ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Da,da ima ovo i nastavak,Adulthood.

Javi kako ti se čini...

ne uspeh naci (istina traljavim) searchom - jesi l' pisao kritiku The Wrestlera?  

Pisalo se o Wrestleru na topiku Sta se lepo gleda a da horor nije.

Pogledao sam GOOD GUYS WEAR BLACK Ted Posta. Ovo je jedan od retkih old school Chuckovih filmova koje nisam ranije gledao.

Reč je o neupečatljivom ali prilično gledljivom i komunikativnom pokušaju da se snimi conspiracy triler u pakulijanskom maniru samo sa Chuck Norrisom i njegovim specifičnostima. Danas je naravno ta tradicija postala samosvojna i postoji masa akcionih filmova u kojima agent mora da se obračuna sa vlastitom vladom koja je usled korupcije pojedinaca pošla lošim putem.

Međutim, 1979. ta priča o zaveri ima neku težinu, i pominju se relativno sveži događaji kao Vijetnamski rat ili Watergate... U tom smislu, čini se da je ovo jedan od Chuckovih filmova čija se političnost prostire nešto dublje od tipičnih desničarskih fantazija u kojima je učestvovao tokom osamdesetih.

Uostalom, Ted Post je jedan od uglednijih reditelja sa kojima je radio Chuck. Iako Post nema neki naročit opus, ipak je on potpisnik MAGNUM FORCEa, i vrlo solidnog HANG EM HIGH. Naravno, može se reći da je Clint tu bio autor iz senke, ali svejedno, i Post je tu učestvovao.

Egzekucija je sasvim solidna, što se od Posta i očekivalo.

U svakom slučaju, Post je ovom filmu dao ozbiljnost koja će biti kasnije sve oskudnija kod Chucka.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

A u medjuvremenu ja odgledah Kidulthood. Film je dinamican i zabavan, nalikuje kvalitetnom video spotu u jednoj produzenoj formi i prekomernom trajanju.
Poredjenje i slicnost sa Larry Clarkovim temetski slicnim filmovima se moze primetiti, ali Kidulthood je vise koncipiran u nagovestajima i simulacijama, i nedostaje mu vise explicitnosti i hrabrosti. Za razliku od sexualnog kontexta scene nasilja su poslovicno za Britance realisticne i uverljive, ali kako film ide prema kraju, reziser u pokusaju jacanja dramatizacije razvodnjuje pocetnu snagu i bazicnost.Ako kazemo da je Kidulthood mocnije ostvarenje od Clarkovih Teenage Caveman i Ken Park, da ga je nezahvalno porediti sa Kids, ostaje nam Bully, sa kojim nekako i ima najvise slicnosti. Pre par godina bih se zakunuo u Clarkov film, ali danas mislim da su po kvalitetu tu negde. Ipak, Menhaj Huda i Noel Clarke su nekako vise zeleli da impliciraju atmosferu americkih crnackih geta na ulice urbanog Londona, i sa tog aspekta gledano poredjenje sa Clarkom je i nepotrebno.
Ali zato autorski duo nalazi veliku inspriraciju u delima Alanu Clarka i Shane Meadowsa. Ipak, recimo da Meadowsovi Made in England i pogotovo A Room for Romeo Brass, imaju znacajniju karakterizaciju i dramatizaciju, i kvalitetniji su produkti. Nesto malo tu ima i podsecanja na ranije radove Nick Lova, pre svega kroz soundtrack i montazne zahvate.

Pogledao sam DEAD END DRIVE IN Brian Trenchard Smitha.

Ovaj film se smatara postmodernom krunom Ozploitationa i na neki način zaista jeste apartan naslov u tom kontekstu. Nastao je kao Trenchard Smithova reakcija na prelza exploitationa iz bioskopa na video, međutim, ruku na srce, daleko je ovaj film od bilo kakvog omaža drive-inu iako je svojim većim delom smešten na tu lokaciju.

Sam exploitation element filma u vidu akcionih scena, tuča i golotinje, sveden je na minimum. U suštini, ovo je politički film, ekranizacija stare metaforične priče o radnom logoru u kome su nacisti shvatili da će lakše držati zarobljenike ako oni misle da su slobodni. Tako je i ovd drive in u koji su mladi autsajderi namamljeni u stvar koncentracioni logor u kome se okuplja mladež sa kojom društvo nema šta da radi i kafkijanski preokreti ih zadržavaju na tom mesto zauvek a establišment im uz pomoć zlog kinooperatera potura šund filmove (prikazuju se Trenchard-Smithov TURKEY SHOOT i MAN FROM HONG KONG kao i Wincerov SNAPSHOT i Hemmingsov RACE FRO THE YANKEE ZEPHYR), drogu a oni sami među sobom razvijaju razne podele, još dublju delinkvenciju i rasizam.

Iako su razne antiestablišment emocije svojstvene exploitation filmovima, one su jako retko ovoliko politički osmišljene kao u ovom Trenchard-Smithovom filmu i sasvim je nesumnjivo da su one bile osnovni motiv za snimanje ovog filma.

Uostalom, ovo je film koji u suštini čak i nema happy end. Ne želim da spoilujem ali mislim da rasplet događaja među junacima ima vrlo neočekivan razvoj, iako film nema nikakav twist ending.

Trenchard-Smith uspeva da izgradi sporadično vrhunski suspense na bazi tog celog kafkijanskog, košmarnog, zapleta, ali ima i nekoliko odlično realizovanih scena čistog fizičkog stealth suspensea.

Hardverski gledano, sa gomilom nabudženih kola, apokaliptičnom atmosferom i sl. DEAD END DRIVE IN liči na tipičan Ozploitation. Ipak, iako nije vrhunski predstavnik ovog talasa, to ostaje George Miller (hteli mi to ili ne), svakako stoji kao možda i najintrigantniji naslov iz non-exploitation vizure koji svoje mesto svakako može imati u nekim političkim studijama filma.

* * * / * * * *

Chris Evans, Brandon Routh and Brie Larson have joined the cast of "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," Edgar Wright's adaptation of the cult favorite Oni Press graphic novels for Universal.

"Pilgrim" centers on young slacker Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), who meets the woman of his dreams (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) but finds he can win her heart only by battling and defeating her seven evil ex-boyfriends.

The books, by Bryan Lee O'Malley, feature romance, teen angst and plenty of fantastical action involving a large supporting cast. The fifth installment of the book series will be published in February.

Evans plays evil boyfriend No. 2, Lucas Lee, a pro skateboarder-turned-movie star, while Routh plays the third evil boyfriend, Todd Ingram, a rocker with vegan psychic powers.

Larson plays Pilgrim's ex-girlfriend, Envy Adams, for whom he still has feelings.

Also joining the pic, which will shoot Toronto, are Mae Whitman as Roxy Richter, the fourth ex, a female who is half-ninja; Ellen Wong as Knives Chau, who Pilgrim is dating when he meets his dream girl; and Anna Kendrick as Pilgrim's sister.

Mark Webber plays Stephen Stills, a member of Pilgrim's rock band. Alison Pill is the band's drummer and Johnny Simmons is Young Neil, the band's biggest fan. Aubrey Plaza plays Webber's on-again off-again girlfriend.

Satya Bhabha plays an ex-boyfriend who can summon demon hipster girls at will.

Marc Platt, Eric Gitter, Nira Park and Wright are producing. Wright wrote the screenplay with Michael Bacall.

Ronaldo Vasconcellos and Miles Dale are executive producing.

Evans, repped by CAA and 3 Arts, is known for the "Fantastic Four" movies and next appears in the Summit release "Push." Routh, repped by UTA and Main Title, is coming off a comic turn in "Zack and Miri Make a Porno."

Larson, repped by Gersh and Station Three, plays Toni Collette's daughter in Showtime's "United States of Tara," while Kendrick, repped by APA and Artistry Management, appeared in "Twilight" and will star in Jason Reitman's "Up in the Air."

Pogledao sam THE WRESTLER Darrena Aronofskog.

Posle ovog filma zaista sam upitan kuda zapravo ide američki nezavisni film, pre svega u intelektualnom smislu. Mešavina žanrova i stilova koju je Darren pokušao da napravi u ovom filmu je u najmanju ruku besmislena, da ne koristim neke oštrije izraze.

U samoj svojoj suštini, scenario za film THE WRESTLER je staromodna bokserska melodrama smeštena u kontekst profesionalnog rvanja. Dakle, borac na zalasku shvata da mora da se povuče, pokušava da ponovo uspostavi normalan život koji je vlastitom krivicom, a i usled bavljenja borbom, zapustio, to mu ne ide, shvata da jedino moža da nađe spokoj i prihvatanje u ringu i da tamo treba da umre, ljudi iz njegove okoline odluče da ga prihvate ali tada je već kasno, on je krenuo putem bez povratka.

To je jedna velo lepa, upotrebljiva matrica koja se već decenijama koristi na filmu, a u ovom konkretnom slučaju aplicirana je na film o rvaču koji želi da se smuva sa striptizetom (kliše kurve dobrog srca) i da se pomiri sa kćerkom koju je zapustio dok je bio na vrhuncu.

I to bi sve bilo u redu kada bi proizvodilo neku vrstu emocije. Međutim, Aronofsky sve to režira na tragu Von Triera u danima BREAKING THE WAVES, dakle sa dosta pseudodokumentarnosti, dosta prljavim načinom snimanja, dekomponovanim kadrovima, praćenjem protagonista dok bauljaju kroz svet i sl.

Na taj način, Aronofsky emotivno hladi ovu priču koja jedino može da funkcioniše kao hiperemotivni melodramski šund. Ona je u realističkom ključu potpuno neuverljiva, besmislena, a glavni junak umesto tragičnog heroja postaje neka vrsta imbecila koga pratimo jer je frik pa je to zanimljivo.

U tom kontekstu, Mickey Rourke i Marisa Tomei su potpuno zloupotrebljeni. Mickey koristi svoje narušeno fizičko stanje kao adut u ovoj ulozi, ali na kraju meni je bilo više žao njega koga Aronofsky koristi kao cirkusku atrakciju nego junaka koji tobož ima tragičnu sudbinu. Isto važi i za Marisu. Ona mi je jedna od najdražih glumica i raduje me da je vidim golu u ulozi striptizete u ovom filmu. Međutim, ta uloga nije nikakav big deal, niti zahtev, sem što je pola filma gola u njemu, tako da je njena uloga svedena na nivo čistog exploitationa. Spoj ovih meni dragih glumaca koji mi je bio inicijalni draw da ga gledam, na kraju mi je delovao žalosno.

Naravno, sa Mickeyem u kadru i Marisom sporadično, Aronofsky do te mere ima šta da snima da WRESTLER nikada ne postaje sasvim nezanimljiv kao fenomen ili kao gledalačko iskustvo, ali kada se sve sumira, reč je o potpuno bezvrednom delu čija ambicija mi zaista izmiče.

Naime, scenaristga je vrlo dosledno napisao jednu elegičnu melodramu o sumraku dva klišetizirana lika iz holivudske bajke koji su svoju snagu i egzistenciju crpeli iz svojih tela i sada su pali na dno. I mislim da je u tom ključu i morao da je snimi.

U protivnom, njegovi junaci deluju kao karikature koje su gledale previše filmova i stradaju zbog toga.

Von Trier je svoj postupak u BREAKING THE WAVES uspevao da opravda interesantnom pričom koja se poigrava konvencijama. THE WRESTLER nije to, on je pokušaj da nam se kao realizam proda nešto što evidentno nije ubedljivo.

