My Life in Triplicate

I don't know if anyone still checks in on me through here, but here is a trailer for a film I co-wrote and directed last fall for the San Francisco 7 Day Film Festival. It won best screenplay and was nominated for Audience Choice and 'Most Inventive,' whatever that means. The team that put this together is shooting a newer even more ambitious project. The full length version (around twenty minutes) will be available soon.

Sports Displacement

I don't think I've ever really been into sports. Well, I did watch two seasons of World League Football (Go Surge!), and roommates have occasionally dragged me into watching the odd basketball game or two, but it stands that I never, ever, think about watching a game or match or race on my own. I do have that guy energy, though, and I've concluded that it shows up when I talk about or watch sketch comedy.

I have my favorite franchises (mostly the usual--Kids in the Hall, Monty Python), but the "team" that I am irrationally devoted to and would probably have a pennant on my wall for if such things existed is Saturday Night Live. I started watching SNL in the eighties, and my first memories are of one of the worst eras of the show (Joe Piscopo, Charles Rocket, and Eddie Murphy). My cousin and I used to have to conspire to be at the TV at 11:30 on Saturdays, and there are few seasons where I didn't catch every episode, even forgoing the first half of Dr. Who on PBS for the first-run episodes.

That first episode of the season is like the NBA Draft for me--sizing up the new talent, seeing who moved on. Concluding that this or that year was a building season and that the fresh cast members would grow into this greatest of all arenas for live comedy (great job Keenan!!). I just about lost it when Michael McKeon (Lennie of Lennie and Squiggy) showed up in the cast, not to mention Chris Elliot, Sarah Silverman, and KitH alum Mark McKinney.

I've even wrung my hands at the decisions of Lorne Michaels, who has been the franchise's GM for most of its history. there have been a lot of bad years, but that's what following a team is all about--it's uniquely frustrating because Cubs fans don't have to repeatedly listen to people say that their team should be cancelled every time the subject comes up at a party, plus the people who act like the show was strictly downhill since Ackroyd and Belushi--they did plenty of shitty sketches too, and Samurai Deli (or barber or whatever) wasn't really any more inspired than the "you-like-a-da-juice-eh" guys, and the "wild and crazy guys" are often kinda lame, notwithstanding Steve Martin's presence.

I think the digital shorts are pretty brilliant about half the time, and Justin Timberlake is probably one of the five best hosts ever to be on the show, but, like TV Funhouse, they probably won't take over the show and drive out all the other content. New blood is new blood, and it's the Phil Hartmans and Tim Meadowses that really make the show spark by sticking it out in the hypercompetitive environment year after year, perfecting their craft and delivering sketch after sketch with brilliance and poise.

My girlfriend hates weekend update, but it's the anchor of the show. My focus on this segment started with Dennis Miller (who I now can't stand). It's a tough job, and not a way to hide out in the background. You have to construct a persona and deliver it week after week. Some are good by playing it straight (Kevin Nealon or Chevy Chase), while others run against the natural grain (Norm MacDonald), and others just don't have the chops (Colin Quinn). Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are my personal all-time favorite anchor team.

Fey is certainly one of the titans of the show's run, and as the first female head writer, also headed the strongest and deepest female cast in my memory. Maya Rudoph, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, and Kristin Wiig have a huge range and major talent, and I hope Seth Meyers continues to search out quality female talent.

It's been easier to follow the show since Comedy Central and E! started carrying old episodes, but that carries its own frustrations. The episodes are pared down to an hour, and the musical performances, the cold open, and Weekend Update are always included, ensuring that some sketches don't see air (the one that I miss the most is probably Steve Martin's Christmas wish monologue).

SNL is certainly somewhere in an upswing right now, and once again it's as though it's suddenly emerged, with all the haters and fairweather fans, but regardless, I think I'll hold on to the season tickets and know that the metaphorical stands will surely be roomier again.

No Sleep 'til Sacramento, Ugly Cut

Alright, it's been a long night, and many many uploads and downloads later, it's finally here.

Here's the back story-

Years ago in college I took a documentary class as part of my production degree and it happened to be around the same time as a gaming convention. I used to go to these when I was much younger but hadn't been in close to ten years, so I wondered what they were like now, etc. Turns out some friends of friends were going and had agreed to be part of my little quasi-verte documentation of a role playing convention.

This was a one man show-I showed up in San Ramon on public transportation with a Canon GL-1 and a shotgun mic on a pistol grip. I didn't even have a room. My main subject didn't sleep for 50+ hours, so I kept the camera on him the entire time in case he broke, he didn't. I slept for 4-5 hours under a table curled up around my camera against a wall.

