4.1.10

Kurosawa: Past and Present Tense (The New York Times)


By TERRENCE RAFFERTY

WHEN you think of Akira Kurosawa, you think, most likely, of swords and flags, of castles under siege, of men in dark armor and women in brilliant kimonos, of horses galloping to battle in driving rain. The movie that brought Kurosawa — and Japanese cinema as a whole — to the attention of the world, “Rashomon” (1950), was set in the distant past, and practically all the most celebrated films of the remaining 40-plus years of his career were historical dramas, too: “The Seven Samurai” (1954), “Throne of Blood” (1957), “Yojimbo” (1961), “Sanjuro” (1962) and “Ran” (1985). So it might seem a little strange that Film Forum’s centennial Kurosawa retrospective should begin (on Wednesday) with a nine-day run of the 1949 urban noir “Stray Dog,” in which there isn’t a horse or a castle in sight, and where the weapon of choice is a Colt pistol.

It shouldn’t. Of the 30 movies Kurosawa directed, better than half tell stories of present-day Japan, and a fair number of them, including “Stray Dog,” rank with his greatest works. “Stray Dog,” his ninth film, is a kind of police-procedural thriller, in which a young Tokyo homicide detective named Murakami (Toshiro Mifune) roams the crowded streets of the postwar city in search of his stolen gun. At first he merely feels humiliated, but before long much more painful emotions take hold. He learns, to his horror, that his gun is being used to commit robberies: one woman is seriously injured; the next dies. Murakami, crazed with grief and guilt, combs the seedier quarters of the sprawling city, where everybody looks hungry and desperate, wearied by an unrelenting summer heat. He trudges through this unwelcoming terrain with the grim persistence of a soldier making his way home after a lost campaign.

Murakami is in fact a veteran of his country’s disastrous recent war, and so, it turns out, is the criminal he’s tracking. His partner, a more experienced detective named Sato (Takashi Shimura), has to caution him not to feel too much sympathy for his prey. The young cop’s conflicted emotions generate an unusual sort of suspense, a heightened apprehensiveness. The world of “Stray Dog” is one in which anything can happen, in which people no longer know with any confidence how to act rightly: a world whose standards of behavior have become dangerously slippery. Murakami winds up wrestling with the killer, his criminal alter ego, in a muddy field, a place that doesn’t look like it belongs in a city — in civilization — at all. It looks a bit like the primeval forest in which the action of “Rashomon” takes place, that shadowy no man’s land of ambiguity and moral confusion.

And as in “Rashomon” the filmmaking in “Stray Dog” conveys an extraordinary sense of urgency, a fierce need to capture the complexities of human behavior while everything is still fresh and volatile. These are strikingly unsettled-looking movies, composed with care but betraying nonetheless a profound uncertainty about the forms society, and film, should take in the postwar world: nothing fixed or stable, everything at risk. You can feel Kurosawa’s excitement at the prospect of reinventing the conventions of his national cinema, and at the larger idea that the Japanese might have a chance, after long catastrophe, to reimagine themselves.

In a way Kurosawa’s modern-day films (the Japanese call them gendai-geki, to distinguish them from jidai-geki, historical films) reveal more of that almost messianic streak in his nature, his serene determination to remake the world — or at least to show the strange, turbulent process of its remaking. In “No Regrets for Our Youth” (1946), he had even allowed himself to entertain the possibility of a kind of back-to-the-land redemption for his shamed nation, and trotted out an impressive array of heroic Soviet-style cinematic techniques to drive the message home.

“No Regrets” is a surprisingly affecting film, but it’s clear that Kurosawa isn’t wholly comfortable with either its simple moral solutions or its borrowed aesthetic. It took him only a couple more years to figure out a better way. In “Drunken Angel” (1948), which Kurosawa often referred to as his breakthrough, he devised a style that somehow combined the formal restraint of traditional Japanese cinema with the irreverence and nervous energy of Hollywood movies: it looked entirely new, like nothing else Eastern or Western.

The drunken angel of the title is a gruff neighborhood doctor named Sanada (Shimura), who does bend the elbow rather too enthusiastically but is utterly dedicated to his patients’ health: a man who goes to great lengths to save even those who don’t seem worth saving, like the consumptive yakuza Matsunaga (Mifune, in his first film for Kurosawa). Although Matsunaga is a nightmarishly bad patient, with about as much respect for doctor’s orders as he has for the law, Sanada gives it his all anyway, scolding and cajoling and making rude remarks (putting his own well being, at times, in some peril). “Drunken Angel” is an unlikely mixture of soap opera and gangster movie, and although it’s less consistently electrifying than “Stray Dog,” it’s a very satisfying picture: Kurosawa’s style feels appropriate for the time and the place and characters, and redemption is achieved, believably.

The great jidai-geki are all represented in the Film Forum series, which ends with a two-week run of Kurosawa’s spectacular 1985 “King Lear” adaptation, “Ran,” and they are among the most thrilling movie experiences a viewer can have. But the gendai-geki, less picturesque, contain some of Kurosawa’s most inventive filmmaking, and some of his most provocative reflections on the human condition in the last, violent century. “Ikiru” (1952) and “The Bad Sleep Well” (1960) are remarkably trenchant examinations of the mid-century ills of bureaucracy and big business. And as much as I love “The Seven Samurai,” there are times when I think that the Kurosawa movie I’d take to the proverbial desert island would be his 1963 kidnapping thriller “High and Low.”

That film, which is based on, of all things, one of Ed McBain’s 87th Precinct novels, is also a police procedural, but to an even greater extent than in “Stray Dog” Kurosawa blows up the genre and puts the pieces back together in a completely new way. He begins with the moral dilemma of a businessman (inevitably, Mifune) deciding whether to pay the ransom for his chauffeur’s abducted son — an amount of money that would effectively wipe out his assets. This first part of the movie has a claustrophobic chamber-drama feel to it, with the camera roving through a single set, in long, long takes.

But when “High and Low” finally gets out of the house, it’s there to stay, as the police track the kidnapper through hot, bustling Yokohama and take us into a real world that is, if anything, even more disturbing than the devastated Tokyo of “Stray Dog.” Although there’s more prosperity in evidence — the businessman’s modern house sits complacently on a hill — there’s more disappointment too, more class resentment and festering envy. The movie’s construction is eclectic, radical, counterintuitive: it changes focus as swiftly, and as exhilaratingly, as the climactic battle of “The Seven Samurai.” And like that film, “High and Low” is for all its jangly modernity about the struggle to survive. Some do, some don’t, in every time and every place. The movie ends with a scream that sounds almost primal. Even without the armor and the horses and the swords, Kurosawa always made films about history, because he knew that we were living it.

Dave Eggers interview: the heartbreak kid (The Telegraph)


There was a time not so long ago when Dave Eggers didn’t do interviews. Or rather, he would only do them by email. This was after a row with a New York Times journalist that ended with Eggers calling him a ‘bitter little b-----d’. All of which makes me feel rather nervous as I wait outside the office at his British publishers, where Eggers is waiting.

He turns out to be a chunky, outdoorsy-looking man of 39, wearing hiking boots and with dark, curly hair that’s only partially tamed by a centre parting. But he seems in a thoroughly affable mood – even if this will later be punctured by long bursts of frowning introspection.

For all his affability, Eggers, you suspect, has a pretty dark side – which will hardly come as a surprise to anyone who has read his first book, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. In the book, Eggers described how, aged 21, he brought up his eight-year-old brother Christopher – ‘Toph’. This was after their parents both died of cancer within weeks of one another.

Ten years after it was published, Eggers is a literary star. He’s written a novel, film scripts, two non-fiction novels and numerous short stories.

