Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Ascension’ Review: A Symphony of Productivity

      by

      The contemporary Chinese economy is examined in this unconvincing, if hypnotizing documentary by Jessica Kingdon.Jessica Kingdon’s derivative but nevertheless hypnotizing documentary, “Ascension,” has its roots in the documentaries of Godfrey Reggio (“Koyaanisqatsi”) and Ron Fricke (“Samsara”), whose wordless, non-narrative montages plumbed the relationship between technology, nature and modernity with a near-mystical sensibility. “Ascension,” however, takes a slightly more focused approach by homing in on the contemporary Chinese economy.The film’s takeaways are hardly revelatory for anyone aware of the fact that China is the world’s largest manufacturer and an enormous market with massive purchasing power. Instead, “Ascension” concerns itself with impressive and frequently alienating images showcasing Chinese productivity, innovation and consumption across class lines, revealing everyone from the day laborers to the middle-class hustlers to the privileged elites to be mere cogs in a ridiculously well-oiled machine.Divided into three sections corresponding to these economic classes, the documentary begins with workers in Chinese factories churning out Keep America Great products on the assembly line, then fashioning sex dolls with surprising attention to detail. The relative decency of these blue-collar workplaces, which tout the availability of free, air-conditioned lodging and the option of sitting on the job, gestures at improving conditions on par with the nation’s rise, though the lack of context — the documentary is fully observational and devoid of narration or explanatory text — makes me wonder what kinds of places Kingdon had access to in the first place, and what was inevitably (or forcibly) left out of the frame.It’s not hard to be sucked in by Kingdon and the cinematographer Nathan Truesdell’s handsome imagery, which calls attention to the beauty, absurdity, and horror of Chinese capitalism with symphonic panache. At the same time, this aestheticization of Chinese society doesn’t exactly sit well with this viewer: one wonders if this counts as a kind of tourism.AscensionNot rated. In Mandarin, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 37 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 38 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      Is Moviegoing Undemocratic?

      by

      The plan to distribute the art-house film “Memoria” in one theater at a time has set off a heated debate over whether the idea is elitist or inspired.I saw “Memoria” during the New York Film Festival, projected on a screen in a room somewhere other than my house. It’s a strange, captivating movie, graceful and elusive, with a distinctive pedigree. Starring Tilda Swinton and directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, who is from Thailand, “Memoria” was shot in Colombia and will be that country’s official selection for the Academy Awards. At once emotionally resonant and tricky to describe, it’s the kind of challenging movie that critics embrace in the hope that it might find an audience beyond the festival circuit.It will have that chance, though not in the usual way. On Tuesday, Neon — the art-house distributor that brought the Cannes prizewinners “Parasite” and “Titane” to North American moviegoers — announced plans to release “Memoria” later this year. As first reported in IndieWire, Neon will open the film in New York in December, after which it will move “from city to city, theater to theater, week by week, playing in front of only one solitary audience at any given time.” No itinerary has yet been released, but one place you will not be able to see Weerasethakul’s movie is in your living room. According to IndieWire, “it will not become available on DVD, on demand, or streaming platforms.”Never? I suspect there will be a Criterion Blu-ray one of these days. In the meantime, Neon’s news caused a predictable kerfuffle on film Twitter, whose denizens like nothing better than a heated argument about a movie very few people have seen. The set-to in this case was between those who applauded the “Memoria” strategy as a defense of the aesthetic superiority of going to the movies and those who scorned it as elitist and exclusionary.Here we go again. In general, I take a noncombatant position in the streaming wars. I’m in favor of people seeing movies in the best possible conditions, and I’m aware that sometimes those conditions will be fulfilled on the home screen. If you can’t make it to the cinema, the cinema can come to you. Clear sound, full screen — can’t lose.I also think that the terms of the streaming vs. theater debate are misguided. How is it that a quintessentially democratic cultural activity — buying a ticket and some popcorn and finding a seat in the dark — has been reclassified as a snobbish, specialized fetish? The answer, I think, is a form of pseudo-populist techno-triumphalism that takes what seems to be the easiest mode of consumption as, by definition, the most progressive. Loyalty to older ways of doing things looks at best quaint, at worst reactionary and in any case irrational. Why wouldn’t you put your movie out there where everyone could see it?Everyone, that is, who subscribes to a given streaming platform or pays retail for video on demand. Netflix is not a public utility. Furthermore, the universal accessibility that is part of the ideology of streaming looks in practice more like a kind of invisibility. If you can watch a given movie whenever you want, you never have to watch it at all. Or you can pause after a few minutes, check out something else and maybe come back the next night. A partially read book can shame you from the night stand, but an unstreamed movie drifts alone in the ether.That is the fate “Memoria” is resisting. As an object and an experience, it resists the rhythms of home viewing to begin with. Swinton’s character, an expatriate named Jessica, seems literally lost in space and time, experiencing the world in a way that alienates her from other people and her own consciousness. She hears noises inaudible to anyone else and finds companions who may not exist. We don’t know if the explanation is psychological or supernatural, or whether Weerasethakul is dabbling in science fiction, metaphysics or some of each. What we do know is that the streets of Bogotá and the lush slopes of the Andes look beautiful in 35 millimeter, and that the sounds and images cast a delicate spell.The magic may require a theatrical setting. Abstract, slow-moving films that aren’t propelled by dialogue or plot don’t lend themselves naturally to couch-bound, distraction-prone viewing. Weird movies are best seen in the company of strangers. Did you see what I saw? What was it, anyway? The algorithm won’t help you.“Memoria” is hardly alone in demanding a different kind of attention, and it’s unlikely that the week-by-week, one-theater-at-a-time release strategy will become a widespread business model. But there is something beautiful, even utopian in the idea that another way of looking is possible, that habits can be broken. That we might have to go find movies out in the world, where they are looking for us. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      James Bond Saved the World, but Can He Rescue U.K. Movie Theaters?

