Two more films last night, in the only night in the Victoria for Holehead this year. Today (Friday) we move to our traditional home of the Roxie for a week before having the final weekend in the intimate confines of the Vortex Room (fair warning, if you want to see anything at the Vortex room, it's an awesome space but there's only room for about 50 people, and the passholders will take up about a third of that. So get tickets early because it's likely to fill up.)
Anyway, the first show was supposed to start with a short called SACKED. But...something to do with the DVD not arriving or not working and no backup...anyway, it was cancelled. Sucks, but I've come to expect at least one technical screwup like that in every Holehead. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck, though.
Anyway, the first feature was A LITTLE BIT ZOMBIE, and I have to give them credit for attacking the zombie genre with a ton of slapstick glee. There's a zombie hunting duo of a psychotic, heavily armed old man (with a fondness for tactical bacon) and a young female researcher who wrote the book on zombies and carries an unexplained mystical orb that glows and points the way to zombies. Then there's the vacationing couples. The engaged couple--the nice corporate conflict resolution specialist and his domineering bitch of a fiance. And the other couple is his sister and her husband/his best friend. Well, long story short he gets bit by a mosquito full of zombie blood and starts turning. But he also resists the infection pretty well, I assume because of his awesome conflict resolution skills. And that's the source of most of the slapstick. He finds that he's impervious to pain and eating anything other than brains makes him throw up (it's just a dietary restriction!) Like most slapstick, some gags work and some fall flat. I wasn't really getting into the movie until the big projectile vomit scene. Ultimately, it was pretty fun, although [SPOILER ALERT!!!] I really wanted that bitch of a fiance to die in the end. Oh yeah, and it had a cute little bunny in it!
Next up was FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS a movie about meta-movies that's so meta it crawls up its own ass, out its mouth, and back up its ass again (maybe 5 more times. It's like the INCEPTION of head-up-your-ass movies.) People Persons has gone off to Hollywood to become a star. But celebrity has changed him, so he goes back to San Francisco to reconnect with his roots and mend fences with his former friends, chiefly Sherman Firecracker, the struggling auteur behind such ideas as THE KILLING FIELDS...on ice! When they get together they decide ultimately to make a movie called...FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS about People Persons (playing himself) returning to San Francisco and reconnecting with his friends to make a low budget...monster movie. But the lines between the movie and reality get so blurred that he doesn't know if he's fake killing his friends in a movie or really killing them in real life. And that's just the first half, before it contorts itself into yet more layers of reality/artifice (and, of course, the whole thing is just a movie anyway.) I think it started as a clever idea, maybe good for a 20-30 minute short, tops. But stretching it out to 87 minutes it just ended up dragging on, and on, and on. When someone yelling, "cut" and revealing one more layer of movie-making isn't surprising but annoying, you should stop.
Total Running Time: 174 minutes
My Total Minutes: 305,139
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Jason goes to Holehead--Opening Night
San Francisco's premiere (and to my knowledge, only) horror, fantasy, and sci-fi film festival kicked off last night at the Terra Gallery. I had a few beers and then settled in for the opening night film, Richard Elfman's FORBIDDEN ZONE.
The black and white version of FORBIDDEN ZONE actually played as a midnight movie at Another Hole in the Head back in 2007, and as a result of my write-up my blog is still (as of the time of this writing) the #1 Google search result for "Richard Elfman's taint."
He mooned the audience again twice more before the movie and twice after during the Q&A. I swear it's to the point where I could pick his ass out of a lineup more easily than my own.
Anyway, the festivities started with the old Betty Boop/Cab Calloway cartoon MINNIE THE MOOCHER (1932), since that is one of the obvious influences on FORBIDDEN ZONE.
And then we were treated to a teaser trailer for FORBIDDEN ZONE 2: FORBIDDEN GALAXY. I really hope it's finished soon. The Youtube trailer says 2012. The one I saw last night was exactly the same but said 2013. I hope it isn't in development hell forever (and Richard insisted he can still bully his little brother Danny Elfman around, so he will have to come back as the devil and possibly more.)
