In Celebration of First Features: #5 - The Wachowski Brothers' "Bound"

I was planning on writing something profound about "Bound", about how this was the film that laid the groundwork for "The Matrix", about how this is where the Wachowski Bros found their voice, about how this is a signature low budget genre film made with an indie aesthetic, but really... it's not that kind of film.

Profound, I mean.

Andy and Larry (now Lana) Wachowski were screenwriters with a background in comic book fiction. They had recently had one of their feature scripts, "Assassins," produced as a Hollywood movie directed by Richard Donner, and their words were butchered on the screen. So part of their motivation to get "Bound" made with funding from Dino De Laurentiis was to protect their writing. Who better to realize their vision than themselves, right?

The other factor in becoming multi-hyphantes was their larger goal to get "The Matrix" into production. Everybody was passing on their sprawling action sci-fi script - their track record was thread-bare and they needed the credibility of a feature under their belt to even get in the door. So there was a lot at stake in this directing debut for the untried brothers.


But the Wachowski's were no fools - they went into their first directing gig with a very specific philosophy :: "We're of the opinion that film is still first and foremost a graphic medium and should be about images more than it should be about talking heads. Talking heads are nice and all, don't get me wrong, but novels do talking heads a lot better than movies do. And I think that movies should take advantage of the fact that they are about images and pictures. I don't think people take advantage of that enough."(1)


"Bound" is a hardboiled mobster heist genre flick - leaning heavily on "Double Indemnity"-esque dialog, mood and theme, while bringing a very measured visual technique that echoes the Hitchcock style found in "Dial M for Murder" and "Psycho," to mention the two more obvious influences. From the outset, the Wachowskis wanted to position this as a niche film, making the protagonists a lesbian affair that leads to the stealing of dirty mob money through a high-stakes and convoluted scheme.

The lesbian sex scene, that the brothers wouldn't consider removing, created to problems casting their leads - name actors turning down the roles at the mere mention of a scene involving girl-on-girl sex. But, determined not to compromise, they ended up with Jennifer Tilly as Violet and Gina Gershon as Corky.

Yikes.



Gershon more than earned her keep, however, by suggesting they cast Joe Pantoliano as Caeser, the mid-level mob captain in a juvenile power struggle with the boss's sociopathic son. And it's Joe who brings this film alive, with a sizzling performance that elevates every scene he's in. His delivery of the off-screen murder of the embezzler is almost worth the price of admission alone - selling a key scene through exposition alone is no mean feat. Caeser's downward spiral into paranoid despair and ultimate spiteful vengeance is just dazzling, and the strongest card this movie plays.



But Tilly in particular has problems selling this torturous hard-boiled verbiage, and the film hangs on her and Gershon's ropey performances. It's difficult, if not impossible, to feel sympathy for Tilly, though Gershon gets by with her rockabilly swagger and fuck-you attitude. Nuanced, however, this is not. The Wachowski's cope with this by turning up the volume on their use of camera - high angles, deep focus and small but dynamic action sequences keep the screen vigorous and busy, while the editing, crisp and deliberate, folds the narrative in on itself and always keeps the tension where it needs to be.



In the end, this is a finely crafted film that is let down by weak central performances. The script, however, is an excellent example of a tight genre flick, aimed at a specific target audience, that was made on a small budget with a quick turnaround (the Wachoskis are quoted as saying the schedule was initially 38 days, the implication being there were reshoots not figured into that schedule). And in terms of their goals, the Wachowski's were 100% effective. They got their greenlight for "The Matrix", and now they have the pull to get their scripts made on their own terms (scripts not directed by them are directed by their close associate James McTeigue).

So there's a lesson in there somewhere. Being focused on your goals, and managing your expectations based on that, can deliver results.

from my Twitter feed - #ShortFilmSunday - 02/21/10

"Rabbit Punch" by Kristian Andrews :: (via @Futureshorts) a stellar animated short ...kids making life interesting in a small town.

"Prey Alone" by Stephen St. Leger & James Mather :: a stylish action thriller - a cat-and-mouse hunt and a race against time.

"Light Rain" by Neil Horner: "...if we can get through this, we can get through anything" (via @shootingpeople)

from my Twitter feed - #ShortFilmSunday - 02/14/10

"Asparagus" by Roman Wyden :: A seemingly perfect family, and the forbidden desire between two cousins.

"Love" by Cristian Solimeno :: A passionate romance and the ultimate act of love.

"Voice On The Line" by Kelly Sears :: an experimental animation about Cold War paranoia - an official Sundance 2010 selection.

www.alwayswatching.net :: 16 Short Films Turned Feature Films (And the Filmmakers Who Made it Happen)

"...In more rare instances though, a filmmaker is granted the opportunity to stay within their medium, but do so while extensively expanding the concept and scope of their original vision, and in turn, a floodgate of possibilities are opened in terms of what can be achieved in that medium."

