FUTURE SUIT INSTITUTE

Existenz

so.. video games.

Is Cronenberg making a statement about the current state of video games and their effects on us? or is he predicting where they will end up? Is me making a statement about our escapist tendencies as a society today or is he making a statement about how our imaginations are so dulled we have to create a separate, but organic, one into which we have to jack into as to have someone tell us what and where to go to fulfill even a fantasy task?

I dunno.

But all of these themes are explored, and even ones about the fabric of reality as a whole. This movie even has the whole microcosm motif in play as well, with games in games in games so far deep that you dont know whats going on. but thats cronenberg for ya.

Do i think that we will become so immersed in said hyper-real video games that we lose all track of reality and human existence comes grinding to a halt? probably not, but there is a possibility of this happening somewhere down the line. i think i read somewhere (probably Gizmodo) that they are already taking out patents on subcutaneous PDA technology. So how far can we be? Then again, i cant tell you when the last time i played a video game was. I think the last video game that i intentionally went out of my way to play was Ghostbusters The Video Game but this game sells itself just from the fact that it was written by Harold Ramis and Dan Akroyd. But i digress.

Do i think that the human experience is flooded with escapist products? Yes (knock on wood) But even i feel like a hermit when i watch enough TV/Movies in a row.

Punch Drunk and Enough Advancement Theory for the Entire Syllubus

I think that punch drunk love works. works really well, actually, due in large part to the influence of Robert Altman and whoever PTA was channeling while directing this movie.

Now im not claiming hes the next coming of cinematic-raptor-jesus, but i do subscribe to a theory explained here by Pop Culture Critic, Chuck Klosterman. This theory is the theory of Advancement, and while in the article below the theory is explained using rock music, the same theory can apply to this film and any other film, particularly strange days and Shock Corridor.

http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0704-JULY_AMERICA

By my reasoning, which is probably wrong, PTA decided to have conspicuous Altman-influence not only to show his respect for Altman, but also to make the film work in the first place. Imagine if you saw this directed by anybody else (Altman excluded). Imagine if the story takes place over months of time instead of the time period it occupies now. Imagine if the conversations took place in a more orderly fashion and not thrusting themselves on Barry’s character like they do in the film. What if Barry’s character was a little less scatterbrained about the piano and the pudding and the crying, etc. The movie wouldnt work. This plus the inexplicable shifting-color-graphic inserts are what cause me to file this film under the advancement category.

Thinking back i think the most evident way that this film diverts from a completely Altmanian vein is that the film centers around the life of one person and not a huge ensemble cast (keep in mind the only altman ive seen is Nashville, sorry for the potentially undereducated comments).

Jeunet, The French Michael Bay?

Who the hell cares if he is the French Michael Bay, He makes a damn good film.

I make this comparison due to the large outcry from most of the other post-ers. Their points are legitimate and noted. Doesn’t mean i agree. I mean the plot can be considered drawn out, characters unbelievable, actions contrived, whatever. I liked it. Color me dazzled by cinematography and other stylistic elements, but I liked it. One more tidbit worth noting: this is also my first viewing of the film. 

First off: The National Representation of said film.

Granted, I dont have a substantial mental french library of films to fall back on as most people qualified to make these accusations. Ok. So its a french director not really paying homage to his roots. Does it matter? Its a good movie. Its not like Jeunet has been a hardcore new wave director for his entire life. It seems that some people are outraged at this movie. WHY?! It ran a little long? Some events were unrealistic? Its kind of a miracle that a movie like this has emerged despite the american dollars backing it. HAVE YOU SEEN THE SHIT BEING MADE OVER HERE?! (im assuming youre at least aware of it.)

The art direction is, for all intents and purposes, flawless. Its great. Hands down. Sure its not all chopped up, non contin-u-itous, shot hand held, and improvised (im not hating on the connotation of french cinema, im just trying to prove a point). I mean Im not a Frenchman, but most of the art direction looks pretty damn french. whether or not it was designed to look this way to convey a more accessible “french” image to american viewers, i dont know. 

What I do know is, I’ll take the french Michael Bay over the real Michael Bay any day.

The Fountain

So… Microcosms. Just a heads up, this WILL be a stream of consciousness.

So I think visually. Its just how Im wired, i guess. I even think visually when im doing math. Say im multiplying six by twelve. I will imagine six twelves in my head, then take two from each twelve and put those twos in a pile. then I add my remaining tens till i get sixty. This sixty stays where it is on my mental workbench as i add my sixes and get 12. then i put those together and 72. The strange thing is that i see all this play out in my head as if i was watching Schoolhouse Rock. 

Ok back to the topic. 