* * / * * * *

Renny Harlin's film crew for Mannerheim biopic includes double Oscar winner
Movie's first night put back to January 2010

 
 print this

Finnish Hollywood director Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, The Long Kiss Goodnight) has manned the film crew for his upcoming Mannerheim biopic of the legendary WW II Finnish War Marshal and sixth President of Finland (1944-46) C.G.E. Mannerheim with foreign talent.
     The film's art direction will be handled by 43-year-old Briton Steven Lawrence.
     Lawrence, who arrived in Helsinki earlier this week to check out some filming locations, has previously worked as the principal art director on Batman: The Dark Knight, the Bond film Casino Royale, and three Harry Potter films among others. Lawrence was also responsible of the art direction of another World War II film, Enemy at the Gates.
     
Apparently not all of the film crew tasks have been agreed on yet.
     For one, there is no information available yet of who is going to be the film's principal cinematographer. Presumably he, too, will be found through Harlin's Hollywood contacts.
     On location the working language will be English, even though the film's screenplay is in Finnish.
     The film's line producer is going to be American Michael Flannigan, 45, who already arrived in Finland some time ago.
     In California Flannigan has worked with the Millennium Films production company, which produced for example Harlin's 2007 Samuel L. Jackson vehicle Cleaner, as well as Brian De Palma's The Black Dahlia.
     In addition to Cleaner and The Black Dahlia, Flannigan's production credits include films such as Mad Money, 88 Minutes and Blonde Ambition.
     
The most famous person in Harlin's film crew in his chosen field is the principal make-up artist Greg Cannom, whose more than 30-year career in the business includes multiple Academy Award nominations and two wins for Mrs. Doubtfire and Bram Stoker's Dracula.
     Cannom, whose exact title is "special effects makeup designer", is going to be a pivotal member of the team, for the film covers several decades of Mannerheim's life.
     Most recently Cannom transformed Brad Pitt from a young lad to an aged man in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Cannom will face the same task with the Finnish actor Mikko Nousiainen, who has been hired to play the part of Mannerheim.
     
Harlin's film's Finnish cast was announced already some time ago, but additional actors at least from Sweden, Lithuania, and Poland are still being sought for certain roles. An actor with a Tibetan background is required to play the part of the Dalai Lama.
     
The production company Solar Films has quietly shifted the first screening of the movie back to January 2010, from an earlier launch date of October 2009.
     In actual fact the postponement seems a trivial one, given the long history of the project, which dates back nearly a decade while funding was secured and a screenplay was fine-tuned.
     The latest decision suggest that shooting has got going more slowly than forecast, and also perhaps that Renny Harlin's directing commitments in the United States have kept him tied up for longer than had been anticipated.

Pogledao sam YES MAN Peytona Reeda.

Od ovog filma sam puno očekivao upravo zbog Reeda koji je još 2003. sa DOWN WITH LOVE pokazao da je izuzetan reditelj i jedan od možda i najtalentovanijih u domenu savremene američke komedije. Isto tako, i Jim Carrey u poslednje vreme radi sa sjajnim rediteljima, naročito ako imamo u vidu da mu je prethodnu tentpole komediju režirao Dean Parisot, reditelj remek-dela GALAXY QUEST.

U tom smislu, interesantno je da ni Reed ni Parisot nisu uopšte dovoljno cenjeni zbog zaista natprosečnog kvaliteta koji unose u holivudski mejnstrim. Ono što je u izvesnoj meri stvaralo nespokoj vezano za YES MAN jeste to što je projekat požurivan zbog WGA štrajka i plašio sam se da je ulazak u snimanje ovog filma nervozni Warnerov potez u očajničkoj potrebi da snime nešto čime će hraniti svoju distributivnu mašinu.

Međutim, YES MAN je jako dobar film koji nastavlja carreyevu pobedničku seriju high concept komeija koje zapravo imaju sadržaj i imaju smisao izvan gegova i fizičkog humora. Naravno, sve to postoji i ovde ali ipak glavni ključ filma je priča, a u tome je Reed majstor.

Naime, i u svojim ranijim filmovima koji su bili vrlo duhoviti, Reed je uspevao da prodre do priče i da je iznese tako da nijedan od tih filmova nije isključivo zavisio od humora. Sličan slučaj je in sa YES MAN. Ovo je film koji bi funkcionisao i kao reglarna melodrama bez carreya, on je samo dodatak koji čini celu stvar još zabavnijom.

Iako je razlika u godinama upadljiva svakome ko ima ikakvu predstavu o biografiji Jim Carreya i Zooey Deschanel, njih dvojr funkcionišu savršeno kao zaljubljeni par i Reed je tu uspeo da stvori odličnu hemiju. Njih dvoje su u suštini ključ filma i svi ostali likovi realno samo služe kao katalizatori radnje. večiti sidekick Bradley Cooper je svoju ulogu tako i shvatio tako da on drži racionalni centar filma dok su Rhys Darby (kandidat da igra Michael Cainea u eventualnom biopicu) i Danny Masterson tu da ostvare neke agresivnije komičarske role u epizodama. I obojica u tome uspevaju a Rhys Darby ima i veliku zaleđinu u seriji FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS tako da ja mislim da mu je YES MAN jedna od stepenica za ulazak u holivudski biznis na velikom ekranu.

YES MAN zaslužuje svaku preporuku jer stoji kao film koji potvrđuje zbog čega se Holivud uvek iznova vraća nekim formulama.

* * * / * * * *

pogleda li taj long-expected The Hurt Locker?
dvdrip kruži netom već nekoliko dana.

Associated Press


MORE: RivalsHigh100 Hoops Rankings | Top 150 prospects for 2009
DALLAS -- A Texas high school girls basketball team on the winning end of a 100-0 game has a case of blowout remorse.

Now officials from The Covenant School say they are trying to do the right thing by seeking a forfeit and apologizing for the margin of victory.

 

Samantha Peloza grabs a rebound in practice a week after their 100-0 win.
"It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened," Kyle Queal, the head of the school, said in a statement, adding the forfeit was requested because "a victory without honor is a great loss."

The private Christian school defeated Dallas Academy last week. Covenant was up 59-0 at halftime.

A parent who attended the game told The Associated Press that Covenant continued to make 3-pointers -- even in the fourth quarter. She praised the Covenant players but said spectators and an assistant coach were cheering wildly as their team edged closer to 100 points.

"I think the bad judgment was in the full-court press and the 3-point shots," said Renee Peloza, whose daughter plays for Dallas Academy. "At some point, they should have backed off."

Dallas Academy coach Jeremy Civello told The Dallas Morning News that the game turned into a "layup drill," with the opposing team's guards waiting to steal the ball and drive to the basket. Covenant scored 12 points in the fourth quarter and "finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left," he said.

Dallas Academy has eight girls on its varsity team and about 20 girls in its high school. It is winless over the last four seasons. The academy boasts of its small class sizes and specializes in teaching students struggling with "learning differences," such as short attention spans or dyslexia.

There is no mercy rule in girls basketball that shortens the game or permits the clock to continue running when scores become lopsided. There is, however, "a golden rule" that should have applied in this contest, said Edd Burleson, the director of the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools. Both schools are members of this association, which oversees private school athletics in Texas.

"On a personal note, I told the coach of the losing team how much I admire their girls for continuing to compete against all odds," Burleson said. "They showed much more character than the coach that allowed that score to get out of hand. It's up to the coach to control the outcome."

In the statement on the Covenant Web site, Queal said the game "does not reflect a Christ-like and honorable approach to competition. We humbly apologize for our actions and seek the forgiveness of Dallas Academy, TAPPS and our community."

Covenant coach Micah Grimes did not immediately respond to a message left by The Associated Press on Thursday.

Queal said school officials met with Dallas Academy officials to apologize and praised "each member of the Dallas Academy Varsity Girls Basketball team for their strength, composure and fortitude in a game in which they clearly emerged the winner."

Civello said he appreciated the gesture and has accepted the apology "with no ill feelings."

At a shootaround Thursday, several Dallas Academy players said they were frustrated during the game but felt it was a learning opportunity. They also said they are excited about some of the attention they are receiving from the loss, including an invitation from Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to see an NBA game from his suite.

"Even if you are losing, you might as well keep playing," said Shelby Hyatt, a freshman on the team. "Keep trying, and it's going to be OK."

Peloza said the coach and other parents praised the Dallas Academy girls afterward for limiting Covenant to 12 points in the fourth quarter. She added that neither her daughter nor her teammates seemed to dwell on the loss.

"Somewhere during that game they got caught up in the moment," Peloza said of the Covenant players, fans and coaches. "Our girls just moved on. That's the happy part of the story."

Quote from: "shrike"pogleda li taj long-expected The Hurt Locker?
dvdrip kruži netom već nekoliko dana.

Upravo ga gleda...  

Najzad sam pogledao THE HURT LOCKER Kathryn Bigelow.

Moram priznati da sam oduševljen. Naravno, sasvim je jasno da će ovakva reakcija biti posmatrana kao subjektivno viđenje njenog najvećeg fana na svetu, što i jeste.

Ipak, ubeđen sam da mogu i da obrazložim zašto to mislim.

Naime, od generacije reditelja koji su definisali kinematografiju što se mene tiče, Kathryn Bigelow je praktično jedina uspela da se istinski reinventuje za nove okolnosti i da snimi nesporno relevantan film. James Cameron je sigurno u sjajnoj poziciji, ali on više ne snima filmove već godinama a AVATAR koji snima nije live action film, to jest nije isključivo live action film. Isto važi i za Roberta Zemeckisa. Paul Verhoeven je već u ozbiljnim godinama. John McTiernan je po zatvorima. Renny Harlin radi maltene direct-to-video.

Jedini od te ekipe koji su uspeli da opstanu su Tony Scott, koji se takođe reinventovao i izdigao iznad tipične pozicije studio-reditelja, i evo sada Kathryn.

Međutim, Kathryn je uspela da se podigne kao Feniks iz pepela nekoliko flopova i da van Holivuda snimi film koji ne samo da parira holivudskim nego uspeva da ima i širu prihvaćenost u svetu i na festivalima.

Pre svega, THE HURT LOCKER je verovatno jedan od najakcionijih akcionih filmova prošle godine. U ovom filmu parktično samo postoje scene suspensea i akcije s vrlo malo dramskog tkiva koje ih povezuje i sa zapletom koji formalno jedva da postoji. Film se fokusira na likove i na njihovu transformaciju, i scenaristički je meni bio vrlo zanimljiv kao koncept pošto ima itekako priče u tom scenariju koji je naizgled lišen priče.

Odusutvo nekog dominantnog plota omogućuje filmu da i kroz scenaristički koncept očuva svoj realizam na kome insistira u rediteljskom postupku. Ono što sam prebacio THE WRESTLERu ne mogu da prebacim THE HURT LOCKERu. Ovde nema neke super skrojene priče za koju nas reditelj ubeđuje da je stvarnost. THE HURT LOCKER više izgleda kao skup događaja iz stvarnosti koji poređani daju neku vrstu smisla.

Međutim, čak i u tom polu-dokumentarističkom kontekstu, Kathryn uspeva da napravi upečatljive karaktere, naročito u glavnom liku suicidalnog Dirty Harry minera koji uspeva da dobije ikonične razmere u svojoj navučenosti na rat, ali isto tako da smešten u realistički kontekst otkrije suštinsku patologiju tog odnosa. Dok je u tipičnom holivudskom filmu, takav lik kao što je na primer Martin Riggs u LETHAL WEAPON super, u THE HURT LOCKER je on nesumljivo do kraja formulisan kao promašena sudbina i neko ko je izgubio sposobnost da normalno živi.

Glavni junaci u filmu su Amerikanci, tako da THE HURT LOCKER kao i THE KINGDOM može da se tumači kao reverse-engeineered partizanski film u kome su glavni junaci okupatori. Međutim, u svetu u kome ovi junaci žive u suštini ne vodi se bitka između ideologija nego između jedne ekipe u kojoj su likovi navučeni na rat koji se bave otkrivanjem bombi i domaćini koji se bave smišljanjem što boljih zaseda i eksplozivnih naprava. U Bagdadu kako ga prikazuje Kathryn odavno više niko nema nikakvu političku agendu a deo američke vojske polako gubi razum i počinje da se ponaša vrlo slično svojim protivnicima samo sa još manje uverenja.

