Sunday, September 26, 2010

I'm Still Here...missed the point.


I just finished watching I'm Still Here -- the Joaquin Phoenix/Casey Affleck docu/mockumentary/hoax/social experiment/insanity.

I had read all the theories, I had seen the Shepard Fairey posters floating around New York City, and I was interested. Was it real or not? Well that didn't really matter to me. I'm fine with fake documentaries; whether it is Spinal Tap or the new ABC show My Generation -- I can forgive them for making a fool of me, I can see the joke, or admire the efforts; but what matters to me is...is it any good? What was the point? Did they reveal an undiscovered truth? Did they point out social oddities or injustice? Well, did they?

In my opinion, the failure Affleck and Phoenix made was in the execution. They had our attention, for a year and half prior to the film's release, prior to even knowing that a film was being made, Phoenix had our attention...his infamous appearance on Letterman, his announcement of retirement at age 35 to become a rapper...not just a singer...a rapper. I fell for it, I thought he had lost his mind [I mean, Amanda Bynes recently retired (then promptly un-retired) at age...what? 25? It happens].

So now that the movie is out, and they have contradicted themselves by saying, it was real, or it was a joke, a hoax, a social experiment on the media machine and its consumers, on celebrity...but the failure is in the film itself. If the goal was to show us how sick the machine is, how the system is a failure, and we are pawns to celebrity; how the masses believe whatever is written, and are eager to join in the mocking, and the darkness...then they failed. BECAUSE instead of showing us the manipulation and letting the viewer finally in on the joke, they show us a sad, lost, struggling, drug addicted, alcoholic. Phoenix is pathetic in the film, to the point of wanting to hug him, but being scared of how he might react. He seems so lost amidst his role in celebritism...he wants to be seen differently, he doesn't want to be the guy from Walk the Line, he wants to reinvent himself, distance himself from that person, and become someone new. This part seems real. I do believe he wants this; but in his desperate attempts, and inability to be truthful, he has hurt his integrity.

In the interviews I've seen with Affleck or Phoenix, they point to the idea that they were exposing the fickleness of the media, how consumers follow blindly, and they have a brilliant sequence towards the end of the film -- showing how his physical appearance has led to so many spoofs -- from Ben Stiller on the Oscars, to 100s of blogs, youtube videos, "news" programs, etc... in this way, I feel they are a success...it is truly amazing that in less than a year (and really just the appearance on Letterman) spawned so much attention, especially if you believe his act....

BUT here in lies the rub...for this to be a truly successful film (in regards to pulling up a rock to expose the ugly Blue Velvet-ness underneath)...well...then you should make us believe, in the film itself, that Phoenix was in on the joke. Affleck (as the director) should have lifted the curtain to show the viewer behind the closed doors of his hotel room, or home, that Phoenix was the mastermind pulling the strings through his brilliant acting capabilities. Instead, he is ordering prostitutes off the internet, snorting cocaine, lost in conversation, and literally being shit on by a close friend. If the goal was to expose the decay and corruption, then at some point, you have to show us that we were wrong to judge you by your appearance; instead you are proving we were right to think you were crazy (and only wrong to laugh at you for it...because its just too sad).

I encourage you to see it, available On Demand (depending on your location), and it is "interesting". But make no mistake, this is a sad movie, with sad people...whether the film is "acting" or "documentary" does not change that.

For another opinion, check out: http://kellyannbrown.tumblr.com/post/1113712725/hes-still-here

And an interview with Ebert and Affleck: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/casey_affleck_levels_about_im.html

Movies: theater vs. tv...preference?

About a year ago, I started noticing that films were available on On Demand the same day they were released in theaters. Recently, as I re-acclimate to life post-travel adventure, and spend the majority of my day, catching up on emails, tv shows, eating, and playing with the pups...I find myself perusing the On Demand selections once again.

I haven't quite figured out why...why would a movie appear On Demand for $7 or $8, and in the theaters for $5-15/ticket (depending on where you live) on the same day? In my experience, theater ticket sales are the first measuring stick for a film's success. Next is international ticket sales, then On Demand, then DVD, then network television...and so on. Why lower your value by appearing on the small screen the same day? Is it because people aren't showing up? Butts aren't in seats? NYC bed bugs threatening theater sales? So they have responded by having you pay the same amount (or less) to stay in the comfort of your home?

Let me ask you? If you had the choice -- to see a new film in a movie theater on the big screen, with overpriced snacks, and strangers...OR at home, on your couch, with your chosen audience members, and your own food??

They don't seem to be the Avatar's and Wall Streets, but still summer ticket sales are down...could this be a contributing factor? Playing into our desires to stay on our couches rather than get dressed, stand in line, and deal with the annoyance the the masses.

Currently On Demand and in Theaters:
I'm Still Here w/ Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix
Howl with James Franco, Jon Hamm, Mary Louise Parker
The Winning Season with Sam Rockwell

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Iceland's Greatest Hits

Most of my friends and family have seen the otherworldly Iceland photos on Facebook...but just in case you haven't, or didn't want to sift through the 200+ images...here are the best of the best.

Iceland is a weird place. Plain and simple. Geographically, think Ireland, New Zealand, and...the moon. Population...well there is 3 people for every square mile, its the size of Kentucky and there are 300,000 people (1/2 of which live in the capital of Reykjavik). The mayor is a comedian who won under the "Best Party" with the promise of bringing a Polar Bear to the zoo, his cabinet is full of aging punk musicians, the Prime Minister is a 50+ year old, lesbian, ex-air hostess, and they had prohibition til 1989...the place is odd...but it is GORGEOUS!