producer, I think, "show me the budget and I'll show you a script." (I'm paraphrasing). I guess which means that the money can only dictate what goes into the movie, but not the movie.
This column is a ray of hope in this dismal world we live in right now. The melting pot of America is getting more and more carmelized and with it hope for a great future. Its optimistic people like Bahrani who will make the America of the future work. Thank you for featuring him. I have read your reviews of his other films and although I have not seen them feel they are telling a story that needs to be told. The country is not falling apart at the seems, it is shedding its old skin and showing a new, better skin.
"Man Push Cart" and "Chop Shop" are two of my favourite, favourite films. There is more meaning in their titles than there is in any given weekend's slew of new releases.
I can't wait to see "Goodbye, Solo" at the Istanbul Film Festival next weekend.
The thing I find interesting in this "neo-neo-realism" (excellent article by A.O. Scott) is less reliance on plot driven or formula driven story telling. Although in both Chop Shop and Man Push Cart there are certainly plot points, I felt more like I was just dropping in on these people at a certain point in time and exiting X minutes later, observing them, as you say, living their lives in context. There is very little contrivance. If empathy is an integral part of the experience, this is a very interesting way to get to it.
I am not sure he is asking the questions in quite the same way as Herzog, whose profound genius has him in another league where the lines between documentary and artifice are completely destroyed (can Grizzly Man or Dieter possibly be real, can Aguirre?) but I am looking forward to more from Bahrani.
Roger wrote, I sense that every film, for Bahrani, is like the man pushing the cart. ....Yet every film looks beautiful.
I like the sound of that. We see a great work and realise the labour of love behind it. Thus are we inspired.
Thank you for acknowledging Craig Zobel and GREAT WORLD OF SOUND, a terrific movie that needs a boost. Since you brought up how much you felt the "New National Anthem" should be recorded, I hope I'm not being redundant in mentioning that it has, or rather was. The original author, David Wingo, is a frequent musical collaborator of both Zobel and Green, and wrote the music; the lyrics are by George Smith. You can hear it here
http://auralcumulus.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-national-anthem.html
Also, I'd like to see Zobel get proper kudos for creating, along with Mike and Matt Chapman, one of the funniest Flash animation cartoon series on the web, Homestar Runner. It's clean, family-friendly humor that is clever and in its best moments reminiscent of the glory days of Jay Ward. It never fails to make me laugh a lot. I think you would particularly enjoy the infamous Strong Bad emails, or "sbemail" as it's known among fans.
http://www.homestarrunner.com
“The movie is about a guy on the corner of the street who no one wants to pay attention to. I hope you will indulge me in paying attention to him for a little while.” -rb
There are times in the midst of 'Chop Shop' where you have to remind yourself what you're watching is taking place in America. That element that ties it to his first movie is that dream of owning a part of the American dream. I certainly don't think it is cynical that the ambitions of owning a food truck are dashed in a way that always seems a bit pre-ordained. (what control do these characters have over their own fate?) When that bike was stolen so many decades ago, an enduring image of how so many hopes can be as volatile for the underclass as to vanish in an instant. Yet, I find these dreams ultimately hopeful in Bahrani, illustrating an ability to rewrite the American dream in a way that strives to capture the beauty and spirit of what makes this country the greatest in the world.
I loved 'Chop Shop', but tracking back to 'Man Push Cart' was the revelation for me. There's a dignity in the very understatement of style. Ahmad's story is never allowed to rely upon the mood that a score would provide or rude, racist customers that would be easy for the audience to villify. Yet, what drives Ahmad, his love for his son and his greatest need to provide for him, is really overwhelming. I was struck by the way that there is beauty even in those miserable circumstances. There's something satisfying about the early morning and a neat stack of pastries and coffee. Of course he wants to fall in love with the beautiful girl across the way. Of course he wishes to take care of a little kitten while he is unable to take care of his actual son. I find that scene where the cat gets sick and dies to be one of the most devastating i've ever seen. It's not 'depressing' because of its tragedy, but it just illustrates that level of frustration and resistance that we face when simply trying to do something good for someone or something. I remember so vividly the tension between Ahmad and the rich man he paints for. You know that the kindness has a shallowness to it and so does Ahmad. You know how much Ahmad will one day actually need the kind of help the man is offering. You know that when the hardship really comes that graciousness will fall away. And of course there's the part near the end where Ahmad goes to buy a toy for his son because he feels like he can now. As he walks around the corner, Rahmani lets us know without using any movie trickery that the cart will soon be gone. It's like Herzog in 'Fitzcarraldo' where he just lets you watch the boat go into the rapids. We're just allowed to watch as this scene unfolds. As Ahmad realizes his cart, his life, has vanished. We just sit and watch as he runs here and there. It couldn't be really gone. Could it? Yes it is. Then it all begins again... Astounding.
I have been trying to convince a local radio personality to allow access to make a documentary on the show, but am not sure it will work. I am somewhat compelled to take a shot at a different idea. There is a inner city church in Birmingham that exists as a sort of full time haven, sanctuary and advocate for the homeless. I've thought about taking setting that on as a non-fiction project to try a start at filmmaking. If I try that out i'll definitely revisit Rahmani for inspiration.
When I watch Bahrani's films I think of not only Scorsese but John Cassavetes. And not just their "independent spirit" but the sense of joy, no matter how dark the subject, of making and seeing films. I read somewhere a story Ben Gazzara tells. As I recall it, he sits down with Cassavetes for a pre-release screening of The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. After it's over, Cassavetes asks for Gazzara's opinion, who tells him he likes it, but it seems a little long.
"What," Cassavetes shoots back, "you got something better to do?"
I grin simply typing that line. And I note that, like Scorsese and Cassavetes, Bahrani is a teacher and mentor. Now, I won't disclose my own occupation, but I've always noted, "Those who can, do. Those who can do better, teach." I'm just sayin'.
I feel that Christopher Nolan, since 2000, has been the new force to be reckoned with. His work is unparalleled to the work from other directors working today. I think he's the "next Scorsese". Have not seen any of Bahrani's work, but would love to see "Chop Shop" whenever I get the chance.
If there has been any director come close to the genius of "Gadge" Kazan as an actor's director, I have to choose Gus Van Sant..(i.e. My Own Private Idaho and Milk)
Ebert: But I did not call Bahrani the next Scorsese. There is only one Scorsese, and only one Bahrani. I only said how their first films made me feel. I would never, ever, list great directors in order. Each and every one is sui generis. I was once compelled to make a list of my ten "favorite directors," but I regret having ever done so. It was meaningful only by its omissions. Keaton, or Chaplin? Bergman, or Bresson? That way madness lies.
Your comments about these young filmmakers brought back memories of last summer. And a group of young 17-20 year olds (my daughter being one) who have been working and studying together at a local performing arts school and theater for at least a decade. These kids really "know" each other and each is an emerging artist with a love of the Theater. During the two week interlude when the Theater itself was dark, these young folk decided to mount a production of Noises Off and present it to the public free of charge. They cast, rehearsed, hung lights and built a workeable set that revolved as needed to show "backstage" as the script requires. All day and late into the evenings this group of Alleycats (the name of the troupe)rehearsed. As an adult sponsor with a connection to the Theater school I watched from the sidelines. The schedule they kept was exhausting. It became a zen experience with the troupe "doing" theater with no thought if an audience would coem for the show. And I can say that the only thing funnier than the play Noises Off (or the movie) is watching a cast of dysfunctional young performers play a cast of dysfunctional performers staging a dysfunctional play. Art and reality blurred in such a way that only I as the sole audience to this ensemble could see. Exhausted actors would have snits with one another and then rehearse a scene of actors having a snit with one another etc. This became a "play within a play within a play". The appropriate moments in the play fell apart on cue as dictated by the script compounded by actual "emergencies" of misplaced sardines and underpants falling down and stuck doors. It was the purest form of theater I have ever witnessed. And audiences did come, hearing by word of mouth that this production was not to be missed, they came like people coming to a corn field to watch baseball, they most assuredly came, for the sheer joy of theater. This was the last "ride" for the Alleycats, life would split them up, their roads were primed to diverge.
Your comments and the joy Mr. Bahrani finds in his work brought these memories back. I love seeing dreams being fulfilled, in any walk of life but especially the Arts because it is so difficult.
Some moments in life, like some films, are so good that whatever the storyline's impact, you have the added extra joy that the film got to be made, that it exists in the first place and became a part of you (or in this case)...me
Peace and health.
Ebert: Your experience reminds me a little of "Hamlet 2." I can't think of a better play than "Noises Off" to inspire that sort of amusing (to you) rehearsal conflict. Essentially, they're living through a prologue to Act One. In fact, the Alleycats might have created an inspiration for "Noises Off 2," in which there are wheels within wheels. It might take a Charlie Kaufman to write.
nathan m.: Two years ago I wrote a script that is the embodiment of a movie I would like to go see, but I'm not sure who else would. Will I ever have the courage to make it? Will anyone ever have the courage to underwrite it?
