SWITCH trailer from Arcos Films on Vimeo.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
'Switch' Screening at Winona State on Oct. 11
The documentary film Switch will be screened at Winona State University on Thursday, October 11 at 6:30pm in Stark Hall 103. In the film Dr. Scott Tinker explores the paths toward utilizing alternative energy sources. A discussion will follow the screening. The Switch screening is sponsored by WSU's Department of Geoscience and the Geology Club. The trailer is embedded below:
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
'The Invisible War' Screening at WSU Oct. 11
The Invisible War will be shown at Winona State University at 7 p.m. on Thursday, October 11th in Science Laboratory Center 120.
Directed by Kirby Dick, The Invisible War is a documentary about sexual assault in the United States military. The film won the audience award at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival and is currently scoring 100% fresh at rottentomatoes.com. The trailer is embedded below:
Directed by Kirby Dick, The Invisible War is a documentary about sexual assault in the United States military. The film won the audience award at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival and is currently scoring 100% fresh at rottentomatoes.com. The trailer is embedded below:
Sunday, October 7, 2012
1982 Retrospective
Introduction
The 1980s were not a particularly good decade for Hollywood films. It wasn’t the worst decade, (that title probably belongs to the 1950s) but coming off the highs of the 1970s, often referred to as the New Hollywood era, the decade of Reagan and Rambo comes across looking like an underachieving sibling. There are various reasons for this, primarily economic.
The cinematic boom of the 1970s that enabled filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and William Friedkin to make pictures such as The Godfather, Taxi Driver, and The French Connection was birthed by a near collapse of the studio system in the mid-1960s. Between the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 1980s, many of Hollywood’s major studios were taken over by corporations but the executives responsible for them had not yet settled on a vision for how the studios should be run. They turned to young filmmakers, many fresh out of film school, and enabled them to produce movies that spoke to an audience that had endured the cultural shifts of those challenging times. Although the perception of 1970s filmmakers enjoying total creative freedom is somewhat exaggerated, they were able to produce a body of work that was unprecedented and remains a high watermark of American film.
Just as financial circumstances opened new doors for filmmakers, financial priorities also shut them. In the late 1970s the blockbuster success of Jaws and Star Wars signaled to studios what kinds of profits could be generated by films based on fantasy and spectacle. At the same time several high profile passion projects, such as Heaven’s Gate, failed very loudly at the box office, leading studio executives to assert more control over production and a new studio system was born. Where the previous Hollywood studio system had been guided by figures like Jack Warner and Darryl Zanuck, moguls who had actual filmmaking experience, the new studio system of the 1980s and beyond was guided by figures like Barry Diller and Rupert Murdoch, who had achieved tremendous business success but who had little or no interest in filmmaking. As a result the studios abandoned the smaller, more personal projects that 1970s filmmakers had generated and put an emphasis on creating blockbuster box office successes. This resulted in trends like serialization of popular films and an emphasis on generating revenue through ancillary markets with tie-in products and other promotions. This led to an overall downturn in the quality of Hollywood’s product throughout the 1980s. Although directors like Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese, and Barry Levinson continued to produce impressive films, many of Hollywood’s prestige pictures from the 1980s paled in comparison to the films generated in the previous decade. Commercial and critical hits like Gandhi and Out of Africa have not aged well and they lack the boldness of movies like Network or Apocalypse Now.
Yet, artistry was not lost. The emphasis on fantasy and spectacle occurred simultaneously with a renaissance in special effects and the 1980s were distinguished by an excellent crop of fantasy and science fiction films. This trend was led by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas who directed and produced a string of hits that included the second and third Star Wars films, the first three Indiana Jones pictures, the Back to the Future trilogy, Gremlins, and Willow. Other filmmakers emerged and built on the foundation that Spielberg and Lucas had established but they also drew from the cultural and filmmaking advances that had been made in the 1970s that allowed for greater latitude in on-screen sexuality and violence. As a result, horror, science fiction, and fantasy filmmakers of the 1980s were able to take genres that had often been regarded as silly or juvenile and created complex and mature stories that made them the true heirs of New Hollywood. These filmmakers included James Cameron with The Terminator, Aliens, and The Abyss, John Carpenter with Escape from New York and They Live, and David Cronenberg with Videodrome, Scanners, and The Fly. Other notable science fiction, horror, and fantasy pictures were produced throughout the decade including the Nightmare on Elm Street series, Brazil, Dune, Legend, Robocop, Batman, Predator, and the bulk of the original Star Trek series. These films were among the most popular pictures of the 1980s and many of them are now regarded as classics.
Although notable science fiction and fantasy films were produced throughout the 1980s, the year 1982 holds special significance as a number of extraordinary science fiction, horror, and fantasy films were released in this twelve month period, several of which became standard bearers for their genres. On today’s episode of Sounds of Cinema I examined several of those genre films from 1982, evaluating their merits, examining what made them so special, and exploring how they’ve influenced later movies. Here is another look at those films plus a few others that didn’t make it into the episode.