He’s also founded the most influential literary magazine in the United States, McSweeney’s. But childhood – his own childhood – still churns away inside him, which is why he teamed up with film director Spike Jonze to make the recent film version of Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are. As well as writing the script, Eggers has also written a novel, The Wild Things, a kind of companion piece to the movie, but very different from it.

Eggers remembers first reading Where the Wild Things Are when he was five and being absolutely terrified. What scared him so much? ‘Argh…’ he says, throwing up his hands. ‘I just reacted with pure terror. But then I used to hide under the couch during The Wizard of Oz. I think what frightened me the most was that I couldn’t work out if the Wild Things were nice or nasty. There was a moral ambiguity to them which really disturbed me.’

His own upbringing was much less riven with uncertainty – at least on the surface. Eggers grew up in a prosperous Chicago suburb where his father was an attorney and his mother a schoolteacher. But behind the happy façade, all was not well: his father drank and spent long periods out of work.

‘I can remember very clearly being seven or eight, which is the age the boy, Max, is in the book. And when I was raising my brother, that started off when he was eight – so it’s a very vivid moment that I’ve thought about a lot. I can remember feeling responsible for my mother’s happiness. If she was sad, I would think: “Can I do my robot manoeuvre and make her happy?” And slowly you come to realise that there’s only so much you can do.’

Eggers’s childhood was also weirdly cloistered. In all the time he was growing up, his parents never went out in the evening. ‘Not once. Isn’t that extraordinary? But while mum and dad were incredibly caring, it was also a very chaotic household where everyone fought about everything. So I know what it’s like to internalise all that chaos.

'For years, I resisted keeping any kind of schedule. Because my parents were very rigid and everything happened at a set time every day, I really fought against that. I mean, I didn’t even have a wallet until I was 27.’

When Eggers wrote The Wild Things, he basically turned himself into Max – except that the young Dave Eggers was much, much wilder than his fictional counterpart. ‘I think I was pretty crazy, looking back. For instance, when I was a kid we used to do stuff like soaking tennis balls in kerosene and playing football with them. At the same time, though, I remember being quite good in school and also fairly docile. So there are all these weird contradictions that are hard to reconcile.’

But he probably wouldn’t have written the book had he not got a phone call from Sendak, now 81, the original creator of Where the Wild Things Are. ‘Maurice was very involved in the film and he told me that people had been talking about a novel based on the screenplay. He asked me if I’d do it. I had to think about it, but I thought it might be a good place to explore all those thoughts that I’ve had about childhood.’

Eggers has a breathy, laconic way of talking that gives everything he says a carefully measured air, a sense of being repeatedly pored over. He’s plainly pored over Where the Wild Things Are in microscopic detail – first as a terrified child and now as a father. He and his wife, the writer Vendela Vida, have two small children, a girl and a boy.

‘I wrote it between our two children being born. I wanted to write something that might have the same sort of effect on a kid as the books I read when I was young had on me. I can remember exactly where I sat when my teacher first read Roald Dahl’s James and the Giant Peach. It’s like the cement is still wet when you’re that age; every little mark can become permanent.’

Fatherhood has brought other changes, too. When Eggers first started writing, he used to do so between midnight and 5am – always in what he calls a desperate, over-caffeinated, blood-strewn, tear-your-own-ear-off sort of way. ‘I had this romantic idea that I had to be at the end of my rope. But now with kids, I have to work bankers’ hours. Believe me, it’s hard to think of anything less romantic – or more sedentary.’

Given the success Eggers has had – President Barack Obama recently recommended his 2006 book, What is the What, to his cabinet – it comes as quite a surprise to hear him say that he’s never had any confidence in his work.

‘Even now, when I start something, I never think I’ll ever be able to get to the end, or that it will make any sense,’ he says. ‘Actually, The Wild Things is the first book I’ve ever written where I enjoyed it. Normally, there’ll be about one day a month where I think: “Wow, I had a good time today.” But with this, I just sat there chortling away.’

Eggers was in his mid-twenties when he started on A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and if his confidence remains shaky now, it was in a far worse state then. ‘I remember turning in some chapters to an editor and when he said he liked them, I said: “What are you talking about?” I even accused him of not doing his job properly.

'Then when it came out, I felt so conflicted – partly because the title was so ironic. I just thought it would be funny to give the book this grandiose title when, of course, it’s a disaster. I thought about three people would read it and that would be the end of it.’

Except it didn’t quite work out like that. Even now, Eggers says, barely a day goes by without someone coming up and saying how much the book means to them. Not that this makes him feel much better.

‘I’ve had a really complicated relationship with it for some years. In a lot of ways the guy in it is me, but also he isn’t. We were very private people, my family, and that kind of self-revelation is something that was not in any way native to them. In a lot of ways, writing it was an act of rebellion.’

One of the reasons Eggers feels so ambivalent about A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius is because of what subsequently happened to his sister, Beth. When the book was published, she accused him of downplaying her role in their brother’s upbringing and beefing up his own. She later recanted saying she’d made a dreadful mistake – ‘I’m so embarrassed. I was having a terrible LaToya Jackson moment.’ Then, in November 2001, Beth Eggers committed suicide.

Eggers has never talked about his sister’s death. But it seems telling that he’s opted to write two books since in which trust has played the key role. In both What is the What and Zeitoun – out here next March – he is telling someone else’s story.

What is the What is the autobiography – albeit written by Eggers – of a real life Sudanese refugee who was separated from his parents, trekked across large swathes of Sudan and eventually came to the US.

Zeitoun is the story of a Muslim family from Syria. Abdulrahman Zeitoun stayed in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, after which he saved the lives of several survivors, only to be interned as a suspected terrorist.

‘As far as I was concerned, I was there to tell their stories,’ Eggers says. ‘But if there was something they didn’t want in, then obviously I’d respect that. I suppose the most important thing with both books was to do no harm – unless it was harm to the Bush administration, which I was absolutely fine with.’

When he’s not sitting on his couch being sedentary, Eggers leads an extremely busy life. He’s the founder of 826 Valencia, a tutoring centre in San Francisco where children between the ages of six and 18 can go to develop their writing skills. He also has a shop in San Francisco that sells nothing but pirate gear.

Then there’s McSweeney’s, which publishes a quarterly literary magazine, a website, a monthly magazine called The Believer and a quarterly DVD magazine, Wholphin. All Eggers’s proceeds from What is the What went to Sudanese refugees in the US, while those from Zeitoun are going to the Zeitoun Foundation, which is helping in the rebuilding of New Orleans.

Eggers has also become a tireless campaigner for the power of the printed word in an internet age. His magazines aren’t afraid of publishing novella-length stories and his books luxuriate in the kind of playful design that could never be reproduced on a screen.

To hammer the point home, Eggers recently published the San Francisco Panorama, a 320-page, full-colour broadsheet newspaper; it sold out immediately.

He’s clearly seeking to do as much good as possible and I wondered how much his faith in human nature fluctuates between optimism and despair. ‘I think I’m far too hopeful and trusting. That’s something I got from my mum. Because I grew up with this naïve expectation of people doing right, I get shocked by every little violation. But however naïve I might be, I do feel that books have a unique way of stopping time in a particular moment and saying: “Let’s not forget this.”’

He breaks off. Our time is up. ‘I’m sorry,’ he says. ‘I’m babbling again. That’s the thing with me, you see. I never end tidily. I just kind of trail off…'


3.1.10

Radio Micropsia - Episodio 7 (Selección musical)


Link

Después de varias semanas de preparar 15/20 temas para cada programa y poder meter 6 o 7, esta vez armé algo más pequeño, además de llevar unos CDs. Espero que hayan salido, aunque con un invitado como Ezequiel en el programa, no creo...