Then came the editing. I was never happy with the cut of this film because people who didn't know what role-playing was didn't come out of it any closer and I never really formed an arc with anyone. So I sat on it promising the people in it that I was going to re-cut it and they'd see it then. Well, I never re-cut it. It sat on my hard drive, some key parts ended up erased, paths lost. My drive was corrupted so I had to reset it. I moved what I thought was all of it to another drive and updated my OS, accidentally losing my editing programs.

I assumed at this point it was hopeless.

Then I was helping someone edit some footage and we had to use my hard drive as a scratch drive, and lo and behold, there it was in it's spotty glory. I talked my friend into letting me export it and saved it to my drive. But, in uncompressed form it's over 2gigs and I don't have the programs to compress it with. After a ton of hit and miss I downloaded HyperEngine AV and managed to create a much smaller version of it, which hopefully you see here. Once I can look at all of this again I'll make a better version of the transfer, but I thought all things considered I needed to get some version out there when I could.

If you're a subject in this documentary and are here to finally see this, I'm sorry it took so many years. I hope you enjoy what there is of it and thank you for letting me film you. If you're anyone else, look at it as an artifact of my early filmmaking and I hope you find something to enjoy.

So here, finally, after many years delay, is No Sleep 'til Sacramento-

More Tube'n

I was helping a friend do some editing and had to use my own hard drive to finish and lo and behold, I found some old college footage. The following are animated openings and a closing I made for the Chautauqua Film and Theater Festival at UCSC in 2005. I didn't draw any of it, those were designs by the art director that I then cut up and animated in Final cut. Nothing special really, but there it is.




I also found a long thought lost documentary, but it may actually be too big for YouTube. Maybe Blip.tv can handle it. There's another animation but it's missing a key element that makes it kind of stupid to watch, and without the context (a monologue from The Tempest) it's just weird.

This is only a test

I have a new project coming up that I will explain in full at a later date, but this is the first rough cut of what I'm working on. I'm testing formats and ways to embed this thing, this is my second attempt to see how this works here vs. elsewhere. More to come, hopefully.

test by SupaLoweryBrothers

Fandalism Free MP3 Hosting

Please let me know if that player works for you or if you encounter any problems.

This is still a test, different player, see if I (we) like it better:

Click To Play

Stunt Casting

A friend was describing the making of the French film The Class which predominately revolved around the casting of 'regular' students in the roles of the students who were then given a more or less improvisational structure to tell the story with. This got me thinking about the nature and value of stunt-casting in general.

For this I'm going to use a broad definition of stunt casting which would include any casting decision where the actor casted or method of casting plays to the audience as part of the experience/narrative in what the audience brings to how they view that character. Granted, that's broad enough to say that any casting is stunt casting, but I'm talking about a specific relation and I'll give some examples.

This goes back as far, if not further, as Jean-Luc Godard who would do things like casting Fritz Lang as the director of Odyssey, the movie within the movie in Contempt. Lang brings his reputation and history as a legendary director to the role of director. Contrast stunt casting works as well, notably in Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West with Henry Fonda in the unremorsfully evil Frank, countering his white hat good guy image and certainly a stark contrast to roles like Juror #8 in Twelve Angry Men. In a single casting decision, before the audience has seen a frame of the film (presuming they know about the casting) it has actively rebuked the Western as it stands.

Then there is the casting mentioned at the beginning, for lack of a better term 'outsider stunt-casting.' This often comes in the flavor of casting so-called 'regular people' in the roles of regular people. Harmony Korine, director of Gummo and Julien Donkey Boy is notorious for this. Or for more extreme examples there's Werner Herzog's Even Dwarfs Started Small or casting Bruno S. in movies like Stroszeck.

Lastly there is casting where the story of the actor reflects the story of the character, such as Joe Joe Dancer, Your Life is Calling (can it really be called stunt casting when the actor is also the writer?) or most recently The Wrestler, where as a friend pointed out, the final monologue could just as well have been about Rourke as it was about the character he was playing.

I'm less interested in cameo stunt casting, Sean Connery appearing as King Richard at the end of Robin Hood, etc. The exception of this would be when cameo casting an integral part of how the movie is shaped, the master thesis of this would be Kill Bill, where every casting decision outside of the main cast is a reference or nod to the movies that Tarantino was homaging.


I'm ambivalent about stunt casting. On one hand, the story should tell the story. But such a 'purist' attitude ignores one of the more unique tools of film (and to the same degree theater, though limited to high profile theater). For better or worse, film creates a sea of regular faces who carry with them not only the roles that they have taken before them but the lives they lead between the movies. Is it possible to watch an Angelina Joile movie without in some way making some sort of connection with her public persona, her marriage, etc?

More, would Once Upon a Time in the West's Frank been as sinister if it hadn't been held in contrast to the roles that Fonda had been famous for before?

Likewise, when the story of the film is overlaid on the story of the making of the film, is the audience perception different when they know that the film uses 'outsider' casting instead of professional actors, and if it's different then certainly it's a valid tool.