Blade Runner
Blade Runner was not a blockbuster hit at the time of its original release and it is one of the films that really benefited from post-theatrical revision. It has since proven to be one of the most influential science fiction pictures of all time and its inspiration can be seen in movies like 1984, The Matrix, The Fifth Element, and Inception and the television series Battlestar Galactica. This is a dense film but it is also a smart one.
Cat People
Paul Schrader remade the 1942 classic as an erotic story of horrific self-discovery. Although it makes some leaps in the storytelling it is a unique film and a good example of how 1980s filmmakers benefited from the latitude of the 1970s.
Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Barbarian inspired a lot of forgettable fantasy films that followed such as Barbarian Queen and Red Sonja but echoes of Conan are observable in more recent films like The Scorpion King, the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans and even The Lord of the Rings. It remains an amusing fantasy film even if it is something of a guilty pleasure.
Creepshow
Directed by George A. Romero and written by Stephen King, this anthology of horror stories acknowledged the history of horror comics while paving the way for the TV shows Tales from the Crypt and American Horror Story as well as the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez double feature Grindhouse.
The Dark Crystal
The Dark Crystal was an attempt by Jim Henson and Frank Oz to move puppetry beyond The Muppets. This never led anywhere but this film remains a cult classic.
E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial
E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial is one of the most essential films of Steven Spielberg’s filmography and its influence can be observed in films that followed shortly thereafter like Starman and Cocoon but also in later films such as WALL-E, The Iron Giant, and Spielberg’s 2001 film A.I. Artificial Intelligence. But beyond its cinematic influence, E.T. remains a draw because its optimism and love will reduce even the most stoic viewer to mush.
Friday the 13th Part III
There isn’t much to the third installment of Friday the 13th that distinguishes it from earlier or later films in the series, although this film does introduce the hockey mask and it was originally shown in 3-D.
Halloween III
A lot of Halloween fans were angry and confused by this film because it does not include Michael Myers. Instead, the filmmakers attempted to shift the series in a new direction, turning it into a Twilight Zone –like story. More recently this movie has gained a cult following and it is worth a look.
The New York Ripper
Directed by Lucio Fulci, The New York Ripper is one of the more difficult slasher films to sit through, partly because of its violence but mostly because it isn’t very good. However, The New York Ripper gained cult status when it was added to the UK “Video Nasties” list and was banned in the country. The following video is NSFW.
Pieces
Another slasher film that isn’t very good except for its kitch value, Pieces was identified by Hostel director Eli Roth as one of his favorite films.
Poltergeist
Poltergeist remains an excellent film that will scare its audience. It is also quietly subversive, suggesting that affluent suburban society is built on the dead. Its influence can be observed in the many recent haunted house pictures like Drag Me to Hell and Paranormal Activity.
The Secret of NIMH
The Secret of NIMH was the first directorial feature for Don Bluth, who went on to make The Land Before Time, An American Tail, and All Dogs Go to Heaven. The Secret of NIMH is a darker movie than a lot Disney’s animated features and it is an ambitious if incomplete story.
Slumber Party Massacre
One of the more interesting entries in the slasher genre, Slumber Party Massacre simultaneously ridiculed and satisfied the clichés of these films more than a decade before Scream. Fans of 1980s horror should definitely seek it out.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
The Wrath of Khan is the best of the Star Trek films and it remains one of the highpoints of American science fiction and fantasy filmmaking. Its influence can be seen in television shows like Firefly and films like X2 and the 2009 reboot of Star Trek.
The Thing
Although contemporary cinema has been taken over by CGI, The Thing remains a strong case for practical effects and it ranks with Alien and Jaws among the great monster movies. But this is more than just an alien attack movie. This is a story about paranoia and how people react in a crisis and because of that subtext the film is far more frightening.
TRON
TRON is flawed but it is technically important as it was among the first films to meld computer graphics with live action and it opened doors for a lot of films that would come later such as The Last Starfighter, The Lawnmower Man, and The Matrix. The way TRON tapped into the intersection of computer technology and the human experience makes it amusingly prescient.
The Wall
Pink Floyd’s The Wall was released just a few years after the premiere of MTV. In the years since the relevance of the music video has waxed and waned and waxed again but despite the latest trend of musicals and pop music documentaries we’ve never seen a project quite like The Wall since, which is a shame.
The 1980s were not a particularly good decade for Hollywood films. It wasn’t the worst decade, (that title probably belongs to the 1950s) but coming off the highs of the 1970s, often referred to as the New Hollywood era, the decade of Reagan and Rambo comes across looking like an underachieving sibling. There are various reasons for this, primarily economic.
The cinematic boom of the 1970s that enabled filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and William Friedkin to make pictures such as The Godfather, Taxi Driver, and The French Connection was birthed by a near collapse of the studio system in the mid-1960s. Between the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 1980s, many of Hollywood’s major studios were taken over by corporations but the executives responsible for them had not yet settled on a vision for how the studios should be run. They turned to young filmmakers, many fresh out of film school, and enabled them to produce movies that spoke to an audience that had endured the cultural shifts of those challenging times. Although the perception of 1970s filmmakers enjoying total creative freedom is somewhat exaggerated, they were able to produce a body of work that was unprecedented and remains a high watermark of American film.
