By Steve Evans
Variety and The Hollywood Reporter ran reports this week of two new musician biopics due out this year, one featuring Jimi Hendrix and another charting the life of that Godfather himself, James Brown. I look forward to both films, but worry the soul will be bled from the stories of these legendary musicians.
After watching Bob Dylan turn tricks during the recent Super Bowl commercials, I got to thinking that rock and roll has strayed so far from its mission that the mainstream barely gets annoyed by the sound any more. Jimmy Page sold Led Zeppelin's legacy to hawk Cadillacs. Pete Townshend has been pimping Who songs for years.
So it's time to get back to basics. If we're going to bankroll musician biopics, it's time to strip away all pretense and make some real noise. I say, it's time for a biopic on the MC5. This quintet outta Detroit made noise as pure and coarse, as uncommercial and beautiful and flat-out-in-your-damn-face as rock and roll is ever likely to be. They were ahead of their time 45 years ago. I'm not sure the rest of the world ever caught up. If anyone makes a film that does justice to their story, FBI investigations and all, it will be the best movie about rock and roll since the Maysles brothers shot Gimme Shelter.
I miss the MC5. A lot. Well, maybe not the white boy 'fros nor those garish 1970s fashions, but that raw sound remains ungodly and unequaled.
I've been living the ethos of this song for so long, I never woulda thought I'd outlive most of the guys in the band. So let's hear it for the story of the MC5, coming soon to blow minds at a multiplex near you. I can dream if I wanna. Gotta kick 'em out.
Cinema Uprising copyright © 2014 by Steve Evans. All rights reserved.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Monday, March 17, 2014
Mining the Internet for Fun & Profit
By Steve Evans
Going over my notes this morning for a screenplay idea that mixes the phenomenon of social media with independent film makers and the curious world of film buffs. They call themselves "cinephiles." I've discovered their behavior, at least online, is more like a pack of rabid dogs.
It took about a month to identify the prime roosters and the cackling hens for closer observation and just ignore everyone else. When you observe Internet behavior, a group dynamic may at first seem like chaos. Just random comments punctuated occasionally by disagreements that rapidly unravel into hissy fits. But after a while an interesting thing happens. The people communicating on a forum lose themselves in their performance. Even among those who may be aware they are affecting a performance, it still comes across as some peculiar form of method acting. They become so lost in themselves that their true nature begins to bleed through.
Who's really who? Is it me or is it you?
Sure, you can’t really judge anyone by an online persona, much less be certain they are what they seem to be. The Kinks’ song “Lola” comes to mind. But the pure, unadulterated, stream-of-consciousness rhetoric that flows from their minds onto a website is a fascinating thing to observe. Say all you want about Stanley Kubrick’s monkeys at the opening of 2001. The real primate behavior is happening on Internet forums. And it’s a hoot to watch.
I studied their habits, made notes of their patterns and watched for character traits that could be leveraged. Call it behavioral psychology on an Internet forum. Pretty soon it all had a predictable rhythm to it. Mostly, I wanted to identify a number of core personality traits among forum dwellers in the 21st century. In this movie forum when not arguing bitterly with each other, a smaller group spends their days compiling and ranking lists of films, then complimenting each other's lists (at least when they're not criticizing their lists). The closest thing to this behavior that we can encounter in nature is the muskrat, which gathers random collections of objects and then marvels upon them. Making endless Top 10 lists is a curious form of mental masturbation, but watching this occur wasn't very helpful to my screenwriting project.
So I started posting the occasional comment of my own, usually in mild disagreement with some other forum participant. The results were always the same: an immediate and angry defense of the wounded individual's original position (typically something trite like “why John Wayne sux.” Remember, I said this was the most pretentious film forum on the Internet). It soon became obvious that no one was interested in anything but their own opinions. It was like Napoleon had been cloned a hundred times over and gone to war with himself.
"To war!" cried Rufus T. Firefly. And why not?