Por si no se dieron cuenta, sí, esto lo dejo escrito antes de ir a la radio con un horario de publicación más tardía (y sí, hay un tema de The XX, lo que justifica la imagen de arriba).

Así de maravilloso es ser un blogger, uno parece estar trabajando todo el día...





'The Hurt Locker' sweeps National Society of Film Critics Awards


Es el último premio de la crítica en darse y el más prestigioso ya que nuclea a las distintas asociaciones de todos los Estados Unidos. Aquí están los resultados...

Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" has won the National Society of Film Critics' award for picture, director and actor for Jeremy Renner. The Iraq War thriller is the first film since 1997's "L.A. Confidential" to sweep top honors from the Los Angeles, New York and national critics' groups.

Belgian thesp Yolande Moreau drew the actress nod for "Seraphine," adding to her earlier citation by the L.A. critics.

Picture: "The Hurt Locker"

Director: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"

Actor: Jeremy Renner, "The Hurt Locker"

Actress: Yolande Moreau, "Seraphine"

Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds," and Paul Schneider, "Bright Star"

Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique, "Precious"

Screenplay: Joel and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"

Foreign-Language Film: "Summer Hours"

Nonfiction Film: "The Beaches of Agnes"

Cinematography: Christian Berger, "The White Ribbon"

Production design: Nelson Lowry, "Fantastic Mr. Fox"


Radio Micropsia - Episodio 7


Por Radio Nacional (FM 93.7), domingo de 20 a 22hs.
O por internet, entrando por aquí.

Con la visita (si no nos falla, claro) del inefable Ezequiel Acuña trayendo sus discos y opinando sobre los nuestros, esta noche sale al aire el programa por primera vez en 2010. Además de la visita (más que una entrevista, lo sumaremos de co-conductor), habrá temas de los mejores discos del año (The XX, Islands, Wilco, más algunas sorpresas) y comentarios de algunos de los incontables estrenos de cine de la semana que viene. Menos de "Excursiones", claro, que tampoco la vamos a hacer adelante de su director...

"Avatar" sigue camino a romper todos los récords



Los Angeles Times

It looks like James Cameron's only remaining box office challenger will be James Cameron.

"Avatar" this weekend became the fifth movie in history to bring in more than $1 billion in worldwide ticket sales and the fastest by far to do so, breaking the nine-figure barrier less than three weeks after it debuted.

With a studio-estimated total of $1.033 billion, it has surpassed "The Dark Knight," which left theaters with $1.002 billion, and will soon surpass both "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ($1.066 billion) and "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" ($1.119 billion). Comparisons accounting for inflation and exchange rates are very complex when calculating ticket sales in more than 100 countries, but it's clear that by any measure the costly "Avatar" is already one of the highest-grossing movies of all time.

20th Century Fox, Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Film Partners spent about $280 million to produce "Avatar," while Fox kicked in an extra $150 million for worldwide marketing and distribution. Since studios collect a bit less than half of worldwide ticket sales, it will likely earn a small profit on theatrical revenue alone and significantly more from DVD and other markets.

The only remaining question about the box office performance of "Avatar" is whether it will surpass director James Cameron's previous movie, "Titanic," which still holds the all-time title with worldwide ticket sales of $1.843 billion. To reach that far-off mark, the picture will have to general phenomenal business throughout the winter and draw many moviegoers to repeat viewings.

Though "Avatar" is performing very well in the U.S. and Canada, its success is coming primarily from overseas. In 110 foreign markets, it has collected a total of $670.2 billion, almost twice as much as it has taken in domestically. It will almost certainly surpass the No. 2 international movie of all time, "Return of the King," which grossed $742.1 million. "Titanic" took in $1.242 billion from foreign countries.

"Avatar" is already the highest-grossing film of all time in Russia, the fourth highest in Spain and Australia, and the second-biggest U.S. movie ever in France, India and South Korea. It opens on Monday in China, an increasingly lucrative market for effects-laden tent-pole films, and on Jan. 15 in Italy.

Three-D technology continues to be one of its primary drivers. Theaters with 3-D screens have accounted for about 75% of its ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada and roughly the same in major foreign markets.

Domestically, "Avatar" is well on its way to grossing more than $450 million but has a long way to go before it challenges the $533 million collected by "The Dark Knight," let alone the record-holding $601 million of "Titanic."

Anything remains possible for "Avatar," however, given its amazing momentum. Despite a far-from-spectacular opening weekend, the film has experienced minimal declines since then, generating the second-highest second-weekend ticket sales of all time and the highest ever on a third weekend.


The Ballad of Blu-ray and Scratchy Old Film (The New York Times)


By DAVE KEHR

DVDS were introduced in 1997 in the United States but didn’t really take off until a few years later, when the price of players dropped low enough to make them affordable for a large number of consumers. The same thing seems to be happening now with Blu-ray, which was introduced in 2006 but has only become widely affordable in the last year or so, as the price of players has dropped from the $900 range to something on a par with a midrange DVD unit: $200 to $300 for a quite acceptable player, with budget ones available for as little as $90. And while DVD sales declined by some $1 billion in 2009 from the previous year, sales of Blu-ray discs, according to data from the Digital Entertainment Group, rose by $200 million, partially offsetting the industry downturn.

Does that mean that the DVD decade is over, and the era of Blu-ray is about to begin? Although it would satisfy our primal human need to divide experience into tidy 10-year slices, it is probably premature to say.

For one thing, Blu-ray faces much stiffer competition from other delivery services than DVDs did: companies like Apple, Netflix and Amazon are falling over one another with rival schemes for digital downloads, streaming video and video-on-demand services. For another, most consumers seem perfectly happy with DVD technology and see no reason to convert to another standard that won’t be playable on much of their installed equipment. (To counter that argument, some distributors have started offering standard DVDs and computer-friendly digital files in the same Blu-ray package.)

There’s no doubt that Blu-ray is the better technology. (Blu-ray machines can also play standard DVDs.) Blu-ray offers a sharpness of detail, stability of color and depth of sound far beyond the capabilities of DVD. And yet that’s exactly why I’m wary of it.

As an omnivorous cinephile, I’m interested in seeing as much material as possible made available to as many viewers as possible, and Blu-ray doesn’t promise much in that department. For bringing the latest Hollywood blockbusters into homes, Blu-ray is without parallel. But it is less friendly to older films, foreign films and films made with antiquated technologies (like 16 millimeter and analog video).

For Blu-ray to look its best it requires picture and sound images of the finest, most pristine quality. That’s not difficult to come by in a contemporary release like “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (the best-selling Blu-ray of 2009), but is somewhat more problematic for a film made in Germany in 1926. Blu-ray exaggerates the faults in older material: the dust specks and scratches caused by decades of wear and tear, the softness of detail or harshness of contrast caused by duplication from sources several generations removed from the film that actually passed through the camera.

Even on those rare occasions when first-rate source material exists for older films — Kino’s fine new Blu-ray of Buster Keaton’s 1926 brilliant adventure-comedy “The General,” for example, was made from a fine-grain positive struck from the original camera negative — the modern eye requires digital intervention to clean up the imperfections built into the original. And because digital restoration is often a zero-sum game, in which the erasing of one flaw produces another, we continue to move further from the look and feel of the first-generation film. The dust specks on a D. W. Griffith one-reeler have probably been there since the film was first developed: laboratories weren’t as antiseptic then, and audiences had different expectations.

Restoration on that scale costs a lot, so much so that only the most famous titles seem to justify the expense, as exemplified by Warner Brothers’ recent high-definition transfers of “Gone With the Wind” and “The Wizard of Oz” to Blu-ray. It’s safe to say that only a tiny fraction of the movies produced by Hollywood studios, much less those from international sources, will make the cut.