Anyway, on to the feature, FORBIDDEN ZONE. Here's what I wrote back in 2007:
Speaking of which, Richard Elfman also admitted he doesn't do drugs (although I can confirm he drinks.) This actually doesn't surprise me. It in fact reminds me of the Alejandro Jodorowsky quote, "I try to do with cinema what Americans do with recreational drugs." You don't need (recreational) drugs if you already have these images in your head.
I was also surprised to learn Richard Elfman was once part of the Cockettes, the notorious San Francisco drag musical theater group. I don't know if he knows the Thrillpeddlers have been reviving the Cockettes' musicals as part of their Theater of the Absurd. Now I shall fantasize about a Thrillpeddlers Forbidden Zone collaboration.
But, most importantly, I think I started to understand what's going on in the movie. I'm beginning to understand some of the machinations of King Fausto, Queen Doris, Princess Polly, etc. I still don't know what the giant frog-headed servant is about. But I'm becoming convinced that if I watch it enough, it will all make sense. And that scares me. Which is what Holehead is all about. So I guess it's off to a great start!
Total Running Time: 83 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,965
The black and white version of FORBIDDEN ZONE actually played as a midnight movie at Another Hole in the Head back in 2007, and as a result of my write-up my blog is still (as of the time of this writing) the #1 Google search result for "Richard Elfman's taint."
He mooned the audience again twice more before the movie and twice after during the Q&A. I swear it's to the point where I could pick his ass out of a lineup more easily than my own.
Anyway, the festivities started with the old Betty Boop/Cab Calloway cartoon MINNIE THE MOOCHER (1932), since that is one of the obvious influences on FORBIDDEN ZONE.
And then we were treated to a teaser trailer for FORBIDDEN ZONE 2: FORBIDDEN GALAXY. I really hope it's finished soon. The Youtube trailer says 2012. The one I saw last night was exactly the same but said 2013. I hope it isn't in development hell forever (and Richard insisted he can still bully his little brother Danny Elfman around, so he will have to come back as the devil and possibly more.)
Anyway, on to the feature, FORBIDDEN ZONE. Here's what I wrote back in 2007:
I'd never seen this 1980 [Note: it's actually from 1982, this was a special 30th anniversary screening. I don't know how I got that wrong. --Jason] cult classic from the brother of composer Danny Elfman (who scores the film with his Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo and appears as Satan himself), and after watching it, I'm still not sure if I've seen it. An odd bit of black and white comic surrealism, the Hercules family lives in a house with a secret passage to the Sixth Dimension, where Herve Villachez is king, there's a frog servant, and...what the fuck did I just watch? I'm not even going to bother. I've seen some strange-ass movies in my time, but this one walks that fine line of having just enough pretense of a plot to make you think you should be able to follow it. You can't, don't try.Okay, well the biggest superficial difference is that it's now colorized. In the Q&A, Richard revealed his original plan, before he ran out of money, was to have the Forbidden Zone sequences hand-tinted in the manner of old silent films. He says the new colorized version is the only one he can watch anymore. However, after hearing that my favorite version is the one that only exists in my mind--where the "real world" is black and white and the Forbidden Zone is hand-tinted colors, like some sort of even more demented acid trip version of THE WIZARD OF OZ.
Speaking of which, Richard Elfman also admitted he doesn't do drugs (although I can confirm he drinks.) This actually doesn't surprise me. It in fact reminds me of the Alejandro Jodorowsky quote, "I try to do with cinema what Americans do with recreational drugs." You don't need (recreational) drugs if you already have these images in your head.
I was also surprised to learn Richard Elfman was once part of the Cockettes, the notorious San Francisco drag musical theater group. I don't know if he knows the Thrillpeddlers have been reviving the Cockettes' musicals as part of their Theater of the Absurd. Now I shall fantasize about a Thrillpeddlers Forbidden Zone collaboration.
But, most importantly, I think I started to understand what's going on in the movie. I'm beginning to understand some of the machinations of King Fausto, Queen Doris, Princess Polly, etc. I still don't know what the giant frog-headed servant is about. But I'm becoming convinced that if I watch it enough, it will all make sense. And that scares me. Which is what Holehead is all about. So I guess it's off to a great start!
Total Running Time: 83 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,965
Jason watches WRECK-IT RALPH
And I kind of enjoyed it, possibly despite my better judgement.
