Keeping Up

Wow, where did the time go?! Two days from 2011 and I find the site to be a an empty hall filled with the ghostly echoes of months old posts. It certainly was not for want of trying, but maintaining a blog--particularly a blog about films--is daunting work. That word is emphasized on purpose. I have countless articles bookmarked and/or saved on my RSS reader that were meant to be subject matter for posts here, but the furious pace by which film news can gestate only meant that the ever growing swell of bookmarks would ultimately become too many to manage or even warrant attempt at diminishing. It is here that I must capitulate to the wave that crashed on me, holding me down and immobile in its undercurrent as I struggled for breath. I can now only hope to wash up on some distant shore, battered and bruised, but alive. And like Robinson Crusoe, the goal is to make the best of the situation.

What that means for this blog is perhaps a rethinking of its purpose. Originally envisioned as a place to offer commentary on film news and trailers as well as the occasional review, perhaps this mission needs to be boiled down to its bare essence. I can not keep up with news or take the time to track down trailers for obscure films from distant parts of the world. That endeavor takes an effort I do not think I will have time for in 2011. As such, I think the site will become a place to feature the films that catch my attention; films or filmmakers that are worthy of a well-written and thought-out post. In other words, I think it is best that the site provide features rather than news bites.

So, as we head in to the new year, please expect to see fewer updates on the site. However, what posts are made will hopefully offer much more meaningful and deeper insight into films and/or their filmmakers.

Now with this new mission in mind, I wish to bid whatever reader who happens upon this isle a Happy New Year. I wish you all the best for 2011 and hope you will drop by for a visit.

-- Chief Insomniac

A trailer reboot?

Here is an interesting experiment by a rather industrious individuals in response to the increasing amount of remakes/reboots Hollywood is producing: recut the trailer of the original Clash of the Titans and The Wolf Man using today's marketing aesthetics. As you can see below, it's quite effective and it posits the interesting question: if younger audiences were marketed older films with contemporary sensibilities, would it build an interest in viewing older films? I would certainly be for such an endeavor as an appreciation for older material only builds a more sophisticated and savvy audience.





Then again, that's not what the whole remake/reboot trend is all about, right? If people watched older films and demanded newer ones, studios would actually have to develop original ideas. I think it would be safe to say that that well is certainly almost dry—in terms of the majors anyway.

Battleships, Monkeys, & CG--oh my.

The first post of 2010 brings some potentially exciting news.

For anyone who grew up on animations of the late 70s and 80s, one should have memories of a series called Star Blazers, the Americanized version of a Japanese anime series "Uchuu Senkan Yamato (Space Battleship Yamato)." It was one of my first exposures to Japanese anime and I still have clear memories of the impact it had on me because of the grown-up nature of the story. It was far far different from "Tom & Jerry" or "Looney Toons." The series has a strong following to this day, especially among men in the late 30s and early 40s—an important demographic for the film industry.

When word broke that a film adaptation of the anime was in the works, I naturally had my misgivings. The story of the series is long and complex, yet its timely message of Earth at a environmental crisis with a group of people heading out to space in a last ditch effort to save it would make a natural draw to contemporary theater-goers. However, there are reasons why anime adaptations have always been difficult; how do you boil down a 24 episode or more storyline down to 2 to 2.5 hours? It is no easy task. What will the filmmakers keep? What will they cut out? What will they add? Peter Jackson proved that an adaptation can incorporate edited, added, and reorganized elements and still hold true to the original source, but he, Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens spent countless hours writing and rewriting the script, and refining it during the production. This is a practice not found in Japan where the first draft is what usually goes in to production. If they were planning a trilogy of films, I could feel some sense of comfort, but as of this writing, Space Battleship Yamato is a standalone with sequel possibilities depending on box office. I believe this will ultimately affect the quality of the story.
However, some doubts were alleviated with the choice of director: YAMAZAKI Takashi, the man behind SF cult hits Juvenile & Returner as well as the Always: Sunset on Third Street period family drama series. Yamazaki is an expert at subtle uses of CG as a tool to bring the world of his films to life; he is the antithesis of KAZUAKI Kiriya. At least visually, the focus wouldn't be on the FX, but on how the characters live in a world brought to life by SFX. Over the weekend, the first preview CM (commercial) for the film aired:



The production design seems well done, possibly borrowing from the design philosophy of the "Battlestar Galactica" series in the practical realization of the technology. Then there is the CG. On Youtube, it might look fine, but on a 15 foot screen, there is the potential for this space adventure to look immensely artificial. Japan, despite all its technology, is not adept at CGI effects, mainly due to the lack of investment by production companies in the proper equipment and software or to set a portion of the budget to outsource CGI effects to internationally recognized effects houses. In order to save money, producers usually gather a staff using largely off the shelf equipment and software for the duration of the production. In the case of Yamazaki, his production company is also a CGI effects company so he has a slight advantage, but comparisons to even second-tier Hollywood effects houses are not even possible.

Recently, news on the Chinese film news site MonkeyPeaches.com, brought word of a project entitled Da Nao Tiao Gong (Uproar in Heaven), which will be a new live-action film based on the "Journey to the West" fantasy novels. The most important point in the press release is the decision by production company, Filmko Pictures, to contract Weta Digital to animate the Monkey King and deliver other CGI effects. Unlike their Japanese counterparts, Filmko Pictures recognizes Weta Digital's leadership in the type of CG that would be required to bring their film to reality and have decided to earmark a budget to add Weta's expertise to the team.

I have always been of the opinion that Japan could be a leader in CG effects and visualizations. Their long tradition of visualizing fantastic characters, situations, action and effects from manga would be greatly sought after by filmmakers around the world. Sadly, there is no one in Japan's film industry who has vision and courage to invest in creating the infrastructure, training, and environment for CGI effects services. To this day, there are no specialized effects houses in Japan's film industry. There are companies like Yamazaki's, a film production company with a CG department, but a Weta or ILM type company does not exist. This remains one of the Japanese film industry's wasted opportunities...

It comes to this...

This comment was posted in an article in which Frank Darabont (Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile) expresses his frustration at the resistance he is experiencing getting his script for an adaptation of "Fahrenheit 451" approved by studios that think it is "too smart" for people.

Wow, im pretty sure that movie was made already. Its called Equillibrium and stars Christian Bale and Taye Diggs. Fascist future, burning all creative/emotive material, one man (Bale) sees a beautiful woman and starts questioning his job, a resistance underground that tries to preserve anything artistic (books, music, paintings)...good thing we have a director saying how smart it is when its been done. Its like making a movie called Transmorphers about everyday robots that turn into cars and calling it too smart for Hollywood. Pathetic.

If you ever wonder how a film like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can make $60 million in its opening day, here is your answer—a viewing public who's film memory only spans the last 10 years and whose reading habits consist of the internet and comics. When Hollywood raises an audience like this, it's no wonder that toy, comic, videogame adaptations and remakes are the only things they are producing.

Who are the true bastards?