This isn’t the first time this winnowing has occurred. When VHS arrived, the format was forgiving enough to allow the studios to transfer many of their titles to tape directly from the video masters they had already made for television distribution. Many of those titles disappeared in the transition to DVD because studios felt that more obscure films wouldn’t be profitable enough to justify striking new prints and preparing new digital transfers.

As a result huge swaths of our film heritage have vanished. After 10 years of DVD the studios seem to have concluded that all the films that will make money in home video have already been released; that number is a very small percentage of their output. Turner Classic Movies online says that of the 162,984 films listed in its database (based on the authoritative AFI Catalog), only 5,980 (3.67 percent) are available on home video.

At this point only Warner Brothers and Sony (the owners of the Columbia films) are maintaining a truly active library program. Fox has virtually eliminated the archival initiative that brought us marvels like the Fox Film Noir series and the box sets devoted to John Ford, Frank Borzage and F. W. Murnau. Paramount has apparently lost interest in releasing its older titles (a shame, since it also owns the Republic Pictures library, a wonderful, largely unexplored repository of genre films from the ’30s, ’40s and early ’50s).

Universal makes the occasional effort on DVD, and usually does a good job with what it does, but the studio has allowed its superb library to fall almost entirely out of distribution apart from a handful of horror films and Abbott and Costello comedies. The vast majority of the 700 prime Paramount titles owned by Universal (essentially all of Paramount’s sound films up to 1948) have for all practical purposes disappeared down a black hole.

Perhaps this policy will change now that Universal NBC has been acquired by Comcast, a cable company with a financial interest in making the most of its assets. Increasingly, however, one has to turn to Europe to find good DVDs of American studio films, like the Douglas Sirk series (most of the titles licensed from Universal) released by Carlotta Films in France, or the Blu-rays of Murnau’s “Sunrise” and (coming) “City Girl” from the British company Masters of Cinema (licensed from Fox). The Criterion Collection is a national treasure, but it can’t do everything.

Blu-ray is wonderful for what it does. Still, the most encouraging development as the decade turns is the multiplication of alternative formats and means of distribution. Cinephiles have taken matters into their own hands by trading digital copies of out-of-distribution films on the Internet. Burn-on-demand programs, like Warner Archive and TCM’s Universal Collection, provide an economically viable way of making older movies available to the relatively small audience interested in them. Warner Archive has released many titles in unrestored versions that would not be acceptable as mass manufactured DVDs, though collectors seem glad to have them (even at a steep $19.95). Perhaps other companies will follow the Warner Brothers example, if only as an intermediary step toward the wide implementation of video on demand.

We will probably never achieve the utopian vision of having every film ever made available at the click of a mouse, but we are certain to move a little bit further in that direction in the decade ahead — with the cooperation of the studios or without them. (Copyrights will soon be expiring on the first wave of talkies.) In the meantime let us praise diversity. As confusing as the format wars may be, they keep hope alive.


The Decade in Music: A World of Megabeats and Megabytes (The New York Times)


By JON PARELES

MY 21st century started in 1998, when I got a new toy. It was the Diamond Rio PMP300, a flimsy plastic gadget the size of a cigarette pack. PMP stood for Portable Music Player. It had a headphone jack, and it played a recently invented digital file format: MPEG-1 Audio Layer Three, or MP3.

The Rio’s 32 megabytes of storage held a dozen songs at passable fidelity. Its sound was clearly inferior to a portable CD player; its capacity was comparable to a cassette or two. But the beauty of it was that it didn’t need any CD or cassette inserted, just digital files — copies of songs — loaded from a computer, to be changed at whim. They might come from albums people owned or borrowed; they might come, even back then, from strangers online. The Recording Industry Association of America sued to have the PMP300 taken off the market and failed — the prelude to a decade of lawsuits trying to corral online music.

It was already too late. For those who were willing to be geeky — learning new software, slowly downloading via dial-up — music had forever escaped its plastic containers to travel the Web. The old distribution system was on its way to becoming irrelevant. “You really think you’re in control? Well, I think you’re crazy,” Cee-Lo Green of Gnarls Barkley sang in 2006.

Because songs are small chunks of information that many people want, music was the canary in the digital coal mine, presaging what would happen to other art forms as Internet connections spread and sped up. For the old recording business everything went wrong. Sales of CDs have dropped by nearly half since 2000, while digital sales of individual songs haven’t come close to compensating. Movies and television (and journalism too) are now scrambling not to become the next victims of an omnivorous but tight-fisted Internet.

By now, in 2010, we’re all geeks, conversant with file formats and software players. Our cellphone/camera/music player/Web browser gadgets fit in a pocket, with their little LCD screens beckoning. Their tiny memory chips hold collections of music equivalent to backpacks full of CDs. The 2000s were the broadband decade, the disintermediation decade, the file-sharing decade, the digital recording (and image) decade, the iPod decade, the long-tail decade, the blog decade, the user-generated decade, the on-demand decade, the all-access decade. Inaugurating the new millennium, the Internet swallowed culture whole and delivered it back — cheaper, faster and smaller — to everyone who can get online.

For artists of all kinds (with musicians on the front lines) a 21st-century habitat of possibilities and pressures is taking shape — one that demands skills their predecessors forgot or never needed. The art they make can be created, as well as disseminated, faster and more cheaply. But it will also face exponentially more rivals for attention, and many more temptations toward superficiality and sellouts.

Through much of the 2000s delivery systems threatened to upstage the content. The iPod — a smarter, sleeker, roomier Rio PMP300 — arrived in 2001, prompting the creation of the iTunes Music Store in 2003. Five years later iTunes was the top music retailer in the United States, as its competition in the physical universe dwindled.

But the arrival of iTunes itself was playing catch-up, since MP3 files had long been available free through Napster (started in 1999) and other file-sharing services. Copyright owners’ prosecutions and shutdowns of Napster and Grokster only sent file-sharing elsewhere, and despite continuing efforts to enforce copyright laws, files now circulate everywhere. For sellers of recordings, it’s what Jay-Z rightly calls “a hole in the universe.”

Yet for audiences the decade has been both a sheer paradise and an overwhelming glut. Like countless other music fans, I spent the 2000s wallowing in abundance and drowning in it. Napster and its siblings opened up the music collections of multitudes, at first to be downloaded song by song, and that alone was overwhelming. Now music blogs post links to entire albums via a click or two.

Rare is the cultural artifact — hit single, out-of-print imported album, old or new live performance (and for that matter, cult movie or TV show or fine-art masterpiece) — that isn’t accessible somewhere online, legally or not. Google a song, and you can probably listen to it whole within seconds. Perhaps that sacrifices the thrill of the hunt. But I’m not turning down instant gratification.

Our era of immediate distribution and bottomless archives is in some ways a utopia for artists — who are, after all, among the most dedicated fans of others’ works. Musicians can study and sample a world of source material. There’s no need to leave your desktop to hear (or watch) Sierra Leonean bubu music or Flemish Renaissance polyphony. Recording technology always strove to make music portable; the 2000s were its culmination and it might get even easier when everything recorded is available in what computer buffs call “the cloud” of universally accessible information.

Ease of consumption is paralleled by ease of production. The computer is the definitive 21st-century studio, now that do-it-yourself musicians can record professional-sounding tracks onto a laptop in a bedroom. The ubiquitous software ProTools offers endless overdubbing and can put errant musicians back on the beat or tune them up, though it’s not always an improvement when dull robot precision replaces individual quirks.