Posted by Adam Quigley, ostensibly as an ad for the Blu Ray release of "9," this is a remarkably thorough article with the shorts included. Hat's off to you, sir.

Staying Inspired :: My Top 5 Go-To Movies

Like any list I make that has anything to do with movies, this list of the top five films I put on the DVD player when I'm feeling in need of a kickstart changes almost daily, depending on any number of random factors, including fatigue, boredom, and booze intake. That said, below is a short list of the films that most often make the cut. Since I'm not trying to impress anybody with this list, it'll probably say a lot more about me than it was ever intended to, but here we go anyway...

In no particular order ::

24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE, directed by Michael Winterbottom

Call it nostalgia for a place I've never seen, but something struck me the first time I saw this film back in 2002 that stayed with me ever since. Maybe it's Steve Coogan's hapless Tony Wilson, who strives for greatness but can't get out of his own way to prevent disaster, or maybe it's the music from the period that reminds me of me as a teenager going to the Virgin Megastore on Princes Street in Edinburgh to buy the latest New Order album on vinyl, or maybe it's Michael Winterbottom's loose, improvisational directing style that creates a cinematic immediacy out of pure mythology and hearsay. Or maybe it's just a funny film with a great cast.



THE THING, directed by John Carpenter

You know this was the first film I saw Wilford Brimley in. That's how I always think of him - his hand stuck in Donald Moffat's face, or sitting in the frozen hut begging Kurt Russel to be let back into the compound. But this film, arguably Carpenter's finest hour, has a mood and a pace that's rarely seen in Hollywood cinema, and the ambiguity of the film's conclusion speaks volumes for the times this movie emerged from, a farewell to the paranoid 70s as we stood on the cusp of Spielberg's stranglehold on American cinema ("ET" was the alien movie of choice that year, "The Thing" sank without a trace). Brooding, deliberate, shocking at the time... A fantastic film. And this scene is just amazing...



GOODFELLAS, directed by Martin Scorsese

Ok, no points for originality with this selection, but holy shit what a great film. It never gets old. Scorsese squeezes every ounce of drama and tension out of this story - every performance is pitch perfect, every scene has shape and direction and purpose, and the pacing follows Henry's emotional arc in sublime ways. I mean, take a look at the economy of this scene. You've seen it a dozen times, when Billy Batts, fresh out of jail, gives Tommy shit for not being respectful. From the shot of the jukebox through to Jimmy offering Billy drinks on the house, this entire scene is three camera setups - the camera on Billy tracks back from the jukebox and holds on Billy's side of the conversation for the duration, dollying in and out for emphasis, the second camera is on Henry & Jimmy and follows Tommy's entrance and exit, again with dollying, and the third is the brief shot of Henry reacting to Tommy's rage that continues to follow Henry and Tommy to the door. That's it. Three setups. What a scene. What a genius.



OUT OF SIGHT, directed by Steven Soderbergh

I know a lot of people who just adore Steven Soderbergh, and there's nothing wrong with that. I've never really understood the loyalty his mediocre and often pretentious movies provoke - "The Limey" was a great idea smothered in the execution (but oh what a fantastic commentary track on the DVD, where the writer takes SS to task... now that's entertainment), "The Underneath" was abysmal and "Erin Brockovich" and "Kakfa" are at best forgettable. So I have no idea what the circumstances were when I first saw "Out Of Sight" - it doesn't matter, frankly, because this is the one Soderbergh movie, with the possible exception of "Ocean's Eleven," that I can watch and say in all honesty that it's a fantastic bit of cinema. And this scene in particular, with its delicate pacing and intercutting of verbal and physical foreplay, is just a gorgeously mature bit of moviemaking from Mr. Soderbergh. I'll never forgive him for that turd "Ocean's Twelve," though.



HOT FUZZ, directed by Edgar Wright

You know, I would've put "Sean of the Dead" here instead, but I'm a bit sick of zombie movies right now, so I tend to favor this, the second feature film by Edgar Wright. Certainly in the US this film was pitched as a cop buddy movie, and I guess it didn't really work for me on that level. But once I heard about how this film is more of an homage to the Italian "giallo" movies it all made much more sense to me, and I was hooked. Edgar co-writes and directs a breathless action/comedy/horror, drawing pop cultural references from all manner of places as he goes - the gunfight at the end is a bit too long, but stay for the fantastic performance from Timothy Dalton. This movie is a breath of fresh air - like hitting a reset switch when the days are just getting too long... enjoy.