But first, there was a short animated film, PAPERMAN. A simple love story between a man, a woman, and a whole lot of airborne paper (with a BRAZIL homage in there, but I guess from the "Love Conquers All" version of BRAZIL.) It was cute and simple and more than a little old-fashioned. Not just in how it actually uses traditional hand-drawn animation, but in how it's a silent (that is, dialogue-free,) mostly black-and-white film.
But first, there was a short animated film, PAPERMAN. A simple love story between a man, a woman, and a whole lot of airborne paper (with a BRAZIL homage in there, but I guess from the "Love Conquers All" version of BRAZIL.) It was cute and simple and more than a little old-fashioned. Not just in how it actually uses traditional hand-drawn animation, but in how it's a silent (that is, dialogue-free,) mostly black-and-white film.
And then the feature, WRECK-IT RALPH. It's hook is as a nostalgia trip through a world of classic 8-bit video games (it's possible the most unrealistic conceit isn't that video game characters have lives of their own, it's that a video arcade would still be in business today.) John C. Reilly voiced the title character, a video game villain who is tired of getting no respect. As he says, "It's hard to love your job if everyone hates you for doing it." So he goes rogue, or in the lingo of the video games, "goes turbo" (explaining what that means would be too much of a spoiler.) He escapes into other games and starts, well, wrecking everything. Not on purpose, that's just sort of what he does. And along the way he meets a glitchy little adorably annoying girl in a candy-themed racing game (voice of Sarah Silverman.) That relationship is the real heart of the film, and takes it from being a gimmicky nostalgia trip to a real character-driven story. And the story is sweet, kind of sappy, predictable but still pretty exciting.
And then after the movie I thought about the message for a while. On the one hand, it has a dignified, blue-collar moral of the value of honest work, and how nobody appreciates the valuable lower-rung laborer until he's gone. On the other hand, it's also a message about the dangers of trying to go "against the program." Learn to be happy with your lot in life, and never reach for anything better. And that's why I say I might have enjoyed it against my better judgement.
And then after the movie I thought about the message for a while. On the one hand, it has a dignified, blue-collar moral of the value of honest work, and how nobody appreciates the valuable lower-rung laborer until he's gone. On the other hand, it's also a message about the dangers of trying to go "against the program." Learn to be happy with your lot in life, and never reach for anything better. And that's why I say I might have enjoyed it against my better judgement.
Total Running Time: 108 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,883
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Jason watches LINCOLN
And it's good, really good. Daniel Day-Lewis is, of course, brilliant and disappears in the role of Lincoln. I'd call him a lock for an Oscar but then I remember Joaquin Phoenix in THE MASTER and I'm torn. In any case, Daniel Day-Lewis creates an Abraham Lincoln who is full of good humor and illustrative stories (even echoes of Jesus' fondness for parables), and equal parts courage, righteousness, wisdom, and guile. It's that guile--the political machinations that contort the conscience all in effort of the greater good--that's the backbone of the story. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
It's a well written, engaging story. It eschews the 'whole life arc' that bogs down too many biopics, instead focusing on arguably the most important month of Lincoln's career. That would be January of 1865, just after his re-election, as he tries to push the 13th amendment (you know, that anti-slavery one) through a bitter, divided, and partisan House of Representatives.
Throwing the audience in the middle of this with not context might be a bit jarring with other figures, but I think it's safe to assume that pretty much everyone who sees this movie knows who Lincoln was and knows that America fought a civil war over slavery. I.e., it's not really without context, it just trusts the audience to bring the context into the theater with them and figures (rightly) that spoon-feeding the audience would be more insulting than enlightening. As such, I'm curious how it plays overseas to audiences who don't know as much about Lincoln and the American Civil War (how much is generally known about Lincoln in other countries?)
It also challenges the oft-told story that the Civil War had more to do with states' rights than slavery. It even obliquely mentions the Lincoln quote that "If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it...." (the film mentions he had said it three years earlier, and his position was much more firm as The Great Emancipator now.) In fact, it makes the compelling case that Lincoln could have negotiated a peace in January (instead of the surrender at Appomattox in April, after yet another "spring massacre") but to do so would have scuttled his attempts at getting the 13th amendment ratified. Perhaps to many it was a fight over the principle of states' rights, but to the commander-in-chief, at least by the end of the war (and according to this film), it was a fight over slavery.
