This is the best of times and the worst of times for the kinds of films we here in this blog find ourselves seeking. I'm talking about good independent films--which usually means films financed, released and marketed outside the big distribution channels. That's a vague category which might also include foreign films, documentaries and classic revivals. These are the films where the future of film as an art form resides.
I have nothing to say against mainstream movies, the kinds that open on thousands of screens and are the only movies most people ever hear about. I like a lot of them--too many some of my readers say. They fend nicely for themselves. Sometimes they can be genuine art. Good for them.
I speak instead of films that make their own way in the world, inhabiting those few theaters that are booked with taste and independence. Or films available only on DVD. Or films finding their largest audiences at festivals. Or playing in video in demand. Or rediscovered after some years. Or lost.
"Tulpan"
It is my job to see such films, as many as I can. This week I saw one titled "Munyurangabo," filmed in Rwanda by a Korean-American director named Lee Isaac Chung, who was raised on a farm in Arkansas. Read your own mind. The title "Munyurangabo" was discouraging. Such a title linked with "Korean," "Rwanda" and "Arkansas" perhaps didn't compute. I can't say I blame you. Yet such words have nothing to do with whether we admire a film or not, and since "Munyurangabo" is not only the hero's name but a word meaning "warrior," it's in some ways a perfect title.Never mind. You will be lucky if you ever get the opportunity to see it, and I'm not here today to discuss it. My review is online. All I'm serving is that the best film I saw this week is opening in one theater at a time, none of them probably near you.
That, in a way, is why we may be entering the best of times for such films. The answer is digital distribution, and this is a good time for me to declare a cease-fire in my long war against digital projection. For years I said it was not as good as light through celluloid, and for years I was correct. I still believe that in principle. But digital projection has become very good indeed, to the point that most people aren't aware if they're watching it. In fact, the other day a 35mm print wasn't delivered to a Chicago screening room, and we watched a DVD screener of the same film, on the same screen, and it looked just fine.
Much more to the point, 35mm prints are expensive to manufacture and ship, and if you want to open in 100 theaters on the same day you need 100 prints. A digital version can be distributed by internet or disc at a fraction of the cost, and that represents the future of the kinds of films we're looking for.
"Departures"
Some indie distributors have been experimenting with "cross-platform" releases, even films released the same day in theaters and on digital, which was once unthinkable. IFC Films now offers the same titles simultaneously via video on demand (VOD) and in more traditional ways. "Munyurangabo" is a release by Film Movement, which opened it June 12 in San Francisco, June 21 in New York, June 26 in Seattle and now at Facets Cinematheque in Chicago. That possibly required only two prints.
More than a month earlier, however, a DVD of the film shipped to Film Movement subscribers, who pay $11 a month for their DVD of the Month Club. At around the cost of a single ticket, they got more than their money's worth, especially if they live in the countless cities where the film will never play. They got to keep the DVD. Why do customers know they can trust Film Movement? The company has been in business for seven years and distributed more than 100 films that way. And let's face it, you're unlikely seek out "Munyurangabo" on your own. Someone has to send it to you.
So one way or another, Lee Isaac Chung will probably end up with more viewers than he could otherwise hope for, more positive reviews (currently 100% on the Tomatometer), a good reputation, and, having just turned 30, he will live to fight again another day. In a desperate world for indie writer-directors, there are now lights in the tunnel--and not just at the end.
"Julia"
Let's say you live in Lincoln, Arkansas, near the farm where Lee Isaac Chung was raised. You persist in loving what your friends call "those art films." Cable TV has made them easier to find, but you think the best way to see a film is with an audience of sympathetic fellow moviegoers. That doesn't mean they'll like everything. They can boo just as loudly as the killjoys at Cannes, but it's nice to have them there. You can go out after the movie and argue about it.Alas, Lincoln lacks its own art theater. Well, of course it does. Woody Allen once told me most of his films never play south of the Mason-Dixon line. He might have been joking, but not entirely. Anyway, here's what you do. You decide to open your own little art theater. This doesn't require a substantial capital investment. Maybe you can use the Lincoln school library. The school board doesn't want you to show dirty movies? Okay, don't show any. Show "Munyurangabo," by a local boy who first went to Africa as a Christian volunteer worker. That'll make them happy.
You acquire the rights to exhibit films in a legal way, and pay the director and distributor royalties. You build an audience. You have taken your film-going into your own hands. You attract only a dozen audience members at first, but you grow slowly, making climbing all the way to 50. People drive in from as far away as West Fork and Goshen .
In larger cities, this model works with more formal art theaters, making their economic realities much more manageable. I have here an illuminating message from a reader who calls himself MAJK. I will quote it pretty much intact:
I work for an art house chain that mostly deals with independent and foreign films. We only rely on the films themselves to drive in business. We do not have the luxury to promote IMAX "quality" screens, stadium seating, or digital projection. And for many of the films we show, we don't need to. (I don't think many will be swayed if we advertised "Ma Vie En Rose" or "Food Inc." now on digitally-projected 150ft. screens!) We have continued with the "art house experience" for over 80 years, riding the bipolar economy wave, mainly because people will still come out to see a good film.But we are still a business and what will change our industry is (and has always been) cost. Digital projection will allow us to use non-union projectionists (we are one of the few theatre chains that still employs professionally trained projectionists), as the projectors are "point and click" and in most cases the digital projectors are so automated and advanced we won't even need projectionists at all. I can use my laptop to "start and stop" a movie, all the while enjoying dinner at home.
"O'Horten"
Downloading digital prints from studios and filmmakers will remove delivery costs, print costs and any refurbishing costs from old, aged prints. No longer will we need trained professionals to correctly place 35mm trailers before these prints. That's done digitally too, with "drag and drop" from a mouse. We currently have two salaried employees, one of them spending 60% of his time with print delivery to and from theatres. The other spends about half of his time on shipping and gathering trailers to and from theatres. A digital change will eliminate one full-time job between the two of them. Not to say that our main goal is to eliminate employees, which it isn't, but like it or not, we must bow down to the nature of business from time to time.
Besides all that, another reason for a digital change is for the filmmakers. A good percentage of our films are made without studios (or with smaller ones) which have little money to make even a single print. Most of our academy qualifying season is spent moving around borrowed digital projectors at cost to the filmmakers, from theatre to theatre in order to screen live and animated shorts from a broad range of digital media (and sometime even projected DVD! Gasp!). Those indie studios and broke filmmakers will jump at a chance to simply "upload" their film once and be done with it.
But there is a bit of a fight as to who should pay for this digital inevitability. Is it the exhibitors? Or should it be the big studios? The big studios, with their prints in the thousands, stand to gain a huge savings. But usually the exhibitors end up paying upfront costs for these types of changes, as our efficiency and financial needs trump the need for big studios to shave a few million dollars off the next blockbuster.
"We only rely on the films themselves to drive in business." Imagine that. Do you see the business model here? Indie filmmakers do somehow get their films made--finding the cameras, casts, crews, locations and food for lunch. They usually shoot in digital, but not always; concerned about the electricity supply in Rwanda, Lee Isaac Chung, who was his own cinematographer, used a mechanical super 16mm camera, and the result is visually superb.
"Medicine for Melancholy"
The challenge is getting those films opened. Although a major indie masterpiece like "The Hurt Locker" can reasonably hope to sell substantial numbers of tickets, especially if Oscar nominations are forthcoming, a filmmaker like Chung only hopes as many people as possible will get a fair chance to see his film, and it looks like he's achieving that.The ways people access films are changing rapidly. A filmmaker like Nina Paley of "Sita Sings the Blues" has been performing a daring and rather brilliant field experiment by giving her film away. Because of music copyright issues, she didn't feel legally able to sell it, so she posted it on the web and made it available in other ways, and as a result "Sita" and Paley have become fairly famous--in our circles, of course.
People download films (legally, I hope). They view them via streaming video. They buy or rent DVDs. They use VOD. They check the cable schedules. They can make amazing discoveries in places like TCM, with its access to studio archives of long-format films. They go to theaters when and where they can.
Of course purists say the best way to see a film is via light through celluloid, in a theater with great sound and projection and a receptive audience. I'm a purist, and that's what I say. But I don't want to find myself sitting alone in that perfect theater, watching the Last Indie Picture Show. However you see "Munyurangabo," or "Katyń," or "Julia," or "Il Divo," or "Departures," or "Of Time and the City," or "Tulpan," or "O'Horten," or "Tokyo Sonata," or "Silent Light," or "Medicine for Melancholy," or "Everlasting Moments," you will probably be very pleased. And those are all films that have opened so far this year.
By the way. I'll let you in on a professional secret. All of those 12 films got rated either three and a half stars or four stars from me. And I viewed every one on a DVD screener.
¶A message received from Lee Isaac Chung's high school teacher, Ed Marshall:
Thank you so much for the glowing review of Isaac's work. You hit it right on the nose, this young man does exceptional work. As one of his teachers in high school he was both student and dear friend. I may be a little biased.... do you think?
Some comments about Mr. Lee Issac Chung, and Lincoln, Arkansas, and art theater in northwest Arkansas. First, however, allow me to boast just a smidge. As already said, in high school, "Lee" (I think he prefers the name Isaac now) was one of my students (World History). In 19 years of teaching I've never known a more focused young man. Issac was also the President of the school's Senior Beta Club, an honor society. We are all so proud of this young man. He and I still exchange emails once or twice each year. It was Isaac's email to me yesterday that pointed me to your Journal, and blog. (Thanks Isaac. I will forward your email on to the rest of the staff).
Lincoln has a population of about 1,800 real nice folks. Lincoln High School itself is small, very small, ca. 350 students 9th through 12th grades. Facility-wise, the school's crown jewel is a state of the art, 430 seat, theater style auditorium that will accomodate any type of digital presentation one cares to offer.
Beginning this next school year, 2009-2010, as the Beta Club sponsor, I had planned to present to the general public some sort of "cultural" event in the auditorium/theater one evening each month. This is to be the Beta Club's main fund raising effort to get some of these kids out of small-town, Lincoln, Arkansas and to Europe for two weeks NEXT summer. Our first event will be this September. I wasn't exactly sure what I was going to set up to present. I DO NOW!!! My principal has guaranteed me at least one evening each month to use the facility for such purposes. If I can make the proper $$$$$ arrangements with the distributor, and Isaac, in time for September's event, then Munyurangabo will be our inaugural show. What a way to jump start the whole thing! I sincerely believe that with proper advertising, i.e., NPR, community interest spots on surrounding TV stations, etc., we could get a good audience. If all goes well, we could do a different art film the following month.
¶A BBC-TV report on the making of "Munyurangabo," including an interview with Lee Isaac Chung:
¶
The trailer for "Munyurangabo:"
¶
My review of "Munyurangabo".
¶
This could happen in your own theater: "The Dork of the Rings" at The Vickers Theater, Three Oaks, Michigan, a town of 1,702 population, about 65 miles from Chicago and 30 miles from South Bend. The Vickers is a first-run art house with a loyal local clientele. Now playing: "Summer Hours" and "Easy Virtue."
¶
Kigali, Rwanda builds its own local independent cinema.
¶
The Film Movement web site. Corrected 7/23.
¶
There is hope for us future filmmakers. YAY!
Question Mr. Ebert:
Is it possible for someone to start a film blog and write reviews for movies and with that, somehow get these DVD screeners to view? I am thankful for my local art house theater, which is currently playing Departures, but with films like Munyurangabo I can't help but feel that I will not be able to see these for a very long time, if ever. Just curious.
As an aspiring filmmaker, these advances in technology have definitely been of great value. Though, I'll also be the first to say that exhibition isn't necessarily at the top of my list of priorities when I'm approaching a project. Especially considering all I've been able to produce, up to this point, are shorts. And as I'm sure you're well aware, there isn't much of a market for short films in the US.
And while I've had moderate success screening my latest short at various film festivals, I still find myself wondering where my film will end up.. hoping that I'll stumble across a more worthy venue than YouTube.
I was talking about this with a friend of mine the other day, and he mentioned that earlier this year, he went to a screening of the 10 Academy Award Nominated Short films at a local theater. While it makes sense that these films would be made available theatrically (given they're Oscar contenders and all!) I still found myself amazed that this actually existed... and I was sad that I missed it! Why can't there be more theatrical screenings of short films? Why aren't there short film distributers that release short film programs theatrically? Why aren't the big studios attaching short films to the front of their nationwide releases? Why do I have to pay $50 a festival for a chance at seeing my film on the big screen?
I'm not looking to make a career out of directing short films, but I, like most indy filmmakers, can't afford to jump into feature production. And until I start seeing more short film distributers, I find it hard to get excited about the advances in digital distribution.
I recently discovered the IFC channel and have fallen in love with it. As someone who seeks out films that interest me well after their released (I saw "Juno" for the first time a month ago), IFC has provided me with a love for films I'd rarely be exposed too. Recently I came across the trailer for "Hump Day" which seems equal parts hilarious, raunchy, and has the potential to be something above a standard comic premise.
After reading Ebert's four star review of "Julia" I imagined the film would be a mix between "After Dark My Sweet" by James Foley, "The Last Seduction" by John Dahl, and of course "Gloria" by John Cassavetes.
Well it was like all three of those films and I loved it. It was a tad too long but in a good way because there was no filler. The writers never ran out of plot to add to the script. You never could tell what was going to happen next, and Julia's behavior just kept making the situations worse.
Tilda Swinton was amazing, and even better than she was in her Oscar winning role as the evil CEO in "Micheal Clayton". It's kind of the same deal except that Tilda is the lead and her character actually has an arc.
This film reminded my of why we even have film critics in the first place. You should always have your own opinion so a critics opinion becomes useless once you've seen a moive, but the critic helps you discover films that you otherwise never would have heard of.
Thank you so much Mr. Ebert, without you (plus Siskel and Roeper) I would have never seen this movie, or "The Last Seduction", or "After Dark, My Sweet" and countless others.
Ebert: Why hasn't "Julia" opened on a couple of thousand screens? Talk about a thriller...
Roger, your essay is so important to those of us that care about the future of cinema. We desparately need film critics like you to continue to keep alive what is truly important about the cinematic experience.
In Canada, we are fortunate to have the Film Circuit (www.filmcircuit.ca) which is part of the Toronto International Film Festival (www.tiff.net). Through it we have the opportunity to try to keep independent film alive across our country. In Canada not only does independent film suffer but the Canadian film industry struggles immensely. The film circuit is a group of some 200 organizations (many art and culture organizations)that screen independent (Canadian, American and international) films booked through the Film Circuit Head Office. Many of these films will have been films that played at the previous year's Toronto International Film Festival but we can try to get others. The Film Circuit head offices arranges the bookings so that these films are usually screened for one night in one location and then bused to the next.
I (as a volunteer with a passion along with a number of others) started one of these, The Ancaster Film Fest (www.ancasterfilmfest.ca), in 2004. We've had to overcome many bureaucratic problems but we currently are able to screen on 12 dates a year with 2 screenings per date. We average close to 600 people at each screening date and over the 5+ years of operation have donated over $50 000 to local charities. All of our proceeds go to our designated charities. Last year we sold out our annual memberships (576) in a space of about 2 hours (mostly to adults (35 + with many seniors) - the demographic that the multiplexes ignore). At first our audience were apprehensive of attending foreign language films, small indy films and Canadian films but the quality of the films compared with what the multiplexes were showing quickly brought them on side. In 2004, our first year, we showed Dirty Pretty Things, The Station Agent, The Corporation, The Snow Walker, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, La Grande Seduction, I'm Not Scared, Festival Express, Since Otar Left and Wilby Wonderful and our members and non-members were forever on-side. We've also been delighted that we're starting to get more and more teenagers and younger adults curious to see what these long lines are waiting to view. We also use our venue to promote the other great films that are playing, often not in our city but in surrounding municipalities. Thus although we only screen on 12 dates we encourage our audience to continue to seek great cinema.
I could talk at length about the troubles we've faced and still face but this venture has proven to me that there is an incredible audience out there to support those great and emerging independent filmmakers. We have to be creative or work with creative people to find ways to promote and keep alive this amazing cinema. As we see major studios close their independent arms and multiplexes refuse to balance their programming we know the road ahead will be difficult. But the audience is there ready and waiting.
I'm currently wearing the t-shirt I got from the makers of Sita Sings the Blues. Loved the film, and enjoy the fact that a little of my money has actually made it to the people directly responsible for it's creation.
With more traditionally marketed films, I deliberately avoid purchasing merchandising tie-ins because it all feels so corporate.
I feel differently about this little film, which most of my neighbors will likely never see, so I'm glad I pitched in my little bit. Seen that, bought the t-shirt, and had fun doing it.
I was just talking with my wife tonight about Spike Jonze's battle with Warner over "Where the Wild Things Are." Warner was willing to reshoot the entire project (which had already cost them $75 million) in order to make it more family friendly. Luckily, Jonze convinced them to let him reshoot some scenes, but the fact that someone as creative as Jonze would even have to battle with a big studio is discouraging. It's a shame that we have studios willing to throw away $75 million on a scrapped project rather than throw some of it towards an aspiring independent filmmaker is exponentially discouraging.
Digital projection looks like a step in the right direction, and with services like Netflix and video on demand the situation begins to brighten even a little more. But word of mouth seems to be the best way to garner attention for a film, and we have you to thank for sharing your discoveries with us. Keep searching and sharing and we'll keep watching and sharing, as well.
I treasure sources that make me aware of films that don't get a great deal of distribution. That's why I treasure Roger's reviews and the recommendations on the ReelzChannel show "Leonard Maltin's Secret's Out". These two sources make me aware of the kinds of films that I look forward to. I have been made aware recently of "Julia", "O'Horton", "The Girlfriend Experience" (which according to Amazon hits DVD September 29th), "Sin Nombre" and "Sita Sings the Blues", these films are on my "must see" list.
