Review: Winter's Bone

I saw Winter’s Bone a couple weekends ago and I am still not sure what I think about it.  I think it’s taking me so long to make up my mind because I wanted it to be better than it was.  Debra Granik’s narrative feature based on Daniel Woodrell’s book by the same name won a jury prize at Sundance and people raved about the indie flick.  The film follows 17-year-old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) as she searches for her bail-jumping father before their land is snatched out from under them to cover his forfeited bond.  Finding no help from her practically catatonic mother and feeling the weight of her two young siblings on her shoulders, Ree attempts enlist the help of her father’s recalcitrant brother Teardrop (John Hawkes).   He finally comes to her aid as she tries to get information out of a clan of tight-lipped and brutal meth-cookers, her father’s last known associates.  Besides following the story of Ree, the film is a look at the harsh reality of rural life in the Arkansas Ozarks.  The problem is, although Granik goes to lengths to avoid exoticizing the culture, the viewer still feels very much like an outsider.  We are never allowed into the mind of Ree.  She is tough and kind with her siblings.  She stands up to all the forces trying to rip her family apart.  Her moments of vulnerability are quiet, private, and real, but they are insufficient to create a real sympathy between viewer and the character.  Her hopes and dreams, if she dares to have any, remain locked behind her stony mask of determination. 

The color scheme is the cool blues and greys of winter and the dialogue and action are as spare as the title would suggest.  Perhaps too spare.  Another problem with the film, and I hate saying this, is that it possibly is too realistic.  The storyline jogs along, escalating in the logical places, but there are no twists.  The end is not particularly surprising and doesn’t reveal anything new, however the denouement is probably the best scene of the whole film.  Since I still think the film is worth seeing, I won’t spoil the ending.  I can’t believe I’m saying this either, but I would have loved to see a version of this film made with a bigger budget.  The final scene, which takes place at night, but is shot day for night, would have been so much more powerful filmed actually at night, lit with the glow of balloon lights.  I don’t take issue with anything else in that scene, however, and I think where the camera looked and more importantly didn’t look, was perfect.

Final verdict: watch it at home for a look at a world that many of us know nothing about and is interesting and intriguing in it’s own right.  I plan to check out the book too, just to see how Granik chose to adapt it to film: Winter's Bone: A Novel by Daniel Woodrell.

Photography & driving

I can't help it if the sky is always dramatic when I'm commuting.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Texas BBQ Odyssey

Snow's BBQ, Lexington, TX

Louie Mueller BBQ, Taylor, TX

Kreuz's Market, Lockhart, TX

Smitty's Market, Lockhart, TX

Confessions of a cop show junkie: the future of "Southland" in jeopardy

I have been at a loss to describe my impressions of "Southland" for some time. I tracked it's progress from network misfit to it's new home on TNT and I'm still not sure whether it is good or just toying with excellence only to fall flat. It's the latest creation of John Wells and Christopher Chulack, producers of ER (not a particularly enticing piece of information to me).  TNT isn't sure  about it either and its future is once again in jeopardy after ratings were even lower for the second season than the first.  However, as a self-proclaimed cop show junkie it is the best cop show on tv at the moment and it would be a shame to lose it before it's really had a chance to hit it's stride.

I don't know what attracted me to it first, but I actually tuned in to the series premiere last year. I think more than anything it was the title graphic, southLAnd over a map grid. I think I was just beginning to be fascinated by this concept of the sprawling metropolis that somehow makes up this disjointed and isolating city. Though I have been in the "LA area" since 2004, it's only after having graduated and leaving my suburban college town bubble that I have begin to get a sense of the "real LA." I don't even think I'd ever even heard the word "Southland" until my senior year of college when I began a bi-weekly trek from Claremont to Silverlake (a commute of approx 1.5 hours each way) for an internship. I remember hearing it used: "all over the Southland" on KPCC and thought how aptly that described this tangled mass of concrete. They were talking about the day's traffic.