Inače, u samom prikazu borbenih dejstava, prikazuju se i američke zločinačke aktivnosti usput, tako da se uopšte ne može reći da govorimo o proameričkom filmu ovde.

Kad je o samoj režiji reč, Kathryn Bigelow je snimila ovaj film sa reduciranim budžetom tako da umesto njenog novoholivudskog baroka, ovde gledamo jako prljav stil baziran na snimanju sa više vrlo pokretljivih kamera, na tragu onoga što rade Paul Greengrass ili što je pokušavao da radi Michael Mann u svojoj digitalnoj fazi. Ako imamo u vidu i tu slobodnu formu scenarija, THE HURT LOCKER je upavo blizak Greengrassu (stimo se kao je BOURNE ULTIMATUM jazzy na nivou scenariju) i po akciji je jako sličan MUNICHu sa tim potpuno neočekivanim blastovima i off-the-wall prikazivanjima akcije. Naravno, unutar tog realističkog postupka sa dosta pozicija kamere, vrlo je jasna geografija, osim u scvenama koje govor u konfuziji i ključni detalji su vrlo dobro plasirani i akcentovani. U svakom slučaju THE HURT LOCKER je pravi primer pričana priče o karakterima kroz akciju.

Borbe su prikazane izuzetno realistično, sa svim svojim frustrirajućim aspektima. Ovo nije film pun vesele akcije i nije gung ho, iako ima glavnog junaka koji je baš takav. ipak, borb se u njemu uglavnom rešavaju strpljenjem, pažnjom, sakrivanjem, ne pogađa svaki metak, ima dosta promašaja, slučajnih ranjavanja i sl.

Što se scena demontiranja bombi tiče, tu je napravljen još jedan maestralan rediteljski zahvat. Naime, jasno je da imamo glavne likove koji neće ili ne bi trbalo da poginu do samog kraja. U tom smislu, samo demontiranje bombi bi po definiciji trebalo da bude lišeno suspensea zato što znamo da neće eksplodirati. Međutim, Mark Boal i Kathryn uvode toliki niz detalja u priču o svakoj demontiranoj bombi, da je svako demontiranje vrlo napeto i zanimljivo i ima neku svoju interesantnu priču. Pored toga, interesantno je da svi poznati glumci u filmu poginu u hitchcockovskom maniru tako da podela prestaje da sugeriše ko je glavni junak iako se kasnije Rennerov lik nametne, ali imajući u vidu stepen razorenosti njegove psihe pitanje je koliko je dobro što je njegov lik preživeo.

DP na filmu je Barry Ackroyd koji je radio Greengrassov UNITED 93 a inače ga znamo kao Loachovog DPa. Uradio je odličan posao. Pored njega, posebno bih istakao Karla Juliussona, scenografa koji je napravio fenomenalnu rekonstrukciju Bagdada u Jordanu i to na vrlo ograničenom budžetu. Ova Islanđanin je stara indie faca i postao je poznat kao Von Trierov saradnik. I zaista scenografija daje ovom filmu jednu posebnu dimenziju i još više produbljuje njegov realistički postupak.

Upravo je izvan Holivuda, u indie uslovima, i u jednom, uslovno rečeno, alternativnom rediteljskom postupku, Kathryn Bigelow uspela da snimi holivudski film starog kova koji je fokusiran na temu, karaktere i njihovu priču, sjajno realizovan, uzbudljiv, na liniji naslova kao što su nekada bili BLACK SUNDAY ili još raniji naslovi o vojnim specijalistima poput TEN SECONDS TO HELL Roberta Aldricha ili HELL IS FOR HEROES Don Siegela, a da istovremeno bude tematski i formalno relevantan na najširem mogućem polju.

Ostaje pitanje koliki će benefit u industriji Kathryn imati sa ovim filmom. Ipak, nesporno je da je sa njim pokazala da apartna pozicija koju ima u odnosu na sistem i veliki kredit koji joj se daje nije slučajan i nezaslužen.

Kathryn se vratila, partizanski, muči, iza leđa!

* * * * / * * * *

Od mene 9/10 i topla preporuka... Interesantno je da će u filmu čak i poklonici hardcore horror gross-outa naći (bar) jednu scenu koja će ih zagrcnuti (all about that lil' kid)...

Da ne govorim o fanovima Ministryja koji trpa kroz ceo film!

deca ginu, a ministry prži?
sounds like my kinda thing!
gledaću već koliko šjutra.

Jedna Cripplova kontemplacija o stanju distribucije kod nas...

http://www.citymagazine.rs/blog/?p=887

Quoteja sam oduvek voleo to što je Srbija bila sposobna da uzme nekog stranog reditelja ili muzičara i da ga iracionalno fetišizuje do te mere da kod nas bude čuveniji nego kod kuće. Guy je jedan od njih.

i ja

Pogledao sam MURDER BY PHONE Michael Andersona.

Moram priznati da me je po svojoj trash premisi podsetio na slučaj kada je jezdimir Vasiljević pričao kako neko planira da ga ubije herc-mašinom, uređajem koji šalje ultrazvuk kroz telefonski signal i kr0oz slušalicu emituje signal koji razara tkivo.

E, MURDER BY PHONE govori o ubici koji koristi telefonski poziv kako bi kroz kabl emitovao jaku struju koja izaziva struni udar i ubija sagovornika.

Naravno, ova premisa je pulpy koliko se samo zamisliti može, a sama realizacija ubistava je prilično jednostavna i nezanimljiva. Isto tako, iako Michael Anderson pokušava da radi ono što mu se očigledno nameće, a to je da fetišizuje telefone i da na neki način ovim uređajima prida demonsku moć, sam suspense element odnosno upitanost da li će junak stradati od poziva telefonom ili ne, počinje tek oko polovine filma, dotle ljudi prilično random stradaju tako da se može reći kako ova omniprezentna pretnja nimalo nije zaigrala.

Međutim, ono na čemu Anderson insistira u krajnjoj liniji ni nije gimmick o telefonu već conspiracy triler o enviromentalisti koji istražuju sriju bizarnih smrti i shvata da bi telefonska kompanija mogla biti umešana u sve to. Baš zato ovaj Andersonov film ostaje na pola puta jer nija bizarni campy horor o telefonima kao katalizatorima smrti an nije ni ozbiljan conspiracy triler.

Film je radila stabilna B-ekipa, među kojima ima i nekih saradnika Clint Eastwooda među scenaristima i poznati canucksploitation snimatelj. No, pored toga što je pismen, ovaj film ne sugeriše da ga je radio iskusni žanropvski egzekutor Michael Anderson, i ovaj film uprkos svojoj atraktivnoj premisi ne ide u prilog tezi da je Anderson nedovoljno cenjen reditelj.

MURDER BY PHONE je zaista daleko od njegovih ključnih naslova kao što su SWORD OF GIDEON, ORCA, LOGAN'S RUN, THE QUILLER MEMORANDUM, OPERATION CROSSBOW, 1984 i THE DAM BUSTERS.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Unsettling Goofiness of the Divided Mind
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy DENNIS LIM
Published: December 24, 2008
IT is customary to praise Jim Carrey as a genius of physical slapstick, the putty-faced, rubber-jointed heir to the silent-era antics of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton and the frenzied convulsions of Jerry Lewis. But it may be more instructive to think of him as a master of the metaphysical.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Melissa Moseley/Warner Brothers Pictures
Just say yes: Jim Carrey in "Yes Man" as a cranky loan officer turned liberated adventurer.

Multimedia
Trailers and Clips from Jim Carrey films
Enlarge This Image

Melinda Sue Gordon/Parmount Pictures
Narcissistic fantasy: Mr. Carrey in "The Truman Show" as the unwitting star of a long-running live television series.
Since his remarkable breakthrough year of 1994 — when he unleashed his whirligig anarchy in "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective," "The Mask" and "Dumb and Dumber," which together grossed more than $700 million worldwide — Mr. Carrey has played a succession of heroes whose psyches have been cleaved in two, whose identities are dissolving or re-forming, whose sense of reality is subject to manipulation by forces beyond his control and comprehension. His contortions and pratfalls seem to spring from some primal impulse or underlying pathology. He is a physical comedian who specializes in giving visible form to the Jekyll-Hyde moment, the mind-body split.

Mr. Carrey upends the comic archetype of the lovable lunatic. Most of his characters are not especially cuddly, and many of his films, broad comedies and sober Oscar-angling dramas alike, are premised on mental disorders and conditions. They pivot on amnesia ("The Majestic," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") or multiple-personality syndrome ("The Mask," "Me Myself & Irene"). Or they take the form of elaborate narcissistic fantasies, like "Bruce Almighty," whose hero gets to exercise his God complex, and "The Truman Show," whose hero is the unwitting star of his own long-running television series.

In his latest vehicle, "Yes Man" (which opened this month), Mr. Carrey plays a miserable crank who embarks on a self-improvement regimen that compels him to say yes to everything. The character is yet another variation on a Carrey staple: an embodiment of the liberated id. Based on a memoir by Danny Wallace, the film is also a self-conscious reprise of one of Mr. Carrey's biggest hits, "Liar Liar" (1997), in which he played an amoral lawyer magically decreed by his son's birthday wish to tell the truth for a full day.

Thanks to the huge and, for some, alarming success of "Dumb and Dumber," Mr. Carrey was once held up as the emblem for the dumbing down of American culture. But he has always attracted serious-minded partisans eager to mount a highbrow defense of the lowbrow. Many of his early fans saw Mr. Carrey, an alumnus of the Wayans Brothers TV series "In Living Color," as a kind of media satirist. In films like "The Mask," "The Truman Show" and especially "The Cable Guy," Mr. Carrey's characters were, in one way or another, products of television: avenging bastard children of the boob tube whose identities had been assembled from bits and pieces of cultural waste.

That might sound like a stretch, but there is something about Mr. Carrey that encourages musings about the nature and construction of the self. As far back as 1997 the critic Lisa Schwarzbaum had pinpointed his "existential loneliness" as the source of his pathos. A recent essay in The Atlantic by James Parker vigorously fleshes out this idea, defining the Carrey canon as "a uniquely sustained engagement with the problem of the self" and invoking philosophical heavyweights like Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Buber and José Ortega y Gasset. Mr. Carrey is clearly drawn to heavily conceptual material. The either-or propositions that animate the plots of "Liar Liar," "Bruce Almighty" and "Yes Man" have the stark simplicity and weighty significance of a philosophical fable or a Zen koan. Even his less typical films lean toward the cosmic, as when he played a numerologically obsessed dogcatcher in "The Number 23," a Joel Schumacher thriller. Other comic actors have dabbled in metaphysics, but when Adam Sandler channel-surfs his life via remote control in "Click," or Will Ferrell finds that he is the creation of a blocked novelist in "Stranger Than Fiction," the effect is murky or strained.

A high-concept movie requires a truly committed actor who can ensure that its central gimmick remains legible throughout. And Jim Carrey, love him or hate him, is never hard to read and nothing if not committed.

For Mr. Carrey acting has nothing to do with subtlety. His greatest skill is the ability to dramatize emotions and impulses that less expressive — and less elastic — actors must relegate to the realm of suggestion and nuance. The contradictory clamor of inner life is writ large on his face; he's like Meryl Streep in the shape of a Tex Avery cartoon.

At nearly 47 he is a touch less sprightly, but he remains a jolting presence even in a pallid farce like "Yes Man," which mainly confirms that, with the exception of "Eternal Sunshine," Mr. Carrey has for some time now been stuck in films that are less interesting than he is.

