The Films of Stanley Kubrick

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

Hey guys,

In addition to the the wonderful vid above, which is courtesy of Barringer82, I've also shamelessly copied links to many of the fantastic essays on The Kubrick Site, managed by Roderick Munday. I've read most of them, and I can guarantee you that these are joyous, sumptuous, cinematic thoughts for any Kubrick fan.

Happy weekend reading!

-MM

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

Excerpt from Cinema 2: The Time Image by Gilles Deleuze
Excerpts from The Wolf at the Door: Stanley Kubrick, History, and the Holocaust by Geoffrey Cocks
The Country of the Mind in Kubrick's Fear and Desire by Jason Sperb
The Herd & Self-Reflexiveness by David Gerrard
On Viewing The Killing by Jules N. Binoculas
Three Essays on Spartacus by Duncan L. Cooper
Two Views of Lolita by Robert Stam and Thomas Allen Nelson
A Commentary on Dr. Strangelove by Brian Siano
Kubrick's Psychopaths by Gordon Banks
Just what the Doctor Ordered... by Jeremy Boxen
Dr. Strangelove by Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi
Kubrick and The Fantastic by Michel Ciment
2001 and the Motif of The Voyage by Claudia Zimny
Margaret Stackhouse's Reflections on 2001
2001: A Progressive Analysis by Sandra Venturini
2001: A Cold Descent by Mark Crispin Miller
2001: A critical analysis of the film score by Dariusz Roberte
2001 and the Philosophy of Nietzsche by Don MacGregor
Some Thoughts on 2001 by Roderick Munday
Design & Meaning in 2001 by Mark Martel
Extracts from "Moonwatcher's Memoir" by Arthur C Clark & Dan Ricter
Comparing 2001 and '2010' by John Morgan
The Case for Hal's Sanity by Clay Waldrop
2001: Random Insights by Barry Krusch
2001's "Hotel Sequence" by Derek Rose
The Clockwork Orange Controversy by Christian Bugge
UK Clock ticks again for Kubrick's Orange by James Howard
A Clockwork Naartjie: Censorship of Kubrick in SA by Craig Clarke
The Cultural Productions of A Clockwork Orange by Janet Staiger
The Aestheticization of Violence by Alexander Cohen
Barry Lyndon Reconsidered by Mark Crispin Miller
Kubrick's Anti Reading of "The Luck of Barry Lyndon" by Mark Crispin Miller
Barry Lyndon: The Shape of Things to Come by Bilge Ebiri
Narrative and Discourse in Barry Lyndon by Michael Klein
Reappraising Kubrick's The Shining by Brian Siano
Thoughts On Reading Kubrick's The Shining by Kian Bergstrom
Historicism in The Shining by Frederic Jameson
Kubrick, King, and the Ultimate Scare Tactic by Michael Dare
Full Metal Jacket as Genre Film by Brian Siano
Full Metal Jacket by Bill Krohn
Introducing Sociology: An analysis of Eyes Wide Shut by Tim Kreider
Eyes Wide Shut and the Lacanian Real by Slavoj Zizek

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

Debate and discussion:

Regarding Full Metal Jacket, a Newsgroup Discussion
Ryan O'Neal as Barry Lyndon, a Newsgroup Discussion
The 'Youth Culture' of 2001, a Newsgroup Discussion
Stanley Kubrick and Modernism a Newsgroup Discussion
The Jungian Thing: Duality in Full Metal Jacket, a Newsgroup Discussion
Kubrick and the Individual by Barry Krusch & Harry Mehlman
Dr. Strangelove's 'Erection' by Alec Kerala-Lee & J. Kastorf
Barry Lyndon: Passion's Epitaph by Geoffrey Alexander & Bilge Ebiri
The Shining and Transcendence by Tim Fulmer & Rod Munday