I recall Kevin Smith's "Clerks" as your motivation. He made the film for less than $30,000, self financing the film by opening up several different credit cards. It would be in bad taste (financially speaking) to follow the exact path Smith did but this new era of digital cameras, online venues, and editing programs make filmmaking reachable for anyone with a story. (Nike swoosh logo place here)
Film is a medium that is fascinated by immigrants, and immigrants a population fascinated by film. I wonder why?
Scorsese is a really good example. Italian-american pulls back that curtain, the one that covers the window to the old country. But hey, the list is virtually endless--Cimino, the Kordas, the Germans in the 30s and 40s and so forth.
It's funny that the "post-colonial" movement in literature follows, not pre-dates, the movement in film. It seems like a fad in literature, whereas in film it's time-honored.
There may be a deeper parallel here, too, with something that Roth has moved into in writing: the experience of the immigrant that's not first or second generation. Starting with American Pastoral, Roth left behind the "rude rube" of the immigrant saga and stepped down one generation to a much more Americanized version of the same family. Shyamalan would probably consider his movies American first, but informed by an outsider's sensibility. Bahrani, too, sounds like someone who has access to the mores of the old country, but sees himself first as American. It's a subtle, but important, difference. Cimino never made that leap. Levinson seems to have started immediately after it. That's one of the reasons we see Levinson's films as contemporary and expanding, I think, the same way we see Roth as contrasted with Heller, who spent his last years mourning at the graveside of his generation. Not that it's a bad thing to do, but it does not herald a new direction except by clearing a path for it.
Hey, isn't that old trend-bucker Roger Corman doing his work out of India now? I wonder what it's like to be the American ex-pat making your way in some else's successful playground?
Chop Shop, slightly blurred since it was some half a dozen movies and a month and odd ago, certainly stands out in the mind as one of the best in terms of the feelings of familiarity it evoked---it could have been any one of the auto zones in my own city and the characters from the less privileged strata even up here. A composition in iron, with an overwhelming symphony of musical instruments as machines, it is a piece of urban landscaping as true and down to earth as farming. The comparison with the Ray trilogy and Bicycle thief seems appropriate. This has revived my appetite to see Pushcart even as I try to cut down on this time consuming addiction.
Ebert: Movie-going an addiction? Surely a rehabilitation!
I just had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Bahrani for my Sarasota Film Festival coverage, where I will enjoy my first viewing of his new film. We spoke of his cinematic influences (Scorsese and Cassavettes among them), and I was very taken by his desire to gain a richer perspective about his hometown with 'Goodbye Solo'.
For anyone interested, the interview airs tonight on Movie Geeks United.
Ebert: Click on Jamey's name to go there.
I graduated from the University of Colorado last May and much to my own shame I didn't even know about the CWA my freshman year. However, every year after that I more than made up for it, skipping classes, even calling in sick for work in order to attend as many panels as humanly possible. I was so excited to attend the panels you were on since at the time I was double majoring in Film Studies and Psychology my second year in Boulder. Attending the CWA actually encouraged me to drop the Film Major because there just wasn't enough time in a semester to take as many elective classes in the many subjects I was interested in while double majoring. Now I'm so sad that now that you are healthy enough to return but I can't attend this year. Oh well, I will just have to rent Chop Shop and pretend I'm at the CWA. Good luck at this years event, I know there are a lot of people in Boulder who will be extremely excited your back!
According to Einstein's theory of relativity one man's rehabilitation is another's addiction.
Ebert: What page was that on?
If he's so great, why haven't I seen any of his movies? No, I'm not that stupid, people. I was just chuckling as I remembered the discussion of greatness between Schroeder and Lucy involving Beethoven and bubblegum cards.
My friend Ali (now an actor and owner/operator of a New York City comedy theater) grew up with Mr. Bahrani in Bermuda Run, NC, a suburb of Winston-Salem, and hosted Mr. Bahrani in his first days in New York before he made "Man Push Cart" (in which Ali has a small part). He speaks of Mr. Bahrani's humanity and dedication in ways that make his films even more enjoyable. What a valuable addition to contemporary filmmaking his work has turned out to be. I really look forward to "Goodbye Solo."
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I've not seen a single one of Mr. Bahrani's films, although I intend to as soon as possible. However I'd like to say that when the title of "The new great American director" is brought up the first name that comes to mind for me is Kelly Reichardt. She has also only made three films in her career thus far, but all three were exemplary. Kelly Reichardt makes the kinds of films that I would like to make if I were a filmmaker.
I was inspired by zarathustras comment concerning "Apocolypto", and Mel Gibson in general, to note that I believe Gibson would have made a fantastic silent film director. We'll never know, but something tells me that if "The Passion of the Christ" had been a silent film, truly from that era, it would be viewed similarly to "The Passion of Joan of Arc". And "Apocolypto" has a crazy epic feel to it without much in the dialogue department. Gibson would have been great at creating broad, but pointed stories that relied on pure action to keep them going. Like Muranau, he would have kept the title cards few and far between.
I don't want to hijack the Bahrani lovefest here, because I'd take Bahrani over Gibson just about any day.
There will never be another Scorsese. Never another Fritz Lang, Robert Bresson, Robert Altman, John Ford, Louis Malle, Masaki Kobayashi, Luis Bunuel, Budd Boetticher, or any of them. Trying to rank these directors against one another is absurd. However, we might rank Scorsese against Paul Verhoevan, and come to the obvious conclusion that they are in different classes altogether.
I'll try to get to that showing of Chop Shop. I guess it just depends on how crowded it is. I'd love to be there, though. Good that I live in Boulder at the moment.
For a wh8le, M. Night Shyamalan had the hottest career going. After Disney let him make "The Sixth Sense," his followed it with:
Unbreakable
Signs
Lady in the Water
The Village
The Happening
From a review Roger wrote for "The Village" before he abandoned Snarkiness as a lifestyle:
Ebert: "The Village" is a colossal miscalculation, a premise so transparent it would be laughable were the movie not so deadly solemn. It's a flimsy excuse for a plot, with characters who move below the one-dimensional and enter Flatland. M. Night Shyamalan, the writer-director, has been successful in evoking horror from minimalist stories, as in "Signs," which if you think about it rationally is absurd... Surrounding the village is the forest. In the forest live vile, hostile creatures who dress in red and have claws of twigs. They are known as Those We Do Not Speak Of (except when we want to end a designation with a preposition)....Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes.
Let's compare some other careers.
Alan Ladd Jr. heard that Universal was unhappy with George Lucas' film "American Graffiti" and tried to buy it from them. He was so impressed with Lucas, he bought the director's next project, sight unseen. A project which turned out to be... "Star Wars." It cost Fox less than ten million, and was their least expensive movie that year. The execs who saw early cuts without the music of John Williams were not impressed.
Some directors are known for a powerful Act Three. In "The Godfather," the movie builds toward a climax. The scene begins with the flickering candles of a Catholic Cathedral, as Michael becomes godfather to Connie's son. As the priest anoints the baby with holy water, a barber daubs shaving cream on an unsuspecting Don. As the priest asks Michael if he believes in the Lord, Jesus Christ, and all of his works, and accepts Christ as his Savior, Michael's soldiers aim and fire at the rival Dons. As Michael answers yes, he does accept Christ and renounce the works of Satan, one sees bloody bodies scattered across the cement.
The religious imagery... is why the scene works. Because Michael truly believes that protecting his family is his first priority.
Execs didn't want Brando in the role of Don Corleone. They suggested Anthony Quinn, Ernest Borgnine, and producer Carlo Ponti. At one point, comedian Danny Thomas expressed interest in the role.
Those two movies - Star Wars and The Godfather - changed the rules of screenwriting. Many of our top grossing movies use the genre of Myth, where a single hero goes on a journey that leads him to exactly the place where he swore he would never be.
In "Pirates of the Caribbean," Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) explains how much he hates pirates, and dreams of killing them with his sword... but at the climax, he's willing to sacrifice his own life to rescue a pirate from the hangman's noose.
It's all fine for a director to sit down with a few friends a write a script, but more often than not, you end up with "Spider-Man 3." Shallow characters and limp motivations. there aren't many screenwriters who actually know what they're doing. Most of them are like the writers on "Knowing." They do one thing well, but they fail on two or three other counts.
I hope Mr. Bahrani avoids the mistakes of M. Night Shyamalan. What sounds good in your head won't make a great movie unless it follows the rules. About five pages of rules.
Screenwriting is a profession. So many people don't understand why the rules are important. but if you want a career, your first movie should be like "Star Wars." It should set a new standard as the highest-grossing movie of all time. Anything less is... unacceptable.
Ebert: Surely you jest. What do grosses have to do, really, with quality? Two different arenas.
Nathan --
Yeah, The Fountain left a lot of people cold. Most folks divide the film into past, present and future. In my opinion, future Hugh Jackman is the present while present-seeming Jackman is actually the past, along with Conquistador Jackman. And none of the Jackman's are fictitious in my opinion, although I suspect Aronovsky might not mind if you thought that. I think he's dabbling in re-incarnation here, recycling souls, like a fountain recycles water.
