You hear that, Mr Andersen?

Movies: Days 7 & 8

Given how many films I'm seeing that were made with Canal+ money, it's only appropriate that I point you in the direction of an ad for them about the “March of the Emperors”.

* * *

Okay, I'm now on a bus. It's 1:08am, and I'm hoping to make it in on time for my 11:30am movie...

...and then I had to shift my jacket so someone could sit next to me, and so couldn't type. I'm now in the Paramount, dreading four movies in the Seats of Butt-Killing. I think it's a pretty bad sign that I'm seriously considering walking to Briscoes to buy a cushion. We'll see how I feel in the long break I have between my first two movies and my last two.

Oh, and I'd normally have caught an earlier bus – I'm a little paranoid about running late because of public transport – but I had to go in to help Editorial this morning. It's a little frustrating; some of the external clients are making it very, very hard for us to automatically import their data. I mean, you'd think that this would be a win for them as well, right? If we could create the shots and plates correctly and quickly? But I guess one of the problems is that many of them haven't really worked out their processes, and are sending us whatever blob of data seems sensible at the time, and expecting someone to painstakingly comb through it by hand, since that's the way their set-up works. Bah.

More about actual movie stuff shortly.

* * *

Thursday started with Who's Camus Anyway, where a group of Japanese film students are making a movie based on a famous account of a school-boy who randomly and without remorse murdered an old woman. The write-up in the booklet made me a bit dubious, but when it opened with a single long shot in a university courtyard that followed different groups to set the scene... and then started following some of the students who talk about how cool some films are because they have minutes-long single-shot opening scenes – I think that was the point I was pretty sure I would enjoy the film. I don't know whether I'd watch it again, but the whole “making a movie” feel seemed quite real (from my limited experience), and there were some good fakeouts, as well as genuine dramtic moments. I liked a number of the characters – the slightly effete main actor, the somewhat crazed girlfriend of the director, the superstitious student in his 30s – although it was in some ways a shame that the large cast meant that some characters weren't as developed as they could be. Anyway, I'm glad I went.

Next was Vampires Vs Sheep Man, a couple of shorts at the City Gallery. I'm afraid I really didn't rate the first short, Sheep Man; it was a parody of Grizzly Man, except with a death due the lanolin allergies. It was very much a one-joke short, and unfortunately for it I'd already seen a Grizzly Man parody done both more professionally and funnier on the net a few weeks ago. A few good moments, but on the whole pretty disappointing.

Interviews With Some Vampires was a lot better, though it was a bit patchy at times; there was some nice humour to be gotten out of exploring some of the consequences of our modern ideas about vampires, and looking at how three vampires, each hundreds of years old, might deal with flatting with each other – complaining about bloody pots being left out for weeks without being cleaned, giving each other fashion advice (since they couldn't see themselves in mirrors), etc. (Actually, I imagine a dressmaker's dummy would be an essential part of the equipment of any sharp-dressed “creature of the night”.) There was also the recently turned vampire who insists on wearing the puffy shirts and old-fashioned jackets, despite being born in the 1980s.

There was a judicious use of special effects – fake bats, a “look, I'm not in the mirror” scene – but most of the humour was verbal rather than visual. Unfortunately, some jokes were a little weak... for example, there's a section where one of the vampires talk about were-wolves, and says that there other were-creatures... then give as examples were-geese, were-horses, and, in Outer Mongolia, the dreaded were-women. It seems to me that, if you're going to make that joke, why not give it a little more build-up? Talk about the were-hyena of Africa (associated with smiths, by the by), and the were-jaguar of South America; and then go for were-hamsters or were-gerbils. And if you're going for ridiculous, why not were-goldfish – so sad, flapping about on the ground like that? (That'd be a curse that'd have to be carried through bloodlines, though, because really: who is a goldfish going to be able to bite?) And why not go completely silly, and talk about the dark and deadly were-portmanteau. It's a... it's a type of bulky travelling bag, you see? And they're particularly dangerous, because who is going to waste silver bullets on luggage? Ah, but, then, then you turn your backs to them, and that is when they strike!

Sorry. Though “portmanteau” is officially a pretty awesome word. Look it up on prettyawesomewords.com if you don't believe me.