So im trying to visualize these three separate but sync-ed stories as a Microcosm (which, as i understand it is a smaller version of a larger world). However, the only image i can organize these stories into is a layered image of the same events occurring.  Three similar events triple exposed on the same piece of film. Would i be wrong in entertaining the idea that the Microcosm at hand is the repetition of this mans personal history throughout time? I mean, despite the fact that we can clearly see the similarities between these three stories, Aronofsky goes out of his way (im not complaining) to mirror the imagery of the film. Am i looking at the wrong microcosm? The only way that the whole microcosm thing makes sense to me, with this film, is if i look at its timeline down a parallel axis, not at a perpendicular one, much in the fashion of the Tralfamadorians that Vonnegut created in Slaughterhouse 5.

After doing some research I leaned that most of the outer space effects were all practical, and filmed through a microscope that was pointed at a petri dish containing chemical reactions. I mean you’d be hard pressed to find a better way to portray a macro/microcosm.

Fear and Loathing

A bat-shit-insane movie with no equal.

I can remember exactly where i was when i first caught a glimpse of this film. Its rare that I can remember where and when i was in relation to movies. I was in Boston in 2005 when I was first learning how to use final cut (which i promptly forgot) when some guys started to watch Fear and Loathing on the TV at the other end of the room. I would only catch glimpses but the impact was there. what went through my head was something like this: “WHAT……THE…FUCK…IS…THIS?!”

This was about a year after i had started really getting into movies and i still had a lot to see. I had seen quite a few out of the way movies but NOTHING i had seen was like this. It effectively Infected my mind until I could see it again.

All the Gilliam trademarks are there, including the wide angle shots and the cage, which he uses in all of his films.

The film is blindingly fast paces, hilarious, and demented. Though i havent done anything wrong, i always feel like i need rethink my life after im done watching.

Hunter S. Thompson… Apparently when Johnny Depp was researching the role he went through the original manuscript for Fear and Loathing.  apparently there was A LOT more than was in the movie, it was a lot worse, and it was all true.

This movie is very high on the list of films that I obsess about unconditionally. We all have those films. From the very first moment I saw it it infected me. Its a roller coaster ride, and a damn good one.

“Buy the ticket, take the ride” - HST

The only other Gilliam film ive seen as often as F&L is 12 monkeys. they have comparable themes.

They both revolve around a mission. Sure, the motives behind the mission in both movies are different (getting paid while getting loaded/seeking freedom while seeking salvation) but they both have them right? The missions both have this in common though: Far enough into said quest, both Hunter S Thompson and James Cole begin to take a look around them and realize that there is something to the experiences they have.

Both movies have an enabler as well. 12 monkeys: the scientists and Jeffrey Goines.

F&L: Dr. Gonzo

On a different note, art design = impeccable.

All That Jazz

Now, ill admit that i havent seen the entirety of this film. Just bits and pieces while i was trying to catch up for many different classes. I got the just of it, however, as well as a nice smattering of interesting visuals, dance sequences, and thematic elements.

Expecting a typical movie about the theater lifestyle and how hard it is to break in the business (or something along these lines), I was pleasantly surprised by this tale of a fractured, ego-centric, yet creative and (under the surface) remorseful theater/film director. “Roy Scheider is in this?” Never saw it coming.

I think that most of us can relate to the drawn-and-quartered feeling of trying to maintain many different projects at once, whether they be personal of professional. Scheider’s character is torn between his daughter, his ex, his current girl, his play, his film, and his booze. Much like we are torn between trying to complete or conceive god-knows-how-many projects at any given time, while trying to find maintain social relationships, romantic relationships, and whatever else we have going on.

Asides? Dreamscape narration?  Comedic, yet bizarre, dance sequences about death and lamentation? OK by me. I love weird ways of telling a story (see my rave about Schizopolis) and im always looking for more.

NYMPHOS!

Despite being a semi-interesting movie about a bunch of crazy people, temporary sanity as a plot device, nymphomaniacs, bad voice overs, black clan members,  forced acting, and forced themes, Shock Corridor is actually a pretty shitty movie.

I really couldnt find anything to appreciate beyond the whole obsession and madness deal so im just going to list a bunch of observations.

The cop behind the desk who talks to the reporters girlfriend automatically assumes that the reporter is mentally ill for some reason…

lots of really bad superimposition.

I love the forced demonstration of mental illness. assuming the audience are morons who will just stare at the screen and go “well only a crazy person could do that…”

NYMPHOS!

Apparently the big guy can choose what meds he gets? or are they all the same?

POOberty.

Yeah i dont know any legitimately crazy people but im sure that they ALL have brief moments of intense sanity.

All this considered the action was pretty good.

“Whom god wishes to destroy, he first makes mad” Euripides - 425 BC

Mission accomplished Schlock Corridor, mission accomplished.

