10.8.09

Kathryn Bigelow filmará en la Triple Frontera


O sobre la Triple Frontera. Este artículo de "Variety" no lo aclara pero el nuevo filme de la directora (llamado, de hecho, "Triple Frontier") transcurre en la zona limítrofe entre Argentina, Brasil y Paraguay. ¿Se habrá inspirado cuando vino a la Argentina el año pasado?

Paramount is reteaming "The Hurt Locker" director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal on action-adventure "Triple Frontier," with Charles Roven, Alex Gartner and Steve Alexander producing through their Atlas Entertainment banner.

"Triple Frontier" is described as a high-stakes ensemble project. Boal and Bigelow, who will both exec produce, sold the original idea together; the logline is being kept under wraps.

Boal's writing the script, set in the notorious border zone between Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil where the Igazu and Parana rivers converge -- making "la triple frontera" difficult to monitor and a haven for organized crime.

"The Hurt Locker" has turned in a solid box office performance since Summit released the Iraq war thriller, grossing $9 million in seven weeks of limited release.

Boal wrote the "Locker" screenplay after spending several weeks embedded with an Army bomb squad, and Bigelow shot the film in Vancouver and Jordan and set it in 2004 Baghdad.

Roven, who produced "The Dark Knight," told Daily Variety he's hoping to begin production on "Triple Frontier" next year. He's in post-production on historical drama "Season of the Witch" and is producing "Warcraft" with Sam Raimi for Warner Bros. and retirement community comedy "Winter's Discontent" with Larry Charles directing for Columbia.

Warner Bros. set Jose Padilha last year to direct "A Willing Patriot," a terrorism-themed action thriller also set in the notorious border area.

Nine compete for Venice 3-D prize (Variety)


Dar un premio asi en medio del Festival de Venecia no tiene ningún sentido. Pero si no gana "Coraline", ejecuto en persona a uno de los miembros del jurado.

The Venice Film Festival has announced the nine films in contention for the event’s first ever 3-D prize.

Two of the pictures appear in the fest line-up: “Up” by Peter Docter, which features in the Venice Pixar program, and “The Hole” by Joe Dante, which has its world premiere.

The members of the Persol 3-D Award Jury - selected by the artistic directorate of the festival - are the Italian 3-D director Nadia Ranocchi, and from the U.S., film critics Scott Foundas and Dave Kehr.

The other seven candidates for the Persol 3-D Award, to be awarded in the Sala Grande, are: “Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D” by Eric Brevig, “Monsters versus Aliens” by Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon, “My Bloody Valentine” by Patrick Lussier, “Battle for Terra” by Aristomenis Tsirbas, “Coraline” by Henry Selick, “Jonas Brothers the 3D Concert Experience" by Bruce Hendricks, and “Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs" by Carlos Saldanha.

In addition, this year’s Venice line-up will feature two 3-D pics by local helmers David Zamagni and Nadia Ranocchi in the new Orizzonti 3-D section. The films are “Daimon” (2007) and “Cock-Crow” (2009), which is unspooling.

This year’s Venice fest, the 66th, runs from September 2 - 12 and is directed by Marco Müller.


9.8.09

Women We Love: Christina Hendricks (Esquire)


Despite the Golden Globes, the endless doxologies from critics, and the blandishments from members of its cult who tell you that you of all people would love it because it's so smart — there's a chance you haven't seen Mad Men, which enters its third season this month. And if you haven't seen Mad Men, then you can't understand the totality of Christina Hendricks. On the show, she plays a 1960s secretary, her relentless curves tamped into tight dresses and her hair architected into a copper ziggurat. She bosses around the other girls in the office and electrifies the men who run it, just by sashaying down the hall. The pieces that make up her presence — her voice, smooth as the highway; the look in her eyes, sweet or cunning or both; the way she glides around the office, presiding — make her tower over everyone around her, whether she's wearing heels or not.

Here, in a hotel restaurant in Los Angeles, the elements are the same — the red hair, the pristine, pale swath of skin between her shoulders, the long legs, the doe eyes. But the hair is loose, pinned up in a hurry. There's a high-pitched laugh. The thirty-four-year-old actress is sitting comfortably in jeans and a loose top, in a private dining room, at a long table that's set for ten. It's an odd time to eat — three on a Saturday — but Christina's day is just beginning. Shooting for Mad Men ran late last night, and she went to bed close to sunrise.

CHRISTINA HENDRICKS [scanning the menu]: It looks like a lot of food, but I have to assume they're smaller portions, right? [To the waitress] I'm going to do the celery soup and then the carbonara.

WAITRESS: The celery soup is not vegetarian. It has some pancetta, and guanciale. And the carbonara is served classic style, with egg yolk. So when you mix it, it cooks itself. We can skip the egg yolk.

Hendricks blinks. She has a talent for delicate blinking — she blinks to communicate. When she does it on Mad Men, it usually means she has just made a stinging comment that's lingering in the smoke-filled air while she blinks innocently, her eyelids crushing some hapless officemate. But in real life, it's nice, for the most part.

CH: No, no, that's okay.

The waitress leaves.

CH: "Would you like a carbonara without the carbonara?"

ESQUIRE: She was concerned about a lot of things.

CH: And two kinds of pork in one soup? Bring it on. I just learned what guanciale is, when I was in New Orleans. It's the pig jowl. I went to this butcher there, and I came home with lots of sausages: a big andouille and a blood sausage.

ESQ: You know your pork.

CH: I can see it in Esquire — "I know my pork!" Oh, my gosh, you've had chocolate-covered bacon, right? It's so perfect.

ESQ: Do you like to cook?

CH: I love to cook. I just got a deep fryer, and it's amazing. The first night we got it, we made homemade poppers. I mean, what's the best deep-fried thing ever? Cheese poppers.

ESQ: Do you drink while you cook? Watching Mad Men always makes me want to drink.

CH: I love cocktails. My specialty drink is a gimlet with a little egg white in it so it gets frothy. I really like rose water — sometimes I'll add it to champagne. I was at a bar recently and the manager came up to me and said, "We have a drink named after you!" The Joan Holloway. There was Campari in it. People are throwing these Mad Men — themed parties because, I think, it's an excuse to get dressed up and drink and smoke.

ESQ: What do you smoke on the set?

CH: Herbal cigarettes. They're disgusting.

ESQ: Do you wear the undergarments of the day?

CH: Oh, yeah, they're all the authentic girdles, and we wear the longline bras, with boning.

ESQ: Boning?

CH: It's like what's in a corset — it has these long strips of plastic or metal that keep everything [pauses], you know. Oh, yeah — it's supercomfortable. And then the authentic stockings, with the garters, and then a slip and then our dress. From my girdle and my garters last night, I have two bruises on the top of my legs. From being in it for seventeen hours. Women did that.

ESQ: Why do you think you got the part of the bossy secretary?

CH: Matt Weiner, the creator, had thought of Joan as pinched and tightly wound, but she's more of a sort of sexual character. I just went in and did the character as I had read her, which was bossy, brassy, everyone-listen-to-me. And then when wardrobe got involved, doing the pilot, I put on this dress, and all of the sudden I had a different walk than I normally had, and Matt turned to me and said, "That's Joan." I have my hair brought up a couple inches, and I have heels. I look like an Amazon.

ESQ: But you seem to embrace the fact that you're not this little waify nothing.