Just as financial circumstances opened new doors for filmmakers, financial priorities also shut them. In the late 1970s the blockbuster success of Jaws and Star Wars signaled to studios what kinds of profits could be generated by films based on fantasy and spectacle. At the same time several high profile passion projects, such as Heaven’s Gate, failed very loudly at the box office, leading studio executives to assert more control over production and a new studio system was born. Where the previous Hollywood studio system had been guided by figures like Jack Warner and Darryl Zanuck, moguls who had actual filmmaking experience, the new studio system of the 1980s and beyond was guided by figures like Barry Diller and Rupert Murdoch, who had achieved tremendous business success but who had little or no interest in filmmaking. As a result the studios abandoned the smaller, more personal projects that 1970s filmmakers had generated and put an emphasis on creating blockbuster box office successes. This resulted in trends like serialization of popular films and an emphasis on generating revenue through ancillary markets with tie-in products and other promotions. This led to an overall downturn in the quality of Hollywood’s product throughout the 1980s. Although directors like Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese, and Barry Levinson continued to produce impressive films, many of Hollywood’s prestige pictures from the 1980s paled in comparison to the films generated in the previous decade. Commercial and critical hits like Gandhi and Out of Africa have not aged well and they lack the boldness of movies like Network or Apocalypse Now.
Yet, artistry was not lost. The emphasis on fantasy and spectacle occurred simultaneously with a renaissance in special effects and the 1980s were distinguished by an excellent crop of fantasy and science fiction films. This trend was led by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas who directed and produced a string of hits that included the second and third Star Wars films, the first three Indiana Jones pictures, the Back to the Future trilogy, Gremlins, and Willow. Other filmmakers emerged and built on the foundation that Spielberg and Lucas had established but they also drew from the cultural and filmmaking advances that had been made in the 1970s that allowed for greater latitude in on-screen sexuality and violence. As a result, horror, science fiction, and fantasy filmmakers of the 1980s were able to take genres that had often been regarded as silly or juvenile and created complex and mature stories that made them the true heirs of New Hollywood. These filmmakers included James Cameron with The Terminator, Aliens, and The Abyss, John Carpenter with Escape from New York and They Live, and David Cronenberg with Videodrome, Scanners, and The Fly. Other notable science fiction, horror, and fantasy pictures were produced throughout the decade including the Nightmare on Elm Street series, Brazil, Dune, Legend, Robocop, Batman, Predator, and the bulk of the original Star Trek series. These films were among the most popular pictures of the 1980s and many of them are now regarded as classics.
Although notable science fiction and fantasy films were produced throughout the 1980s, the year 1982 holds special significance as a number of extraordinary science fiction, horror, and fantasy films were released in this twelve month period, several of which became standard bearers for their genres. On today’s episode of Sounds of Cinema I examined several of those genre films from 1982, evaluating their merits, examining what made them so special, and exploring how they’ve influenced later movies. Here is another look at those films plus a few others that didn’t make it into the episode.
Blade Runner
Blade Runner was not a blockbuster hit at the time of its original release and it is one of the films that really benefited from post-theatrical revision. It has since proven to be one of the most influential science fiction pictures of all time and its inspiration can be seen in movies like 1984, The Matrix, The Fifth Element, and Inception and the television series Battlestar Galactica. This is a dense film but it is also a smart one.
Cat People
Paul Schrader remade the 1942 classic as an erotic story of horrific self-discovery. Although it makes some leaps in the storytelling it is a unique film and a good example of how 1980s filmmakers benefited from the latitude of the 1970s.
Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Barbarian inspired a lot of forgettable fantasy films that followed such as Barbarian Queen and Red Sonja but echoes of Conan are observable in more recent films like The Scorpion King, the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans and even The Lord of the Rings. It remains an amusing fantasy film even if it is something of a guilty pleasure.
Creepshow
Directed by George A. Romero and written by Stephen King, this anthology of horror stories acknowledged the history of horror comics while paving the way for the TV shows Tales from the Crypt and American Horror Story as well as the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez double feature Grindhouse.
The Dark Crystal
The Dark Crystal was an attempt by Jim Henson and Frank Oz to move puppetry beyond The Muppets. This never led anywhere but this film remains a cult classic.
E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial
E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial is one of the most essential films of Steven Spielberg’s filmography and its influence can be observed in films that followed shortly thereafter like Starman and Cocoon but also in later films such as WALL-E, The Iron Giant, and Spielberg’s 2001 film A.I. Artificial Intelligence. But beyond its cinematic influence, E.T. remains a draw because its optimism and love will reduce even the most stoic viewer to mush.
Friday the 13th Part III
There isn’t much to the third installment of Friday the 13th that distinguishes it from earlier or later films in the series, although this film does introduce the hockey mask and it was originally shown in 3-D.