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

Reviews and Press Materials

Brian Siano reviews LoBrutto's "Kubrick: A Biography"
"Psychedelic Fascism" / The Hechinger Debacle
The Harvard Crimson Review of 2001 (1968)
After Man by Penelope Gilliatt
Three Reviews of 2001 by Joseph Gelmis
Three Perspectives on 2001 by Morris Beja et al.
Apeman, Superman by Leon Stover
A Review of 2001 by Ed Emshwiller
A Review of 2001 by Samuel R. Delany
A Review of 2001 by Lester Del Rey
Roger Ebert's 1968 Review of 2001 from the Chicago Sun-Times
NPR covers a showing of Fear and Desire in New York
From 'The Daily Telegraph' (London) by Quentin Curtis
Barry Norman in the 'Radio Times' (UK), June 1996
Pauline Kael on The Shining (Excerpts)
Pauline Kael on A Clockwork Orange
Bill Blakemore on The Shining
Jack Kroll on The Shining

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

Interviews and Depositions

Michel Ciment's three interviews with Stanley Kubrick
Kubrick's 1969 Interview with Joseph Gelmis
Strick & Houston's Interview with Kubrick
Penelope Gilliatt's Interview with Kubrick
Kubrick's Essay Words and Movies
Clarke's 2001 Diary (Excerpts) from The Lost Worlds of 2001
Anthony Burgess on A Clockwork Orange, excerts from his autobiography.
Ian Watson Plumbing Stanley Kubrick, full text of his Playboy article.
Frederick I. Ordway's 2001 in Retrospect
Kubrick's Notes on Film
The "Rolling Stone" Interview by Tim Cahill
Kubrick on Kieslowski: his Introduction to Decalogue
Michael Herr's Forward to Full Metal Jacket
Alex North's Comments on his own score for 2001
Terry Southern recalls Dr. Strangelove
Interviews with Kubrick's Colleagues by Michel Ciment
An Interview with Dan Richter
An Interview with Julian Senior
An Interview with documentary filmmaker Paul Joyce

Sydney Pollack, 1934 - 2008

I admired the hell out of Sydney Pollack. He was the shadow man of directors. He was never the kind of guy that would impose his own visual stamp on a film like a Scorsese or a Spielberg. With Pollack, story and characters always came first. When you watch one of his films, you walk away with vivid memories about the characters and the story, and you may not realize this came from the same man who gave you Three Days of the Condor or Tootsie or Out of Africa.

In the wake of his recent death, there has been a litany of articles about him, but in a time like this, I’d rather spend time with the man himself. I’d rather watch his films or hear HIM talk in interviews. Thus, I’d like to share the video above, probably one of the best interviews available on the web where he spends roughly 40 minutes talking with Charlie Rose about not only The Interpreter, which he was promoting at the time, but he also spends time talking about the craft of filmmaking, and about 70’s films, and about how difficult it is to do a comedy or write a screenplay, or the difficulties of a thriller.

Hope you enjoy it.

-MM

50 Flaws of Indy IV

On January 17, 2007, Indy IV screenwriter, David Koepp, said, “I’m going to get my ass handed to me on some level, even by my fellow filmmakers or the audience.”

And so on this day, May 26, 2008, I, Mystery Man, will now officially hand David Koepp his ass:


(That’s my butler – Baremore. And I'm not even going to explain how we got David's ass. Hehehe…)

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

50 Flaws of Indy IV

** Total Spoilers **

1) Indy – The problems begin with Indy. Manohla Dargis suggested in her review that the film was a half-hearted effort on the part of Spielberg because he seemed bored with the material. How does one get that impression from a film? I would submit to you that the entire enterprise felt half-hearted simply because Indy was under-motivated. An Indiana Jones film does not hang its hat on the McGuffin but rather Indy’s motivation. The McGuffin doesn’t matter. What matters is how important that McGuffin is to Indy. If Indy wants an artifact more than anything, then the audience will want him to have it more than anything. It’s that simple. Indy should've gone to get the skull because HE wanted to get the skull, and was always fascinated by the skull, and couldn’t wait to get his hands on it - NOT because Oxley and some woman named “Mary” were kidnapped. We don’t know who Oxley or “Mary” is so we don’t really care, and the adventure begins on a half-hearted, uninspired note. We cared in Raiders because Indy WANTED the Ark. We cared in TOD because we saw the dying village and Indy WANTED to get the stones for them. We cared in LC because we met his Dad, albeit briefly, in the opening flashback sequence before we learned about his disappearance. Some professor and some woman we never knew and haven’t seen is missing? Who cares?