The movie also arrives as he faces what could be a professional crossroads. Not counting his voice work in "Horton Hears a Who," this is his first comic role since "Fun With Dick and Jane" in 2005. The prevailing wisdom is that his career is in a comparative slump. Not known as an easy collaborator — he forced a production shutdown on "Dick and Jane" — he fired his longtime agent two years ago, and high-profile projects with the directors Tim Burton and Jay Roach were suspended or scrapped. Mr. Carrey's salaries have been closely watched since his record $20 million payday for "The Cable Guy," a box-office disappointment, and there was much schadenfreude-tinged industry chatter surrounding the deal he signed with Warner Brothers for "Yes Man," forgoing an upfront check for a percentage of the profits. (Hurt by snow and poor reviews, the film still topped the box office its opening weekend, and the studio predicts it ultimately will rival "Dick and Jane" in receipts. But "Yes Man" will not match the blockbuster takes of "Bruce Almighty" and "Liar Liar.")

While Mr. Carrey has never exactly blended into the Hollywood comedy landscape, he seems to stick out even more these days. He has none of the schlumpy quality of younger stars like Mr. Sandler and Seth Rogen. Mr. Carrey may act infantile, but he projects the square-jawed confidence of an old-school leading man, and amid this fraternity of affable losers, he cannot help seeming a belligerent winner.

More than any of his peers Mr. Carrey makes explicit the need and narcissism that are at the anxious heart of comic performance. Implicit in his always-on obnoxiousness is a poignant vulnerability. He can barely share a scene — how can he not be alienated and alone? But after his first few films, and especially after the fearsome hostility of "The Cable Guy," Mr. Carrey's movies have cautiously insisted on his fundamental niceness. In "Bruce Almighty," for instance, the laughs come from Bruce playing God in the Old Testament style, cruel and vengeful, but the film dutifully backpedals into a trite sermon about the responsibility that comes with power.

Mr. Carrey may be consciously steering his movies toward maudlin pop psychology. He has talked about his battle with depression, compared acting to therapy and repeatedly advanced the notion that comedy is rooted in suffering. Plugging "Yes Man" on "Larry King Live" recently, he made the startling declaration that "movies are made by people in pain for people in pain."

In keeping with his existentialist inclinations, Mr. Carrey's movies are almost all journeys of self-discovery, but in "Yes Man," that journey begins and ends at the self-help shelf. Still, a potential reinvention might be around the corner. In "I Love You Phillip Morris," set to have its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival next month, his character is a cop turned con man who unexpectedly falls for his cellmate, played by Ewan McGregor. The prospect of Mr. Carrey playing gay inspires a mix of exhilaration and dread. Will he be vulgar and regressive or flamboyant and transgressive? From this paragon of contradiction, perhaps the best we can hope for is all of the above.

Why Jim Carrey makes us uncomfortable
by James Parker


The Existential Clown
Article Tools
sponsored by:

E-mail Article
Printer Format
Image credit: Daniel Adel


Also see:


Video: "The Fears of a Clown"
James Parker dissects two of Jim Carrey's most unnervingly subversive onscreen moments, and contrasts them with a scene from the Bill Murray film Groundhog Day.

In the year 2038, when we're all living out of corroded Kia Sportages, beneath an ozone layer so threadbare you can toast a slice of bread simply by hanging it out the window, scavengers will make a discovery. In the basement of a ruined midwestern mall they will find, miraculously preserved, a fresco depicting the totemic movie scenes of Jim Carrey: Carrey as Truman Burbank in The Truman Show, standing in a private elevator shaft of rainfall on an otherwise dry beach; as Fletcher Reede in Liar Liar, being attacked by the pen in his own hand; as Charlie Baileygates, the schizophrenic highway patrolman of Me, Myself & Irene, strangling an enormous cow; as Bruce Almighty's Bruce Nolan, with the power of God in his index finger, causing fire hydrants to pop and the skirts of desirable women to billow up around their waists; and as Ace Ventura, bent over, hands on rump, ventriloquizing through parted butt cheeks. After rubbing at the wall with ragged sleeves, the discoverers will fall back in awe. And the voice of the tribal priest will be heard, apostrophizing this huge graffito. "Oh, modern man," he will say, in a voice rich with pity. "How lonely you were, and how divided. And how you loved to talk out of your ass."

Jim Carrey will loom large in our shattered posterity, I believe, because his filmography amounts to a uniquely sustained engagement with the problem of the self. Who knows how the self became such a problem, or when we began to feel the falseness in our nature? "There's another man within me, that's angry with me," wrote Sir Thomas Browne in Religio Medici, three and a half centuries before the scene in Liar Liar where the hero stuffs his own head into the toilet bowl. Other clowns have risen since Carrey first stormed the multiplexes with Ace Ventura: Pet Detective—Will Ferrell, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Seth Rogen—but for more than a decade now, he has been the go-to guy for high-concept metaphysics, for Hollywood's sci-fi of the self. How about ... an insurance salesman who discovers that his whole life is an elaborate fiction created by a malign TV producer?! Or—yeah!—a mendacious lawyer compelled to tell the truth for 24 hours?! Or even a blacklisted screenwriter (The Majestic) who loses his memory and wakes up to find that everybody thinks he's a war hero?!

Movie after movie finds Carrey either confronting God ("Smite me, O mighty Smiter!" he roars in Bruce Almighty) or enacting, violently and outrageously, some version of the dilemma identified by the Spanish existentialist José Ortega y Gasset—that man, as he exists in the world, is "equivalent to an actor bidden to represent the personage which is his real I." One wonders what the French make of him. Here in America, we've been content to regard him as a blockbustering goofball, but in France, beautiful France, where philosophy is king and Jerry Lewis is awarded the Légion d'Honneur, might not they be readying garlands for Jim Carrey?

Yes Man, out this month, is Carrey's latest existential parable. If, as has been speculated, Hans Christian Andersen and Søren Kierkegaard shared a libertine moment in the salons and cellars of 19th-century Copenhagen, they could have brainstormed this movie over drinks. Carrey plays Carl Allen, an office drone and cautious Cuthbert who abruptly starts saying "Yes!" to everything—Korean lessons, cans of Red Bull, love, and life itself. This impulsive assent to existence is characteristically presented in the form of a gift/curse, laid upon Carrey, in this case, by a New Age positivity guru played by Terence Stamp. (The tie-in with Red Bull is a brilliant stroke, of course—no other legal product so generously extends the promise of turning you, if only for half an hour, into Jim Carrey.)

Leaping into lived truth also gets you the girl: Yes Man, like so many Carrey movies, trails off sappily into love. Really, though, where else could it go? To quote Martin Buber: "The world is not comprehensible, but it is embraceable." The point is to commit yourself. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind imagines a pair of lovers, played by Carrey and Kate Winslet, in the heat-death of their togetherness: bored and disgusted, each submits to a disreputable clinical procedure in which the whole relationship is expunged from their memory banks. It works, but somehow, as freshly minted strangers, they meet again; they are drawn to each other; they begin to fall in love. Then the attempt at mutual erasure comes to light: they learn that they have been through all of this already. What to do? In an overlit, discolored hallway, they stare at each other, grim with foreknowledge—and decide to go for it all over again. How beautiful! Ghastly as they look under the fluorescent tubes, the lovers stand together in this instant on a scuffed little summit of human dignity: by embracing their situation (and each other), they have transcended it.

All of which would be the sheerest philosophical prattle if Jim Carrey didn't so consistently, as a performer, embody these various propositions. Here, buzzing in his shoulder sockets, is the struggle for authenticity; there, warping his tongue, is the torment of becoming. At his most Carrey-esque, he is always trapped mid-metamorphosis, wrestling visibly with the sort of transformative inner pressure that in another context would produce a superhero—or a man-size cockroach. The Mask got it all wrong by making this explicit, by separating the character of Stanley Ipkiss, shat-upon bank clerk, from the green-headed, dance-floor-dominating pimp he became when he put on his magic mask. (Jim Carrey with makeup? And special effects? Jesus, what a waste!) The Farrelly brothers' Me, Myself & Irene, on the other hand, got it exactly right. Charlie Baileygates, Rhode Island state trooper, cuckold, butt of the world, a 6-foot-2-inch walking punch line (like Truman Burbank), goes to confession. "There's something bubbling up inside of me, Father," he whispers fiercely, "and I'm afraid that someday ... I'm gonna explode!" "Where does this rage come from, my son?" murmurs his confessor. "I don't know," Charlie says. "I'm probably just being paranoid here, but I get the feeling that the entire town is laughing at me behind my back." The priest leans forward: "Charlie? That you?" When Charlie explodes, there are no gimmicks. A hissing sound, a distension of the jaw, and he has turned into somebody else: it happens, in other words, behind his eyes.

Without violating the singularity of Carrey's achievement, we can acknowledge that he does have his varying modes—that the explosive physical comedian of Ace Ventura and Liar Liar can be distinguished from the more reined-in and responsible thespian of, say, The Majestic. The former is a creature of spurts and unevenness, clattering from gag to gag, set piece to set piece. His great scenes, his great fits and flare-ups, come jumping out of his often half-baked movies like spikes on a lie detector or surges on a Ouija board. Chip Douglas, the stalker/parasite/no-man of The Cable Guy, is constructed entirely out of such peaks: between the freak-out karaoke version of Jefferson Airplane's "Somebody to Love" and the armored showdown at Medieval Times, he barely exists.

Then there's earnest Carrey, low-voltage Carrey, Carrey the Oscar chaser, dutifully dialing it down for The Majestic and muting himself in The Truman Show. This Carrey excites a peculiar anxiety: you sit there with your scalp prickling, waiting for him to go off. Which he never does. But Carrey can only play it straight when the rest of the world is crooked—laughing at him, deceiving him, or (as in The Majestic) falsely accusing him. More than all the leaping about, it's this strange, unnerving subversion or emptying-out of regular- guyness that makes Carrey the representative jester of our time. That manly grip on normality so prized by your Tom Hankses and your Harrison Fords is for Carrey a wild and desperate bluff. The cheesy jut of his upper teeth, the giant shrugs and nods and lunges of bonhomie, the gargoyle affability—his body is one enormous "tell." ("Good morning!" yodels Truman Burbank, briefcase in hand. "And in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!") Carrey's parodic handsomeness only cranks up the dissonance—the sense that we are witnessing a grotesque accommodation between the individual and the crowd, between the imperatives of an authentic existence and the need to rub along in the day-to-day illusion.

This may also be why plenty of moviegoers (my mother-in-law, for example) will tell you that they cannot stand Jim Carrey. A noisome vacancy at the heart of him, a dreadful resounding hollowness, repels them—for a man who regularly pulls down $20 million per picture, his (ahem) "unfavorables" are abnormally high. But they're getting at the core of his genius, these sensitive souls. Carrey's dream sequence of movies is a prophecy, a warning that this clanking ego-apparatus in which each of us walks around, this fissured, monumental self, half Job and half Bertie Wooster, cannot be sustained. Out of his own seemingly bottomless disquiet, Carrey writhes and reaches into the bottomless disquiet of his audience. An oracular bum holds up a handwritten cardboard sign in Bruce Almighty: LIFE IS JUST. We know we're frauds; we fear a reckoning is due.

Carrey is the single performer at his level who seems as though he'd be as happy in a Samuel Beckett play as in a summer blockbuster. Beckett would have dug him, I think—the wintry Irishman liked his clowns, the more existential the better. Mask-faced Buster Keaton turned down the role of Lucky in a 1956 production of Waiting for Godot, but nine years later Beckett managed to corral him into an almost-silent film called Film. It's a bleak little work, not unexpectedly—Keaton scurries rodent-like by city walls, his porkpie hat in place but his face scarved and averted, ducking from the glances of passersby and pausing only to take his own pulse. Rare is the Carrey movie that doesn't feature some comparable scene of evasion or solitary, self-diagnosing crisis.