Halloween III
A lot of Halloween fans were angry and confused by this film because it does not include Michael Myers. Instead, the filmmakers attempted to shift the series in a new direction, turning it into a Twilight Zone –like story. More recently this movie has gained a cult following and it is worth a look.
The New York Ripper
Directed by Lucio Fulci, The New York Ripper is one of the more difficult slasher films to sit through, partly because of its violence but mostly because it isn’t very good. However, The New York Ripper gained cult status when it was added to the UK “Video Nasties” list and was banned in the country. The following video is NSFW.
Pieces
Another slasher film that isn’t very good except for its kitch value, Pieces was identified by Hostel director Eli Roth as one of his favorite films.
Poltergeist
Poltergeist remains an excellent film that will scare its audience. It is also quietly subversive, suggesting that affluent suburban society is built on the dead. Its influence can be observed in the many recent haunted house pictures like Drag Me to Hell and Paranormal Activity.
The Secret of NIMH
The Secret of NIMH was the first directorial feature for Don Bluth, who went on to make The Land Before Time, An American Tail, and All Dogs Go to Heaven. The Secret of NIMH is a darker movie than a lot Disney’s animated features and it is an ambitious if incomplete story.
Slumber Party Massacre
One of the more interesting entries in the slasher genre, Slumber Party Massacre simultaneously ridiculed and satisfied the clichés of these films more than a decade before Scream. Fans of 1980s horror should definitely seek it out.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
The Wrath of Khan is the best of the Star Trek films and it remains one of the highpoints of American science fiction and fantasy filmmaking. Its influence can be seen in television shows like Firefly and films like X2 and the 2009 reboot of Star Trek.
The Thing
Although contemporary cinema has been taken over by CGI, The Thing remains a strong case for practical effects and it ranks with Alien and Jaws among the great monster movies. But this is more than just an alien attack movie. This is a story about paranoia and how people react in a crisis and because of that subtext the film is far more frightening.
TRON
TRON is flawed but it is technically important as it was among the first films to meld computer graphics with live action and it opened doors for a lot of films that would come later such as The Last Starfighter, The Lawnmower Man, and The Matrix. The way TRON tapped into the intersection of computer technology and the human experience makes it amusingly prescient.
The Wall
Pink Floyd’s The Wall was released just a few years after the premiere of MTV. In the years since the relevance of the music video has waxed and waned and waxed again but despite the latest trend of musicals and pop music documentaries we’ve never seen a project quite like The Wall since, which is a shame.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Sounds of Cinema October Programing
Throughout October, Sounds of Cinema will feature a month of Halloween related programing. Here is a look at what is scheduled:
October 7 – Retrospective on 1982
Cinema of the 1980s was distinguished by an impressive yield of science fiction, fantasy, and horror pictures and the year 1982 had a high concentration of genre films that have since become classics. This episode will examine some of the titles from 1982 including Star Trek II, TRON, and Blade Runner.
October 14 – Family-Friendly Halloween Movies
Movie-going is an integral part of the Halloween season but for parents it can be difficult finding pictures that they can watch with their children. This episode will include a look at some family-friendly movies for Halloween.
October 21 – Psychos and Madmen
This episode will feature a look at films about serial killers and similar characters, including Maniac and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
October 28 – The Beyond
This episode will consider movies about ghost and other supernatural beings including The Fog and The Amityville Horror.
October 30 – Halloween Special
Sounds of Cinema’s annual Halloween Special will air at 11pm on October 30th. This one hour program of film music and movie clips is the soundtrack to your Halloween.
October 7 – Retrospective on 1982
Cinema of the 1980s was distinguished by an impressive yield of science fiction, fantasy, and horror pictures and the year 1982 had a high concentration of genre films that have since become classics. This episode will examine some of the titles from 1982 including Star Trek II, TRON, and Blade Runner.
October 14 – Family-Friendly Halloween Movies
Movie-going is an integral part of the Halloween season but for parents it can be difficult finding pictures that they can watch with their children. This episode will include a look at some family-friendly movies for Halloween.
October 21 – Psychos and Madmen
This episode will feature a look at films about serial killers and similar characters, including Maniac and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.
October 28 – The Beyond
This episode will consider movies about ghost and other supernatural beings including The Fog and The Amityville Horror.
October 30 – Halloween Special
Sounds of Cinema’s annual Halloween Special will air at 11pm on October 30th. This one hour program of film music and movie clips is the soundtrack to your Halloween.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
GLBTA Film Series at Winona State
The Winona State University Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Tansgender-Ally Faculty Committee will be conducting a GLBTA Film Series from October 4 - 30. All screenings are free and open to the public. There will be a short discussion to follow each film.
Screening Schedule:
Milk
October 4, Somsen Auditorium, 7pm
Milk is a 2008 American biographical film based on the life of gay rights activist and politician Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Directed by Gus Van Sant and written by Dustin Lance Black, the film stars Sean Penn as Milk and Josh Brolin as Dan White, a city supervisor who assassinated Milk. The film received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, winning two for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Penn and Best Original Screenplay for Black.