This actor, Red West, said he was "found" at the age of 72. With so many actors, of deserving talent of course, cannot find major work, and have to struggle in the backgrounds of movies and take on productions that they aren't deserving of, doesn't that take the enjoyment out of their work, their art?
I heard someone speak of playing a round of golf with William Hurt in the early 2000s when Hurt was struggling to find movie parts. Hurt was reluctant to speak about the industry at first (he was reluctant to even play the round of golf with the man), but after some prodding, Hurt confessed that income was low and he had to sell some of his houses to make it by. The other man, who couldn't imagine the man from "The Big Chill" could ever really have it tough in unemployment, prodded some more, and asked what he meant by income was low. To his surprise, Hurt said that with the theatrical productions and other off jobs, maybe he made $1,000 per week. And this guy had already been "found."
"Offspring of ignorant and poor, boys apprenticed to trades,
Young fellows working on farms and old fellows working on farms,
Sailor-men, merchant-men, coasters, immigrants,
All these I see, but nigher and farther the same I see,
None shall escape me and none shall wish to escape me.
I bring what you much need yet always have,
Not money, amours, dress, eating, erudition, but as good,
I send no agent or medium, offer no representative of value, but
offer the value itself."
http://www.blackcatpoems.com/w/a_song_for_occupations.html
Bill Hays --
I'm getting mixed signals here. Should one break the mold or attempt to snugly fit into it's preset grooves and curves? In your concluding paragraph you state the importance of adhering to rules, and yet just four paragraphs earlier you lavish praise on Star Wars and The Godfather for changing the rules.
When you say, The new great American director, would you put any modern Contemporary filmmakers in that category as well? (As in younger directors)
Ebert: I don't make lists. I have added this name to a sort of Platonic list.
Ramin Bahrani, Boyle and author Aravind Adiga of the compelling and extra-ordinary The White Tiger are voices of truth ,hope and change from the ascendant generation of the second century. Ofcourse distinctive, different continents --no classification intended. Optimism!
I have been following Bahrani since Sundance when you first wrote about him. I have seen all his films, even Goodbye Solo, at the Cleveland Film festival. It is his best film, no doubt about it. So majestic, poetic and perfect. Kelly Reichardt is good too, but remember, Bahrani made Chop Shop a full year before Wendy and Lucy. Bahrani predicated the economic crisis and his Alejandro is an engine of work, of hustle, not of depression or self pity. Bahrani's films have a greater cinematic quality and rigor, and each one gets more and more open, humble and engaging to the audience. I also see Scorsese and Cassavettes, and Bresson and many others... but in the end it is just Bahrani. Ebert is right, he is the new American director and we shouldn't compare, but I love his films the most and wish him the very best.
The White Tiger is amazing and won the Man Booker Prize. Aravind is the new voice of world literature. Did you know his best selling book is dedicated to... yes, Ramin Bahrani! In fact, you can feel Man Push Cart in the White Tiger.
Ramin Bahrani is the god of American Cinema and Aravind Adiga's White Tiger is the best book of last year. No surprise the book dedicated to Bahrani and Adiga thanked in Bahrani's first two films. Yes, I just looked back at my dvds and Mr Adiga is there. Haven't seen Goodbye Solo yet, but can't wait!
Ebert: My review is now online.
I'm studying film and I'm about to get into independent direction. One of my scripts is a fairly conservative piece that shows the massive downside of illegal immigration. I was wondering if you and some of your other liberal friends would give a movie like this bad reviews simply because it goes against your belief system? This isn't an attack. I'm really just trying to get information on the way critics would handle this sort of thing.
Ebert: For myself, I would hope it would depend on whether it is a good or a bad film. I just gave high praise to "Knowing," with which I am not ideologically in sympathy.
Reply to: Brad: I'm getting mixed signals here. Should one break the mold or attempt to snugly fit into it's preset grooves and curves? In your concluding paragraph you state the importance of adhering to rules, and yet just four paragraphs earlier you lavish praise on Star Wars and The Godfather for changing the rules.
Once you write out and understand the rules, things get clearer. Trust me on this. The "Star Wars" rules are still in effect. They are taught in screenwriting classes every semester, from the Pacific to La Cienega Blvd.
Is there a single, logical explanation for the Shyamalan Meltdown? I'm NOT saying there is. But IF you can figure out why it happened, do something else.
Ebert: with characters who move below the one-dimensional and enter Flatland
Avoid one-dimensional and null-dimensional characters? If you can figure out WHY the characters in "The Village" are bad, you can avoid THAT.
Here's a rule: the viewpoint character CHANGES as a result of the tragedy, stress, turmoil heaped upon him, the obstacles he dodges.
Corollary: If you put a character in a situation as ridiculous and non-threatening as "The Village," he's going to be one-dimensional.
However, if you put a character through The Dance of Death, he becomes heroic and iconic.
Character A comes from a tight-knit family where his older brother dominates every sporting event, and his father is a self-made millionaire. Then, his father is gunned down in the street, and our hero is assaulted while taking him to the hospital. His older brother is shot by street thugs, and our hero has to kill one of the thugs to prevent more deaths. Then, he falls in love, and sees his new bride blown up by a car bomb. As a result of witnessing so much death, he decides that inflicting death is better than being a passive observor or victim.
The events of the movie CREATE a different person. Throw in enough death, and family tragedy, and senseless violence, and see what that does to a decent Ivy League graduate.
"The Godfather" had two sub-texts. The way American business has evolved into cut-throat competition, and the way immigrants are victimized by their own leaders. Either one would make a compelling movie. Coppola used both. He created characters with depth because they seemed like real people trapped by the rules of American society.
The reason a character is one-dimensional... is that nothing happens during the movie that molds him into a NEW and different character. And events have to be pretty dramatic and compelling to make a person change. In real life, people go to prison and die by lethal injection without changing inside. At the end, the hero should realize he can't go back to the person he was. As Jack said, "You make me want to be a better man."
Frodo Baggins takes the One Ring to the top of the mountain... and returns to the shire. Was he different?
"Star Wars" added two new ideas. (1) Audiences can bond with villains and heroes who don't appear human. Artoo looked like a kitchen garbage can. (2) A boy worries that his dream will never come true, and in the last scence, it DOES come true. (ie, the Slumdog wins a million rupees AND gets the girl.)
Reply to: Ebert: Surely you jest. What do grosses have to do, really, with quality? Two different arenas.
My premise is, "The Godfather" attracted audiences because it raised the bar in quality. I could be wrong.
Maybe the audience loved watching Jimmy Caan dying from a hundred bullets.
Am I suggesting a certain genre? No. A certain plot line to avoid? Well, avoid any plot that doesn't escalate and FORCE a person to change his basic outlook on life. When Uncle Billy lost the $10,000, George Bailey thought his life had been a waste. Clarence the Angel made him see how many people he had helped, including saving the life of his younger brother. George Bailey went from suicidal loser to the richest man in town.
Americans like stories about their ancestors coming here. they like Westerns. They like science fiction and ET and Star Wars and the room going silent when Father Merrin knocks on the front door... but the genre isn't important. Rose DeWitt was on a lifeboat, and she realized that she could avoid dying on a sinking ship, but if she left, Jack Dawson would be killed by her Cal Hockeley and his bodyguard. Rose made a choice that could have cost her life, because she had to do the right thing. A lead character who wouldn't have done the right thing at the start of the movie, but changed into the kind of person who placed honor and duty above his own life... as a result of what happened to him DURING the movie... that's how you leap to the top of the box office list.
That's ONE rule. Not the only one.
Ebert: What page was that on?
"Put your hand on a hot stove for two seconds and it seems like two hours. Sit with a beautiful girl for two hours and it seems like two minutes. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=relativity
I love this guy. Man Push Cart was amazing. Haven't seen his other stuff yet. I'm guessin his movies deal with honest pain that your average "Bro"-multiplex moviegoer wouldn't like too much, which re-inforces my idea that cinema needs a good flushing out.
You should probably throw a list together of "Great Modern Directors", not a Top Ten. I know there's a lot, but maybe you could just start a Wiki and let your users fill-in the rest, but tell them to avoid Chaplins and Kubricks and focus on the Lance Hammers and Ramin Bahranis instead. Just a thought.
Also somewhat off-topic, but I've been wondering Roger: If you could see one story, real or based on something like a book, do you have any idea what it would be?
Hi Roger,
I just got done reading your review of Valentino: The Last Emperor and I just couldn't resist. The majority of people know next to nothing about haute couture. Even the so-called "fashion pundits" you see on TV hanging around awards show red carpets. Valentino's designs are lovely and timeless, which makes them such a favorite for actresses at the Oscars. But there are very few women in Hollywood who will actually take a risk and wear a piece that is more unconventional or artistically provocative (Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron habitually) for fear (I suppose) of being publicly derided for their choice. Case in point - Rinko Kikuchi wore this Chanel Haute Couture dress to the 2007 Golden Globes:
http://www.blogtheberkshires.com/tv/globes/Golden_Globes_Arrivals____C.jpg
She was torn apart by celebrity weeklies, TV shows, and bloggers who snarkily commented that she looked like she was wearing cotton candy or cat toys - when anyone who has any sort of real knowledge of fashion would have instantly recognized them as camelias. And IMHO, it was a wonderful dress.