CH: This is the way I'm built, and I feel beautiful. It's funny, because I don't feel like I look that different from anybody. Everyone's always like, "You're so much smaller in person!"

ESQ: Must be the boning.

CH: And the bras and all that.

ESQ: Even besides Joan, the show drips with sex.

CH: Because there's something in what you don't see. There's restraint. I've had people say to me, "My husband and I watch it and we always have sex afterwards." I think it's really hot that some of the things it's stirring up in people are very naughty things.

The waitress asks how everything is and Hendricks is honest. She says the noodles are overcooked. While blinking.

CH: I have this habit of, when they ask me if it was good, I tell them when it's not.

ESQ: I think they'd want to know.

CH: I don't mean to cause a ruckus. They're probably saying "God, that girl from Mad Men is so fussy."

ESQ: Are you a ruckus-causer?

CH: I have a problem keeping my mouth shut. I usually speak my mind. I'm trying to learn my lesson.

Music From the Motion Picture "Magnolia" - Songs By Aimee Mann (1999)



Aimee Mann - En vivo en Buenos Aires -
Jueves 13 de julio - Teatro Gran Rex


Más información aquí

Quentin Tarantino: Missing in action (The Guardian)

He made his name in the 90s with the breathtaking Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. But as Quentin Tarantino's chaotic Second World War epic opens, Sean O'Hagan finds the director's genius in danger of going Awol


Quentin Tarantino and banana

"I don't break the rules just to break the rules. I got to back it up. And I think I can": Tarantino photographed July 2009 at London's Soho Hotel. Photograph: Phil Fisk

Quentin Tarantino is perched on the edge of a sofa in a room in London's Soho Hotel. He is talking nineteen-to-the-dozen as if trying to keep up with the speed of his thoughts. My first question elicits a typically Tarantinoesque discourse on the uniqueness of Brad Pitt, the star of his new film, Inglourious Basterds.

"What's really cool about Brad right now," he says, "is that the pretty boy is gone. He's a man now. He can bear the weight. He's like... he's like..." he pauses for a few seconds, grimacing in concentration, "he's like Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson." While I am still wondering if this is entirely a good thing, Tarantino spells it out for me. "Brad," he says, without irony, "is at the zee-nith of his iconicness."

This may be why Brad feels he can ham it up to the max in Inglourious Basterds, a film that gleefully pastiches the Second World War action film to such a degree that it sacrifices any sense of verisimilitude. It is the loudest, brashest, and perhaps emptiest film Tarantino has ever made, which is saying something. It may be that it is a mirror of his soul, or, at least, his mind, which on today's evidence is fraying.

It is difficult to fully capture Tarantino's presence in print. He is taller than I remember him, and bulkier. He doesn't look like an eternally adolescent nerd any more, but a hyperactive middle-aged man who, with his western-style shirt and lounge-lizard shoes, could be an ageing rock singer.

He has turned up late from a long lunch and comes across like someone who has overdone it on the post-prandial espressos. When he gets really excited about something, which is often, he waves his arms about and his eyes take on a wild look. It's entertaining but oddly unsettling. (A few days later, there are reports in the tabloids that, the day after we met, Tarantino went on an all-day bender and was spotted talking loudly to himself in a Soho bar. He claimed that he was writing a script and trying out dialogue.)

Tarantino is in town for the premiere of Inglourious Basterds. The title of his long-awaited, much-hyped war epic is misspelt to differentiate it from Enzo Castellari's 1978 Italian war film of the same name, which Tarantino rates highly, while insisting he has not done anything as obvious as a remake. Inglourious Basterds has been 10 years in gestation and was originally planned as the follow-up to 1997's Jackie Brown, which is now generally regarded as the last truly great Tarantino movie.

"Back then, I had all the same characters but a different story," Tarantino says. "I followed the story and it just grew and grew. I guess I was a little precious about it because it was my first original script since Pulp Fiction. Then, it just got bigger and bigger in my head. It became about the words on the page rather than the film."

So, he didn't have writer's block so much as writer's overload? "Yeah! If anything, I was, like, too inspired, right?" He laughs a frantic chuckle. "I couldn't turn my brain off. I couldn't stop coming up with new avenues, new ideas. Suddenly it was like, what the fuck? Am I too big for movies now? Are movies too small for me? I mean, what's that about?"

If this sort of thing ever happens again, he says, he will simply make a mini-series. In the event, Inglourious Basterds was put on hold, while he wrote and made Kill Bill, a film that also grew too big and had to be released in two separate parts. Since then, he has made Death Proof (2007), a mediocre homage to the semi-pornographic Grindhouse sub-genre that the perpetual adolescent in him loves so much, but it bombed at the box office. I ask him if he takes any notice of negative reviews: "It depends; if they just don't get it or there's a rejection of the aesthetic in general, then it doesn't really mean much. I may not like it, but it doesn't pierce." Does he think the critics might have a point? "Sometimes, yeah. If they ring a bell that makes sense to me, I'll hear that bell and I'll think about it. It'll become food for thought."

Given Tarantino's recent uneven form, and his seemingly undimmed self-belief, it is perhaps unsurprising that Inglourious Basterds is such an epic mess of a movie. It sprawls to over two and a half hours and is propelled - though that is perhaps too strong a word - by two implausible plots. One concerns a young Jewish beauty, Shosanna, played by the relatively unknown but wonderful French actress Mélanie Laurent, who runs a small cinema in Paris while she waits for a chance to avenge the deaths of her family, who have been wiped out by the Nazis. The other features the Basterds of the title, a gang of Jewish-American soldiers led by Lieutenant Aldo Reine (Pitt) who are parachuted into occupied France to wage a bloody guerrilla war against the Nazis. This mainly consists of ambushing them and torturing them to death. Never one to miss a trick when it comes to scenes of gratuitous violence, Tarantino has made a war film that replaces the dreadful horror of actual warfare with the cheap thrills of the Grindhouse genre. In one scene, we witness a kneeling German soldier whose head is almost taken off by a baseball bat wielded by an American psycho. There are several scenes where German soldiers are scalped and two long scenes in which Reine carves a swastika into an SS officer's forehead. This plotline is the Dirty Dozen remade as torture porn flick with a nod, I kid you not, to those old-fashioned, stiff upper-lip British war films of the 60s. "I sat down to write a bunch-of-guys-on-a-mission movie," says Tarantino, "and that happens, but it's closer to, say, the film of EL Doctorow's Ragtime than it is to The Devil's Brigade."

Well, perhaps. Both films unfold slowly but one is nuanced and politically powerful while the other is bombastic and exists entirely within its own cinematic universe. The fast-paced dialogue that has always been Tarantino's supreme calling card as a screenwriter has been sacrificed here in convoluted set-pieces that undercut the intended tension. The movie does have its great moments - the long, perfectly pitched opening scene is a masterclass in suspense - and there's some great acting: Austrian star Christoph Waltz's SS officer, Colonel Landa, is one of contemporary cinema's great baddies.

Interestingly, Tarantino thinks it would be impossible to make The Dirty Dozen now. "We just don't have those kind of actors any more. Ernest Borgnine. Charles Bronson. Those guys were real men. They were a different breed. Many of them had been to war. Today's young actors are soft."