      by

      The 25th installment of the Bond franchise has brought record-breaking numbers of people back to British movie theaters, but pressures on the industry continue.LONDON — By the time the 25th James Bond movie, “No Time to Die,” premiered to an audience of stars, members of the royal family and key workers here last week, it seemed to have the full weight of Britain’s movie theater industry on its shoulders.The industry has endured 18 months of on-and-off closures while desperately trying to avoid running out of cash as Hollywood studios delayed would-be blockbusters because of coronavirus restrictions overseas, and sent movies to streaming platforms, sometimes bypassing a theatrical release entirely.Expectations and hopes for “No Time to Die,” therefore, were high: Daniel Craig’s two previous Bond films, “Skyfall” and “Spectre,” are the second and third highest-grossing films ever at the British box office, and the franchise is a beloved — if sometimes bemoaned — fixture in British cultural life.“We’ll look back on Bond as being a watershed moment for the industry,” said Tim Richards, the founder and chief executive of Vue, the third-largest movie theater chain in Britain.At the Vue theater in the West End of London, branded popcorn for opening night.Jeremie Souteyrat for The New York TimesTheaters were full for the 25th Bond film.Jeremie Souteyrat for The New York TimesA moviegoer dressed up in honor of the suave spy, sipping Champagne.Jeremie Souteyrat for The New York TimesBut with pressure from streaming services and the financial toll of the pandemic still in play, it remains to be seen in what direction this watershed moment will take the British movie theater industry in the longer term.After a thrice-delayed release, “No Time to Die” has successfully ushered people back into theaters. Over the opening weekend — from Thursday through Sunday — it made £26 million, or $35 million, at the box office, not just breaking pandemic records, but also surpassing the opening weekends of the two previous Bond films. This puts it in the top five opening weekends for movies in Britain ever, according to data from the British Film Institute.Across the country, movie theaters made a spectacle of the 163-minute, $250 million-budget film. Some London big chain theaters scheduled dozens of screenings a day, and others hosted live music to entertain viewers as they waited. There were opening night parties, which encouraged viewers to dress up in black tie for cocktails and canapés at £50, or $68, a person.Jack Piggott, 31, was among the first to watch the film at the 0:07 a.m. screening at the Curzon in Mayfair, part of a small chain of movie theaters, which was for the first time putting on midnight premieres. Not only is Bond a major moment in British film, it’s also Craig’s last outing as the spy and “you might as well go all in,” he said on Thursday as he waited for the movie to start.Despite the late hour, the lure of Bond pulled in passers-by like Canset Klasmeyer, who made an impromptu decision to see the film even though she had tickets booked for Monday. “It’s a big event,” she said.Even as ticket sales rise, there are many challenges, and Richards doesn’t expect Vue to be back to where it was in 2019 until late 2023.Some of London’s big chain theaters scheduled dozens of screenings a day.Jeremie Souteyrat for The New York TimesAcross the industry, British theaters will have to find ways to recover from the financial blow of the past 18 months, which saw them take on heavy loads of debt or ask shareholders for cash. It’s still unclear how much the pandemic might permanently change consumer behaviors, as people reconsider what types of leisure experiences they want to have outside their homes.And critically, the influence of streaming has fundamentally changed the industry as studios make big budget films available sooner through on-demand services. For years, movie theaters enjoyed a period of screening exclusivity that lasted about three months. That’s being cut in half by recent negotiations as streaming services balloon.In the two years before the pandemic, British movie theaters were experiencing their best years since the early 1970s, thanks to a flow of big budget films, as well as major investments into recliner seating and high-tech sound systems. Stopped in their tracks by lockdowns, companies tried to stem the outflow of cash by furloughing staff members and deferring rent payments.At the end of August 2020, during an interval in Britain’s lockdown, Christopher Nolan’s “Tenet” was released in cinemas. It was just a fleeting moment of hope. Not long after that, as restrictions tightened, S&P Global downgraded the credit ratings of Vue and Cineworld, Britain’s largest movie theater chain — which also owns Regal Cinemas in the United States — and gave them a negative outlook. And the pandemic dragged on.It has been a painful time for all, including independent movie theaters like Peckhamplex, a southeast London institution that sells tickets for just £5. It used almost all of the government support on offer, including furlough, tax referrals and a grant for independent movie theaters, according to John Reiss, the chairman of Peckhamplex.But to stay afloat the movie theater also spent money that had been painstakingly set aside for more than a decade for major refurbishments, and it could take another year for the movie theater to return to prepandemic sales, Reiss said.At the Odeon theater in London’s West End, people queued to get into opening night screenings of “No Time to Die.”Jeremie Souteyrat for The New York TimesFor some moviegoers, evening wear wasn’t enough: they also donned masks of Léa Seydoux and Daniel Craig, who star in the film.Jeremie Souteyrat for The New York Times“It’s a big event,” said one viewer who saw the film on opening night.Jeremie Souteyrat for The New York TimesBond has given a meaningful boost to the industry — in one weekend it eclipsed the total box office earnings for the previously highest-grossing film of the pandemic, “Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway” — but “No Time to Die” is still just one film. The theater industry’s credit ratings and outlook are “very unlikely to change based on the great success of any particular movie release,” said Abigail Klimovich, a credit analyst at S&P Global. There is still an uncertain path to recovery for movie theater earnings, she said.Among the hurdles is the virus itself, which is especially troubling as the days get colder and it gets harder to keep physically distant. Britain has a high vaccination rate, but daily case numbers are averaging more than 30,000. At the same time, many households are expected to face a squeeze on their incomes from high energy prices, rising inflation and cuts to benefits and other income support.For Philip Knatchbull, the chief executive of Curzon, change in the industry couldn’t come soon enough. “There’s an existential threat to cinema generally, as we know it,” he said.For one, independent cinema has long been pushed out of many large movie theaters that had to make room for the long releases of big-budget films, Knatchbull said.Curzon has a different model, in which 14 plush movie theaters are just one of three strands of the business. It’s also a film distributor, releasing a catalog of predominantly independent and foreign language films, including Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite,” in Britain. And for the past decade, it has embraced streaming with its own on-demand service.Soon Knatchbull hopes to be offering movies on the Curzon on-demand service from other distributors like Sony, Paramount and Universal.Amid all of this upheaval, Vue’s Richards sounds relatively relaxed. The old exclusivity period was “prehistoric,” he said, adding that he hopes the new 45-day release window will encourage streaming services to release more of their movies in theaters.“I know it’s clichéd, but I do believe we are about to enter into a second golden age of cinema,” he said. Several factors are coalescing here: The audience has returned, there is a promising slate of new and delayed films to be released over the next year and having an exclusive, albeit, shorter release window works, Richards said.Knatchbull, speaking from Curzon’s more disruptive position in the industry, also seems optimistic. “During the pandemic, all the changes I anticipated happening over maybe over a five-year period were just accelerated,” he said.Now, he said, there’s “a lot of experimentation, a lot of hurt, a lot of anger, a lot of opportunity from different parts of the film industry.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      Watch These 9 Movies and Shows Before They Leave Netflix in October