One of the things I like most about "Southland" is this attempt to portray this isolation and the blinding brightness which seems to intensify this feeling by adding a surreal quality to life. Gritty and intense, "Southland" is no "CSI" or "NCIS" (and believe me I know my cop shows). There is no polish or glamour to the lives of these police officers. There is, however, a lot of drama. Here is where I began to have issues. When I try to describe the series to anyone it sounds like a soap opera... The serious and experienced cop, who is, by the way, addicted to pain killers and in the closet, puts the rookie, rich boy with issues through the paces. The alcoholic cop goes ballistic and crashes his police car in the LA river and it ends up all over YouTube. The young detective with a new baby girl admits to the young woman his parents raised as his sister that he is really her father. These stories sound ridiculous but I don't quite know how to explain why it doesn't seem that way when you are watching. The characters feel real, despite all the drama, not the typical cardboard cutout cops that we know so well.  They just don't make that big of deal about things and they don't do lots of cheesy emotional wrap up montages featuring a currently popular song.  Most of all, they don't spend time trying to make LA seem like this glamorous place where everyone and everything is beautiful.  I hope TNT gives "Southland" another shot and let's the producers follow their impulses.  With time and if it's allowed to continue in its initial direction it could mature into a critically acclaimed piece of television, but right now it's teetering on the edge of becoming just another sensationalistic cop show.

'The Wire' and 'Treme'

I know a lot has already been written about how amazing the ‘The Wire’ is, but I feel like I have to add my voice to the chorus, because it is so profoundly wonderful.  ‘The Wire’ is the best television show I have ever seen.  I can’t imagine anything better.  The characters are real human beings, the dialogue is natural, the acting is phenomenal, the plots are well crafted.  Other shows may have accomplished this, perhaps not all at once, but this show is so honest and unflinching in its portrayal of the city of Baltimore, the fact that the creators have been able to shine a light on so much bullshit is perhaps a testament to HBO more than anything else.  Where else could you find a combination of excellent writing and story craftsmanship, powerful characters and the energizing freedom to speak the truth?  Network TV would have self-destructed before anything like that could have existed there, which is sad, because it puts the show in a category that is somewhat inaccessible to much of America-- and America needs to see this show.

‘The Wire’ is the end to platitudes.  After completing the 5th Season, I was somewhat depressed, not because it was over (I knew I could re-watch any of the episodes at any time and thoroughly enjoy myself and I HATE re-watching stuff), but because I felt hopeless about our ability to advance ourselves as human beings.  Every avenue of possible improvement-- the police department, the government, and the media-- seemed a corrupt and bureaucratic mess, mostly due to one reason: human beings are weak and selfish.  This weight, however, has been lifted upon further contemplation.  In the final season, we see play out several narratives that end in success.  It is these few humans, that manage to pull their lives together, despite all that goes on around them, that should leave an impression.  The violence and misery is the status quo for many.  Ignorance, selfishness, and total unawareness of our impact on the lives of others is the status quo for most of us.  On occasion, there is transcendence.  The rest of us, must just keep plugging on.

I do not have HBO, so I have been trying to figure out the best way to get my hands the first few episodes of ‘Treme,’ the latest from the creators of ‘The Wire.’  A show about New Orleans residents who attempt to rebuild their lives, homes and businesses after Katrina, ‘Treme’ also features some of my favorite actors from ‘The Wire’ including Wendell Pierce (Det. Bunk Moreland) and Clarke Peters (Det. Lester Freamon).  I am naturally very suspicious and I am worried that ‘Treme’ will not live up to the hype and won’t be as good as ‘The Wire,’ etc, etc.  I don’t want to get my hopes up, but I can’t help it.  I really am itching for something that can take the place of ‘The Wire.’  Here’s hoping that ‘Treme’ is habit forming.

Info about ‘The Wire’

Here are some links to Fresh Air interviews with various ‘Wire’ collaborators:

2006 Fresh Air Interview with Ed Burns, Baltimore Policeman and teacher
Terry and Ed talk about his work as a police and school teacher in Baltimore as an inspiration for the show.

