Tag Archives: film

Thoughts on the baseline scene in BladeRunner 2049

500

I want to point out this fantastic essay on the baseline scene in Blade Runner 2049. I loved reading it because I learned some fascinating background about the film and I reexamined both films in a fresh light.

For instance, watching the sequel I didn’t think much about the lack of Voight-Kampff devices. Those machines are essential in the first Blade Runner. But in 2049 they are obsolete of course because replicants have advanced so much since then and there are different ways of identifying them. In 2049 the challenge is not identifying replicants: the challenge is keeping them from becoming something other than replicants. That’s what the machine above comes into play. I hadn’t thought of that until I read the essay.

My only insight into the machine above came from a recent CT scan I had. Lying on the bed below, I looked up and saw a device similar to the machine above! I was somewhat shocked. It’s not quite identical, but I would not be surprised if the set designers got the idea for it from the Siemens machine below. After all, both are providing insights into the head in front of them.

If you are a fan of Blade Runner like I am, read the essay above. You’ll be glad you did.

 

Revisiting Toronto’s Festival of Festivals (what TIFF was before it became the thing it is now)

There was much discussion about the Talking Heads being at TIFF this year for the reissue of their great concert film, Stop Making Sense. What people might not know was that it was also at TIFF in 1984, back when the Toronto International Film Festival was known as the Festival of Festivals.

TIFF has changed a lot since then. Back then the Festival was smaller, centred in a different location (Yorkville) and played films in midtown theatres like the Varsity, Uptown, Backstage and the Cumberland. (Also the Bloor for the awesome Midnight Madness series.) It was casual and fun.

I think I went to my first Festival film — my Beautiful Launderette with a bright new actor named Daniel Day Lewis —  in 1985.  In a few years I was hooked, going from one film to many films like these from 1987 listed here. It was easy in the 80s: you got tickets (or a pass), lined up for your next film, and hopefully you got in! (Holding seats for a person, never mind many people, was frowned upon.) For a surprising number of films this was easy to do, and people would even show up and buy a ticket at the last minute. Some days you would be heading to a certain film and you would run into a friend going to a different film and you would go with them instead. Or you’d get up in the morning to watch a film in a small theatre at the Cumberland and four films later you end up going to bed after seeing a late night screening at one of the gigantic spaces in the Uptown.  A great time was had by all.

Perhaps too great. More and more people started going and it got harder to wander around and see great films. As it grew, the Festival of Festivals dropped that name, left Yorkville, and became the behemoth it is today.

I still think it’s a great thing, and I am glad it is big and bold. But back then it was small and intimate. I loved that, and I miss how it was.

P.S. More on Talking Heads with Spike Lee at TIFF in 2023 in Vulture and the New York Times. Spike Lee started at the Festival too. I remember him being in town to promote his first film, She’s Gotta Have It. Like Talking Heads, he was fresh and new and like them he changed our culture with his work and life.

Transition time in media, or at least Disney, but likely more


Sometimes there are rumblings that lead to nothing, but these recently rumblings seem to be adding up to something.

So when Disney mumbles about cutting back on Marvel and Star Wars content, it’s worth noting. Especially so when the head of Disney, Bob Iger reiterates it. Now maybe the problems are just Disney’s. After all, Netflix’s earnings looked healthy. Maybe it’s just the quality of those films, as the Marvel actors seem to be saying. I’m not sure. But it seems like a transition period is beginning to happen in Hollywood, however boffo a hit Barbie and Oppenheimer are. Certainly the writers feel that way, as do the actors.

It will be interesting to follow up on this in a year from now.

The wonderful historicalness of “You’ve Got Mail”, 25 years on

“You’ve Got Mail” is many things. A romantic comedy, of course. A tragedy, as this piece argues… possibly. Of the many things I could list about it, what I loved most about it when I watched it was it’s historicalness.

For starters, the gentrification of New York is one of the historical things that pops out in the film. If New York now is a place of wealth and insane living costs, and New York of the 70s and 80s was a place of poverty and decrepitude, then the New York of the 90s was undergoing a time of economic transition between those two times. You see that in the arrival of bougie things like Starbucks and big bad book store chains like Fox / Barnes and Noble. The city just seems on the rise in the film. It is poor no more. New money is leading the development of real estate that is forcing a transition in the city.

The film also shows the start of the next big thing coming to force a transition: online communication. You’ve Got Mail illustrates how people back then are already dealing with how computers are starting to affect how we live and communicate. It will take some time past the 90s for books and magazines and newspapers to be impacted as we all take to the Internet in the 21st century, but the seeds are already sprouting up as we watch Kathleen and Joe get to know each other via their Apple Macbooks and IBM Thinkpads and the end of the 20th century. (And naturally she owns the former and he the latter). And the beloved typewriters in the film are dodo-birds of a mechanical sort.

It’s funny to think the film was once criticized by the Washington Post for product placement. After all, this month an entire film, Barbie, is launched and co-produced by Mattel.  It may have been jarring then, but it barely registered to me watching the products placed in this movie from 25 years ago. If anything, it seems quaint compared to todays films.

Culturally the film drips with historicalness, from the clothes they wear (Ryan’s layered sweaters, Hanks’s dark shirts and ties), to the technology they use (AOL!, that MacBook), to the actors themselves (Hanks being a love interest, Chappelle trying to be mainstream). It all seems so long ago. It was 25 years ago, so I guess it was.

There’s lots to enjoy in You’ve Got Mail. One thing for sure: it’s a time capsule, and it’s quite good just to enjoy it for that.

P.S. You can read more on the film: You’ve Got Mail in Wikipedia. If you’re curious, here’s a piece on the You’ve Got Mail film locations. Many, like Zabars and Barney Greengrass, still exist.