Killer of Sheep

…was a pretty powerful movie.

The first scene could sum up the movie but every other scene tops it or drives the message in even further or both. The father is trying to get his son to realize that their isnt any room for petty crap like that in their lives as they are. Their family is struggling for survival and its taking toll on them.

Stan’s working in the slaughterhouse, a job nobody wants. Not just killing sheep, but killing himself. You can see how dead he is when he gets home every night and is practically unresponsive to anything. The slaughterhouse’s metaphor for the Watts ghetto is pretty powerful as well.

Meanwhile the kids are just sitting in the trainyard waiting to inherit all that their parents dont have. Its almost like they are waiting for their turn. When they arent trying to create some new game in the train yard or having a dirt clod war they’re trying to dodge criminals and make sense of the chaos around them.

Strange Days, indeed…

Let me preface this post by saying Cronenberg did it better.

Let me add to my previous statement that The Hurt Locker was an incredible film. Completely Oscar worthy and Bigelow’s best film to date.

There were some themes that were fairly intact. Most notably the technology gone wrong thing. Its a pretty good metaphor about how technology (that means YOU internet) is a drug and is very addictive and in some extreme cases can result in an overdose. However in Strange Days, the “squid” technology is illegal for being so completely immersive that one can become addicted to other peoples memories.

Ironically, Bigelow’s ex husband is pimping extremely immersive 3D technology that in some cases is causing people to kill themselves…

Anyways…

Bigelow’s take on violence is refreshing, coming from a female director. The memor-ized rape scene is an interesting concept and very brutal indeed. Its a disturbin concept that you would plug a disc, probably from one of your regular dealers, into your player and are all of the sudden nearly-captive and forced to watch a horrible attrocity. Not to mention what happened to the girl in the film etc etc. This scene is not what is remarkable about Bigelow’s directing. THIS scene I found to be one of the most interesting, if not disgusting and revolting (indicating that the direction was decent for at least this brief part of the film). Its all the rest of the violence that is interesting. In the way that I see it it can be one of two things. Either Kathryn Bigelow is trying to compete against the guys, or she is “one of the guys” (meaning that she shares a similar mentality and possibly a sense of humor about violence). If she is competing with the guys it means that she is trying to make a name for herself in a male-dominated directorial landscape. If she is one of the guys… well then she likes violence! Ive been around tons of women that laugh uproariously at violent scenes in action movies if not for their comedic value alone.

For an abrupt and brief change of pace, I hated this particular view of the future. Im fine with people in the sixties and seventies predicting that in 2001 we will be in other solar systems and immersed in technology that we can only dream of, but FIVE YEARS? Plus im just not a big fan of the Nineties pop culture to begin with and i cant stand the damn world-hybrid music that invaded for that brief time period.

A movie is only as good as its weakest element, right? You guys can contest me on that all you want but aside from certain scenes in certain movies (the fight scene in They Live, for instance) if one element is lacking, the entire production is. I thought I knew that ralph fiennes was a good actor… under the right direction i guess. And why the hell was Juliette Lewis such a hot commodity back then? and finally DIALOGUE. nuff said.

All that being said i think that some of the visual puns were nice. The stabbing in the back and the severing of the ties especially. Cant recall much more.

If you want me to describe the effect the fim had on me in one sentence, then ask me in person or on facebook or shoot me an email.

Tommy Bell

Schizburg

To begin with…

The first time i head of this movie was a couple of years back. One of my film junkie friends and i were locked into one of those random, leap-frogging conversations that covers not just a movie but FILM as a whole. Anyways, we got around to soderbergh and he blurts out “Dude, have you seen Schizopolis? Its great, man. Really bizarre and soderbergh is in it and he makes weird faces in a mirror for like 5 minutes, I think you’d like it.”

I was skeptical. But i borrowed it anyway because i had seen the cover in the Cult section of the local indie video store (As Seen On TV in Oxford MS) and every once in a while the poster art on a movie box can steer me in the right direction.

I was blown away immediately when i saw it. I had no idea what i was getting into. so few are the movies that rivet you to your seat with what seems like pure nonsense. I was engrossed in the movie because unlike anything i had seen before, it had a (mostly) comprehensible story that was entirely unpredictable in its illustration.

That being said, i think that the communication and perception themes in Schizopolis were pretty straight forward. Everything that we see play out in the story is a metaphor and cuts to the heart of what all these interactions actually are.

The speech between Munson and his wife (speaking in subtext) is an illustration of a husband and wife going through the motions of a now-passionless marriage.

The scenes where Munson and his wife are speaking in different languages simultaneously is a metaphor for them not really understanding each other (“its like shes speaking a different language, Mr. Marriage Counselor!”) Another symptom of the passionless marriage.