I know that I probably won't see these movies in a theater (I don't have a full-time job right now) but I look forward to them on Netflix. Actually, I prefer to see films like this in my living room where I can curl up and enjoy them in my solitude. Like reading a great book.
Nice summary.
I find that I visit the theater less and less. Apart from the generally rotten experience the films that occupy screens near me, hold very little attraction. At my peak I watched 2/3 films a week at the theater. Now it's less than one a month.
The solution?
A 1080p video projector and 120" screen. $5k
No talking or screaming in the audience
No sounds of chomping or vile smells of popcorn
Nobody sitting in front texting
A huge selection of movies on my screen, when i want them
I used to be a cinema purist, but the purile antics of fellow films fans put me off.
This year I have watched fifty of the your "Great movies" from Potemkin, through Greed, Sunrise, Marienbad, Vertigo, Kane (nice commentary!), Ugetsu. I've been with Bergman, Rossellini, Ozu and Fellini.
Then there are the modern gems that find their way to DVD. I'll watch all the films in your summary and have no worries about trekking to theaters 40 miles away and I'll never have a large women screaming at me again because I politely asked her to stop talking all through the film.
At 120 films a year at $20 for two of us plus refreshments at the same price, plus gas.... The payback on the system was under 15 months.
I still love movies. I have just changed where I see them.
Rob
Ebert: Fifty Great Movies!
Yes, a projector and a wall-mounted screen gives you an even bigger picture than agiant-screen TV, and with current projectors the picture is damn good.
Mr. Ebert, I just want to thank you for your writing of lists like this throughout all the years. As a media-interested college student, I've made it a point to view as many classics as I can. Your great films list is a fantastic place to start, for sure! The thing that I truly enjoy are lists such as this one, that allow films that may slip through the cracks due to theaters opting for whatever junk Michael Bay has cobbled together into what very few could call a film. Julia is the only one on this list I had heard of elsewhere (A co-worker informed me of it), but I will make sure to catch all of these! Keep up the fantastic work!
Another reason that film critics in America are so important is because YOU are the ones that tell us that these films exist. I would never have seen Ballast were it not for your glowing review back in October, and luckily I go to a university with professors who have connections to DVD screeners.
One thing I would suggest to anyone reading this blog is to not only do what Roger says to do in this blog entry, but contact the film distribution companies themselves. usually, if you have a good reason and they have the screeners, they're more than willing to send copies. I remember back in 2006 I contacted Thinkfilm to get a screener of Half Nelson to my college town, and they not only sent me a screener, but they said that based on interest from people in the town they planned a 1 week run at the local multiplex (our town has 16 screens total- ironic for a college that has a huge film program). That's also how I got a screener for Medicine for Melancholy, a film I wouldn't have seen had Roger not recommended it. If you show the distributors that you care about the films they produce, more of them will come. They may only come for a week or two, but they will get to your small towns if you make the effort.
Also, the Video On Demand shift is a brilliant strategy for filmmakers. Films like The Girlfriend Experience, which never opened in my town, were seen by me and probably many, many others because the studios made them available for purchase on your TV or computer. And these are the films that usually end up sticking with me for years. Sure, Harry Potter is fun, but will I cherish it the way I cherish Children of Men? Probably not.
By the way, Roger, you were right on about Medicine, Ballast, and The Girlfriend Experience. Great, great films.
"These are the films where the future of film as an art form resides." - Very true, I guess there's always been the reason that Troma's slogan is "Movies of the Future". I know they aren't your cup of tea, Roger, but as one of the oldest independent studios still in business, and the founder, Lloyd Kaufman, now the chairman of IFTA (Independent Film and Television Alliance), I think that they can be said to be of some importance. Who else holds a film festival that has free submission, free attendance, and releases the short films from it in a collection? Maybe someone, but I usually have trouble finding shorts I hear of playing at festivals. He is really against consolidation as well, wanting to keep the artistic decisions out of the hands of so many in a big corporation. With "Lord of the Rings" being released as an IFTA film, the word "independent" has really lost a lot of its meaning. Nothing against LOTR, I love it, but to have it being considered as independent as "The Toxic Avenger" just doesn't seem right. I think they chose the right person for the job. I'm sure that the fact his wife is the executive director of the New York State Governor's Office for Motion Picture and Television Development gives him a little more insight on the industry along with his own struggles to have his movies seen. I've had a few conversations with him, and he is a very intelligent and very nice person. I have a few Troma movies that he has just given me for free, and I'm no one special, just a fan that sees him when he is near. I hope he is able to make a difference in the world of independent film with his position at IFTA.
I feel blessed to live in a city like Los Angeles if for no other reason except the wonderful access to its independent and art-house theaters. Without it, it would be near impossible to see movies like Soul Power, the concert documentary about the 3 day music festival in Kinshasa, Zaire (Africa) in 1974 when legends like BB King and James Brown performed alongside famous artists of African music.
The same remarkable independent theater chain that showed that film, Lammle Theaters, blessed me recently by screening Evangelion 1.0 Your Are (Not) Alone in the original Japanese language audio track with English subtitles. The film is the first of four planned films by Hideaki Anno that re-imagine his animated series from the mid 90s. The four planned films are meant to introduce the story of Evangelion to people unfamiliar with the series and make it more accessible and understandable for wider audiences.
The film was planned to be shown in Chicago, Illinois at the Music Box Theatre on August 21st but the program director, Brian Andreotti, is still on the fence about it. They allow attendees to contact him (http://www.musicboxtheatre.com/about#contact_us) on whether to show the film. I think if you contacted them, they would surely screen the film, so fans of the series living in Chicago, newcomers, and possibly yourself, could have the chance to see this amazing film that recreates a series that remains unsurpassed to this day and reached a pinnacle for anime that has yet to be raised.
Three words, Mr. Ebert!: HOW TO BE.
Unless I am mistaken and that was backed-up moneywise by the BBC.
I thoroughly agree that the DVD (or Blu-Ray and whatever follows) is critical in keeping the independent film industry alive. We are fortunate that even if the film plays nowhere near us, once we read about it through Roger or other outstanding critics we can hunt it down through a variety of methods and enjoy it. Besides all the approaches mentioned I want to add the local library. We have a marvelous library system with an extensive library of DVD (and just recently Blu-Ray) films and many of them are the wonderful independent films that never played anywhere near us. I've seen average pre-bookings of 200 or more for the 5 - 10 copies of the DVDs they purchase. You can be sure that these avid film lovers (like me), when they find a great film on DVD by a particular director that they may not have heard of, will go back and view his other films. Libraries also carry many of the older, great and classic films on DVD with many fewer holds so that they can be picked up and viewed while you're waiting for the more recent releases to become available.
I mentioned the Canadian film circuit before but I didn't mention that a significant number of the 200 sites are only able to screen DVDs because they are using facilities like a library meeting room, church hall or similar facility. Yet they often average 100 or more dedicated people per screening.
Nevertheless, I hope we never totally lose the theatre cinema experience. Where else can you experience a whole audience in complete breathless silence and totally immobilized at the end of a film like Paradise Now or Boy A or joyously charmed by a film like Outsourced or deeply saddened and moved by the performances in a film like I've Loved You So Long?
Roger, thank you for continuing to search out and promote so many lesser known cinematic gems giving them and the film industry a new life and us so many more wonderful cinematic moments.
Soooo--with greater access to independent films, and so much more of them due to inexpensive moviemaking hardware and software, where is the TIME to watch all these great forthcoming movies going to come from??
Sure, I know that that's a good problem to have. But, Roger, aren't you going to end up stressing out over having to draw the line at viewing, say, 50 films a week?
Ebert: Hasn't become a problem.
I'm still a sucker for light projected through celluloid from the time that I was eight or nine years old - forty years ago - and my father taught me to load our sixteen millimeter projector up and show my sister and myself films that he brought home over the weekend from his part-time job at United Films (a local non-theatrical film distributor based in Tulsa - now known as VCI Entertainment). We got to choose what we wanted from their catalog and saw all of the Marx Brothers, Mae West, W.C. Fields, Sherlock Holmes, lots of musicals: Finian's Rainbow, Sweet Charity and, for some unknown reason, a film that we requested every weekend and probably watched over 400 times: Thoroughly Modern Millie. (The fact that our little brother was born about nine months after this started was a connection we didn't make for years afterwards.) Something remains magical to me watching projected film that DVDs or digital projection can never, ever, replace. The hum of the projector coming from the "Storm Closet" we used to hide in from the many local tornadoes with a small double glass window built in to the door of it for showing movies out of, the smell of the film as it got hot running through the projector, and the enormous screen that we used made from a white piece of photographers background paper backed by an even larger piece of the same paper in black, all contributed to this love which has not yet abated and never will. I'm now working at the University of Chicago and a member of the DOC Films programming committee; it's great to have found myself around other 'crazy' people who equally share my love of watching light projected through celluloid.
I live in a small, rural Michigan town named Edwardsburg. (This is where Dork of the Rings was filmed, actually. I remember them asking for donations to finance it at a local fair) The theatre experience at our local cinema has been going downhill for years—prices have gone up, product commercials have found their way before the trailers, they can't even seem to point the projector at the screen right. And they never show small independent movies, only the big-budget mainstream ones. I've fantasized about opening my own theatre, playing the movies I want to see and that should be seen; my own radio station, too, playing the music I love but no one hears. Both these dreams must remain as such, though, as I'll be leaving for college next year (hopefully, to get into the film industry).
Why is it, though, that so much great film and music—so much great art—goes completely ignored in our society? That the biggest, most-watched movies are the ones with the biggest marketing campaigns--why? Don't people go to films to feel things anymore? Why don't people seek out the best films instead of just seeing what they're told? It's strange, that within every major art medium, there seems to be two groups: the elitists and the mass. The elitists--the ones who hail the obscure, indie artists; the critics who compile the year's best films list and add up their box office totals to see they were able to cumulatively amount to 15% of Transformers' massive raking--and, well, the mass. The ones with the heart and the ones with the... mass.
I think one of the reasons for this is that there's a major division between entertainment and art. Many people see movies as just a way to be entertained, a way to spend an afternoon, an alternative to watching a football game. They don't see them as art, interesting experiences they may have to exert some effort to partake in. I think this may also be what's holding videogames back from being fine art. People see them more as entertainment, more so than they do movies. Videogames take a lot of time and money to make, even the smaller ones. Studios are less likely to take a chance on an artistic game that probably won't sell than on an entertaining game with lots of explosions and aliens and carnage. I read a thing where Guillermo del Toro said that gaming needs a Citizen Kane--one game that will prove to all the nonbelievers that videogames are indeed a viable high art form.
That's all the ramble I have right now. I really enjoy this blog.
hi Roger.
Really enjoyed your blog. Ever since i can remember i've enjoyed reading your columm. I have always had a huge interest in film, whether is a big blockbuster or small independent film. Most of the people i know have never heard of any of the small films you write about. I take it upon myself to share this wonderful films with them, and it has been working.
best regards.
Mr Ebert you've made a fair move in the debate. My friends from back in high school drama class have sometimes imagined that if we painted a commercial interior black (Starbucks sized we thought) and using a digital projector, a couple of big amps, and risers enough to sit a capacity of perhaps 70 we could have an art-house theater on main street of our small city. But after all, Robert Holloway and others are lucky enough to have just that sort of thing at home so the idea is regarded as only a pipe dream. I'll be happy if we discover there's a tested business out there anything like what we had in mind. I'll be sad if "micro-theater" is just an oxymoron.
Hey I'm from around Lincoln Arkansas, and the only art theater around these here parts is in Little Rock, and who wants to drive all that way. So I'll shoot you a deal, send me some capital so I can start an art house theater up. Think of it as a donation for the bettering of independent cinema.
Ebert: My readers can send donations c/o me. Cash only, please.
I'd be interested to know what kind of home theater you have, Mr. Ebert. Or would that be a busman's holiday?
Ebert: A Runco overhead projector, maybe 15 years old, still great, and a big wall-mounted screen. Sony surround sound.
My website of choice for independent movies is indiemoviesonline.com. It is free and legal, and has a wide variety of very good films. I found the site on an edition of Empire magazine.
Ebert: That is great, legal site! Although I doubt I'll be downloading "Jack Frost 2."
I was chatting with my best friend the other day, and after reading the news that there would be a film based on the video game World of Warcraft (let's not go there Rog), he told me that filmmakers had run out of ideas.
I told him that that isn't true, and that you just have to know where to look. Though there is an abundance of film critics (professional and otherwise) out there informing us of the new and worthwhile, people are lulled into seeing the tired and familiar. It's too bad that when the groundbreaking or unique come along, most people don't want to see it because they don't want to "think" or be brought out of their comfort zone.
I know you hate lists sometimes, but if it weren't for your lists such as these, who knows what kind of rehash we'd be stuck with.
Just read your ORPHAN review. I'm curious about your favoring it, as compared to your review of THE GOOD SON (1993), which you sort of despised.
I haven't seen both films, but they focus on diabolical children with, as you've described, extremely disturbing tendencies. What was your deciding factor in recommending one and not the other?
Note: Sorry if this was reposted. Seems to be bug in submitting.
Mr. Roger Ebert,
I rarely see movies in theaters anymore, in spite of the fact that I'm a 19 year old American male. Mainstream movies very rarely interest/excite these days, I mean how can they compare to the imagery of Kubrick, the suspense of Hitchcock, or the magic of Fellini? After watching many of your "Great Movies" in the privacy of my own home, I have developed (and am still developing) a much broader vocabulary (and understanding) of film. Because of this new vocabulary, I find most current films to be unpalatable. Going from the films of someone like Truffaut, directly to (the current, mainstream films of) someone like Michael Bay is much like jumping from Joyce's 'Ulysses' into Gray's 'Fun with Dick and Jane (read/screamed a very loud volume, with Jane wearing a pair of daisy-dukes)."
Hi Rog. Sorry for all my comments, but being in Saudi Arabia, this pretty much all I can do at the moment, so bear with me. :)
About the concerns of men and women here (as mentioned in your HUMPDAY review), it is very very real, but there is more to it than what is mentioned in the media. I too am critical of its context here, but at the same time, I sympathize with those involved because of the immense difficulties caused by its constraints.
Here's one story. I was told of a married woman (foreigner) who was assaulted here upon exiting her home alone because of an urgent matter. Muslim women here are forbidden to venture out in public alone as they must be accompanied by their family members or their spouses.
The man who assaulted her was a young teen. She fought back, cried for help, so the youth fled. He was sought after by the family, but disappeared. She had mentioned that she was lucky that her niqab (facial covering) did not fall off. Why? Because if her head was exposed, she could be the one accused/charged of inciting the incident.
I know, it's backward and grossly unjust. A problem long known to be unfair to women. But at the same time, it is a source of great distress to men, regardless whether they support this system or not. Men are pretty much the only ones working here (unless you're a nurse, teacher, or a janitor for the ladies room). Only they can drive and head away from their homes. They have to worry about taking their daughters and wives to schools and markets, and fret about their well-being when at work. It's true that this is a rare occurence, but a society that has a lot of young men with a huge non-exposure to ladies is a huge cause for concern.
I make no defense for this inequality. I will never let my wife and daughter come live here if I can help it. But for the many men and women who live here, it's a pain that you can't help but feel sorry for. There are SO many good people here, that I just wanted to clarfiy things as to what is portrayed.
Ebert: If those women were a race instead of a gender, the world would rise up and invade to set them free.
Most people have enough problems in their life that anything they 'do' beyond work or family, anything they 'do' by choice might make sense only if it's a distraction, not something thought provoking. That's the reason Transformers worked. That's the reason - hell - even I enjoyed it. I could see that it was Puh-THE-tic. I absolutely hated the first movie and I could not believe my eyes when I saw Ebert's 3-star review of it. But the second time I watched it I actually managed to shut off my brain (doing that keeps you blind to your problems) and enjoy all the..."transforming". And given that I was not exposed to the cartoons or the toys in the 80's, with only my imagination and some illustrated Transformers novels (yes, those existed. And yes I read them) to help back then, watching cars turn into giant bots ON-SCREEN actually turned out to be kinda fun. And I did not understand why the second movie got so much MORE flak (as compared to the generally positive - I still don't get why - reviews of the first one) when it was just so much more of the same, crap. The first one had a non-existent plot, this one had a non-existent plot. The first movie had unbearably hammed lines, this one had unbearably hammed lines - and actually fewer so the movie on the whole felt a lot less taxing taste-wise. Plus constant bombardment on my senses for two and a half hours kinda ENSURED that my brain was off for all that time and when I walked out it felt like I was just off a 'trip'.
But, I wasn't here to discuss Transformers. To sum it up quickly, the reason Bay sells is also the reason alcohol sells. It is not good for your health one bit, and can even turn you into an abhorrable person, but when it lasts, whooo.
Getting back to indie movies, I'm grateful to be here at a time when multiplex chains, big distributors/financiers and even TV networks with heart are turning their attention to promoting smaller/independent/foreign films in India - which has for so long been such an awesome market for mainstream and even B-grade classic blow-em-up Hollywood. So much that - as most might be aware - Quantum of Solace released FIRST in India, and then in the rest of the world! Plus the local dubs are an absolute riot. :D
Getting back on topic, TWO TV channels dedicated full-time to foreign+arty movies, weekend specials at the biggest multiplex here (yes!) and a DVD rental service by one of the channels mentioned above. That sure does count as light in the tunnel. :)
P.S: Haven't searched around a lot for this, but I wonder how many people have seen 'Heroes' - a French movie about a small-time entertainer who loses it. BRILLIANTLY acted!
A wonderful essay! Thanks so much for the information about Film Movement. I expect I'll be subscribing tomorrow.