The 70s, now romanticized, were a time of excess in culture


Every so often I see people like Martin Scorsese and others talk nostalgically of filmmaking in the 70s. They talk about the freedom they had to make the films they wanted to make, and how filmmaking went downhill after that. It is true, there were many great films made in the 70s, and many filmmakers like Scorsese and Coppola and DePalma and others who made them.

Whenever I start to think nostalgically of all that, I remember Michael Cimino and the disaster that was Heaven’s Gate. Everything that was wrong about that freedom and that auteur style of filmmaking reached its nadir in Cimino’s film. Indeed,  “the film’s financial failure resulted in the demise of director-driven film production in the American film industry, steering back toward greater studio control of films”.

Excess wasn’t limited to film. If you listened to music of any sort, you likely heard Carole King. If you flipped open a magazine, you saw an ad for a record club (“get 10 albums for a penny!”) and you saw a picture of a barefoot King on her Tapestry album, which was everywhere all the time. There was just so much of her. I would not be surprised if people dreamed of that photo at night.

That was the 70s. If an inch was good, then a mile was better. It was the time of baby boomers in their 20s with their sixties hangover trying to be as hedonistic as possible before they settled into their jobs and houses and families. It all had to end. I’m glad it did.

P.S. For more on Carole King — who I liked, in proportion 🙂 — see this: how Carole King revolutionized 70s music.

Revisiting McCartney after watching Get Back

For a long time I held the common view that there was two Paul McCartneys: the Beatles one and the solo one. This view also states that once he went solo, he went from making great music to making bad music. Sure there were exceptions (Maybe I’m Amazed, Band on the Run), but that was the view.

That view was supported by many people, starting with John Lennon and many of the music press writing in the 70s and 80s. How could it be wrong? Even a fan of Paul like me often thought so.

Well it was wrong and I was wrong too. I came to that conclusion after watching Get Back. Watching Get Back, I was struck by the continuum of the Beatles and their music.  In the documentary you hear snippets of songs that wouldn’t come into their own until later albums. You hear them play old songs as they try and finish the new songs. It’s all sonically fluid and connected. Paul’s music –before and after the breakup — is very much of that continuum. There is no switch that suddenly deprives him if his talent. He does lose the feedback and the guidance of the others, especially John’s, and no doubt that hurt him. But his ability to write a song and perform a song remains strong.

I thought of that some more after spending time relistening to songs from McCartney I.  Songs I had dismissed as bad I gave a relisten to. Listened to the music of the guy who performed so well on Get Back, the music of the guy who  went on to record Abbey Road. The talent is strong and steady on those solo records, despite some ups and downs. 

I’ve often contended that if you combined the best of the Beatles solo work from the 70s and just kept the best and put in on 3 or 4 recordings, you would have music as good as anything they made in the 60s. In some cases even better.

The talent was still there.  The music was still good. For all them. Including Paul.

 

 

On the Bloor Cinema and the other rep theatres listed in Festival magazine

Some one on Twitter posted some pages from Festival Magazine from the 80s, and looking at them, I was filled with so many memories. Among them I recall how I would go to the nearby Bloor Cinema and grab a copy from the newspaper box. I’d head over to Dooneys or some other coffee shop or maybe just head home to Brunswick Avenue and plan out my movie viewing for the next few weeks.

While I sometimes went to the other rep cinemas like the Revue or the Kingsway, I mainly went to the Bloor. This page below captures what the programming was like for it at the time.

There was often a special festival or a run of films like the new Chinese films shown above. Then there were films that had just finished running through the new theatres like Cineplex’s and were now getting a second chance to be seen. And then there were fan favorites, like Stop Making Sense. (If Stop Making Sense or a Blade Runner was in, I was there.) Most of all what I loved about the Bloor was this eclectic mix of programming.

The Revue’s programming was more straightforward. It pretty much showed films that had just finished their run in main theatres. Did I still like going there? For sure. (Except the time in winter when the theatre was showing a film without any heat!)

I loved looking at those pages. I loved seeing all the great films that came out in the 80s listed again. I really loved seeing the ad for The Other Cafe! (I went there often too.) It’s all so good.

Seeing movies was different back then. You might eventually see them on TV, but if you missed a good film when it was first out, you still had a chance of seeing it in the rep theatres. Not to mention classics and fan favorites. It was a good time at the cinema, for sure.

A thought or two on “Air”, especially after “Blackberry”

It was weird seeing “Air” just after seeing “Blackberry”. In some ways, they have much in common. Ultimately, they are very different.

In terms of commonality, they are both business stories set in the end of the 20th century about two two revolutionary products made by a bunch of white guys. They are both films that have likely have a hard time getting made in this era of superhero movies and blockbusters. (“Blackberry” benefits from being associated with the CBC, just like “Air” had a better change being  on Amazon Prime.) As much as anything, they are nostalgic films, at least for viewers like me.

Despite those common traits, they are fundamentally very different films. “Air” is very American: the main characters take risks, but nothing is insurmountable and they succeed. “Blackberry” is more Canadian: the main characters take more and more risks until they’re struck down by their limitations. “Air” is a safe middle of road film: “Blackberry” has more of an edge. In “Blackberry”, the main characters undergo a dramatic arc: in “Air”, the characters are hardly changed at the end of the film.

I liked “Air” for lots of reasons and I’d recommend it to people. But I loved “Blackberry”. “Blackberry” I could easily watch again: “Air”…once was enough.

P.S. Here’s a good piece in Time on Ben Affleck, the director and star of “Air”. Worth reading.

Blackberry: a device once loved, now a film (and a great one)

I loved this film, just like I use to love my Blackberrys. If you loved yours, or the era of the Blackberry, or just want to see a great film, I recommend you see “Blackberry”.

