"Are you a Dreamer?"

Waking Life is a 2001 film written and Directed by Richard Linklater (Slacker, Dazed and Confused, Fast Food Nation).

It was shot with hand-held video cameras, then rotoscoped animated on G4 computers. We're talking low-budget here, folks.

This animation style essentially refers to painting the individual frames of live-action material. The effect is a very trippy, semi-real, pushed down the rabbit hole experience. The best part about it, however, is that the original quality of the footage is of little consequence, meaning it can look professional even if shot on your cell phone.

This film is post-worthy for several reasons, but mainly because of its subject matter. Rarely does a film ask you to question so many things without giving you an enforced narrative (i.e. The Matrix).

Its documentary/experimental art style is is a class by itself.

It forces you to ask the question - what is our waking life? Could it be a dream as well? What, if anything, is reality?

If you like existentialism, check this one out.

Peace.

"...what gives a place its specificity is not some long internalized history but the face that it is constructed out of a particular constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus...Instead then, of thinking of place as areas with boundaries around, they can be imagined as articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings, but where a larger proportion of those relations, experiences and understandings are constructed on a far larger scale than what we happen to define for that moment as the place itself..."

- Doreen Massey

As you read this, I bet you're asking - "now, Tim, how does this relate to film?"

Or maybe you're not.  

But that's besides the point, cause here I go anyway - Many filmmakers choose to make films about places, focusing on them as central characters.  Woody Allen, for instance, has said in interviews that his film Vicky Cristina Barcelona was based on his desire to personify Barcelona. 

I think this is a sentiment that is investigated pretty effectively in film.  When you think about it, rarely is there a film that could take place in any other place than where it is set.  

While of course there are some aspects that limit what film can do, I would argue that aside from physical travel (which costs just a bit more than $8 per-experience), it is the best way to experience a foreign space. 

Not only does the film physically show you locations, but it also often investigates cultural norms and intricacies of those places.  

Consider then that we choose people as the subject of our films, and the quote by Massey can be directly applied. 

I choose to delve into this topic becuase many people are in the habit of criticizing films these days for misappropriation.  Slumdog Millionare, for instance, is heavily critiqued for glossing over child abuse and violence with the guise of a story about love. 

I would argue that it's precisly because it focuses on love that makes it so great.  It doesn't hold back - what you see is brutal and unnerving.  But, like real life love prevails, even in the face of these horrible, disgusting things.  Danny Boyle suggests that there is humanity behind the face of evil, but that we're so consumed with the negative that we can't see it.

People reacting negatively to it is just another example of this. 

I know my points aren't solid, so someone please disagree and let's talk.

Peace.

This is freakin' hilarious.  Maybe a bit off topic, but so what, it's worth it. 

Elmo is my second favorite resident of Sesamy Street, Snuffleupagus my first.  What about you?

Check this out.

David Hayter, scribe of Watchmen, had this to say.

"This is a movie made by fans, for fans. Hundreds of people put in years of their lives to make this movie happen, and every one of them was insanely committed to retaining the integrity of this amazing, epic tale. This is a rare success story, bordering on the impossible, and every studio in town is watching to see if it will work. Hell, most of them own a piece of the movie.

So look, this is a note to the fanboys and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

If the film made you think. Or argue with your friends. If it inspired a debate about the nature of man, or vigilante justice, or the horror of Nixon abolishing term limits. If you laughed at Bowie hanging with Adrian at Studio 54, or the Silhouette kissing that nurse.

Please go see the movie again next weekend.

You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again."

Hayter was the voice of Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid.  That means that he means buisness. Support ingenuity.

Peace.

It's gonna be a long one, folks. Bear with me, I've got a lot on my mind.

I know I promised to stay out of the mainstream, but damn if it isn't still a prevalent force in my life. So I must digress... again.

Watchmen. It's a film about superheroes in a hyper-desensitized dystopia and what happens when the most fowl parts of society are allowed to run rampant and unfiltered. Those that hate it will HATE it. Those that like it will LOVE it. And as always, there are justifiable sides to both.