The cut-and-mix, mashup procedures of hip-hop and disc-jockey culture have only accelerated. Beats from old vinyl discs were foundations of hip-hop back in the 1970s. Now no one needs to track down the physical disc because some aggregator or collector has probably put it online. And if Timbaland wants to grab a Bollywood flourish, or M.I.A. wants to study Brazilian baile funk, they don’t need subway fare, much less a plane ticket.

Even the acoustics of beloved concert halls and studios, which were once the definition of site-specific (and expensive) workspaces, have been digitally sampled, modeled and simulated, to be offered as effects within recording software. Many of the large studios themselves are gone for lack of business. Paradoxically, as digital fidelity continues to improve (and video moves toward high definition), many listeners just don’t care.

The tolerable-quality files (128 kilobits per second) that seemed like a good compromise when MP3s arrived via dial-up, and storage was measured in mere megabytes, still fill portable players, stripping away the depth and nuance that were in the original recordings. Now, like 1950’s producers who mixed their singles for the era’s car radios, certain musicians go directly for the crisp, hollow textures that will survive a digital squeeze. Maybe they’re practical, as their music gets played back through dinky earbuds or itty-bitty computer speakers anyway.

As the music whizzes around, artists can get a reaction to new work as soon as they want. Introduce a song in concert, and it might be on YouTube the same night; create a demo, and fans will snap it up, to get passed along forever. The same channels are open to every other artist (using the term loosely) with a MySpace page or a YouTube account. Local bands may not be local for long. But the flip side of disintermediation — not having to rely on any middleman for approval or distribution — is a near-infinite slush pile. All the filtering that used to take place out of earshot, in A&R and club bookers’ offices, can be bypassed.

With the artifacts come the arguments: the online magazines, blogs, forums, fan pages and celebrity news sites where rumors spread, reputations bloom, backlashes seethe and associations multiply. Radio (itself struggling against online alternatives) and television can still advance careers — hello, “American Idol” — but so can considerably less corporate tastemakers.

For indie-rock bands like Arcade Fire, or for a rapper like Wale building a reputation on mixtapes, a mention in the right places online — accompanied, likely enough, by a free MP3 or a link to a YouTube clip — can be the makings of a national and perhaps international tour circuit: a star is blogged. And what once was a post-gig discussion among a handful of friends can now be a worldwide colloquy, complete with photos and video as documentary evidence. Less and less takes place behind the scenes, even if it belongs there.

The blockbuster mentality that settled over popular music in the 1980s has not disappeared. The 2000s still had multi-platinum pop stars, some who got a running start in the ’90s (like Eminem, Beyoncé and Justin Timberlake) and some who made their way through the debacle (Kanye West, Alicia Keys, Rihanna, Norah Jones, Lil Wayne, Taylor Swift). But as disc sales fell, the Top 10 was repeatedly breached by acts with cult followings — the Mars Volta, for instance — rather than mass-market consensus. It was a good time for indie-rockers and for older musicians who weren’t going to get played on contemporary hit radio.

And without being able to depend on album sales, musicians’ job descriptions changed. Increasingly it was up to the performers — not their struggling major label if they had one, not the radio stations that had long treated them as disposable — to get themselves noticed. That could mean making silly novelty videos for YouTube, or it could involve what was once considered selling out: placing a song in a commercial, where people could hear it repeatedly (and then track it down online).

Instead of waiting for royalties to trickle in from sales, musicians were happy to get paid upfront for licensing their music to advertisers and to TV and movie soundtracks. A distracted listener was better than none at all.

In the 2010s musicians can look forward to working harder for smaller payoffs. They’re resuming — if they ever really left it behind — their age-old role as troubadours, touring more frequently to make up for disappearing album sales. (Big stars with expiring contracts went independent instead of renewing their major-label commitments, or set up so-called “360 deals” that depend as much on touring and merchandising as on selling albums.)

There are newer demands on them as well: interacting with fans who never had to accept the top-down, broadcast model of the old music business and have come to expect the individualized tone of the Internet. To perform offstage musicians now hone social-networking skills: mastering the blog post, the semi-candid photo, the not too overtly promotional self-promotion, the guarded personal revelation, the clever Tweet. Those with true star ambitions will also have to manage the meta-careers that a little bit of fame now entails, knowing that any time they show their face in public, it can turn up on a photo blog, any interview can be cross-referenced forever, any live performances or television moment might show up on YouTube. The smart ones, like Lady Gaga, already have their costume changes planned.

Musicians and their managers will also be improvising their own routes amid a wilderness of marketing and career strategies. They’re experimenting with what an album is now worth, like Radiohead’s pay-what-you-will album in 2007, “In Rainbows,” or Nine Inch Nails’ 2008 spectrum from luxury (an elaborate limited-edition $300 package of “Ghosts I-IV,” which sold out instantly) to free (digital versions of half of “Ghosts” and then all of “The Slip”). But those aren’t baby bands who had to do it themselves from the start. Newer acts may well be cottage industries — in wired cottages — for life.

One emblematic album for the 2000s was Danger Mouse’s “Grey Album” in 2004, which backed up a cappella raps from Jay-Z’s “Black Album” with finely micro-sliced samples from “The Beatles,” a k a the White Album. All of its sounds, in other words, were recycled; the musicality was in the cleverness of the cut and paste. There was no permission from the Beatles and no official commercial release. The album simply escaped onto the Internet, where it can still be grabbed, earning nothing but good will for the musicians, but ready to play any time.

"Avatar" en la Argentina: 165 mil espectadores en dos dias

ThW Title ATT SC
(TH)
Avg GR/SC (GR/TH) ATT to Date
1 AVATAR 165,166 254
(100)
$12,478
($31,695)
165,166
2 2012 22,953 118
(89)
$3,203
($4,246)
899,608
3 ACTIVIDAD PARANORMAL 12,661 65
(56)
$3,436
($3,988)
232,931
4 CENA DE AMIGOS 5,775 14
(14)
$7,486
($7,486)
5,775
5 AMANTE A DOMICILIO 5,328 27
(27)
$3,655
($3,655)
5,328
6 LOS FANTASMAS DE SCROOGE 4,254 68
(60)
$999
($1,133)
378,957
7 LUNA NUEVA 3,829 45
(44)
$1,319
($1,349)
863,704
8 ROSETTA 3,423 8
(8)
$6,959
($6,959)
3,423
9 PLANET 51 3,403 53
(51)
$966
($1,004)
175,753
11 LOS AMANTES 2,009 19
(18)
$1,687
($1,781)
81,833

TV de la década (The New York Times)


THE decade opened with an alpha male in a psychiatrist’s office and closed with an alpha male committing himself to a psychiatric institution.

From “The Sopranos” to “House,” men marked the last 10 years of television less as hellions or healers than as analysands — fragile bullies who recognized they were damaged and sought help. The 21st century was ushered in by a He Decade: 10 years of men gazing at their navels.

Naturally, it’s the women’s fault. All those sitcoms and dramas of the ’80s and ’90s that reflected women’s liberation, self-actualization and consciousness raising paid off by wearing down the opposite sex; even made men buckled under the pressure. Accordingly, many of the most notable series of the last 10 years showcased men who examined their feelings or at least acknowledged their limitations.

Put it this way: “Sex and the City,” which began on HBO in 1998 and shut down in 2004, celebrated a certain kind of girl power of the ’90s. This decade is bowing out with “Men of a Certain Age,” a TNT drama about three male friends exploring their powerlessness at midlife.

Even reality television, perhaps the single most radical programming innovation of the last decade, reflects an altered male sensibility. Seemingly macho competitions like “Survivor,” a CBS show that began in 2000, are at heart jungle therapy. To the sound of Robert Bly tribal drums, contestants — male and female — are thrown into encounter groups and prodded to cooperate and clash, then taken aside to describe their fears and discontents in private sessions with the camera.