There’s a number of ways you can watch this film. You can watch it just as a story of that weird era from the 90s until the early 2000s. Or as a story about the tech industry in general. Or a story about Canada. It’s all those stories, and more.

To see what I mean, here’s a piece in the CBC with a Canadian angle: New film BlackBerry to explore rise and fall of Canadian smartphone. While this one talks about the tech industry as well as the cultural elements of it: ‘BlackBerry’ Is a Movie That Portrays Tech Dreams Honestly—Finally | WIRED

But besides all that, it’s a great character study of the three main characters: Mike Lazaridis (Jay Baruchel ), Jim Balsillie (Glenn Howerton) and Doug Fregin (Matt Johnson). The arc of Lazaridis in the movie was especially good, as he moves from the influence of Fregin to Balsillie in his quest to make a great device. It’s perhaps appropriate that Balsillie has devil horns in the poster above, because he does tempt Lazaridis with the idea of greatness. And Lazaridis slowly succumbs and physically transforms in the film from a Geek to a Suit.

That’s not to say Balsillie is a caricature. Under all his rage and manipulation, you can see a human also struggling with ambition and is who is aware of the great risks he is taking. His arc might not be as dramatic as Lazaridis in the movie, but it is a rise and fall of significance.

As for Fregin, his character is important but he doesn’t change the way Lazaridis and Balsillie do. But if Balsillie is the devil on the shoulder of Lazaridis, then Fregin is the angel. He provides a reminder throughout the film of what Lazaridis lost in his transformation. (And the description of his life at the end of the film is *chef’s kiss* good.)

The film is a dramatization, but it gets so much right.  Lazaridis and Balsillie were crushed in the end, just like in the film. Balsillie lost his dream of NHL ownership, and Lazaridis lost his claim of making the best smartphone in the world. There’s a part of the film when Balsillie asks: I thought you said these were the best engineers in the world?? and Lazaridis replies: I said they were the best engineers in Canada. That part is a transition in the film, but also sums up the film and the device in many ways.  Their ambition and hubris allowed them to soar, but eventually they met their own nemeses whether they came in the form of Apple or the NHL Board of Directors or the SEC.

As an aside to all that, it’s fascinating to see the depiction of Blackberry defeating Palm/US Robotics. In the early 90s Palm and US Robotics (who later merged) were dominant tech players. Blackberry surpassed them and left them in the dust. Just like Apple left RIM/Blackberry in the dust when they launched the iPhone. (Google also contributed to that with Android.)

Speaking of Apple, it was interesting to see how backdating stock options helped sink Balsillie. He was not alone in such financial maneuvering. Apple and Jobs also got into trouble for backdating options. I assume this practice might have been more common and less black and white than it comes across in the film.

In the film, there is a certain prejudice Lazaridis has about cheap devices, especially those from China.  It’s just that, though: a prejudice. That prejudice was once held against Japan and Korea too, because those countries made cheap devices for Western markets at first. But Japan and Korea went on to produce high end technology and China has too. The Blackberry Storm from China might have been substandard, but Apple has done quite fine sourcing their products from that country. Something to keep in mind.

I suspect I will watch the film many times in my lifetime. Heck, a good part of my life IS in the film as someone involved with the tech industry at the time. That business is my business. That culture is my culture. That country is my country.

None of that has to apply to you, though. If you want to watch a superb film, grab “Blackberry”.

 

 

 

 

The best movie posters of 2022….


According to CreativeReview.co.uk…

the best movie posters of the year once again demonstrates a wonderful array of traditional techniques and styles – photography, painting, collage – and a refusal to homogenise into any singular form. One pleasing commonality: as yet, the world of film poster design has resisted any incursion from AI-generated art. Whether their creation was through physical or digital means, by one hand or many, each of them is a product of human creativity.

I thought the AI reference was noteworthy. More noteworthy are the posters themselves. You can find them, here: Movie posters of the year 2022.

Blade Runner is 40!

My favorite film, Blade Runner, is 40! You’ll want to scan this good piece in Esquire on why it is “is still the greatest Sci-Fi of all-time”. Need more Blade Runner essays? Here’s this piece on the eyes and how they are a recurrent thematic element in the films of Blade Runner… worth a look. (All puns intended.)

For fans like me, check out the Walking Tour of the Blade Runner Locations in LA. Plenty to see there. 🙂

Should we give up streaming and go back to CDs and DVDs?

Did you know you can still get DVDs from Netflix? Well according to this, you still can! And maybe you should.

I’ve been thinking about it recently for a number of reasons. One is the number of streaming services I pay for that I barely use. Sure I like the idea of being able to watch any movie at the drop of a hat. But do I….really? No, I do not. It’s a waste of money for the idea of instant gratification.

Second, streaming services may be making us less likely to hear and experience new things. I thought of that reading this piece in the Guardian. I find that happens to me with Spotify: it is trying so hard to match me with music that aligns with my taste that I get stuck in a rut. In some ways streaming is a gilded cage.

That’s why we should heed what Clive Thompson says and rewild our imagination. It’s more work, but more rewarding.

So get out your DVD player and order some movies or DVDs and watch something you’ve always wanted to but never seem to because it is not available online. You can even order a DVD player for cheap, here.

 

The Marvel Juggernaut

It’s hard to believe that Marvel Studios were once far from a sure thing. (I wrote recently about that, here.) Now that they are a part of Disney, they are a Juggernaut, with rollout plans going on well into the future, as you can see, here: Marvel outlines Phase 6 with Fantastic Four and two new Avengers movies – The Verge.

In some ways the journey is not unlike Apple’s. Apple is such a dominating player now, but back in the 90s it was hanging on by a thread.