And what a Lucky he would make! One can see him shuffling, hangdog, compressed, with the rope around his neck, then erupting out of nowhere into Lucky's famous semi-Pentecostal speech: "... A personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions ..." "Mêlée, final vociferations," wrote Beckett in the stage directions. It's Carrey in excelsis. Perhaps he could deliver it out of his ass.

U sklopu ciklusa gledanja Ozploitationa, sa velikim uživanjem pogledao sam FAIR GAME Mario Andreacchioa. O ovom filmu kao primeru iracionalnog Ozploitationa govori baš Tarantino u dokumentarcu NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD. Naime, u ovom filmu zaista imamo iracionalne junake i dosta iracionalnog ponašanja u jednoj inače prilično racionalnoj postavci.

Grupa kabadahija počinje da bespoštedno i neprekidno maltretira jednu aktivistkinju koja čuva razne životinje na jednoj zabačenoj farmi. Njihove provokacije su u početku naivne i naizgled samo bezobrazne ali onda vremenom kako ona počinje da im odgovara na te provokacije, ulozi počinju da rastu sve dok se taj sukob ne pretvori u borbu na život i smrt.

Sasvim je sigurno da je vezivanje devojke za prednji deo kamioneta inspirisao Tarantina za scene u DEATH PROOFu, međutim izuzetno vešta inscenacija koju su sproveli reditelj Andreacchio i DP Andrew Lesnie (kasnije je psotigao svetsku slavu radeći sa Jacksonom) ostaje impresivna i inspirativna, kao putokaz kako se jedna mala kinematografija nameće u domenu exploitationa.

Naime, Lesnie i Andreacchio su imali sreću da rade sa sjajnim kaskaderima koji su omogućili da snime scene koje u mnogim aspektima nisu nove ali su retko kada tako postavljane ispred kamere. Iako bi se film mogao definisati kao vrlo intenzivan exploitation akcioni triler, njegov suštinski adut nije suspense u najužem smislu reči. Jasno da će junakinja na kraju pobediti siledžije, međutim "kako" je dovedeno na vrhusnki nivo. Stoga pored Lesniea i Andreacchia, istakao bih i sjajnu vozačku i akrobatsku veštinu stunt teama koja izdiže ovaj film iznad znatnog dela konkurencije.

Ono što na dramaturškom planu čini ovaj film svežijim i gledljivijim svakako je to što između junakinje i negativaca postoji dvosmeran odnos. Neki njeni odbrambeni gestovi njih iritiraju, povređuju i provociraju, tako da se između njih razvija nešto doblji odnos od onog između lovca i lovine. O seksualnoj tenziji koja je stvorena između progodnitelja (vrlo različitih i dobro definisanih među sobom) i žrtve (koju igra izazovna Cassandra Delaney) da i ne govorim.

Iako je uspeo da ostvari kontinuiran opus, i to mahom, paradoksalno, u domenu dečjeg filma, Andreacchio nije postao značajan reditelj niti je imao neki relevantniji holivudski plasman što je šteta pošto FAIR GAME baš deluje kao vrsta filma koja bi mogla reditelja dovesti do ozbiljinijeg holivudskog angažmana.

* * * / * * * *

Uh, vraški dobar taj FAIR GAME. Mislim da je na ZS-u sazrelo vreme za OZPLOITATINON topik...

Pogledao sam W. Olivera Stonea.

Reč je o vrlo interesantnom pristupu temi koji
će siguran sam polarizovati gledaoce. Naime, potpuno je legitimno biti zgranut pristupom koji Stone ima prema ovoj temi, a isto tako moguće je i ceniti ga.

Kad je reč o zgražavanju, ono pre svega može da prositiče iz toga što je Stone snimio movie o Bushu. Ovo je film u kome je uzeta Bushova biografija i one je pretvoren u filmski lik koji ima svoju priču, svoju motivaciju, svoju melodramu. To nas dovodi do dva rizika, jedan je da se film iscrpljuje o pronalaženju motiva za njega kao čoveka, što se u filmu i dešava, drugi je da on dobija neku vrstu ljudskosti koja čini da ga razumemo što naravno automatski dovodi do toga da se izgubi iz vida objektivna istina o njegovoj pogubnoj vladavini, što je takođe istina. Dakle, sve ove rizike Stone je uspeo da ostvari.

Da, njegov Dubya zaista ima jasnu motivaciju baziranu na procesu sazrevanja, sukobu sa ocem, pokuušajima da se dokaže, neznanju, naivnosti, uticaju drugih koji njima manipulišu koristeći autoritet izgrađen na znanjima koja on nema. I da, njegov Dubya nakraju zaista ispada kao jedan reformisani bekrija koji je izmanipulisan u seriji događaja koji su ga zadesili kada je postao predsednik.

Međutim, istorvremeno, snimivši movie o Bushu, Stone je uspeo da pruži svež pogled na priču koja je u suštini do sada već dobrano dokumentovana kroz dokumentarne filmove a nije rađena kao movie. I što je još važnije, kroz razradu odeđenih motiva, iako nije pružio dokument pružio je jednu dozu "istine" . Naime, W. bi bio banalna melodrama o sukobu oca i sina i sinovljevom kompleksu da se ne dešava unutar porodice koja sticajem okolnosti vlada svetom.

U tom smislu, sva naizgled banalnost filma W. po meni govori mnogo više o apsolutnoj truleži američkog sistema u kome zapravo iza svega gotovo da ni nema ideologije.

S druge strane, Bush ne samo da je prikazan kao majstor populizma, on bukvalno jeste sve ono za šta se predstavlja. On je slika i prilika svojih glasača i svog naroda. Jedini je problem u tome što, dosta slično svom narodu prima instrukcije za rad od nekih vrlo nezgodnih i manipulativnih ljudi i nema ideološke naočare kao Roddy Piper u THEY LIVE da bi shvatio o čemu se tu zapravo radi.

U filmu W., Bush je čovek koji vlada najmoćnijom zemljom a usput pada na najbanalnije govore svojih savetnika, svoje odluke podržava emocijama koje je osećao prema svom ocu kada je donosio pogrešne odluke. Konačno, on je istinski iznenađen time što u Iraku nije bilo oružja masovnog uništenja a sve analizora iz vizure Texas Holdem Pokera.

Istovremeno, W. je pokazatelj sloma američkog konzervativizma koji reprezentuje Tata Bush i to sloma u kome se zapravo inhibiranost starog korumpiranog konzervativizma iza koga se krije liberalni kapitalizam zamenjuje mešavinom istinskog naivnog konzervativizma i makijavelističke manipulacije iza kojih se kriju interesi velikih korporacija.

W. je film o predsedniku kakvog Amerika zaslužuje i koji na kraju poput i samih Amerikanaca postaje jedna tragikomična figura.

Stone nije režirao film u svom stilu. Inscenacija je vrlo pitka, bliska klasičnoj melodrami, što je dobro ako imamo u vidu da je energija političkog filma sadržana u tome što je W. izašao još za vreme Bushovog mandata.

U toj brzini reakcije svakako se kriju razne klopke, međutim Stone je sa ovim filmom nesumnjivo postavio novi domaći zadatak u domenu visokokomunikativnog, zanatski zaokruženog političkog filma po kome je prepoznatljiv.

* * * / * * * *

Gledajući NICK & NORAH'S INFINITRE PLAYLIST Petera Solleta sve vreme sam mislio na Meha Krljića i to koliko bi on bio zgranut ovim filmom.

Naime, PLAYLIST je film o dvoje mladih ljubitelja indie muzike koji se upoznaju tokom jedne noći kada pokušavaju da stignu na koncert svog omiljenog indie benda. Ekipa ovog filma je toliko zaljubljena u savremeno izvitoperenje indie muzike prisutno u New Yorku da u svom romantičnom prikazu te scene zapravo kao da razotkrivaju sve njene slabosti i tu grotesknu pretenziju spojenu sa predizajniranošću. PLAYLIST je kao DETROIT ROCK CITY (inače apsolutni masterpis) za pi..., pardon indie publiku.

E sad, pored indie scene, autor voli i svoje likove. Voli ih toliko da ne želi da oni zaista imaju neke istinske peripetije, da se sad tu zaista stvori neka drama. I to je ozbiljan problem. Ja to na neki način iz vizure pisanja razumem. Iako su moji tekstovi mahom lišeni takvih suvišnih suptilnosti kao što su karakteri, da, ponekad ih ima i ponekad ih zavolim, ali onda pošto znam da će sve na kraju biti okej, jer pobogu, ja sam pisac, nemam problem sa tim da ih malo namučim. Nažalost, autori PLAYLISTa nisu baš shvatili svoju omnipotentnost u ovom univerzumu tako da svojim junacima stalno gledaju kroz prste i to se katastrofalno odražava na postojanje bilo kakve drame u ovom filmu.

Michael Cera je veliki adut ovog filma. Dok čekamo SCOTT PILGRIM koji bi trebalo da bude njegov magum opus, da ga konačno spoji sa velikim autorom i sl. - on već ovde pokazuje da ima dovoljno šarma da iznese i ovakvu upadljivo praznu priču, pokušaj da se ukrste JUNO i SUPERBAD i da se ubedljivom učini priča u kojoj mladić bira ružniju od dve devojke koje mu se nude.

Ipak, ako film spadne na to da mu je Michael Cera jedini adut, jasno je da imamo posla sa prilično tankim ostvarenjem.

PLAYLIST balansira između konfekcionalnosti holivudskog teen filma i pretenzije Sundance naslova. Međutim, da li je to išta drugo nego konfekcijski film za pretenciozne tinejdžere.

Ipak, našoj publici, naravno PLAYLIST ima posebnu sentimentalnu vrednost jer junaci voze juga ceo film i podrobno ga komentarišu. Ako se ikada bude pojavio u našim bioskopima, trebalo bi da ide pod naslovom, NOĆ U JUGU 45.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Slutim da bi me taj film toliko iznervirao da bih odmah potom izašao iz kuće i pronašao DušMana da mu na uvo vrištim kako su ti njegovi mladi krivi za sva zla na svetu.

Sudeći po ovom filmu, čak ni DušMan nije toliko posrnuo...

Pogledajte ovo.

Izuzetno je bizarno...

http://www.childhelp.org/troopers/video

Premalo krvi u ovim klipovima, ali.. srce im je na pravom mestu...

Pogledao sam TATTOO Roberta Schwentkea. Ovaj film je bio showcase kojim se Schwentke (doduše školovan u Americi) nametnuo Holivudu gde je započeo solidnu karijeru.

TATTOO je tipičan serial killer film, dosta zakasneo u odnosu na inicijalni SE7EN craze, ali na toj liniji high concept filma. Schwentke ga je uradio vrlo glossy, čak možda i previše za moj ukus jer zbog glossa film u pojedinim delovima gubi na ritmu ili postaje statičan.

Međutim, Schwentke u ovom filmu panično pokušava da pokaže šta sve ume a nesumnjivo je da ume svašta. Međutim, iza te grčevite potrebe da snimi glossy showcase, negde se izgubila priča i dostojantsvo ovog filma kao samostalne celine.

Glumačka podela je takođe bleda, čak i u uslovima nemačkog filma koji baš ne obiluje velikim harizmatičnim zvezdama, čini mi se da je Schwentke mogao naći nešto upečatljiviju podelu. Nedopustivo je da gledalac mora da se trudi da prepozna važne junake jer ih igraju glumci čije se fizionomije lako zaboravljaju.

Dakle, problemi filma TATTOO su suštinski, a suštinom se reditelj očigledno nije previše bavio kad je pravio ovu svoju holivudsku vizitkartu. Ne mogu sad da kažem da je to neka prevelika šteta i da se iza glossy površine krije neki izvanredan film, zatomljen nekim sitnim greškama, daleko od toga, ali TATTOO je mogao biti sasvim solidan serial killer film jer ima prilično precizan scenario koji u pojedinim momentima ovakvog filma deluje potpuno ispušteno a iz grčevite potrebe da ponudi preokret na kraju postane i sasvim obesmišljen.