All that and I haven't even mentioned my favorite character yet. Tommy Lee Jones as Congressman and fierce proponent of racial equality Thaddeus Stevens. He is the north star of the story's moral compass, while Lincoln is the crafty navigator who knows how to avoid the swamps and canyons in the treacherous path north. His 'I don't hold to equality in all things, only equality under the law' speech is easily my favorite part of the movie. Starting as a craven betrayal of his lofty principles for political expediency, he turns it into a venomous mocking dismissal of his opponents. Absolutely freakin' awesome! And for someone who really knew nothing about him before seeing the film, the big reveal at the end was...well, sweet. He seems a complicated, colorful, and fascinating character. Another movie could be made just about him.
Running Time: 150 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,535
It's a well written, engaging story. It eschews the 'whole life arc' that bogs down too many biopics, instead focusing on arguably the most important month of Lincoln's career. That would be January of 1865, just after his re-election, as he tries to push the 13th amendment (you know, that anti-slavery one) through a bitter, divided, and partisan House of Representatives.
Throwing the audience in the middle of this with not context might be a bit jarring with other figures, but I think it's safe to assume that pretty much everyone who sees this movie knows who Lincoln was and knows that America fought a civil war over slavery. I.e., it's not really without context, it just trusts the audience to bring the context into the theater with them and figures (rightly) that spoon-feeding the audience would be more insulting than enlightening. As such, I'm curious how it plays overseas to audiences who don't know as much about Lincoln and the American Civil War (how much is generally known about Lincoln in other countries?)
It also challenges the oft-told story that the Civil War had more to do with states' rights than slavery. It even obliquely mentions the Lincoln quote that "If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it...." (the film mentions he had said it three years earlier, and his position was much more firm as The Great Emancipator now.) In fact, it makes the compelling case that Lincoln could have negotiated a peace in January (instead of the surrender at Appomattox in April, after yet another "spring massacre") but to do so would have scuttled his attempts at getting the 13th amendment ratified. Perhaps to many it was a fight over the principle of states' rights, but to the commander-in-chief, at least by the end of the war (and according to this film), it was a fight over slavery.
All that and I haven't even mentioned my favorite character yet. Tommy Lee Jones as Congressman and fierce proponent of racial equality Thaddeus Stevens. He is the north star of the story's moral compass, while Lincoln is the crafty navigator who knows how to avoid the swamps and canyons in the treacherous path north. His 'I don't hold to equality in all things, only equality under the law' speech is easily my favorite part of the movie. Starting as a craven betrayal of his lofty principles for political expediency, he turns it into a venomous mocking dismissal of his opponents. Absolutely freakin' awesome! And for someone who really knew nothing about him before seeing the film, the big reveal at the end was...well, sweet. He seems a complicated, colorful, and fascinating character. Another movie could be made just about him.
Running Time: 150 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,535
Monday, November 26, 2012
Jason watches SKYFALL
And yes, its an exciting action thriller worthy of James Bond, if you ignore the plot holes. It also has a ridiculously omniscient super-villain (Javier Bardem) who would be worthy of Batman.
But I digress. The fact is, I've gone on record before saying that as much as I recognize that Daniel Craig is surely the most talented actor to ever play Bond (sorry Sean Connery) he's not actually my favorite Bond (sorry Daniel Craig, I'm still a Sean Connery guy.) And I think I can now articulate why.
In 1995 GOLDENEYE came out ushering in the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. And I was excited, it had been 6 years since Timothy Dalton ended his run in LICENCE TO KILL (still the longest gap between Bond films.) I was in college at the time and asked one of my friends if he was excited that they were making a new Bond film. He replied, "No, because I'm not 12 anymore."
After much thinking, I realized that was what I liked about Bond. His adventures could always take me back to a place where I was emotionally 12 years old and I could fantasize about growing up to be James Bond. And through all the different iterations (even George Lazenby) I could watch the movie and say, "Damn, I wanna be James Bond!" He is the epitome of the classic character who 'all the women want and all the men want to be.'