It’s possible that both companies could falter, but I suspect we will be getting our fill of Apple Devices and Marvel Entertainment for the rest of this decade. I’ll be curious to visit this post in 5 or 6 years and see if this prediction held.

On Jim Jarmusch, the king (to me) of indie films

Last week I had to chance to watch a number of indie filmmakers back to back. Besides Jarmusch,  I saw Wes Anderson’s “The French Dispatch” and The Coen Brothers “Hail, Caesar”.  (Not too long ago I also watched “The Squid and the Whale” by Noah Baumbach.)

He has a fair number of things in common with them  besides being an independent filmmaker. He can get big name actors to work with him and he often hires some of the same actors (Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Adam Driver).  He’s older and has a number of films under their belt. His films have  a certain deadpan style to them.

While they are all fine filmmakers, Jarmusch is my favorite. I especially enjoy his characters more than those of the other filmmakers. There’s something deeper in them. Anderson’s characters are often flat, while those of Birnbach are often unlikable to me. Characters in the films of the Coen Brothers are there to be tossed and smashed about like toys.

Artistry asid, one striking thing about his films is that they make way less than the other directors.  Their films can gross nine figures worldwide. For his latest film, he grossed 45 million. Not bad, but that is an exception.  More typical is a film like Mystery Train from the 1980s. It made under $400,000. Even adjusted for inflation, that ain’t much.  (More details, here: Jim Jarmusch – Box Office – The Numbers).

All of this is a long way of saying you should watch more of his films. His latest from 2019 is now on Netflix. If you need details, here’s A.O. Scott’s review: ‘The Dead Don’t Die’ Review: Zombies Gobbling Up Scraps of Pop Culture – The New York Times. I enjoyed it and I think you would too. See it if you have an evening free soon and check it out.  Besides Netflix, you can find his films streaming elsewhere on sites like the Criterion Collection.

I’ll close by leaving this quote from Adam Driver, who has been in a number of his films. In interviews with the cast about How Jim Jarmusch Made an All-Star Indie Zombie Movie, he said:

But at the same time, he’s one of the most unpretentious people. He always used to say on [the 2016 film] “Paterson,” “We have to get it right, because dozens of people watch my movies.”

I like that. Jim Jarmusch is a cool guy. He hires cool people and he makes great films with them. Join the dozens of us who love them and go watch some of them soon.

Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather is 50

Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece, The Godfather, was released fifty years ago. While now everyone raves about it and the sequel (though not the third film), this was not always the case. Some insightful critics like Roger Ebert wrote positively on it,  here. Others did not. For example, read this review of  The Godfather from 1972 in The New York Times.

Since then, the Times has comes around. 🙂 Here’s two recent pieces, one long and one short, that reflect on the film:

I was glad to come across Ebert’s piece. It mirrors what I wrote about it some time ago: For fans of The Godfather, with a few minor thoughts | Smart People I Know.

If you haven’t seen it or haven’t seen it in awhile, I recommend you do. I can watch the film or even clips from the film any day, even the deleted scenes, such as this one, when Michael and the Don reunite. You can find many such clips on Youtube. But watch the whole film too. You won’t regret it. How can you refuse with an offer like that?

 

It’s Hallowe’en. Here’s my pandemic highlights and ramblings for October, 2021(a newsletter, in blog form)

Happy Hallowe’en to you. For those celebrating, I hope the weather is good and the night is sufficiently scary and enjoyable. Here’s my monthly newsletter and ramblings as the year passes the three quarter mark. Grab some candy and dig in.

Pandemic: the pandemic is not new and not as scary as it used to be, but it is still bad enough and still not done. Alas. Publications like Vox are wondering what the winter will bring, Covid wise. So far we have seen a decline in cases, but not near enough to zero. Even places like New Zealand have had to abandon their Zero-Covid ambitions. As I have said before, the pandemic humbles us all. If you run restaurants, this has been especially true. Ask Toronto celebrity chef Mark McEwan, whose restaurant and gourmet foods business filed for creditor protection, citing a cash crunch. Or the poor IT people from Ontario whose website to download Ontario vaccine QR code crashed on first day it’s open to all residents. The pandemic has been challenging no matter what you do or where you are.

It doesn’t help that if anything the virus may be mutating into new variants of concern, as this shows:  3 takeaways from the emergence of the Delta Plus coronavirus variant. Yikes. That hasn’t stopped people from yearning to go back to the office, though it seems employers are not communicating post-pandemic workplace plans. I am not surprised: COVID-19 makes it hard to plan anything. For example, some places are wondering how to deal with  the Great Resignation, although there is talk that the notion is over blown. Certainly you would think so if you read this: A worker in Florida applied to 60 entry-level jobs in September and got one interview. Sooner than later we will go back to the office. Some of you even missed the commute. If you have, then read this: The Myth of the Productive Commute.

As for me, I’ve been working with a great team on  Alberta’s Vaccine Passport rollout. I am happy to have contributed in a small but positive way to ending this pandemic.

Non pandemic: there has been much happening that has nothing to do with the pandemic. For example:

Facebook has been in the news much of late. Mark Zuckerberg has tried to shift the conversation to the new name and vision for his company. This piece talks a little about Meta, Facebook’s new name. I can’t help but think it’s a Second Life clone (Third Life?). Whatever you think of Meta, I think Vice sums up the venture nicely for me: Zuckerberg Announces Fantasy World Where Facebook Is Not a Horrible Company. And what is Mark Z and his team trying to get you to not think about? This: The Key takeaways from the Facebook Papers.