Actresses aside, who only borrow these dresses, there are only several hundred people in the world now who are actually regular customers of haute couture. Even with wealthy new patrons emerging from places like the Middle East, China, and India, a lot of the ladies now seem to be more interested in fitting in with already established trends as opposed to wanting something truly unique in thought. It almost seems that haute couture will be going the way of cel animation. You know, everything done by hand, but prematurely abandoned just because it seems "old-fashioned".
Anyway, I know you're very busy Roger, but if you've made it this far into my semi-rant I think you might be interested in watching a documentary called 'Signe Chanel'. You can watch it on YouTube and its a fascinating and rare look into what it takes to make a couture collection (Chanel's obviously). It covers everything and everyone - dressmakers, tailors, embroiderers, milliners, shoemakers, plumassiers, costume jewelers - even a little old farm lady whose only job is to make braids using her own self-invented incomprehensible loom. So...
best wishes and shanti shanti shanti :)
I think Bill Hays is to much in love with cheap emotions in movies.
'Chop Shop' was introduced with other good movies like 'Ballast' at some international movie festival in my hometown last spring. I could not watch them because I was(and still am) living at the campus far from there(1-hr distance by bus) and was busy. Too bad 'Chop Shop' and 'Ballast' are still not released in South Korea. Well, it took two years for 'Junebug' to get released and our audience was amused to see Scott Wilson again. (Mr. Wilson made short but impressive appearance in Korean movie 'The Host'(2006), directed by Joon-ho Bong)
I have been interested in Ramin Bahrani's works since you included his two movies in your annual list. After reading your writing, I decided to add 'Chop Shop' and 'Man Push Cart'(for $35) to my wish list in Amazon. If there is no problem, I will buy them few weeks later. DVD market is dwindling in South Korea and I'm sure it will took very long time for these movie to be released. Nevertheless, I will be happy when they release DVDs here, which I will willingly buy and introduce to my friends and family who can't read English subtitle well. They released 'The Edge of Heaven' DVD last December.
P.S.
Is movie-going an addiction? Maybe. When I watched 'Confessions of a Shopaholic', I wondered whether 'movieaholic' is possible. I think I have done some bad and self-destructive things for watching good or great movies and writing personal reviews for my blog. At least, I still can put it aside for my job... wait a minute, why do I spend my time on constantly correcting this comment in my lab?.
Still, movie is one of the best things in my life. I had been on the verge of autism during my childhood(thank god my mother was there) and I still have some difficulty in the communication. Good movies have been important tools for me. If they have seen it, I can talk with them. If they haven't, well, I talk about it and urge them to see it.
Ebert: There is actually a documentary about a group of New Yorkers who are so addicted to movies they spend almost every waking hour at them:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030905/REVIEWS/309050302/1023
Reply to Bill Hays: "The reason a character is one-dimensional... is that nothing happens during the movie that molds him into a NEW and different character."
Is "change" in a character necessary for "development"? How about Russell Crowe in "Master and Commander"? Despite some minor changes to his temperament, perhaps, he seems to be just as brave, stubborn, and capable of leadership at the start of the film as at the conclusion. And this film was spectacular in using its characters to show an unwavering blind loyalty (very blind when your alone at sea) to ones country and common cause.
Reply to Bill Hays: "The reason a character is one-dimensional... is that nothing happens during the movie that molds him into a NEW and different character."
Is "change" in a character necessary for "development"? How about Russell Crowe in "Master and Commander"? Despite some minor changes to his temperament, perhaps, he seems to be just as brave, stubborn, and capable of leadership at the start of the film as at the conclusion. And this film was spectacular in using its characters to show an unwavering blind loyalty (very blind when your alone at sea) to ones country and common cause. And Crowe was multi-dimensional in his steadfastness, exhibiting each dimension in different circumstances. No change. Great movie.
Roger,
Together with Paul Thomas Anderson, David Gordon Green, and Tarsem Singh,Bahrami in my opinion definitely represents some of the great young talent in filmmaking in present day America. His is a unique talent not in the conventional way in which we tend to identify uniqueness in filmmaking - which is most often often described as "fresh", "innovative", "creative", or "groundbreaking"... No! For me, what these filmmakers display is something much more elusive than the newness or unconventional method of their approach. Rather it is the maturity that they display in their treatment and execution of the material. Watching Magnolia a few weeks ago, I kept remarking to myself that this was the work of a director who was only twenty eight at that time. I felt the same way too with Bahrani when I first saw "Man Push Cart". Here was a director imbuing his character with dignity where most would have tried to solicit sympathy. (This has often been a problem for me when an American filmmaker tries to make a movie centering on the immigrant experience. They often comment on Immigrant. Why not just tell the immigrant's story? These people are people too. They come from somewhere, they too have had a life.)
Anyway, It is nice to see a young generation of American filmmakers making mature movies.
Rog: I hope someday you can review and possibly comment on the works of Jia Zhangke who I find to be in the same mold as the above mentioned directors. "Platform," "Unknown Pleasures" and "The world" are among my favorites
There is an interesting back and forth going on between A.O. Scott and Richard Brody (of the New Yorker) on these neo-neo-realist films, where Mr. Brody seems against classifying Rahmani's films (and his ilk's) as such, and where Mr. Scott clarifies and justifies his views.
http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/ao-scott-responds-to-a-new-yorker-blogger-about-the-value-and-definition-of-neo-realism/
I'm nowhere near as astute as these two when it comes to the history fo film (I just know a good film when I see it), but I was encouraged to learn about these "labelings". It's intriguing to learn from both of their views how they feel these clarifications are important to the craft.
At the risk of inflating this to an all out word-war between critics, what do you make of their musings?
Ebert: What do I think? I think A. O. Scott is right, and Brody has a historical, rather than contextual, understanding of neorealism.
Neo-realism, like noir, is a genre that we know when we see it, but if we attempt to pin it down, it just moves a little to the right or left.
I would venture to say that the most prominent American neo-realists have been John Cassevetes and (early) Charles Burnett. Today, especially with Bahrani, we have a new development in American neo-realism.
What strikes me most about Brody's piece is the assertion that neo-realism (I guess he's referring to Italian neo-realism) as "facile materialism". That is about the most narrow approach to the genre I've ever seen, and it's a little ironic when you consider that De Sica, Rossilini, and Co. were aggressively reacting to the state of Italian film under fascist rule. They meant to do exactly the opposite of embracing materialism when they eschewed the facile period dramas of war time Italy. Like the new wave that would come later in France, this was a reactionary cinema that was anything but materialistic.
There seem to be two main things that will prevent us from defining neo-realism beyond it's Italian roots.
1. There is no manifesto of neo-realism. These were not a strictly organized group of filmmakers who forced themselves to follow a set of rules. This is not silent Russian cinema or Dogme 95. Even Italian neo-realism breaks from neo-realist standards here and there.
2. The initial movement was so short, and encompassed so few films (some of them difficult to find now). In this way neo-realism is very unlike noir - a genre that has hundreds of examples to choose from.
I know that this is a bit off subject, but given the fact that Bahrani should be considered an American neo-realist, I thought it might be appropriate to drop a few words on that topic.
Ebert: What does he mean by "materialism?" The dictionary teaches us:
materialism. noun. a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
Is "The Bicycle Thief" materialist? Brody writes like a person who never had a bicycle stolen as a boy. I did, and there was nothing materialist about it. I lost my freedom, my speed, my transportation, my bike! If he doesn't believe a bicycle has spiritual values, he must never have been a boy,
Dear Roger,
I can't tell you how happy I am that you've designated Ramin Bahrani as "the new great American director," as he's quickly risen to the top of my own list of director's whose films I must always see from now on.
I think you nailed it when you spoke of his understanding of film grammar. Each shot size, edit, camera movement, sound, etc. means something - tells us something about the character and situation. It is a style of filmmaking that I thought had become prehistoric, practically dead, in the U.S. particularly; but "style" that Sidney Lumet defined as "the way you tell a particular story [...] beauty in the sense of its organic connection to the material." In other words, form following function. Most high-budgeted Hollywood movies with "style" make beautiful images, but they lack a connection to the material, and function as nothing more than "eye candy". Ramin Bahrani truly knows what style is, and that's a big reason why his films are so effective.
In the DVD of Man Push Curt there is a commentary with Ramin Bahrani, his cinematographer Michael Simmons, 1st AD Nicholas Elliott, and actor Ahmad Razvi that is truly enlightening to listen to, especially for those interested in independent filmmaking. Going back to style, Bahrani discusses his decision to shoot mostly in long shots, compressing the space within the frame, which therefore represented Ahmad's sense of being socially stagnant... trapped within the frame. Additionally, from a low-budget production standpoint, shooting in long lens allowed Ahmad the actor to interact with various real-life street folk, who were actually unaware that they were being filmed, and thus gave off natural "performances" (only to be later asked to sign release forms, of course =p)
As a young aspiring filmmaker myself, who is Filipino-American and sometimes feels out of the loop, Bahrani has become a teacher, and his films, like lessons. It's starting to feel like an exciting time in cinema once again.