And then Daniel Craig came in. And the producers decides to make a grittier, tougher, more realistic (if realism means anything in the Bond universe) take on the hero. They starting making Bond movies that appeal your adult side, not your inner 12 year old. And I...just...don't...want...that. I generally forgave CASINO ROYALE (QUANTUM OF SOLACE is kind of a muddle, so let's not speak of it) as an "origin" story with the promise that after some learning curve Craig's Bond would become more like Sean Connery's uber-cool, unflappable Bond. That he'd gain his 'Bond swagger.' But dammit, as unforgettable as the scene of Mads Mikkelsen whipping a naked, chair-bound Daniel Craig in the balls was, at that moment I definitely didn't want to be James Bond.
Well, SKYFALL offers a few glimpses of that Bond swagger. Most notably in the opening action sequence (shown in most of the trailers, so not really a spoiler) when he jumps into a car of a moving train while the cars behind him are destroyed and gives a quick little adjustment to his cuff links. That's a great, classic Bond swagger scene.
But then...it doesn't carry that swagger through. And it's not that he's still learning the ropes, becoming jaded and cool. This is explicitly an older Bond, one who even if he's not pondering retirement others are pondering it for him. But they don't focus on how freaking cool Bond is, they focus on how troubled he is (he wins ultimately by simply being more driven than the psycho bad guy, not by being more talented.) Well, why the hell would I fantasize about being a psychologically damaged alcoholic? Or, more importantly, why would my inner 12 year old fantasize about that? There's really no answer to this question, because this movie isn't aimed at my inner 12 year old. It's aimed at psychologically damaged alcoholics who want to fantasize that they can still be heroes somehow.
Anyway, it really is a pretty good movie, and my rant is my own problem, not the movie's. But it is what it is.
Running Time: 143 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,385
But I digress. The fact is, I've gone on record before saying that as much as I recognize that Daniel Craig is surely the most talented actor to ever play Bond (sorry Sean Connery) he's not actually my favorite Bond (sorry Daniel Craig, I'm still a Sean Connery guy.) And I think I can now articulate why.
In 1995 GOLDENEYE came out ushering in the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. And I was excited, it had been 6 years since Timothy Dalton ended his run in LICENCE TO KILL (still the longest gap between Bond films.) I was in college at the time and asked one of my friends if he was excited that they were making a new Bond film. He replied, "No, because I'm not 12 anymore."
After much thinking, I realized that was what I liked about Bond. His adventures could always take me back to a place where I was emotionally 12 years old and I could fantasize about growing up to be James Bond. And through all the different iterations (even George Lazenby) I could watch the movie and say, "Damn, I wanna be James Bond!" He is the epitome of the classic character who 'all the women want and all the men want to be.'
And then Daniel Craig came in. And the producers decides to make a grittier, tougher, more realistic (if realism means anything in the Bond universe) take on the hero. They starting making Bond movies that appeal your adult side, not your inner 12 year old. And I...just...don't...want...that. I generally forgave CASINO ROYALE (QUANTUM OF SOLACE is kind of a muddle, so let's not speak of it) as an "origin" story with the promise that after some learning curve Craig's Bond would become more like Sean Connery's uber-cool, unflappable Bond. That he'd gain his 'Bond swagger.' But dammit, as unforgettable as the scene of Mads Mikkelsen whipping a naked, chair-bound Daniel Craig in the balls was, at that moment I definitely didn't want to be James Bond.
Well, SKYFALL offers a few glimpses of that Bond swagger. Most notably in the opening action sequence (shown in most of the trailers, so not really a spoiler) when he jumps into a car of a moving train while the cars behind him are destroyed and gives a quick little adjustment to his cuff links. That's a great, classic Bond swagger scene.
But then...it doesn't carry that swagger through. And it's not that he's still learning the ropes, becoming jaded and cool. This is explicitly an older Bond, one who even if he's not pondering retirement others are pondering it for him. But they don't focus on how freaking cool Bond is, they focus on how troubled he is (he wins ultimately by simply being more driven than the psycho bad guy, not by being more talented.) Well, why the hell would I fantasize about being a psychologically damaged alcoholic? Or, more importantly, why would my inner 12 year old fantasize about that? There's really no answer to this question, because this movie isn't aimed at my inner 12 year old. It's aimed at psychologically damaged alcoholics who want to fantasize that they can still be heroes somehow.
