Cell-Phone Sections

My dream is that movie theaters sell special tickets for people to sit in the “cell-phone section” where they are allowed to text and tweet and talk as much as they want. Ushers will see these tickets and direct people to the special door that leads to the exclusive cell-phone section. Through that door is a small room with a trapdoor that leads to the garbage compactor from Star Wars.

Kimbra is just ridiculously talented. Really looking forward to whatever else she has in store for us. I highly recommend buying her Settle Down EP.

This was recorded at SXSW 2012 outside the Spotify House.

(via metafilter)

Mr. Beaks Takes Issue With The Coverage Of JOHN CARTER

The autopsy began before the corpse was even on the slab.

Mr. Beaks takes the film-journalism world to task for how they covered JOHN CARTER leading up to its release.

I’ll add an insight of Jean Cocteau’s from 1948, those quaint times when tentpole movies only cost a couple million dollars:

The main danger confronting [film], not only in France but in all the countries of the world, is the amount that it costs and the fear of taking risks imposed on us by the money that producers invest. This deprives [film] of those contrasts, experiments, flights of daring and marvelous failures that allow art to overcome inertia and to break with habit.

I’m holding off on writing my thoughts about JOHN CARTER, as it’s the first film of 2012 that made me want to immediately watch it a second time.

But I will say this… None of us see a financial loss or gain if JOHN CARTER does well or poorly at the box-office. The financial success of the film has no impact on the quality of the film, as the film was made and finished long before any revenue was generated. Let the people who are actually invested in the success or failure of a film worry about its financial prospects. Why can’t we just celebrate the contrasts, experiments, flights of daring and, yes, even the marvelous failures?

Surely we have much more to gain from encouraging a conversation about film that ignores financial success and failure. No one comes out of a film saying “I really love the part where the studio made a lot of money releasing it” or “I really liked the film until I realized the studio lost money on it.”

“I like words. I like fat buttery words, such as ooze, turpitude, glutinous, toady. I like solemn, angular, creaky words, such as straitlaced, cantankerous, pecunious, valedictory. I like spurious, black-is-white words, such as mortician, liquidate, tonsorial, demi-monde. I like suave “V” words, such as Svengali, svelte, bravura, verve. I like crunchy, brittle, crackly words, such as splinter, grapple, jostle, crusty. I like sullen, crabbed, scowling words, such as skulk, glower, scabby, churl. I like Oh-Heavens, my-gracious, land’s-sake words, such as tricksy, tucker, genteel, horrid. I like elegant, flowery words, such as estivate, peregrinate, elysium, halcyon. I like wormy, squirmy, mealy words, such as crawl, blubber, squeal, drip. I like sniggly, chuckling words, such as cowlick, gurgle, bubble and burp.”

The opening of a letter that former copywriter Robert Pirosh sent to directors, producers, and studio executives when looking for work as a screenwriter. He was hired by MGM and went on to write for the Marx Brothers and later won an Oscar for writing Battleground.

What are you doing to stand out from the pack? I get emails from aspiring screenwriters every day, and none have been as good as this.

Go to Letters of Note (one of my favorite websites) for the full letter.

2012 Movie #44 - Oliver! (1968) I was lucky enough to see a brand-new 35mm print of OLIVER! projected at the BFI with a Q&A featuring Ron Moody (Fagin), Kenneth Cranham (Noah Claypole), and Mark Lester (Oliver Twist himself!). This was definitely one of the high-lights of my filmgoing life, as OLIVER! is one of my all-time favorite films and Ron Moody’s performance as Fagin is one of my favorite film-performances. I have a long history with Lionel Bart’s musical version of Oliver. It was one of my favorite films growing up, and I was actually cast as Oliver when I was 12 at our high-school’s production of the musical. Obviously I know all the songs by heart. However I’ve only ever seen the film on VHS, and haven’t seen it at all for well over a decade. Seeing the film on a new 35mm print was a revelation for me. The production design and cinematography are jaw-droppingly amazing. The fascinating thing about the film is how Carol Reed is able to combine the best part of a heightened classic musical aesthetic with elements more at home in a serious modern drama of the late 60s. The production design fits the scope of a glossy studio musical, but with dirt and grit giving a real honesty to the sets. You can see further proof of this perfect marriage of grand theatrical scope and intimate drama in the scenes between Fagin (Ron Moody) and Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). In his Fagin, Ron Moody constructed a compelling dangerous clown out of what is traditionally a despicably evil one-note villain. He uses every trick of the stage performer including pulling bits form magic, clowning, mime, and vaudeville. It’s a remarkable performance, and shows what is capable when an incredible theatrical actor is given a canvas that fits his style. But what’s most remarkable is that Carol Reed has figured out a way to let the vaudevillian theatrical Fagin live in the same frame as the more naturalistic method approach of Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Reed is one of the few characters to never sing a note in this musical. He broods his way through scenes with intense masculinity and real menace. It’s hard to explain just how hard it is to maintain suspension of belief in a film when you are mixing multiple tones. It’s a miracle that Carol Reed was able to pull this off. OLIVER always feels cohesive and complete and real. He manages to pull the best from both the grand performance tricks of theater and the grounded intimate drama of film. And he does it so effortlessly. I think this is what has stopped people from fully recognizing OLIVER as the masterpiece it is. Reed made it look too easy. High-res