2) Indy said that he and Oxley “used to be obsessed” about the skulls. A more compelling motivation would’ve been, very simply, that Indy was STILL obsessed about the skulls, that it was his latest and greatest passion, that he would love to find one, and he takes off to get it. But here, his motivations are muddled and confusing. Does he want to save Oxley and Mutt’s mom as a courtesy to this kid he's never met before or does he want the skull? Does he even care about the skull?

3) Another ridiculously under-motivated moment with Indy came right before the Third Act climax. After having gone over those 3 waterfalls, Indy tells the gang that he has to return the skull. Why? “Because it told me to.” How half-hearted and ridiculous is that? Are you kidding me? Indy should’ve WANTED to return the skull because HE personally wanted it to happen. Period. All of this under-motivation (or confusing multiple motivations) of Indy points to a bigger problem and that is, the filmmakers themselves were never fully committed to their own McGuffin. It's as if they brought back Marion as an excuse to have an adventure despite the McGuffin, because they were too embarrassed about it. It's almost as if Spielberg is purposely trying to distance himself from the younger Spielberg who believed in aliens and made a movie about a man who left his wife and children to fly away on an alien spaceship. Hey, look. If you're going to tell an Indiana Jones story, you have to be fully committed to your McGuffin regardless of what it is. Indy has to care deeply about that McGuffin. He has to WANT IT. BADLY. If Indy's fully committed to wanting an artifact, the audience will be, too, and happier when they walk out of the theater.

4) The Warehouse - If Indy knew what the Russians were looking for and how to find it, why did he later ask the FBI agents what was in the box? If he didn’t know what was IN the box, how did he know the box had magnetic properties? He does sorta explain this dilemma in the interrogation scene. He tells the FBI agents a tale about being thrown on a bus in the middle of the night, seeing mutilated bodies, and being told not to say anything. He revealed nothing about his experience with the box and knowing about its properties. The fact that we even have to endure a convoluted piece of verbal exposition about what happened in order to explain how Indy knew about a box and its magnetic properties without knowing its contents is weak screenwriting.

5) Skulls - Correct me if I’m wrong. Indy said in the diner that there were 13 skulls. He found one in Peru, and Spalko obtained another one at the warehouse, right? But there were already 12 in the chamber that needed 13. That's 14 skulls. Then Spalko says later that more skulls were found in Russia and other places. Then why did she need the one in the warehouse? What was the point of the warehouse sequence? What was the point of Indy saying that there were only 13 skulls? How did they know that the skull in the warehouse WASN’T the important 13th skull that needed to be returned? Indy films were a lot of things, but confusing was never one of them.

6) FBI - The subplot with the FBI went unresolved and had nothing to do with the main plot. You would’ve thought that we had that interrogation scene with the FBI agents because the U.S. government would continue to spy on Indy around the world and that this would’ve played a part in the Third Act climax after which Indy’s name would be cleared. But, no. Those scenes were pointless except to perhaps make statements about government witch-hunting, which has already been made more brilliantly in other films. Indy’s name is, presumably, cleared in the end, because he’s reinstated at the college, but we never know how or why this happened. A horribly under-developed subplot.

7) And let me also add that the FBI agents and the General are 3 wasted characters, and that's sloppy writing. What’s the point of this subplot if we’re only going to see these characters once? At least the government guys made a re-appearance at the end of Raiders.