Anyway, it really is a pretty good movie, and my rant is my own problem, not the movie's. But it is what it is.
Running Time: 143 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,385
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Jason goes to Docfest--Day 7
For those keeping score at home, yes I skipped day 6. I was at a top secret film club in...an undisclosed location. This (last Wednesday) was also my last day of Docfest for this year, as I have a more important family obligation.
First up, we started with a short film HANGING DOWNTOWN, a brief profile of Jason Escape, a Boston comedian/magician/escape artist/street performer. As the highlight of his act, he is bound in a strait jacket and tied in thick ropes and then hung upside-down 20 feet in the air as he escapes. Pretty wild act, and a pretty interesting guy.
That was the lead-in to WITHOUT A NET, a term which could describe both the circus acts and the lives of the various young performers in a "social circus" in the ghetto of Rio de Janiero. The circus tent was put up in an abandoned parking lot (since the making of the movie it has been moved to make way for infrastructure for the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, and is also under new management.) The owners run the circus and teach circus performing to the youth in the neighborhood as a way to give them self-confidence and keep them away from the drugs and violence of the favela. It's a nice behind-the-scenes look at making the show, but the show is almost secondary from the difficult lives from which the kids are using the circus as an escape. And, it's important to note, more often than not it's a temporary escape. Some go on to professional careers, but for the most part one year later everyone is still just struggling to survive. In a way, it seems a little naive to think that a circus will somehow solve all their problems. And it doesn't...but it is a rare positive element to their lives, and that's important in and of itself.
And then the second show I caught was MARRIED AND COUNTING, the epic love story of Pat Dwyer and Stephen Mosher. Sweethearts since college (in North Texas) they've been together nearly 25 years. And while there are a few places in the U.S.A. where they can get married, in most states they can't. And even if they did, the federal government under DOMA wouldn't recognize it, nor would it force any other state to recognize it (at the time of the beginning of the film, their home state of New York would recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, but didn't sanction their own--that changes midway through the film.) So they decide to celebrate their 25 years together by getting married in every state that will allow it (note: civil unions don't count) culminating on their 25th anniversary with a wedding in Washington D.C. on the steps of the Supreme Court. But the politics really takes a back seat to the personal. The two of them fretting over being late to the clerk's office in Vermont for their marriage license is no different than any other couple's wedding jitters (well, I guess it's a little difference, because they had to drive to another state.) You could easily call this an example of making the political personal. But for me they do such an amazing job of opening up their lives and love to the audience that it really highlights the absurd injustice of making their personal lives politcal.
And I want to leave it at that (and add a shout-out to George Takei as the narrator.) It's a beautiful, personal story. So the rest of this post just happens to be a related political rant that is my personal view and is far more strident than anything actually in the film.
I support same-sex marriage (in case you couldn't already tell.) And I prefer to call it marriage instead of "civil union" or "domestic partnership." With that said, for many years I have taken the position that those who support the same rights for same-sex couples but want to keep the word "marriage" for heterosexual couples are allies on this issues. Rights are more important than words, and as long as this is still a fight for rights I'm willing to be flexible on the words. If I could snap my fingers and make same-sex civil unions (with all the rights and privileges of marriage, just not the word) the law of the land across the country, I would consider the battle won and not worry about the words. This has been my position for many years, and continues to be my position. But I don't believe it's the ideal, I believe it's a reasonable goal given the current political climate (heck, even George W. Bush has shown acceptance of civil unions.) It's reasonable to believe universal legal status of civil unions--equal to that of marriage--is an achievable goal and we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good by insisting on the word "marriage" (even if it's a preferable word.)
With that said, I would ask everyone who backs civil unions but balks at calling same-sex unions "marriages" consider this: Would you back a law that redefines murder so that the killing of an African American is punishable exactly the same as a "real" murder, but is officially called "nigger-killing?" The legal prohibition on nigger-killing would be exactly the same as, and carry the same punishments, as murder, so all the same legal rights and protections exist, the difference is purely in the word that is used. I suspect most of you are offended by my suggestion (if you're not, kindly get the fuck out of here.) I also suspect many of you will (rightly) find fault with my metaphor (for one, "civil union" was never meant as an epithet.) But I offer this example as a simple illustration of the fact that WORDS... ARE... IMPORTANT.