Besmislenost filma o serijskom ubici na nivou logike priče, naravno, ima svoju tradiciju, setimo se De Palme ili Argenta, ali Schwentke je upadljivo anglosaksonski u svom pristupu i kod njega te nejasnoće nemaju šarm i ne postoji neki dominantan stil kojim bi ih on mogao pokriti.

No, u krajnjoj liniji film je vrlo gledljiv, i možda može biti interesantan čak i nekim vikend-ljubiteljima žanra. Ono što je meni bilo interesantno to je da sam neke uticaje filma TATTOO prepoznao u ČETVRTOM ČOVEKU i moglo bi se reći da su ova dva filma u polazu prilično slični. Uopšte, čini mi se da na našu žanrovsku kinematografiju sve više počinju da utiču uspeli evropski modeli transplantacije žanra, i čini mi se da je to vrlo dobar pravac. Naravno, TATTOO u tom smislu nije najsupeliji model jer je jako derivativan u odnosu na američke izvornike, što je u suštini slučaj i sa ČETVRTIM ČOVEKOM. No, stvari se generalno pomeraju i to je dobro.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Evo svežih utisaka o DRUGU CRNOM U NOBu...

http://dobanevinosti.blogspot.com/2009/01/drug-crni.html

malo priče o ukrštenim rečima...

http://www.citymagazine.rs/blog/?p=910

http://www.citymagazine.rs/blog/?p=914

John Orloff ("A Mighty Heart," "Guardians of Ga'Hoole") will pen the screenplay for "Fleming," a biopic about James Bond author Ian Fleming, for Warner Bros. Pictures and Appian Way says The Hollywood Reporter.

The film will look at critical moments in the life of the colorful author and journalist. The son of a Parliament member, Fleming served as an intelligence officer in the British Navy and later created the Bond character - penning fourteen Bond novels between "Casino Royale" in 1953 and his death in 1964.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Andrew Lazar/Mad Chance also tipped to produce.

Quote from: "crippled_avenger"Ipak, našoj publici, naravno PLAYLIST ima posebnu sentimentalnu vrednost jer junaci voze juga ceo film i podrobno ga komentarišu. Ako se ikada bude pojavio u našim bioskopima, trebalo bi da ide pod naslovom, NOĆ U JUGU 45.

Uh... ja vozim juga.  
Sad bi bilo kakav pokušaj da se ogradim od mladih indieosa verovatno bio neuspešan.
btw, kad već spominjete Pilgrima... petica izlazi u ponedeljak.

Kad smo već kod Pilgrima, imam jedan bizaran problem. Naime, kupio sam nov komp i instalirao sve kako treba, radi mi surf, sve funkcioniše, osim jedne stvari. ne mogu da skidam fajlove sa neta. Naime, krene download i onda se u nekom trenutku, procenat skinutosti varira (nekad se ukoči na 15% fajla od 2 MB, nekad na 80% fajla od 100 MB), samo zaustavi i zakoči. Ima li neko ideju o čemu se radi?

Soulseek mi dočim radi uredno.

Pogledao sam McQ Johna Sturgesa.

Reč je o filmu iz 1974. snimljenom dakle godinu dana pre BRANNIGANa o kome sam nedavno pisao. U oba slučaja, John Wayne pokušava da bude Clint Eastwood i da se modernizuje u skladu sa novim trendovima u tadašnjem svetu repertoarskog mačizma. U oba slučaja, angažovan je bio talentovan reditelj da realizuje film. BRANNIGAN je radio tada vrlo aktuelni i virilni Britanac Douglas Hickox dok je Mc Q režirao John Sturges, čovek od koga se Carpenter učio korišćenju widescreena (to whom it may concern).

U svakom slučaju, oba filma pate od istog problema. John Wayne je naprosto toliko over-the-top u ovim filmovima, toliko je neprilagođen priči, kostimu, dizajnu i ostalim glumcima, pa čak i samoj temi (paranoidna priča filma McQ o korumpiranim policajcima koji konkurišu mafiji na tržištu droge je nešto što naprosto ne može da se desi u svetu u kome obitava Wayne) da ga sam film odbacuje kao strano telo i ma koliko on bio prisutan na ekranu, on polako postaje sporedni lik i pretvra ase u junaka koji uprkos svojoj proaktivnosti zapravbo teško da ima ikakvu ulogu u priči.

Stoga McQ stoji kao bizaran primer teze da onaj ko se najviše pojavljuje na ekranu i ima najveću ulogu u priči, uopšte ne mora biti najvažniji lik.

Kao i Hickox, i Sturges se potrudio da Wayneov film obogati nekim vrlo efektnim akcionim scenama. Wayne toliko ide u Clintovom pravcu da čak dobija i svoj supergun, Ingramov automat kojim se oduševi i sa radošću ga koristi protiv vozila i žive sile.

Jedino u scenama kada se dotiče oružja, stari Wayne izgleda kao da je na svojoj teritoriji i tada se sa ekrana cedi testosteron koji ga je i učinio jednom od najvećih zvezda u istoriji filma.

Kao i BRANNINGAN i McQ je primer kako je nova vrsta filma naprosto imala potrebu za novim zvezdama, i kako novi film zahteva i nove glumce. Sa Clintom, McQueenom ili Chuck Bronsonom ovi filmovi bi imali smisla.

Na svu sreću posle ovih eksperimenata, tada već umorni Wayne dokrajčio je karijeru filmovima koji su mu više priličili i zaokružio ju je Siegelovim remek-delom SHOOTIST sa kojim je otišao u istoriju na najdostojanstveniji način.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Pogledao sam film koji sam intenzivno tražio, THE SEVEN-PER- CENT SOLUTION Herbert Rossa.

Reč je o ekranizaciji romana Nicholasa Meyera koji takođe nameravam da pročitam pošto ima odličnu postmodernu postavku i nalazi se na liniji njegovog filma TIME AFTER TIME, s tim što je meni kao Holmesovom fanu (kako Johna tako i Sherlocka) još zanimljiviji od priče o H.G. Wellsu i Jack the Ripperu.

Ono što je u THE SEVEN PER CENT SOLUTIONu sjajno jeste to što scenario uspeva da spoji high adventure, relativno jednostavan i nezamršen detektivski slučaj koji ipak drži pažnju, da nekim ozbiljnim preplitanjima Holmesa i Freuda, sa kojim se on u ovoj priči susreće.

Iako u samoj filmskoj priči, Holmesov metod dominira, i na neki način Holmes više utiče na Freuda nego vice versa, scena kada Freud analizira Holmesa je vintage i daje Holmesovom univerzumu kao celini poptpuni remix.

Ako još imamo u vidu da Freuda glumi Alan Arkin, Watsona Robert Duvall, čemu sam se naročito radovao a Holmesa Nicol Williamson, onda je ovo 70s Holivud at its finest što se tiče glume. Jedino razočarenje jeste Duvall koji je po svemu sudeći dubbovan da bi zvčao engleskije, a od njega sam ja lično kao fan najviše očekivao.

Ono što je najslabija tačka filma jeste režije Herberta Rossa koja je meni bila prearhaična, i mislim da je ako imamo u vidu da se radi o filmu iz 1976. godine, mislim da je imao nesreću što ga nije radio neki ipak nadahnutiji reditelj. U tom smislu, SEVEN PER CENT SOLUTION je zreo za rimejk. Meni od 70s filmova, ipak ostaje za nijansu draži THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, premda THE SEVEN PER CENT SOLUTION ima jači koncept.

Potražite ovaj film, a ja ću uskoro javiti kakva je knjiga.

* * * / * * * *

Pogledao sam THREE THE HARD WAY Gordona Parksa Jr. Ovaj film predstavlja dekadenciju blaxploitationa pošto je njegov high concept u tome da se u istom filmu nađu tri najveće zvezde ovog pravca, Jim Brown, Fred Williamson i Jim Kelly.

Naravno, i sam negativac je najambiciozniji mogući, reč je o nacisti milioneru koji je angažovao naučnika da izmisli otrov čije je osnovno svojstvo da ubija samo crnce. Naravno, ma koliko bizarno zvučalo, i u Južnoj Africi su u vreme Aparthejda pokušavali da pronađu nešto slično. Ponekad se ideje supervillaina poklapaju sa idejama nestašnih ljudi u stvarnosti.

Međutim, kada se sticajem okolnosti ova trojica nađu na tragu milijunaševe zavere, plan da se otrov sipa u vodovode tri američka grada počne da se jalovi.

Nažalost, veličina ovog filma ne uspeva da odgovori količini blaxploitation superstarova u glavnim ulogama. Naime, Jim Brown za nijansu ima veće prisustvo od druge dvojice, što je meni cool jer mi je on jedan od najdražih crnih glumaca, međutim, na kraju cele priče sva trojica kao da su epizodisti u ovom filmu.

Isto tako, scenario nije dovoljno koherentan, iako teško da je najgori u istoriji blaxploitationa. Naprosto, scenaristi nisu bili dovoljno vešti u žongliranju sa tri tako upečatljiva akciona heroja.

Parks uspeva da na nekoliko mesta napravi interesantne akcione scene. Recimo scena kada Jim Kelly uz obilnu uportebu slowmotinoa a bez wireworka šiba masu policajaca je istinski vizionarska, isto se može reći i za Jim Brownovu borbu na jednom postrojenju, kao i za automobilske potere generalno.

Kao vintage exploitation momenat, izdvaja se dolazak tri mučiteljke na motorima koje uz pomoć SM tehnika izvlače info od milionerovog miniona.

Isto tako, zanimljiv detalj u karakterizaciji je šta rade junaci kada odu a svoje zadatke. Jim Brown odlazi kod nekih afrocentričnih ortaka da nabavi oružje, Fred Williamson ne shvata urgentnost situacije i završava u krevetu sa nekom cicom a Jim Kelly odlazi da poseti martial arts školu kod svojih prijatelja Korejanaca.

U svakom slučaju, kao i svi spojevi nekoliko monstruma u hororu, i THREE THE HARD WAY najavljuje ulazak blaxploitationa u dekadenciju, ali spada u njegove pristojnije momente.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Pogledao sam EYE OF THE TIGER Richarda Sarafiana.

Ovo je delovalo kao privlačan exploitation u kome se Gary Busey i Yaphet Kotto svete grupi motorista jer su maltertirali malu teksašku varoš.

Nažalost, ni Sarafian 1986. nije više ono što je bio tokom sedamdesetih i film je prilično nedorečen, prepun pozajmica iz mnogo boljih filmova koje se ne uklapaju jedna u drugu i ne čini zbir čak ni tih pozajmljenih komponenata. Motoristi deluju kao da stižu iz duboke postapokalipse poput MAD MAXa, Busey podseća na junaka WALKING TALL i sličnih good ol boy naslova, a drug iz zatvora je ne samo aproprijacija već i omaž Scarfaceu.

O tehničkom aspektu vidžilantizma, ima isto šta da se kaže. Naime, Busey je vijetnamski veteran kome had-to-hand combat kao ni upotreba vatrenog oružja nisu strani. Ali, kada od Scarfacea na poklon dobije jedno vozilo na tragu Bondovih pimped-out vozila sa sve minobacačima, mitraljezima i sl. do kraja biva jasan oportunizam ovog filma.

Konačno, zar nije najveći oportunizam u samom naslovu filma koji je napravljen kako bi bio filmski spin-off velikog muzičkog hita koji su izdali isti producenti koji su i snimili ovaj film, čuveni Scotti Bros.

Nažalost, histerija da se ubaci što više uspešnih elemenata iz drugih filmova nije pomogla ovom naslovu da bude barem elementarno zanimljiv i izdaje gotovo sva očekivanja koja je moguće imati od spoja Sarafiana, Buseya i Kottoa.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Pogledao sam IL DIVO Paola Sorrentina.