In the interest of offering more information, I'm proud to say that Jon Vickers of Vickers Theatre fame has generously been programming the screenings for nearby South Bend/Notre Dame's Browning Cinema for a few years now. The care he and his co-workers have for cinema is at once apparent in the remarkable work they do, both in Three Oaks and on Notre Dame's campus. Thanks very much for featuring the theatre in Three Oaks!
Show Munyurangabo at Ebertfest!
I know this isn't entirely relevant, but I know something of living in small towns that don't get the art films you want to see... at least not when everyone else gets them. This is a tale told quite often in your answerman section, but I want to jump back to 2000.
In 2000, I had been living in San Antonio, Tx for 7 years. Not the smallest of cities (in fact I believe it's now the nation's 7th or 8th largest) and we did get the art films but often months after I would read/watch your reviews. Luckily I have a great memory and was still able to connect the films to your review. Some were so late that they arrived in theaters AFTER they were released in the video store where I was working. Michael Winterbottom's The Claim was one.
The theater considered the art-theater was the Crossroads Theater at the busiest freeway intersection in Northern San Antonio. They received Patrice Leconte's back to back masterpieces Girl on the Bridge and Widow of St. Pierre within three weeks of each other, I believe. Girl on the Bridge became one of my all-time favorites. I also did a back-to-back double feature of Panic with William H. Macy and Amores Perros (what a night... Amores Perros is another of my all-time favorites). I was there at least once a week that year as I was also finally 17 and turned 18 that year and no longer had to worry about giving money to bad PG-13 movies to sneak into the R's. Best of all... Requiem for a Dream - unrated - nobody under 17 at all.
I want to tell you about the night I went to see Titus. I had arrived for a 7:10 show to hear that there was a projector problem. I hung around for thirty minutes, had dinner at the food court. They said there were still problems. They took down my number and said they'd call me if they could get it working in time for the next screening. I hadn't heard from them by 10:00, so I called and asked if the 10:30 show would still happen. They said it was unlikely. I drove to another video store where I would hang out a lot both bullshitting about movies with everyone and flirting with the female employees. My dad called me at 11:15 at the video store and told me that the Crossroads theater just called and said that if I was still interested in seeing Titus that night, they'd move the print to another projector and show it at 11:40. I was easily 30 minutes away from the theater and let me tell you, I'd never driven so fast.
I arrived at the theater at 11:38 and I found myself let into the mall by a theater employee who asked me to please wait a moment while he made sure everything was cleared with the manager. I looked around to find myself with 20 other people, all of them twice to three times my age, waiting to see this special private late night screening of Titus. I have rarely been with an audience so eager to share the experience. We all told our stories of what brought us there for a near midnight screening of a 3-hour film. One woman told me she tried for the 3:30 show that afternoon and they had the same problem. We got into the theater and some seats were roped off for a press screening earlier that night. One guy joked "we're really getting a VIP treatment tonight!" and another guy says "That's not for us. Tony Hopkins is gonna come watch it with us." We all kept laughing. The film ended around 3am and everyone was happy. It was one of the two most memorable movie going experiences of my life (see your Cannes blog #9 for the other).
The reason I'm telling you this is that I have not had an experience like the above in the past 9 years. I still get excited to find films, sure... but I just look online and find the showtimes at the Arclight or the Laemmle or the New Beverly or the Egyptian or the Aero here in Los Angeles. I think pretty much after seeing The General with a live organist and the next night seeing The Big Easy sitting behind Dennis Quaid covering his son's eyes during the sex scene, I realize that I've completely spoiled myself. And now, with a real job too, I find myself looking at film listings saying for the first time "I'll wait for netflix". I know it may sound arrogant, but I sort of miss that wondering of what my town WILL get and if they don't get it, how can I find it?
I hope that in incorporating digital delivery methods, this will indeed enable both the filmmakers and the films and does not give the audience more than they know what to do with. I'd hate to see what could be a the catalyst of a wonderful movement fall apart as a failed experiment that gave too much all at once.
Ebert: Ever go to the Silent Movie Theater?
And to Robert Holloway above who has gone through 50 of the great movies this year:
I encourage you to find a film that I sincerely hope Roger will eventually add to his Great Movies list: Joseph Losey's 1976 film Mr. Klein. I rented the film over a year ago and I have not stopped thinking about its complexities after only a single viewing. I'm not sure if Roger ever saw it as there is no review that I can locate anywhere online... but nevertheless I believe with the films and directors mentioned in your post that it will floor you the way it did me.
Great reviews Roger, too bad nobody is going to see these movies. Its a shame too because the best movies are usually the ones nobody cares for: 500 Days of Summer, The Visitor starring Richard Jenkins, Michael Clayton and Sin Nobre to name a few. Once and a while you have your Slumdogs and Junos, but those don't come along very often and their success is usually attributed to a heavily organized and slightly evil marketing campaign (then again, what marketing campaign isn't evil?).
Most people go to see movies like Harry Potter and Transformers. Are those fun movies, yes. But are they great films? Probably not. Still, I like variety in my movies. Although there is lots of exotic cuisine out there to try, most of us seldom take the plunge and prefer comfort food and junk food to trying something new. I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with that, I just know its not altogether healthy. The world needs good stories to keep going.
My favorite films are not necessarily excellent ones like "Schindler's List" or "La Dolce Vita" but instead the special films that are imbedded into my memory; that for one reason or another have become great onto themselves due to their exposure. Back to the Future, Groundhog Day, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark and High Fidelity. There are snobs out there who believe that at least 3 of those films are not good films. They would be wrong.
I also like films that are terrific though I would never watch them again for various reasons. Pan's Labyrinth, A History of Violence. Mostly because the experience was so full the first time or disturbing that I didn't feel the need to revisit them. Perhaps those are the greatest stories of all, the ones that leave such a powerful impression on us that we're afraid to watch them again.
I know "North" is on that list. And "The Pest" starring John Leguizamo. Yes, that's right; two of the worst films ever made.
Ahhh film prints... the memories. Forgive my lack of terminology in the following post.. it's been 9 years since it happened and I seem to forget more than I ever learn these days.
Before I got into radio, I worked in a multiplex cinema in my home town. Eventually I managed to work my way into the mysterious department of 'projection'. All the staff viewed the projectionists with a certain amount of suspicion.
They were rarely seen, generally only at the end of the shift or a rare cigarette would you ever see one in the wild. They worked late into the night, barely uttering a word to anyone they passed.
Eventually I managed to get out of making popcorn 6 days a week and was told to make my way upstairs...
The door had a picture on it which read 'don't be afraid of projection'. I was nervous.
It's funny, when you work in well lit area's 90% of the time, to actually switch to 90% dark I swear it changes you. It took me a few days to figure out how to 'lace up the film' and soon I was working shifts by myself, managing the running of 14 screens.
The hardest thing to do on your own, and not recommended is moving one of the films from one projector to another over the other side of the booth. They're pretty heavy and not easy to carry.
One night, "The Green Mile" had to be moved from one of our bigger screens to a smaller one as the audience had slowed. I was balancing it on my forearms and walking slowly towards the other projector.. about 200 yards away.
I don't know how I managed it, but I shifted my body weight wrong and the whole thing slid off, unravelling as it did so all over the floor.
It had to be The Green Mile... the longest film we had.. The only thing I could do was get the ring the film wraps around whilst coming off the projector, and manually make the tangled mess back into a giant circle again.
It took hours... one finger, going round and round and round. Every minute or so I would get a massive shock from the static electricity I was building up. I think I finished at 4 in the morning (I was due to finish at midnight).
I miss those days...
Hi, correction that needs to be made. You have a link to "The Film Movement web site". There's an error in it bringing the clicker to no where (the address currently in this link is "http://www.filmmovement.com/index.asp?
"). The correct web address is "http://www.filmmovement.com/"
Ebert: This is weird. My browsers won't open either that address, or this one: http://www.filmmovement.com/filmcatalog/
What's the problem? Someone will tell us.
Usually, I get information about good independent films from your reviews. If I am interested, I snatch movies from internet as quick as Scylla when I find them. As an amateur reviewer, I have already reviewed 63 films in this way in 2009. Here are some of them: "Il Divo", "Julia", "Synecdoche, New York", "The Class", "Gomorra", "Revanche", "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex", "Hunger" and "The Hurt Locker". I get "Katyn" immediately after reading your review(By the way, it was last year's nominee, not this year). I probably will get "O' Horten" someday. The director made "Kitchen stories", another wonderful human comedy I like a lot. I was fortunate to see it on TV.
I have felt a little guilty about downloading these small films, but, at least, I do not touch blockbusters and just wait for release date. In addition, I always use certain service programs, and I paid some money for buying 20-30 gigabytes monthly. I do not know whether they are illegally uploading movies or not. But I pay, don't I? Also, some films can be legally downloaded shortly after theater release. I watched "Departure" in this way, and "Sunshine Cleaning" is pretty much shallow compared to that. I even went to the theater in other city for watching "Tokyo Sonata", but there are times I have to depend on internet. Nevertheless, like Dardenne brother's new movie "Le Silence de Lorna", some movies never lose power even in small screen.
I checked Korean websites, and I found that "Munyurangabo" was introduced in local film festival in 2007. However, there is no other information beyond that. I think I really have to get it, watch it, and talk about it to people around me. I hope it will be available on DVD more widely.
P.S.
1. I saw "Gates of Heaven" last week. I am going to watch it again this week for confirming my intial response. In one scene, Woman and her dog look like communicating with each other. I found it silly at first, but it may just show close relationship between them, not so diffrent from my aunt and her dog. My aunt treated her dog like family member, and dog even had family name as well as first name. During cancer treatment, it was painful for her separated from her dog. Definitely touching moment in the movie comes from many signs on pet markers. My personal favorite: "Dog is God spelled backwards.''
2. I find that Korean distributers are set to advertise "Julia" as if it were "Central Station". Audience will be shocked.
Ebert: "Julia" is definitely ni=ot "Central Station!" At least South Korea is seeing it.
Alan said: That the biggest, most-watched movies are the ones with the biggest marketing campaigns--why?
Because they have the biggest marketing campaigns. People seek out a movie when they've heard enough about it to have their curiosity piqued. The movies with the biggest marketing campaigns are the ones absolutely everyone has heard of.
There's also a "lowest common denominator" element. The movies that grab the biggest audiences aren't the ones that are loved by the largest number of people. No two people love quite the same things. A movie that just wants to be liked can hit that spot with more people. A movie that settles for being a tolerable way to spend two hours... well, you'll always find many more people willing to tolerate something than to love it.
To comment on what Alan said about video games:
Have you heard of Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, or the Last Guardian (soon to be released)? They were all created by a man called Fumito Ueda, who believes that video games can be an art form, and has proved it with Ico and Shadow of the Colossus (and looks to do it again with the Last Guardian).
Here's a link to the Wikipedia article about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumito_Ueda
And here's a trailer for The Last Guardian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHzHoMT5eRg
I also agree with Julian D: libraries are a great place to find independent films and classic movies to watch. Plus, you don't have to pay to watch them!
There is a local art house near me that is the head of the Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival, which I have joined. They have recently shown Katyn, Tulpan, and Everlasting Moments. I have to thank you for talking about both Tulpan and Everlasting Moments. I would not have seen those without reading your articles and I loved them both. They are both on a short list of the best movies of the year. I've also seen Departures, so I've only seen four of the films you listed. Hopefully, the others will come to South Florida or to Netflix.
Also, my church and the art house have partnered to do a film series where we watch a classic film and discuss the themes of it. It's been going for a few years and we have done Casablanca, Citizen Kane, On the Waterfront, Dr. Strangelove, and Crimes and Misdemeanors. We just did 2001: A Space Odyssey this month and we are going to do Gimme Shelter next month. We did Amelie for Valentines Day, so I've convinced them to do more foreign films and we are going to do La Dolce Vita early next year. The one thing we are having trouble with is a Christmas movie. We already did It's a Wonderful Life.
At the same time though, I think that digital projection's main use will continue to be as a marketing gimmick. The little blurb about DLP Digital projection will continue to play before every movie that has it, and screenings will be advertised as digital by theaters who aren't using the technology to play things like "Julia" to a wide audience, because digital projection means that they can squeeze three more showings of "Transformers 2" in the same hour. Sad, but if only multiplexes can afford it, the only chance "Goodbye Solo" has of hitting an AMC is through an Oscar nom, and even then it's likely that it'll only be at one of the theaters with that marathon Oscar nominated movie session, and even then, only if AMC does it next year, what with there being ten movies nominated instead of your usual five. Though, come to think of it, I did see "Doubt" in an absolutely empty theater at the Emagine Theater in Canton, digitally projected, but they're unusually caring about small films, for a theater so big.
I think that the real saving grace for independant film is and will continue to be Netflix. Not only does it tell you what movies you might like (to be sure, if you like a lot of war movies, it'll eventually get around to putting "The Hurt Locker" in front of you), many of them are available to watch right there on your computer. While it doesn't come close to seeing a movie in a crowded theater on a big screen, it's convenient, cheap, and it helps everybody--the filmmakers and the potential audience.
As for Bloggers getting screeners for movies--not likely. I mean, if you're one of the big movie blogs, like Cinematical, or if you're in some wild and wonderful part of the world that doesn't have a whole lot of real, professional film critics, and if you've got a .com address, maybe. Your chances probably go up if you get on the Tomometer (my goal for the year, along with the .com address). I've been movie bloggin' for...maybe a year now, and while some independant filmmakers are more than willing to send screeners out (they're looking for free press like you're looking for free movies), the odds of just being sent something like, say, "Revolutionary Road," are quite small.
A movie that gets released in a multiplex only has to compete with the 10 - 25 other movies playing there.
A movie on DVD, VOD, or available for download has to compete with every movie ever made.
DVD and VOD aren't THAT great for indie filmmakers.
I am very thrilled to see your review of Munyurangabo. I saw it last autumn at the "Free zone" film festival here, in Belgrade, Serbia and was surprised at how little attention the movie got.
Hopefully this will help it get itself... on the map.
It is a great film indeed.
I'm so happy you're trying to give more exposure to Tulpan. I've been stirred by that film in ways I can say no other film has even gotten close to. I remember how restless the audience was, how the many young people seemed distracted. I hope they have the chance to revisit this film and see it for what it really is, and honest family portrait. Maybe being somewhat further along in the circle of life maybe made it easier for me to pick up on the struggle, desolation, and rough hope this film had.
It's probably one of my favorite films. It's weird for me to say that, because I hate to play favorites with my film experiences, but Tulpan will always stick with me.
Mr Ebert
Have you already compiled a list of really good independent film or just really good films that are not necessarily the popular, mainstream fare? Is there any existing list you can recommend.
I read you reviews weekly. You also provide good recommendations, it's just that I have forgotten a few of the names. For instance there is a Japanese or Chinese film you reviewed, featuring a traveller who comes across a beautiful woman who may or may not be a ghost, if I remember correctly-it may be black and white. If this sounds familiar could you provide the name?
I don't expect to enjoy all these films whether independent or not but there are some movies that move me and I can't explain why. I've watched the English Patient about three times despite it being what I would have previously considered long and boring.
Ebert: You are about fo see a great film:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040509/REVIEWS08/405090301/1023
As for other titles, you could browse through my Great Movies.
When I think of why I like theater over film and why I like small indie films and many foreign films over big blockbusters, I think of the 1987 "Fatal Attraction." The ending didn't seem to fit and I later learned that the original ending did not test well with audiences and after a three-week reshoot, a new and less believable ending was tacked on. The meaning of Glenn Close's character (Alex Forrest) listening to the Puccini opera "Madame Butterfly" loses its meaning as does the close up of the knife that Michael Douglas' character (Dan Gallagher) sticks into the butcher block.
In your review of the movie, you wrote:
I couldn't believe that this movie was nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award.
Oddly enough, if Wikipedia can be believed, the movie was shown in its original form in Japan.
I have yet to see the movie "Tokyo Sonata," but I did see "Departures" and enjoyed it quite a bit. I unfortunately read your review of "The End of the Line" after it had closed in Los Angeles, but while I was thinking of the fate of white abalone in California (endangered). I also once went to see a 2005 movie "Duma" after reading your review and realized that I was a fan of Carroll Ballard having seen his 1979 "The Black Stallion" and 1996 "Fly Away Home."
I am lucky to live in Los Angeles County although not the hip part of town (that would be Westside and Santa Monica). To see some of these films, I have to make an effort--drive to a different city and fight traffic and parking and that's a shame. I don't always have time and I'm sure that's true for a lot of people.
A lot of times, I watch films in relation to plays I have seen or will see. I saw Athol Fugard's most recent play, "Coming Home." I then learned he had written only one novel and a movie was made about it. That was "Tsotsi." Sometimes I see movies just because I understand there's a tango sequence in it as in the case of "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs."
Sometimes, I find I'm more interested in what's happening online in regards to movies than the actual movie itself. Some fans see Harry Potter as a musical. Viewing these YouTube tributes, I don't feel cheated as I did when I saw "Fatal Attraction." YouTube is free and the creative vision remains intact, for better or worse.
Sure musicals and plays are often reworked and sometimes movies become musicals and musicals become movies. Of course, I have seen complete, incoherent disasters on stage along with extreme narcissism. I've also seen some very thought-provoking stuff. Yet musicals and plays haven't become a big business controlled by large national or multi-national companies where decisions are made by committee and test audiences destroy a creative vision.
As an inspiring filmmaker (and by that I mean I'm 17 and I want to be Martin Scorcese), I'm overjoyed by these new developments. For a beginner like me, a website like withoutabox.com is a godsend. I can film my movies then enter them in film festivals with a click of a button. Sure, I don't quite know how I'll ever turn that into money but thankfully that's not what I'm here for.
To date the best looking film I have ever seen at a theater has been the last Indiana Jones film. I'm not sure if it was the way it was filmed, the type of projection being 35mm or digital, or that it was on a Christie projector, which was the first time I had ever seen that brand. Whatever it was, it was crisp and clear and never too blurry, as sometimes projected films can be when the action gets too fast.