“The Office” on NBC and its many mockumentary successors are a comic inversion of the reality show stream-of-consciousness conceit. Self-deluded characters misinterpret their own behavior to an invisible filmmaker-therapist.

The first episode of “The Sopranos” actually began on HBO in 1999, but that’s a niggling caveat. It took a year or two for the series to catch on, and even the most distinctive eras sometimes spill over their calendar slots. (The Victorian age spilled into and beyond 1901.)

“The Sopranos” is a series that defined and helped determine the first decade of the 21st century, partly because it put a postmodern spin on the Cosa Nostra fable: the Mafia boss Tony Soprano was a suburban dad with a nagging wife and surly children who suffered acute spells of anxiety that drove him into therapy. The show was notable for its brutal violence and also for long, intense dream sequences that called out for Freudian interpretation.

“The Sopranos” paved the way for other dramas that burrowed into characters’ psyches, dreams and dysfunctions, most notably HBO’s “Six Feet Under,” about a family of undertakers who unravel after the death of the patriarch. The trend reached its apogee on HBO in 2008 with “In Treatment,” which takes place almost entirely in one-on-one psychotherapy sessions and which posits the therapist as a man as troubled and self-doubting as his patients. On television no pathology has been left unexplored: the hero of Showtime’s “Dexter” is a serial killer; its “Californication” is centered on a sex addict.

There are notable exceptions, of course, none better than “The Wire,” a Dickensian saga about crime and corruption in Baltimore that ran for five seasons on HBO. With multiple layers and scores of characters, the show required attentive viewing and to this day defies easy categorization. It was the best show of the decade if only because it was so different from any other.

So many dramas, good and bad, focused narrowly on the male mind. Every cop and fireman came with a set of complexes; witness “The Shield” and “Rescue Me” on FX. Fictional detectives have been eccentric and unorthodox since the days of Sherlock Holmes and Arsène Lupin, so it’s not unusual for television cops to be freakier than the robbers (and rapists).

But TV’s romance with the masculine psyche can be found even in the most prosaic network crime shows, including the evolution of “Law & Order” spinoffs. The original, which started on NBC in 1990, was conceived by its creator, Dick Wolf, as an antidote to crime shows like “NYPD Blue,” which fastened onto the psychic distress of antiheroes like Andy Sipowicz. For a while, at least, “Law & Order” kept crime and punishment in the foreground and gave viewers only sketchy details about the private lives of its detectives and prosecutors.

But even Mr. Wolf’s template gave in to the times. In 1999, on the cusp of a new century, came “Law & Order: SVU,” a procedural about sex crimes, but it soon turned out that some of the most lurid moments were found in the romantic and psychological entanglements of its central characters. By 2001 the lead detective on another spinoff, “Law & Order: Criminal Intent,” was a former altar boy burdened with a schizophrenic mother and a disturbing ability to bond with criminals and the criminally insane. In an episode titled “Untethered,” the detective (Vincent D’Onofrio) implodes and is suspended for psychiatric evaluation.

Female detectives are messed up as well, but in a welcome reversal of gender roles they are far more repressed about their feelings and failings. Nowadays they tend to follow the classic Raymond Chandler model, notably those played by Kyra Sedgwick, Holly Hunter and Mary McCormack on their shows on TNT. All three crime fighters are tough, dedicated loners who shirk help and hide their vulnerabilities under flip banter or bossiness. They are closer in spirit to Philip Marlowe than Miss Marple or Jessica Fletcher.

On the other hand, one of the most beloved private eyes of the decade was Tony Shalhoub in USA’s “Monk,” as a San Francisco detective with near crippling obsessive-compulsive disorder forced to leave the San Francisco Police Department.

Private eyes have throughout history nursed their wounds with alcohol; the Chandleresque hero of “Bored to Death” on HBO smokes too much pot and has low self-esteem.

It may not be a coincidence that mental illness became a new frontier in television entertainment at the same time reality television took hold. But the trend reflects the popularization of serotonin and books like “Prozac Nation.” In 2005 NBC actually tried out a sitcom, “Committed,” a romantic comedy about an obsessive-compulsive math genius and his nutty girlfriend.

Women are not spared the psychotherapy, of course (but they’ve been on the couch for a while). Most notably, Toni Collette plays a wife and mother with multiple personalities on “The United States of Tara” on Showtime. Nowadays the patient is likely male, and sometimes even a doctor, as in “House,” who last season checked himself into a mental hospital to grapple with his drug addiction and other demons.

In May, Fox tried to clone the success of “House” by adapting the trope to a psychiatrist, but “Mental” fell flat, perhaps because its hero was a little too well meaning and healthy for contemporary audiences.

Fox’s “24,” a cartoon thriller with complex special effects, also fell under the spell of the neurasthenic age. Unlike Bruce Willis in “Die Hard” or Steven Seagal in anything, Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) was an avenger with a delicate soul: no matter how hard he struggled to be a heartless, feel-no-pain alpha operative, Jack couldn’t suppress remorse and self-doubt. Terrorism’s toll on his mental health was almost as central to the series as the threats to national security.

Naturally, all this psychobabble met with resistance. Premium cable rebelled with period dramas that placed its characters in past eras untouched by Dr. Phil and the domestication of the American male. “Deadwood” on HBO was set in a lawless gold-rush town in the 1870s and offered viewers a primitive, brutal community with no room for angst or midlife crisis. “Mad Men” on AMC is set in the early 1960s, and its hero, Don Draper, shuns his past and refuses to deal with his inner demons; instead he sends his unfulfilled wife to a psychiatrist who reports back to Don about her progress.

There were other pockets of denial, notably the “CSI” procedurals on CBS that made a fetish of science and kept characters and their shadow selves in the background. The top CBS dramas provide a safe haven from all these masculine effusions of feeling and self-scrutiny: the characters on “NCIS” and the spinoff “NCIS: Los Angeles” stay light no matter how dark the crimes; almost all the heroes have murky, traumatic tragedy in their past and choose not to dwell on it.

It could be that the pendulum on television is already swinging the other way; 2010 could be the beginning of the end of the years of living introspectively.


"The Secret in Their Eyes": Uncovering the Secret (Newsweek)


Digamos que lo que yo le dije a Brian, en castellano, y que él tradujo y cito acá, era algo un poco más largo y complejo de lo que parece leyéndolo. Si bien entiendo --como periodista y "resumidor de respuestas" que también soy-- que todo debe ser reducido en este tipo de notas, también conozco la hipersensibilidad de muchos cineastas argentinos. Es por eso que debajo de la nota está copiado el cuestionario completo que él me mandó y que yo le contesté...


By Brian Byrnes

In director Juan José Campanella's 2001 film, El Hijo de la Novia (Son of the Bride), Ricardo Darín's character, a short-tempered restaurateur, bluntly tells his actor friend during a heated discussion: "I don't watch Argentine films!" The line draws knowing laughter from Argentines, most of whom don't watch their compatriots' movies, either. This inherent distrust in their own cultural offerings is a topic of constant analysis in Freud-obsessed Buenos Aires, and when Campanella wrote it he knew it would sting. "In Argentina, a Hollywood movie is innocent until proven guilty. An Argentine movie is the other way around," says Campanella, 50. "I have to work really hard to break down that barrier."