Also, Roger, before I finish, I'd just like to say that I consider you a teacher as well, in cinema, and in life. I've been reading you for years now, followed this blog closely, and finally decided to post something (the apocalyptic post almost got me to, but I hesitated). I'd like to thank you for pointing out A.O. Scott's Neo-Neo Realism article, as I'll be doing my best to catch up with those filmmakers as well. You're a great inspiration, and I look forward to your future posts.
Ebert: He is the best kind of influence: He reminds us that the classical film grammar offered freedom, not constraints. Compositions, for example, have meaning whether or not the filmmakers take care with them.
Reply to: HHS Is "change" in a character necessary for "development"? How about Russell Crowe in "Master and Commander"?
This is one of those questions that has more than one correct answer. Like, "What do you want for dinner?"
I would guess (roughly) that 49 out of 50 movies do not have the kind of character arc I'm talking about. If Roger sees 200 movies a year, that would be 4. That's why "The Godfather" has stayed at the top of the All-Time Great lists for so long.
In order to create the kind of character arc I'm talking about, the movie has to focus on that one aspect, to the exlusion of many others.
The question I started with is, if you want a studio to hand you a check for $37 million to make a movie for them, how do you make a movie that will earn money AND satisfy your own standards. I think Marc Forster did an interesting job with "Quantum of Solace," but in comparison to "Casino Royale," he failed. More than one right answer, etc.
http://creativescreenwriting.com/insidestory/index.html
http://www.storylink.com/article/192
Reply to: Carl: I think Bill Hays is too much in love with cheap emotions in movies.
I think the goal... is to find some emotion in the members of your audience, something they've experienced in the past, which they feel emotional about. The birth of their first child. The need to protect their family. And then use that.
When Michael Corleone is in the hospital, watching his father on a ventilator... When Michael takes part in a Catholic ceremony to become the Godfather of his sister's child... when Michael falls in love in Sicily.... those are all tied to emotional moments in our own past. Emotions that already exist inside us.
CHEAP emotions? Sure. Bring them on.
Can you make a commercial movie using neo-realism? As you move up the ladder of success, what has to change? When the studio says you need to sell $30 million in tickets on opening weekend if you want to direct another movie for them?
I'm just amazed, and confused, that when the AFI puts together a list of All-Time Great movies, there's only one from the past twenty years. Maybe there's something to be said for Black-and-white. Without all the bright colors, maybe it's easier to be drawn into the plight of the characters. Maybe 3-D is going to be a step in the wrong direction because it pulls us out of the story. when "Avatar" comes out, James Cameron may prove that theory wrong.
"Is "The Bicycle Thief" materialist? Brody writes like a person who never had a bicycle stolen as a boy. I did, and there was nothing materialist about it. I lost my freedom, my speed, my transportation, my bike! If he doesn't believe a bicycle has spiritual values, he must never have been a boy,"
Full agreement.No such duality as spiritual-material-----its the single stuff that life and environment------bicycles, bodies, minds-----are made of.
From Pauline Kael on big budgets and small budgets:
"If big film directors are to get credit for doing badly what others have been doing brilliantly for years with no money, just because they’ve put it on a big screen, then businessmen are greater than poets and theft is art."
Dear Mr. Ebert
I have seen Man Push Cart and it half stole my breath away. It always manages to surprise me that film makers like Bahrami have trouble arranging financing for their movies. I understand the commercial aspect of movie making, after all its a business. But isnt this the wealthiest movie industry in the world? Why isnt anyone willing to bet on talent that is so obviously gifted? Why wouldnt studios be willing to spend on what may not be a commercial success but would surely be a critically appreciated film? Why is Hollywood so damn obtuse?
Man Push Cart is informative about the depths of New York. To see the life of a fellow subcontinentalan gives a kind of nostalgia for nostalgia, hearing one's own very tongue and even dialect in that far far place. We have a million and a quarter Push Cart Men ,maybe not so well dressed or personable and the pushcarts not so state of art and certainly costing more like forty than $5000.
The noire photography reminded me of some parts of Taxi Driver. What this film deserves appreciation for more than anything else is it's truthfullness. The Sisyphus bit I think is not the point unless we say that most people are missing a sense of direction in life's intrinsically repetitive rhythm.
Ahmad on the contrary even in his arduous life seems a sensitive, dignified and philosophical soul, perhaps like the author of the film---with a perpetual lump in the throat.
I have to thank Ebert becuase he has shown me another great filmaker that I would never of heard of otherwise. I saw man push cart and chop shop because they were on your best of lists. These films gave me much pleasure. Ebert has been one of my greatest sources for education in film. You are one of my heros.
David-
Go for it. Film needs as many diverse voices as it can get, from all angles of every issue. Thus far, films about the immigration experience concentrate more lopsidedly on the travails of the immigrants themselves, than the "native" community who find themselves trying to adjust to a new cultural environment themselves, and are finding that it's not enough to simply be nice to the neighbors; they must change themselves. Now, there have been many good (MARYAM) and even great films (EL NORTE) on the issue, but too often, we get a very un-nuanced perspective which uses simple-minded and pathos-based arguments and relies on mean-spirited caricatures of the other side instead of attempting to portray them fairly. The recent CROSSING OVER is one of the worst examples of this. Even THE VISITOR, entertaining and well-acted as this was, failed to do this properly, and wound up with the same Manichean perspective which has hobbled too many other films on the issue.
I know I'm in the vast minority, since all 23 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are positive, as are many (all?) of the comments here, but I saw "Goodbye Solo" at the Toronto International Film Festival last fall, and I was very underwhelmed. I haven't seen either "Man Push Cart" or "Chop Shop" but I got the ticket based solely on having heard that Behrani was an amazing filmmaker. My take is that both lead performances are solid, and the ending has a really lovely, haunting quality to it. It really does showcase Behrani's talent. But the film itself seemed not to know where it was going. I felt like the pacing was way off, and I am a staunch defender of the notion that films can be fast, slow, whatever paced. So long as it works. I felt like Behrani had two fascinating characters and didn't know what to do with them. That a film is slow does not inherently make it artistic, in the same way that just because a film is fast-paced doesn't inherently make it exciting. I did not see or feel or sense the narrative truth here. It felt meandering.
There are two or three big emotional scenes, one or two of which involve violence. None of these scenes worked for me. The film is shot, as many have noted, completely realistically. Which means the violence should look realistic. The violence looked forced and staged, and I never felt its impact. Notice how Solo overacts his reactions to the violence.
I really wanted to like this movie. I wanted to like both main characters, and they are acted well most of the time. For me, the movie is an example of missed opportunities and failed potential. This story should have been more compelling to me, and I wish it would've been. I am determined to see Behrani's other films before making up my mind for sure, but on the strength of this film, I have to disagree with Ebert's assertion of Behrani as the great new American director. Comparisons to David Gordon Green were mentioned by someone or maybe just in the actual review of the film, and I go back in my mind to "George Washington," whose look and acting and pacing and timing - both emtionally and comedically - far surpass Behrani's talents (at least here). And I don't know, there are a hell of a lot of great writer/directors to watch that right now (boy I feel the need to make that qualification a lot) Behrani just isn't on my radar as someone to watch - not as a writer, or a director, or, most importantly, a storyteller. Again, I know I am in the minority on this one, and I truly do hope that his other two films will prove me wrong and change my mind about him. But "Goodbye Solo" remains a disappointment.
To Bill Hays or anyone,
Bill Hays said
"..but if you want a career, your first movie should be like "Star Wars." It should set a new standard as the highest-grossing movie of all time. Anything less is... unacceptable."
Ebert: Surely you jest. What do grosses have to do, really, with quality? Two different arenas.
A lot of people think that movies like "Stars Wars" and "Jaws", the first blockbuster, ruined mainstream American movies during a period that a lot of people considered to be a new golden age of movies in the 70's. They were b-movies with such success that the summer blockbuster was born; the b-movie, which was usually considered just that, second rate, was now what movies were aspiring to be. In an interview, director John Landis said "it's all crap now."
Glad we have Roger to write about directors like Bahrani...You don't need to be a blockbuster. The best movies are about human relationships.
P.s....nice talking to you again, Bill Hays. Such spirited discussions really make me grow. I don't know why, but my thoughts are like a cocoon that refuses to emerge until I have spirited debates. I have to read 3 Ernest Becker books and return them two of them to the library by monday.
I believe the lack of plot is precisely the strength of Man Push Cart. It is an attempt to translate and share a deeply percieved reality, a man's brave battle to endure in a world which is neither harsh nor friendly, more beautiful than ugly. Its a poignant account of an experiece which borders on heroism . Ahmad's expression remains etched in the mind, like Michaelangelo's David. The protoganist is New York, the Big City, which knoweth no sleep. The frontal views of the traffic climbing the contour of the lane is awesome-like the jazzy streets in Taxi Driver. A haunting film about a "bank and shoal of time".