      by

      Titles leaving U.S. Netflix this month include a cult comedy hit, a hilarious game show and solid offerings from Steven Spielberg and Oliver Stone.This month, subscribers to Netflix in the United States will have one more chance to watch an uproariously funny game show, a beloved girl-power comedy, a family film that adults may love more than kids and two wild cult comedies.All of those, along with some good stuff from Steven Spielberg and Oliver Stone, are among the best films and TV shows leaving Netflix in October. Learn more about them below. (Dates reflect the final day a title is available.)‘Free Fire’ (Oct. 20)If you don’t like shootouts, then move along, nothing to see here. But if you do love shoot-outs, or if you love inventive gunplay and threatening gun-cocking and artful reloads and the films of John Woo, boy is this the movie for you. This action extravaganza from the writer and director Ben Wheatley (“Kill List”) is essentially a feature-length gunfight, in which various parties assemble in an isolated warehouse for a gun buy before turning on one another. Wheatley finds ingenious variations throughout, keeping the action energetic and fresh, while his first-rate cast (including Armie Hammer, Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy and Jack Reynor), resplendent in ’70s duds, squeeze in as much characterization as they can between shots.Stream it here.‘Rango’ (Oct. 27)Plenty of filmmakers have livened up family movies by sliding in winking gags and pop culture references for the grown-ups. But few have done it as unapologetically (and successfully) as the “Pirates of the Caribbean” director Gore Verbinski, who livens up this story of a desert lizard’s adventure in several surprising ways. First, he constructs it as a kiddie “Chinatown,” with our hero stumbling into a Western town where the battle over water rights is getting ugly. And he apparently instructed his leading man, Johnny Depp, to voice the role as a riff on his turn as Hunter S. Thompson in “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” even throwing in visual and verbal nods to that very R-rated adaptation. But Verbinski also doesn’t alienate the target audience: Kids will likewise delight in this visually inventive and frequently funny treat.Stream it here.‘Zack and Miri Make a Porno’ (Oct. 30)Rarely has a title been so accurate in its description as it is here, and the writer and director Kevin Smith (“Clerks”) tells the tale of two longtime friends (Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks), desperate for cash, who turn to the seemingly lucrative world of adult entertainment. The leering title and premise don’t tell the entire story, however. This isn’t just some silly, gross-out sex comedy (though, to be sure, there’s plenty of that). As in his indie hit “Chasing Amy,” Smith knows that there’s no such thing as “just sex,” and, with the help of his charismatic leads, thoughtfully explores what happens when platonic pals decide to take that big leap.Stream it here.‘Billy on the Street’: Seasons 1-5 (Oct. 31)Few contemporary comedians have a persona as distinctive as Billy Eichner’s. A frenzied, impatient pop culture connoisseur, he is quick with a quip and so sly with his insults that they often fly past their targets. Eichner is an unabashedly 21st century personality, which makes it especially amusing that he is best known for the “man on the street” interview — a comedic device that stretches back to Steve Allen and the earliest days of television comedy. “Billy on the Street” is, on paper at least, a game show; he and his celebrity guests offer passers-by the opportunity to win cash and prizes for answering questions and participating in their reindeer games. But the stakes are low and the games are silly; the show exists primarily as a vehicle for his unique sensibility and wit.Stream it here.‘Catch Me if You Can’ (Oct. 31)Leonardo DiCaprio’s apparent agelessness is one of his most fascinating features — we all still think of him as a matinee heartthrob, even in middle age — and Steven Spielberg puts it to fine use in this dashing 2002 comedy-drama, based on the memoir of the con artist and fabulist Frank Abagnale Jr. (which may, itself, have been fabricated). DiCaprio’s Abagnale is a born swindler, masquerading as a doctor, lawyer and airline pilot while kiting checks across the country; the actor’s sensitive portrayal captures gee-whiz likability that made him so successful, while subtly conveying the pain underneath. Tom Hanks is in top form as the by-the-books treasury agent on his tail, but the M.V.P. is Christopher Walken, Oscar-nominated for an atypically understated turn as Abagnale’s absentee father.Stream it here.‘Legally Blonde’ (Oct. 31)When this Reese Witherspoon vehicle hit theaters in 2001, a fair number of critics dismissed it as lightweight, disposable fluff — a reaction strangely appropriate to this story of a young woman whose peers underestimate her based on looks and impressions. But just as Elle Woods thrived, against all odds, at Harvard Law School, this summer comedy has become a cultural touchstone thanks to its quotable dialogue, masterfully modulated lead performance and timeless message about self-determination in the face of adversity.Stream it here.‘Norman Lear: Just Another Version of You’ (Oct. 31)The term “living legend” has been bandied about so freely that it doesn’t seem a grand enough descriptor for Norman Lear, the now 99-year-old writer, producer and philanthropist behind some of the most popular (and groundbreaking) television programs of the 1970s, including “All in the Family,” “The Jeffersons” and “One Day at a Time.” This energetic bio-documentary from the directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady tells his story with the appropriate gusto and showmanship, taking a thematic rather than chronological approach that separates it from the standard biographical showcase.Stream it here.‘Snowden’ (Oct. 31)There’s a real “back to basics” feeling to this 2016 based-on-a-true-story drama, for which the director Oliver Stone returned to his wheelhouse with this story of government malfeasance, fear and paranoia, framed by one man’s dedication to what he believes is right. Here, that man is Edward Snowden (played with quiet dignity by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the National Security Agency contractor who became the whistle-blower for one of the largest illegal surveillance operations in history. Stone tells the tale with his trademark bristling intelligence and righteous indignation, and he marshals an impressive supporting cast, including Nicolas Cage, Shailene Woodley, Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto and Tom Wilkinson.Stream it here.‘Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny’ (Oct. 31)Casual moviegoers assumed Jack Black just fell out of the sky when he stole scenes by the handful in “High Fidelity” and became one of Hollywood’s most valuable comic supporting players. But fans of indie comedy had been watching him for years, primarily as one-half (alongside Kyle Gass) of the comical music duo Tenacious D, a kind of Smothers Brothers for former metal heads. In 2006, the duo made a play for mainstream popularity with this movie, which chronicles their epic quest for a magic guitar pick. It didn’t quite land (box office was middling and reviews were mostly negative), but that’s OK: Tenacious D was always a cult act, so it’s appropriate that they made what has become a cult movie — and a wickedly, weirdly funny one at that.Stream it here.Also leaving: “Beowulf,” “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “Inception” (all Oct. 31). More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      ‘There’s Someone Inside Your House’ Review: Problematic Secrets Exposed