The Two Indie Movies That Changed The Game For Me In 2009

I decided to get off my arse and tackle a feature film this year for lots of reasons, the big one being that feature films are why I got into this business for in the first place, and spending time doing anything else is just a huge mistake. I needed to begin 2010 with that end in mind... Last year my focus wasn't on that goal until I saw two films that woke me up - "INK" by Jamin Winans, and "MISSION X" by David Baker. If you haven't seen them, you need to rectify that error right now... There may be spoilers ahead : )





I've delayed writing about these movies for a couple of reasons - (1) they are flawed, a fact David Baker readily admits, and I didn't want my criticism of these films' faults to get in the way of my tremendous appreciation for their creative and material successes - and (2) I wanted to talk about these films outside of the context of their online marketing campaigns, which I actively supported, and talking objectively about these films could have been seen as contradicting my enthusiasm for both filmmakers and their projects. But today feels like the right time to be talking about what these films mean to me, and why they more than anything else I saw last year made me step up my game...

"INK" 2009 DOUBLE EDGE FILMS
Directed by JAMIN WANINS


I had the good fortune to see "INK" at Cinema Village in New York last July. I knew very little about the film, other than it was getting a lot of buzz on Twitter, and that the film was produced on a shoestring by Jamin and his wife Kiowa. I'd seen their short film "Spin" and so I knew I was in for something that would be as polished as their means allowed. But I've also seen a lot of independent feature films by first time directors that fall short of their promise, and knowing how hit-and-miss this experience can be I had pretty low expectations. I simply wasn't prepared for the sheer ambition of the film that I saw that night.

"INK" is a love-letter to every movie that delighted me as a fan-boy in the 80s and 90s - Alex Proyas' "Dark City," Terry Gilliam's "Time Bandits," and the Wachowski Bros' "The Matrix" are the most obvious parallels that leap to mind, though there are many others. There's a fine line between "inspired by" and "derivative" when it comes to movies, and Winans walks that line precariously at times. But what is abundantly clear, certainly once the film really gets going, is the affection Wanins nurtures for the material that's inspired him, not to mention the lengths that he will go to in order to honor his inspirations.



While Winans' strong suit isn't his script, what he DOES have is real cinematic flair. Winans' visual vocabulary is extensive, and when "INK" works best it's when the characters are doing instead of saying. What first took my breath away was the fight scene in the suburban home... very physical, very inventive... I hadn't seen anything this fun in a low-budget movie since Ryuhei Kitamura's "Versus." The film really flies once the action starts, and there's a fair amount of action. The car crash is surprisingly effective, and the dazzling third act in the hospital still boggles my mind... How did he get access to that location, with 20 characters running around kicking the crap out of each other...? The action scenes alone are a triumph of staging and logistics.

The other aspect of the production is how EPIC it feels. Winans has his characters racing through a wide array of impressive locations, using the inherent beauty of the Colorado landscape superbly as a backdrop for many scenes in the second act. While Winans wouldn't divulge the size of the budget at the screening I attended, it's clear the bulk of the budget went on the production, while pre- and post-production were handled by Jamin and Kiowa on their own. Every dime they had to spend is up on the screen where it belongs. What "INK" showed me was the value of commitment and the investment of sweat equity into a project you utterly believe in. For all it's flaws, "INK" has a lot of genuine integrity that I find absolutely inspiring.

"MISSION X" 2009 WILD ONE ENTERTAINMENT
Directed by DAVID BAKER

I didn't know anything about "MISSION X" or David Baker before I started following him on Twitter last summer. I was supporting a lot of indie films at the time, and David had the added novelty of being Scottish - I like to support the home team, after all. But what drew me into the project was David's passion, and his commitment to his career and to his audience. I had to wait until December before I could actually see the movie itself, but I had six months of David's engaging online campaign to soak in before the DVD arrived.

David's story is already well documented - check out Joke and Biagio's extensive three part interview with David here. David's achievement, quite apart from shooting a heist movie for next to nothing, has been his clarity of purpose. David opened my eyes to the power of high-concept filmmaking, to knowing who your audience is and where your film fits into the grand scheme of things. When the "MISSION X" DVD arrived, I knew EXACTLY what I was getting into.


While "INK" has an epic sweep, David takes the opposite approach with "MISSION X." This is a small, intimate movie - very few locations, a largely loose and improvised feel that underscores the faux-documentary format, and a structure that hangs the film less on action than on the interactions of the characters in the build up to the heist itself. The film starts really strong - with an opening sequence that shows eye-witnesses talking about the heist in the past tense, and an introduction to the principle characters that sets up the stakes quickly.