As myself a hardy weed of the Subcontinent,Lahore born and crossing over at partition time, it seems to me that somewhere Bahrani and Ahmad Rizvi capture the true Islamic ethos in it's most universal generality.
After reading your glowing review of "Man Pushcart" I was delighted to see that it was going to be shown free of charge at the Queens Museum of Art in Flushing, Queens. Not only was there a showing, but the director, cinematographer and actor were all present for a Q&A after the film. It was amazing. Bahrani spoke about "Man Pushcart"and then was asked about his new film. He spoke about that at length, but never mentioned the name of the film. I was the one in the audience who did ask and of course it was "Chop Shop". I didn't get a chance to see it here in New York; it had very limited distribution. But I definitely will get to "Goodbye Solo". I doubt very much that it will be showing for free at the Queens Museum.
Thank you so much for pointing out this marvelous director. I never heard of him, until this afternoon, when I stumbled upon your review of "Goodbye Solo". I immediately went out and saw the film. What an amazing movie! Bahrani is nearly equal to Mike Leigh in his adept handling of actors. The scenes play so naturally that it often feels like a documentary. Wow. Just, WOW!
Few things...
@ Bill Hays - Actually, the guy getting the shave in The Godfather scene is a Corleone hitman, the one that wacks the guy in the revolving lobby door, i think
@ Keith Carrizosa - I guess then that independent cinema, born a few years after jaws and star wars, was the reply to the blockbuster phenomenon and an attempt to return to the 70s golden age.
@ Roger Ebert - this seems to answer a request i had somewhere about recommending directors who rely on character rather than plot. i forgot about Malik, was captivated by red line, thought it was art. perhaps tarkovsky, though find some of his films unaccessable (solaris an exception)
Is anyone aware of Donald Ritchie`s theory on the difference between the respective origins of Western and Japanese cinema? He makes a distinction between the West`s perception of cinema as inheriting the realist `properties` of photography and the Japanese perception of cinema inheriting the drama of theatre.
Ritchie was a big fan of Ozu. If anyone has any insights or opinoins on this theory it would be interesting to discuss. Im still trying to figure out how valid it is.
Ebert: His book on Ozu is stunning in its shot-by-shot analysis.
Reply to: Keith: To Bill Hays or anyone, A lot of people think that movies like "Stars Wars" and "Jaws", the first blockbuster, ruined mainstream American movies during a period that a lot of people considered to be a new golden age of movies in the 70's. They were b-movies with such success that the summer blockbuster was born; P.s....nice talking to you again, Bill Hays. Such spirited discussions really make me grow.
George had a very small budget, under $10 million, and he was trying to create a galaxy thousands of years after the invention of FTL space travel. The end product looked amateurish in places, and the fans loved that. We loved a Han Solo who wasn't afraid to shoot first. The characters were way beyond b-movie, because they reacted to the world around them and changed.
I was just reading Roger's review of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (still posted) ... and I'm wondering if time changes our opinion.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19691013/REVIEWS/910130301/1023
Ebert: But unfortunately, this good movie is buried beneath millions of dollars that were spent on "production values" that wreck the show... we walk out of the theater wondering what happened to that great movie we were seeing until an hour ago
Another "Star Wars" rule: aim your movie at kids, but make it so adult, they can learn from it. That way, when the third movie in the franchise comes out, they'll be old enough to buy tickets on a Friday night and take a date. Many filmmakers think it's beneath them to make a "kid's movie." Kids love Jar Jar Binks, and adults despise him. But look at ticket sales.
If you take all six "Star Wars" movies as a single story, there's an incredible arc for the protagonist, Anakin. He starts as a slave on a remote planet. He is befriended by an ancient warrior who has always fought the establishment, who dies in battle. He falls in love and loses his wife, and becomes the most infamous "evil person" in history, killing billions and billions. At the end, he is redeemed when he betrays and kills the man who orchestrated his fall to the dark side.
This might be b-movie stuff... but no other boy ever wiped out his entire religious order. (Just saw Ewan in the trailer for "Angels and Demons" and... hmmmm.) It's like taking a normal character arc and multiplying it by a hundred. If Michael Corleone had sailed around the Pacific Rim on an aircraft carrier, launching bombing attacks on Chinese cities...
Indiana Jones is the opposite. Spielberg had Clark Gable in "Soldier of Fortune" as his role model. The only depth to Jones was his dual identity. In some scenes, he wears glasses and teaches dull classes at a college, possibly Yale (but it was called Marshall.) Having two completely different personalities allows him to switch from "teacher" to "possibly evil" at the drop of a hat. Would Professor Jones have pulled out a revolver and shot the guy with the sword? If he was standing outside a classroom building at Yale? Not a chance.
If you have a good screen, here's an interesting IQ test:
http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=1112
Dear Roger,
I loved the pigeon motif from chop shop very much and I though that the film's final shot was a mighty dark note to end on.
When I sit in my library reading room early in the morning there are always pigeons on the high ledge out the window. They're trying to wake up in the sunlight. They don't even behave properly. Sometimes the skinny ones pick on the fat ones. Whenever I try paying attention to what's doing they fly away from me. And then I think about their buggy bellies and I wish they'd go altogether.
Later the room fills up. Surrounded by people reading faster than me and leading urgent lives, feel lock-jaw, dumb. I'd like them back, but they've gone feeding.
Once, I caught my father unawares. He way waiting for me in a parking lot and there was a whole lawn full of pigeons there. Directly in front of him was this big dove. That my father had so many pigeons, and a big dove before him really changed my whole attitude towards the old man.
This one time I stole a candy bar and then my bike was stolen. So, you know, I kept worrying that Alli's vices would catch up to him. But then his sister chased his pigeons away and I really despised her for that. That's just my feelings though. Ali has ample injustice to deal with. The ways he makes check must be his right.
I still think Harmony Korine is the best young american film director, one of our real iconoclasts... honestly I saw Chop Shop, Bahrani certainly has a mastery over imagery and form, but there isn't a single original idea in it... I think those kinds of movies are critic proof, I am reminded of students sucking up to their professors in university... meanwhile work that is truly original, 'real', scary and passionate such as Korine's Gummo, Julien Donkey-Boy, Mister Lonely are pretty much trashed by the film community...
Ebert: His book on Ozu is stunning in its shot-by-shot analysis
Thanks, will look for it. I have very much enjoyed his commentaries on Criterion, whcih provide that sort of analysis.
oh.. and watched Man Push Cart tonight. Yes, this is essential movie-making. Enriches.
I think it is great to highlight young and indie talent. But I have to be honest-- I wonder if what we need right now is "the next great American filmmaker."
In art we are generally suspicious of such declarations. They are connected to a history that feels perhaps a bit distant, one in which Great Men do Great Things against Great Odds.
I am skeptical of what hyperbole really does for artists. Does being "great" mean you will no longer mess up, produce mediocre work, make a commercial film? Isn't it sort of a tag that is guaranteed to fail?
Look at Scorsese, your other example of "greatness." No doubt he had a run of amazing films in the 70s and 80s. Would you really place his work from the 90s and 00s on par with his earlier production? Do you think he has really been helped by hype, fame, and fortune?
This is not to say that I don't like Bahrani's work. I will confess to only having seen Chop Shop, but I thought it was solid. There is certainly a "new realism" of some sort in the States right now that would include Ballast and Wendy and Lucy, and some of these works are impressive in their embrace of time in narrative film, something we are not used to in American cinema.
But let's be honest. This movement began elsewhere, in Europe and Central Asia, with the Dardennes, Kiarostami, and others. I was surprised that you didn't mention the link between the plot of "Goodbye Solo" and "Taste of Cherry," where there is also a taxi, a driver, a passenger and a deal. I would also include the new Romanian directors in this new realism-- I'm sure we could sketch out other qualities that these films have in common, the use of non-actors among them.
Could we say that this is a worldwide trend? What is the use-value, today, of finding the Next Great American Director? Isn't it enough to find work that must be seen, justify it on its own terms, and link it to a larger world unbounded by nationality?
Ebert: Points well taken. Great directors don't always make great films. But the point is--we know they can.
By far Bahrani is the best young American filmmaker making films right now. I am much more excited for his film this year than any other American film, I can't wait until it starts playing in my area (if it ever does). In fact, I think there are only three others I've heard of that I'm as, or more excited for than this film; Tsai's Visages, and the two films by Claire Denis that I heard are coming out later this year.
And yet another wonderfully written essay (if that's what you call it) by Mr. Ebert.
And a Western after this one? Seems very interesting, indeed.
I was born in Winston-Salem, but I grew up in the region of southwestern Virginia and northwestern North Carolina and am absolutely, positively *ashamed* of myself that I haven't seen a single David Gordon Green movie or "Man Push Cart" or "Chop Shop" yet.
And I'm out here in Eastern North Carolina now, so I can't make it to the RiverRun Film Festival in Winston-Salem in late April, or else I would. Oh, oh oh, woe is me!
Thanks for spotlighting Bahrani, Roger.