Is the industry of film making part of the art of filmmaking, or more to the point why shouldn't it be?

I have to admit that most of the time I react negatively to it. Improvisation is a disaster far more often than it isn't when it's experienced improvisers, when it is not it can be down right painful (see:Blair Witch Project). I tend to think of it remarkable when it's actually pulled off more than simply when it's done, so outsider casting is always a sketchy proposition for me. I tend to view it less like watching a movie and more like watching someone tip toe across a minefield.

As usual, I don't have a conclusion. To search for a point, I'm defining terms for that post I keep referring to and swear I'll write someday.

Prepare for the Rise of the "Lying Experts"

Procedural shows are the narrative bread and butter of network television. Say what you want about the prevalence of reality shows or high concept macro-series, but the real mule of the network is the lawyer/doctor/cop procedural show. There's the lawyer/cop brigade of Law & Order, or the doctor/cop shows like the CSIs and Bones, or just plain doctor like House. (Doctor and Lawyer, when separated from Cop, will make the largest effort towards non-procedural drama, but it ultimately is marginal)

For the most part these shows put a marginal narrative tent over the fictionalized process of a profession that's usually a lot drier. Imagine a documentary with nothing but reenactments about something that didn't really happen. Without the voice over talking head context the characters are forced to do awkward exposition in their dialog (in an early, perhaps the pilot, episode of CSI one forensics expert explains the fabled historical beginning of forensics to another forensics expert. Not another cop, not a student, not a bystander, lawyer, but another forensics expert. And she's not offended by the implication that she doesn't know what is presumably taught in the first week of the first set of classes in school)

The center piece of these shows is the flashy cutting that accompanies the show's expert detailing his or her deduction stepping through the process and the MacGyver-esque explanation of how their particular science works, without the burden of following an actual deduction but one that fits the needs of the narrative.

The mildly annoying side effect of this is the rise of the couch-potato experts that will diagnose your symptoms (with perhaps a little help from pharmaceutical ads and news magazine shows), give legal advice, and detail how your hair print will give you away in your master crime.

Except of course, they don't. While we've come a long way from the 'end in a court room confession' style of Perry Mason, the actual experts that advise on these shows have created a 'least amount of believability' (more on this later, but it's really SR's term) threshold. Worse than someone who watches nothing but The Discovery Channel as his science credentials, they're operating on not even a fourth of the story.

Which brings us to the beast on the horizon, FOX's Lie to Me. Following the exploits of 'eccentric' a lying expert played by Tim Roth. Like House of Cards or poker movies have made many a layman an expert on 'tells,' this show promises to compound that frustrating rash of experts who no doubt will be scowering the faces of their friends and co-workers looking for signs of untruth and repeating statistics and ideas about lying presented in the show, regardless of whether they really exist or exist for the purpose of the show or even if we're supposed to trust the character that says them.

The problem is that the phrase, "To someone with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is never more true than in a procedural show, because any problem that isn't a nail doesn't make it on the show. Why would it? So for the purpose of the show, of course everyone is lying and of course there is a way to tell, and of course that method will be easily explained. But that doesn't mean that it will translate into the viewer's daily life.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone who has arbitrarily decided you've lied about something trivial? It's like trying to talk while someone squeezes your head.

My prediction is that this show is going to produce a clutch of viewers that may be the biggest group of douchebags in the narrative tv audience.

Or maybe I'm just making it all up.

VW Bus in Bullrun II

I know who I'm rooting for this year.

Bullrun is the quasi-road rally reality show that moves from Spike to SPEED this year that breaks up its 'rally' sections with precision driving challenges. Last year's season went to a Trans Am against an old Olds and a F-150. Ultimately the show amounted to fuel capacity and navigation, the challenge dominating Lotus Exige was eliminated after getting lost on a second leg. The fragile Murcilago eliminated itself after the drivers tried to limp on by having their car towed through the legs of the race, providing validation for my dislike of supercars.

Now I have a reason (other than a thin part of the racing season) to watch the show.

You have to scan ahead to 6:21 to see the Bus that'll be taking it to the other tuner cars (unpimping their autos, as it were) this February:

Sometimes...

I do things without asking. Lists updated, of course can be undone.

It's Here!

My field recorder!

Two more steps and my project is underway!

If I had gotten the camera first, that'd be a much better picture of the recorder. Also, apparently when you buy used you get a whole lot of packing material but no manual. I'll have to download one.

Like most huge electronic purchases it's just sitting there refusing to entertain me.

Who Knew You Could Use "Brechtian" and Jean Claude Van Damme in the Same Sentence?

Well, now you can. Being on foot while working has meant that I have walked by theaters and have had some impulse viewings of films I've mentioned here already in an attempt to actually follow through on things I had hinted were interesting. That has meant seeing the previous posts' Repo! The Genetic Opera and the meta-action Jean Claude Van Damme movie, JVCD.