      by

      This horror movie from Netflix is a muddled marriage of progressive politics and retrograde style.Commendably diverse and deplorably unscary, Patrick Brice’s teen-slasher movie, “There’s Someone Inside Your House,” attempts to both update and bow to a genre that peaked decades ago. But in trying to have it both ways, Brice has created a messy, overstuffed parody of moral policing that squanders the promise of its cleverly executed opening.That sequence, genius in its simplicity (and the only one to truly justify the film’s title), shows the slaying of a high-school quarterback who brutally hazed a gay teammate. Barely has the deceased’s homophobia been broadcast to the stunned student body when their racist president is also whacked. As the killings — and, arguably more terrifying, online exposures — continue, the movie watches from the viewpoint of a clique of social outcasts led by Makani (Sydney Park, alternating between dazed and woebegone), a transfer student with a traumatic past.Set in small-town Nebraska and adapted from Stephanie Perkins’s novel of the same name, Henry Gayden’s screenplay chokes on immaterial plot strands — like police privatization and the evils of agribusiness — and bland characters. The sole standout is Théodore Pellerin as the prime suspect and Makani’s secret hookup: Dancing on the line between creepy and sexy, Pellerin never misses a step.The same can’t be said for a story that, disastrously, allows Makani’s barely relevant personal issues to elbow those of the killer off the screen. They also muffle the plot’s smartest touches, like a party where students pre-empt an attack by confessing their darkest secrets. Or the killer’s habit of wearing masks resembling each victim’s face, making them quite literally casualties of their own actions. It’s the movie’s best joke.There’s Someone Inside Your HouseNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 36 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      A Master of Mixing and Matching Movies Gets a Citywide Tribute