Til Schweiger as Sgt Hugo Stiglitz does his best Bronson act in Inglourious Basterds but by the time the caricature Brit enters the fray in the shape of Michael Fassbender's Lt Archie Hicox, a terminally posh film critic turned commando, it feels like several different films - not all of them Tarantino's - have somehow been edited together. The great genre magpie nods to the old-fashioned action flick, the revenge thriller, the spaghetti western, the spy spoof and the historical fantasy. It begins with the words "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France..." and ends with the destruction of Hitler and most of the Third Reich.

"One of the qualities that puts me in a different category to other screenwriters is that I don't want to lead the story," says Tarantino, pinpointing the very thing that initially made his scripts so iconoclastic but now makes them so indulgent. "I let the characters lead and I follow. But, when you're heading down some scenario highway, there are certain roadblocks you come up against when you follow your characters, and, in this instance, one of the big roadblocks was history itself. At first I was prepared to honour that roadblock, then I said, 'Why?' It's just not what I do.'"

Does he accept that the plot tends in places towards the implausible? "No. I've set it up as a kind of fairytale, but that's not where I'm coming from. Where I'm coming from is that my characters changed the course of history. Now, the characters didn't exist so that didn't happen. But, if they had existed, what happens in the movie is plausible."

The problem here, though, is not so much the sliver of plausibility that the plot rests on, but the whole tone of the movie. It never seems to have entered Tarantino's mind that the notion of a bunch of psychopathic American Jews who set out to maim, mutilate and kill German soldiers might, in itself, be offensive, not least to Jewish-American soldiers and the entire French Resistance.

"Well, if people are offended by it, I don't care," he snaps. "I'm going to do what I do." The implication being that this is a Quentin Tarantino film, it's going to have violence, be tasteless and offensive. What the hell do you expect? Like Kill Bill volumes 1 and 2, Inglourious Basterds may indeed deliver enough gore, ultra-stylised violence and clever pop culture references to satisfy his hardcore fan base, but for the rest of us, it is further evidence that the former enfant terrible of American cinema has waylaid his mojo.

The last time I interviewed Tarantino was in 1994, when he had just made Pulp Fiction. Back then, he, too, was at the zenith of his iconicness. The film geek who had worked behind the counter in the Manhattan Beach Video Archives store in suburban California was living his dream of becoming a great director. His first movie, the relentlessly violent heist caper Reservoir Dogs, released in 1992, had made him the hottest name in Hollywood. Pulp Fiction was just about to catapult him to global fame, rekindling the careers of John Travolta and Bruce Willis in the process and making Samuel L Jackson a household name.

With those two films, he reinvented cinema for the internet generation, littering his scripts with references to other films, reigniting genres like the heist movie and the gangster film, and writing dialogue that was knowing, funny and filled with pop-cultural trivia. His films were loud, fast and funny, propelled by scenes of visceral suspense - a syringe full of adrenalin plunged straight into the heart of a beautiful overdose victim in Pulp Fiction - and stomach-churning violence, such as the infamous ear-slicing scene in Reservoir Dogs.

"I've never played by the rules," he says, "but I also don't break the rules just to break the rules. I'm a conscientious writer. I don't do things for cheesy effect. I've got to be able to back it up. And, I think I can."

Back then, Tarantino made for great company. He was - and remains - a total film geek, name-dropping obscure titles and directors, effortlessly showing off his encyclopaedic knowledge of high and low film culture, while making it clear he did not accept the critically imposed boundaries that distinguished one from the other. (He has, he tells me at one point, outgrown Godard and discovered Joseph L Mankiewicz, who wrote the screen version of Guys and Dolls, produced The Philadelphia Story, and won two consecutive Oscars for both screenplay and direction, for A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve. "He could have held the script for All About Eve up against every play ever written for the American stage and said, 'Suck my dick!' It's that good.") He has also, surprisingly, given up acting. "I just lost the bug. Kill Bill was so hard to make, I just thought, if I'm going to get up early and be on set all day, it's going to be my movie. I just don't have the patience to be on somebody else's dumb movie."

I remember thinking, even as I marvelled at Pulp Fiction's incandescent emptiness, that Tarantino was a breath of fresh air, a slap in the face of cinematic convention. His third film, Jackie Brown, just about kept up the creative momentum that had propelled him on to the Hollywood A-list. Then came that six-year silence - an eternity in Hollywood terms. His absence - broken only by acting roles in the Adam Sandler film Little Nicky and a couple of guest appearances on the TV assassin show Alias - was attended by rumours in Hollywood that Tarantino had the fear, was suffering from a protracted bout of writer's block, and could not handle the tidal wave that was contemporary celebrity. Some of those rumours appear to have been true. Nothing Tarantino has done since, with the possible exception of Kill Bill Vol 1, has come close to the stylistic brilliance of those first three films. And, as Inglourious Basterds illustrates, what once was fast, furious and surprising has become slow, laborious and oddly formulaic.

When I ask Tarantino if his life had spiralled out of his control at that time, he pauses. "Well, there was a point just after I made Jackie Brown when it was difficult. It got to the point that when I walked down the street I couldn't look anybody in the eye. That still exists to some degree today, but back then it was as if everybody on the street was like a homeless person. It's like, if you look them in the eye, you're inviting them to come over. That's how it was back then. Every day. Everywhere." In Tokyo, he says, he couldn't go out of his hotel. In Beijing, film students mobbed him on the street. "In fucking China!" he says, shaking his head and emitting a kind of desperate chuckle. "I mean, my films don't even get released in China. It really started to feel like there was no escape."

At the height of his fame, unable to handle its voraciousness, he even called up Robert De Niro for advice. De Niro advised him to go out in disguise. "That might work for Bobby," Tarantino says ruefully, "but it doesn't work for me. I put on a hat and a pair of glasses and I look like Quentin Tarantino wearing a hat and a pair of glasses."

If you go on to YouTube and type in "Tarantino", you will get a glimpse of what he had to face from the paparazzi at that time. It is called celebrity stalking. It is not pleasant to watch. You wonder why there isn't a law against it. On YouTube there is also footage of Tarantino losing it a few times. In one jerky segment, he tackles a guy who trains a camera on him as he exits a coffee bar, and then just about holds it together as his tormentor tries to goad him into violence. Another clip shows him totally losing his cool on the red carpet at a film premiere and spitting at a reporter. His then-squeeze, the actor Mira Sorvino, looks bemused. Tarantino looks insane.

"I had to withdraw for a while," he says. "I needed a rest from films and my life was slightly out of control. I remember sitting down and thinking that I was about 30% too famous. I needed to be able to walk down the street."

Given that there are a gaggle of fans standing vigilantly outside this very hotel as we speak, and that his appearance at the following evening's premiere elicits the kind of hysteria usually caused by the male star of his new movie, it would seem that Tarantino's fame, despite his absence and his uneven track record of late, is still of the voracious kind. And, more worryingly, as his relentless promotional schedule suggests, he seems to have both a need for it and an aversion to it. The big question is, where does he go from here?

"For me," he says, suddenly quiet and focused, "it's all about the filmography. That's what you live and die by. The problem with most directors is that they don't get out when it's time to get out. I don't want to do those old man movies."

When I ask him, in conclusion, what he is working on right now, he laughs and says: "I never know what I'm going to do next, but I can tell you one thing, I don't intend to be away for a long time any more, especially when I'm thinking that I want to stop making movies when I reach 60. But I'm not ever going to make a film a year either, like Woody Allen does. And I'm not going to adapt anything ever again. I like the idea that it's all by me, that it starts with me and a blank piece of paper, and it ends with me and a movie. It didn't exist before me and it's all created by me, and it's all completely a product of my imagination."