2012 Movie #44 - Oliver! (1968)

I was lucky enough to see a brand-new 35mm print of OLIVER! projected at the BFI with a Q&A featuring Ron Moody (Fagin), Kenneth Cranham (Noah Claypole), and Mark Lester (Oliver Twist himself!). This was definitely one of the high-lights of my filmgoing life, as OLIVER! is one of my all-time favorite films and Ron Moody’s performance as Fagin is one of my favorite film-performances.

I have a long history with Lionel Bart’s musical version of Oliver. It was one of my favorite films growing up, and I was actually cast as Oliver when I was 12 at our high-school’s production of the musical. Obviously I know all the songs by heart. However I’ve only ever seen the film on VHS, and haven’t seen it at all for well over a decade.

Seeing the film on a new 35mm print was a revelation for me. The production design and cinematography are jaw-droppingly amazing. The fascinating thing about the film is how Carol Reed is able to combine the best part of a heightened classic musical aesthetic with elements more at home in a serious modern drama of the late 60s. The production design fits the scope of a glossy studio musical, but with dirt and grit giving a real honesty to the sets.

You can see further proof of this perfect marriage of grand theatrical scope and intimate drama in the scenes between Fagin (Ron Moody) and Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). In his Fagin, Ron Moody constructed a compelling dangerous clown out of what is traditionally a despicably evil one-note villain. He uses every trick of the stage performer including pulling bits form magic, clowning, mime, and vaudeville. It’s a remarkable performance, and shows what is capable when an incredible theatrical actor is given a canvas that fits his style.

But what’s most remarkable is that Carol Reed has figured out a way to let the vaudevillian theatrical Fagin live in the same frame as the more naturalistic method approach of Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Reed is one of the few characters to never sing a note in this musical. He broods his way through scenes with intense masculinity and real menace.

It’s hard to explain just how hard it is to maintain suspension of belief in a film when you are mixing multiple tones. It’s a miracle that Carol Reed was able to pull this off. OLIVER always feels cohesive and complete and real. He manages to pull the best from both the grand performance tricks of theater and the grounded intimate drama of film. And he does it so effortlessly. I think this is what has stopped people from fully recognizing OLIVER as the masterpiece it is. Reed made it look too easy.

Presented without comment. (Other than “Presented without comment.”) ((And then adding ‘(Other than “Presented without comment.”)’)) (((And then… err… well, you catch my recursive disclosure drift.))) High-res

Presented without comment.

(Other than “Presented without comment.”)

((And then adding ‘(Other than “Presented without comment.”)’))

(((And then… err… well, you catch my recursive disclosure drift.)))

Will The John Carters Of Earth See John Carter (formerly Of Mars)?

Mike Ryan cold-calls John Carters across America to find out if they plan on seeing JOHN CARTER when it comes out in theaters. Here are my two favorite answers, but it’s definitely worth checking out the full list.

John Carter of Illinois: “I was thinking about it. The name has a lot to do with it. I’m currently writing a book and my story is really off the wall, but it needs editing. Anyway, it looks similar to this movie. So, because of that and the name, I’m probably going to see it.”

John Carter of Tennessee: “Yes, because everybody’s giving me a ration about it. I wish they would have named it something else because I have a weird background and now people keep accusing me of being reincarnated.”