      by

      Amos Vogel is considered America’s seminal film programmer. The New York Film Festival and other institutions are paying their respects on his centenary.Inside every movie buff lives a film critic. Inside every critic lives a film programmer. And inside every programmer’s heart is a place for Amos Vogel.Vogel was America’s seminal film programmer, and so it’s fitting that for his centenary he’s the subject of a citywide tribute now at the New York Film Festival and moving to other theaters later in the season. His New York Times obituary from 2012 begins with the blunt statement that he “exerted an influence on the history of film that few other non-filmmakers can claim.” In 1947, he and his wife, Marcia Vogel, founded Cinema 16, the most important membership film society in American history; after its demise, he directed the New York Film Festival for the first five years of its existence.After being forced out or resigning (accounts vary), Vogel then wrote a book, “Film as a Subversive Art,” an encyclopedic cinematic cabinet of wonders that — with chapters like “The Power of the Visual Taboo” and a still from Dusan Makavejev’s outrageous “WR: Mysteries of the Organism” on the cover — is something like the programmer’s bible. (A revised edition will be available next month from Film Desk Books.) The book is “inexhaustible,” the New York Film Festival’s current director of programming, Dennis Lim, told me via email. “It’s an endless source of ideas but also a reminder of the possibilities of film exhibition and curation.”A child of Vienna’s ninth district — the neighborhood of Freud and Schoenberg — Amos Vogelbaum was one of the many cultural gifts thrust upon America when the Nazis took power in Central Europe. Vogel and his parents lived for six months under Nazi rule before escaping Vienna for New York, by way of Cuba.His initial impulse was to study agriculture and move to a kibbutz. Disillusionment with Israel’s development prompted him to stay in the United States and found another sort of utopian society, Cinema 16. Inspired by the example of the avant-garde filmmaker Maya Deren, the Vogels began exhibiting a range of movies — experimental psychodramas, poetic documentaries, abstract animations, banned French bedroom farces and forgotten classics, complete with notes. Cinema 16 originally charged admission but switched to yearly subscriptions so as to avoid New York State’s draconian censorship laws.Vogel’s book “Film as a Subversive Art” is “a reminder of the possibilities of film exhibition and curation,” said the New York Film Festival’s director of programming, Dennis Lim.Paul CroninAt its height, in the late 1950s, Cinema 16 had some 7,000 members and regularly filled a 1,600-seat auditorium. It also doubled as a distributor for filmmakers as difficult as Kenneth Anger and Stan Brakhage. In addition to promoting the “beat” cinema of “Pull My Daisy” and “The Flower Thief,” Cinema 16 provided American premieres for Jean Renoir’s “The Rules of the Game” (introduced by Renoir), several of Luis Buñuel’s Mexican films, and movies by the great Japanese directors Yasujiro Ozu and Nagisa Oshima. Cinema 16 also showed the first short films by Agnès Varda and Melvin Van Peebles, among many others.As a programmer, Vogel was a master of the mix and match. One particularly great show included Carl Theodor Dreyer’s expressionist horror film “Vampyr” (1932), Kenneth Anger’s homoerotic home movie “Fireworks” (1947) and George Franju’s surreal abattoir documentary “Blood of the Beasts” (1949). Vogel’s programs typically juxtaposed avant-garde work and short documentaries with scientific fare. (As befits his Viennese roots, he had a fondness for psychiatric shorts like “Experimental Masochism” or “Unconscious Motivation.”)The young Vogel liked to present himself as a firebrand. In a 1961 Village Voice cover story headlined “‘I Step on Toes From Time to Time,’” it was part of his bold declaration that “I’ll show anything — political, homosexual, religious, erotic, psychological — which needs to be seen.” Indeed, Cinema 16 was the first New York venue to present the full-length version of Nazi propaganda films like “Triumph of the Will” as objects of study.When I met Amos, some 20 years after the Voice article, he was less combative than amiably avuncular. Gently, he reprimanded me for having written a purposelessly contentious piece about a long-ago contretemps occasioned by his refusal to show Brakhage’s “Anticipation of the Night” at Cinema 16. “One decision should not define a career,” he told me, words that might serve as a film critic’s motto.Carl Theodor Dreyer’s horror film “Vampyr” was part of one of Vogel’s adventurous programs.The Criterion