I don’t know what will happen to Facebook-the-company. I have long suspected Facebook-the-service has been in decline in all sorts of ways for years. Generally, we have long realized that much of social media is not good for us. Some people have likened it to smoking. I think this may be a better comparison: Social Media Has the Same Downsides As Alcohol – The Atlantic

Climate-wise, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference is starting today. What will come from it, I can’t say. We will know in the middle of November. Recently I have been somewhat cheered up by this piece that argues that yes there is progress but no it is not enough. A fair assessment. It’s not that there are not Climate change solutions, it’s that we can’t deploy them fast enough. My belief is that things will accelerate in this regard and we will get much further faster than many now think. That said, much will be lost and damaged in the meantime. I am cautiously hopeful though not naive.

China has much to say about climate change, and  Xi from China will be there at the climate conference, but how influential he will be remains to be seen. He has been withdrawn lately, as this shows: Xi Hasn’t Left China in 21 Months. Covid May Be Only Part of the Reason. Part of the reason may be that China’s government is starting to screw up. Still, the government has its supporters, such as  the patriotic ‘ziganwu’ bloggers who attack the West. The question I have is what will happen if China’s growth slows significantly? Or if big companies fail?How will Xi’s crackdowns affect Chinese society and his reign? We will see in 2022.

Russia has been in the news of late, and not for the best of reasons. As someone who values a free Internet, the fact that Russia is censoring the Internet with coercion and Black Boxes is a bad thing. There is talk that Russia wants to cut itself off from the Internet. It’s easier said than done if you want to be a successful country. Though they are trying. And the coercion doesn’t stop with Russians. Even American companies like Apple and Google Go Further Than Ever to Appease Russia. Not good.

Gee, Bernie, this version of your newsletter is bleak. What’s good? Well, this is fun: Cats and Domino. I loved this: Essential Irish Slang Everyone Should Know . This was interesting: Beat writers and bohemians: One woman’s memoir of 1950s Greenwich Village. Speaking of NYC, we should go to the Big Apple and visit  the 14 Most Iconic New York City Bars and Restaurants. That would be fun. Not fun, but fascinating is this story: The Medieval-like reformatory for ‚Fallen women on Riverside Drive, New York.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up some NFT lunacy. Here’s the latest gem: Our Lady Peace looks to the future by bundling NFTs with new album . Honestly I could fill my newsletter with this stuff. As for newsletters, it seems Newsletter Writer Fatigue Sets In . Ha! I am not surprised. They need to learn a lesson from Andrew Sullivan, who discovered this ages ago with his blog and ended up hiring staff for what became a publication disguised as a blog. Of course it helps to be pulling in serious money like he does: not many people can do that.

That’s it for another newsletter. Thanks for reading my ramblings! Winter is coming soon: enjoy the Fall while you can. It’s a season of colour and cornucopias. Soak up its wealth and coziness. In no time Winter and Christmas will be here, for worse and for better.

Last word:  I came across this fabulous infographic via this: Wes Anderson Films and Their Actors [OC]. Like Christopher Nolan, he likes to work with specific actors over and over again.

He has a new film out now: The French Dispatch. It looks fun. We could all use some fun! Go and have all the fun you can. Until next month….

 

Great films you can watch in 90 minutes or less!

Last week I wrote about really great long films. Those are great, Bernie, you say, but what about those times when you don’t have much time? In that case, you need this list of films you can watch in under 90 minutes!  Yes, Rashomon is on the list. And so many more great films. Proof that longer isn’t always better.

Fun fact: Spike Lee has a film on this list (“She’s Gotta Have It”) and on the long list (“Malcolm X”). Check out both of them!

It’s an autumn weekend: a good time to watch a long movie

 

While short movies are fun, sometimes one wants to settle in and watch a good long movie. The problem with that, though, is many of them draggggggggg. No one wants that. We want to settle, not fidget. We need help.

Help is here in the form of this: 20 of the Best Long Movies That Are Actually Worth Their Runtime. “Lawrence of Arabia” is an obvious choice, but there are many others on the list that are great too, such as “Hamlet” and “Malcolm X”. Check out the list, then block of some time this weekend or next and get some quality screen time in. Snacks are optional, but recommended. 🙂

 

What do Willy Wonka and Terminator 2 have in common?


Not much, other than Willy Wonka turns 50 this year and Terminator 2 turns 30. For fans of either movie, those links have good things for you to read up on.

(Photo by Jeremy Yap on Unsplash )

Noir: films old and new for cold rainy nights

It’s April and cold and rainy. A good time to watch film noir. Here’s a couple of blog posts that lovingly list 55 films, old and new, you should know about and hopefully watch:

  1. Film Noir in 50 Perfect Shots: Dark Beauty On Screen From 1940 to 1958
  2. 5 Classics of Cyberpunk Noir ‹ CrimeReads

(Image linked to in the second piece)

Thinking about things Christopher Nolan while watching Tenet

I have been a fan of Christopher Nolan for awhile, although that love is subsiding and Tenet did nothing to help reverse that. I saw it recently, and while I liked it, like was the strongest emotion I could muster. As this says, ‘Tenet’ Is a Must-Watch for Action Movie Fans | WIRED,  maybe it would have been better on the big screen. I mean, films like Interstellar and Inception were.

I had mostly thoughts about Nolan as an auteur and director while watching it, and basically thought

  • He still loves playing with Time: Interstellar, Dunkirk and many other of his films explore and play with time as an element in his films. Obviously he really goes all out here in Tenet. It makes his films challenging and thought provoking at times. Not to mention confusing. Speaking of confusing…
  • He hates dialog. Ok, not entirely, but it is really hard at times to understand what is going on in Tenet. Not just because of the complexity of Time, but because Nolan does terrible things to the film by often obscuring dialog with sound effects. I mean it was hard understanding Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, but it gets way worse in Tenet.
  • He loves reusing actors. That is one of the things I love about Nolan’s films. If he likes you, you are going to get to act in a number of his films. Tenet is no exception.
  • He hates colour. Tenet is one washed out movie. When I think of it, many of his films seem that way to me, but I could be wrong. He’s no Wes Anderson, that’s for sure. I think the most colour he used in any of his recent films was for the character The Joker in The Dark Knight. Meanwhile in Tenet I kept thinking of all these great location shots he filmed and how they all seem like one big drab filter is applied to them all.