Having already discussed the premise in my earlier post, the movie lived up to its billing. We are treated to a down on his luck, misunderstood Van Damme. If the character of himself is to be believed, even he doesn't like his movies.

The movie is heavily desaturated with the light blown out. The Brecht comes in the form of a monologue delivered among the hanging lights above the set where Van Damme gives a 30% justification 70% apology for who he has been and the movies he has made (or if you're cynical, 25% justification, 35% apology, and 40% audition for serious roles that don't involve kicking anyone.)

This isn't a clumsily done attempt to rebrand an actor, even if it is clearly an attempt to rebrand an actor. Audience information is carefully controlled to create conclusions that the film later questions and the film does not even allow him the minor victory that is crafted at the end that would frankly have diminished the rest of the film. As a critique of media and cult of personality it falls short of many better attempts, but overall pretty interesting.

My only real complaint is that if you're going to blow out all the light in the film, color the subtitles so they don't get lost.

He also all but calls out Steven Segal to make the same move. Now that's something I'd like to see. But then, I am from the generation of appreciating things ironically.

Idiot Proof Filmmaking?

You've no doubt had this conversation. You're trying to discuss your disappointment with a film with someone who you didn't realize was a hard core fan. Maybe your critique is mild, you just didn't think an aspect worked but you still overall liked the movie. And then they hit you with it, "You have to appreciate it for what it is."

And there it is, the ultimate trump, the 'get out of jail free' card of what would otherwise be an undefensibly bad film. Like all easy outs, it's founded in a legitimate complaint that has been banged, stretched, and drawn over until it has almost no meaning left.

Can you really say that you can measure Citizen Kane and Young Frankenstein or Heat with the same stick? I would argue, as others, that a movie has to at least primarily be evaluated within its genre (and I swear I'll one day do that big ass genre post that I created this blog for in the first place one day), but beyond that intent, time, context...it wouldn't be productive to compare all films to The Bicycle Thief.

But where does that end and simply making excuses for lazy film making begin?

I bring this up because it's been a week of follow up, I actually watched Repo!: The Genetic Opera and JCVD, both of which had been prompts for recent posts. I'll get to JCVD in another post that, if you read in page order you've already read but I haven't written yet...cosmic...

Repo! is largely what could be expected from the billing. It does have Paris Hilton's face falling off, for what's that worth...

It's wall to wall guitar with a score that doesn't so much sound like separate songs but rather one long track, as if Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody had been two hours long. I have to correct myself in that it is not a musical conceived for film but actually did start out as a stage piece first. There were stylistic elements that seemed to overlap - a whole subplot appeared to be created just to give the 'streetwise' narrator character a motivation as he acted like The MC in Cabaret. But there was no pay off for him. Further complicating that is the use of comic book panels to handle other aspects of exposition.

Which is not to say that it's all bad, it manages to create a complex and ultimately compromised anti-hero and a devil's bargain ending that creates a not often used third option for the protagonist.

In its opening week it only played in 8 theaters, one less by the time I saw it. Its per screen average was a respectable $6k in it's opening week, but has suffered a 64% drop.

But as I left the theater I stopped and looked at the midnight movie listings (I missed The Warriors showing with gang costume contest) - is it going to matter? There is really little to no chance for this film to gain mainstream success. Lightening could strike, word of mouth on this film is actually pretty decent for this film in the right crowd, if the people who had prompted me to actually quest for the film are anything to go by. But if they are, then the success or failure of the movie isn't going to matter.

Any criticism of this movie for them will be brushed off as not appreciating it for what it is. Soundtracks will be bought, small theater productions staged, and midnight screenings (perhaps with costume contests) will be had. In it's theatrical run they likely haven't even made back Hilton's salary, but in the slow burn DVD sales and cult following from Saw fans, or Skinny Puppy fans, or the gore/goth/whatever else that this movie taps on the head will likely be a steady check for at least a few years.

And once it's there, it's idiot proof. What's it going to matter what a critic says? What difference will its theatrical release make? Dismal showings will only build the movies legend, the fact that it was screened in a single digit number of theaters only cinches that. This goes beyond appreciating a movie ironically, which may be at the root of this practice but has long since been left on the side of the road wondering what happened.

So far my completely unscientific poll of two whole people who have seen it automatically make excuses for it as they tell you they like it.

Ironic appreciation has evolved itself into an idiot proof film formula. I don't know how I feel about it. With the DVD/midnight movie cult, movies that are too high concept to be really have any mainstream hope have a chance to live, and therefore made. But at the same time I grow tired of having to defend a critique by assuring the person that I'm not comparing their movie to Casablanca just because I felt a particular subplot was unmotivated.

Can't Say No

I just bought the last major piece of my audio kit, hopefully paving the way for my new career as a field audio mixer for television and film (mostly television, documentaries etc. Film is a whole different set of gear and demands).