Something has been happening to the profession, and I use that word reluctantly, of "film criticism." Thanks to the immediacy created by the internet, and the resulting cancerous spread of media outlets into it, people are able to put words out there that are searchable and linkable. In other words, it's the biggest rumor mill of all time. And while rumors are part of the meat of the internet, surprisingly it is also real information—or at least those who are supposed to be responsible for creating it—that has become just another ingredient in that meat grinder.
Film criticism now is in the hands of anyone. Really. You go see a movie, come back home, log into Rotten Tomatoes or your own blog and you express your opinion about it there. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. What has become disturbing is how the gatekeepers of information, i.e. newspapers, television shows, magazines, media conglomerates, etc. are now counting these opinions as currency. Literally. Rotten Tomatoes and the meter it features has now become an industry barometer, sometimes featured in the articles of people who are supposedly professional critics! What's more is how some of these bloggers and such, are now being taken seriously as journalists. If you run a film site and have enough traffic, you can actually go to a prestigious festival like Cannes on a "Press" credential.
Which brings me to this article from Empire Magazine. In it, the author describes the mood at Cannes and how the people gathered there to watch films have metamorphisized into some venomous serpent ready to strike at anything that comes by. Quentin Tarantino's latest seemed to be the focus of a lot of ire, some of which I have personally read on many blogs and "film news sites." And like the author of said article, what you will not find lacking in these online "critiques" are richly textured words expressing exasperation over Quentin not meeting their expectations. "Less talk, more rock..." as one "reviewer" cutely concluded her rant. Almost all of the reviews I have read rarely talk about the film as made; rarely mention what it's trying to do rather than what they want it to do; and rarely engage in analysis of why certain shots, sets, dialogue were used instead of dismissing the work and its creators because they did not match up to their standards. In other words, film critique has devolved into the same level of content as your average conversation at a bar, at the office break room, etc. And those who are supposed to write about films, in an attempt to be the "soundbite" people are quoting at those conversations, are no longer engaging in intelligent, objective criticism of the work and have instead joined the ranks of anyone out there with a keyboard and a blog. It's a shame really. Considering the pure acidity of critiques that come out of places like Cannes, one must wonder if today's writers actually "love" cinema. Or do they just love their opinions about it? Even Roger Ebert had to take pause to assess the mood at Cannes with regards to his review of Inglorious Basterds.
This particular commentary may seem hypocritical considering it's posted on a platform this article accuses as being a conspirator to the problem. However, Sleepless Films exists because of our recognition that writing, in general, is an art that is being lost. This site is our response to those who think expressing oneself in written word is the same as expressing oneself when speaking; it is a response to those who can not and fail to take films as they are made and not how we wish them to be made. If such opinions are expressed, it is clearly said as being so. Most of all, however, Sleepless Films is a reaction to the industry who seems bent on packaging and marketing art as if it were soap or cereal. We do not subscribe to that philosophy and will take great efforts in combating such nonsense. "Why?" you may ask? Because we DO love films.

The Five Rules of Filmmaking according to Jim Jarmusch

Jim Jarmusch is one of those filmmakers who has successfully made a career of being outside of the mainstream, and being very proud of it. You either like his films or you don't get them. I happen to be of the former, but understand those who feel the latter. However, that's what being creative is about, right? Back in 2004, he wrote an article for Movie Maker magazine on his five rules of filmmaking. I think his points are all valid; more interesting is #5. That quote from Godard is great. Yes, that is exactly it, isn't it?

Rule #1: There are no rules. There are as many ways to make a film as there are potential filmmakers. It’s an open form. Anyway, I would personally never presume to tell anyone else what to do or how to do anything. To me that’s like telling someone else what their religious beliefs should be. Fuck that. That’s against my personal philosophy—more of a code than a set of “rules.” Therefore, disregard the “rules” you are presently reading, and instead consider them to be merely notes to myself. One should make one’s own “notes” because there is no one way to do anything. If anyone tells you there is only one way, their way, get as far away from them as possible, both physically and philosophically.

Rule #2: Don’t let the fuckers get ya. They can either help you, or not help you, but they can’t stop you. People who finance films, distribute films, promote films and exhibit films are not filmmakers. They are not interested in letting filmmakers define and dictate the way they do their business, so filmmakers should have no interest in allowing them to dictate the way a film is made. Carry a gun if necessary.
Also, avoid sycophants at all costs. There are always people around who only want to be involved in filmmaking to get rich, get famous, or get laid. Generally, they know as much about filmmaking as George W. Bush knows about hand-to-hand combat.

Rule #3: The production is there to serve the film. The film is not there to serve the production. Unfortunately, in the world of filmmaking this is almost universally backwards. The film is not being made to serve the budget, the schedule, or the resumes of those involved. Filmmakers who don’t understand this should be hung from their ankles and asked why the sky appears to be upside down.

Rule #4: Filmmaking is a collaborative process. You get the chance to work with others whose minds and ideas may be stronger than your own. Make sure they remain focused on their own function and not someone else’s job, or you’ll have a big mess. But treat all collaborators as equals and with respect. A production assistant who is holding back traffic so the crew can get a shot is no less important than the actors in the scene, the director of photography, the production designer or the director. Hierarchy is for those whose egos are inflated or out of control, or for people in the military. Those with whom you choose to collaborate, if you make good choices, can elevate the quality and content of your film to a much higher plane than any one mind could imagine on its own. If you don’t want to work with other people, go paint a painting or write a book. (And if you want to be a fucking dictator, I guess these days you just have to go into politics...).

Rule #5: Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery—celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to."

Jarmusch has a new film out which I'll be writing more about in the coming weeks, but you can find a link for it at the bottom of the page under "Anticipated Films." Look for The Limits of Control.