One thing which separates Bahrani and Green from the previous generation of filmmaking artists (Anderson, Jonze, etx.) is that after the first breakthrough film ("Boogie Nights" begats "Magnolia", "Being John Malkovich" begats "Adaptation") that unlike these guys, Bahrani and Green's next efforts were not given a "wide" release (or their third release for that matter). Sure "All the Pretty Girls" and "Chop Shop" were accessible in larger cities but in terms of Peoria, nada. For example, I am in Raleigh, NC where there are a few artsy theaters and yet Bahrani's film, shot locally with a local director, is not available.
Thank God for Netflix ("Man Push Cart" came yesterday) but the point is why the folks at the distribution companies who buy the rights to a film, then determine when and where it will be shown and for how long, don't trust that a film about more or less real people, and starring real people won't be enjoyed by real people (however real "real" is). Hey, I love a good action yarn, but in the world of 18 screen theaters, what's the harm in dropping in a "Goodbye Solo" in between 12-a-day showings of "National Treasure 2"?
This is really going to be an unusually strong year for directors. Aside from Bahrani, here's a short list of some the great directors putting out films this year:
Spike Jonze (Where The Wild Things Are)
Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds)
Todd Solondz (Forgiveness)
Michael Mann (Public Enemies)
Richard Kelly (The Box)
James Cameron (Avatar)
Tony Scott (The Taking Of Pelham 123)
John Hillcoat (The Road)
Great work Roger, but is there any reason I can't comment on your article about Twitter? (I'm 15 and I totally agree with you about it.)
Ebert: I don't understand. Was the blog software malfunctioning?
Bill Hays,
Before "Jaws" and "Star Wars" nobody cared about how much money a movie made. Now, you can't see a list of the top movies for the weekend without seeing its numbers next to it, which is being capitalized on by the snarky tabloid press as was in a recent blog by Roger with oxymoronic lines like "Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman continue to only make 100 million dollars per picture...uh-oh." This is another unfortunate byproduct of the summer blockbuster, so says this certain viewpoint about American maintstream movies. "Jaws" was the first summer blockbuster (and it's about the beach. How about that?), from which all of our big budget summer movies were born, in a sense, which "Star Wars" kind of solidified. When it rains, it probably pours...and it has. And by the way, "Star Wars" fans are still going to see the movie ten times, even with Jar Jar.
Here is the full quote of John Landis, which states that, because of "Jaws" and "Star Wars", "B-pictures now have A-budgets. It's all crap." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzJ795i0noY
I can't believe it. Cole Smithy, who brags he is "the most intelligent movie critic in the world," has just spoiled the perfect 100% rating of "Goodbye Solo" the TomatoMeter. All he writes is a short, shallow, idiotic dismissal. What an a$$hole.
Ebert: I went to look at it. What a pathetic review. A few generalities and some snarking at Tony Scott. One expects better from the most intelligent critic in the world.
Not to sound like a stupid fanboy but, I got a reply from Roger Ebert! Cool! Ahem...
Anyway, reading Bill Hayes comment, I just now learned that SOMEONE here didn't like "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"...I hope you did see it again and reconsider. It's the best movie of the 60's in my opinion. But hey, if your opinion's the same, your opinion's the same.
I am with Jared, above. I can read your Twitter article, and the hyperlinks say there are however many comments (91 as of this moment).....but no comments appear after the text. A disappointment, though it does increase my appreciation for being able to read the article- if that were gone, all is lost.
Ebert: Anybody else having this experience? I just checked, and all the comments are there.
Dear Mr Ebert,
i don't know what the deal is with Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto". I'm sure you accept 'The Passion Of The Christ' as a good film and i do agree with you. Aren't you curious to see where this filmmaker is heading? 'Apocalypto' is an unforgettable film. Your opinion matters very much to me and i share the same opinion with a number of your readers trying to get you to see it. I can guarantee it will not be a waste of time.
With respect
Nick Pappas
Well, nice of you to list 'Chop Shop' in your best of 2008 list; I got introduced to Ramin B. I also watched 'Man Push Cart'. I really would like Ramin to make an all american movie (rather than on immigrants) and hit it big. He has the potential to shine big time.
Thanks for your list of 100 best films, originally, wherein I got introduced to so many wonderful movies and movie makers.
I miss seeing you and Richard Roeper on the TV show. What a shame, there is nobody else as capable as you both were.
I have not heard of this director but I'm looking forward to checking out his work. It's always great to see a brand new film maker rise up and become recognized for great movies.
Off topic, but did you ever notice how everything coming out these days is either based on written material, a remake or based on a T.V. show. Aren't there any fresh ideas anymore? I'm looking forward to new directors making new stuff.
Smithey's review didn't seem snarky to me, but it did break one of the most important rules in film criticism: you have to provide good reasons which explain why or why not you are able to recommend a particular film, and then defend them further in relation to the film being discussed. Bill Warren, an excellent film critic and historian, once stated on a long-defunct webforum that he didn't give a damn whether or not people agreed with his reviews, or whether or not he agreed with other critics, just as they long as they provided good arguments well articulated, using Pauline Kael as the best example of this.
I also can read the whole article, but it stops at the caption "MIT's wearable $350 Sixth Sense" (but no picture.)
Ebert: Works for me. Try clearing your browser cache?
I've had the same deal as James Wheeler. The MIT image is one of those red-exed "problem" nonimages, and there's no scrolling past it . . .
Browser cache? I'm ignorant of the ways of the Browser Cache . . .
For those of you that have not had the honor (not to mention pleasure) of seeing "Goodbye Solo", why not see the film in the city in which it was shot? The RiverRun film festival (April 22-April 29) will host a special premiere of Bahrani's spectacular film. While you're here, check out Winston-Salem's arts district, historic Old Salem, and many other unique attractions.
Ebert: And Bahrani is being honored, right?
By Daniel Q on March 29, 2009 11:55 AM
"I am skeptical of what hyperbole really does for artists. Does being 'great' mean you will no longer mess up, produce mediocre work, make a commercial film? Isn't it sort of a tag that is guaranteed to fail?"
But what is the alternative? If superior film-making is NOT recognized, aren't we simply left with Michael Bay & co. getting all the big budget films? Scorsese 91-current still has a higher batting average than that, right?
I think criticism plays an important role in art by creating a system of appreciation for artists. When quality criticism thrives, the right kind of people--possibly those most capable of greatness?--become attracted to the artistic field.
Yes, I read he is getting an award at the River Run. From their press release: "The fest will present its inaugural Emerging Master Award to filmmaker Ramin Bahrani following a screening of his latest film, "Goodbye Solo."
Can't wait to see it there in Winston-Salem!
Tom123b:
I would want to make clear that my comments were in no way directed against Roger's dedication to promoting smaller films and directors. To me he is a shining example of what the best and most read critics must, must do: to create, through their writing, a different -field- than that of the mainstream or commercial system. By "field" I mean the quantity and diversity of films that a general public is aware of. Thanks to mail-rental companies like Netflix, such films can now at very least be seen by people who perhaps live in areas with poor distribution (i.e. only multiplexes and blockbusters).
Criticism, in my view, does not just play an important role. At its best it is simply -part- of works of art, which do not exist separately from what is written or said about them. For me Roger is very, very unique in his ability to do this while still maintaining the widest possible readership. His "Great Movies" series is written at an academic level of sophistication but is -so- clear and accessible that anyone can read and enjoy it. For me, that's the Grail; not a "service" to art, but art plain and simple.
Now, that said, my point was how we understand the work of artists over time, and the burdens we place on them as they develop and have to make big choices, like whether to accept a huge sum to direct an action movie instead of making their next "small movie," in the words of a much younger F.F. Coppola. For the record I -do- see some directors as "great" in relation to others, and Scorsese is absolutely in there. But there is a difference between assessing that toward the end of a director's career and doing so after three pictures. Stories of flameouts after such hype abound, and Scorsese was nearly one of them (for the gossipy side, the pleasures of which I am not immune to, look read Peter Biskind's "Easy Riders Raging Bulls"). I suppose in the end there is no easy way to promote someone who is worthy of attention and not send them at least to some extent down the "next great American ______" track.
I suppose that my interest is more in tracing shared strategies, and the isolation of countries and individuals makes that harder to do (one is "great" at the expense of others). Bahrani's realism is something that he shares with a number of other young directors around the world. Why has this approach become so popular in art film over the last decade plus? What is its relation to what is going on in film (the transition from analog to digital) and the world? I'll put it this way: those questions are more burning to me than whether or not Bahrani will enter the Pantheon.
Bahrani made his first movie in Iran in 1999. I don`t remember its name. but I`m sure about that film. that film just showed in Fajr Film Festival and it was about his roots.
To Wes Lawson, about your list of great directors that have movies coming out this year.
I also include George Romero, him having a new film coming out this year:
... of the Dead (first part of the title being undecided)
Thank you for another great recommendation.
What a moving story, what engaging stars, and what skilled, tasteful, PURE moviemaking!