Then, for the first time today, he seems uncertain. "I'm starting to feel slightly trepidatious about how I'm coming over here," he says, finally, "but I'm not talking about ego, I'm talking about integrity. What I do is not easy; it's hard to do. You start from scratch every single solitary time. Everything you've done before means nothing."

Only time will tell if Quentin Tarantino will surprise us with his undoubted brilliance once again, if he can ever mean as much as he once did. Or, more pertinently, if he can mature into the truly great director he once seemed certain to become. I, for one, hope so. For all his excesses, he remains a true maverick... and the most informed, obsessive and entertaining motormouth on the block.


Hope Sandoval & The Warm Inventions – Through The Devil Softly (2009)


Link

I listened first to Mazzy Star only a few years back, and at once was enveloped in the dreamy blanket that the band weaved with their music. Songs like Fade Into You and Rhymes of an Hour were made for a lazy day on the bed. Sandoval’s smooth and intimate voice fit well with the guitar thrums of David Roback to create the “aural equivalent of longing” as one reviewer put it.

After 1996, Hope began working with other bands and Mazzy Star was lost, much to the disappointment of fans. Sandoval formed The Warm Inventions in 2001 and came out with the debut album Bavarian Fruit Bread the same year. The Warm Inventions are Hope and Colm Ó Cíosóig (the drummer from My Bloody Valentine). Bavarian came and went without much news. The Warm Inventions since then also came out with two EPs both of which got little airplay. However, now the band is coming out with their second album, Through the Devil Softly on September 15; and it seems its time to play the music once again.

The band has released one song off the album – Blanchard, and it has the same drowsy plaintive soul that makes Hope special. Blanchard is a bluesy dreamy affair with Hope holding center-stage with her breathy caressing vocals tumbling through a cloud of lush guitar. As usual, the lyrics are almost impossible to decipher, yet the music does a good job of guiding the listener along a whirl of emotions. “I play death in the space of my life. That’s how I feel, and I never think it twice.” In concerts, Hope and the band usually envelop in a blanket of darkness punctuated by flickering lights here and there, ensconced in their own space. They expect the listener to do the same, cocooned in their music, a thoroughly private affair.

In other news, Hope has confirmed that she and Roback haven’t called it quits and they are still working on their fourth album. So Mazzy Star will be back, hopefully soon. One guy termed Mazzy as “country music as imagined by Tim Burton”. Nothing could be truer.
culturazzi

Drama Confronts a Dramatic Decade (The New York Times)


IT’S 1963 as the third season of “Mad Men” on AMC gets under way next Sunday night. And its creator, Matthew Weiner, hopes the show stays on the air long enough to string out his story through the entire turbulent decade.

“What I always wanted to do,” he said in a phone interview from his office in Los Angeles, “is to take this classic American archetype of the late 1950s, with all the trappings of that time, and see how he ends up in 1970 or ’72.”

This archetype is Don Draper (played by Jon Hamm), creative director at a midsize Madison Avenue ad firm, who has a nice house, a blond wife and two kids in the suburbs, and a life that’s unraveling.

In the first season, two years ago, we saw him having stormy affairs with exotic brunettes — a Greenwich Village artist, then the daughter of a department-store owner. And we learned that his whole life, not just his job, is built on deception. During the Korean War, a fellow soldier was blown up in an attack and our hero stole his identity, to escape his own dead-end life, and he’s kept it a secret ever since.

“We live in a culture where people can transform themselves,” Mr. Weiner said. “We have a phrase: ‘Find a job, then become the person who does it.’ Don is one of those people. It’s a hard thing to swallow, because you’re never really secure about yourself. For our hero that insecurity makes him especially good at understanding what people want and why they want it.” And that makes him a perfect ad man.

In the new season we see this ultimate self-made man of midcentury America — outwardly confident but hollow at the core — smacked, like the culture he embodies, by the earthquake of the ’60s. “I started off writing the show as a scathing analysis of what happened to the United States,” Mr. Weiner said. “But the more I got into Don, the more I realized this is an amazing place. Something really did change in those years” — the late ’50s and early ’60s. “What would it be like to go to that place?”

He continued: “I’m interested in how people respond to change. Are they excited by the change, or are they terrified that they’ll lose everything that they know? Do people recognize that change is going on? That’s what the show’s about.”

“Mad Men” has become one of those shows whose cultural weight exceeds the size of its audience. Despite an average audience of just 1.8 million viewers for each episode last season, it garnered more Emmy nominations this year (16) than any other series besides “30 Rock” (which had 22). It has spawned countless newspaper and magazine articles on cocktail culture. Banana Republic is even featuring window displays inspired by its fashions and is handing out a “Mad Men” style guide.

In the wake of “The Sopranos” and “The Wire,” “Mad Men” seems to fill a hunger for shows with grown-up themes, snappy (but not too snappy) dialogue, compelling multiple story lines, realistic settings, high production values (it’s shot on 35-millimeter film) and characters, whether they’re attractive or loathsome (or both), who have entirely credible motives.

Mr. Weiner is notoriously secretive about new plot developments, an attitude that he acquired as a writer for “The Sopranos,” whose creator, David Chase, firmly prohibited leaks.

But when asked if the season will touch on, say, the Kennedy assassination, he hesitated, then replied, “We’re going to handle everything.”

The first season ended on Thanksgiving Day 1960, with Don’s marriage in tatters and the soundtrack blaring Bob Dylan’s “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right,” a song that didn’t come out until 1963. “I didn’t know if the show would be picked up,” Mr. Weiner explained. “I was saying: ‘Here’s this song. This is what’s coming.’ ”

Season 2 ended in October 1962 with the peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis and the tentative restoration of Don’s marriage.

For many Americans the missile crisis, was “a near-death experience,” Mr. Weiner said. “There was a tremendous anxiety that did not go away. People were unsettled by something. You can see it in all the accounts of that year.”

Season 3 is about this anxiety. Without going into details he laid out some of the themes that serve as backdrops: sexual openness, urban renewal, fear of technology (especially atomic technology), environmental decay and overheated consumerism.

Mr. Weiner listed some of the best-selling books of that time — Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe at Any Speed,” Betty Friedan’s “Feminine Mystique,” John Kenneth Galbraith’s “Affluent Society” — and said, “The themes of these books come into the show and affect the characters’ lives.”

Matthew Weiner is 44, meaning the first three seasons of “Mad Men” take place in a time before he was born. But, he said, he’s long been “obsessed” with that period. During his teenage years, in Los Angeles in the 1970s and early ’80s, pop culture was drenched in ’50s nostalgia — bowling shirts, rockabilly, “American Graffiti,” “Happy Days.” It also formed the real-life culture of his parents, who were married in 1959 and who filled their home with the era’s artifacts.

So young Matt devoured “The Catcher in the Rye” and “Catch-22,” sat glued to reruns of “The Twilight Zone” and read histories about the Beats and the Hollywood blacklist. “I saw the late ’50s and early ’60s as this golden age,” he recalled. “The pop culture was so sophisticated.”

Before receiving an M.F.A. at the University of Southern California’s school of cinema and television, he studied philosophy, literature and history at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. And he would later weave much of what he read there into “Mad Men.”

John Cheever’s short stories about midcentury suburbia were a major inspiration, but not Richard Yates’s 1961 novel, “Revolutionary Road,” to which the series is often compared.