If, as an average movie-goer you walk into the film with no expectations, you will probably be disgusted. The incredible violence, the hate, the rape and the hopeless message will leave your 

stomach in knots and you might leave wondering why you paid money to sit through such torture.

Heed this warning. You absolutely NEED to be prepared for this film. If you have the time (and it's worth it), read the graphic novel - it plays out pretty much frame-for-frame on film. You will also be familiar with the story, the characters and the message, all of which will add immensely to your experience.

Those than pan the film will refuse to see past what is presented on the screen. They'll see the violence against women, men, children and resulting combinations of the three as disgusting and unworthy of depiction. And at a purely superficial level, they certainly have a point.

"Why", they might ask, "do we need to see these terrible things? What is the point? We've all seen it million times and we KNOW it's horrifying! The only thing the filmmakers are doing is propagating images that support and endorse everything that is wrong with the world and we've had enough!! Things must change!"

Committed ideologists of all stripes will picket, leave the theater and demand for refunds.

I've heard reviews spouting "Hollywood at it's unbearable worst," and more specifically, "This despicable trash will find an audience among sad sociopaths, deranged pseudo-intellectuals and brutalized, immature men of all ages. I just hope that there aren't enough of them to make it a hit. If there are, God help cinema."

See, I wasn't kidding.

As someone who has chosen to dedicate their life to studying the media, good OR bad, I feel it is my responsibility to encourage these people to step outside of their bubble. I'd like to suggest that how they feel is precisely how they're supposed to feel. I think the problem lies in the fact that they don't choose to ask WHY they were meant to feel that way. They jump at the opportunity to ruin the film's credibility without giving it the thought that it truly deserves.

This is a big concept film. The original novel won the Hugo Award for excellence in science-fiction and is widely regarded as one of the most influential novels of all time. It is the only graphic novel to transcend the limits of its genre, and is the only "comic" on Time Magazine's 100 best English-language novels from 1923-present.

I would argue that it deserves a place alongside novels like 1984 and Brave New World.

The world is suggests is one of absolute chaos. But, like 1984 it is based in a reality that we recognize and can readily envision. If you take the worst aspects of our society: racism, sexism, war, oppression and hate, then amplify them to the extreme - that's the setting of Watchmen. Consider this and it will come as no surprise to you that the resulting film is as brutally violent and depressing as it is. 

Through the lens of this hyperbole, the ultimate question is asked: Have we become our own wost enemy?  And if so, is the only way to eradicate the problem to, well, eradicate it?

Who can answer that question, if in fact anyone even has the right to?  Alan Moore leaves it in the hands of superheroes; the guardians of our society.  Not so different than our elected officials. 

But that's tangential. 

The real question, posed perhaps to those aforementioned reviewers, is why can't you handle the truth?  These images, scenes we've all seen before and continue to see everyday on our local news stations, are presented to us in a hyper-stylized, yet plainly matter of fact manner.  To react with disgust is natural.  But does that merit condemnation of the film?

Think for a moment about what making you feel that way would accomplish.  If the film's central message is that things need to change before they culminate solely in:

Then isn't that a message to be comended?

Let me try to clarify this picture.

Ozymandias, considered the world's smartest man, makes the final decision in the end of the film.  For those that have yet to see it, I won't ruin it, but as you can see, his bases this descision on his only connection with the world - TV.  Perhaps a comment on the media?  I'd be interested to see what people think about this. 

I'm suggesting that the over-the-top violence and anger portrayed in the film is in fact a self-referential critique.  We are supposed to ask, "THIS is what media has become?"  

Isn't the media the ultimate marker of a society?  Out of all of the things we create, the media is how outsiders will come to understand us (even historians in the future - you think they will look past what has been recorded, or even be able to?).  

All of the things people criticize this film for are the things the filmmakers were trying to point out.  Yes, you're all right, it needs to change!  But this effort should be appreciated, not neglected. This reaction may, however, be inherent in the overall goal of the film.  In that case, it has certainly worked.