Genderf*kation: A Gender Emancipation
October 11, Somsen Auditorium, 7 pm
Genderf*kation: A Gender Emancipation is the story of six individuals and their journey & triumphs through the social, religious and political landscapes of a society that struggles to understand or allow for gender variations. This documentary includes provocative interviews with professionals and outreachmembers who are active in this community to help shed light on a very controversial matter. This film breaks through the gender stereotypes and historical gender ideologies to liberate our bodies, minds and spirits from our own social Gender Dysphoria. Although it is based in Minnesota, the subject matter has no borders. The subject of gender is a taboo topic in many societies, yet fundamental to every aspect of all of our lives.
Beautiful Thing
October 17, Stark 103, 7pm
The iconoclastic, underachieving denizens of a southeast London apartment building get an emotional wake-up call when two teenage boys -- next-door neighbors Jamie and Ste -- unexpectedly fall in love. This moving slice of affecting kitchen-sink realism from Britain's esteemed Channel Four Films is adapted from the hit West End play penned by Jonathan Harvey, who also directs.
A Family is a Family is a Family
October 18, Somsen Auditorium, 7pm
In A Family Is a Family Is a Family, kids offer touching, profound and often funny insights about what being a family means to them. Among those featured are: childrenwith two fathers or two mothers; a girl whose mother and father adopted her in China; three brothers who live with their mother and grandmother; a pair ofmothers who are getting married to make one big family; and families with adopted kids and children born through in-vitro fertilization.
Mosquita y Mari
October 24, Stark 103, 7pm
Mosquita y Mari is a coming of age story that focuses on a tender friendship between two young Chicanas. As their friendship grows, a yearning to explore their strange yet beautiful connection surfaces. Lost in their private world of unspoken affection, lingering gazes, and heart-felt confessions of uncertain futures, Yolanda's grades begin to slip while Mari's focus drifts away from her duties at a new job. Mounting pressures at home collide with their new-found connection, forcing them to choose between their obligations to others and staying true to themselves.
Transamerica
October 30, Somsen Auditorium, 7pm
Transamerica follows Bree--formerly Stanley--a pre-operative male-to-female transexual awaiting gender-reassignment surgery who learns she has a wayward teenage son named Toby. When her therapist strongarms Bree into facing her past, she bails Toby out of jail and they end up on a road trip across the country. Bree wrestles with discomfort and compassion as she learns about Toby's own troubles, even while her own grow worse when she's forced to ask for help from her hostile parents.
*A brief reception will be held before the final screening in the lobby outside Somsen Auditorium.
The film series is sponsored by: GLBTA Faculty Committee, English Department, Theater and Dance, Women's and Gender Studies, Communication Studies, Social Work, History Department, Counseling Services & GLBTA Partnership.
Screening Schedule:
Milk
October 4, Somsen Auditorium, 7pm
Milk is a 2008 American biographical film based on the life of gay rights activist and politician Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Directed by Gus Van Sant and written by Dustin Lance Black, the film stars Sean Penn as Milk and Josh Brolin as Dan White, a city supervisor who assassinated Milk. The film received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, winning two for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Penn and Best Original Screenplay for Black.
Genderf*kation: A Gender Emancipation
October 11, Somsen Auditorium, 7 pm
Genderf*kation: A Gender Emancipation is the story of six individuals and their journey & triumphs through the social, religious and political landscapes of a society that struggles to understand or allow for gender variations. This documentary includes provocative interviews with professionals and outreachmembers who are active in this community to help shed light on a very controversial matter. This film breaks through the gender stereotypes and historical gender ideologies to liberate our bodies, minds and spirits from our own social Gender Dysphoria. Although it is based in Minnesota, the subject matter has no borders. The subject of gender is a taboo topic in many societies, yet fundamental to every aspect of all of our lives.
Beautiful Thing
October 17, Stark 103, 7pm
The iconoclastic, underachieving denizens of a southeast London apartment building get an emotional wake-up call when two teenage boys -- next-door neighbors Jamie and Ste -- unexpectedly fall in love. This moving slice of affecting kitchen-sink realism from Britain's esteemed Channel Four Films is adapted from the hit West End play penned by Jonathan Harvey, who also directs.
A Family is a Family is a Family
October 18, Somsen Auditorium, 7pm
In A Family Is a Family Is a Family, kids offer touching, profound and often funny insights about what being a family means to them. Among those featured are: childrenwith two fathers or two mothers; a girl whose mother and father adopted her in China; three brothers who live with their mother and grandmother; a pair ofmothers who are getting married to make one big family; and families with adopted kids and children born through in-vitro fertilization.
Mosquita y Mari
October 24, Stark 103, 7pm
Mosquita y Mari is a coming of age story that focuses on a tender friendship between two young Chicanas. As their friendship grows, a yearning to explore their strange yet beautiful connection surfaces. Lost in their private world of unspoken affection, lingering gazes, and heart-felt confessions of uncertain futures, Yolanda's grades begin to slip while Mari's focus drifts away from her duties at a new job. Mounting pressures at home collide with their new-found connection, forcing them to choose between their obligations to others and staying true to themselves.