Mr. Weiner had never heard of Yates when he wrote the “Mad Men” pilot in 2000. “ ‘Revolutionary Road’ was given to me three years after I wrote the pilot,” he said. He says if he had read the book before, he wouldn’t have had the nerve to write the show: “Yates was there. This is what he was writing about.”

Beyond its literary references and themes “Mad Men” has been most lavishly praised for its meticulous period detail.

“I read a lot from the period — memoirs, novels, histories,” Mr. Weiner said. To get the look of the time he collected personal photos and home movies, and watched the era’s few films that were shot in the streets of New York, especially “Sweet Smell of Success” (1957) and “Shadows” (1959).

Bob Shaw, the production designer for the “Mad Men” pilot, noted that magazine ads from an era are misleading sources of how people actually lived at the time. “The first premise I had,” he recalled, “was that no period exists purely as itself. People don’t discard all their clothing. Very few people update their homes.”

As a result Henry Dunn, the pilot’s art director, said, “Our choice of sets, furniture and clothes was based on research as much from the early ’50s as from the late ’50s.”

So the pilot’s first scene took place not in a “cool ’50s bar,” as one producer suggested, but in a bar with an Old New York style. The Drapers live not amid high-modern décor but in a colonial home. “Don Draper is someone aspiring to an established lifestyle,” Mr. Shaw said. “He’s not breaking new ground.”

If the series lasts as long as Mr. Weiner hopes, will Don finally break that “new ground,” or will he settle grumpily into the ’70s backlash of Nixon’s “silent majority”? Will Sal come out of the closet after Stonewall? How will Peggy reconcile her career with motherhood?

Mr. Weiner said he doesn’t know right now how his stories end. Or at least he isn’t saying.

Fred Kaplan is a Slate columnist and the author of “1959: The Year Everything Changed.”

8.8.09

The mystery of Lucrecia Martel's 'The Headless Woman' (Los Angeles Times)


The third feature from the Argentine writer-director is unclear about what happens in its first scene -- and that's the point.

By Mark Olsen

August 9, 2009

It's an all-too-familiar situation: You're driving along, slightly distracted, and then a bump in the road brings that sickening feeling.

So begins "The Headless Woman," the third feature from Argentine writer-director Lucrecia Martel, opening in New York City on Wednesday and in Los Angeles on Sept. 4. A woman (played with masterful opacity by Maria Onetto) just keeps driving, and as the film unfolds it becomes increasingly unclear as to whether she hit something (a dog? A young boy?). Nevertheless, Onetto's character becomes increasingly disconnected from her upper-middle-class life, having seemingly left behind something of herself on that dusty stretch of empty road.

Martel directly challenges the audience by never giving a specific answer to the essential question of the film -- what exactly happened out there?

"I sympathize with the audience's need to clarify, the desire for more clarity from the story," the Buenos Aires-based filmmaker explained during a recent visit to Los Angeles for a retrospective of her films at UCLA, "but if I follow that path, to make it clear for them, I go off track from my own process. There are some things about the film that clarity isn't the most important part of."

Over the course of her three features, Martel's storytelling has grown increasingly diffuse and impressionistic, while her filmmaking has become more formally controlled. Her daring use of focus, often leaving portions of the frame a hazy blur to really guide the perceptions of viewers, is in itself daring enough, but in conjunction with her delicately detailed sound mix, she plunges the audience right into the jumbled world buzzing just beneath the luxurious blond hair on her main character's head.

"I wish I would have found this way of shooting earlier on," she said of the film's style. "I really like it. It's a strong sensation, as if you're spying on the characters in a fish tank. In respect to the focus and the sound, that's something I think of very early on, even when I'm writing, thinking of the layers. You can play with what people are drawn to."

All three of Martel's films have been set in Salta, the town she grew up in a few hours outside of Buenos Aires. The story of "Headless Woman" has its basis in an actual car crash that the 42-year-old Martel experienced as a little girl. She recalled feeling strange for some time afterward, unable to recall just what had happened to her. She connected that feeling to the way in which she perceived people to be isolated from one another by the increasing size and luxury of SUVs.

"As an audience member, personally, my first prerogative is not to understand," said Martel of the film's enigmatic center. "I didn't try to understand 'Mulholland Dr.,' for instance. Every film is a process, the ending isn't necessarily the conclusion of the story. It just happens to be the last frame the audience member sees. It takes a while to process and digest.

"Usually someone thinks of cinema with a more linear, narrative storyline. But for me the point isn't to understand that one storyline, which is only one element among many, and the process is much more of an elemental, emotional thing than an intellectual one. It has more to do with perception than understanding. So the movie is organized from a very subjective point of view."

In her early 20s, Martel studied animation before making live-action short films. Her first feature, "La Ciénaga," won prizes at Sundance and Berlin in 2001, and her second feature, "The Holy Girl," screened as part of the main competition at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. Martel had seemingly segued smoothly into the world festival circuit, appearing on juries at prestigious film festivals, and having her second and third films produced in part by celebrated Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodovar, who struck up a friendship after seeing "La Ciénaga."

With her ever-present dark glasses -- she says her eyes are extra-sensitive to light -- and tousled mane of chestnut hair and fierce intellectual acuity, Martel has carefully cultivated a persona just as much as such perennial festival darlings as Almodovar, Wong Kar-Wai and Lars von Trier. Which made the drubbing that "The Headless Woman" received after its premiere in competition at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival, where its subjective point of view and unhurried pacing was widely reported to have been met by derisive boos, all the more surprising.

Where filmmakers on the world stage often proclaim they make films only for themselves, Martel is careful to add that, for all the seeming rigor of her work, she is always keeping in mind the experience of those who actually have to sit and watch her films.

"For me the only thing that matters is the audience," said Martel. "It sounds contradictory, because my films are not popular, but I'm not trying not to be, that is just what happens. The audience is primal for me in every single stage from writing to mixing the sound. I'm thinking of their visceral experience, they are always there."

"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", de Terry Gilliam (Trailer)



Venice Days: más películas


Acá el anuncio oficial de la participación de la película de Adrián Caetano en el Festival de Venecia

Thanks to a fruitful collaboration with the Venice Biennale, which kindly gave us (and the International Critics´ Week) the use of the new Sala Perla 2, and the exceptionally interesting submissions we received, we complete the program of the sixth Venice Days with a host of new films and events.

There are three new titles in Official Selection:

* Swedish director Jesper Ganslandt (in Venice Days 2006 with Falkenberg Farewell) returns with the world premiere of APAN, the disturbing thriller about a father who kills his wife and attacks his son

* In his new film FRANCIA (world premiere), Argentinean master filmmaker Israel Adrián Caetano (Red Bear and Buenos Aires, 1977) follows a family tragedy

* Colombia´s Jorge Navas makes an impressive feature debut on an infernal Bogota by night in LA SANGRE Y LA LLUVIA,

(There are thus five first films in Venice Days, all of which will vie for the Lion of the Future - Luigi De Laurentiis Award).

* At the Filmmakers Villa, the Screen under the Stars program will every day feature new films, discussions and contemplations of contemporary cinema. Among them, the wonderful portrait of a great Italian poetess, Cosimo Damiano Damato´s ALDA MERINI (narrated by Mariangela Melato); the "ballade" IL CAVALIERE SOLE by Pasquale Scimeca; and the special program AN EVENING IN TEHRAN, shorts by Iranian film students.