There can be no doubt that while digital has increased film piracy a thousandfold, it has also made more films possible. Did someone just level the playing field?
Roger,
Fantastic reading, as usual! I can't imagine a better way to spend my lunch hour...
Re: digital projection. I used to think that your lamenting the possible industry transition from celluloid to the inevitable digital medium was from a strictly film-purist's perspective. I have changed my tune.
This weekend I watched the highly-enjoyable "Public Enemies". Knowing that it was shot using digital cameras, I couldn't help but notice that some of the interior scenes looked less crisp than I normally expect from a Mann film; those scenes almost looked like they were shot for a TV movie instead of a big-budget studio film.
Maybe I'm looking too deep into it (been known to happen with me) but I did find it a little distracting. Hopefully there will always be "light through celluloid" to look forward to...
Cheers!
Chris Ortman
One wonders about the future of every art medium applied to ever-improving digital technology (I hated the quality of the early digital releases too, Roger, as well as early music releases; both seemed "fuzzy.") The publishing industry has yet little idea what to do about digital books; the increase in self-publishing has gone exponential as well. The traditional big-house publishing industry is under a financial malaise for various reasons, but one of them can be summed up in a letter I got from another constant reader, "mostly I read on the internet." That's mostly older books, free.
The music industry ran into trouble earlier, the same way. Apart from the complexities caused by top-heavy management and dictatorial tastes by committee which now also face the publishing industry, the "cassette culture" started spreading a few decades ago.
It was much easier for a small company or individual to turn a relative good profit selling a few thousand cassettes by word of mouth. Various advancements in recording technology made the quality reasonably competitive with the "big guys." It too is now digital, and one needn't even know how to mix a song any more, which used to be critical. Just push the button called "hit" and there's your song engineered with the same tweaks as "Bad" or "Achey Breaky Heart" or whatever.
At a savings of up to half a million in studio costs.
I don't think the "downloading crisis" is all that much of a crisis, since people have been copping music for free with tape recorders since the 1950s. I'll illustrate it this way: all my kid-friends at the coffee shop were always talking about bands I'd never heard of; it wasn't because I didn't listen to the radio, but because I did. The small-or-self-released business had spread through the age group most enthusiastic about new music by word of mouth. It differed much from commercial radio and the Gavin Report.
Some here must be familiar with and love Ani DiFranco, for instance, or Melissa Ferrick. Even they date my likings relatively, but they're two examples of getting around the glut of the big corporate music sellers. There are bunches more. Anybody know the name Cat Power? A girl in her bedroom, singing to the walls, spread across the country. How about John Bartles?
So it must go with movies and books. Now that technology is "democratizing" art mediums, the floodgates are shuddering off their hinges. I've read a lot on all this so far, but the sheer volume of the phenomenon prevents anyone from hitting the mark yet, except for one ancient commercial reality -- word of mouth, from person to person.
It's gotta be honest, too. I heard a seminar last year about how reviews are no longer selling books. That's because the interviewers are trying to "sell you something" more and more. Readers can sense the difference when a writer is saying just what he feels about it, or his words are gleaming with the latest tooth-whitener. Your job is safe, Rodge.
In the long run, the phenomena may produce marketers who can pass lie-detector tests.
I draw a parallel to the music industry, where the method for accessing recordings shifted from the record store to electronic download. When I was growing up, every mall in America had 2-3 record stores. Now that number is more like zero.
Music companies are still around, but they aren't the giants they once were. Movie studios may be in for the same boat.
On a completely unrelated note, I watched Beyond the Valley of the Dolls last night for the first time. I didn't enjoy it much...that is, until the madcap turn at the end. The peyote-fueled sex-party-cum-bloodbath had me in stitches. I'm still chuckling to myself thinking about it. Well played, sir.
"...the future of film as an art form..."
Isn't it mysterious that so many of the "great" films belong to the first decade or two just as Shakespeare stands alone on a pedestal?
This comment is only vaguely apropos, but as we speak of "the kinds of films we here in this blog find ourselves seeking" here goes...
It seems to me that in recent films - as in the last several years, both studio and independent - writing has taken a back seat to directing or other visual technologies and art forms. And I think this is true even of what we would call good movies, not just the special effects blockbusters.
In many of the classic films I enjoy, the writing - or the screenplay, I might say - seems to have a stronger presence than in films today. Take the films of Billy Wilder. These films are as strong in their writing as they are in their directing. If not, stronger. The writing is clever, witty, has character and personality. He also might be the greatest master of three-act story structure that ever wrote for the medium. Or a movie like Network, which though as you've mentioned is as much Lumet's masterpiece as Paddy Chayefksy's, the writing is inarguably the strength.
You also used to have directors that were good at directing great writing. I think of Mike Nichols and Wilder (of course, he wrote).
What movies have the same quality in writing today? I think of the last couple of Best Screenplay Oscar winners. In my mind, I don't consider Juno to be great writing, and at the risk of heresy, I don't think Milk is strong writing either. Sure, Milk is inherently a good story, but is it good writing?
I confess that I am as much a fan of reading and theatre as I am a fan of film, both mediums which rely more heavily on strong writing. I pose my questions: Is this just me? Is there a reason that writing has taken a back seat in movies? What is going on here?
For the record, I think Sam Mendes is the best director today of good writing - perhaps because he regularly directs plays by Shakespeare and Chekhov. I also think that Frost/Nixon was the best written film of last year, original or adapted.
Speaking of releasing music for free online -- Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails also did this, and the former allowed people to "donate" whatever amount they felt comfortable, whether it be $0 or $10 or $100. I think it's a lot easier for bands to spread their work online, but by the same measure, there's a whole lot more out there to sort through, and I believe some people can begin to feel overwhelmed by just how much stuff is being put out. If you ever go on an indie music website, the number of obscure bands being discussed is incredible. Yet some of those bands -- who are hardly household names -- court dedicated fanbases. And because like-minded fans can converse online, I believe there's generally a much more open range than there was even ten years ago, when you had to resort to talking to your "real" friends. Look at a website like PitchforkMedia.com: they started a decade ago and are now able to make or break an upcoming band on the merits of a single positive or negative review. That kind of influence is almost intimidating, and you wouldn't have found it before the age of the Internet, because half the bands even being written about wouldn't have had more than local attention. The Internet has changed that.
Likewise, I think the digital age has made it easier for some indie filmmakers to actually shoot and edit their own work -- and release it online -- but there's also a certain point where it gets to be a bit too much, in my opinion. It's a blessing and a curse.
On somewhat of the same topic, I remember growing up and going to the video rental store every weekend and hunting down classics that I'd read about. I was really into film, but it was harder then to look something up online and watch it, if not impossible (this was the days when even 56k was still considered "fast"). I recall waiting months and months to acquire a physical copy of "Citizen Kane." Nowadays -- if one were so inclined -- they could go to Google, type in the name of a film, and find working download links literally within seconds...
IMO, part of that ruins the charm. On one hand it's amazing that a young kid in a really small town in middle America would be able to get his hands on the works of Welles or Truffaut or Godard or other directors whose less popular works you may not find sitting on the shelves of your average Blockbuster; on the other hand, when you have instant access to anything, you begin to take it for granted. I imagine truly seeking out certain films might make the experience of watching them even more personal and meaningful. I've experienced that myself -- the first time I finally got a copy of "Citizen Kane," as aforementioned, I couldn't wait to get home and put it on. I recall the anticipation and acquiring of the video to be part of my viewing experience. But today, being able to download it in five minutes, I have to wonder if part of the experience itself might be a bit less meaningful to me.
As for music: The Smashing Pumpkins' Billy Corgan has been quoted as saying the digital music single is the next art form, and that traditional albums -- physically and in terms of concept -- are dead. There's evidence of this in the fact that CD sales are way down (and continue to decline every year) and artists seemingly care more now about finding #1 singles on iTunes than creating consistent records. An album like Thriller will probably never be made again simply because there's no incentive to release a back-to-back singles record. I'm not saying good albums aren't still being made (they are), but the idea of a "singles album" almost seems redundant when you just put the singles on iTunes and people download individual tracks anyway.
I think that's why you see consumers returning, now, to older formats: hardcover copies of books are apparently selling more, and vinyl records have made a huge comeback within the past couple years. I think people appreciate how far technology has opened the gates, but at the same time, there's a certain point where it's nice to just have the real thing. There's something to be said for sitting back and playing a vinyl record instead of downloading a single onto your iPod. There's something reassuring about physically attaining a film and watching it rather than just streaming it online.
Greetings Roger and fellow readers!
I am in agreement with those who say that a good film that escapes the notice of major distribution companies can now be “discovered” and virtually distributed by film reviewers and fans themselves.
No doubt, it will take a little while to work out the kinks. For instance, though greatly joyed at the advent of Film Movement, I would point out that the group takes customers solely from the United States, its territories, and military bases. This great service is unavailable to us here in Nova Scotia. I guess this is what we get for not throwing our lot in with the New Englanders during the American Revolution!
Another evolving dynamic is the continued growth and popularity of film festivals. We’re very proud of the Atlantic Film Festival (atlanticfilm.com), which hits Halifax and environs each September.
Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada
Roger,
I have had a fairly wonderful experience viewing the undiscovered of the undiscovered films as a short film screener for our local film festival over the past few months. I've found that I have a high tolerance for watching movies that are flat out rubbish. Those are sometimes the most fun. But the thrill of discovery and finally branching out into truly uncharted territory is unmatched. Though I am sure many of my picks will be sifted out in the end (by the way, may I recommend "The Solitary Life of Cranes" and "That's Magic" if you haven't heard of these shorts), I am eager to get the chance of watching some of the best with a group of sympathetic viewers projected 8mm onto a big screen. Though I am beyond frustrated that all of the movies you just mentioned and even stuff like "500 days of summer" or "Away We Go" have been completely blocked from a market that is too saturated in tired animated franchise three-quels, bloated machine movies, something about talking hamsters (?), a classic re-make that most people have never heard of the original version of, etc etc... and you are right. The point is not to say that big budget releases are all bad, but simply to say that they aren't playing by any fair rules. The market is anything but free and most people are totally unaware that there is a whole other reality of great films that the oscars might just begin to scratch the surface of. But I guess there's no use in complaining, if I am frustrated about it I ought to go out and do something about it.
p.s. I actually have access to a projector that I can hook up to my laptop and watch movies on my wall at home. So when all of these movies come out on dvd I will be able to have at least that level of experience with them. I'll specifically try and get some friends over when watching the ones you've mentioned.
Baard Owe in Carl Dreyer’s last film Gertrud:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews21/a%20carl%20th%20dreyer%20gertrud%20dvd%20review/4%20cri%20carl%20dreyer%20dvd%20review%202702.jpg
Fun to see him in a great movie again.
What an excellent article! Just when I need a little bit of a pick-me-up as an indie filmmaker, Roger has it right here. I've been encouraging many of my filmmaking peers for over a good year now that the future of indie film distribution is digital I'm glad to see a prominent film critic like Roger seeing the big picture. My hope is that, in the years ahead, when there's 'nothing to see' at the multiplexes due to the studios obsession with brainless 'event' pictures, that those audiences seeking that indie film experience can either plop down at home and watch a fine indie film on their big screen HDTV (by ordering it on demand or thru the internet), or go to one of many theaters who will fully make the transition to digital screenings; movie theaters that will be able to download and play unique, crafted films that can make a handsome return for their makers by being screened to particular, niche audiences. This is the future of the movie-going experience. Again, happy to see Roger welcoming it.
It's funny I was just speaking with the curator of an independent theater in a small city and he said the era of the arthouse is just about over, since his customers are getting quite old, and the next generation hasn't stepped in. Apparently, this even happens when he gets movies that should theoretically appeal to them (like "Let the Right One In").
Interesting article. As a 16 year old, almost all of my greatest film discoveries have been through home video. Netflix and my local library have given me access to countless masterpieces, and I often find the same sense of excitement and discovery browsing through my library's foreign film shelf as sitting in a darkened theater.
That said, there really is nothing to beat the theater experience. If only I had more access to see films on the big screen. It could be worse, of course. My local multiplex has an art house wing (albeit a very small one), where I first discovered films like Pan's Labyrinth and Once. And I live about an hour away from Boston, where I go occasionally to check out films at the Brattle or Coolidge Corner. But all summer I've been waiting for films like Tetro to come to my town. It's playing in Boston, of course, but I don't drive and even if I could get a ride, it would be hard to find someone my age interested in seeing it.
Why wasn't I alive in the 60s? I sometimes ask myself this question when I read your descriptions of young people lining up outside sold-out theaters to buy tickets for the next showing of Last Year At Marienbad. Oh well, I always have my DVDs...
Ebert: Ever go to the Silent Movie Theater?
The silent theater was indeed where I saw the general with the live organist. In fact it was two organists, one did the first half of the film, the other did the second half. Both men were in their 90's and I believe something was said about them having played at for silent films when they were teenagers.
When I moved to Los Angeles in '05, the silent theater would only open one night a month, if that, and for holiday weekends.
Sometime in the last year though, they have changed it significantly. They now have a sound system (or maybe they already had it) and they only show silent movies on Wednesdays. The rest of the schedule has a festival attitude, playing one or two movies a night with a different theme each night of the week. I've yet to go for one of those films and with the way this is set up, I don't get the opportunity to see a silent film there anymore because I cannot get there on a Wednesday night by the time it starts.
http://www.silentmovietheatre.com/index.html
I'm saving my 'leave work early card' for the day (if ever) that they play The Crowd or Greed.
But one of the finest treats of Los Angeles is the Cinespia graveyard screenings at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery. You can bring a blanket or a chair and a bottle of wine (some people bring entire meals and have a picnic) and you sit on the grass and watch a movie. I've seen Dawn of the Dead, Rebel Without a Cause and Don't Look Now at the cemetery. I'll let you guess which one was the most fun to see in a cemetery.
www.cinespia.org
The New Beverly will always be my favorite though. A double feature every night, some more exciting than others. Lots of guests and Q&A's.
www.newbevcinema.com
I remember, not very long ago, when certain films were like holy grails in that one had read about them but could not find a copy anywhere, and my friends and I would search high and low for them, sometimes for years. Ken Loach's KES was an example. It took us about 5 years to finally nab a second hand VHS copy. It did not disappoint.
Not so much nowadays, though I'd still give my eyetooth for a DVD of Hairdresser's Husband or Les Miserables with Jean Paul Belmondo. My birthday is April 5th, if there's a resourceful altruist among you. Or you are looking for an eyetooth.
Another poster wrote: "I think that the real saving grace for independant film is and will continue to be Netflix."
I have to agree. In my hometown (Pensacola, FL) indie films simply are not shown. I had never even seen an independent film before I started subscribing to Netflix four years ago. I don't really understand the economics of indie films, but it seems to me viewers gained via netflix rentals have to be better than no viewers at all.
Bravo, RE
This article hits the nail on the head. As an established filmmaker with a number of feature "movies" under my belt, I have relocated to Chicago to teach at Columbia College and return to my first passion - making 'films'! As (I am sure) you are well aware, the movie-making machine is product based and I am now able to shoot non-product 'films' digitally, distribute online and participate at the festival level - all with my own funds. My current feature, "The Defiled" is entirely self-funded and will be completed January 2010. With the level of pro-sumer gear rising each year and the digital distribution process (of this writing) still wide open, we have a chance to make films that reflect personal stories and deliver them to interested parties without the sanitization or approval of 3rd parties. I don't need millions to break even or even recoup my investment. I need hundreds! The democratization of the filmmaking process is upon us and I no longer have to beg disinterested studio parties and television broadcasters for a gig. While I am an avid cinephile and card carrying film enthusiast, my screening room is aptly served with my video projector, VOD, Netflix, and a number of obscure and classic rental/ sales outlets plus streamed titles from The Auteurs and other sources. Viva la revolution!! Best regards, JG
Ebert: I hope you enjoy Columbia. I taught there a couple of times.
Really good one, John,
Except hardcover books are NOT selling more. Sales have been dropping for several years, they're still doing that, and this is the worst year so far. I get the stats. Not so long ago the NY Times ran a headline, "Is the Publishing Industry Dead?"
They're making the same mistakes the music biz did, particularly in overhyping things, very expensive, and makes a disaster out of something that would have made a little profit if left alone.
Ebert: Books are growing too large to hold pleasantly. Sometimes I buy a British edition from amazon.uk simply to possess a more attractive volume that isn't obscenely over-sized.
I'm glad you mentioned Filmmovement.com. I've not heard of it until now, and clearly I'll be obligated to sign up as soon as possible. :)
I belong to a program called Amazon Vine. It's run by Amazon.com and it's a program where they send out free stuff in return for us reviewing it. The products are mostly books, but sometimes include electronics, CDs, grocery items or, on my happiest days, DVDs.
Through this program I got to see a really lousy Norweigan slasher film, a medicore Japanese film about Genghis Khan and a surprisingly good movie called Last Chance Harvey with Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman.
None of these are movies I would've gone out and bought on my own. First, I'd never likely have heard of them and second, while I'm expanding my repretoire (spelling?), of films and branching out as much as possible, I still have my limits and predjudices. I try to overcome them, and I think something like filmmovement.com might help. I know being a member of Vine has.
It's funny that you should bring this up just now because, coincidentally, I happened to catch Tulpan in its entirety on an Air Canada flight from Tokyo to Toronto today and I thought, "Gee, what a remarkable movie - thank goodness Roger Ebert flagged it already as being worthy!" Air Canada's "En Route" in-flight entertainment service also boasted foreign titles from Korea, Japan, Germany, China, Spain, and France - quite likely in order to cater to a diverse clientele. So kudos to them and to you for making such an effort to expose us to the hidden gems of the film world.