Transamerica
October 30, Somsen Auditorium, 7pm
Transamerica follows Bree--formerly Stanley--a pre-operative male-to-female transexual awaiting gender-reassignment surgery who learns she has a wayward teenage son named Toby. When her therapist strongarms Bree into facing her past, she bails Toby out of jail and they end up on a road trip across the country. Bree wrestles with discomfort and compassion as she learns about Toby's own troubles, even while her own grow worse when she's forced to ask for help from her hostile parents.
*A brief reception will be held before the final screening in the lobby outside Somsen Auditorium.
The film series is sponsored by: GLBTA Faculty Committee, English Department, Theater and Dance, Women's and Gender Studies, Communication Studies, Social Work, History Department, Counseling Services & GLBTA Partnership.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Recession Cinema
This week was the four year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which can be regarded as the start of the financial crisis. In the years since filmmakers have responded with recession cinema, feature films dramatizing the ethical implications of the crisis and documentaries examining the causes or profiling the people involved. Here is a look at some notable films:
Arbitrage
Richard Gere stars as the president a hedge fund attempting to sell his company before anyone notices its financial troubles.
A Better Life
Films dealing earnestly with poverty are rare from Hollywood but this picture tells a moving story about an illegal immigrant working and raising his son in California.
Capitalism: A Love Story
Michael Moore's documentary about the financial system was not his best work but Moore's skill as a filmmaker and his charm as a storyteller make up for many of its flaws.
Client 9: The Rise of Fall of Elliot Spitzer
This profile of the former governor of New York has some overlaps with Inside Job and is an interesting tale of intrigue.
Collapse
A documentary on Michael Ruppert a reporter who predicted the financial crisis.
The Girlfriend Experience
Steven Soderbergh's film about an upscale escort (played by former adult film actress Sasha Grey) examines the impact of money on intimacy and relationships.
Inside Job
Of all the films on this list, Inside Job is indispensable as it explains the mechanics that caused the financial crisis.
Margin Call
The best dramatic film on this list, Margin Call examines the first twenty-four hours of the financial crisis in a fictional investment bank.
Too Big to Fail
Based on the book by Andrew Ross Sorkin, this film dramatizes the major players in the financial crisis, focusing on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Oliver Stone's sequel to his Oscar winning 1987 film takes place amid the recession. Money Never Sleeps isn't anywhere near a good as the original, but the depiction of the crisis is very good.
Win Win
Paul Giamatti plays a struggling lawyer and a high school wrestling coach who finds himself involved with a troubled teen who he has taken in. Although not directly about the ins and outs of the recession, it does reflect its impact on the middle class.
Arbitrage
Richard Gere stars as the president a hedge fund attempting to sell his company before anyone notices its financial troubles.
A Better Life
Films dealing earnestly with poverty are rare from Hollywood but this picture tells a moving story about an illegal immigrant working and raising his son in California.
Capitalism: A Love Story
Michael Moore's documentary about the financial system was not his best work but Moore's skill as a filmmaker and his charm as a storyteller make up for many of its flaws.
Client 9: The Rise of Fall of Elliot Spitzer
This profile of the former governor of New York has some overlaps with Inside Job and is an interesting tale of intrigue.
Collapse
A documentary on Michael Ruppert a reporter who predicted the financial crisis.
The Girlfriend Experience
Steven Soderbergh's film about an upscale escort (played by former adult film actress Sasha Grey) examines the impact of money on intimacy and relationships.
Inside Job
Of all the films on this list, Inside Job is indispensable as it explains the mechanics that caused the financial crisis.
Margin Call
The best dramatic film on this list, Margin Call examines the first twenty-four hours of the financial crisis in a fictional investment bank.
Too Big to Fail
Based on the book by Andrew Ross Sorkin, this film dramatizes the major players in the financial crisis, focusing on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Oliver Stone's sequel to his Oscar winning 1987 film takes place amid the recession. Money Never Sleeps isn't anywhere near a good as the original, but the depiction of the crisis is very good.
Win Win
Paul Giamatti plays a struggling lawyer and a high school wrestling coach who finds himself involved with a troubled teen who he has taken in. Although not directly about the ins and outs of the recession, it does reflect its impact on the middle class.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thoughts on Reviewing Agitprop Documentaries
On last Sunday’s show I reviewed 2016: Obama’s America, a documentary purportedly analyzing President Barack Obama’s influences in order to define Obama’s worldview. Directed by Dinesh D'Souza and John Sullivan, the film concludes that Obama possesses a post-colonial, anti-capitalist ideology that drives his administration's policies. As I stated in the review (available in the Sounds of Cinema review archive), agitprop documentaries are usually hailed or condemned depending on whether they confirm or conflict with the petty partisan allegiances of the viewer. But the problems with 2016: Obama’s America go beyond politics and it is an ugly piece of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. The process of reviewing this picture made me think about the challenges and goals of film criticism which are especially pronounced when tackling a film like this.