Nolan is a smart guy, and that comes across in how he uses time in Tenet and other films. That said, I never felt that one needed to be a philosopher or physicist to watch this or any of his other films. They’re fun sci-fi / action films that are more middle brow than anything else. Don’t be intimidated by some commentary on the internet. Grab yourself a bag of popcorn and watch the film when you are the mood for an action blockbuster. Just take note of what I said above. 🙂

(Image is a link from the Wired article.)

 

 

If the pandemic has you down, watch: How To Be At Home

This lovely short film, How To Be At Home, by Andrea Dorfman, and provided by the National Film Board of Canada, reunites filmmaker Andrea Dorfman with poet Tanya Davis to provide timely guidance on how to get through the pandemic, and other such isolation. Highly recommended.

 

 

Quote

On the passing of filmmaker Alan Parker

Alan Parker just died. If you grew up in the last quarter of the 20th century, odds are very good you’ve seen one of his films, if not several. You may not even realized you did. He wasn’t a fan of the auteur idea of being a director, and that likely resulted in him not making films in a consistent way. Which is fine, since he made many a good film. The New York Times has done a wonderful thing and put together a list of some of his most well known films and where you can watch them online: Where to Stream Alan Parker’s Best Movies – The New York Times.

If you haven’t seen any of his films, now is your chance. Grab that list and go stream. I may rewatch “The Commitments”, one of the more enjoyable films from that time.

Quote

On how Christopher Nolan borrows from Michael Mann and “Heat” for The Dark Knight

Christopher Nolan borrows heavily from Michael Mann, in particular from Mann’s best film, Heat, for his own film, The Dark Knight. To see what I mean, watch this video: The Dark Knight: Visual Echoes.

Visually, he borrows a great deal. But I think he goes much further than that. The bank scene in The Dark Knight takes a lot from the bank scene in Heat. Not just visually, but sounds and action too.

To see what I mean, here’s the scene from Heat:

And here’s the scene from The Dark Knight:

This is not to take away from Nolan, who is a great director. But it is fascinating to me to see how much he uses of Mann, another great director. It’s almost a homage to him.

Fans of The Dark Knight might like to watch it and then watch Heat. You won’t be disappointed.

P.S. The scene from Heat is not just the bank robbery but the getaway. It’s a classic.

Quote

A list of films you might need right now is this: the best screwball comedy movies


Here’s a good list to take your mind off these pandemic times: Best Screwball Comedy Movies: List Ranked By Film Fans

And no, it’s not just old black and white movies, great as they are. There’s films as recent as 2019.

The weather is going to be rainy this week (at least in Toronto): take a break and have a laugh by watch one (or ten) of the films listed there.

Quote

It’s a good time to check out the Criterion Channel

If you are tired of other streaming services, or if you want to improve the films you are watching, now is a good time to check out the high quality films on  The Criterion Channel.

Right now they have a 14 day free trial. Now, if you are not a cinephile, the list of films they have could feel daunting. To make it simple, here is a list of 50 essential films you can watch there, with reasons why you want to see them.

If you aren’t sure, you can check out Criterion films streaming on Netflix, Apple TV and more. Consider giving them a try, though.

Quote

What does Bong Joon-ho’s ‘Parasite’ win mean for the Oscars?

Likely nothing. On the surface, it might seem like it will. But step back: every year some pattern emerges from the Oscar winners, and this pattern is seized on as meaning something meaningful.

The only pattern I can see as meaningful is how Netflix has been steadily gaining more and more nominations over the last few years. There is a meaningful trend. It could end any time, but I think it means that more American films will come from new organizations (e.g. Netflix, Apple, Amazon).

I thought Parasite was a great movie, and Boon Joon-ho is a great director.  But look over the last 10 or 20 years and see if you can find a trend in which films are winning. If you can, I’d love to read about your analysis.

P.S. This is a good piece that got me thinking about the meaning of a film winning at the Oscars: Bong Joon-ho’s ‘Parasite’ makes Oscar history by repurposing the familiar – The Washington Post

 

Quote

Two ways to do the Toronto International Film Festival (tiff)

Here are two ways to do TIFF:

  1. There’s the way most people do it, which seems awful: The TIFF ticketing system is a total nightmare this year.
  2. There’s the way my friend Annie does it, which seems great: A day in the Life of a Torontonian: TIFF 2019 – Advanced Screenings

Now Annie’s way is going to cost more, but if you want to have an enjoyable experience and get the most out of a great festival, then read up on how she and her husband do it.

Quote

For fans of The Godfather, with a few minor thoughts

Here’s a short but good interview with Francis Ford Coppola on The Godfather book’s 50th anniversary | EW.com.

“The Godfather” is one of those films I can always sit down and watch, and is on the list of my top favourite films. It is such an odd film from the 70s, in that it doesn’t seem from that era, but if you grew up in that era, then you see the 70s reflected in a film set in the 40s.

It’s a masterpiece of a film, and I can watch it with the sound off, for it is beautiful to see. The acting is superb as well. The only thing about it that never fails to bother me when I watch it is knowing I am sympathetic to a family of criminals. Coppola wisely sets up the Corleone family’s antagonists in a way you have a hard time feeling sympathy for them when they are attacked, which makes the viewer complicit in what is going on, corrupting him or her. It’s a corrupt world, the film says, and the only way to deal with that is to accept it. I never way to accept that, and I always am aware of that when watching the film.