Seeing the parts shot down-town on a Friday night were pretty depressing; I prefer to think of Wellingtonians as being pretty tolerant, but I guess a bunch of drunken rugby-heads aren't ready to deal with a bunch of guys in frock-coats in front of a camera. They did manage to get a nice zinger or two in, though, which made me feel marginally better. And there's some very good question-and-answer bits earlier in the short. I'd definitely say it was worth seeing; just don't go into it expecting too much.

* * *

Hmm. Could you have a movie, or at least a short, where the flatmates talk in subtext, along the lines of that short where they're making an ad? You know, “Make the meat-puppet show the emotions in as broad and cliched a way as possible”? Either actually saying the lines, or subtitling... I'm sure there could be some fun to be had there.

* * *

Next, Army of Shadows at Te Papa, an older film about the French resistance. While it was obviously made as something of a propoganda piece, it didn't glamourize the situation nearly as much as it could; while there was the occasional daring escape, one of the first deaths was the strangling of a collaborator who'd betrayed members of the resistance. They were going to shoot him, but a family had moved in next to the spot they had chosen, so two of them had to hold his hands and feet while the third used a towel... nasty. I didn't realise it going in, but it was all based on real people and events, which may have been why any heroics were pretty low-key. I liked it, though it was a little slow, as you'd expect with a film this old; I doubt I'll watch it again, however.

Next was House of Sand, the story of three generations of women (played, as adults, by two actresses, who swapped back and forth as characters got older) living on the fringes of the desert, and the fringes of civilization; at first desperately trying to get back, and then dealing with their isolation in various ways. World wars come and go, and by the end of the movie man has landed on the moon; but life in that place, like the sand, has shifted but not really moved. It reminded me, for no particular reason, of I Capture the Castle.

And finally, Last Train to Freo; possibly not a movie to see if you're already nervous about travelling on public transport at night. It starts with two thugs getting on an empty carriage, one of whom had just gotten out of jail, and then a young pretty law student gets on... and it's revealed that the guards that normally patrol the train are on strike. There are a number of cool things about this film; for example, it's set in Perth, and the duration of the film is pretty much how long the train journey would take. And they take advantage of an experiment that the train company actually made about piping classical music into the carriages; this let them use evocative (and conveniently copyright-free) tracks to illustrate and underscore the action. (I saw a web-site for copyright-free classical music in the credits, as well as thanks to Naxos.) It was originally written as a play, and the makers seemed to feel that they had to explain the talkiness of it; but I thought it worked really well.

They also brought up the interesting dillema of the eloquent thug who, they point out, might have been a prince or proud warrior in another time and place, but doesn't really have a role in our culture any more – the quick-witted, passionate and violent type that make good Greek heroes and poor salary workers. However, I think that there might be something else at play here as well. There seems to be something in Australian culture that likes the “yob”, and idolizes it in a way that New Zealanders don't; we seem to prefer more phlegmatic heros. (They have Ned Kelly shooting lawmen in armour; we have Barry Crump unconcernedly driving up vertical cliffs. Though obviously I'm talking more about the public image of Barry Crump, than the much more complicated man.) This film, made here, would be very different, I think.

It'd have to be on a bus, for a start. ;)

Anyway, I think that the makers would be glad of that; their stated goal is to make Australian films, so it seems appropriate. It's a good film, and I'd certainly recommend seeing it; a few twists seem a little contrived, but there's plenty of tension, and a good story.

It did make me wonder – was The Method originally a play? If not, I'd bet even money that the script-writer was a playwright originally; it had that kind of feel. And it would be relatively easy to stage, if you had the right actors; there are really only four sets (the meeting room, the reception, the hallway and the toilets), and while I liked what they did with the camera, nothing in the story depends on fancy cinematography. It'd be kinda cool.

* * *

I know I should be shunned in rational society if I used the word “chillaxing” in normal conversation; but is it acceptable to think it non-ironically? Just throwing the thought out there. Onto the interweb. Kinda thing.

What?

* * *

Which brings us to today.

I started with Host & Guest, a Korean film about a friendship that develops between a out-of-work divorced film lecturer and one of those Christians who knocks on doors to witness. They started by showing Korea in economic depression – phone-spam, spam flyers under the windshield-wipers and tucked into car windows, the film lecturer having to sell his nice big car for a clapped-out older model. The friendship worked really well, and I found it quite engaging; even so, not sure I'd watch it again.