He has already succeeded more than any Argentine director in history. His keen, often comedic eye and ability to coax stellar performances from his actors has endeared him to Argentines of all persuasions. His six feature-length films include the Oscar-nominated El Hijo de la Novia; his latest release, El Secreto de Sus Ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes), is the most-talked-about Spanish-language film in years. In Argentina, more than 2.4 million people—6 percent of the population—have seen the film; in Spain it has grossed $7.5 million at the box office, a remarkable feat for a noir thriller set in 1975, the year before Argentina's horrific military dictatorship began. "Campanella's films mix a certain moral and ethical confusion with nostalgia and sentimentality," says Diego Lerer, a film critic for the Argentine newspaper Clarín. "They are always well written and never boring."

Secreto, based on a novel by Eduardo Sacheri, teams Campanella with Darín, the gifted actor who has played the director's alter ego—a variation on the same middle-class Buenos Aires working man—in each of his last four films. In this latest turn, Darín plays a recently retired court investigator who begins writing a book on a 20-year-old murder case while vying for the lost love of his old boss. The film takes place during a delicate era in Argentine history, when state-sponsored violence was just getting underway. The real-life perpetrators of the "dirty war"—which claimed as many as 30,000 lives—have just recently begun to stand trial. "I think Secreto has been such a phenomenon because it examines things from our recent past in an intelligent way," says Darín. "It has gotten people talking and even generated a feeling of hope here."

A surprise ending reveals a disturbing secret held by a key character and helps heighten the film's multigenre appeal. It doesn't hurt that Darín exhibits a rare blend of wit and vulnerability, which appeals to both men and women. "Yes, Darín has elements of Tom Hanks, but he also has elements of Henry Fonda," says Campanella. "He is stoic, but at the same time he can break down and be fragile."

What sets Campanella apart from other directors is his ability to make it in both Buenos Aires and Hollywood. Not only is he the most commercially lucrative homegrown film director in Argentine history, but he has also built an impressive résumé in U.S. television, directing 16 episodes of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, as well as episodes of House and 30 Rock.

Secreto received rave reviews at top festivals like Toronto and San Sebastián, which led to a U.S. distribution deal with Sony Pictures Classics. France, Italy, the U.K., Brazil, and Israel have also inked distribution rights, guaranteeing a wider audience. Secreto will be Argentina's submission for the best foreign-language-film Oscar this year. Campanella hopes he will improve upon his 2002 experience, and not leave the red carpet empty-handed. "Perhaps the key to my movies' success is that people see their lives being told as an epic story," he says. Epic stories about their own that Argentines have finally started paying attention to.

---------------------------------------------------

Mis respuestas completas al cuestionario:

-- Why do you think Argentines embrace all of Campanella's films so warmly?

Creo que de alguna manera conectan con cierta idea de "la argentinidad" que mezcla cierta confusión ética/moral, un grado de sentimentalismo y nostalgia. Además, hay un evidente cuidado de la puesta en escena y la naturalidad de los dialogos: las películas están muy bien armadas, nunca aburren, apelan a todo tipo de espectador. Y ayuda la presencia magnética de Ricardo Darin.


-- What makes "Secreto" different or better from his other films?

Lo raro del éxito del El Secreto (mayor que el de los otros filmes) es que es una pelicula más oscura y con menos humor. Pero creo que su mirada al pasado reciente es original y el thriller con final sorpresivo, si esta bien hecho, siempre tiene buen rendimiento y genera espectadores que ven la pelicula mas de una vez para buscar pistas....

-- What do you think of his relationship with Ricardo Darin? Does it continually surprise and impress you? Or do you think they work together too often?

Darin es un gran actor y eso ya no sorprende. Con Campanella es donde consigue "enganchar" mas con el público porque con él compone esos personajes de "chantas queribles" que tan bien le salen. Creo que se entienden muy bien, Darin capta lo que Campanella quiere de él y realmente parece no hacer nunca nada mal. La gran sorpresa en este filme, para mi, es Guillermo Francella, que interpreta a su amigo. Un comediante conocido por su "broad humor" que aqui compone a un personaje muy delicadamente. Y está irreconocible.

2.1.10

Cinema Scope #41


Link

Nueva edición de la revista de Mark Peranson, con algunas buenas notas online para leer. Otras, tentadoras, sólo son conseguibles comprando la maldita revista.

Radio Micropsia 6 (27/12/09) Selección musical


Entrevista a Bahman Ghobadi (Clarín)


Birthday Party Guitarist Rowland S. Howard Dies Aged 50 (Spinner)


Former Birthday Party guitarist Rowland S. Howard passed away early Wednesday morning after losing his battle with liver cancer. The 50-year-old had been waiting for a crucial liver transplant and had been forced to cancel recent shows due to his illness.

Howard first came to prominence as guitarist with Melbourne punk band the Boys Next Door who then mutated into the Birthday Party. Led by singer Nick Cave, the Birthday Party left their native Australia for the U.K. in 1980 where the band established their fearsome reputation thanks to a series of incendiary gigs that often saw as much violence on stage as off.

Howard's idiosyncratic guitar playing -- an incredible collision of blues, feedback and six-string brutality -- marked him down as a true original and proved to be a huge influence on subsequent generations of guitarists.

After the Birthday Party's split in 1983, Howard lent his guitar skills to Crime and the City Solution and These Immortal Souls. He appeared onstage in London with Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds in 1991 for a partial Birthday Party reunion when the band played 'Wild World', 'Dead Joe' and 'Nick the Stripper.'

1.1.10

"Avatar" Is a Movie About James Cameron (The L Magazine)


By Mark Asch

Spectacle is the preeminent factor in cinema history, going back to its beginnings as a music hall and penny arcade attraction—the novelty of the medium, as much as the sensation of its contents, was the draw, and this has continued to be the case, throughout both technological advances and the consistent appeal of the theatrical experience. So I can see why J. Hoberman thought initially of Metropolis while watching Avatar (before walking it way back), and I can even understand Manohla Dargis's rhapsodic rave ("Cameron... embrace[s] cinema as an art, as a social experience and a shamanistic ritual, one still capable of producing the big WOW.") Whether or not you agree with them depends on whether or not you think cgi inevitably just looks like a videogame.

The L's Benjamin Strong thinks it does (as do I), which explains, really, why for him, "Storytelling has never been Cameron's strong suit," whereas for the WOWed Dargis, "He’s a masterly storyteller."

The reason why Avatar permits these two seemingly incompatible readings has to do with cinema-as-spectacle.

In the same sentence, Dargis also allows that Cameron is "a rather less nimble prose writer," citing the hero "taunt[ing] a rhinolike creature" with a "Yeah, who's bad," which I think we can all agree is no "Fuck you, asshole," let alone "Hasta la vista, baby," as far as dialogue-by-baddass-preadolescent-catchphrase goes.

Cameron's two-fisted tales and comic-book dialogue are matched with a fairly elemental narrative about a young man choosing between two parents (the scientist played by Sigourney Weaver and the mercenary played by Stephen Lang); or the narrative's about a young man leaving the world he knows and finding love, adventure and his own place in another tribe; or it's about a messianic leader who comes to lead an afflicted tribe. In all cases it's some real hero's-journey shit, so if you think Cameron is a transcendent visual worldmaker, then all the classical story, corny dialogue and rousing speeches become, well, Pure Storytelling, with archetypal character types and scenes and dialogue capable of consolidating a whole culture, like how Joseph Campbell is always going on about Star Wars and Jung.

(One might point out Avatar's virgin's secret awe of sex, and recall Terminator 2, in which the fans of the first movie had all their fantasies and tastes validated by an epic narrative, and conclude that Cameron's sensibility is too stuck in adolescence to be truly transcendent pulp. But let's proceed a little longer under the stipulation that it works in the way he wants it to.)

Of course Cameron knows all that, about archetypes, and is, like Lucas and Spielberg and all those soppy-hearted dumbdowners, far more self-conscious of his mythic material than most of the mythmakers he grew up loving. (His self-cultivated legend for outsized storytelling tends to reinforce this assumption.) He takes it upon himself to be The One to show the world the latent grandeur of our pulp stories.