Ultimately, this was a good deal. It's a quality recorder, has all the functions that I need, and I picked it up used at a third of the price it or a like recorder would go for.

And yet, a few mere hours since placing the order, I'm a wreck.

I realized a while ago that my problem with making decisions and buying things specifically is that I never view it as selecting one thing, but rather turning down a bunch of other stuff. I didn't decide to buy a mixer, I instead decided not to get any of the following-

- A less functional recorder and a still camera.
- Same less functional recorder and a used 3 CCD miniDV camcorder
- A cheap motorcycle
- A barrier mic
- A better shotgun mic
- Any of the other half dozen recorders I was looking at
- Replace the cool box in my bus
- Side tent for my bus
- PS3 or Wii

I could go on...

There are reasons that I made the decision that I did, and even better reasons that I didn't make any of the purchases I didn't make. But that doesn't mean that once I make a decision I don't feel like I shut down all the other options. I'm honestly more comfortable sitting here thinking of all the things I could do.

This might be from being poor-most of the time any amount of money I spend is in my fantasy world. It's hard for me to make the transition to all those fantasies to one reality is a hard one for me to handle.

This is probably the most telling aspect of my personality. I'm far more enamored with what could be than actually is.

Why I Want Lieberman Back in the Caucus

I always feel ridiculous when I do political posts for a number of reasons. The world really doesn't need another political blog, especially from someone as unqualified for it as me. Not that it really needs a media criticism/social commentary blog with a loose premise that we've all but abandoned early on, but what ever.

Lieberman has his problems, and the aforementioned blogs have no doubt gone over and over it again and again, and I think their reasonings are at least in part right. There are valid reasons to want him out, and I get it.

But here's the thing-I didn't like Obama because he gave great speeches or that his candidacy was historic or his health care plan or because he was against the war. Icing. What I liked was he was someone I could disagree with. Look, I'm not going to agree with everything any president does, it's just not going to happen. I wouldn't agree with everything I would do as president in all likelyhood. What I wanted was someone who was open to the discussion. I wanted discourse, something that hasn't been around for the past, say, eight years.

And that means that you can't really punish dissent. Yes, Lieberman said some crappy things during the campaign, yes he was as nasty as those he supported, yes he campaigned against his own party down the line. All bad. But if I want discussion against things I don't agree with Obama with, that means that I'm going to have to want discussion against Obama with things I agree with. Is there a limit? Perhaps. I just don't want to have the first at bat set it.

Alright. Enough with the politics. Back to talking about movie trends for movies I haven't seen...(JVCD opens this weekend in SF!)

The Pseudo-documentary

Last night, Walrus, Jen and I went to see John Hodgman speak at the City Arts and Lectures series at the Herbst Theater in SF. It was, as was anticipated, highly entertaining--Hodgman's quirky genius for bullshit is unmatched.

It got me thinking, though, about bullshit of all kinds, and a semi-private wish that I've harbored for a long time: the pseudo-documentary. This is distinct from the mockumentary in that it is not intended as a platform for satire, like Waiting for Guffman or Zelig, but is rather a dead-serious film intended to inform the audience about something that does not, in fact, exist. There are glimmers of this on occasion; The Discovery Channel's The Future is Wild came awfully close by speculating (wildly) about what life might be like in hundreds of millions of years--the spear-chucking tree octopodes were pretty awesome, and shows like Star Wars Tech almost get there, but fall short by turning into ads for their subject matter.

What I really want to see is what's on the Discovery Channel in the Star Trek universe. It seems to me that some really cool ideas are being done a disservice by the need to connect them to a narrative with characters, resolution, and conflict.

Walrus and I had a brief opportunity to do something like this when we produced a magazine for a wierd sci-fi spaceship simulator we were involved with in the early '90s. We became the creative force for shaping the narrative surrounding this uber-geek enterprise, and it mainly took the form of an in-context magazine written for the consumption of not the players of the game, but for their in-game personae. I guess it was kind of an exercise in role-playing, really, but I liked the idea of it in a more abstract way.

I'd like to kick around the idea of a Journal of Unreal Studies--a forum for all that doesn't exist yet bears discussion nevertheless. Any ideas out there?

What Would "Back" Look Like?

There was an argument that would happen from time to time with me and SR about whether or not the film musical was 'back.' He was for, I was against. It seemed to me that it was a short trend that would last no longer than occasional bursts of westerns (remember the summers of Tombstone, Wyatt Earp, and Wild Bill that followed the success of Unforgiven? Then a whole lot of nothing except the occasional 3:10 to Yuma.)

But westerns are still being made, if occasionally. And so are musicals. Big budget musical films have continued to be produced year after year, tracking back to Chicago to this year's Mamma Mia!. Certainly they have been made with greater frequency than westerns.