Total Running Time: 168 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,259
First up, we started with a short film HANGING DOWNTOWN, a brief profile of Jason Escape, a Boston comedian/magician/escape artist/street performer. As the highlight of his act, he is bound in a strait jacket and tied in thick ropes and then hung upside-down 20 feet in the air as he escapes. Pretty wild act, and a pretty interesting guy.
That was the lead-in to WITHOUT A NET, a term which could describe both the circus acts and the lives of the various young performers in a "social circus" in the ghetto of Rio de Janiero. The circus tent was put up in an abandoned parking lot (since the making of the movie it has been moved to make way for infrastructure for the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, and is also under new management.) The owners run the circus and teach circus performing to the youth in the neighborhood as a way to give them self-confidence and keep them away from the drugs and violence of the favela. It's a nice behind-the-scenes look at making the show, but the show is almost secondary from the difficult lives from which the kids are using the circus as an escape. And, it's important to note, more often than not it's a temporary escape. Some go on to professional careers, but for the most part one year later everyone is still just struggling to survive. In a way, it seems a little naive to think that a circus will somehow solve all their problems. And it doesn't...but it is a rare positive element to their lives, and that's important in and of itself.
And then the second show I caught was MARRIED AND COUNTING, the epic love story of Pat Dwyer and Stephen Mosher. Sweethearts since college (in North Texas) they've been together nearly 25 years. And while there are a few places in the U.S.A. where they can get married, in most states they can't. And even if they did, the federal government under DOMA wouldn't recognize it, nor would it force any other state to recognize it (at the time of the beginning of the film, their home state of New York would recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, but didn't sanction their own--that changes midway through the film.) So they decide to celebrate their 25 years together by getting married in every state that will allow it (note: civil unions don't count) culminating on their 25th anniversary with a wedding in Washington D.C. on the steps of the Supreme Court. But the politics really takes a back seat to the personal. The two of them fretting over being late to the clerk's office in Vermont for their marriage license is no different than any other couple's wedding jitters (well, I guess it's a little difference, because they had to drive to another state.) You could easily call this an example of making the political personal. But for me they do such an amazing job of opening up their lives and love to the audience that it really highlights the absurd injustice of making their personal lives politcal.
And I want to leave it at that (and add a shout-out to George Takei as the narrator.) It's a beautiful, personal story. So the rest of this post just happens to be a related political rant that is my personal view and is far more strident than anything actually in the film.
I support same-sex marriage (in case you couldn't already tell.) And I prefer to call it marriage instead of "civil union" or "domestic partnership." With that said, for many years I have taken the position that those who support the same rights for same-sex couples but want to keep the word "marriage" for heterosexual couples are allies on this issues. Rights are more important than words, and as long as this is still a fight for rights I'm willing to be flexible on the words. If I could snap my fingers and make same-sex civil unions (with all the rights and privileges of marriage, just not the word) the law of the land across the country, I would consider the battle won and not worry about the words. This has been my position for many years, and continues to be my position. But I don't believe it's the ideal, I believe it's a reasonable goal given the current political climate (heck, even George W. Bush has shown acceptance of civil unions.) It's reasonable to believe universal legal status of civil unions--equal to that of marriage--is an achievable goal and we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good by insisting on the word "marriage" (even if it's a preferable word.)
With that said, I would ask everyone who backs civil unions but balks at calling same-sex unions "marriages" consider this: Would you back a law that redefines murder so that the killing of an African American is punishable exactly the same as a "real" murder, but is officially called "nigger-killing?" The legal prohibition on nigger-killing would be exactly the same as, and carry the same punishments, as murder, so all the same legal rights and protections exist, the difference is purely in the word that is used. I suspect most of you are offended by my suggestion (if you're not, kindly get the fuck out of here.) I also suspect many of you will (rightly) find fault with my metaphor (for one, "civil union" was never meant as an epithet.) But I offer this example as a simple illustration of the fact that WORDS... ARE... IMPORTANT.
Total Running Time: 168 minutes
My Total Minutes: 304,259
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Jason goes to Docfest--Day 5
Okay, two more shows last Monday, starting with the shorts block Women Warriors:
NATSANAT: The word means "freedom" and is the story of Ethiopian women freedom fighters who sacrificed either years of their lives or their entire lives but were a major part not just of winning freedom but in forming the new government. Really amazing women.