Ebert: Now that's an airline for you!
Ebert: "Julia" is definitely not "Central Station!" At least South Korea is seeing it.
These are taglines.
"Meet the miracle at the end of the world!"
"Challenging 9-year-old hostage. My world is changed because of him."
I hope audience will accept this as some weird joke. Meanwhile, release date is postponed again.
By the way, I went to indiemoviesonline.com. They said movies are not available in my territory.
Rotten Tomatoes translated your review of "Munyurangabo" as "Rotten" http://bit.ly/wvToc
Ebert: Here's how they quote me:
It is in every frame a beautiful and powerful film -- a masterpiece.
Maybe I'll get more readers this way.
This would seem to go back to the early days of cinema, when enterprising individuals across the country were converting store-fronts and sitting rooms into "neighborhood theaters" one or two nights a week. A small projector, a large white cloth, and some chairs was all it took--plus a canister of celluloid, of course. Popcorn became popular because it was easy to cook ahead of time in big kettles. I've often felt nostalgic reading about these early theaters, wondering what it would have felt like to get together with friends and neighbors and strangers to explore a new, young medium together--the experience must have been more primitive, but more pure and amazing, than today's theater-going experiences.
The closest thing I can recall experiencing myself was as a student at Sweet Briar College, when once a month we'd have a free "artistic" film shown on a video projector in an auditorium converted to a makeshift theater, complete with free popcorn and drinks. There was a certain sense of community and shared experience seldom felt in other film venues--the films were titles like *Les Miserables* (1995) and *Angels and Insects*, and I remember those films chiefly through the experience of watching them there in our little "neighborhood theater." The shared sighs and guffaws and sharp intakes of breath that made up a communal filmgoing experience are still palpable. A similarly memorable experience was watching *The Blair Witch Project*--it was at a multiplex, but it "felt" like a community event because we lived near the area where the film was shot, and each familiar place-name drew reaction from the crowd.
Today I live in a small town in the underpopulated swath between Northern Virginia and Richmond. Our closest theater is a perpetually-almost-empty Marquee chain house, where anything short of a blockbuster film sees half a dozen in attendance for most shows. Ironically, I think a small "neighborhood theater" showing indies and non-blockbusters, or second-run quality mainstream fare, would do better for its scale than that multiplex does for its own.
To Matt Sands: I hadn't heard about the battle with Warner. It makes my heart ache to think that a filmmaker as wildly original and talented as Spike Jonze would be forced to compromise ANYTHING artistically, particularly with a project as grand as Where the Wild Things Are (whose trailer, by the way, is sensational). Thanks for highlighting the issue here.
I've been thinking about what to write about this post and how to write it all day long. I feel (like a lot of you that have posted do) that I could talk all day about the pains of finding a way to get access to great independent movies from all around the globe when you live in a place where this particular type of films are far from being all the rage.
I live in Monterrey, one of Mexico's 3 largest and most populated cities along with Guadalajara and Mexico City itself. Despite the fact that Monterrey is, by all means, a modern city, the fact that it's a city in Mexico puts it quite a few steps behind when speaking about movie releases. Yes, we do keep almost up to the day with the rest of the world in premiering movies like the new Harry Potter (which is just fine by the way) and the new Transformers (which I will not talk about), but when it comes to independent cinema (even the "not so indie" releases from Paramoun Vantage, Sony Pictures Classics, Focus Features, etc ...) I sometimes feel we live in the stone age.
The 2 major chain multiplexes in this part of the country (Monterrey is located in North-West mexico near the Texan border) are Cinépolis and MM Cinemas. I work in one of the contries most important universities and MM Cinemas runs an "Alternative Screenings" theatre nearby. The thing is right now they're playing the following movies: Rachel getting married, Let the right one in and Happy go lucky. Problem is since more than a couple of months ago I was able to find all of these 3 films for rent in two chain rental stores (Blockbuster and Saharis) thanks to the fact that both of this stores started renting Region 1 DVDs about to years ago. That my friends, that little tiny fact, is my saving grace. In a country where even films like Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Role Models arrive weeks or months after they're already out as Region 1 DVDs, Blockbuster and Saharis are your main source for relatively "obscure" independent films. Thanks to this two stores renting Region 1 DVDs is why I've been able to see films that have never seen the light of Monterrey city projector, films like Oldboy, The Visitor, Winter Solstice, Shortbus, etc. I could go on and on, but that's no the point, the point is that thanks to digital distribution over the internet and on demand channels in satelite tv services Blockbuster and Saharis will cease to be my only option to fing good independent films.
Yet, digital distribution will no kill the fact that those films wont be projected in big screens around the city. It kills me to find a lot of great films in the 3x2 bins in Blockbusters around town. I know those films are not there because they overstocked them, It's because probably only 20 (or less) people have rented them since they were acquired by the store. Today I bought 3 films I've been meaning to see for quite sometime from one of these bins: Undertow, All the real girls and Bug. I don't even bother checking them for scratches, because I know they're probably as good as new (as opposed to when I buy a used dvd from a mainstream movie I liked, say Knocked Up, I did have a go at looking for the least scracthed copy of that one). But the mint condition of these DVDs only yells one thing out loud at me "No one saw this!", and thats just, well, sad.
Recently I read that Oldboy might be getting remade with a Hollywood treatment. Why?! What's wrong with the original Oldboy film? "It's a great film but Its original version wouldn't fly well with mainstream audiences, it's too dark, too disturbing, too violent." That's what the executives might say, but how can they know that? Aren't the Hostel movies just as (or even more) disturbing and violent? Yet the excutives got right behind them and marketed the hell out of them to the point where they even debuted in my city not more than a month after they debuted in the U.S. They even gave the hollywood treatment to an already mainstream movie when they made Quarantine (the remake of the spanish film REC) I wonder what they thought of that one "Yeah this is good, its ready to seel, but you can bet it'll sell better in english and with hollywood actors" If things like these keep happenig, the chances that the mainstream audience will learn to admire foreign cinema are probably non-existing.
A few months ago, Timecrimes (the spanish film called Cronocrimenes) got screened at some of the Cinepolis around town marketed as some sort of sequel to REC (I think it has the same producers) by putting "First it was REC now it's time to REWIND" on the posters. Not half an hour had gone by when a member of the audience came by to ask me "Excuse me, it this the "Rewind" movie?" I had to answer "Well yeah, it's the movie that has the Rewind reference on the poster, It's called Timecrimes." Some of the confused people stayed and found themselves profoundly entertained by the time traveling mechanics of the movie, others left as soon as they found out it wasn't a sequel to REC (or Quarantine) and didn't even give it chance (It's worthy to mention they where not tricked, the tickets said Timecrimes, the sign on the screens' entrance said Timecrimes, it all pointed to Timecrimes not to REWIND).
Anyway I got off subject, I'm glad that ,just as it happened for indie musicians, indie film makers are finding new ways to get out there through new distribution channels and reaching new audiences.
Still, I know I'll always find amazing films no one in my city heard about in the bargain bins at my local Blockbuster, films like Kontroll which I longed to see after I read Roger's review but couldn't until one day, there it was, forgotten in the bargain bin.
P.S. Roger I think Kontroll might pick up right where a short story by Julio Cortazar called "Text in a notebook" left off. You might want to check it out (As soon as I read it, years before I saw Kontroll, it imediately reminded me of your review, the concept just fascinated me.)
Here's an excerpt from a New York Times review of a collection of short stories by Cortazar:
"'Text in a Notebook' is like a cross between Kafka's ''The Burrow'' and the movie ''The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers.'' It describes an ever-growing number of people who live in the subway of a city and gradually take it over."
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/24/books/books-of-the-times-053544.html
It's late now jajaja I gotta get some sleep If I want to make on time to work tomorrow.
Ebert: You are fighting the good fight. Films can usually be found one place or another, but not many care to seek.
Really good one, John, Except hardcover books are NOT selling more. Sales have been dropping for several years, they're still doing that, and this is the worst year so far. I get the stats. Not so long ago the NY Times ran a headline, "Is the Publishing Industry Dead?"
I should have specified that I was referring to hardcover editions of older books, not newer releases. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I read an article stating that sales of older editions are starting to rise a bit...? Perhaps it was an outdated article.
I usually just go for paperback, myself -- unless it's something I really want for longevity, the extra money and the bulk of a hardcover isn't as appealing to me. I don't usually read something more than once, to be honest, so it doesn't make as much sense for me to collect more than the "classics."
If you want a nice blog with a fair (Western) point of view of Saudi Arabia, you can visit the blog below. Susie is a wonderful spirit.
Post at your discretion.
http://susiesbigadventure.blogspot.com/
I dunno. Indie movies contain most of my favorite movies of all time. I love that genre to death. It's usually uncompromising and full of art value and quality and meaningfulness. Like I like it especially when they stab a knife in your heart or punch you in the gut. But sometimes I can't help but wonder if these movies would be better off with a bigger budget (so they can execute their vision more fully) or with barely enough money (which forces them to perhaps be more creative). I think there's definitely a certain sort of sweetness that you can get with low-budget flicks that you can't get with higher budgeted cgi-ed ones. The premise behind 'Be Kind Rewind' kind of encompasses that feeling to me-- it's the heart behind the movie that matters! If it has warmth to it, and the feeling is conveyed, you don't need bogus special effects or named actors or extravagant sets to make a movie good. Usually those things are used when there's a lack of a quality story. But if it's good, it will only enhance it.
Yet... I've sworn to never see 'Twilight', thinking it was a godawful teenie bopper flick, but it actually wasn't that bad! Once again, I dunno! And indie movies can be real hit and miss. I find some of them to be pretentious, particularly that overrated 'Juno'. Jason Bateman's character was such a creeper! And when did teenagers start talking like that? Not since Dawson's Creek have I seen such unrealistic oratory. Oy. But there are really good ones out there like 'Gardens of the Night' and 'Wendy and Lucy'. Those flickers will stay with me forevs. But yeah, long live indie flicks, where ideas are fashioned anew and not recycled like the current state of h-wood (seriously do we really need a remake of Halloween or Freddy Kruger or Hairspray or Footloose or...... and the list will go on and on and there will be a million versions of the same story because I dunno why!).
But you said it yourself independent pictures tend to be facile and simplistic in the way they are filmed. I happen to prefer movies that are Cinematic art. Problem being that directors who can pull off such a feat like Hitchcock, or Kubrick, or now Scorsese and Speilberg ( of course I refer to the bigger names) don't grow. And I can't really think of any younger Director's that have that much of an impact on cinema.
Ordinarily, I pay no attention when someone mentions you can stream movies online for free. For I am Canadian; getting geo-blocked by the neighbour is all in day's surfing, when you're a Canuck...
"We're sorry. Currently this video is not available outside the United States."
But curiosity got the better of me upon reading "Indie Movies Online" and the word free - as gee, who wouldn't check that out, eh? And so I did...and fate smiled upon me by way of reward.
OH MY GOD! They're not blocking Canadians! We can see the stream! Woo-hoo! (Jumping up and down!) And what's this? A vampire movie set in London?! I can watch that for free right now?
"Night Junkies" 2007 - trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgbnaLb69xE
Okay. I can hear your thoughts and you're right. It's exactly what it looks like as I've seen it now. It's a b-rated vampire movie about a stripper in the seedy part of London with an equally seedy boss and henchmen, who ultimately gets "turned" by a Vampire after a chance meeting with "Vincent" in a coffee shop - he was having a caramel mocha and a blueberry muffin, for the curious. This encounter leads to problems you won't care about. Ie: a well-worn cliché and wholly derivative of the better movies it's trying & failing to be. And it was a chore to sit through the soft-porn elements and lame gratuitous violence.
But it was FREE dammit! Chuckle!
Actually, underneath its faults and failing, I could see the seed of idea for a better movie. You just have to cut away the stuff that doesn't work and re-work what could have. As I like the basic concept: how being a Vampire is akin to being a drug addict constantly looking for the next fix and not without a measure of risk involved. Imagine Trainspotting or Sid and Nancy - but about Vampires. That would have cool! I like gritty and dark and wickedly funny - or brilliant pop-culture satire. Not Twilight. And "Blood: The Last Vampire" was just an excuse to show a girl doing tired martial arts stuff. Zzzzz.
Point is, I got to see the film. For free. And while I won't be watching it again, I didn't hate it. And if anyone wants to see a good film about strippers - "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" is a surprisingly thoughtful effort; Darryl Hannah and Sandra Oh are stands out.
I also streamed a 2004 film by a female director named Debra Kirschner. It's a coming of age story about a young Artist who dreams of pursuing a career as a painter in New York, no less. Oh and her family are Jewish and from Brooklyn; yes, there's some stress involved...
The Tollbooth - official trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tavolbu3haU
I enjoyed it very much! It was sweet, but real at the same time; it more than made up for the Vampire movie. :)
And so I'm very grateful to Simon for sharing that link - awesome dude! And may good karma find you.
S. M. Rana said: Isn't it mysterious that so many of the "great" films belong to the first decade or two just as Shakespeare stands alone on a pedestal?
Not really. In both cases it's been long enough to have gained some historical perspective and settled on a critical consensus. It's also been long enough to have forgotten the surrounding mountains of crap.
Hello, roger. I am from india, south india to be specific. I ve been reading your movie reviews and blog for about 6 months now. where i live people don`t even know movies like citizen kane, seven samurai or film makers like miyazaki, kurosawa, polenski and many more great films and film makers. Its not because we live in a village or a town which doesn`t have access to movie theatres or internet. We have about 40 movie theatres within a radius of 15km but all of them show movies like independence day,spider man, revenge of the fallen(big hit btw), confessions of a shophaholic etc My friends only knew about the movie the wrestler after it was nominated for oscar. People here know only commercially successful scifi action adventure dumb entertainment modern films. Most of our film makers are trying to meet the standards of those movies and let me tell you they are failing miserably. I am not saying that movies made by our so called modern directors are flops or box office duds these movies are actually breaking box office records and representing our movie industry and CULTURE to other countries. I am writing all this to show you my movie knowledge before i got to know about you. Its because of you got to know about all the great movie makers and movies So i thank you with all my heart from people like me from india. We need more people like you and James Berardinelli to save good movies and not thousand screens
Roger, you should watch a south indian movie called pithamagan. its a great movie
can you give me names of some critics that i should read?
Ebert: I've been surprised and pleased by the large numbers of Indian readers on the blog.
I know there are many Indian films I should see, but I'm running as fast as I can just to keep up with the North American releases. I ty to when I can.
Good critics: Hmm. Of the various sites that link to new North American reviews, Metacritic.com focuses on the major critics, many of whom are excellent and to be recommended. You might try shopping around there and seeing if someone consistently seems to be of use to you.
Every now and then I will see an interesting indie title coming out soon, but I find it hard to give them too much attention because I know there isn't a shred of hope of seeing them before they hit DVD. I live in southwest Missouri, and today, after a few minutes of searching, I came to the depressing realization that Hurt Locker is not coming out within a hundred miles of where I live. Meanwhile, at my local movie theater, Transformers 2 has replaced Harry Potter for a spot in the larger, stadium seating screen.
Sigh.
John, I concur with the fact that readers are looking to older books. Reprints of older ones could be on the rise, but haven't seen that. They should. I get letters. Two exemplary ones: a reader left a NYC Barnes & Noble the other day "feeling insulted and condescended to" with the choices they're offering; a young soldier in Iraq asked for a "care package" of books by 5 or 6 authors, and the only author requested who hadn't been dead for at least a generation was Cormac McCarthy.
DeGustibus also raises an intriguing point, citing early movie spread-around by ad-libbing enthusiasts creating a spontaneous social event of it. I know of little coffeehouses doing similarly now, using their DVD projectors, not charging the patrons, just showing their own favorites, "obscure" ones. That's good advertising for movies worth seeing more than once.
It's like watching a huge business-glacier crumbling crystal by crystal (sorry I missed "Tulpan," Roger; it slipped through the local art-house before I had time to see it; must wait now.); but we're not quite in a position to anticipate which direction the glacier will go -- except for some real basics. Maybe it's not so ironic that advancing technology is raising them.
Part of the overload, I know from experience in two fields, is the fantasy-motive of money. Just deposit your "Next Beatles" songs here (they're STILL doing that) or your "Next Harry Potter" book there, sit back and wait and fwoosh, out comes your billion dollars and chit chat with Oprah.
The "starving artist" is no joke. For a few generations our technologies created a situation for artists in any field where a few might get even obscenely wealthy and the rest, pretty much hopeless.
Before rock'n'roll, more musicians could make a decent living playing clubs, and for longer periods of time. Musicians had a dignity for their talents, which weren't rendered meaningless by recording technologies and small cliques of "studio cats". Before the movie industry, vaudeville and traveling theater afforded a living the same way. As to the publishing industry, it appears to have been about the same since Roman times, although technology did away with the jobs of a class of scribes (man, imagine buying a handwritten popular scroll! Also imagine a scribe wanting to copy a book he thought was just crap, when "Satyricon" needed stocking up.)
Artists once traveled and earned livings, even if just room and board, doing paintings; so did various sculptors, jewellers, craftspeople. Benvenuto Cellini made a fine, worry-free living that way before being snatched by a Pope and constantly troubled about getting paid. My point is they had to be good at what they did, or "saw wood" as Roger cited Twain's quip.
Radio, Film, TV, all triggered myths that just about anybody, with perserverance, could be a Jack Benny, a Bogart, a Steinbeck, a Beatle. That glutted the waiting rooms with people hoping to get rich that shouldn't've been there. "My friends tell me I'm good." But they've had no opportunity to try out their talents in front of a real audience and feel the necessary first-hand diagnoses. I've already met too many mediocre wannabes who have convinced themselves their unpopularity makes them geniuses, just to prolong this bitter fantasy of getting rich and loved. This isn't funny. It's probably a psychological problem assisted by technology.