So I began offering more provocative comments to see what kind of response might come back. Oh, the hatred and vitriol came swiftly, my brothers and sisters. I tossed more bread crumbs on the trail. And crows dropped from the sky to squabble and bicker over the quantity and quality of the scraps I had thrown. For variety I floated a few trial balloons to gauge reactions. The screams of protest and sudden attacks were wildly disproportional to the comments I had made. Their accusations would have been horrendous, were they not so unintentionally funny. I had to consider the source and press on.
Some of the individuals I observed are astonishing in their stupidity. One particularly immature guy openly brags about buying and using the illegal drug MDMA "using taxpayer money" when his home address in London can be found easily by anyone who wants to look. I wonder when the police will be paying him a visit, assuming the fool doesn't OD first.
This is the sort of individual who populates this Internet forum. Their credibility is a joke, but their comments are a goldmine of opportunity.
Then it occurred to me that watching these people dance for my benefit was a lot like directing a movie, except with actors unaware they were on stage. In fact, it was easier than directing a film, ridiculously so, because the performers were eagerly willing to work for no pay. Had this been an abattoir, they would have shuffled along like bleating sheep to slaughter.
All Things Must Pass
In the last few days I turned up the heat steadily and as fast as it seemed possible without spoiling everything by getting myself kicked off the site (forum moderators are no smarter or better than the people they moderate. They’re like power-drunk traffic cops itching to write a ticket). I pushed it as far as I thought it could go. I even argued with the moderators. Just when it seemed a mob would rise up and demand my crucifixion, I shut off the account and vanished like Keyser Sรถze. Probably saved the forum manager the trouble of doing it.
Was it manipulation? I’ve considered the implications of that. If it was, the people being manipulated were willing and eager participants, each trying to hurl insults and arguments nastier than the previous one. They certainly rose to the challenge. Was it unethical? No. If you make a silly face at someone and they try to gun you down with a machine gun, the reaction is hardly proportional to the sin you've committed.
At the end of the day it was worth it.
In looking over several months’ worth of notes, I’ve got about three dozen character studies, at least half of whom would probably fit the clinical definition of a sociopath. Very nice source material. Also a good assortment of neurotics, bullies, harpies and harlequins – in sum, society in a microcosm, only amplified through their common trait: an arrogance so profound as to move a reasonable person past being appalled and into that rarefied realm of wry amusement.
There’s enough material here for at least two screenplays once I hit upon the right story and unleash these characters on the real world.
I think a couple of the smarter playas on the movie-geek forum have come to realize that they’ve been played. Some will never know. But for most of these Very Serious People, you can bet they’ve already gone running down a different street, barking their heads off and chasing another car. This will go on until the forum inevitably implodes and the angry people who practically live there will be forced to find something else to fill the vacuum of their existence.
What an experience to roam in their midst. To paraphrase Kesey, "One flew east, one flew west, and one flew over the cuckoo's nest."
There's a story somewhere in all their madness.
Cinema Uprising copyright © 2014 by Steve Evans. All rights reserved.
Going over my notes this morning for a screenplay idea that mixes the phenomenon of social media with independent film makers and the curious world of film buffs. They call themselves "cinephiles." I've discovered their behavior, at least online, is more like a pack of rabid dogs.
Probably the most interesting part of the project so far has involved hanging
out on a particular film forum – it's easily the most pretentious movie forum on the
Internet – and observing a group of self-absorbed individuals try to one-up
each other in their knowledge of world cinema when they bother to talk about cinema at all. This in and of itself was
fascinating, like looking into a terrarium where all the creatures breathe
their own fumes until their behavior gets a little wacky.
It took about a month to identify the prime roosters and the cackling hens for closer observation and just ignore everyone else. When you observe Internet behavior, a group dynamic may at first seem like chaos. Just random comments punctuated occasionally by disagreements that rapidly unravel into hissy fits. But after a while an interesting thing happens. The people communicating on a forum lose themselves in their performance. Even among those who may be aware they are affecting a performance, it still comes across as some peculiar form of method acting. They become so lost in themselves that their true nature begins to bleed through.