CollectionHe had a profound sense of mission. During his time at the festival, he fought budget cuts and strove to create something like the American Film Institute at Lincoln Center. He was opposed to any sort of commercialization, genuinely shocked that what was then known as the Film Society of Lincoln Center might accept money from Philip Morris, aghast that the year he quit, the opening film was a trendy Hollywood comedy, “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.”Upon joining the festival selection committee, I naïvely suggested distributing free tickets to avant-garde filmmakers and other needy types. “Amos used to do that” came the disapproving answer. The Vogel festival was generous. It was ridiculously easy to crash the press screenings and there were dozens of sidebar screenings and discussions at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts that, if memory serves, were virtually free.“We show what can be done if certain cultural elements and the serious art or documentary are brought together,” Vogel had told the Voice in 1961. “There lies the basis for a film culture. But who knows in America if such a condition will ever spread and really take hold?”If it has, the esteem in which Vogel is held by his successors can be gauged by the unprecedented attention paid his centennial. The festival has been presenting a seven-part “Spotlight” series dedicated to Vogel’s programming, recreating specific shows and presenting favorite movies. Later this month, Anthology Film Archives will show eight reconstructed Cinema 16 bills, and the Museum of Modern Art will screen five programs with a science and nature theme. In November, Film Forum is reprising a tribute to Cinema 16 shown in 1986. The Museum of the Moving Image, Metrograph and Light Industry are also taking part, drawing on “Film as a Subversive Art.” Outside New York, the Arsenal in Berlin and the Austrian Film Museum in Vienna have organized similar multipart events.“Vogel” is German for “bird.” With due respect to Charlie Parker, the message this season is Vogel Lebt, “Bird Lives!” More

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘V/H/S/94’ Review: The Right Snuff

      by

      This lo-fi horror omnibus is a grisly, gory gem.“V/H/S” is a series of found-footage horror anthologies whose constituent shorts are made to seem like the contents of old, and possibly haunted, videocassettes. The problem to date has been that, like most omnibus films, the quality of the segments ranges wildly, so that the odd effective short winds up sandwiched between shorts that are decidedly second-rate.“V/H/S/94,” the fourth movie in the franchise, is the first wholly successful one, for the simple reason that each of its four unique, 1990s-set segments is a winner. I suppose it doesn’t cohere into anything more than the sum of its parts. But this is the first time I’ve felt the anthology horror format really worked, and gosh, the parts are really good.The first installment, and my favorite, is Chloe Okuno’s “Storm Drain,” which stars a note-perfect Anna Hopkins as a daytime TV news reporter assigned to cover a spate of mysterious sightings around the city sewage system. Okuno and her cinematographer, Jared Raab, recreate the period aesthetic so precisely that the footage looks like it’s been unearthed from a local broadcast news archive; the low-grade video style is cleverly used to obscure the image, heightening the suspense. “Storm Drain” has wit, verve, and integrity, and its gross-out punchline is the highlight of the film.Things get grosser still in “The Subject,” Timo Tjahjanto’s gory, ludicrously over-the-top entry, which plays out with the madcap gusto of a first-person shooter. Tjahjanto had the best segment by far in the 2013 “V/H/S/2,” with the sinister cult thriller “Safe Haven,” but here he exchanges slow-burn dread for outrageous ultraviolence in the finest grindhouse tradition.It’s an exuberant counterpoint to the installment that precedes it, Simon Barrett’s “The Empty Wake,” which buzzes with some of the same nervous, understated tension of John Carpenter’s short “The Gas Station,” from the 1993 horror anthology “Body Bags.” The finale, “Terror,” is a playful, lo-fi lark centered on an extremist militia in possession of a dangerous supernatural weapon. Directed with humor and visual invention by Ryan Prows, it keeps its secrets under wraps until the very last moments, to compelling effect. The payoff makes for a terrific conclusion to a consistently impressive four-part film.V/H/S/94Not rated. Running time: 1 hour 40 minutes. Watch on Shudder. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      Clint and Ron Howard Remember When They Were Just ‘The Boys’