So, word of mouth, from the bottom up, has got to be the ice crystals that'll crumble the glacier. Not even a virtual-reality helmet putting you right there with a Decepticon will replace it.
Some threads back somebody paraphrased Socrates that people will follow the story-tellers. Adding that he meant honest story-tellers, I think when our technologies and marketing practices veer from that, they start losing the money they mean to collect.
Ebert: "Of course purists say the best way to see a film is via light through celluloid, in a theater with great sound and projection and a receptive audience. I'm a purist, and that's what I say. But I don't want to find myself sitting alone in that perfect theater, watching the Last Indie Picture Show."
I agree; if the choice is between celluloid and no audience and any other medium/venue (even just a DVD popped in the home player) with an audience, I'll go with the latter.
A prediction: within three years or so, virtually every film will be available through some kind of online pay-and-view. We're pretty close right now; they just have to build the digital library and figure out how to make the kind of money they want. Call it "Video Kindle."
I grew up in Arkansas, attending the University of Arkansas for my undergraduate degree. Yet I still wasn't able to see "Shotgun Stories" until it came out on DVD. You'd think in Arkansas we'd at least be able to see a film shot in Arkansas by an Arkansan director.
I now live in Los Angeles, attending graduate school, and I can see about anything I want. Ironically, I no longer have the time or the money to go to all these screenings I would have salivated over in Arkansas.
I'm glad you're voicing the most important aspect of digital projection. I'm hoping that it will not only make it easier for art-house theaters, but that larger theaters with big screens, great sound, etc will be able to offer independent films. They could show them at non-peak show times in a screening room that is showing a film that has already been out a couple weeks. I think that people who care about cinema could make it out to a 9pm screening on a weekday to see an indie film in a great theater.
Ebert: One reason there is such hostility toward a critic dissing a film like "The Transformers" is that most Americans never have a chance to choose much more widely. Once they outgrow the Friday night specials, they simply stop going go the movies.
As soon as I started reading this, I knew you were going to mention The Vickers! :)
I just came from a dissertation retreat (meaning "place where I am forced to work on my boring dissertation instead of contributing to a blog") in Three Oaks. I'll probably see "Summer Hours" there Sunday night.
The Vickers is one of my favorite places in the world. The seats are old, the screen is small, but it is wonderful.
There are a bunch of theaters around here, but only The Vickers and a megaplex on the southside of South Bend EVER (and I mean EVER) carry art house movies.
When I read the review of "The Hurt Locker" I contemplated driving the 150 miles (roundtrip) to see it. "Transformers" was playing in every theater but The Vickers.
Which leads me to a comment on this week's Answer Man Column. Roger correctly writes, "Anyone who thinks [Bruno] is 'an average gay man' is a below-average average idiot." This is true, and that's why I continue to assert that Cohen might fall on his sword in an effort to expose homophobia.
There are a whole lot of below-average idiots out there. Like the all the ones who thought "Transformers" was a good movie, don't accept the theory of evolution, and (with the exceptions of Stanley Dancer and Charles Krauthammer, who are quite intelligent) voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
But I digress. When the Ready (a wonderful old building) closed in Niles, the owners renovated a department store to replace it. I begged them to try art house movies. That was about 5 years ago. No such luck.
The old Theater is still for sale, by the way. If anybody wants to buy it and try showing movies not made by Michael Bay, I will be there all the time.
Knowing that it was shot using digital cameras, I couldn't help but notice that some of the interior scenes looked less crisp than I normally expect from a Mann film; those scenes almost looked like they were shot for a TV movie instead of a big-budget studio film.
I noticed this too. But what really distracted me was that in several of the indoor scenes involving dim lighting (the dinner scene where Dillinger meets Frechette, the hotel room scene where we first meet Baby Face) there would be a shot that was relatively crisp and clear and then it would cut to another camera in the same room and the picture quality would be what I would describe as grainy looking, kind of like a night-vision camera sort of look, and then it would cut back again to a clearer shot. I don't know if this was due to a change in lighting from one take to another or if it was something about the placement of the different cameras relative to the light sources. But I felt it was sloppy and it kept taking me out of the movie (though overall I liked it quite a bit).
The combined knowledge of the existence of The Film Movement AND that it does not ship to Canada saddens me tremendously.
After all, it is based out of NYC. Surely it is not any more costly or cumbersome to mail a DVD to Toronto than to Alaska??
phffft.
Ebert: Probably a matter of what territories they have the rights to sell in.
Marie Haws,
"And if anyone wants to see a good film about strippers - "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" is a surprisingly thoughtful effort; Darryl Hannah and Sandra Oh are stands out."
That is a good movie. And that one part where Jennifer Tilly cusses out that lady at the hospital made me want to cheer. "I'm here for an abortion!...did you ever think of that!...No, you didn't!...You know what, I'm going to have this baby, and my baby is going to sell drugs to your baby on the playground!"
On the DVD they showed the other takes of that scene...funny stuff.
Ebert: One reason there is such hostility toward a critic dissing a film like "The Transformers" is that most Americans never have a chance to choose much more widely. Once they outgrow the Friday night specials, they simply stop going go the movies.
Motion seconded. All in recognition of this fact say "aye."
I'm young, born of the digital age, but I had somehow gained an obsession for all things analog. I shoot photography only with real film, and it's now nearly impossible to find a store that will develop my color film prints with care or my black and whites at all. I record all of my music to tape, but it's discouragingly difficult to maintain equipment and find decent replacements; I had to go across the country to find a man able to run a quality reel-to-reel machine competently. For a long time I have almost desperately wanted to make something beautiful with the magic of cinema, to make something with REAL film, but I can't find the equipment, nor the mentors, nor the consumers. At the very least, I want to be able to continue to relish the warmth of film projectors, the suns for our dreamed solar-systems and how I believe humans most successfully sympathize with God. It makes me cry, thinking of that going away. Until last year, when I discovered that film reels are leased and not bought, I wanted to be a millionaire so that I could maintain a private theater. I have too many years ahead of me to have already become a nostalgia-bum.
Ebert: It's now you will become nostalgic for.
Towards the top of this comment list, Robert made a comment about not going to cinema's since he got a 1080p projector with a 120" inch screen in which to view them. $5grand it cost him.
I got about a 90"inch screen with a high def projector myself...and connected is a blu ray player. I do not find this a substituion for going to the theaters, however. Yes, there can be the naysayers and hecklers in a crowd once in a while, but I love going to the cinemas. The smell of stale popcorn slowly being covered with the smell of fresh popcorn. The thrill I get to find the perfect seat with drink and eat in hand. The previews before the movie, and, if it's a very good film, the satisfaction of being around those who loved the film as much as you did (like when I saw The Hurt Locker).
BUT, for those films I didn't get to see in theaters, the classics to the ones I just plainly missed, I have my projector and popcorn machine in my room. It's a good way to see things on the big screen, catch every nook and cranny I would ever miss on a typical 30 inch television, and for the brief moment in time, sit back and enjoy a film. It's no substitution but an add on to my film experience. I consider myself an amatuer film historian and am building a library of classic, forgotten, or rare films that deserve a second look called "From the Vault" (soon to be published in the indie publication "Waiting Room Digest"). On top of that, I'm going to start screening films (like you said in your blog) at a friend's boutique charging a small admission fee to show classics like Michael Powell's "The Red Shoes" or even Masaki Kobayashi's "The Human Condition." (all three parts? Maybe...) But I want to show a new generation of audiences these films and make them accessable. In that fashion, yes, digital projection is much an asset to me. And although I do like watching light through celluloid, how much am I missing with a clear digital projection. I'm still getting the image, and if I pop some corn, the smell will illuminate the room and, even though it may not be a traditional cinema, it's the closest thing I'll be able to achieve...
...for now.
(P.S. I sincerly miss the old format for At The Movies...it honestly should've been Roeper and Phillips...and they should've kept the thumbs like you and Gene began so long ago...)
Mr Ebert
There are a two things I will speak of: Why Indies don't do as well and The early pioneers of the digital age.
Independent films are too personal for a communal experience such as movie theater. Indie films are the singular vision of the film maker. It will be a subject matter that they and their crew are very passionate about. They will try to challenge the audience. Often times the experience is so personal that the audience finds themselves emotionally/mentally vulnerable to their movie comrades.
Which is why some films work so much better on DVD and the home experience. More than likely small people of similar mindset or just yourself makes you enjoy the movie for what it is. And think that is why the art house theaters are smaller: it attracts that small group of film buffs willing to put it all out there in public.
As far as the digital filmmaking: I think you really owe George Lucas an apology.
As with most pioneers. many people harshly criticize Lucas for being an early proponent for digital. As with every pioneer-mistakes were made, things weren't as good as they should have been- but he showed the possibility of digital medium.
And I remember that he spoke of this almost 10 years ago. And he said it was going to be a boon to the independent film makers. And low and behold, turns out Lucas was completely right. Somebody had to be the first to the front, Lucas took the critical hits.
Ebert: At the time, was digital ready for prime time?
For Mr. Ebert. Thank you so much for the glowing review of Isaac's work. You hit it right on the nose, this young man does exceptional work. As one of his teachers in high school he was both student and dear friend. I may be a little biased.... do you think?
Some comments about Mr. Lee Issac Chung, and Lincoln, Arkansas, and art theater in northwwest Arkansas. First, however, allow me to boast just a smidge. As already said, in high school, "Lee" (I think he prefers the name Isaac now) was one of my students (World History). In 19 years of teaching I've never known a more focused young man. Issac was also the President of the school's Senior Beta Club, an honor society. We are all so proud of this young man. He and I still exchange emails once or twice each year. It was Isaac's email to me yesterday that pointed me to your Journal, and blog. (Thank's Isaac. I will forward your email on to the rest of the staff).
Lincoln has a population of about 1,800 real nice folks. Lincoln High School itself is small, very small, ca. 350 students 9th through 12th grades. Facility-wise, the school's crown jewel is a state of the art, 430 seat, theater style auditorium that will accomodate any type of digital presentation one cares to offer. Beginning this next school year, 2009-2010, as the Beta Club sponsor, I had planned to present to the general public some sort of "cultural" event in the auditorium/theater one evening each month. This is to be the Beta Club's main fund raising effort to get some of these kids out of small-town, Lincoln, Arkansas and to Europe for two weeks NEXT summer. Our first event will be this September. I wasn't exactly sure what I was going to set up to present. I DO NOW!!! My principal has guaranteed me at least one evening each month to use the facility for such purposes. If I can make the proper $$$$$ arrangements with the distributor, and Isaac, in time for September's event, then Munyurangabo will be our inaugural show. What a way to jump start the whole thing! I sincerely believe that with proper advertising, i.e., NPR, community interest spots on surrounding TV stations, etc., we could get a good audience. If all goes well, we could do a different art film the following month.
For Julie. How in the world do you know about the little towns of West Fork and Goshen? Just curious.
Ebert:For Julie: Looked up Lincoln on Google Maps.
You sound like one of my wonderful teachers at Urbana High School, enrollment about 800. I think Lee Isaac Chung has made a great film, which shows enormous focus in creating such a strong story with such limited means. Thanks for writing to me.
Tom Dark wrote on July 24, 2009 11:05 AM - "Radio, Film, TV, all triggered myths that just about anybody, with perseverance, could be a Jack Benny, a Bogart, a Steinbeck, a Beatle. That glutted the waiting rooms with people hoping to get rich that shouldn't have been there. "My friends tell me I'm good." But they've had no opportunity to try out their talents in front of a real audience and feel the necessary first-hand diagnoses. I've already met too many mediocre wannabes who have convinced themselves their unpopularity makes them geniuses, just to prolong this bitter fantasy of getting rich and loved. This isn't funny. It's probably a psychological problem assisted by technology."
You can be whatever you want to be. That's the promise of America. That if you work hard enough, you'll eventually succeed and achieve your goals. That's the commercial for it, at any rate.
And what do a lot of people in America want?
What's the dream?
Fame and fortune.
Why?
Because millions of people want to be loved, admired and to feel special. And they want to be that, while living like the royalty their forefathers couldn't wait to see the back of. The irony, eh? We cross the pond just to end up recreating over here, a democratic version of the Aristocracy we left; as fame and fortune is open to anyone.
The marketing of the Arts, has led to this imo. Corporations behaving like drug dealers have been selling & marketing the genuine talent of others to those who want it too, but owing to the the perks that are seen to go with it. Popularity and Wealth.
I'm an artist. And you can't create if you're dead. So I need a certain amount of money to survive like anyone else, but beyond that I don't care about fame or any of that other stuff.
People who do are usually hacks.
At any rate, when you've got countless people all trying to obtain the same thing for the wrong reasons, when enough get through, it dilutes the quality of what manages to get published, filmed, produced, etc.
However...
When you dilute the quality, you chase away some of your customers, who go looking elsewhere for their espresso. And maybe they're going to find an entirely NEW place down the street or across town, for having searched for stuff that doesn't suck.
Art House/Film Festival Theaters in Vancouver:
- Empire Granville 7 Cinemas (7 screens)
- Vancity Theatre at the Vancouver International Film Centre
- Ridge Theatre; built in 1950, it's the last to still offer a glassed-in ‘crying room’ for parents with babies or noisy children.
- The Park Theatre
- Starlight Cinema
- The Varsity
- Fifth Avenue Cinemas
- Hollywood Theatre: FAMILY OWNED & OPERATED FOR 73 YEARS!
- Pacific Cinémathèque
P.S. for Roger:
http://www.cinematheque.bc.ca/
and...
Monsters in the Meadow: Free outdoor movies in Stanley Park!
http://vancouver.ca/parks/arts/monstersinmeadow.htm
Just one of several such venues, scattered throughout the Metro Vancouver area.
Take that Toronto! :)
Oh, almost forgot! Keith wrote: "I'm here for an abortion!...did you ever think of that!...No, you didn't!...You know what, I'm going to have this baby, and my baby is going to sell drugs to your baby on the playground!"
Yeah, that scene totally made me laugh, chuckle!
Marie, beautifully put, and I see you've been there, are there, and know what's there. I've been wondering if the sheer proliferation of art medium by digital technology may ameliorate the problem of those afflicted by a too-slick American Dream. I vote to change the phrasing to "You can be whatever you wanna be if you know yourself first." Then you won't wanna be things you merely think you're s'posta be. By the way, when I read your posts I come away humming that Louis Prima song, "Oh Marie."
How would somebody my age know a Louie Prima song? From that movie with Robert DeNiro and Bill Murray... "Dog" in the title. Forgettable film, tremendously memorable artist. Found it thanks to digital tech, now I hum quite a few Louie Prima songs. I also paid for them.
To riff back into Roger's quote: "...Americans never have a chance to choose much more widely. Once they outgrow the Friday night specials, they simply stop going go the movies."
My parents were prime examples, in music as well as movies. I'd never heard of Louie Prima from them; by the time I was a teen it seemed to me they had no ears at all, nor movie tastes. They just stopped. I learned that they ever had by grilling them. The two Philistines just went along mutely with whatever was on TV, a medium that blotted out whatever it wasn't trying to sell.
This teen wondered: when I'm 50, will I stop too? I've stopped listening to the music and watching the movies I've long outgrown -- but continue on with what I haven't outgrown. (Figure, figure) I've watched a couple thousand movies since age 50. Netflix and various clubs and movie rental stores profit. I've probably heard a couple thousand new songs, too, and even musicians in Finland have earned a few of my shekels (Vartinna).
At the same time, kids I know -- teens and twenties, when those things are religious experience -- are listening to and watching things I too adored at that age. It has also tickled me to realize I was right back then about which would last and which wouldn't... to walk into a cafe and hear Frank Zappa's "Hey Punk," which was recorded 20 years before they were born; that pop songs I thought were ludicrous are also ludicrous to them. Or last Halloween, here's 4 boys dressed up as Alex and his droogs. "Weww weww weww, if it isn't wit'le Alex," I got to call out, "come and get one in the yarbles -- if you've got any yarbles!" We all have a laugh, no generation gap at all. Or I'll quote lines from Dr. Strangelove and kids born 30 years after it was made get it. (None of this has stopped me from reading, either.)
I even met a youth who's got the Monty Python skit "Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-c rasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingl e-dangle-dongle-dungle-burstei n-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-b anger-horowitz-ticolensic-gran der-knotty-spelltinkle-grandli ch-grumblemeyer-spelterwasser- kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwage n-gutenabend-bitte-ein-nuernbu rger-bratwustle-gerspurten-mit z-weimache-luber-hundsfut-gumb eraber-shoenendanker-kalbsflei sch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm" memorized, down to the accent.
(I don't really remember all that, but he did.)
So look what digital's doing to people "live." Outside the education system (which IS getting frighteningly dumber) people are taking in more information than ever, showing a capacity for it, and using it because they like it. As to news, we're less subject to the pronouncements of mono-truth thanks to a barrage of conflicting information, much credible enough to justly reduce the profits of "major media."
Tech note to Nate: digital sound was improved vastly by mixing it with analog. Digital has sonic parameters which must be calculated a notch of frequency at a time. It had to be dithered for bass, and the excess high-end, which bothers people, also masked somehow.
Analog or magnetic tape has no such limits, at least hypothetically. But it has a tendency to smear or distort the sound -- digital can also distort, but in a different way. Some engineers fooling around (me included) discovered that putting analog recordings into digital and vice versa had incredibly transparent sonic results. I'm not sure, but the distortion or smear factor of each tends to clarify what's recorded onto it.
The analogy must be the same for analog film and digital. Maybe that's how they've improved the picture for movies? Don't know. Possible to give it a try? Analog transferred to digital makes editing a breeze.
I've been going to the Toronto International Film Festival and the Sudbury Film Festival each year since I retired. One beautiful thing about a film festival is that you may see a film that you would never have the chance to see in the future. Either because it's locally produced, a foreign language film that won't be distributed in North America or one that a distributor won't take it on. There is a good chance that you will however find it on DVD but you need to know about it or you won't locate it. This is where the critics or others who review films are so important.