But does that constitute 'back?' Does 'back' merely mean that they exist separate of isolated 'me too' trends in movie releases, or does it have to compare to the heyday of the film musical, the thirty year run where the film musical was king?

I have to admit that my criteria for denying that it was back was nested partly in that it was too early to tell, and partly in what a high watermark that musicals have left.

But now I have to conclude that this is an unfair standard. Part of what drove the film musical was the old studio system. Packaged stars and a near factory approach to film making as well as a more thoroughly integrated system meant that theaters could literally be flooded with musicals year in and year out. Most of the assessments of the musical cite the rise of rock and roll and changing sensibilities as the death of the musical, but it seems that it would be no coincidence that the decline of the musical coincides with the decline of the studio system.

Certainly the dissolving of things like the Hayes Code would change thing, changing the landscape of films from all having a more or less vanilla morality to them to grittier movies like The Man With the Golden Arm and The Bicycle Thief, that helped break the code down. Certainly there would still be room for a South Pacific in such a world, but room still had to be made.

The truth is that no single type of film could ever achieve the complete dominance the film musical used to have. The only real 'type' of film that can compare would be the blockbuster, since movie studios use these films as 'tentpoles' to support riskier projects, losses, and regular old studio maintenance.

But the thing is, these can come in any flavor, and certainly have come in the guise of musicals such as Chicago, Dreamgirls, Moulin Rouge!, Mamma Mia!. But there have been losers as well, in Phantom of the Opera, Rent, and The Producers. In fact, it seems for every major success of a movie musical there is a two laying at their feet.

However, they're still being made. For near release there is Repo! The Genetic Opera, Dark Streets, and Christmas on Mars. Unlike Dreamgirls or Chicago, none of these are based on a stage musical. Each actually attempts a new take on the musical, Dark Streets a smokey jazz fantasy/thriller, Repo! A Genetic Opera a sci fi musical from the producers of Saw, and Christmas on Mars essentially a rock band film in the vein of The Wall or Tommy, but this time for The Flaming Lips.

Honestly, none of these are likely to make much of a splash at the box office. But the thing is, they're still getting made. Not to mention upcoming releases of Jeckyll & Hyde, Aida, Jesus Christ Superstar (I was as surprised as you are), Footloose and Wicked. It's been six years since Chicago, seven since Moulin Rouge!, and almost two decades since Beauty and the Beast and Nightmare Before Christmas arguably opened the door for the modern film musical.

If I bury this in enough quasi-film paper nonsense I can quietly admit, yes, the film musical is 'back.' But it's a diminished back, a back that does not come even close to restoring its prominence. It's not a back that can rely on the Great White Way. It is a back that still carries a higher than normal risk-it doesn't have a 'place' in the calender like the spring romances, the summer action films, or the fall prestige films. And it is a tenuous back. And has been well into my denials.

But that doesn't mean that I'm going to admit that the fantasy film is back. It would have to have had a 'there' to be back from...

Toys

In a fit of boredom I added some new toys to the list on the sidebar. Most of them are for me, lazy little ways to know if their is anything new out there without me having to actually look, and a racing calender that I'll more than likely delete sooner or later, or forget it's even there. I tried to add "You Are Here" to the list of sites that alert updates but it didn't work, so you'd still have to check manually to know if she did.

I also added a subscription link, which if it works the way I think it does, means that the blog will tell you when it updates instead of forcing whoever might still be marginally interested to make futile, optimistic checks to see if we've gotten off our butts and written something. I also re-added sitemeter so I can see just how in vain it all is again. SO-42 is the camper package in my bus, Westfalia SO-42, the most common.

That's whats passing for contribution today. I wanted to add that cool 'most recent comments' thing from Incertus but I couldn't find it and it would just depress me anyway since there are hardly ever comments anyway...

EDIT: Ah, just click on it and follow instructions...and yep, instantly depressing...
EDIT II: More toys, the little question at the end of the posts that allows you to be dismissive passively...disappointing that the question cannot be customized for each post, and definitely have to come up with a better question (SR, if you got one just go ahead and change it) because I'm not so much a glutton for punishment to deal with all 'meh' responses. Palin spellings due to space.

Meta Action Hero Duel

Parallel production isn't all that uncommon-back to back summers hosted dueling volcano movies (Dante's Peak vs. the more direct Volcano) then Killer Asteroid movies (Armageddon vs. Deep Impact). I compared before battling up-coming 're-dos' of franchise films.

Coming soon two very different kinds of action heroes are staring it two very different kinds of self-referential films. This, of course, is not new. Marked by some as the beginning of the end for action hero turned 'governator,' The Last Action Hero was essentially a ham-handed commentary on Schwarzenegger's career. This new pair of films combines The Last Action Hero's 'treatise on the star' element with open referential elements in movies like The Player, Being John Malchovich, or the recent What Just Happened?.