MOTHER ART TELLS HER STORY: The story of feminist mother artists in 70s Los Angeles. Finding a conflict between motherhood and an art career (at least one was told the only way she would ever be a serious artist is to leave her husband and child and devote herself to art full time) they decided to form their own collective and create art based on the themes of motherhood. E.g., performance and poetry in laundromats, "cleaning up" the banks and city hall. They even came under attack from conservative politicians (including Reagan) as a waste of government money (because they got a $700 grant for their laundromat performance. And no, I didn't forget a zero or two in there, $700 was considered a waste of money.) Interesting people and artists, but I thought the movie started to drag as it went into fully detail on everything they did. It's a 40 minute film, and can probably be trimmed to 30.
THE GASKETTES: The fun adventures of an all-girl moped riding gang. Ummm...not much more to say than that. It's fun to watch, the girls are cool, and it's obvious that they're having a lot of fun.
And then there was a movie that blurred the documentary/narrative line while telling a story that blurs the reality/interactive game line. THE INSTITUTE is the story of the Jejune Institute, which is kind of a new-agey cult. And it's the starting point (for many) of a game of Nonchalance. The Jejune Institute promises Nonchalance, but the Elsewhere Public Works Administration (I think that's what they were called, the EPWA) warns that the Institute is selling false Nonchalance and EPWA (and the teachings of Eva Lucien--yes, I'm sure that's a pun on evolution) will give them true Nonchalance. So a bizarre alternate reality game is born, where the city of San Francisco (and the East Bay) become the playground and you never really see the city the same way again. And we meet the designers behind the game, a player who becomes a little too obsessed and thinks its all real, and other players who just had fun with it all. It makes me wish I had somehow gotten sucked up into the game myself. But on the other hand, maybe just seeing a movie about it was enough. Which is good, because the game is basically over (except for the players who are keeping it going, but the game creators aren't doing much anymore.)
Total Running Time: 171 minutes
My Total Minutes: 303,840
NATSANAT: The word means "freedom" and is the story of Ethiopian women freedom fighters who sacrificed either years of their lives or their entire lives but were a major part not just of winning freedom but in forming the new government. Really amazing women.
MOTHER ART TELLS HER STORY: The story of feminist mother artists in 70s Los Angeles. Finding a conflict between motherhood and an art career (at least one was told the only way she would ever be a serious artist is to leave her husband and child and devote herself to art full time) they decided to form their own collective and create art based on the themes of motherhood. E.g., performance and poetry in laundromats, "cleaning up" the banks and city hall. They even came under attack from conservative politicians (including Reagan) as a waste of government money (because they got a $700 grant for their laundromat performance. And no, I didn't forget a zero or two in there, $700 was considered a waste of money.) Interesting people and artists, but I thought the movie started to drag as it went into fully detail on everything they did. It's a 40 minute film, and can probably be trimmed to 30.
THE GASKETTES: The fun adventures of an all-girl moped riding gang. Ummm...not much more to say than that. It's fun to watch, the girls are cool, and it's obvious that they're having a lot of fun.
And then there was a movie that blurred the documentary/narrative line while telling a story that blurs the reality/interactive game line. THE INSTITUTE is the story of the Jejune Institute, which is kind of a new-agey cult. And it's the starting point (for many) of a game of Nonchalance. The Jejune Institute promises Nonchalance, but the Elsewhere Public Works Administration (I think that's what they were called, the EPWA) warns that the Institute is selling false Nonchalance and EPWA (and the teachings of Eva Lucien--yes, I'm sure that's a pun on evolution) will give them true Nonchalance. So a bizarre alternate reality game is born, where the city of San Francisco (and the East Bay) become the playground and you never really see the city the same way again. And we meet the designers behind the game, a player who becomes a little too obsessed and thinks its all real, and other players who just had fun with it all. It makes me wish I had somehow gotten sucked up into the game myself. But on the other hand, maybe just seeing a movie about it was enough. Which is good, because the game is basically over (except for the players who are keeping it going, but the game creators aren't doing much anymore.)
Total Running Time: 171 minutes
My Total Minutes: 303,840
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)