Cannes 2010 to screen Kiarostami's 'Certified Copy' (Press TV - Iran)


Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami's latest production Certified Copy will be screened at the 2010 Cannes film festival, reports say.

According to Mehr News Agency, Kiarostami has finished shooting his first film outside Iran and is planning to present it at next year's Cannes.

Produced by France's MK2, Certified Copy started shooting after a 14-month delay on June 8, 2009, in the Chianti countryside in Tuscany, Italy.

The love story stars the Academy Award winning French actress Juliette Binoche and will be in French and in English in parts.

Filmmaker, painter, designer and photographer, Kiarostami has received many prestigious international awards, including the 1997 Cannes Golden Palm award and the 2008 Glory to the Filmmaker award of the Venice Film Festival.

He has also held a photo exhibition at Beijing's Imperial City Art Museum.

Kiarostami has staged Mozart's comic opera buffa, Cosi Fan Tutte at London's Coliseum Theater and the 2008 Festival of Lyric Art in Aix-en-provence in France.

Wave Machines – Wave If You’re Really There (2009)


Link

“Influenced by drinks, drugs and gravity, the foursome behind Brit band Wave Machines pump out eclectropop hits packed with psychedelic undertones and catchy beats that make you feel like you’re floating on air.

But their debut album, Wave If You’re Really There, isn’t only full of frolicsome tunes. Songs like “Punk Spirit” and “You Say The Stupidest Things” slow it down, showing off their rock ‘n’ roll attitude that keeps to the background of the more dance-inspiring tracks like “I Go I GO I Go” and “Keep The Lights On.”


Set to hit stores 15 June 2009, the album is a perfect match for the summer weather and arrives in just enough time to get you hooked before the season’s festival frenzy. Be sure to catch them at this year’s Glastonbury or Bestival festivals or check their website for the entire list of upcoming shows.”


coolhunting


7.8.09

Murió Willy DeVille (AFP)


PARIS — US singer songwriter Willy DeVille, who headed the 1970s New York punk group Mink DeVille before going solo and taking new directions, has died at the age of 55*, his French tour organiser said Friday.

"Willy DeVille this night joined Edith Piaf, Jack Nitzsche and Johnny Thunders", said Caramba Spectacles, referring respectively to the French star who inspired him, to his producer, and to a fellow-70s punk guitarist.

His wife had announced in June that DeVille had pancreatic cancer.

DeVille in the late 70s played in New York's mythical CBGB club alongside the likes of Blondie or the Ramones with his first album Cabretta produced by Nitzsche, former arranger for Phil Spector.

His subsequent albums began to ooze romantic, with "Le Chat Bleu" recorded in part in Paris and inspired by his love of Piaf's music and of the French capital.

The next decade saw DeVille play soul, sometimes with a Latin touch, producing the European hit "Italian Shoes."

He moved to New Orleans in the 90s, where he also reappropriated the sounds of rhythm'n'blues, cajun and creole, and in 1992 produced a mariachi version of Jimi Hendrix reprise "Hey Joe", which became an international hit.

His last albums "Crow Jane Alley" and "Pistola", soul and blues with a Latin rhythm, symbolised his role in helping to define a new musical style sometimes known as Spanish-American.
SOURCE AFP

"Pretty In Pink" - Original Soundtrack (1986)


New Link

Pequeño homenaje a John Hughes con uno de los soundtracks --¿el soundtrack?-- de mi adolescencia. Ya sé que la película no la dirigió, pero la escribió, la produjo y es, en todo sentido, una película suya.

The Pretty in Pink soundtrack album was released in 1986 for the John Hughes movie Pretty in Pink, a film about teenage love and social cliques in a 1980s American high school.

The title song by the Psychedelic Furs was the actual inspiration for the movie and was re-recorded for this soundtrack. It had been released in 1981 for the album Talk Talk Talk. "Left of Center" was also re-recorded. The first track, "If You Leave", was written in 1985 in advance specifically for the movie. In addition to their song "Shell Shock", New Order also had "Thieves Like Us Instrumental" and "Elegia" appear in the movie but not on the soundtrack. The Rave-Ups, who do appear in the movie, do not have any songs on the soundtrack. Nik Kershaw's "Wouldn't It Be Good" was re-recorded by former Three Dog Night vocalist Danny Hutton's band, Danny Hutton Hitters.

The movie also includes an Otis Redding song, "Try a Little Tenderness", that Duckie lipsyncs to, which is not on the official soundtrack.

  1. "If You Leave" - Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, 4:25
  2. "Left of Center" - Suzanne Vega / Joe Jackson, 3:33
  3. "Get to Know Ya" - Jesse Johnson, 3:34
  4. "Do Wot You Do" - INXS, 3:16
  5. "Pretty in Pink" - The Psychedelic Furs, 4:40
  6. "Shellshock" - New Order, 6:04
  7. "Round, Round" - Belouis Some, 4:07
  8. "Wouldn't It Be Good" - Danny Hutton Hitters, 3:44
  9. "Bring On the Dancing Horses" - Echo & the Bunnymen, 3:59
  10. "Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want" - The Smiths, 1:51

"Where the Wild Things Are", de Spike Jonze (nuevo trailer)

Don and Betty’s Paradise Lost (Vanity Fair)


Probablemente esta larguísima nota (aquí les copio apenas una de las siete páginas que tiene) sólo me interese a mí: no conozco nadie más, al menos por aquí, que vea "Mad Men".

Entering its third season on a fresh wave of Emmy nominations, AMC’s Mad Men is the most stylish—and perhaps best—show on television. Inside its meticulous reconstruction of the precipice that was New York advertising circa 1960, where the men and women of Sterling Cooper smoke, drink, love, and lie, the author learns about the struggle of Mad Men creator (and former Sopranos writer) Matthew Weiner, the casting of Jon Hamm and January Jones as Don and Betty Draper, and the obsession that fuels each episode. Photographs by Annie Leibovitz.

By Bruce Handy

T
he thumbnail history of Hollywood goes something like this: Once upon a time, the studios reigned supreme. They bulldozed geniuses and turned out dreck, but in applying Henry Ford discipline and efficiencies to filmmaking they also gave us The Lady Eve, Casablanca, and Singin’ in the Rain. By the 1960s, however, the factory system began to give way, power shifted to directors and stars, and a new generation of independent-minded auteurs crafted sometimes indulgent but often original and even brilliant films such as Bonnie and Clyde, Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver, and Apocalypse Now. Then, another turn: studios got the upper hand back, or learned to share it grudgingly with a handful of superstars and A-list directors. But without the old assembly-line rigor the result has too often been big, bloated dreck, like the films of Michael Bay, or the gaseous Oscar bait that bubbles up every fall—the worst of all movie worlds.

But, ah, television. Its great accomplishment over the past decade has been to give us the best of all movie worlds, to meld personal filmmaking, or series-making, with something like the craft and discipline, the crank-’em-out urgency, of the old studio system. I’m thinking first and foremost of The Sopranos, which debuted in 1999 and sadly departed in 2007. This strange and entertaining series, as individual a work as anything by Hitchcock or Scorsese, was the creation of David Chase, and it paved the way for The Wire, Deadwood, Rescue Me, Damages, and its successor as the best drama on television, the equally strange and entertaining Mad Men, which will launch its third season on AMC August 16.