First up is JVCD, starring Jean Claude Van Damme as Jean Claude Van Damme, aging, relevance fading, barely enough energy to keep up even his tarnished star. The down on his luck Van Damme finds himself in the middle of a hostage crisis - no stunt co-coordinators, no fight choreographing - just plain pedestrian victimhood, seasoned with the reputation of a former action star. His groin aching splits and lightening kicks don't win the day, but instead appear as a side show display in an attempt to amuse his captors and prolong his life.

The other side of the coin is My Name is Bruce, starring Bruce Campbell again as Bruce Campbell, B-movie star drunk (almost literally) on his own niche fame. In contrast to JVCD's image in contrast to stark reality approach, My Name is Bruce has the reality meet the fantasy of Campbell's persona. Ultimately they are the same story - actor meets 'real' situations that they have portrayed in movies and has to deal accordingly. It just so happens that Campbell's world is of pure fantasy.

On the surface, these stories are not new. Comedies such as The Three Amigos and Galaxyquest have dealt with actors famous for a genre of film being thrust into a 'real' situation. There's even a Twilight Zone episode where a cowboy hero finds himself face to face with the 'real' Jesse James.

My Name is Bruce takes the traditionally self effacing route, appearing to paint himself as comedically incompetent after previous false bravado. (the trailer seems to even take a swipe at Van Damme as the overly arrogant Campbell touts his action hero credentials including, "Speaking English.")

The self-effacing also has a strong tradition, such as in Free Enterprise where William Shatner leans heavily on his reputation of being a slightly off balance good natured ego maniac (in the film hoping to stage a one man show production of Hamlet).

In contrast JVCD seems to take a slightly more sober 'treatise on the twilight of stardom' look, a sort of high kicking Sunset Boulevard. (Alright, I admit that at this point part of me is just seeing how many films these two can be said to drawing upon)

This is keeping with dueling concept movies, Dante's Peak being the slightly more sober volcano movie to Volcano's over the top 'volcano in LA' premise, Armageddon's 'rock star drillers on an asteroid' vs the 'there's nothing we can do but accept that we're going to get hit by an asteroid' Deep Impact. For what it's worth, over the top trumps sober every time. (though that doesn't seem as likely this time as Campbell will be touring personally with his film, joining Tarantino's Grindhouse throwback to personality driven B-movie hey day. (seriously, once you start it's hard to stop...) and JCVD will have traditional release)

Which means in all likely-hood I won't be able to compare them (not that after my long to-do about Diary of the Dead I actually saw it...<.< >.>) unless this suddenly becomes a well read and often updated site making me an actual critic and I get invitations to these things. But for that to happen these rambles would have to come to some sort of conclusion. But for a dueling themed movies, I'll take self-examining action heroes over asteroids any day.

The Return of Lonesome Rhodes

I don't want all of my posts regarding media and culture to relate to the same three movies, but it's far to appropriate that avoiding it would be conspicuous.

Lonesome Rhodes, for those who don't know, is the name of the character played by Andy Griffith in the 1997 Elia Kazan film, A Face in the Crowd. The movie tells the story of Rhodes as he is discovered by a radio documentarian in a rural jail. His folksy wisdom soon earns him a following that is exploited by the people around. His popularity is snowballed until he and his handlers start to fancy him a king-maker and he becomes corrupted with his own power.

There are two reads to this-that Rhodes was an essentially good man who was corrupted, or Rhodes was a mean man that a cult could conceal for only so long. The movie certainly leans on the former, with Walter Mathau's line, "You gotta be a saint to stand all the power that little box(TV) can give you." For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't really mater.

By now, I'm sure, it's obvious why I'm bringing this up. Just about every one has talked Joe Wurzelbacker in some capacity or another by now, to the point that I don't have to give any background on it. But it's exactly that kind of attention that brings me to mention him and one of my favorite movies.

Since Joe's debut in the final election he has had what could be considered a predictable arc. The media camped out on the man's lawn and mined him for every opinion he might have. Lou Dobbs has endorsed the man for the Senate. He has a book, publicist, and is even considering a album. And Joe is on the campaign trail. Consider for a moment this scene from A Face in the Crowd-

Lonesome Rhodes: This whole country's just like my flock of sheep!
Marcia Jeffries: Sheep?
Lonesome Rhodes: Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers - everybody that's got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don't know it yet, but they're all gonna be 'Fighters for Fuller'. They're mine! I own 'em! They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for 'em. Marcia, you just wait and see. I'm gonna be the power behind the president - and you'll be the power behind me!

In my previous post comparing a media figure to Rhodes (and Howard Beale and Brian from Life of Brian) I gave the figure credit for having enough of a sense of irony and self awareness to not be consumed by it, Howard Beale style. I don't know that it is true of our friend Joe.

There are two paths for Joe now, depending on how the person who thrust him into the spot light fares next Tuesday-he will either be the everyman kingmaker that saved the day for McCain or an Alamo-like symbol for a party looking to create a new identity after a devastating loss.