What I do on Sounds of Cinema is not that different from what journalists and political pundits do and like them I have to be concerned with accuracy and fairness. As a film critic my integrity is everything as it is the only reason people should put any stock in my commentary. For the most part this means I follow a few simple guidelines: see as many films as I can even if they involve genres, actors, or filmmakers that I do not enjoy, clear my mind of expectations about what the film is or should be, watch the film all the way through before judging it, avoid reading reviews by other critics before seeing a film and continue to avoid them until after I have generated a complete draft of the review. In the process of forming a judgment about a motion picture I focus on what the filmmakers aim to do, how well they do it, and assess the value of the filmmakers’ intents and accomplishments. These guidelines have served me well and act as controls to ensure my conclusions are sound and fair.
One of the criticisms that I sometimes encounter as a critic is a charge of false elitism in which I’m reminded that “It’s only your opinion.” That is true: my reviews are articulations of my opinion but I will argue, as any critic must, that my opinion is a good one. My judgments are rooted in a broad appreciation of cinema from non-narrative art films to Hollywood blockbusters and they are informed by an education of cinematic form, theory, and history. With the controls that I’ve placed on my method, I’ll gladly set the arguments of my reviews against anyone else’s (although preferably later reviews as opposed to those I wrote eight years ago when I started this show).
But when it comes to a film like 2016: Obama’s America I always approach reviewing it with a sense of both responsibility and trepidation. Despite the methods that I have enacted to control my judgments there is an inherent degree of subjectivity involved in reviewing films. Agitprop documentaries, especially those about political subjects, are going to appeal or collide with my own political and ideological opinions. At some level this is true of any film. Whether it is a documentary, a comedy, or a horror film, the personal politics of the viewer always come into play. Every piece of art is an expression by the artist of how he or she sees life, or at least one facet of it. Whether or not we determine a piece of art to be “good” is based in part on whether we accept that expression as true or not and that is largely dependent upon how the artist’s point coalesces with the ideology of the viewer. Even if I somehow tried to strip value judgments out my reviews I’d be reduced to commenting only on form but not function; I could write about the quality of the filmmaking craft but I wouldn’t be able to comment on what those things mean which is exactly what astute readers should want from both artists and critics.
Reviewing a film like 2016: Obama’s America is intimidating because it requires me to be much more conscientious and rigorous about how I evaluate it. In this case, approving or disapproving of President Obama may predispose me to like or dislike the film; in the interest of full disclosure, I have mixed feelings about Barack Obama’s presidency but more than likely I will vote for him this November. But if that is the only criterion upon which I evaluate the film then I am no different from the partisan apologists who crowd the airwaves and my credibility as a film critic is diminished.
Reviewing this film is categorically different from reviewing Obama and his presidency. A documentary whose perspective I ideologically disagree with can be well made and ethically argued and as a critic I have to acknowledge that. The reverse is also true; in my review of Fahrenheit 9/11 I commented that Michael Moore’s filmmaking is exceptional but the director has a tendency to jump to conclusions in his argumentation; when I reviewed An Inconvenient Truth I noted that the argumentation was solid and the information was important but it wasn’t much of a film. As it is, the cinematic merits of 2016: Obama’s America are uneven as the sound is often poor and the dramatic recreations frequently look ridiculous. But the more serious problems with the film are found in its arguments which are intellectually dishonest and appeal to underlying racial prejudices in the American electorate. As I concluded in my review, there is a serious conservative documentary to be made criticizing the presidency of Barack Obama but this is not it.
The other source of my trepidation about reviewing a film like 2016: Obama’s America is not about me but about my audience. We are in an age in which the media is so fractured into ideological camps that anyone can seemingly find the perspective that suits him or her. Does your regular film critic say that 2016: Obama’s America is dishonest? Well, just do a Google search and eventually you’ll find someone who says otherwise.This kind of ideological fracturing has the effect of rendering facts moot but it also has the broader impact of creating echo chambers in which bad ideas and poor arguments are insulated from criticism. This has a deleterious impact on the culture as it sabotages the marketplace of ideas which requires a robust and open discourse. This isolationism especially threatens critics. Like the journalist, the critic must speak truth to those in positions of power (i.e. filmmakers) but critics must also be prepared to confront audiences and point out the problems of the movies that they love. An environment in which critics operate in fear of losing their audience or of being marginalized by a meaningless political label can have a chilling effect on criticism.
With these issues hanging over my head, I considered simply ignoring 2016: Obama’s America. But that would be a cowardly decision and if critics at large decided to avoid these kinds of films it would enable unscrupulous filmmakers while leaving the movie-going public without a discourse that will allow them to evaluate these films. In that case nobody wins. The only suitable answer is vigilance on my part as a critic but also on your part as consumers of film and of film criticism. After all, part of the joy of cinema is found in arguing about movies with fellow cinephiles and the more intelligent the debate, the bigger the joy. The purpose of criticism isn’t for me to tell you what to think about a movie but to role model how to think about it and hopefully supply a framework through which we can all better appreciate the movies.