Set in an advertising agency in the early 1960s, Mad Men debuted two summers ago and right off the bat earned itself two Golden Globes and a Peabody Award, and was nominated for 16 Emmys, becoming the first basic-cable series to win for outstanding drama. Its second season, no sophomore slump, has been nominated for another 16 Emmys, including best drama and four out of five possible writing nominations. A more interesting measure of the show’s impact is the fact that its title has become a kind of shorthand: you can now talk about a Mad Men skirt or lampshade or pickup line where once you might have used “space age” or “Kennedy era” or “Neanderthal.” But while the show, like its subject, has many surface pleasures—period design, period bad behavior (if you like high modernism, narrow lapels, bullet bras, smoking, heavy drinking at lunch, good hotel sex, and bad office sex, this is the series for you)—at its core Mad Men is a moving and sometimes profound meditation on the deceptive allure of surface, and on the deeper mysteries of identity. The dialogue is almost invariably witty, but the silences, of which there are many, speak loudest: Mad Men is a series in which an episode’s most memorable scene can be a single shot of a woman at the end of her day, rubbing the sore shoulder where a bra strap has been digging in. There’s really nothing else like it on television.

The central character is Don Draper, the cool and commanding creative director of the fictional Sterling Cooper agency. He’s a man in flight from his own past, a Gatsby-esque figure without the romance of a Daisy; or rather, he seems to be looking for a Daisy everywhere but his home in the suburbs, where his beautiful, bored, emotionally stunted wife, Betty, is stranded in what feels at times like an improbably compelling adaptation of The Feminine Mystique. Played in an instantly iconic performance by Jon Hamm, Don is a man whose emotions are in lockdown—a man as sleek and handsome and seemingly invulnerable as a hood ornament. But in the show’s central irony he is able to plumb human needs and desires with an artist’s intuition: if Mad Men ever approaches shtick, it’s when Don gets a faraway look in his eyes and somehow pulls a psychologically barbed selling point out of his own inner ether (a trope wonderfully parodied on Saturday Night Live last fall, when Hamm was hosting). In short, Don Draper is an advertising Mozart, or at least he’s the best Sterling Cooper has to offer, for another of the show’s ironies is that Don and his colleagues are dinosaurs not just in terms of the impending social revolutions of the 1960s but also in terms of the creative revolution that would roil advertising that decade. As in Hitchcock, the characters are unaware of shocks that the audience knows all too well lie ahead, whether they be the Kennedy assassination and women’s lib or long sideburns and the lasting influence of Doyle Dane Bernbach’s witty, self-deprecating “Lemon” ad for Volkswagen, which Don dismisses with the words “I don’t know what I hate about it the most.”

All in all, that’s a lot to pack into a mere 47 minutes of TV, one night a week—astonishing, really, considering that each episode of Mad Men, with its scrupulous period detail, is shot in just seven days on a budget that, at an average $2.8 million an episode this season, even a lot of indie-film producers would scoff at. But who knows? Going back to my original point, if Heaven’s Gate had been a 13-episode series with a hard-and-fast airdate, the last 30 years of Hollywood history might have been different, and Michael Cimino something other than the butt of a cautionary tale.

“I’m of the persuasion that budget contraints are very, very good for creativity. I think people having unlimited amounts of money makes you really lazy. And I will be quoted on that, believe it or not.” The speaker turning his back on decades of Hollywood wisdom was Matthew Weiner, 44, the auteur behind Mad Men, who also has a Sopranos pedigree, having written for that series during its final three seasons. As Mad Men’s creator and show-runner—the industry term for whoever has ultimate creative responsibility for a series, typically a writer- producer—he has imbued his own series with a similarly novelistic richness, scope, and meticulous sense of craft. He talks about “training the audience” to learn how to read the show, and says things like “It’s been a process for the audience to trust the show on some level, to think that we’re thinking about it as much as they hope we are.”

They are, all right. They’re thinking about it as much as even the most Mad Men–obsessed shut-in blogger could hope. You can glean this from watching the show, with its precise, even exacting style of acting and shooting—on Mad Men, the perfect prop can be the equivalent of a well-placed comma—but I had no real idea until I had a chance to visit the Mad Men offices and soundstages, which, aptly, are in a studio on the edge of downtown Los Angeles which was converted from a steel-and-glass Mad Men–era office building. A scene-setting anecdote everyone in the Mad Men orbit tells is how Weiner came onto the set one day and focused on some pieces of fruit he said were too large and shiny and perfectly formed; produce in the early 60s—period produce—wasn’t pumped up. Get smaller, dumpier fruit, he ordered. (Depending on who was telling me the story, from cast members to network executives, the offending produce morphed from apples to oranges to bananas, but Amy Wells, the set decorator, said definitively: it was apples.) In a similar vein, the show’s prop masters have been plagued by the steroidal dimensions of contemporary American pastry whenever a Sterling Cooper secretary needs to pick up a Danish from the coffee cart.


Continue Reading


"Beeswax", de Andrew Bujalski (The New York Times)



The title of “Beeswax,” Andrew Bujalski’s third feature, evokes the sticky medium of social insects and also the idioms of childhood speech. “It’s none of your beeswax,” say the queen bees on the playground, and just what is or isn’t someone else’s business is one of the questions Mr. Bujalski and his characters explore.

Another is the boundary between the grown-up world of real business — that hive of money, work and legal obligation — and the ostensibly less frenzied, more loosely organized realm of family and friends.

The focal point of the film’s inquiry, though it does not necessarily seem so at first, is the relationship between Jeannie and Lauren, twin sisters who live together in a scruffy postcollegiate section of Austin, Tex.

Jeannie runs a vintage-clothing store, and a simmering, unspecified dispute between her and her business partner, Amanda (Anne Dodge), pushes “Beeswax” along its desultory narrative path.

Lauren, first seen casually dumping a boyfriend before the poor fellow is even dressed, bounces from one thing to another, a cheerfully noncommittal, low-key free spirit. She dithers over taking a job teaching English in Africa, double-schedules and forgets appointments and carelessly neglects to pass a potentially important message onto her sister.

Jeannie, who uses a wheelchair, shares with Lauren a certain guardedness, but while Lauren’s preferred defense is blithe laughter, Jeannie’s is a scowl and a sidelong glance. Her trouble with Amanda leads her to call on Merrill (Alex Karpovsky), an ex-lover who is studying for the bar exam. They start sleeping together again, but Jeannie is emphatic that he’s not her boyfriend.

The two sisters, played by actual twins named Tilly and Maggie Hatcher —Tilly is Jeannie and Maggie is Lauren — present a fascinating study in physical resemblance and temperamental contrast. They have similarly strong, asymmetrical faces, with deep dimples and wide cheekbones, and amazing arms. Mr. Bujalski, shooting in unassuming, hand-held 16-millimeter, is no ogler, but he can’t keep his eyes off those shoulders and biceps.

Jeannie, whose disability is neither mentioned nor pointedly ignored, is the more disciplined twin, and also warier and chillier around other people. “I’d say she’s a good friend, not a great friend,” she says to a lawyer, referring to Amanda, and this kind of fine distinction, as well as a tendency to couch negative judgments in neutral or positive language, is a hallmark of her way of expressing herself.