It's not, I don't suppose, a bad thing, in the historical longview, that Cameron is a hubristic, self-aggrandizing filmmaker, any more than it's a bad thing that like D.W. Griffith was. No, the problem is that Avatar is a self-aggrandizing film.

Cameron's hero, an ex-Marine, ultimately sides with the oppressed native people against the imperialist American energy concern and its private security force, some kind of hybrid Native American jihad. Though, as the L's Strong says, "it's hard to entertain seriously the proposition that the Most Expensive Movie Ever is on the side of the underdogs."

But aside from the intractable disingenuousness of a movie from which Rupert Murdoch stands to profit casting its lot with the insurgency, there's the matter of why exactly Cameron does this. By all accounts he's a good liberal—albeit one who probably jerks off to Lara Croft and is obsessed with firearms—and he makes pretty explict Avatar's anti-Bush subtext. But Avatar doesn't play out the way it does because Cameron has subversive political views: it's less concerned with the cause of the underdogs than it is with the agent of their improbable deliverance.

Cameron's identification with his protagonist—his on-screen avatar, like him a macho explorer of unknown realms—is evident. And then this hero becomes the Great White Hope for Avatar's blue people—as did, many have pointed out, the character played by Kevin Costner in Kevin Costner's three-hour film Dances with Wolves. Cameron's identification with the underdog isn't political, it's personal—Goliath's side isn't in need of a savior.

Avatar's existence, and success, primarily serves to reflect glory on James Cameron. Which, again, is fine. But its story does so as well, by hinging on the lone hero who arrives in time to do the impossible. In her review, The Dargis refers to Titanic as a "megamelodrama," which I initially read as "megalodrama." That sounds about right for Avatar, actually.


2010: a look ahead at the year in film (The London Times)


The movie year is a thing of wondrous and familiar beauty. It’s a wave of talent and prestige that comes crashing down upon the shores of January and February, with a dizzying assault of Oscar contenders and Bafta favourites, and then beats a slow retreat, rising briefly for the summer arthouse festivals, dipping for the blockbusters, but always ready to begin a winter assault anew.

This year opens with a genuinely indecent array of must-see movies. In the shadow of the Golden Globe Awards, which are hosted on January 17 by Ricky Gervais, come three representative heavyweights: The Road (Jan 8), Precious (Jan 29) and A Single Man (Feb 12).

The Road is a heart-breakingly faithful adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about an unnamed Father and Son (Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee) who drift along the eastern seaboard of an America ravaged by some unspeakable cataclysm and populated by marauding bands of cannibals. The tension of the journey and its knockout emotional power lie in the attempt of the Father to imbue his Son with the values of goodness and love in a world gone to hell. It’s a mesmerising film, but the flesh-eating savagery might play against it.

More likely to wow awards season voters is Precious, aka Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire. The movie, which examines the rise from poverty and degradation of a young black teenage mother in New York, is being touted as the Slumdog Millionaire of 2010. Produced by Oprah Winfrey for a modest £6 million and championed as an Obama-era tale of black self-empowerment, it features a painfully real turn from Gabourey Sidibe in the title role and surprisingly gritty secondary support from Mariah Carey (sans make-up and cleave-enhancing outfits), playing a tough-love social worker. Though the narrative arc is occasionally predictable, the performances are pitch perfect.

Similarly, thanks to a career-high role as a grief-stricken professor in A Single Man, Colin Firth is guaranteed a place at this year’s Oscar ceremony (nominations are announced on February 2 while the ceremony itself, to be co-hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, is on March 7). The movie is the directorial debut of the fashion designer Tom Ford and, though it is a bravura exercise in cinematic style, it’s also surprisingly keen to delve below the surface, allowing Firth the chance finally to hold an entire movie together.

Other British stalwarts — who will be ineligible for the American awards because of release date deadlines but will nonetheless dominate the Baftas on Feb 21 — include Ray Winstone and Andy Serkis. The former dredges the depths of self-loathing to play a cuckolded husband amongst an eccentric bunch of London gangsters in the magnificent 44 Inch Chest (Jan 15). Serkis gives a truly incendiary screen performance as the raging rocker Ian Dury in the biopic Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll (Jan 8).

The awards season itself, of course, is topped and thankfully capped on Oscar night. After which the movies relax, clear the decks of worthiness and head directly into “guilty pleasure” season. Not quite blockbusters and yet certainly not Oscar contenders, the most anticipated of this lot include the reuniting of Matt Damon with his Bourne movies director Paul Greengrass in the Baghdad-set thriller Green Zone (March 12), the return of Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) in Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps (April 23) and another slice of superior action machismo from the Gladiator dream team of director Ridley Scott and star Russell Crowe, here reimagining the swash and buckle of Sherwood Forest in Robin Hood (May 14).

The movie was initially plagued by script alterations, the lack of a meaty villain and the suggestion that Crowe was, well, too portly to play the romantic hero. All problems, however, have apparently been rectified, including Crowe’s physique, which appeared fat-free and bristling in recently released publicity stills.

We mostly bid a fond farewell to our brains for the summer, but not before briefly dipping into Cannes from May 12 to 23, for some arthouse treasures. Though the line-up has yet to be announced, the most intriguing arthouse prospect for 2010 is already shaping up to be Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia (release date as yet unknown). The controversial director, who shocked the Cannes crowd in 2009 with his gross-out horror thriller Antichrist, describes his new movie as a low-budget science fiction drama about the end of the world.

In the meantime, as multiplex screens play host to a summer of eye-popping spectacle, the prohibitive cost of making a Hollywood blockbuster continues to be reflected in the timidity of the subject matter. Mostly sequels, a few video-game adaptations and some TV reboots, the season looks set to be defined by Robert Downey Jr and his Tin Man jumpsuit in Iron Man 2 (April 30), by a strangely buffed and oiled Jake Gyllenhaal in the videogame adaptation Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (May 21) and by an all-new cast headed by Liam Neeson in a revitalised version of the Eighties TV staple The A-Team (July 30). Neeson will play Hannibal Smith to Bradley Cooper’s Faceman and the cage fighter Quinton Jackson is B. A. Baracus. They will all, no doubt, love it when a plan comes together.

Female audiences, who have increasingly become the drivers of franchise fodder, are catered for with Sex and the City 2 (May 28) and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (July 9). In the latter movie, our winsome heroine Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) accepts the marriage proposal of her gloomy gothic vampire lover Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), while the SATC gang apparently take a trip both to Morocco and back in time to the Eighties (for a much-vaunted flashback sequence).

The truth of the modern franchise season is that it is an ever-expanding beast. In 2010 it will continue right into the autumn, most notably with the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Nov 19) which culminates in the legendary Battle of Hogwarts.

By then, however, serious movies will have started to reappear, including The Fighter (Nov 26), an epic real-life boxing story written by Paul Attanasio (Donnie Brasco) and directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings), plus the homegrown thriller Never Let Me Go (set for November release). Adapted from a novel by Kazuo Ishiguro and produced by Andrew Macdonald (Trainspotting), Never Let Me Go is set in a dystopian Britain where clones Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan are grown specifically for organ donation.

It promises to be the fitting climax to a movie year that, come December 2010, will inevitably feature Mulligan as its representative face. Already hotly tipped for Oscar glory for her turn as Jenny in An Education she is set to dominate the awards season (the Best Actress Bafta is practically in the bag), after which she’ll also pop up in the Iraq-war themed drama Brothers and as Gordon Gekko’s daughter in Wall Street 2. She is, in short, the new Julie Christie.