What I do on Sounds of Cinema is not that different from what journalists and political pundits do and like them I have to be concerned with accuracy and fairness. As a film critic my integrity is everything as it is the only reason people should put any stock in my commentary. For the most part this means I follow a few simple guidelines: see as many films as I can even if they involve genres, actors, or filmmakers that I do not enjoy, clear my mind of expectations about what the film is or should be, watch the film all the way through before judging it, avoid reading reviews by other critics before seeing a film and continue to avoid them until after I have generated a complete draft of the review. In the process of forming a judgment about a motion picture I focus on what the filmmakers aim to do, how well they do it, and assess the value of the filmmakers’ intents and accomplishments. These guidelines have served me well and act as controls to ensure my conclusions are sound and fair.
One of the criticisms that I sometimes encounter as a critic is a charge of false elitism in which I’m reminded that “It’s only your opinion.” That is true: my reviews are articulations of my opinion but I will argue, as any critic must, that my opinion is a good one. My judgments are rooted in a broad appreciation of cinema from non-narrative art films to Hollywood blockbusters and they are informed by an education of cinematic form, theory, and history. With the controls that I’ve placed on my method, I’ll gladly set the arguments of my reviews against anyone else’s (although preferably later reviews as opposed to those I wrote eight years ago when I started this show).
But when it comes to a film like 2016: Obama’s America I always approach reviewing it with a sense of both responsibility and trepidation. Despite the methods that I have enacted to control my judgments there is an inherent degree of subjectivity involved in reviewing films. Agitprop documentaries, especially those about political subjects, are going to appeal or collide with my own political and ideological opinions. At some level this is true of any film. Whether it is a documentary, a comedy, or a horror film, the personal politics of the viewer always come into play. Every piece of art is an expression by the artist of how he or she sees life, or at least one facet of it. Whether or not we determine a piece of art to be “good” is based in part on whether we accept that expression as true or not and that is largely dependent upon how the artist’s point coalesces with the ideology of the viewer. Even if I somehow tried to strip value judgments out my reviews I’d be reduced to commenting only on form but not function; I could write about the quality of the filmmaking craft but I wouldn’t be able to comment on what those things mean which is exactly what astute readers should want from both artists and critics.
Reviewing a film like 2016: Obama’s America is intimidating because it requires me to be much more conscientious and rigorous about how I evaluate it. In this case, approving or disapproving of President Obama may predispose me to like or dislike the film; in the interest of full disclosure, I have mixed feelings about Barack Obama’s presidency but more than likely I will vote for him this November. But if that is the only criterion upon which I evaluate the film then I am no different from the partisan apologists who crowd the airwaves and my credibility as a film critic is diminished.
Reviewing this film is categorically different from reviewing Obama and his presidency. A documentary whose perspective I ideologically disagree with can be well made and ethically argued and as a critic I have to acknowledge that. The reverse is also true; in my review of Fahrenheit 9/11 I commented that Michael Moore’s filmmaking is exceptional but the director has a tendency to jump to conclusions in his argumentation; when I reviewed An Inconvenient Truth I noted that the argumentation was solid and the information was important but it wasn’t much of a film. As it is, the cinematic merits of 2016: Obama’s America are uneven as the sound is often poor and the dramatic recreations frequently look ridiculous. But the more serious problems with the film are found in its arguments which are intellectually dishonest and appeal to underlying racial prejudices in the American electorate. As I concluded in my review, there is a serious conservative documentary to be made criticizing the presidency of Barack Obama but this is not it.
The other source of my trepidation about reviewing a film like 2016: Obama’s America is not about me but about my audience. We are in an age in which the media is so fractured into ideological camps that anyone can seemingly find the perspective that suits him or her. Does your regular film critic say that 2016: Obama’s America is dishonest? Well, just do a Google search and eventually you’ll find someone who says otherwise.This kind of ideological fracturing has the effect of rendering facts moot but it also has the broader impact of creating echo chambers in which bad ideas and poor arguments are insulated from criticism. This has a deleterious impact on the culture as it sabotages the marketplace of ideas which requires a robust and open discourse. This isolationism especially threatens critics. Like the journalist, the critic must speak truth to those in positions of power (i.e. filmmakers) but critics must also be prepared to confront audiences and point out the problems of the movies that they love. An environment in which critics operate in fear of losing their audience or of being marginalized by a meaningless political label can have a chilling effect on criticism.
With these issues hanging over my head, I considered simply ignoring 2016: Obama’s America. But that would be a cowardly decision and if critics at large decided to avoid these kinds of films it would enable unscrupulous filmmakers while leaving the movie-going public without a discourse that will allow them to evaluate these films. In that case nobody wins. The only suitable answer is vigilance on my part as a critic but also on your part as consumers of film and of film criticism. After all, part of the joy of cinema is found in arguing about movies with fellow cinephiles and the more intelligent the debate, the bigger the joy. The purpose of criticism isn’t for me to tell you what to think about a movie but to role model how to think about it and hopefully supply a framework through which we can all better appreciate the movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)