I often think of it in comparison to the great film by Clint Eastwood, “Unforgiven”. Eastwood’s character succumbs to the forces of evil, but he never takes it for granted, and he moves away from it again. As well, Eastwood takes the entire film of “Unforgiven” to strip away all the myths and glory and glamour of Westerns. In some ways, it is the opposite of “The Godfather”.  Later film makers would do to gangster films what Eastwood did to the Western.

 

 

Quote

A fascinating side by side comparison of Blade Runner 2049 with the original

Can be seen in this video:

I knew there were many visual parallels, but I didn’t catch just how many there were until I watched that video.

Found via this link: Take a closer look at how Blade Runner 2049 subtly updated its predecessor

Quote

Cinephilia & Beyond on the Blade Runner Souvenir Magazine


A visit to this page is a must for Blade Runner fans: Blade Runner Souvenir Magazine: A Fascinating Blast from the Past from the Heart of Ridley Scott’s Masterpiece • Cinephilia & Beyond.

Pull quote:

The Official Collector’s Edition Blade Runner Souvenir Magazine is a wonderful source of information, abounding in great photos and articles; a genuine treat both for hardcore fans of the film and all the newbies who just got introduced to the world of Rick Deckard. There are a lot of fascinating stuff here, but we’re especially excited about the interviews with Philip K. Dick, Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford and Douglas Trumbull. We’re incredibly thankful to webmaster Netrunner from brmovie.com, who put a lot of effort into digitalizing the magazine and even contacted Mr. Friedman to get his blessing for the endeavor. While Netrunner shaped the material by separating photos from the accompanying text, we chose to offer you a .cbr file of greater resolution and quality, so you can browse the content more easily. If we may, we’d like to suggest using a little program called ComicRack for checking out this priceless blast from the past. Enjoy the read!

 

An odd thing happened to me on seeing Blade Runner 2049 for the third time

The first time I saw Blade Runner 2049, I found myself continually comparing it to the first Blade Runner. I loved it but I could not think of it without thinking about the first film.

The second time I saw it, I watched it for the details. It is an incredibly detailed film, and I found myself watching it for the all fine workmanship in the film (like the Japanese characters on the buttons of the jukebox that you barely see).

The third time I saw it, I saw the film in itself. That was the odd thing. It took me three tries to see the film as a narrative about these mostly new characters. I saw the film the way I would normally see any film that’s new. The other odd thing was that the film seemed to move faster the third time around than the first time. I thought it was slow the first time around and it was compared to the original film. But without that context and having absorbed all the details, I found the storytelling tight and essential.

I plan to see it many times. I think it is a masterpiece and every viewing yields something I missed in previous viewings. You may not want to watch it several times but I recommend you watch it more than once. You will be rewarded the second (or third) time you see it.

What people get wrong about Blade Runner (or Blade Runner as film noir)

The original Blade Runner is a film about the past, present and future. The future part is obvious: replicants, flying cars, off world colonies. It also remains fixed in the present of its time, the early 1980s, with the film’s characters wearing neck ties, reading newspapers, smoking indoors, talking on payphones, watching small screen TVs, and dressing like punk rockers. The past part may not seem so obvious, but it is essential to understanding the film.

The past of Blade Runner is film noir of the mid 20th century. Not just in the way it looks, though the look of film noir is spread throughout the film: the clothes Rachel wears, the office that Bryant works in,  the style of clothes and music in Taffy Lewis’s club, the constant smoking, the hats of Gaff, the trench coat of Batty. It is noir in its morality and outlook. The world is a bleak place, the characters are not who they appear to be, and the morality of everyone is compromised and complicated.

I thought about this again when I read this piece,  There’s Something About “Blade Runner” | Balder and Dash | Roger Ebert, as well as  reading comments about Blade Runner 2049. In this piece, the author tries to establish who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Assigning who the good and bad people are in film noir is pointless. No one is entirely good, and more often than not, everyone is some degree of bad. Film noir characters have to make difficult choices in a bleak environment where there may be no happy outcomes.

Likewise, some people are critical of Blade Runner 2049 and the role of women in this future. The assumption should be that in the future there should be progress and women should have better roles. But the future of Blade Runner is not one of progress. It is a future where despite technological advances there is no progress. It may not be the future you want, any more than the worlds of film noir are not ones you want to inhabit. It is the future the filmmakers want to explore, and get you to think about.

More on film noir here and here. A great example of what Blade Runner might look like cast as just a film noir film is in that clip above. While Blade Runner is gorgeous in colour, I’d love to see a black and white (sepia and white?) version of it too.

Three smart analyses (and one not so smart) on Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 2049
Here are three smart pieces on the latest Blade Runner film. I’ll touch on the last one separately.

  1. Life After Empathy: On Philip K. Dick and ‘Blade Runner 2049’ – Paris Review
  2. Inside the kaleidoscope mirrored heart of Blade Runner 2049.
  3. Blade Runner 2049: Identity, humanity and discrimination | Pursuit by The University of Melbourne
  4. Review: Blade Runner 2049 can’t replicate its predecessor’s mastery – Vox

Each of the first three pieces delve into themes and ideas and layers of the film, and among other things, what I took away from them is that the sequel to Blade Runner is going to be studied and discussed for as long as the original film was. I highly recommend these pieces.

The not so smart analysis comes from Vox. It makes the same mistake that others make, namely, in criticizing the film for being too slow and unlike the original Blade Runner. That is ironic, because Blade Runner 2049 seems to be intent on not making the same mistake as the original Blade Runner of shortening and dumbing down the film to make it more appealing. It took three tries until Ridley Scott could release the Blade Runner he wanted (the Final Cut version).