2008 Fresh Air Interview with David Simon, Baltimore Sun Reporter
Terry interviews David Simon who talks about the year he and Ed spent hanging out with Gary McCullough.  Gary was the model for the character of Bubbles in the show.  David and Ed followed him for a year, while writing their book “The Corner,” which became an HBO miniseries.

2010 Treme Article with David Simon and Eric Overmeyer
David and Eric talk about the new show ‘Treme.’

Don't try this at home kids

The view from the Coronado Bridge (while driving).












- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

A dream deferred...

It was closed when I was 10, but finally at the ripe old age of 24, I have fulfilled my dreams of riding It's A Small World!

Bigelow and What Her Oscar Means

Kathryn Bigelow recently made headlines as the first woman to win an Academy Award for Best Director for her film, The Hurt Locker, the story of an EOD unit in Iraq.  Bigelow has said that she doesn’t want to be considered a “woman director” just a “director” and I understand that desire completely.  I find it interesting that she has gone in the opposite direction of directors like Nora Ephron (Julie & Julia and Sleepless in Seattle) who make “chick flicks” or films about women for women.  Bigelow’s filmography leans towards crime and war dramas with an emphasis on action and probing the human psyche.  A detective story junkie myself, I appreciate her tastes and I get the idea of a woman being fascinated by violence and crime, so I guess my critique lies less with her and more with the Academy.  Why does it take a women with traditionally “male” taste in subject matter to win best director?  The Academy has been handing out awards for 82 years and this is the first time a woman has won best director.  In fact, it’s only the fourth time a woman has even been nominated for Best Director. 

That seems insane, except when you stop to consider how few women directors there are.  You could probably count the well-known modern American female film directors on one hand; apart from Bigelow and Ephron, there is, Sophia Coppola (Marie Antoinette and Lost in Translation), maybe throw in Valerie Faris (co-director of Little Miss Sunshine), Julie Taymor (Frida and Across the Universe), and Penny Marshall (Riding in Cars with Boys and Big).  There are some notable foreign and indie directors such as Jane Campion (Bright Star and The Piano).  Ask people in the business and you get a decent list of names such as Mimi Leder, Floria Sigismondi, Penelope Spheeris, Allison Anders...  But ask the uninitiated, the average Joe, and the only one they can name is “oh that woman who did The Hurt Locker, didn’t she just win an Oscar, what’s her name?” 

This site presents some findings of a 2002 study by Martha Lauzen, a media studies professor at San Diego State University, who examines the overall lack of women in the film business.  She found that in 2002 of the top grossing 250 films only 7% employed female directors.  Possibly even worse was that only 1% employed female cinematographers. Granted this was 8 years ago, but her 2009 numbers were published in this recent NY Times article about Bigelow and Lauzen found, again, only 7% of the top 250 grossing films employed a female director.

The barriers for woman seeking to direct are manifold according to this Salon.com article.  Some coincide with the traditional barriers women face everywhere: demanding schedule which is tough on family, older men have control over the industry and seek out young men who remind them of themselves to direct their films, and women themselves often feel they cannot succeed in this role.  The article also suggests that film school professors openly discourage female students from even considering directing or cinematography.  This article also discusses, what seems to be a more systemic problem, that studios and investors don't have confidence in women to direct films with traditionally “male” subject matter and they think that films with traditionally “female” subject matter don’t make money, a premise which the article refutes numerous times. 

What does it mean then, that Bigelow has now won the coveted prize?  Some say it means there is progress, others, such as professor Lauzen, say it means little because the stats are still so poor.  The overall picture is still the same as far as she is concerned.  I'm not sure what it means, I guess it's too soon to tell.

I don't want these thoughts to be divisive or turn any male readers away.  I simply wanted to collect some figures which bothered me.  I don’t believe individual people are to blame (except for any professors male or female who would outright tell female students not to try to do something).  We all have a responsibility, men and women, to examine these numbers and consider what they mean.  More than anything it just feels like a missed opportunity to me.  Women do make up, after all, 50% of the world’s population.  We definitely have disposable income to burn, but more importantly I think, we have ideas and stories to share.