Who's really who? Is it me or is it you?
Sure, you can’t really judge anyone by an online persona, much less be certain they are what they seem to be. The Kinks’ song “Lola” comes to mind. But the pure, unadulterated, stream-of-consciousness rhetoric that flows from their minds onto a website is a fascinating thing to observe. Say all you want about Stanley Kubrick’s monkeys at the opening of 2001. The real primate behavior is happening on Internet forums. And it’s a hoot to watch.
I studied their habits, made notes of their patterns and watched for character traits that could be leveraged. Call it behavioral psychology on an Internet forum. Pretty soon it all had a predictable rhythm to it. Mostly, I wanted to identify a number of core personality traits among forum dwellers in the 21st century. In this movie forum when not arguing bitterly with each other, a smaller group spends their days compiling and ranking lists of films, then complimenting each other's lists (at least when they're not criticizing their lists). The closest thing to this behavior that we can encounter in nature is the muskrat, which gathers random collections of objects and then marvels upon them. Making endless Top 10 lists is a curious form of mental masturbation, but watching this occur wasn't very helpful to my screenwriting project.
So I started posting the occasional comment of my own, usually in mild disagreement with some other forum participant. The results were always the same: an immediate and angry defense of the wounded individual's original position (typically something trite like “why John Wayne sux.” Remember, I said this was the most pretentious film forum on the Internet). It soon became obvious that no one was interested in anything but their own opinions. It was like Napoleon had been cloned a hundred times over and gone to war with himself.
"To war!" cried Rufus T. Firefly. And why not?
So I began offering more provocative comments to see what kind of response might come back. Oh, the hatred and vitriol came swiftly, my brothers and sisters. I tossed more bread crumbs on the trail. And crows dropped from the sky to squabble and bicker over the quantity and quality of the scraps I had thrown. For variety I floated a few trial balloons to gauge reactions. The screams of protest and sudden attacks were wildly disproportional to the comments I had made. Their accusations would have been horrendous, were they not so unintentionally funny. I had to consider the source and press on.
Some of the individuals I observed are astonishing in their stupidity. One particularly immature guy openly brags about buying and using the illegal drug MDMA "using taxpayer money" when his home address in London can be found easily by anyone who wants to look. I wonder when the police will be paying him a visit, assuming the fool doesn't OD first.
This is the sort of individual who populates this Internet forum. Their credibility is a joke, but their comments are a goldmine of opportunity.
Then it occurred to me that watching these people dance for my benefit was a lot like directing a movie, except with actors unaware they were on stage. In fact, it was easier than directing a film, ridiculously so, because the performers were eagerly willing to work for no pay. Had this been an abattoir, they would have shuffled along like bleating sheep to slaughter.
All Things Must Pass
In the last few days I turned up the heat steadily and as fast as it seemed possible without spoiling everything by getting myself kicked off the site (forum moderators are no smarter or better than the people they moderate. They’re like power-drunk traffic cops itching to write a ticket). I pushed it as far as I thought it could go. I even argued with the moderators. Just when it seemed a mob would rise up and demand my crucifixion, I shut off the account and vanished like Keyser Sรถze. Probably saved the forum manager the trouble of doing it.
Was it manipulation? I’ve considered the implications of that. If it was, the people being manipulated were willing and eager participants, each trying to hurl insults and arguments nastier than the previous one. They certainly rose to the challenge. Was it unethical? No. If you make a silly face at someone and they try to gun you down with a machine gun, the reaction is hardly proportional to the sin you've committed.
At the end of the day it was worth it.
In looking over several months’ worth of notes, I’ve got about three dozen character studies, at least half of whom would probably fit the clinical definition of a sociopath. Very nice source material. Also a good assortment of neurotics, bullies, harpies and harlequins – in sum, society in a microcosm, only amplified through their common trait: an arrogance so profound as to move a reasonable person past being appalled and into that rarefied realm of wry amusement.