If you have seen the film, read the first three pieces (or any one of them) and then read the Vox piece, and you can see how they miss out on the richness and depth of the film.

I have seen Blade Runner 2049 twice now, and I understand the difficulty people might have with it. It is long. It doesn’t strive to entertain. It swerves away from the film noir genre that Scott stuck to. For all of his artistry, Scott is a traditional storyteller and filmmaker. He makes Hollywood films. Villeneuve strikes me more of an art film maker. He still works within the Hollywood system, but he is striving for something more. That something more is captured here in Blade Runner 2049.

How to get started making low cost films using your smart phone

Sure, to make a great film, great equipment helps. But as these links (and that photo of Zach Snyder shows), you can also make a good film using the latest smart phone technology. And not just Snyder: Gondry does it too. All the links below can help you get started making films using the technology in your pocket. Your films may not be as good as those, but the sooner you start making films with what you have on hand, the better your later films will be.

Thoughts on the new Blade Runner 2049 trailer

Well, here it is!

Some initial thoughts:

  • There’s many echoes visually of the first Blade Runner. In this trailer, there is the close up of the eye and the fight that goes crashing through the wall. Then there’s the cars,  the cityscape and even the clothing that K (Ryan Gosling) wears resembles the first film.  (Also  the woman with K is wearing a transparent yellow raincoat similar to Zhora in the first Blade Runner. She seems to be a replicant.)
  • Other echoes are the scene where K is walking with someone past suspended bodies. It looks like Deckard entering the Tyrell Corporation in the first film.
  • Speaking of that scene, the suspended body that resembles Dave Bautista has a label of Nexus 08 prototype 01! So clearly the replicants have gotten better. The question is: how much better, and in which ways?
  • There seems to be a number of locations for the film besides Los Angeles. The one Bautista’s character is in looks like Russia. (Also, there is a date on the tree that is tied up: is it the incept date of the tree? Or some other significant date?)
  • Speaking of locations, where is Deckard living? It looks deserted, which makes me think it is on Earth. Also, there are Korean symbols on the building he is in.
  • The sequencing of that scene where K meets Deckard is interesting. It looks like K mets Deckard, who tries to escape to his car, which get blown up. In other scenes he is fleeing with his dog when K bursts through a wall and saves him. After which it seems like K asks him questions.
  • That K can burst through a marble wall makes me think he is a replicant.(Well that, and a number of other things)
  • There are two scenes with insects: there are slugs at Bautista’s place and a fly at Deckard’s that lands on K’s hand. Are they real, or replicants too? The fly could be a drone that would tell Deckard someone is coming.
  • There is a walled off city at the beginning of the clip. I wonder if that is breached somehow. It makes me think that that is what happens later when the water is flooding.

Lots to think about and get excited about too! Looking forward to more trailers soon! In the meantime, what follows is a collection of the previous trailers. Enjoy!

P.S. Oh, I missed this featurette before. Need to add it, too!

For Fans of Blade Runner and Typography

This article will surprise you if you are fan of Blade Runner: Blade Runner | Typeset In The Future. It speaks to a level of detail in the film that I hadn’t appreciated. Not just the typography, but a number of other aspects, too. I was surprised, since I had seen the film dozens of times and read countless articles on it.

Highly recommended for fans of type and especially fans of the film.

A good review of Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle. And a good critique of what works based on the Philip K. Dick get wrong.

That review,here, is worth reading for anyone watching or interesting in watching the Amazon Prime series.

Anyone interested in works based on the novels of Dick should focus on this key quote (I added the emphasis):

Pop culture has exalted many of Dick’s wilder stories and novels. Since the release of Blade Runner (1982, based on the short novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and Total Recall (1990, based on the story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale”), his pet motifs of false realities and artificial identities have captivated filmmakers. …Along the way to becoming popcorn entertainments, Dick’s motifs have shed a lot of their existential baggage. Today, the revelation that capsizes everything a movie character once believed about himself and his world is just another mind-blowing plot twist. No sooner have we gasped Whoa! than the film has moved on to the next chase scene, martial-arts display, or explosion. Nobody sits around questioning their own reality or humanity the way Dick’s protagonists do. Those questions, however, were the whole point of Dick’s fiction

That’s a great critique of even the better works based on Dick, like Blade Runner. Whenever you see or plan to see a film or TV series based on one of his works, it’s better if you can read the novel first. Doing so will add much more complexity and richness to whatever you are about to see.

The modern history of comic based Hollywood movies is here

The modern history of comic based Hollywood movies is here (via VOX) and it’s great. It starts with this:

Though they both center on a certain caped crusader, Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005) and Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever (1995) couldn’t be more different. One is regarded as a cinematic treasure; the other is viewed as beautiful, colorful garbage

It goes on to review how films centred on superheroes have been progressing since Tim Burton’s Batman in the beginning of the 1980s and reviews films all the way to 2015. There’s been significant change in the genre in that 35 years, as you might expect. And it looks like it is about to undergo another change.

Like alot of genre films, it’s can be easy to dismiss genre films like this as something outside the mainstream of cinema and not worth discussing. My own view is that comic book films are films first and foremost, and when good directors like Nolan and Burton direct them, you end up with really good films. This has always been true for genre films, not just super hero movies.

For fans of such films, or film in general, it’s well worth a read and a consideration.

The odd story of Kodak and the small nuclear reactor

This nuclear reactor:

…sat in Kodak Park, in Rochester, NY, for over 20 years before being wound down in 2007. Facinating. The Democrat and Chronicle – (democratandchronicle.com) has the story on what it was like and what Kodak used it for, and why they finally had to shut it down.