Check out the articles below for more:

Jamie Portman, "The Hurt Locker director Kathryn Bigelow: Don't mess with her" Vancouver Sun

Manohla Dargis, "How Oscar Found Ms. Right" New York Times

Michelle Goldberg, "Where are the female directors?" Salon.com 

Priscilla McClay, "Kathryn Bigelow is no 'bad boy'" Guardian

Taurus

The view from my desk...


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Hiking at Temescal Gateway Park

 

 

 

 

 

Crowdfunding

So I have stumbled onto the concept of crowdfunding recently.  I find myself again, talking about how media will be funded in the future.  Could crowdfunding be the answer?  Here's how it works: Traditionally, journalists, freelance or not, would pitch their pieces or be assigned them by editors of publications, who would then pay for the costs of doing the reporting.  However, as I'm pretty sure the whole world is aware of now, newspapers are not doing well.  Losing ad revenue because of the poor economy, is compounded by lower circulation numbers due to free online formats.  With the current model failing a lot of people, journalists have begun to use online networks to raise small amounts of money from a large group of people for their projects.  This has the effect of somewhat "democratizing" journalism, allowing people to choose what articles are written, whether that is a good thing is up for debate.  On the one hand, people can demand that journalists cover topics that large institutions such as newspapers or news networks might avoid because the have too much to lose.  On the other, it further polarizes society as groups of like-minded people cluster around ideas and journalists who are willing to support them, until journalism completely descends into a mere exercise of self-reaffirmation.  Whether it's good or bad or somewhere in between, it's scalability has yet to be seen.  If you want to know more about the details of crowdfunding, here is a really good article from MediaShift. There are numerous sites that act as hubs to help writers and filmmakers find funders such as:

Iconic Portaits

Nice collection: http://theimpossiblecool.tumblr.com/
A good resource.  There are a lot more on the site, but these are my favorites.
McQueen
















Davis

Cash

Gainsbourg

Kerouac

Avedon

Avatar: the verdict

So I broke down and went to see Avatar this weekend in IMAX 3D.  Spared no expense, got tickets a week in advance in the middle of the theater.  I was ready to be impressed by stunning visuals.  I knew the story was going to suck, so I wasn’t too disappointed with it.  The dialogue was unbearably predictable, but that was to be expected too.  The worst part was that I was expecting it to look amazing and while it looked pretty cool, it just wasn’t really that great.  I think the problem with Avatar is that basically the entire movie is CGI, even the landscape.  For me, the Lord of the Rings trilogy are the hallmark epic fantasy world adventure films.  The landscapes of those films are stunning, but also massive and immediate.  They draw you into a world of fantasy, something which Avatar's computer generated floating mountains never did.  I think what Peter Jackson had that James Cameron didn’t have was the spectacularly beautiful real backdrop of New Zealand upon which to build his world.  Another problem with Avatar is that while the Pandoran natives the Na’vi are all played by humans, it still like trying to connect with a cartoon character, that isn’t even in human form.  The animation is a natural barrier between us and the character, no matter how big their eyes are.  I think the moral of the story here is, it's still better to use CGI sparingly and interspersed with in-camera action and effects because no computer-generated, jellyfish-like floating seeds or glow-in-the-dark plants that man can imagine, can look as beautiful as what nature has already created.