There’s enough material here for at least two screenplays once I hit upon the right story and unleash these characters on the real world.
Farewell to the Lunatic Fringe
This has been an absorbing experience. I've learned people will argue about anything and need little reason to do so. The dumb ones will even reverse their position and argue the opposite side if you just wait a while for them to forget the first debate. The anonymity of the Internet makes this particularly useful, in terms of character research, because hiding behind a mask gives a person a false sense of confidence. Internet dwellers tend to be much more brave and bold than they would dare to be face to face. So they let their guard down, acting more obnoxious than they might ordinarily, and that enables the careful observer to get at a deeper truth about human interactions. The Internet is truly like the Wild West, a vast and untamed land where anything goes. It’s liberating and appalling all at once. It allows people to act uncivilized – and apparently enjoy it – from the relative safety of hiding behind a computer.
This has been an absorbing experience. I've learned people will argue about anything and need little reason to do so. The dumb ones will even reverse their position and argue the opposite side if you just wait a while for them to forget the first debate. The anonymity of the Internet makes this particularly useful, in terms of character research, because hiding behind a mask gives a person a false sense of confidence. Internet dwellers tend to be much more brave and bold than they would dare to be face to face. So they let their guard down, acting more obnoxious than they might ordinarily, and that enables the careful observer to get at a deeper truth about human interactions. The Internet is truly like the Wild West, a vast and untamed land where anything goes. It’s liberating and appalling all at once. It allows people to act uncivilized – and apparently enjoy it – from the relative safety of hiding behind a computer.
I think a couple of the smarter playas on the movie-geek forum have come to realize that they’ve been played. Some will never know. But for most of these Very Serious People, you can bet they’ve already gone running down a different street, barking their heads off and chasing another car. This will go on until the forum inevitably implodes and the angry people who practically live there will be forced to find something else to fill the vacuum of their existence.
What an experience to roam in their midst. To paraphrase Kesey, "One flew east, one flew west, and one flew over the cuckoo's nest."
There's a story somewhere in all their madness.
Cinema Uprising copyright © 2014 by Steve Evans. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Sin City Sequel Gets Release Date
By Steve Evans
I've been waiting nine years for A Dame to Kill For, the sequel to Sin City. If it's only half as good as the original, it will still be the popcorn thriller of the summer. From the looks of the trailer, we're talking stylish trash to wallow in like film-loving pigs in the slop. Get it on the calendar: Aug. 22.
Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller are again credited as co-directors.
Potential spoilers follow.
From the looks of the trailer, the sequel will dabble in non-linear narrative just like its predecessor. No other way to account for the return of Marv (Mickey Rourke) or Hartigan (Bruce Willis), both of whom died in the first film. Lots of other cast juggling going on, too. Clive Owen makes only a cameo as Dwight. Josh Brolin is taking over the role to account for Dwight's facial reconstruction surgery known by fans of the books. Brittany Murphy died in the intervening years between the Sin City films, so there won't be a Dwight-Shellie reunion. And Jamie Chung takes over as katana-wielding Miho, replacing Devon Aoki who was pregnant at the onset of production and thus unavailable. Always great to see Ray Liotta pop up in a supporting role, here identified as a character named "Joey," apparently a low-level baddie. Apropos.
The sequel offers a quartet of stories set in and around notorious Basin City, where just about everyone drops the "Ba" and calls it Sin City. Two of the tales will be familiar to readers of Miller's graphic novels; the other pair are originals written for the film. From the press materials:
"A Dame to Kill For”
"Just Another Saturday Night"
"The Long Bad Night" (original story)
Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a cocky gambler, disguises a darker mission to destroy the biggest villain in Sin City at his own game. He beats the wrong man and events take a turn for the worse. Along the way, he meets a young stripper named Marcy (Julia Garner).