Mislim da ovaj film pokazuje zašto je Oliver Stone čak i kada se bavi temom koja je vrlo sveža, i koja je daleko ispod njegovog nivoa, još uvek tata u domenu političkog filma. W. se naime može porediti sa filmom IL DIVO pošto su oba filma groteskni, melodramski prikazi kontroverznih političkih figura čija je politička zaostavština uglavnom krajnje opskurna i negativno konotirana.

Međutim, iako i sam često sklizne u parodiju i grotesku, kao i imitaciju, u filmu W. Stone uspeva da drži uzde filmske priče, da generiše dramu i da priča priču. Jako me zanima kako bi neko ko ne zna ko je Dubya reagovao na taj film, ali mislim da bi ga priča vodila sama po sebi. IL DIVO je potpuno suprotan. Likovi su groteskni, Sorrentino ih prezire, i gledaocu je to jasno, ali ono što nije jasno jeste da li i mi treba da ih preziremo ako ih on prezire i možemo li mu verovati na reč.

Sorrentino na nivou scenarija ne nudi apsolutno nikakvu dramu, niti je uopšte jasno kad se šta dešava. Likovi se razlikuju isključivo po tome što je svaki upadljiva karaikatura. Međutim, u svom grčevitom pokušaju da pobedi konvenciju klasičnog italijanskog političkog filma Sorrentino pribegava jalovoj upotrebi nekih dosta jeftinih trikova u kadriranju i osvetljavanju likova, koristi dosta kadar sekvenci i pokreta kamere ne bi li oneobičio svoj film, čime samo dodatno čini glumce statičnim i dokusuruje dramu koju ionako nije imao u scenariju.

I konačno, kao i Bellochiov film o Aldu Moru, koji je barem u klasičnoj konvenciji italijanskog političkog filma dakle rađen je vrlo svedeno kao najjednostavnija drama i po svom production valueu liči na televizijsku seriju, ni IL DIVO u suštini ne uspeva da prevaziđe tu televizijsku teksturu. Naravno, televizija je napredovala i gle čuda napredovala je baš na način koji sinhronizuje IL DIVO sa njom. Upravo se na televiziji razna ograničenja koja je sprečavaju da bude film rešavaju neobičnim uglovima snimanja ili pokretima kamere kojima se nadoknađuje ovo ili ono. Stoga Sorrentino ne da nije pobegao od onoga čega se bojao, nego se još više upleo u tu klopku.

Međutim, u jednoj ranijoj fazi televizije, snimljeno je nešto što je Sorrentino želeo da dostigne ali mu nije uspelo. To je serija HOUSE OF CARDS u kojoj Ian Richardson igra lukavog torijevca koji savršeno manipuliše polugama vlasti u Velikoj Britaniji upravo zato što se oslanja na slabost, skandale i zakulisne radnje a ne na neki postojan ideološki narativ koji nudi. Svakome ko je gledao HOUSE OF CARDS, inače fikcionalnu, satiričnu seriju koja deluje istinitije od mnogih, IL DIVO izgleda kao prilično uzaludna i slaba kopija.

HOUSE OF CARDS upravo zbog snažnog prisustva drame u scenariju i karikaturalnosti likova koja ne proističe iz loše maske i upadljivo nenormalnog držanja, nego iz njihovih postupaka uprkos kojima imaju ugled u društvu, uspeva da bude tako opasna satira.

Stoga, najpozitivniji aspekt filma IL DIVO je u tome što me je motivisao da ponovo pogledam HOUSE OF CARDS.

* * / * * * *

The Script Assassin
Written by Shira Gotshalk
Robert Mark Kamen was working as a script assassin for Warner Brothers in 1993 when he was introduced to Luc Besson, a meeting that completely reshaped his professional life. After working together on The Professional and The Fifth Element, Besson invited Kamen to join him in his quest of building a mini-studio in Europe, creating "movies that would travel, international movies, you know, action movies," but instead of spending 100 million Hollywood bucks, Besson planned to shell out $18-25 million out of his own pocket. Frustrated with the studio system, Kamen replied, "Sure."

That afternoon, they flew to Los Angeles to pitch a movie to Jet Li. "I said, 'What movie?' He said, 'We'll make it up on the plane.' And for five hours, we sat on the plane, and we made up Kiss of the Dragon," he remembers. He and Li hit it off immediately. "I've been doing martial arts since I was 17, and he's a big hero of mine, and he revered The Karate Kid as being the one true martial arts movie, blah, blah, blah. And that's how we started."

February marks 30 years of writing screenplays, ranging from Karate Kid to The Transporter series to the new Liam Neeson vehicle, Taken. Kamen lives in New York, owns a vineyard in Sonoma, and commutes to work in Paris at Besson's headquarters. Eight movies later, theirs is a happy partnership. "I don't have to deal with studio executives, who are the most frustrating people in the whole world because they can only say no," Kamen beams, "and I've lived happily-ever-after to this day."

In a recent conversation with the Writers Guild of America, West Web site, Kamen discussed how to write fight scenes, kung fu monks, and the secret to keeping sequels fresh.

It seems like Taken is a bit more of a crime thriller than you've worked on before...

Yeah, it's an action/thriller as opposed to just an action/action.

Was that a specific direction you wanted to head in?

No. Here's how this works. Luc and I write scripts together. We conceptualize them together, then I write them, and then he does his Luc Besson things to them, then he goes off, and he produces them. So how Taken came about was Luc came to me and said, "I met this cop, and he told me this amazing story about an auction of women in a chateau outside of Paris; that they broke up this ring. I think this is amazing, so let's make up a story." And then we made up the story of Taken.


Photo: © 2009 20th Century Fox
Maggie Grace in Taken.
Beyond the Karate Kid movies, how has the practice of martial arts informed you as a writer?
Well, I can write great action scenes. Action scenes are written like little movies. They're in three acts, almost, and you have to fill up each act. And since I know a lot about fighting, I can be specific about it. But what I find is, you don't have to when you have great choreographers like Cory Yuen or Woo-ping Yuen, who did Unleashed. You just sort of inform the scene by making it in three acts and let them put in all the technical stuff.

When you're working on sequels, how do you keep the story fresh while maintaining the legend of the characters?

Pure fear. See, you just start with the character, and the character is not gonna change. If it's a sequel, these people are already popularized for your audience. What you do is, you take the rules that you established in the first one, and then you either try to amp it up, or you try to put the character into a more crucial situation. And you just sort of crucial it up and crucial it up until you can't crucial it up anymore. Then it's time to get out.

Do you enjoy writing as a team or do you feel a sense of personal compromise?

No, Luc is one of my best friends. I mean, we -- as much as a totally self-absorbed, French, mogul, producer, director, totally rich person can love another person, he -- we never fight. We never not get along. We both have our established roles in these things. When we have differences of opinion, we talk them out. He usually wins; sometimes I win. He trusts my instincts about stuff he knows nothing about.

I will never, ever question his visual, cinematic instincts. I always say to him, "You know, you're like a camera on legs." I'll write a script, and we'll sit down -- we're gonna do it tomorrow, he's coming in tonight -- and I will read the script out loud to him, what I've written. He will sit there with pen and paper, and he'll just make little notes, little notes, little notes. And then after I'm finished reading, we'll start at page one, and he will say, "Okay, this is what happens: The camera looks here, and it comes here, and then we're gonna move here, and we're gonna make the camera move here, and the girl is sitting at the table, and she's doing this. And then the guy is gonna come up, and they're gonna shoot this way. And the door is gonna open this way. And then when she runs, we're going to close on her feet, Robert, and we're gonna go into one room, another room, into the bathroom. You're gonna go close on her foot. She's gonna put left foot on the toilet, right foot on the ledge. She's gonna tumble herself out the window...

Wow.

And the way we write the scenes is we do that, and then he will literally storyboard these things with the angles and with all his cinematic vision, and he'll take a director, usually he finds these young directors, like Louis Leterrier or Pierre Morel, and he says, "Look, this is how this is. This is the cinematic language we're gonna use, dah, dah, dah." And then he turns them loose, and it cuts out so much stuff. You go right from point A to point Z. They're not masterpieces, but they're really cool movies and very popular.

What is your fantasy writing project now?

I have three. I have one that I wrote about eight or nine years ago for Fox called Brittle Innings. It's the story of Frankenstein playing baseball in 1943 on a semipro team in a small town in Georgia. It's a wonderful script. I mean, it's really great. I love it, and it will never get made. It's a little movie, and I don't have that kind of power.

And the other one is a movie for Chuck Roven. I wrote a script for him literally almost on spec, for nothing. He got the rights to a movie called Oasis, a Korean movie, and I wrote the American version. It is my passion. Anne Hathaway is attached to it. It's a love story between a girl with cerebral palsy and a boy who's just gotten out of prison, who's a little slow. It's great. Not what I usually write.

And then the other one is something I just heard last night that actually might happen. I wrote it for Jet Li called A Monk in New York about a Tibetan monk who's been living in a cave in Tibet for 10 years, and he comes to New York. He wins a contest from Coca-Cola. It's a very funny setup.

Is it a non-kung fu movie or martial arts?

It's a non-kung fu movie. The monk, he fights. When I first wrote the script, Jet said to me, the monk doesn't fight. Jet and I went to a monastery for three weeks in Tibet, and we sat in this monastery in the middle of nowhere. I mean, it was five hours to a telephone. And he kept saying to me, "Robert, the monk doesn't fight." And I kept saying, "Jet, there's nobody who is going to go see a Jet Li movie where the monk doesn't fight." He said, "No, no, the message of Buddhism" -- because he's a very devout Buddhist -- "is that a monk doesn't fight." And then Jet went to see a very revered Tibetan rinpoche, and he said to him, "I'm not gonna do movies anymore." And the guy said, "Are you crazy? You must do movies. This way, you can get the message of Buddhism to people. We do not preach to people who already are non-violent. You want to preach to the violent people, and they won't come see a movie where Jet Li doesn't fight. So you must fight."

And then out of nowhere he called me up and said, "Robert, the monk can fight." I said, but I just constructed a whole script where he doesn't." He said, "So what, go reconstruct." So I reconstructed this whole script where the monk fights, but doesn't fight. Never raises a hand to anybody until the very end. And the bad guy learns his lesson, and the city learns their lesson. And everybody he touches turns good.

So those are my three wishes, and I think at least one of them will come true. But, you know, selling people on a movie where Anne Hathaway spends most of it drooling and gurgling is not so easy.

Do you have any advice for writers who may be struggling or trying to persevere at the beginning of their careers?

Oh, the way I look at it, they are all my direct competition, so I mostly tell all of them to go find another job and become lawyers. No, writing screenplays is so different from other writing, and if you really love it -- a lot of screenwriters write because they want to direct, and they find screenwriting really painful, and they want to get out of it as soon as possible. And if that's the case, I have nothing to say to them. That's their path towards what they really want to do.

But if you want to be pure screenwriter, it's much harder than when I broke in. Everyday there's somebody at the studio that's the flavor of the month. Completely ignore everything about the business, is my advice to anybody writing movies. Because if you pay attention to the business, it will kill you. You have to focus if you just want to be a pure screenwriter. And there aren't a lot of us. There are a lot of guys and girls who want to be directors, who want to be producers, they want to expand. Don't read Variety. Don't listen to gossip. Don't live in L.A., and write.

I write original screenplays every year besides the movies I get made, and I just put them away. Write what makes you excited, and if it makes you excited, and you're any good, it will excite somebody else. And if it doesn't excite them to buy it, it will excite them to let you write something that they have. Focus on what makes you happy every day, because you have to sit down every day and look at that blank page. And what's gonna get you off? What's gonna make you happy that day besides finishing the day, is that you write something that makes you have that particular feeling.

Pogledao sam McVICAR Toma Clegga.

Reč je o filmu koji je producirala filmska kuća grupe The Who, a glavnu ulogu igra Roger Daltrey. Film je pun njihove muzike iako niti je mjuzikl niti govori o rokenrolu.