One fascinating fellow I discovered is Ken Rudolph who is in the industry and thus gets to see a lot of screeners as well as attend a number of festivals. He sees on the average well over 300 films a year (he says 3200 in the past 7 years) and provides very brief but interesting reviews/comments on his website. The films are mainly indy art-house films (often very obscure titles) and provide an interesting catalogue for those interested.
http://kenru.net/movies/index.html
Of course after seeing something that catches your eye you can then check out further reviews and information and if interested go on the hunt for it.
Mr. Ebert -- thanks so much for your review of Issac Chung's Munyurangabo. It was a pretty incredible start. We're waiting anxiously for his new film Lucky Life, inspired by the poetry of Gerald Stern. My family had the good fortune of interacting with Issac, Sam and the crew during their location filming, and it was such a pleasure meeting them. I have great expectations for him ahead.
Ebert: Where are you writing from?
Dear Sir,
I seriously started watching movies only when I entered college 3 years ago, and didn't have the ability to full understand a great movie's true meaning.
Reading your reviews on countless classics like City Lights, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, enabled me to better appreciate why these movies were so great, and this in turn has made me more perceptive when I view movies today.
Your reviews, along with their unique anecdotes, have had an incalculable effect on my movie experiences, and I'd just like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for continuing to share your views through all these years!
Just wanted to note that though it's a multiplex (the only Canadian theatre in an American chain), The Cinemark Tinseltown (across from GM Place) in downtown Vancouver also shows some limited release fare. I saw a double-header of The Hurt Locker and Moon just last week (though it's nice to see that the former has been given a wider release in some mainstream Canadian multiplexes since then). In past years (usually late in the year, when more "artistic" American fare is released), I've gone out of my way to see double- or triple-headers of whatever quality arthouse flicks I could, as I live in the suburbs and want to make the trip downtown worth my while (one ninety-minute film would be pushing it a bit). Wasn't able to catch Gomorrah or Waltz With Bashir, but I'll watch them soon on DVD. I did manage (last Fall/Winter) to see Wendy And Lucy, The Class, Rachel Getting Married, Synecdoche, New York, Happy Go Lucky, Let The Right One In, Tell No One, The Wrestler, etc., etc., so I'm doing my best, despite a limited amount of expendable income, and the fact that I ride transit.
Anyways, I should also note that I find most of Marie Haws' posts quite amusing. She seems to have quite a cheerful (one might even say "loopy", not that there's anything wrong with that) disposition, and her "Chuckle!"s crack me up.
Cheers, Marie, and of course, Roger. :)
By Alan on July 22, 2009 10:59 PM
"Why is it, though, that so much great film and music—so much great art—goes completely ignored in our society? That the biggest, most-watched movies are the ones with the biggest marketing campaigns--why? Don't people go to films to feel things anymore? Why don't people seek out the best films instead of just seeing what they're told? It's strange, that within every major art medium, there seems to be two groups: the elitists and the mass."
From what I understand this is the way it has always been and still is. Only a few will listen to classical music and it will always be that way, it seems. And I don't really buy the elitist and mass analogy exactly because classical has their elitists and mass, and mass has there elitists and mass. But there are also movies, like "The Hurt Locker", that will appeal to both sides of the equations. There are probably a lot like that in indie movies. Then there are big movies that are kind of quietly popular too, like the "The Shawshank Redemption." As far as movie going, I would branch it from culture. For example, guys shy away from dramas, romantic comedies because they might be seen as gay, or not straight enough and girls shy away from action movies and raunchy animal-house wannabe comedies because they're afraid their boyfriend is going to turn into an ape. It seems people look at movies etc. and think "how does this movie define me as a person?"..and then they watch "Transformers 2" and need a shower, instead of watching something different and thinking "how did this movie redefine me?"...and not needing a shower.
The test for good art to me is whether I feel energized afterwards or depleted. The greater the art, the greater the cells in my body are alive and flowing. The lesser the art, the more I feel like finding a chair...again.
I live in Philadelphia, and the theaters that show independent films are owned by the same company, and they really only choose the sort of independent films that are likely to make them a large amount of money. As far as I know, there remain no good theaters to see movies like Munyurangabo anymore in my area, which is a great shame.
P.S.: Today, I went to see Orphan on your recommendation despite the Rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I found it enjoyable for the most part, and when I didn't find it scary, I found it funny; the humor came from seeing such things said by a little girl. People applauded twice: first when the mother slapped Esther hard at the hospital, the second when she kicked her in the face. People, myself included, ended up laughing for most of the movie. Overall, it was good, in my honest opinion.
I live in London, where I'm lucky enough to have access to pretty much every more "obscure" movie on release in the UK. And for the movies that I don't have time for while they're in theaters, there's LOVEFiLM (the British Netflix), where, thanks to you, I have already reserved "Munyurangabo". I'm also grateful to have the BFI, which is great for short films and hard to find older movies.
I agree that it would be a great shame if people missed out on "Julia" just because it hasn't been released in their town. I LOVEFiLM'd it, and was fascinated by its breathtaking plot and moral complexity. And, of course, by Tilda Swinton, who projects slyness and understated humor like nobody's business.
Ebert: How did "Julia" slip under the radar?
Your essay took me back to the late 70's & early 80's when I was living in Seattle -- and discovered the Harvard Exit theater on Capitol Hill. What a cinematic gift that was!
In those days the theater showed three double-features a week: One on Mon/Tue, another on Wed/Thu, and the third (typically more mainstream and/or newer films) on Fri-Sun.
My youngest brother and I would purchase 10-packs of tickets at what worked out to be $2.50/day (two films!), and sometimes went to all three showings a week for weeks on end. We were introduced to Bergman & Fellini, saw the films of Woody Allen and Alfred Hitchcock, and discovered many movies we had never heard of, by directors just as anonymous to us at the time.
Among the films that we saw was one that has stuck with me across the succeeding decades: 'The Duellists', starring the very young duo of Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel (already displaying the intensity that became a hallmark of his later roles).
'The Duellists' was the debut film by a former TV commercial director, now much more famous for later films such as 'Alien', 'Blade Runner', etc. Yes, Ridley Scott directed the film, based on a story by Joseph Conrad, set during the Napoleonic era. Although I see that you never reviewed the film, I found Vincent Canby's review in the NY Times which said (among other things) "The movie, set during the Napoleonic Wars, uses its beauty much in the way that other movies use soundtrack music, to set mood, to complement scenes and even to contradict them.", and a "dazzling visual experience". I agree (and agreed at the time) wholeheartedly.
'The Duellists' is certainly flawed. The pacing is uneven, Feraud's (Keitel) motivation - the 'raison d'etre' behind his demand for honor - is murky; but even here I sensed the gifts that Scott would bring as a filmmaker. The movie is visually stunning, wonderfully acted (including a host of smaller roles filled by excellent British actors such as Albert Finney, Edward Fox, Tom Conti, Cristina Raines and Jenny Runacre), and emotionally satisfying.
Films like 'The Duellists', a completely unexpected pleasure that strokes the senses and stokes the imagination, are the reason I became addicted to the unknown (to me) cinematic wonders that are independent, foreign and/or small-budget films; an addiction that may explain my lifelong obsession with cinema, and hence my current collection of some 2,000 movies (the vast majority of which are now in digital format).
Without art theaters in general, (and the 'Harvard Exit" in particular) I might never been introduced to the incredible breadth of beauty, passion and intensity that film is capable of in the hands of directors otherwise unheard of - because they are not 'mainstream'. And what a shame that would have been.
"Ebert: How did "Julia" slip under the radar?"
While out in theaters, you mean? I probably - stupidly - let myself be dissuaded by the film's initial critical reception at the time (last December), which was lukewarm at best. It had around 60% on the Tomatometer, and even though I never read whole reviews of films I haven't seen yet but want to, from what I did read the consensus seemed to be that while Swinton's performance was very good, the film was directionless and a chore to sit through.
Notwithstanding the tepid critical reception, I was determined to see the film at first, but the evening I was going to watch it, I was in a very bad mood for personal reasons. I decided I was in no condition to spend the evening with a directionless, difficult film, and thought I might go see it at a later date.
However, this being the run-up to Christmas, I was very busy at the time and other movies that seemed more interesting, and had been more favorably reviewed, kept popping up. Before I knew it, "Julia" was no longer in theaters, and I put it on my LoveFilm queue. When the disc arrived a few months later, I had lost almost all interest in the film as I didn't think I was in for anything special. It has probably been the most pleasant surprise of the year so far, and I really regret not watching it on the big screen.
In your "great movies' review of "The Earrings of Madame De.."..please make the following correction --it is the Baron who writes repeated love letters and its the Countess who says she didnt have the courage to mail her replies.
Ebert
I wish more of the big studios would pick up on the indie films and try to make them a bit more widespread. With decent marketing campaigns (which I'm beginning to believe is really the force behind some of the big summer movies, it's certainly not that they're good) they could make some of these movies profitable.
I hate the fact if the movie isn't a blockbuster I have to drive to either Houston (five hours away) or New Orleans. The indie theatre here that closed two years ago also doubled as a flea market where one could watch a movie and buy fake rolex watches. More people came for the market than for the movies.
Although I have hope for the new technology, I don't see the South becoming technologically savvy enough within the next few years to have theatres playing the digital downloads except in the big cities, which already have theatres showing sub-blockbusters and indie movies.
Pearls of wisdom from Sam Raimi, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo Del Toro and Doug Jones at ComicCon 2009. Note: for your safety and protection, and they've edited out the swear words.
Indie filmmakers at Comic-Con offer advice to young filmmakers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVE296BvOj4
I think Quentin gives the best advice when asked how to actually succeed at it, when he sums it up by saying "make a really good movie" and then the whole world will want to see it - not just America and L.A.
Actually, he worded it differently and with more color, but I think we all know how Roger's Spam filter feels, so I thought I'd save him the bother of having to fetch my post out of the trash bin. :)
Also, I had to laugh at Robert Rodriguez's comments when he shared how "adding Spanish subtitles" can elevate your film to a work of Art, chuckle!
And for the curious, here's a look at Comic-Con 2009 and some of the more interesting happenings...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/2675000/Nerd-mecca-is-Comic-Con
"The Q&As for films at Comic-Con are pure theatre.
Geeks, some shaking with nerves, others confident and hopeful of coming up with a witty question to illicit laughs from nerd comrades, take turns at the microphone.
Comic-Con security do not mess around.
Fox, the super hot star of the Transformers films, was at Comic-Con to promote her new supernatural western Jonah Hex. (For the record Fox plays a prostitute).
During the Q&A, nerds fired off questions.
One nerd strolled up to the microphone with a video camera on his shoulder.
"My question is for Megan," Mr Nerd said.
"I have a Sony HVR (video camera). It's not a true HD, but it gives a pretty good image. Anyway, my question is: I just graduated film school and I'm trying to help my career. I was wondering if you'd be interested in some kind of, like, celebrity sex tape?"
With that, a couple of security guards grabbed the fella and took him to an undisclosed location.
"Dude, I can't wait to see what you look like in 30 minutes," Fox's co-star, Josh Brolin, told Mr Nerd as he was dragged away.
But, nerds don't despair.
Mega-Fox, as she's known around Comic-Con, was not upset about the X-Rated offer."
See? This is why I love comics and geeky stuff! The people who attend these conventions can be just as entertaining if not more so, than the material itself. And I say that with affection.
Ebert wrote: How did "Julia" slip under the radar?
Maybe some people don't read enough?
"Question: You seem to have your pick of playing these incredible women, when so many actresses, probably, of your age, seem to think that those roles don’t exist – it seems to me the older you get, the richer the role. Why do you think that is, with you?
Swinton: I really have no idea. I really don’t know. I mean, you’re right. I also do hear actresses of my age complaining about opportunities available to them. And I really feel for them. Particularly in light of the fact that – I don’t know, maybe they should all go and live in Europe. [LAUGHTER] But, I mean, I think that – I’ve always known that women – particularly of this sort of age, are going to be endlessly fascinating, in terms of the cinema. I mean, I originally fell in love with the kind of women’s cinema that came from the ‘40s and ‘50s, you know, that I used to go see when I was a child. I mean, all of these incredible stories, and incredible roles for women, informed my interest in cinema in the first place. I think it’s a relatively recent thing, that we’ve stopped putting women centre screen. And I’m very optimistic that people will start doing it again, because that’s what audiences really want." - http://www.darkhorizons.com/interviews/1413/tilda-swinton-for-julia-
So, there you have it. Americans need to move to Europe. :)
In all seriousness though, I think the reason "Julia" slipped under the radar is because the character wasn't seen as sexy enough to generate ticket sales, and so theaters didn't flock to carry it or show it for very long. Magnolia Pictures picked-up the North American rights to distribute "Julia" back in Sept. 2008. But it wasn't given a limited release until late spring of 2009. It went into wider release near the end of June (Canada) but then got swallowed up by summer movies.
Roger, have you by any chance been able to see Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, the latest Hayao Miyazaki film?
I'm dying to hear what people think of it. :)
Ebert: Looking forward to it.
I don't doubt that "Julia" is a good film, but why did the filmmakers have to give it that title, of all titles? There is already a terrific 1977 Fred Zinnemann film entitled "Julia", in which Jane Fonda starred and for which Vanessa Redgrave and Jason Robards both won Oscars (and for which, if I recall, you gave a negative 2 1/2 star review back in the day). To be sure, the two films aren't about the same thing. In that case, why use the same title?
It always annoys me when previous titles are used. Nowadays, when "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is mentioned, people think of the movie with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie- they don't realize that Hitchcock directed a completely unrelated 1941 film of the same name. Rick Rosenthal directed a film with Sean Penn in 1983 called "Bad Boys", and then Bay and Bruckheimer stole the title for their 1995 blockbuster. Steven Spielberg's 1989 firefighting drama was entitled "Always", even though there had already been a 1985 film of that name directed by independent filmmaker Henry Jaglom (there is some speculation that Spielberg stole that title to get revenge on Jaglom, who had once heavily criticized "The Color Purple"). David Cronenberg expressed vocal aggravation that Paul Haggis would use "Crash" for his 2005 racial drama. Now, when people mention "Crash", do you think they think of a film about orgasms received from car crashes? Hell, no!
I'm not usually picky about film titles. I liked your defense of Charlie Kaufmann's use of "Synechdoche, New York" as the title for his film of last year ("What does the title mean? It means it's the title. Get over it"). But I really do think that when a filmmaker uses an already-existing title for his film, he is either being arrogant or ignorant. Oftentimes, the former film with that title becomes forgotten in the new film's shadow. Unless a filmmaker ABSOLUTELY FEELS in his gut instinct that that title is necessary for his film, he really shouldn't use it. Otherwise, it means less public recognition for the other film, unless of course the average moviegoer carries a Leonard Maltin Film Guide around in their pocket.
Today, when, as you say in your article, the indepdent film movement is getting wider, it also paves the way for filmmakers to be more careless if they want to. They might start recycling titles more often because of that (since there is no major studio to advise them against it). What do you think about recycled titles? Is it nothing to worry about, or is it a problem that filmmakers need to start taking more seriously?
Ebert: I don't think it's much of a title in any event. What about--I dunno--"Desperation?"
Roger, have you seen any Indonesian film? The Forbidden Door, a thriller from Indonesian director Joko Anwar, was awarded the Best of Puchon prize at the Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival (PiFan)2009 last week.
Ebert: Very rarely have the opportunity. I hope it opens in a festival near me.
Hey Roger, did you notice your name (full name, not just 'Ebert') appeared as a clue in last Saturday's New York Times crossword? I've been doing the puzzle for years; I've seen your last name before, but the full name is a new one for me. Immortality!
Congratulations.
Ebert: Ten letters, four vowels. Handy.
IN RESPONSE TO CHRIS ADLERS POST, JULY 23, 2009 at 3:23PM:
Hi Chris & other Canadians,
I live in Nova Scotia and have been a Film Movement fan for years, so it’s great to see the coverage here! I’ve always been bummed that their DVD club is not available in Canada—I don’t really understand why. But good news is they have full North American rights for a lot of their films, which are available for individual purchase. I always check out the site for good looking stuff and then give them a call to order. They’re really friendly folks—I think you can order on line but the site is a little confusing so I just call.
Roger,
I'm really feeling the sting of the death of critical thinking here at camp. There's some really smart cool kids here, but then there's those other guys. The stoners who claim money can buy happiness and that art is worthless. I wanna show these guys Citizen Kane or There Will Be Blood or something to prove them wrong, but I doubt they could pay attention and would go back to listening to their rap songs about insulting people's genitals and such. They're always yelling, even on long bumpy bus rides where it's already easy to get headaches or at midnight when you'd think they should be trying to get some sleep. Today in a class someone who I don't think is part of this group made the comment that "cartoons are stupid". As someone who wants to get into animation, I was annoyed by this comment which I figured a little bit of critical thinking could prove false. I cited Wall-E as an example of an intelligent cartoon. Instead other kids, including kids from the afformentioned yelling artless stoner crowd (let's call them the YAS from now on), stated "a movie for five year olds can't be intelligent", and when I questioned if they ever saw the movie and its obvious commentary on the environment and obesity and corporations, they responded saying "It's retarded". I was offended by such language and called out on the speaker for using it, but then everyone was complaining that I was being offensive by voicing my offense. When one of the YAS casually and thoughtlessly dropped the term "f-----g f----t" in front of me (this isn't the first time this guy has done this), I couldn't take anymore of it and asked to leave the class for the day. Damn it, why can't some people think anymore?
I'm not even gonna get into the Nazi-sympathizing creep who claims to "always do the right thing" because of his "superior upbringing"...