"The Fat Loss" (original story)
I never grow weary of the Sin City vibe, essentially noir taken to borderline ridiculous extremes -- almost to the point of parody. Rodriguez always dials everything up to 11, so we can enjoy a good match between a director and his material.
A couple final thoughts, and then I'll let the trailer speak for itself. It seems Rodriguez works best in collaboration with someone else, whether it's comic-book artist Miller or Quentin Tarantino. Since Rodriguez seems determined to make a career out of shooting grindhouse pictures, by working with Miller in adapting the Sin City stories he can at least make stylish grindhouse pictures.
As for that distinctive look, it's not just that the picture is technologically possible as a result of shooting on HD digital video, it's actually because of HD video that the images have that razor-edged sheen. That's what makes Sin City so alluring. And deadly.
Cinema Uprising copyright © 2014 by Steve Evans. All rights reserved.
I've been waiting nine years for A Dame to Kill For, the sequel to Sin City. If it's only half as good as the original, it will still be the popcorn thriller of the summer. From the looks of the trailer, we're talking stylish trash to wallow in like film-loving pigs in the slop. Get it on the calendar: Aug. 22.
Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller are again credited as co-directors.
Potential spoilers follow.
From the looks of the trailer, the sequel will dabble in non-linear narrative just like its predecessor. No other way to account for the return of Marv (Mickey Rourke) or Hartigan (Bruce Willis), both of whom died in the first film. Lots of other cast juggling going on, too. Clive Owen makes only a cameo as Dwight. Josh Brolin is taking over the role to account for Dwight's facial reconstruction surgery known by fans of the books. Brittany Murphy died in the intervening years between the Sin City films, so there won't be a Dwight-Shellie reunion. And Jamie Chung takes over as katana-wielding Miho, replacing Devon Aoki who was pregnant at the onset of production and thus unavailable. Always great to see Ray Liotta pop up in a supporting role, here identified as a character named "Joey," apparently a low-level baddie. Apropos.
The sequel offers a quartet of stories set in and around notorious Basin City, where just about everyone drops the "Ba" and calls it Sin City. Two of the tales will be familiar to readers of Miller's graphic novels; the other pair are originals written for the film. From the press materials:
"A Dame to Kill For”
Dwight McCarthy (Josh Brolin) is summoned by his former
lover, Ava Lord (Eva Green), who wants his help to escape her abusive husband,
billionaire Damien Lord (Marton Csokas). However, Dwight soon learns that Ava's
true intentions are more sinister than they appear.
"Just Another Saturday Night"
On the night John Hartigan (Willis) meets up with Nancy (Jessica
Alba) in "That Yellow Bastard", Marv (Mickey Rourke) regains
consciousness on a highway overlooking the Projects, surrounded by dead young
men, and unable to remember how he got there.
"The Long Bad Night" (original story)
Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a cocky gambler, disguises a darker mission to destroy the biggest villain in Sin City at his own game. He beats the wrong man and events take a turn for the worse. Along the way, he meets a young stripper named Marcy (Julia Garner).
"The Fat Loss" (original story)
I never grow weary of the Sin City vibe, essentially noir taken to borderline ridiculous extremes -- almost to the point of parody. Rodriguez always dials everything up to 11, so we can enjoy a good match between a director and his material.
A couple final thoughts, and then I'll let the trailer speak for itself. It seems Rodriguez works best in collaboration with someone else, whether it's comic-book artist Miller or Quentin Tarantino. Since Rodriguez seems determined to make a career out of shooting grindhouse pictures, by working with Miller in adapting the Sin City stories he can at least make stylish grindhouse pictures.
As for that distinctive look, it's not just that the picture is technologically possible as a result of shooting on HD digital video, it's actually because of HD video that the images have that razor-edged sheen. That's what makes Sin City so alluring. And deadly.
Cinema Uprising copyright © 2014 by Steve Evans. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