A Boot to Reboots

So, I guess there's a new game in Hollywood. You thought you were getting sick of Hollywood remakes of foreign film? Live-action adaptations of comics & videogames? Film versions of television shows? Well, it seems they have noticed and the operative word the studios are bouncing around these days is "Reboot."

Now, it's not enough to remake something. In their infinite and insatiable grab for your money (which all of us have less of these days), the studios are now double dipping. They are actually calling the proverbial "do-over" on certain franchises which either didn't meet their sales goals or are putting a "new spin" on an older franchise. For the latter, you may wonder what's the difference between calling it a "reboot" and a "remake?" Technically, there is none--but hey, if they can put it under a new umbrella, why not? They know you're getting tired of remakes? So, why not a "reboot!" It's like a thief who admits, "You know, I came close to robbing you. Next time, I just have to find another way into your house." What are some of the projects heading for a reboot? Here are just a sampling:

Fantastic 4
Fox, jealous of the success WB and Paramount are having with its comic book franchises, has decided that they will try again with the franchises to which they own the license, starting with the Fantastic Four. However, if you read the press release, you will see this little blurb:

"The site adds that Fox wants to reboot the series in a tone described as 'less bubble gum' and more in the vein of those two previous examples [Iron Man and Dark Knight]."

I beg your pardon? It's the so-called bubblegum nature of the comic that makes the Fantastic Four...the Fantastic Four. Maybe if you developed a better script with people who understand how to handle the adventure with a light touch, you would actually have something. Trying to go dark with these characters is not the way to go.

Nightmare on Elm Street
An absolute classic. Quite an original for it's time and still quite good upon viewing today. How do you figure they will try to improve on the original? More gore? Grittier cinematography? Freddy will have two gloves instead of one? You can read more about it here.

Predator
Even with Robert Rodriguez attached, I just have to shake my head at this one. Various attempts to capitalize on this franchise have all fallen flat. As par for the course, instead of offering something new, all they are offering is just more Predators according to the following quote from this article:

"In the reboot a team of commandoes face down a mysterious race of vicious monsters."

Sounds like the classic mistake for a sequel; offer the audience only more of the same, instead of better.

Hellraiser
Another classic horror film which I am sure will only offer more gore rather than anything substantially better than what the original brought to the table. Read about it here.

Tomb Raider
You knew this was coming. Another Fox franchise that they ran into the ground, developed only to take advantage of the game's popularity which, even with a reboot in the game franchise, seems to have run its course. Anyway, they seemed to have found a new Lara since Angelina Jolie's peg rate is probably more than Fox is willing to pay according to Ain't It Cool News.

Robocop
Like the Predator reboot mentioned above, this one has a talented director in Alex Proyas attached to it. And just like I said before, the only thing I can see them improving upon is the effects. Truly unnecessary. Read more here.

Conan
There were rumors of John Milius' script for the sequel hinted at the end of the first film and by 2002, it seemed the project was all but lost according to this article on Ain't It Cool News. Read Moriarty's link to his script review and you will find that a good movie was there on paper. Apparently, instead of following up on this, WB has decided on a "re-do" instead since Arnold is now involved in, you know, runnig the 4th largest economy in the world. The success of the LOTR Trilogy is certainly tempting a lot of studios to develop a fantasy franchise, but here's another case where if you want to do the character of Conan right, you had best treat it with the same veracity the title character deserves or else, don't bother at all.

One of the reasons this blog was started was to also talk about all the films that people aren't talking about; there's plenty of them out there, and more importantly, they're based on original material. Instead of wasting all this money trying to squeeze successful franchises dry or resurrect ones that didn't do well in the first place (there's a reason for that folks), they could be developing fresh new material by some very talented people. You know guys, save yourself some money; restore some the classic films you want to "reboot" with new sound and cleaned up picture, sell it on DVD/Blu-ray or have a short run in the theaters and introduce them to a new audience who will then come to appreciate today's films.
Sadly, however, the state of the industry has become too incestuous to warrant or even breed that type of thinking. It's all about building a marketable package that plays across a wide audience spectrum. I wrote those words intentionally, because that's how those people talk. Notice, there's no hint of anything remotely resembling words like "entertaining," "original," "creative," etc. They speak as cold and calculating as some Lehman Brothers banker and well, you know how that story goes....