Ebert: Don't get too depressed. There is always this consolation: You aren't one of them.
The excellent reviews on your blog are not only beyond them, but possibly may be forever beyond them. They're serving life sentences as themselves.
Well, this is something my brother and I have been discussing for the past year or so. We've basically given-up on mainstream film. We're much more interested in In Bruges or Let the Right One In (we loved both) or films like this year's Thirst, Frozen River, etc than what most cinemas have to offer. It's kind of depressing to think that the movies have, well, died for us, and that the mainstream directors we love are few.
They've become boring, with the exception of indie film, and classic film. I'm much more interested in Ramin Bahrani's next movie, or Martin McDonagh's, or Park Chan-Wook, Tomas Alfredson, etc, than anything Spielberg has to offer. I respect Spielberg and admire some of his films, Munich and Schindler's List in particular, but find Jaws to be, well, a waste of time.
Maybe this is because I'm just angry at film, though. A few years ago my brother and I wrote a (might I say excellent) screenplay about what we predicted would happen to Jordan in a few years (a story about a car crash and its consequences), and then it happened. Then we wrote another, and that happened too - to an eerily accurate degree. We added things, of course, and fantasized, but it's amazing how accurate our thoughts were, down to the age and stature of the victims, and the circumstances of their tragedies. But no-one wanted to help us make these films, so we never did. In that way, it's a flaw of cinema - that it's become too popular for us, the people will slightly less luck and freedom of speech, to be able to make our films.
Now gaming, I think, is evolving into a much more powerful medium than before. I have to respectfully disagree with your old statement, that games will never be art. I think if anyone looks at the writing and design, music, etc, but especially the writing, in something like Grim Fandango (video here) or Ico (I don't want to link to a video, as the power of that game comes from the joystick emulating the muscles and heartbeat of the girl you're holding hands with). There's been some very visionary people in that industry lately, it's strange. Just looking at this trailer for The Last Guardian (please take a look!) makes the hair on my back stand-up.
I can only hope that indie cinema will extend to this part of the world. But games are catching up too!
I finally installed an HD projector and 9-foot screen a couple of summers ago, and it has really revolutionized my home viewing experience. Since my HD channels now have much better picture quality than regular DVDs, I favor watching movies on HDNet Movies and HBO over rentals, at least until Blu-Ray comes down in price, and more discs are available. I really love the scope and variety of programming on HDNet Movies. They show everything from classic westerns to Coen Brothers movies to foreign films such as "Les Invasions Barbares." Once a month, they show a first-run movie the Wednesday before it hits theatres. Last week, it was Jeff Daniels' new movie "The Answer Man."
On the subject of digital film, I'm glad that the process has become more democratic, and is allowing the success of great storytellers, not just great salespeople. I know the technology is improving, but as far as picture quality, it's just not there yet. I like the communal aspect of watching films in a theatre, but I also love the quality of film, and there will be one reason fewer to go to the theatre if the quality is akin to YouTube. Maybe it has spoiled me, but my dad took lots of Super-8 home movies when my brother and I were kids, and they look better than some of these digital efforts. In Michael Mann's "Miami Vice," the night scenes were hazy and monochromatic, like those in his previous film, "Collateral." Who cares if five miles of the L.A. skyline is in focus, as Mann bragged, if all of it looks that bad?
Marie,
It was inspiring to read what you wrote about creating. Its even harder for a musician, I think. My Dad's a visual artist as well as a musician.
You can see his stuff at the website.
We are constantly at odds with what we want to perform and what the audience wants to hear. I do classical duets with my father, the enagagements for which pay less and are less frequent.
I host music on Wednesday nights for a concert series in Niles, MI.
I've introduced Elvis impersonators and oompah bands, bluegrass fakers and jazz impressarios, a woodwind quintet and a Presbyterian choir. We pass a bucket around for donations to keep the music going. It is incredibly depressing that the Elvis impersonators attract more people (and thus, more donations) than the musicians who spend hours pouring over every note.
People ask me all the time, "Whats the best group you have ever heard live?" They are disappointed when I tell them it was, by a mile, Itzhak Perlman and Yo Yo Ma with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. (I've seen McCartney, Simon, Petty, Taylor, You Name It).
Don't give up Marie.
David
PS I think someone should draw a cartoon of you and Keith Carrizoza discussing whether a Georgia O'Keefe painting was really about baseball or fishing.
Last week, i recieved my subscription copy of Films Of The Golden Age , a nostalgia-oriented quarterly published and edited out of Muscatine, Iowa, by a gentleman named Bob King. In each issue, Mr.King writes an article about the joys of watching old Hollywood films, learning about how they were made, etc. You might call it an edtorial of sorts.
Anyway, in the new FGA , Mr. King shares an anecdote about a film society he ran in Davenport some years back, and particularly one incidednt invoving one of your Great Movies, Bunuel's The Exterminating Angel. I'm suggesting you read the whole article, but the gist is that the screening was somewhat of a disaster. It seems there were a number of Spanish-speaking immigrants in the audience that night, sent there by a well-meaning social service agency. The Hispanics had no idea of the kind of film they were going to see, only that it was in Spanish. Mr. King calls his article Night of the Slamming Doors, which will give you some idea of what happened (again, I would urge you to find and read the whole article).
My reason for bringing it up here... maybe I'd better wait until you've read it and can comment on it yourself. Till then...
My best friend(he grew up across the street and we went to Illinois together) caught the movie bug a decade ago. His latest self financed film, LEFTY, opened at the Siskel Film Center this past weekend. The response has been overwhelming; Metromix named it to their top 10 movies of 2009. The final showing in this run is Thursday(July 30, 2009)at 8:15pm. Roger, if you are interested/available, I will happily buy you and yours tickets to entry for the Thursday show. In the case that you get free access to the Siskel on a lifetime merit pass, I'll happily spring for concessions. Hope to see you there!
Dear Mr Ebert:
I just wanna say, you've been a true champion for indie cinema over the years. I've read your reviews for many many years and I've enjoyed them immensely as well as your reports from various film festivals across the country. Over the years you've helped me discover small cinematic gems such as Juno and Guinevere and most recently... The Girlfriend Experience. Speaking as a film fan, I just wanted to say thanks.
I have managed to convince my drinking group to occasionally drop by our local art house theater (Enzian Theater www.enzian.org). This is largely due to the fact that the Enzian serves excellent draft beer. I generally choose to bring the group on "Cult Classics Tuesdays"; these showings usually have a better chance of going over with my techie co-workers ("Tron" and the original "Planet of the Apes" are right up their alley), but I have also gotten them to see "The Wrestler", "Vertigo", and "Blue Velvet" (I strongly disagree with Roger's review of the latter, by the way).
I am the type of person who tries to convince friends, family members, co-workers, romantic interests, total strangers, etc. to read, view, or hear art that I find inspiring. After I have strong-armed them into doing so, I assume that they will compliment me on my excellent taste and be willing to engage in a spirited debate on the merits and flaws of the shared artistic experience. More often than not, my companions puncture this balloon of delusion with sharp tongues and blunt reality. I have learned from these failures and am now much better at sizing up which fare is appropriate for which personalities. In regard to art films, some of my findings are:
1. Many Americans dislike reading, or read at a slow pace; they are unlikely to enjoy foreign films with subtitles, because they can't keep up with the dialogue at the bottom of the screen and the action on the rest of it. Also, sometimes the color of the subtitles does not stand out strongly enough from the rest of the picture, which is frustrating (I had this problem with Fritz Lang's "M"). Exception: the films of John Woo, at least if you are a male. In defense of my countrymen, the American movies that do best overseas tend to be action flicks or visual comedies.
Proof! http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/25/business/the-media-business-hollywood-takes-more-cues-from-overseas.html?pagewanted=all
And, of course, the "production values" of "Baywatch" transcended language barriers across the world to become internationally popular.
2. Length matters. Pace matters more. It's far easier to get traditional movie-goers to watch "Breaking Away" or "Reservoir Dogs" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" than "Paris, Texas" or "Jean de Florette". (For the record, I like all of the aforementioned movies.)
3. Know the subject matter. My mom went to see "Fargo" in the theaters on the recommendation of a local critic who described it as a comedy. I hadn't seen or read a review of Todd Solondz's "Happiness" before I watched it with a friend who has two small children. I believed a date who insisted she was fine with horror movies, so I bought some barbeque and we watched Fulci's "Zombie". Oops.
4. Provide transportation or make it easier for others to attend screenings. Art houses often require a long drive. I have relatives who hate driving at night, so I bought tickets to a day screening of "La Vie En Rose". They enjoyed the movie, although they weren't too thrilled with our skinheaded waitress or the $7 hummus. Oh well. It's an art theater.
5. Catch the early show, if possible. When our group saw "Blue Velvet", showtime was supposed to be 9:30. After the local indie hipster finished "introducing" the film (i.e., revealing key plot points and chatting with his pals in the upper row of the theater), it was 10:15. By the time we got home, it was close to 1:00 A.M. My friends get up at 6:00 A.M. for work. Oops.
6. Use booze. How else would I have introduced my high school buddies to Dario Argento without the help of Captain Morgan? Or managed to get Dave Van Dyke to say nice things about me, despite major political disagreements (all it took was a few beers, an exceptional margarita, and Jamaican style chicken wings)? Much like weaning your friends away from "lite" beers toward IPAs via the glory of higher alcohol percentage, it is possible to get them interested in art films, given the right "incentive". Of course, many people will never develop an appreciation for hops or Wim Wenders, so don't push the issue. I'd like to personally thank the makers of Dogfish "90 minute IPA" for allowing me to keep a straight face while assuring a girl that we would someday visit Paris, like the couple in "Before Sunset", and that she was just as hot as Julie Delpy, but in a different way.
Ebert: So few people are as hot as Julie Delpy in the same way. It's the intelligence. If she likes you, that means you're pretty hot yourself.
Just saw Departures and haven't been able to shake that woozy feeling of being emotionally drained after coming out of being so absorbed in a cinema experience. I don't remember the last time a film made me feel this vulnerable...In the Mood for Love was close, I think.
To say that there wasn't a dry eye in the theater is almost superficial. It's not a tear-jerker. Though it does do that. But most of the heaving sobs, I gather, came from somewhere profoundly personal, and different. The fact that a film can elicit such strong emotional reactions from people of all different races, ages, backgrounds, says plenty.
I thought it was so well put the way you described the emotional payoff at the end in your review. It was well-earned and definitely prepared for, but I didn't see it coming at all. It caught me so off guard, that I even surprised myself in my reaction. What quiet elegance, though, does the scene evokes. What devastating poignancy, does the sequence provokes. It made me think of redemption - how death is not only a gateway for the departed, but a gateway for the living - to step into a future after the departed with more clarity, and less regret for the past. To realize our humanity, and to right the wrongs that can be righted, to accept the wrongs that can't be undone, and to prepare for the choices yet to be made.
The Hurt Locker is opening much wider now. I will now be concentrating my encouragement/harassment to friends for this film, which is now only being shown at one theater in Toronto and barely known to the public. Perhaps an entry dedicated to this is needed? It certainly deserves it.
Interview with director Yojiro Takita:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEVFcx6GXlk
Ebert: "Departures" is such a rare and beautiful film.
Thank you so much for all that you've done. Your insights into the movies continue to be a guiding light for me.
Since we're talking about foreign and independent cinema, are you aware that Hayao Miyazaki's memoirs was just published this week? It's titled, "Starting Point: 1979-1996," and was originally published in Japan back in 1996. I'm reading it right now, and it's a spectacular anthology of essays, stories, personal antecdotes, and interviews. This is easily my favorite movie book of the year, and since you were the first American movie critic to champion Miyazaki, you should definitely get a copy.
I think the key to creating smarter audiences is through education. People need great movie books to study, to pour through, to slowly take in and absorb like a starving houseplant. People need to learn how to read movies and decipher their language of icons and symbols. It's another language that must be learned like any other.
The Great Movies books have been invaluable to me; Pauline Kael's anthology For Keeps is another crucial book. Sidney Lumet's book on making movies remains absolutely essential. My recommendation for everyone who wants to turn friends and family into genuine movie lovers is to hand them some of these books.
Tangential topic (from 2nd paragraph):
You can never like too many mainstream movies (provided they are worthy, of course). I've heard too many undergrad film production students discuss their dislike for mainstream cinema and I've never been given a proper explanation for this aversion. I have yet to meet a film student who gave "The Dark Knight" positive praise. I ask for the reason to their objection, but nothing I have heard has been directed at the aesthetics of the movie.
Too many people don't WANT to truly enjoy films. They either set low standards so that films like "Night of the Museum 2" become enjoyable, close their minds to certain obscure titles or certain topics/moods/genres, or they search for criticism when it should be overshadowed by the entertainment. Every picture produced is a small miracle and should be both held to a certain standard of elegance and regarded with respect and admiration.
I love how you consistently understand this balance. I'm curious what your readers who are opposed to those mainstream films you review positively say exactly. What's the reason for their aversion?
Kevin
Lakeland, FL
P.S. I look forward to seeing the assortment of titles you list in this post!
Hi Roger,
My son sent me your "Light In The Tunnel" piece saying, "indie collective filmgoing (as opposed to watching dvds at home) will survive. Does this sound like anyone you know??"
Indeed it does! I've been showing "films I like" in Victoria in our psych hospital's theatre weekly for 16 years. Showed SITA SINGS THE BLUES last night in fact!
I'd be happy to send you an article printed in a psychosocial rehab journal about my program which describes it pretty well - and shows some ulterior motives beyond but not inclusive of showing good rich diet of indie films in a modest video venue.
Lots about what I do how and why on my website but you might like to see this article in its context. 3 pdfs about 750k total. I read yours, will you read mine?
B
Ebert: Plese provide a link for everyone.
In response to Chris Alders on July 23, 2009 3:23 PM and other Canadians:
The Film movement web site does indeed deliver to Canada though the subscription service is different. I had an email conversation with their customer service people and was told that they still ship twelve films a year to Canadian addresses, however they may not be the same films as U.S. subscribers, and they are shipped all at once instead of once a month.
Their customer service people were very helpful and accomodating.
Thanks
Marc
I just read your review of Still Walking by Hirokazu Kore-Eda. Then, I rushed back here to find a way for me to see it. I love Japanese films that explore that concept of Mono-No-Aware and remember Hirokazu's other film "Nobody Knows" with it's slowly unfolding bittersweet pathos. Oh, this movie looks so beautiful.
Sadly I'll have to wait, unless I make a trip to Toronto for the festival. I don't see it in the Film Movement catalog, and though it's available VOD, it looks like this is only the case in the U.S..
I wish there was a way to buy direct from IFC. I would order it right now if I could.
Ebert: It's worth the wait.
Mono no aware:
I...also translated as "an empathy toward things," or "a sensitivity of ephemera," is a Japanese term used to describe the awareness of mujo or the transience of things and a bittersweet sadness at their passing. -- By Wikipedia, and well written.
You are so completely right Mr. Ebert. I live in Albuquerque, and while one corporate chain does occasionally loan one theater to an independent movie (I saw "The Cove" and "Easy Virtue"), there is only one theater worth your time, The Guild. A purple building near the university, it has a loyal owner and manager who still knows what movies are supposed to be. Whenever you see a movie, you meet a grand and eccentric group of people with one common interest: the art of film. The owner sits behind the counter and ticket booth with one of his interesting staff members, discussing, wondering, imagining. He insists on using celluloid, and he does so even with the older movies he plays. What a selection he has! It has, for instance , a matinee showing of "Sita Sings the Blues" followed by "Tulpan" and a midnight showing of "Dead Snow." Or it's annual Noir festival, with 12 different noir films for 2 weeks. I fear however, he doesn't get the great business he deserves. Occasionally there is just not enough viewers. If a movie isn't doing too well, he'll walk over to a nearby restaurant and do some impromptu marketing. The owner does everything himself, so whatever the movies make are his paycheck. The Guild has been there for a very long time and it is up to us, the people who still know what the movies are meant to be, to go buy a ticket. I hope his low prices and great movie selection will be the light in the tunnel for his business. I'm going to go see Sita now.
PS: Since writing this, I have see "Sita Sings the Blues" and "Tulpan there. Wow.
Oh yes..."awareness of mujo"...or the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence. A wonderful eastern concept and one key to overcoming suffering. So many Japanese artforms embrace mujo. Like the minimilist brush strokes of Sumi-e painting
http://www.drue.net/images/sumi-e-stroke.jpg
and Bashō haiku.
old pond . . .
a frog leaps in
water’s sound
Hey Ebert. I missed Munyurangabo at Cinematheque Ontario a few months ago, but luckily I was able to find a copy of it. I just watched it and it was everything I expected. Now I'm going to start scrounging through Film Movement for more smaller film details (although I keep up with the smaller scene a lot - saw Still Walking a few months back, along with most of the features mentioned).
All I wanted to say was that its nice to hear a big critic discuss the lesser mentioned features. Maybe I'll catch you at this years TIFF - lets hope there's no more critic vs. critic fights. :)
Mr. Ebert, I'm merely writing to say that I just now finished watching "Munyurangabo", and it's the first film in a while that had me weeping at the end. It was so beautiful, so good, so hopeful and heart-rending...I just wanted to say thank you for bringing films like this to the attention of film-lovers like me.
I was a bit taken aback by your statement in your review that these boys are 10 or 11 years old. How did you happen to come by that? They look like 16 or 17 at the youngest.
I posted this before but did not receive reply. My concern was your describing the boys in the film as being 10 or 11 years old. That is not conceivable. Where did you come by that misinformation? They were obviously teenagers no younger than 15 probably 16 or 17. I thought surely you would respond.
Ebert: Which film?
The film I'm referring to where you asserted in your review that the boys were 10 and 11 is Munyurangabo. This is not possible,
Ebert: You're right and I've changed it.