When Elmo and his many mistresses (Alliteration attack!) are tossing seductive, yet nonsensical, dialogue back and forth, we can see that the dialogue is meaningless. The banter is just a means to an end. Neither party is really trying. The both know what is going on as soon as the door opens and their eyes meet. I think that we can assume that if Elmo is actually on a routine call and he wasnt speaking in gibberish, he would first say something along the lines of “You called an exterminator ma’am?”, which would be routine effortless dialogue. The mistress would then reply with something seductive (something she has possibly used in the past with other exterminators). Elmo would then come back with a tried and true seductive line, probably proven in his previous exterminations-with-benifits. Rinse and repeat until desired effect is achieved.

Munsons characterization of his libido, Korchek the dentist, is evident in Soderbergh playing both characters. Munson might have all of his energy tapped out of him by trying to avoid doing actual work and interactions between himself and his co-workers. When he gets home he just wants to be left alone. His libido, Korchek, is miles away at a job that he can do blindfolded, leaving his mind to linger on sex. Because Korchek is more free at work he can be more free socially, and is more “free” socially.

Soderberghs portrayal of office life is fairly straight forward. Its boring. Its mundane. Nobody wants to be there, really. Well maybe the higher-ups do, but this is only because they are horrible people and enjoy their jobs more than anything else. Everyone working in the office is paranoid about their jobs and moles and spies because they have nothing else to keep them occupied intellectually. So when some rumor gets passed around the office it gets blown way out of proportion until people are sweating over nothing at all.

I think the Eventualism is just a replacement for scientology. One guy spouting a bunch of crap that the down-trodden will eat up if it holds the empty promise of a better life.

Considering that Soderbergh is on his second marriage, and has had rocky romantic histories (the info on the “histories” comes from a book called Rebels On The Backlot. if their info is wrong, shoot them.)

The perception aspect comes from the director living through most of the scenarios ( i cant speak for the elmo scenes though.)

What i find remarkable about this movie is not the themes behind it but the way that they are portrayed in an almost,and in some cases ENTIRELY, literal sense. He has just thought about what all this crap we have to trudge through everyday means and has abreviated it. Hilariously so.

Tommy Bell

Thoughts on First Class Viewings.

As a preface to my post im going to say that when I write about movies my writing style is… less than academic. I am prone to tangents, hypotheticals, over-dramatics and occasional profanity. I like to write in the way that I think because it allows me to give the reader a glimpse of my thought processes. It also allows me to get my thoughts onto paper more quickly, while they are still fresh and in the moment. This might occasionally lead to rambling, but I assure you that while I might be long (or short) winded at times I am almost always trying to keep my thoughts on point. I am open to suggestions about writing style, content, etc. That being said, lets just get on with it.

I cant really escape 2001 either. For one reason or another I always end up watching it again and always sooner than I thought. Not just for class either. I do watch movies in my spare time (why else would I be a film student). I find myself drawn back to its mysteries time and time again because It never ceases to amaze and surprise me. I dont think I will ever be able to comprehend all that goes on in the final scene. But apparently thats how Kubrick wanted it. He wanted to keep his audience guessing about what was going on. He left it up to the audience to create their own reality inside the one that he had provided them. It makes me think I dont want to know what that final scene is or what it means. But Im always curious…

When I learned that the first satellite that we see after the million-year-jump-cut is actually a missle silo, it blew my mind. I had no idea that what I thought was a communications satellite was a weapon of global destruction. It ties in so perfectly with the pacing of the film (the whole man-throws-his-weapon-into-the-skies thing). Its a detail that could add to the overall feel of the movie, but how to explain it to the audience without compromising the rest of the film?

I have tried to hide details or prompt my limited audience to think with some of my previous (and lost) films, no one saw what I was trying to do. They just chalked what seemed to be continuity errors or odd character actions to amateur film making. I haven’t really thought about putting undefinable elements in my films in a while but ill definitely have to give it thought when Im writing again.

The question now is whether or not those undefinable elements should be explained afterwards. I think that Kubrick was right in swearing his staff to secrecy to preserve the mystique and allure of his films. Should those staff members have released the details of the films? In my opinion the fact that the first satellite is a missle silo adds to my experience, however Im not sure if I want the final scene explained to me. I have many speculations about what it could mean and what each of the elements involved could be, but i dont necessarily want to be proved right. Its hard to say what should and shouldnt be revealed to an audience, but ultimately it is the choice of the director.

Tommy Bell

I know I said that I ramble and have a fairly unprofessional style of writing but its kind of hard not to write with respect considering the work discussed. On the other hand, writing about works that I have considerably less respect for usually bring out my more creatively critical side. Stay Tuned!

Molly is on your tumblr!