What I'm offering is, of course, an interpretation.  Take it for what it is.  Agree or disagree, it makes you step out of the box for a moment and consider that maybe there is a shred of intelligence in Hollywood, however hard that might be.  

So I've said a lot, and I'm sure there are points that I've skipped since this post was written over a long period, so help me out with this.  Start a conversation if you're interested.  

This is what I do.  Or try to do anyway.

Peace.

OK, so check this out.

You all know Tarentino, right?  Well, have you also heard of the flick he penned that was directed by Tony Scott, True Romance?  Supposedly, Scott had originally shot and cut the film the way that it was written, but then got cold feet over the 'answers first, questions later' style that Tarentino is famous for.  He thus edited it chronologically, which some believe ruined the film.  No other (legal) cut exists.

There's a discussion to be had here over who has the true authorship of a film, the writer or director, but we'll save that for another time (as a writer, you might could guess as to my stance).

While researching for a project, I stumbled upon a torrent proclaiming to be the "Tarentino-Cut of True Romance".  This, of course, piqued my interest.  

As it turns out, the person who uploaded this new cut was also responsible for editing it.  It is then, a fan-cut version of the film, using the original screenplay as a guide.  The guy even went into the DVD extras and reinserted scenes that Tony Scott had taken out.  Talk about dedication.

I haven't seen it yet, but that's only because it has not finished downloading.  I'll tell you how it compares soon.

Again I have to praise the internet for allowing this kind of thing to happen.  If, as it proclaims to be, this is a comprehensive re-cutting of the film, then power has indeed changed hands.  If you are unsatisfied with a film, do it yourself!  Granted, you can't exactly change the way they shot it, but editing is just as crucial a component, if not more so.  The sky is the limit!

Though I imagine this guy will be hunted down by IP lawyers, I have to congratulate his passion and ingenuity.  These are the kinds of doors being opened to our generation.  

I'm excited, are you?

Peace.

Wendy and Lucy.

If you’ve ever had a dog, this movie will upset you.

It was nominated, along with The Wrestler, Rachel Getting Married, Frozen River and Ballast for the Independent Spirit Award for best picture.  Having seen it just last night, I’ve got to agree with the sentiment.  While The Wrestler won, that picture has Darren Aronofsky and Mickey Rourke behind its name.  Wendy and Lucy was produced by Todd Haynes.  Have you heard of him?

My plug for Haynes – he hit the film biz a little too late (the 70s were more apt to his style), but definitely belongs among the auteurs from the 80s.  He’s responsible for Poison, Safe, Velvet Goldmine, Far From Heaven and I’m Not There (the film about Bob Dylan).  If none of those films ring a bell, they should.  As an openly gay filmmaker, he has been touted as one of the preeminent voices in the “queer cinema” movement.  His first film, Superstar, used Barbie dolls instead of actors to tell the story of Karen Carpenter (who died of anorexia in 1983, when she was 32).   It stirred up controversy and due to legal issues with the music (she was half of the music duo The Carpenters) exists only on the internet.

Take a look if you have the time.  It’s a bit disturbing.

But anyhow, he obviously believed in W&L, and for good reason.  The film touches on some tender issues without being overly political or arrogant.  It has the pacing of a Van Sant film and the personality of Thomas McCarthy.  It is, like many films, a blip in the life of its characters, but we still follow the journey without reservation. 

It is a movie about people.  Not to say it doesn’t have a message, but when the message consumes the movie (I’m looking at you, Doubt), it becomes about something else entirely. 

So often these days we are taken for rides that entertain rather than involve.  It’s nice to see a film that does both.  At only 80 minutes, the film doesn’t ask for much of your time, so check it out if you have the chance.  I’d be interested to see what people think, especially those of you who aren’t often exposed to the world of independent cinema.

This movie got me all emotional, but then again, I’ve had a dog that looks and acts almost exactly like Lucy, so it may be more of a personal thing.  Let me know!

Peace.