Cameron vs. Jackson

A Town Called Panic (Panique Au Village)

On the must see list for sure is A Town Called Panic (Panique Au Village), the stop-animation film currently playing at limited engagements across the country.  I saw a screening at AFI in LA (which gave out all their tickets for free for all their films.  Here’s hoping they do the same next time.)  An official selection at Cannes, the film is the creation of Belgian animators Stephane Aubier and Vincent Patar.  Aubier and Patar created a painstakingly detailed world of the delightfully absurd.  Using what appears to be a collection of old-fashioned small plastic toys as inspiration, Aubier and Patar’s main characters are a cowboy, a horse, and an Indian, and a farmer, his wife, and their farm animals.
Quirky and hilarious, the film follows the antics of Cheval (Horse), Cowboy, and Indien as they attempt to defeat the devious sea creatures that have begun to rob their bucolic, if bizarre, village (most notably of brick walls).  For a taste, check out some of the episodes (4-5 minutes each) from the series on Daily Motion.  Unlike the film, these episodes have no subtitles, but they are really unnecessary because the action on screen carries everything.  I picked some of my favorites, but there are 20 in all, scattered across the web on various video aggregator sites. 

Episode 1: “Le gateau” (The Cake)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvff9_panique-au-villagele-gateau_creation

Episode 13: “Le Grand Sommeil” (The Big Sleep)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1igb8_panique-au-village-le-grand-sommeil_creation

Episode 15: Dejeuner sur l’herbe (The Picnic)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x59xzo_panique-au-village-dejeuner-sur-lhe_fun

NY Times Magazine interview of the creators:

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/the-insiders-vincent-patar-and-stephane-aubier/

Avatar: To see or not to see

So the blockbuster of the hour:  still Avatar.  It’s all anyone talked about at lunch the first day back.  The graphics are supposed to be mind-blowing, incredible, but the story looks lame and played.  My boss, the most fidgety person in the world, said it completely drew him in and he was absorbed for the 162 minutes.  That’s the best recommendation I’ve heard for it frankly, considering it has melded its advertising with McDonald’s Big Mac.  A truly global marketing campaign, but is it really a film?  My boyfriend is playing the purist and hates computer generated graphics anyway, so he says “No way!  I’m boycotting just because it’s receiving so much credit for looking cool, without actually having a good story.”  Everyone else says “it’s worth it, but you have to see it in 3D” (the diehard VFX guys say IMAX is the only way to go).  I don’t know.  I know I will end up seeing it, just because I need to keep current, but it’s depressing that they spent 10 years making a movie and couldn’t come up with a story that is as fresh and original and the graphics are supposed to be.  Maybe I just need to see a different trailer... Oh well, on the other hand, if you spend 10 years making a movie, you better pick a timeless plot I guess, or it will be outdated before you’ve hardly begun.

Sing Off Links

YouTube Links to the best performances of the finalists.
Nota’s performance of “Down,” probably their best performance in the show, but it is debatable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG0PiVtqLxM
Beelzebub’s knocked their judge’s pick “Sweet Caroline” out of the park.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gewU78c5jo
Voices of Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dXObqGELbg

Disclaimers

I hereby declare that this blog has no pretensions whatsoever to objectivity.  I express my opinions wholeheartedly and while I hope that I use logic and information in forming them, I know they will be influenced by my experiences and political leanings.  However, I always encourage respectful conversation and debate and welcome posts with alternate viewpoints on any matter discussed, no matter how insignificant they may seem, from the appropriate colors to wear in winter to the appropriate approach to the war in Afghanistan. 

Conflicted...

Yes I am conflicted.  I flit between adoring consumption and clothes and beautiful things to abhorring the consumerism that controls our everyday life.  I’m not really disturbed by this because I feel it is probably normal considering we are humans with materials needs and desires and that we are constantly bombarded with fabricated material needs from the day we are born.  My goal is to ween myself off consumption as much as possible and turn towards more fulfilling searches.  Perhaps a New Year’s resolution can be to read 20 excellent and diverse books this year, or actually commit to a yoga routine for once...  or keep my running schedule up for once.  All of these things can help fill in the gaps in time which end up getting filled up with online shopping or promenade walks through touristy shops.  At the same time, walking through stores and feeling all the fabrics of different clothing items is one of my great pleasures in life.  Sigh...