      by

      In a new memoir, the showbiz siblings recall their experiences growing up on “The Andy Griffith Show,” “Star Trek” and other Hollywood classics. But they weren’t all happy days.Growing up, Clint and Ron Howard never had to dream of stardom, because as children they’d already achieved it. Ron was just 6 when he was second-billed on “The Andy Griffith Show” and 8 when “The Music Man,” featuring him crooning “Gary, Indiana,” was released. Clint, his younger brother, was racking up roles on “Bonanza,” “Star Trek” and “Gentle Ben.”Today they are both Hollywood veterans: Ron, 67, is an Academy Award-winning director (“A Beautiful Mind”) and co-founder of Imagine Entertainment, while Clint, 62, is a prolific character actor who’s shown up everywhere from “Seinfeld” to the “Austin Powers” movies.But their lives were transformed by their time as child actors and the influence of their parents, Rance Howard and Jean Speegle Howard, who left Oklahoma to pursue their own ambitions of becoming actors — goals that were surpassed countless times over by the accomplishments of their two sons.Ron and Clint Howard retrace this formative period in a new book, “The Boys: A Memoir of Hollywood and Family,” which will be released by William Morrow on Tuesday. In their alternating accounts, the Howards look back on their parents’ lives, their own upbringings and their success at staving off the darker aspects of their profession — at least until the realities of adolescence and adulthood reared their heads.“The Boys” will be released on Oct. 12.William Morrow, via Associated PressWhen the brothers spoke in a video interview last month, they talked about how writing “The Boys” had helped reconnect them to each other and to their family history.“We’ve remained close, but we’re 3,000 miles apart and busy with our own families,” Ron Howard said, adding that the book “has everything to do with trying to put our lives into the context of who our parents were and what they gave us.”“We wouldn’t have done it just to tell our story,” he added. “Once again, Mom and Dad pulled us together.”Clint and Ron Howard talked about their early starts in show business, their earliest brushes with fame and how their parents helped them keep it together. These are edited excerpts from that conversation.It’s well-known that you’re the children of actors, but you’re not exactly Barrymore scions. What were your parents like? How did they find it in Hollywood?RON HOWARD There’s no reason they should have succeeded. They didn’t know a thing about where they were going. They weren’t bohemians, they weren’t hippies, but they certainly were not conservatives. But they had this dream. They had to chase that horizon. And when they got to the horizon, they never really fit in. They were always a little cornpone. Hence the term that they applied to themselves, sophisticated hicks.Were you ever made to feel that you were the breadwinners of your family?CLINT HOWARD We didn’t take show business home with us. Both Dad and Mom worked their tails off. Mom was just a championship mom. She was on the P.T.A., she was a basketball mom, she was a baseball mom.RON Dad was a kid-actor whisperer. But he said, I work with you boys because you’re my sons and I think you can learn something. I don’t think he believed this was our career for the rest of our lives. I don’t think he wanted to project that desire upon us.The book he and his brother wrote, Ron Howard said, “has everything to do with trying to put our lives into the context of who our parents were and what they gave us.”Tom Jamieson for The New York TimesYou probably could have lived much larger on the money you were earning — why didn’t you?RON We always lived on Dad’s salary. Somebody wanted to do an Opie line of clothing — I’m sure it would have meant hundreds of thousands of dollars at the end of the day. Mom and Dad turned that down for me because they didn’t want me wasting my time on that.CLINT We were never short for anything. But we didn’t go on vacation. They didn’t buy new cars. Once a year, Ron and I got new school clothes. No one was chasing those intoxicating elements that modern life or show business can overwhelm you with.As children, you were regularly crossing paths with venerated Hollywood artists. Clint, you got to meet Walt Disney when you were working on “The Jungle Book.” What was that like?CLINT I was completely blown away when Walt walked in and said, “You’re doing a fine job, Clint.” I was truly a Disney baby. But I was a little irritated that I hadn’t worked in more Disney shows. [Laughter.]RON Too bad you didn’t just say, “What took you so long? Walt, how many times have I been to Disneyland? Where’s the quid pro quo here, Walt?”CLINT These people all seemed pretty friendly but they weren’t handing out the contracts. I never got on “The Mickey Mouse Club.”Were either of you ever jealous of each other?CLINT Our age difference was ideal. Being five years apart, I would look at my brother and go, there’s no chance that I can kick his butt. There were a few times we would get into a fight over baseball cards or a toy, and Dad would physically pull us apart. He would say, you boys are going to want to be good friends when you