And not only hers. Mr. Bujalski, casting his films with mostly nonprofessional actors playing versions of themselves and setting them in the 20-something bohemias of Boston (“Funny Ha Ha”), Brooklyn (“Mutual Appreciation”) and now Austin, has developed a highly refined ear for the idioms of his generation. His meticulous script for “Beeswax.” which magically transmutes into casual, spontaneous dialogue in the mouths of the performers, registers the different ways that “yeah” can mean no, and “I don’t know” can signify something like “I can’t believe how wrong you are.”

“Beeswax,” at first glance a modest, ragged slice of contemporary life, turns out to be a remarkably subtle, even elegant movie. Its leisurely scenes and hesitant, circling conversations conceal both an ingenious comic structure and a rich emotional subtext. Mr. Bujalski, who has been compared at times to John Cassavetes, at times to Eric Rohmer, has, with an anthropologist’s sympathetic detachment and a novelist’s eye, discovered some of the hidden codes and rituals that govern modern behavior.

Jeannie and Lauren, and Amanda and Merrill as well, come across as low-affect, easygoing people. But watching them negotiate the complexities of work, siblinghood and romance, you realize that they — and maybe the rest of us too — exist within a strict regimen of social expectations. Everything’s cool, but that turns out to mean that it’s not O.K. to express strong feelings, or to disagree too intensely, or to risk shame, embarrassment or unpleasantness. We are all free to do what we want but not necessarily to know what we want.

And these rules impose a reticence that is both frustrating and intriguing to watch. The obvious knock on Mr. Bujalski is that his concerns are too small, his palette too narrow. But though there is an attractive dishevelment to his visual and linguistic style, he is at heart both a perfectionist and a serious anatomist of manners and morals — and an artist who knows his business.

BEESWAX

Opens on Friday in Manhattan.

Written, directed and edited by Andrew Bujalski; director of photography, Matthias Grunsky; produced by Dia Sokol and Ethan Vogt; released by Cinema Guild. At the Film Forum, 209 West Houston Street, West Village. Running time: 1 hour 40 minutes. This film is not rated.

WITH: Tilly Hatcher (Jeannie), Maggie Hatcher (Lauren), Anne Dodge (Amanda) and Alex Karpovsky (Merrill).

Don't you forget about John Hughes (Salon)


His name remained synonymous with movies that captured the awkwardness of teenage life, long after he had moved on

By Stephanie Zacharek

Even if you weren't a teenager in the 1980s, you can still watch Molly Ringwald in the first picture John Hughes directed, the 1984 "Sixteen Candles," and get a sense of what it's like to be the forgotten girl. Ringwald's character, Samantha, has just reached her 16th birthday, one of those old-fashioned milestones that's supposed to mean something for a young woman. And yet no one in her family has remembered -- they're too caught up in the preparations for her older sister's wedding. Ringwald had previously appeared on television (in "Diff'rent Strokes" and "The Facts of Life"), but "Sixteen Candles" was her first big movie role, and her coltish vulnerability was deeply touching. Hughes had found the right actress for the right movie at the right time, and the combination was gold.

Awkwardness, yearning and frustration with parents and authority figures have always been part of teenagerdom, and they've been a part of teenage movies since "Rebel Without a Cause." And yet Hughes -- who died on Tuesday, of a heart attack, at age 59 -- had a knack for placing these perennial problems squarely in their particular age, and for making it seem, even just temporarily, as if they actually meant something. "Sixteen Candles," with its breezy, casual pop-culture references, spoke plainly to its target audience, and reached quite a few people outside of it. It was genuinely tasteless (it featured a character named Long Duk Dong, after all), but it was also genuinely sweet.

"Sixteen Candles" set the tone for a short but influential string of movies, for and about teenagers, that Hughes would go on to write and direct in the next few years, including "The Breakfast Club" (an orgy of special pleading about misunderstood kids and mean old adults) and the spectacularly sophomoric -- and sometimes hilarious -- "Weird Science" (both 1985), as well as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986). These movies featured a brood of young actors, among them Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall and Judd Nelson, who would come to be called the Brat Pack.

By the time of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," Hughes' movies had attained a high level of efficient facility. For everything that was refreshing and new about them, they also followed fairly pat formulas: The kids were always right, and the parents were always wrong and needed to learn a lesson. Sometimes the pictures had vaguely cruel or unpleasant undertones. And even by the time of "The Breakfast Club," a nascent savvy for marketing had become part of the Hughes' touch. After "Sixteen Candles," I remember going to see his movies -- which by then included movies he wrote and handed out to be directed by others, like "Pretty in Pink" -- and feeling as if I were part of a group being sold to.

But that didn't make Hughes' movies any less entertaining, or any less significant as zeitgeisty flashes. The misfits and cool kids of "The Breakfast Club" -- among them Ally Sheedy's quiet loner, with her shaggy black hair and droopy black clothes, and Anthony Michael Hall's irrepressible nerd -- were types that were easy to recognize, even if you'd been out of high school for a while. The movies Hughes wrote and directed in that brief period, from 1984 to 1986, were so popular, and so overexposed, that it became all too easy to use the phrase "like something out of a John Hughes movie" to refer to any aspect of teenage feeling or experience that felt canned, lifeless or inauthentic.

And yet those movies were really just the beginning of what would be a long and extremely profitable career. After Hughes' early directing success with those teen movies, he went on to write and direct a few vehicles for John Candy (including the 1987 "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"), and "She's Having a Baby" (1988), which, instead of teenagers, focused on young newlyweds (played by Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth McGovern). The last movie Hughes would direct was the 1991 "Curly Sue," which flopped at the box office and was widely considered a dud. But that failure was really just the beginning of another kind of success: Hughes had already written and produced the 1990 megahit "Home Alone," and from there he went on to rack up a number of writing and producing credits. Most recently, he cowrote "Maid in Manhattan" and "Drillbit Taylor," both credited to the pseudonym he frequently used, Edmond Dantes (a nod to "The Count of Monte Cristo").

Hughes, a native of Chicago, was always something of an outsider in Hollywood and seems to have felt more at home in the Midwest: He had lived, in recent years, in both Wisconsin and Illinois, mostly out of the public eye, and had given interviews or been photographed only infrequently. While it's always sad when a public figure dies so young, there's something to be said for a man who, in an era when plenty of us are busy oversharing details of our lives via Twitter and Facebook, can maintain some semblance of mystery about his life. After a period of overexposure -- albeit one that brought him great success -- it appears that Hughes decided, simply, to live the life he wanted to live.


6.8.09

Director John Hughes dies at 59 (Variety)

John Hughes, prolific director of culturally significant films such as "The Breakfast Club," "Ferris Bueller’s Day Off," "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and "Home Alone," died suddenly today of a heart attack while taking a morning walk during a trip to Manhattan. He was 59.

John Wilden Hughes, Jr., born on February 18th, 1950 in Michigan, began as an advertising copywriter in Chicago.

In the last decade, he stepped back from the legacy he created to enjoy time with his family, maintain a functioning farm in northern Illinois and support independent arts. He is survived by his wife of 39 years, Nancy, two sons, John and James, and four grandchildren.

Vivian Girls - Everything Goes Wrong (2009)


Link

At least superficially, this album is a great step forward for the Vivian Girls. It took them six days to record it as opposed to the three days it took for Vivian Girls, and the songs are longer, too -- some almost twice as long as those on their debut. The tracks are darker and moodier, but as this is a notoriously divisive band, don't expect a complete reinvention that will bring the naysayers around. The punk rock influences are still there, as well as the one-take recording philosophy that brought about the accusations of posing and incompetence in the first place. PREFIX