Either way, he is a product of the machine now, and the machine is not kind. The Lou Dobbs Chris Crocker-esque defense of Joe will only last so long. We won't need a Mel Miller to flick on a camera feed to let us know the real Wurzelbacker.

A Face in the Crowd contains one of the best and prophetic monologues at the end of the film after Rhodes is exposed for the bastard he has become (or always was)-

Lonesome Rhodes: Listen, I'm not through yet. You know what's gonna to happen to me?
Mel Miller: Suppose I tell you exactly what's gonna happen to you. You're gonna be back in television. Only it won't be quite the same as it was before. There'll be a reasonable cooling-off period and then somebody will say: "Why don't we try him again in a inexpensive format. People's memories aren't too long." And you know, in a way, he'll be right. Some of the people will forget, and some of them won't. Oh, you'll have a show. Maybe not the best hour or, you know, top 10. Maybe not even in the top 35. But you'll have a show. It just won't be quite the same as it was before. Then a couple of new fellas will come along. And pretty soon, a lot of your fans will be flocking around them. And then one day, somebody'll ask: "Whatever happened to, a, whatshisname? You know, the one who was so big. The number-one fella a couple of years ago. He was famous. How can we forget a name like that? Oh by the way, have you seen, a, Barry Mills? I think he's the greatest thing since Will Rogers."

After that, Miller calls to the applause machine operator to leave Rhodes with his canned audience.

That was fifty years ago. Before we went from three channels to hunderds. Before the internet and Web 2.0. Miller's life cycle still exists, but it now has an almost Moore's Law quality to it. He has to strike while the iron is hot because it cools quickly these days. It's not there is a lack of precedent, former Survivor contestants co-host shows, former reality show subjects host other reality shows as the monster eats itself.

But cynicism aside, we are a content hungry audience and novelty only will get you so far.

I don't know that Joe is ready for his own spotlight, much less his future as a footnote in presidential elections. It's easy to imagine your life as a kingmaker, not always as easy to imagine your life as an answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

Pt. 11 Finale:Berlin's Rough Patch

Berlin had a rough fifty years in the latter half of the twentieth century. If nothing else, it certainly as made the really good at memorializing.

First up was the Jewish museum. The only building in Berlin with more barriers and security (including the Reichstag) was the U.S. consulate. It's not so much for the threat of someone attacking it, but rather the demonstration of how serious they were about it.

The architecture was remarkable, and purposefully disorienting. It's dominated by this crazy criss-cross pattern.


Apparently this can be reconfigured into the Star of David.

Among the various instilations meant to deal with themes like diaspora, there was this one-

The room, with a ceiling several stories high, was filled with thousands of metal carved faces-

The visitor is invited to walk on them, which once suggested becomes a disturbing prospect. It's at once a hamhanded and effective symbol. In the antiseptic atmosphere of the museum, sharing the Perganon Museum's audio tour silenced vistors-wandering out onto the instillation is a little surreal. The clanks of the metal faces against each other under foot echo through the chamber. I noted that it sounded a bit like their cries, and was disturbed by the fact that it made me walk further. Not to say it was a metal Stanford Prison Experiment, but still.

One of the center pieces was an instillation that was supposed to memorialize the disorientation of the uprooted Jewish people. You exit the building into a into a courtyard with uneven floors and tall rectangular columns with a plant canopy filtering the sun.

It's impressive, not so much the second time-

Apparently, when it came time to build a Jewish Holocaust Memorial there was a contest on the design. The winner? A large expanse with an uneven floor and tall gray rectangular columns. One hundred feet from the Jewish History Museum, with it's display with an uneven floor and tall gray rectangular columns.

Also, disappointingly, it's the Jewish Holocaust Memorial because the counsel representing the Jewish community did not want to share this memorial with other victims of the Holocaust, meaning that homosexuals and gypsies had different, non-central memorials.

Across the street was a clutch of shops and restaurants, one of which had this out front-

Go USA.

There were reminders of that dark part of Berlin's history-a plaque down the street from my host's apartment noted a former train depot where Jews were loaded on board. It was a little harrowing, at least this time I had something to compare it with. It was the same feeling that hit me when I found out the mall I performed as the Easter Bunny was on the site of a Japanese internment camp. Not as severe by orders of magnitude, but still...

But that history doesn't leave the same kind of scar as the Berlin Wall. They only recently have started to create the memorial to that, preserving one section-

complete with 'zone of death'-

It's hard to imagine any country would want to build something like this again.

Just sayin'.

Well, that's it-that's the Germany trip. If you read through each update hoping for something like, "How the hell did someone like you end up in Germany?" and "Who is 'the host'?" well, sorry. Maybe later.

The complete photo album can be seen here. Maybe I'll even get around to labeling all of them...