Reč je zapravo i istinitoj priči naslovnog lika koji je bio poznati britanski kriminalac, poznat po bekstvima iz zatvora koji je na kraju pušten na uslovnu slobodu pre isteka duge robije, delom zaslužene baš zbog bežanja iz zatvora, gde mu je tokom robije stečena diploma iz sociologije uzeta kao olakšavajuća okolnost.

Ako imamo u vidu da sličnu priču o školovanju u zatvoru imamo i kod Harry Starksa u seriji THE LONG FIRM, očigledno je McVicar inspirisao nastanak ovog lika, kao i sama braća Kray.

Nažalost, sam film McVICAR kao da ne prepoznaje ono što je atipično u McVicarovoj biografiji (film su pisali sami McVicar i Clegg) i svodi se na nivo siimpatičnog ali vrlo paušalnog i predvidljivog exploitationa u kom je Clegg režirao par izutenih scena kao što su recimo bekstvo iz zatvora i pljačka banke.

Međutim, kad je reč o samom McVicaru, ovaj film ne nudi aposlutno nijedan detalj po kome se on razlikuje od bilo kog drugog prosečnog filmskog ganstera.

Šteta, pošto je Clegg zaista bio u najboljoj formi kad je radio ovaj film a Daltrey je u naslovnoj ulozi pružio istinski sjajan nastup, potvrđujući da je među boljim glumcima kad je reč o muzičarima.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Reprizirao sam TOO LATE THE HERO Roberta Aldricha, jedan od najdražih guys on a mission flickova mog detinjstva.

Smešten je na pacifičko ratište i govori o grupi britanskih vojnika koji zajedno sa jednim američkim stručnjakom polaze u akciju protiv Japanaca čiji je cilj da omogući bezbedan prolazak konvoju američkih brodova.

TOO LATE THE HERO obiluje transgresorskim Aldrichevim potezima, pre svega u tom smislu što su u njemu svi vojnici umesto visokomotivisanih specijalista, vrlo rezignirani lenjivci koji su cinični kako prema ratu tako i prema zemlji za koju ratuju. Njegovi junaci podjednako nemaju nikakve ideale na frontu niti imaju čemu da se vrate u Britaniji.

Štaviše, oni među sobom imaju prilična neslaganja i oko zadataka koje neposredno izvršavaju, pa čak i kada sami zadaci postanu kritični za opstanak velikog broja ljudi. O međusobnim sukobima unutar jedinice da i ne govorimo.

Transgresija postoji i u tome što Aldrichevi junaci ne prezaju ni od ubijanja japanskih ratnih zarobljenika, i ta ubistva, iako imaju praktičan element nisu tretirana sa bilo kakvim simpatijama kao recimo mučenje u seriji 24. Naravno, i sami japanski protivnici su očekivano brutalni i manipulativni, mada ne onoliko koliko bi se očekivalo od tipičnog WW2 akcijaša što TOO LATE THE HERO neusmnjivo jeste i samim tim su ovi novi detalji zapravo vrlo bitno oseveženje koje Aldrich nastavlja da unosi u žanr posle DIRTY DOZENa.

Konačno, kada se samoubilačka misija završi, Aldrichev junak više pokazuje iznurenost i traumatizovanost negokatarzu kakvu bi mogli sresti u naslovima poput WHERE EAGLES DARE.

TOO LATE THE HERO je film iz 1970. godine i on u vrlo kanonizovanom ambijentu WW2 akcionog filma pokazuje niz provokativnih detalja koji ga u suštini čine anticipacijom filmova vijetnamskog ciklusa u kojima se ozbiljno problematizuje uloga Amerike u ratovima.  

Oo što su izvesni problemi ovog filma jeste pre svega transformacija američkog junaka koji biva ucenjen da ode u borbu a onda u borbi postane vrlo militantan, što na psihološkom nivou ima smisla, ali i neočekivano vešt, što nema najjasnije temelje. Isto tako, film je mogao u određenim deonicama biti efikasniji u izlaganju priče, naročito u ekspoziciji.

No, TOO LATE THE HERO je nesumnjivo klasik WW2 filma.

* * * / * * * *

Pogledao sam LITTLE MURDERS Alana Arkina, jedan od kultnih 70s filmova međutim čini se da su godine koje su prošle u međuvremenu otupele oštricu ovog bitnog counterculture filma.

Reč je o All-Star crnoj komediji koja se oslanja na tradiciju apsurda i govori o njujorškom advokatu koji biva usisan u brak sa ambicoznom ženom koja želi da da uzme pod svoje.

Film je prepun napadno bizarnih situacija, distancirane glumačke igre i pretencioznih dijaloga koji su sporadično u redu ali mahom sve izgleda kao jedna od linija novoholivudskog filma koju nikada nisam razumeo a reprezentuju je naslovi poput Lesterove PETUNIE ili opusa Paul MAzurskog. U tom smislu LITTLE MURDERS meni deluje čak i kao najjasniji film, pa samim tim i najkomunikativniji i najuspešniji, ali ta cela tradicija mi je toliko daleka da ne mogu da kažem da mi je to dovoljno.

Elliott Gould je sjajan u glavnoj ulozi, recimo. Ali, iskreno više bih voleo da gledam glumca takvog dara u nekom drugačijem materijalu. Donald Sutherland, njegov partner iz filma MASH na osnovu koga su i stvorili famu o njima dvojici kao komičarskom tandemu (setimo se filma SPYS) ima sjajn kameo, u možda i najduhovitije napisanoj sceni u kojoj ceo alternativni koncept gotovo da ima neko pokriće. Sam Alan Arkin takođe ima izuzetno efektnu ulogu inspektora koja povremeno skrene u agresivnu šmiru.

Arkinova režija je minimalistička. Iako ima krupnih planova, glumcima je zaista prepušteno da igraju, gotovo pozorišno, te angažman Gordona Willisa u ulozi DPa nije mogao da ostavi veći uticaj. LITTLE MURDERS je jedan od granddaddyja Sundance komedije kakvom je danas poznajemo.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Svoj old school niz sam nastavio jednim klasikom CACTUS FLOWER Gene Saksa koji u najboljoj tradiciji Billy Wildera utemeljuje američku romantičnu komediju.

Gene Saks je reditelj koji je snimio kultni film ODD COUPLE u kome su lemmon i Matthau upareni kao i u mnogim Wilderovim klasicima, i ovom filmu on direktno ide Wilderovim stopama iz KISS ME STUPID rimejkujući francuski pozorišni komad o zubaru koji svoju ljubavnicu laže da je oženjen ali kada odluči da je zaista oženi mora da je upozna sa svojom suprugom, za tu ulogu angažuje svoju uptight ali u stvari inhibirano seksi sekretaricu, u koju potom zaista počne da se zaljubljuje.

Najčuvenija rola u ovom filmu je ona koju je ostvarila Goldie Hawn. Ona je posle ove godine napravila ogroman proboj i osvojila oskara. I tu se stvarno nema šta zameriti. Goldie Hawn ne samo da je sjajna u ovom filmu nego je napravila template po kome će se kasnije oblikovati ne samo ona sama već recimo i superstarovi poput Meg Ryan.

Walter Matthau ja stadardno odličan u glavnoj ulozi džangrizavog šmekera, i u punoj je formi. Međutim, u ulozi asistentkinje/sekretarice pravo otkrovenje je Ingrid Bergman koja je ovu ulogu odigrala u svojoj 54. godini (u tom trenutku bila je pet godina starija od Matthaua) ali nije izgubila ne samo svoju enigmatičnu lepotu nego ni smisao za humor i niz set-piece situacija se upravo oslanja na nju. Naravno, podrazumeva se da je njen lik i emocionalni centar filma 6tako da je ona zadužena i za najsentimentalnije deonice.

Izzy Diamond je na bazi francuskog komada napisao briljantan scenario koji istinski vrca od duhovitnosti i ima ekipu koja to ume da odglumi sa maksimalnim efektom tako da je Gene Saks imao nimalo lak zadatak da to sve zarobi, u čemu je uspeo.

Quincy Jone je uradio vrlo atipičan skor ako imamo u vidu njegov tipičan funky stil.

U svakom slučaju CACTUS FLOWER je baš class act i apsolutno ga preporučujem.

* * * * / * * * *

Anybody out there remember it?

For those who don't, Amerika was a highly controversial series that depicted an alternate reality in which the Soviet Union had, in a relatively bloodless transition, invaded and occupied the United States. ABC caught major flack for being willing to air the thing: before it even began, the miniseries was roundly condemned by those who thought that it would only further inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, with the Kremlin protesting the show's portrayal of Soviets as unnecessarily hostile and the United Nations complaining that it was cast as a compliant partner in the script's fictitious puppet government.

Bottom line, though: Despite being severely flawed, Amerika, overall, was daring, excellent television -- and maybe it's a testament to its impact that even in an age of exponentially increasing cable and satellite channels and on-demand digital video services it has never been seen on broadcast TV since its initial airing.

Not once.

It doesn't even exist in an official capacity on DVD.

What's interesting is that Amerika focused not on the initial conquest of the United States; it wasn't Red Dawn. In fact, there was very little action to speak of. Instead, it took place ten years after the attack which left the U.S. infrastructure decimated and the country under Soviet control. The America of the series had long since been broken and defeated and existed in its current state only as a place of sad, silent desperation -- a colorless corpse, purged years previously of any will to fight back. Those who would rebel against the firmly entrenched government had already been killed, jailed or "re-educated" and the country itself stood on the verge of being divided into 12 new districts -- the final crushing blow that would end once and for all the dream that had been America.

Ima li neko ovu seriju?

Pogledao sam MACKINTOSH MAN Johna Hustona. Ovaj film je bio apostrofiran kao remek-delo u SVETLU U TAMI iz razloga koji su mi jasni. Špijunski filmovi u kojima se barem u dijalogu spominje Balkan i Jugoslavija ostavljali su snažan utisak na kritičare pajkićevskog opredeljenja.

Međutim, ovaj film je daleko od interesantnog i politički provokativnog u tom smislu. Huston je po adaptaciji romana koju je uradio Walter Hill snimio pastiš dotadašnjih stremljenja špijunskog filma, pre svega na tragu serije PRISONER ili naslova kao šro je QUILLER MEMORANDUM, pa donekle i nešto od filmova o Harry Palmeru.

Iako je priča smeštena u milje tajnih službi, ona ostaje donekle apstraktna, glavnu ulogu imaju neke male, potpuno inkognito agencije koje se bore na velikom špijunskom tržištu. Priča se dešava u neobičnim, i to ne kenadamovski neobičnim ambijentima i mestima u širem smislu, i u suštini svodi se na vrlo lično motivisanu potragu i borbu. Neke političke provokacije niti bilo čega konkretnog ovde sigurno nema.

U tom pastišu tendencija koje smo već gledali, Huston uspeva da se izdvoiji time što njegova režija za razliku od britanskih kolega koji su radili druge pomenute naslove, uopšte nije tako razigrana već on pokušava da bude krajnje realističan, a i sam Paul Newman tako igra u ovoj priči što sad svemu daje izvesnu svežinu. U nekoliko navrata, kao recimo u sceni kada naslovni junak ubija psa koji ga juri ili kada roni kako bi oslobodio svoju partnerku, film počinje da se izdvaja i da liči na neke genrebending naslove kao što je recimo NIGHT MOVES.

Mađutim, genrebendinga i Hustonovih dobro režiranih scena nema dovoljno da bi se ovaj naslov zaista izdigao iz miljea dobro realizovanih ali suštinski već bajatih špijunskih naslova iz sedamdesetih. No, ako uzmemo u obzir kada je film izašao, kao i da će u njemu više uživati oni koji manje poznaju žanr, ne zaslužuje ni neku preoštru ocenu.

* * * / * * * *