grow up. So why don’t you just knock it off?RON He would say you have a chance to be good friends when you grow up.There’s a period you describe in the book, where things were starting to wind down for Ron on “The Andy Griffith Show” and Clint was beginning to take off on “Gentle Ben.” Did that create tension between you?RON I felt envy over what Clint was achieving. He was really popular at school, an excellent athlete, gregarious, smart, confident. Things that I don’t necessarily feel or exude. And I admired that about his persona. And I could see it in the work he was doing as well. He was a hell of a good child actor. The system is set up to make child performers feel like failures as they go through adolescence, that most vulnerable period, and I was beginning to experience that. Clint experienced a version of it later.CLINT I worked on “Gentle Ben,” I was one of the coleads of a television series that was really popular for a short period of time. What really knocked my chin in the dirt was getting hired to work on a TV series called “The Cowboys.” The job ended up just sucking. It was a bad show. I was still making money but the work was poor. That, and then pimples. Dad and Mom warned us about this period of show business. We knew it was coming. There was just no way to really quantify how I was going to feel about it.“We were never short for anything,” Clint Howard said. “But we didn’t go on vacation. They didn’t buy new cars. Once a year, Ron and I got new school clothes. No one was chasing those intoxicating elements that modern life or show business can overwhelm you with.”Rozette Rago for The New York TimesIn an era and an industry where drugs were prevalent, Ron avoided them fastidiously while Clint had a long period of addiction and recovery. Why do you think you had such different experiences?RON I was very introverted and my group of friends were likewise. I wasn’t really allowed to go to parties. If I was invited once or twice, I think my parents said no. But Clint was in a different group, much more socially mature. I also resented some of the restrictions that my parents put on me, and I was constantly imploring them to use a lighter hand with Clint.CLINT I had just some sort of odd fascination with smoking weed. To the point where I literally practiced — I took some pencil shavings from my pencil sharpener and I twisted up a joint and tried to smoke it. Ron was the first, he was a little more nerdy. I was socially more outgoing. I ended up with a group of friends where it was no big deal. The problem is, once that train leaves the station, it can get going pretty darn fast. It’s a slippery slope and I was throwing down the Crisco.Ron, did you ever feel guilty that you had somehow let your little brother down and hadn’t protected him from this?RON Yes, I did feel that. When we knew Clint was smoking pot, I said, look, it’s not the horrible curse of the demon you fear it might be. But as Clint started to go further, by then I was married and beginning to have kids. I was concerned and I tried to offer support and go to meetings. I continued to work with Clint and cast him when it made sense. I remember telling him pretty late in his period of abuse — we used a lot of baseball terminology — I said, you’re a bona fide .300 hitter who’s batting about .217.CLINT I have that letter. You wrote it on stationery from a New York hotel room.RON I was thinking about you while I was on the road. But I was very proud of Clint for having navigated it. That achievement meant so much to Mom and Dad, probably more than anything any of us had achieved.CLINT My recovery wasn’t easy-peasy, clean and snazzy. Ron had a lot to do with it and Dad had a lot to do with it, too. I struggled with Mom passing away, but I was very proud of the moment I could drop my nine-year chip in her coffin. I only wish it was a 10-year chip.What’s your favorite performance that your brother has given?RON Clint was tremendous in “The Red Pony.” But as I was doing research for this, I had forgotten that we had both been on “The Danny Kaye Show,” and there was this sketch where I was supposed to be this kid James Bond character and Clint was my boss. He nailed that scene. When I watched it, I said, my God, look how present he is. He really is playing a 50-year-old, hard-bitten guy, and I buy it.CLINT He talks about me being in “The Red Pony,” but I never got a chance to do what he did in “The Courtship of Eddie’s Father.” There’s a scene in that movie where he has this panic attack that turns into a tantrum, and he just was so believable. I’m going, the guy’s got chops. Also, as a young man, he did a movie, “Act of Love.” That was weighty material and he nailed it.RON That was a euthanasia story, based on a real event, where a younger brother had been beseeched by the other to end it after a horrible accident. There’s a courtroom scene where he’s talking about how much he loves his brother and Clint was going through a difficult time during this period. It was one of the most personal moments I ever generated onscreen, because I was channeling my own sense of love and despair for what Clint was going through. The tears and the emotions were real — they came from my own gut. More