"The Sing-Off" and the future of media

For the most part, NBC produced a piece of schmaltzy nonsense, but the highlight of this mini-series was the number of extremely talented young (and older) people that were thrust upon the national consciousness.  A cleverly laid out mini-series, “The Sing-Off” chose a shorter format that would minimize DVR usage, thus maximizing eyeballs on ads, while maintaining the public interest in A capella music throughout the duration of the series.  With one hour shows on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday during the third week of December, followed by a live two-hour finale the following Monday, it was just enough exposure to whip up interest in the Idol-style competition show, without losing people over a long season, which an A capella only competition show probably could not support.  With anticipation running high about the live finale, fewer people would pre-record it, because the whole point was to find out who would win the $100,000 grand prize and Sony recording contract.  Would it be Voices of Lee, the Christian college co-eds, led by future R&B star Candace?  Or the Beelzebubs, the wildly entertaining and charismatic group of jokers from Tufts University?  Or would it be Nota, the soulful group with Peurto Rican flair?

In the end Nota prevails and probably rightfully so, considering the ultimate prize was a recording contract, not a tour.  While the Beezelbubs were entertaining, Nota was the only group that could possible get me to buy a cd.

NBC, for some reason, which doesn’t really make sense to me, decided to pull down its Sing-Off Channel from YouTube today, leaving fans completely dependent on other YouTube channels for the songs.  I guess they want to redirect traffic back to their site to watch their pieces of shows with all the commercials.  Very clever, but really irritating because when the judges talk, you mostly want to shoot yourself in the head.  The only interesting part is the singing.  They should pretty much just cut out the other stuff and keep the songs, bookended with commercials if that’s how it needs to be.

This brings back the question that is constantly on my mind, as someone who hopes to create media content one day: what is the format of the future and who is going to pay for it?  Typically it’s been advertisers who pay for most content.  They consumer pays for some things: theatrical movies, dvds, cds, and some for cable, but most of this is all underwritten by advertisers.  This is basically the case for most of the media we consume, even though we pay a nominal fee for it, we rarely really pay for the whole cost of its production, be it newspapers, magazines, or televisions shows.  The consumer has become used to voraciously consuming media often without paying a dime.  Particularly my generation, weened on Napster and graduating to Limewire and BitTorrent, we thought nothing of downloading any song, television, or movie on a whim.  Our motto was search and ye shall find.  Inconvenient PR laws slowed us down, but we are creatures of innovation and most young computer savvy people can still find most mainstream media if they look hard enough.  Besides that, there is now a wealth of legally free entertainment to be had on the web, much of it hosted on sites that are now also using an advertising based model to turn a profit (i.e. YouTube).  If the true cost of producing media were passed on to the consumer, in many cases they would rebel. 

That said, certain formats do make a lot of money, particularly films, merely from selling to consumers.  Let’s take “Avatar” for instance.  While IMDB claims they had a budget of $230 million, it’s widely rumored to have cost over $300 million to produce.  After one weekend, it has already grossed $238.5 million worldwide, well on track to turn a huge profit for Twentieth Century-Fox and James Cameron, king of the box-office mega movie.  Besides the massive amount of money they will make in ticket and dvd sales, Avatar will capitalize on toy sales, video games, and various other types of merchandise.  To maximize marketing dollars they have even teamed up with McDonalds to advertise the Big Mac and the movie at the same time.

While that’s all well and good for films like “Avatar” the rest of us are typically scrambling for funding and most likely not making even close to a profit in the end with just consumer contributions.  Most films lose money...  With a society obsessed with consumption, advertising underwrites everything from sports teams to charity events to media production.  But at what cost?  The biggest concern for me with media underwriting is in the category of news.  This is the area that one feels should be free of outside influence and possible sources of inappropriate restraint, but how can that truly be possible?  It’s difficult enough for news sources today to be unbiased when there are so many choices the consumer can chose whatever newspaper or network or blog that echoes their own opinion.  The temptation to fall into a political niche and preserve a core audience is strong, but that’s another can of worms entirely.  No logic in the world can convince me that news sources underwritten by sponsors can ever truly be objective.

Working in NC, SC, and VA

Our guy on the long lens at the beach.  Commercial for the Marines, crazy schedule, awesome stuff.