Next: Event 16, a NZ time-travel movie. Intriguing idea, good script, fairly good dialogue, and some uneven acting that thankfully didn't get in the way of the story (though in the last scene, I found myself wondering – is she smiling, or freaking out and trying to cover it by fake-smiling?). I found it relatively easy to follow, but I've read a fair amount of time-travel fiction, and some other people apparently struggled; part of that may have been because the main chap behind the movie was initially motivated by the effects that he could do, rather than, say, a Big Concept or characters that he wanted to explore.

(One chap complained that he was in the right “Playstation” demographic, and liked Doctor Who, but still had trouble following it... but then again, even though the good Doctor is meant to travel through time, that's always (as far as I can remember it) used as a way to frame the stories, rather than used within the stories; and I don't remember them being that narratively complex. I think that watching or reading noir detective fiction, where people are often other than they first appear, would actually be more useful. That said, the movie might have benefitted from having a premise exposition scene – I don't want to have too give spoilers, but there seems no reason for the guys with the armband-screens not to tell the main character what, in general terms, they're doing, and why. On the other hand, I liked having to think a little.)

It was interesting to find out that it had been completely overdubbed, because they weren't thinking about sound quality when they were filming; in some ways, the clunkiness of the dialogue might have been easier to take in subtitles, but that wouldn't have worked with the whole Wellington setting. :) I think they made a very good call in not trying to hide the artificiality of some of the effects, and instead going for a unified look that played to the effect's strengths; even little things like having the people who went back in time greying out to match the stock photos and footage that they used. And I think it's exciting that this kind of niche film can now be made by a few determined people for $60k, and that the quality of what can be done on a home set-up will only get better going forward. The fact that they were able to finish it off with the money from presales, and were looking at overseas marketing (which seems like the only way to do things with genre movies in NZ) was pretty cool, too.

Someone asked if, given this was the film-maker's Brain Dead, what did they forsee as their Kong? In many ways, I'd say it's more his Bad Taste... which means I'll be very interested to see what his Heavenly Creatures is. :)

* * *

Just saw Men At Work, an Iranian film about a group of four middle-aged men who come across a rock sticking up beside the road. They decide to push it over, which turns out to be a lot harder than they anticipated.

For such a simple premise, there a lot of movie in there, and quite a bit of fun. I don't think that setting a goal on a whim (a goal that might actively be dangerous, what's more) and getting obsessed with it is a uniquely male thing; but it's certainly something that resonates with me. (I'm sure that everyone who knows that I'm going to 70+ films within two weeks, plus work and blogging, will be astonded by that assertion.)

Wow, I've actually managed to nearly run down a battery. You guys must be fed up with these infinitely long entries. (Actually, I assume anyone who isn't interested would just skim, so I should tuck something completely scandalous somewhere in one of these... if I haven't already, bwah-hah-ha. :)

One more film to see tonight, and then I'm off home. I finish around midnight, and so won't be home until even later than that... I may as well finish this entry tonight, but I'll leave checking my email until the morning, I think.

* * *

Just got home from Mind Games. It started with a crazy montage of scenes from parts of the film, and you're trying to create a narrative out of it, and thinking, “Holy crap, this is going to be really tiring to watch if the whole thing is like this.” But it soon settles down, and while it stays fairly crazy, it does so at a more managable speed. It's... well, one of the main threads is about a guy, a manga writer, and his childhood sweetheart who he was always too shy to go after properly; in many ways, it's about him being given a second chance. In some ways it reminds me of The Triplets of Belleville, though not as slapstick, and more prepared to exaggerate and distort the images to express emotion; and there was a wide variety of animation techniques used. (For example, the characters, who were normally drawn, would sometimes be photographs that had been drawn on; or things would be painted, rather than pen-and-inked.) In many ways, I'd like to re-watch it, because there are a number of scenes that you understand differently as the movie progresses; and I'm sure that I missed some stuff.

It was pretty cool; I don't think that it would be for everyone, and I had to pay a fair amount of attention to follow everything I noticed, but I enjoyed it, and could imagine rewatching it.

* * *

Oh, and homeperm – you're absolutely right. Everyone with an ounce of soul in their body loves Island Bay. Unless, I guess, they're some sort of demon-thing, and digesting someone else's soul. But the person that demon-thing ate – they undoubtedly loved Island Bay prior to being devoured.

Hmm. Maybe I'm a bit tired. Signing off.

Posted by svend at July 29, 2006 12:55 AM