I've been busy lately with school, work and finishing up a three part essay to a dear critic of mine, before Mr. Ebert posted (The new great American director), about the very promising Ramin Bahrani, I couldn't allow it to pass me by without saying anything, {I'm usually on top of things}, some months ago I saw his directorial debut, "Man Push Cart" on the Sundance channel and was amazed by the clarity of his subject matter, then saw it again on IFC, and noticed a little of John Cassavetes going on in his work, Bahrani has a clear conscious, which is a vital asset.
Ebert had it not been for you I never would have watched CHOP SHOP, and im now indebted to you for life.
Some movies touch people certain ways and this did it for me I watched it wednesday night (its now early sunday) and i've seen it once since then and I just watched the trailer above and it brought tears to my eyes for some reason. Im not sure why, thats never happened to me before. Ive honestly never even cried in a movie before, well maybe a tear in Brians Song, but who didnt. Im only 23 years old so ive got plenty of tears to taste, so thats beside the point. Im not sure if its the story or just the beauty in the ART of the film. To me this is truely ART and great American cinema, thank you so much and please keep doing what you've been doing GREAT for longer than ive been crying or breathing. - Darren
Ebert: Im only 23 years old so ive got plenty of tears to taste.
That is one beautiful sentence.
Roger, Thanks for your insightful "heads-up" on Ramin Bahrani. I have not , as yet, had the opportunity to see any of his films but this coming weekend, April 11 and 12, I will see them all AND see and hear Mr Bahrani, in person, discuss each of them. The location is the Harvard Film Archives in Cambridge, MA and I encourage anyone who reads this to make the effort to be there as well.
I viewed Chop Shop at the conference of world affairs earlier today and was stunned by its passion. I'm seventeen years old and will be attending the University of Colorado next year. Recently, I've been doing a lot of research on directors and I have noticed that many, unlike Bahrani, did not attend film school and instead made films. Robert Rodriguez created El Mariachi and Quentin Tarantino wrote and directed Reservior Dogs which aired at film festivals and got them noticed, both of these men seem to condemn an expensive degree. At this point in my life I am debating whether or not the best way to make it in the film industry is to first obtain a BFA in Film, or if that degree is a waste of time and I should instead spend my money on making films. Would Bahrani's work have been possible without his degree, or did it just delay his vision? Would the better route be to take the path of Rodriguez and Taranito, throwing caution to the winds and relying solely on my belief in my abilities?
Ebert: Talking with Bahrani, I have an impression one of his major resources is reading.
My standard advice to college students: Whatever your major is, minor in English lit. But take courses where you read and discuss. Not courses in the con game that academic criticism has become.
Four of us had no idea what to expect from this film. We had not seen the director's two prior films, nor read about them. However, the continuous up-beat personality of Solo captivated me immediately. I understood his compassion and caring for William and kept hoping Solo would be able to change William's eventual goal. Both actors were superb, but the direction and basic story are what make this film so great. I know I will keep thinking about this film long after this weekend.
In all fairness Roger, regarding "generalities," I was very specific about what I see as a glaring flaw in the screenwriting of "Goodbye Solo," where the author is far too in love with his leading character's name. I'm sure you know that this was a pet peeve of Cassavetes, and I dare say that "Goodbye Solo" is not on a par with films like "Opening Night" or "A Woman Under the Influence"--both very tangible examples of "neo-neo-realist" films.
I credited Tony for mis-branding the film as "neo-neo-realist" movie because I overheard someone quoting his review and was surprised to discover that he really had written it. He should know better. I stand by my opinion that "the film ["Goodbye Solo"] represents a barely competent script made gripping by an inspired director and two equally talented actors. Ramin Bahrani is a promising filmmaker who needs to work much harder at crafting dialogue and complete stories."
It's a capsule review for crying-out-loud.
A film like "Tulpan" puts "Goodbye Solo" to shame. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Love the dialogue.
Kindest regards,
Cole Smithey
Ebert: Well, we disagree, but I thank you for elaborating. I know what it's like to swim upstream in a river of rotten tomatoes. Just consider my review of "Knowing."
roger, can you post the herzog interview that bahrani refers to please? would love to read that interview. thanks...
Ebert: It's posted. Just use "advanced search" on my website.
I am glad you have brought Bahrani to my attention. As an aspiring filmmaker myself, it is always interesting and insightful to read of other filmmakers who are "making it" through, often, bleak circumstances, with the idea of a "next project" hinging on a multitude of realities, not the least of which is finances. And yet, there they are, still pushing. That certainly makes the art of filmmaking endearing for me, and motivating. It's also interesting to note Herzog's trickling influence.
Now, I must catch up on Bahrani's films, as I have seen none...yet.
Ebert: Entertaining selections on your blog.
This was a highly inspiring article for me and I definitely plan to catch some of Bahrani's films sometime. Filmmaking can definitely be a daunting journey when it comes to breaking through the industry. I was admitted to the MFA production program at USC, but unfortunately plan to turn it down due to its enormous financial burdens. It ultimately becomes a struggle of passion vs. pragmatism, and considering success isn't guaranteed, that makes the decision all the more difficult. Bahrani's story gives me hope as I found his references to Herzog particularly motivating. Thanks for sharing, Roger.
The virtue of "Goodbye Solo" is evident in the character of Suleyman whose good-natured and open heart is crushed by the wrinkle of desperation abundant in William. Unfortunately Bahrani does not explore the most important character as well; the hints regarding the internal turmoil that has raged inside William's heart are left to the imagination. We are shown hints to explain why William behaves as he does, but we do not see it enough. A flashy punch by an ex-boxer isn't enough exploration of the human psyche and neither is the arbitrary plantation of a supposed diary. The movie is dominated by the boring character of Solo and does not explore the darkness in William's heart enough.
I actually got the opportunity to meet Bahrani at the River Run Film Festival in Winston-Salem. I've loved movies since I was too small to keep up with most of them - I often asked myself why I chose to go to Wake Forest when I was so passionate about film: why I didn't apply to Tisch or USC. Just getting the chance to meet Bahrani and some of the actors from "Goodbye Solo" at a screening was a huge validation - it lead me to the right place at the right time.
I asked him at what point he knew he could do this - at what point he thought to himself, 'this is possible.' He responded by pulling out his cell phone and taking a video of me. He said, "we live in a time where anything is possible. Filming with a cell phone...who would have thought?" I feel like the message he is always trying to convey is that truly great cinema acknowledges the truth of that which is around us (even the best fantasy films find themselves grounded in real truths about the human condition and its relationship to world(s) around it). It doesn't require unlimited resources and funds...it requires a mind and a heart that won't stop picking up the camera and attempting to capture those truths. And maybe a little luck.
For an aspiring director like myself, Bahrani illustrates how if you're meant to make movies, you'll find a way. It wasn't always as easy as he makes it look - and we all have a different road to get to where we're going.
Which just leads me to say to you, Roger: "Thank you." There are some solid film critics around the world, but I sometimes find myself questioning how much they really love what they're doing. For a naive 20 year old, it looks like the dream job; and, I'm sure it has its ups and downs like anything else. However, it's become too much of a market...schools nowadays can turn out journalists with relative ease, but can they turn out true moviegoers, to borrow from Percey? I know that when I read anything you write, it is coming from a carefully penned response with years of exploration and consideration to back it up. There just simply isn't the same kind of analysis and encyclopedic knowledge coming from anyone else out there. Most days, I oscillate from fatalism to hopefulness when it comes to my feelings about the future of the film industry - both independent and studio. But as long as we can find those with Bahrani's vision and with your leveling and passionate responses, I remain hopeful. Hopeful enough to keep trying to make movies.
Giving people hope is about the most anyone could ask for, I think. So please accept this as the best compliment I could think of.
Ebert: Like Scorsese, Bahrani sees a role for himself as a teacher as well as a filmmaker. He is completely approachable. For a week at Boulder last April, he talked with anyone about anything.
Roger,
finally got to see 'goodbye solo'. good gracious how wonderful a piece of cinema this is... i think his best so far. an unparalleled concern for character and place than i've seen in anyone making movies right now. the moments of life we get to sneak into as the viewer are incredibly scorsese-esque. the plot is developed with unimaginable creativity, flowing along and building with such care and concern that it's almost tough to not just sit in admiration for an hour and a half. I think this movie made me a more compassionate person.
Roger,
I have to start off by saying "Thank You!" I just finished watching "Goodbye Solo" about 15 minutes ago, after 5 months of being in my Netflix queue. Wow! It is a perfect film. Beautiful, touching, thought-provoking, pure and well-acted.
It took me a few minutes to get into it as I found Solo's accent hard to understand at first but his character is so heartwarming and his attitude and personality so infectious that I couldn't resist his charms! I found myself enjoying the camaraderie between Solo and "Big Dog" so much that when I noticed I was crying (when Solo read William's notebook) that I couldn't stop. I was absolutely floored, and quite unexpectedly as well.
I saw Mr. Bahrani's "Chop Shop" a few months ago ("Man Push Cart is upcoming) and agree that his career is one to follow. I can't wait to see what he has next!
Many thanks again to you for shedding light on this masterpiece. One I will cherish for many years to come. Please keep spreading the word on treasures like this.
Cheers!
Chris