Sin City

Everyone's talking about Sin City. And alot of them are saying how it's the best comic book movie ever because it stays so true to the source material. Well if the goal was to put a comic book on screen, mission accomplished. But who wants a comic book on screen? I don't, I want my comic books to be comic books and my movies to be films.

Never mind the comics that should never be made into films, Sin City is certainly a worthy candidate for a big screen treatment. But when an adaptation is so dependent on the source material, why bother doing it at all? Another recent example of this is Electronic Art's production of the Lord of the Rings trilogy videogames. They went so far as to rotoscope scenes from the film using the game engine to reproduce them verbatim, "to give the player the ultimate LOTR experience." Dude, I already had the ultimate LOTR experience, it was in the theater. What's the point of seeing it replicated on an Xbox just so I can run around as Aragorn and chop up orcses?

I'm a fan and a follower of Rodriguez, if anyone was going to pull off Sin City as a film it was him. Mega appreciation for bowing out of the Director's Guild to let Miller on the project, too. Tho as I see it, here's where Sin City fails:

1. Narration. The pulpish, dark-city citizen exposition that floods the Sin City comics serve it's place-- in the comics. It's part of the medium, integral to accommodating the flash of the stark black and white graphics to aid the pacing of the stories. In the movies it's such a cop out. I hate narration, hate it, hate it. I am not stupid. I can see what's going on and extrapolate the meaning. Even if I'm wrong, my imagination is better than being force fed every little detail that I can already see happening before me. I can't tell you how many times I watch a movie or a TV show and just think how much better it would be, how much more impact it would have if there was no narration. Try it sometime, the next time you hear it. Replay the scenes in your head without the voiceover and see how much better it is. In Sin City, it's not about giving Frank Miller any more credit for how good of a writer he is. If you've read the books, you already know that. If you haven't, it doesn't mean Miller is any less responsible for the genesis of Sin City itself, no matter the format. It also doesn't matter to me that the narration was necessary to fill in the story holes, as a truly good storyteller would be able to work around this. Or better yet, let the audience fill in the gaps themselves. There are plenty of times in the film where narration was swapped for dialogue and vice versa (and the only reason I know this is that's how painfully close to the source material the movie was). Has Blade Runner taught us anything??

2. Structure. The stories told through the books have little overlapping points, it's very cool to see once you start reading them as a whole. I really thought Rodriguez would take advantage of this, but he didn't. He sorta did, but it could have been done so much better. Pulp Fiction and Two Days in the Valley are better examples of this, both were done with a style that really made the whole thing more enjoyable once all the pieces started falling together. I was a little disappointed that the movie failed to pull this off as (for me) it would have pushed it over the edge towards a higher admiration. The stories that were chosen for the movie were definitely the right ones, although Mickey Rourke is such a bad ass I would have been just as happy if "The Long Goodbye" was the only story. Speaking of the titles, and related to the above, how come no title cards? As one segment ended, I would have loved to see a giant title on screen that said "The Big Fat Kill," or "That Yellow Bastard."

3. Acting. It's readily apparent who the veterans are in this pic. Good actors can survive the heavy handed Miller dialogue, others sound like they are staving off a brain aneurism. Call me sexist but it's mostly the dumb-as-a-post eye candy roles that fall into that category (Clive Owen included). As much as I love watching Jessica Alba writhe around with a lasso, the second she opens her mouth it kind of breaks the illusion. Poor dear. She's much better suited for roles where the primary goal is to stand there and look pretty, like Idle Hands or Never Been Kissed. I've tried to tell her this at several of our clandestine back alley dalliances, but to no avail. I fear she's too overcome with passion to be taking career advice from little 'ol me.

Where Sin City succeeds is in the gorgeous black and white visuals, even the bits with color. I wish more filmmakers/studios would commit to a major release in black and white. When it looks like this, it looks amazing. Ultimately my disappointment falls into the very crowded category of "I would have done it different." It's just that Rodriguez is usually an example that I look up to. He made a good movie, and honestly the majority of the audience just doesn't know any better. My regrets come from the desires of what Sin City could have been, from simply cool... to mindblowing.