Once we meet the gang the film starts to wander, faltering during a repetitive sequence of scenes that fail to either raise the stakes or develop the characters. But the real joy of the film is the supporting players David cast along side himself and co-star Grant Timmins. Their naturalistic interactions at the bar, and in the warehouse before the heist, have some real moments of freshness and honesty. There is a real sense of being in the moment with this film, and perhaps the only crime this film commits is portraying the crushing banality of waiting for an event to happen TOO convincingly.



In the last year David Baker has become a champion of self-distribution for independent filmmakers. He's an advocate who practices what he preaches, which is inspiring to watch unfold and, in some small way, be part of. David has embraced participant filmmaking and leads the way. As he said in his Live For Films interview last year:

"The secret is to 'move.' People will follow you if your script is good, you have drive, and you know exactly where you are going with it."

Amen.

from my Twitter feed - #ShortFilmSunday - 02/07/10

"I Love Sarah Jane" by Spencer Susser :: Young love and the zombie apocalypse...

"The Raftman's Razor" by Keith Bearden :: Two geeky teenage boys follow the story of a superhero.

"Can't Stop Breathing" by Amy Neill :: The price of isolation on a mother & daughter's relationship.

In Celebration of First Features: #4 - Dylan Kidd's "Roger Dodger"

The origin of this movie is legendary - writer/director Dylan Kidd, recently graduated from NYU, was in possession of a script he utterly believed in, but was failing at every turn to find the money from the usual sources to go into production. So while he worked a variety of odd jobs to stay alive, Kidd aggressively sought his leading man as the gateway to getting what he needed.

As the story goes (1) (2), Kidd traveled everywhere with his screenplay, prepared for any opportunity. When Campbell Scott sat at a neighboring table in some Greenwich Village cafe, Kidd seized the moment and pitched Scott the story of "Roger Dodger." Campbell took the screenplay to read, and not only called Kidd three weeks later, but also brought other name talents onto the project to flesh out the cast and facilitate that necessary green light.

The script was written to be filmed on a limited budget - a minimal set of protagonists, a limited number of locations, and a clear, concise through-line. Kidd shot "Roger Dodger" with an appropriately low-budget sensibility. The majority of the camerawork is handheld, allowing for quick setups and flexible blocking on location - when money is tight everyone needs to be nimble. The cinematography also appears to use only available light, which provides a bold, if at times murky look.



The framing of the action is often catastrophically tight - a characteristic of Neil LaBute's debut "In The Company of Men" - which, while mostly serving the story, gives the film an oppressively limited canvas and absence of environment. This, plus the swimming motion of the handheld camera gives the entire film a drunken, unfocused aspect that confounds rather than amplifies comprehension and atmosphere.

But the strength of "Roger Dodger" is most definitely the script. I saw this film when it was first released and I dimly recalled not liking the film, presumably being turned off by the lazy feeling faux verite cinematography that has since become quite the fashion (see: any episode of Ronald D Moore's "Battlestar Galactica", for example). What I missed, however, was how taut the script is - how the action keeps rolling along, how the dialog mostly sizzles, and how the motivations of the characters are all unique and well drawn. The script has a lot of genuine personality and focused energy, and yet at this second watching something is still missing for me.



At first I laid blame at the door of Campbell Scott, who feels miscast in the roll of Roger. He comes across as totally unlikeable - I can't imagine him getting within a million miles of any sentient woman, never mind Isabella Rosselini. But on reflection the lack rests with Dylan Kidd himself, who fails to embellish Scott's performance with the necessary nuance to make his character play as human. Not that Scott's performance is anything less than meticulous, but the end result feels slavishly one-dimensional.

Roger is angry when he should be charming, contemptuous when he should be playful and knowing... Scott's Roger is a bland intellectual brute instead of an artful seducer - a bastard instead of a rogue. And I feel now that this is a fault of interpretation rather than of the written word. At no point did I feel myself rooting for Roger, or indeed for any character in the film. And that's going to distance your audience, which is the last thing you want to do.



And I say all this in an attempt to address how this film was so critically well received, and yet so failed to find an audience at the box office. The movie-going public has proven time and again, in the years since "Roger Dodger" was released, that shakey camerawork or limited budgets don't necessarily turn off an audience - take a look at Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler" as an example of a film that could have been received the same way if not for Mickey Rourke's dazzling, warm-hearted star turn.

Intellectually the script for "Roger Dodger" is fantastic, and technically this film is quite an achievement given Dylan Kidd's first-time director status, not to mention the limited resources he had to work with - all things the critics responded to. No, I believe it is that lack of a spark of fun and seduction, that Han Solo ingredient, that turned off movie-goers. Above anything else a film needs to win the audience over, through splendor as in the case of "Avatar," or more reasonably by being evocative and heartfelt. In this case, I fear, Roger's cynicism permeates the movie in a way that no tacked-on, feel-good ending can rescue it from.