8) Mac - I question the point of Mac’s character. The idea of a double-crossing sidekick is great fun, but he was never put to good use. In fact, they totally gave the game away in the very beginning with Mac's betrayal at the warehouse. He turns on Indy before we ever had a chance to get to know the guy. Hence the quick, yet forced dialogue outside the warehouse about their long history together. Forced exposition like that does not help the surprise of Mac’s betrayal. Spending time with a character is what gives us the emotional punch of a betrayal. Not only that, Mac turns on Indy in the least dramatic moment. The Russian army never needed Mac to save them. Of course, Mac HAD to turn on Indy in the warehouse sequence so that, in the next few scenes, Indy would be under suspicion by the FBI for a subplot that never gets fleshed-out or resolved. They should've saved the twist of Mac’s betrayal for the ending. As it is, the scenes with Spalko following the red-light blinking thingees were boring because we KNEW Mac was leaving them. Where's the surprise and tension in that?

9) Why was Mac in Peru? Presumably, it’s a conspiracy of the most absurd kind. I think I understand. Try to follow me. The Russians let Marion mail the letter to her son with the instructions to take the letter to Indy so that he will go on the hunt to obtain the 13th skull. And the Russians knew that Indy took on this challenge because they saw Mutt with Indy in the diner, and thus, they sent Mac to Peru to follow them. But Mac’s already betrayed Indy. That makes it an even bigger risk to the Russians to have him there. Why not send some anonymous spy? Why was Mac even in Peru? Didn’t he get paid off for the warehouse job? Shouldn’t he be on holiday? Since when did Russians pay?

10) Funny that Mac didn’t die in that crushing head-on collision in the warehouse, which involved THREE vehicles when that third truck rammed into back of what was Indy’s jeep.

11) Diner Scene - the exposition in the diner scene was the worst in the franchise. This was the most amateurish rock-bottom handling of exposition that could have been written. It was two talking heads in a diner. That's it. Remember how visual the exposition was in the Raiders setup with the big book and the chalkboard and the talk about the Well of Souls? That's great exposition. That was exciting! In TOD, we had the visual of the dying village. In LC, at least we had the visuals of dad's journal. Here, it's just two talking heads. And Spielberg had to add those visual flourishes of Mutt toying around with the coke and beer to keep the scene from being boring and visually lifeless. One of the bedrock principles of screenwriting: show, don’t tell.

12) There was also too much exposition in the diner scene. We had the rather convoluted and confusing backstory of Oxley, how Oxley’s important to Mutt, the kidnapping of Oxley, the kidnapping of his mother, the letter, and also heaping amounts of exposition from Indy about the skulls. It was too much. Indiana Jones films were a lot of things, but they never had to do a lot of explaining about anything. It would’ve been much easier if he had said very simply, “My Mom’s Marion Ravenwood, and she’s missing.” This would’ve given Indy a stronger motivation that could’ve excited audiences. We would’ve anticipated this great reunion, and we wouldn’t have had to listen to chunks of exposition to get around a surprise everyone saw coming since the day Shia’s casting was announced. Besides, even if some in the audience were actually surprised by her return, how many times are you going to be surprised by that twist? Only once.

13) Indy tells the Crystal Skull story to Mutt in the diner almost dismissively (“It's just a story, kid”) even though he just helped the Russians find one in the warehouse… in a box that he didn’t know about but somehow knew it had magnetic properties.

14) What was the point of the scorpion sting on Mutt's hand? Shouldn't that have led to something else? Or a setup to a joke of some kind later? By the way, David, scorpions STING, they don't BITE. I seriously doubt Indy would've made that little verbal mistake.

15) Discovering the Skull - Two problems with Indy finding the skull. First, you make the whole experience and joy of discovery less special (or not special at all) if it’s a tomb that Indy doesn’t discover for the first time and if it’s an artifact that Indy isn’t the first to find. Here, the tomb's already been raided, the artifact was found, taken, and put back for Indy to find later. That’s ridiculous. That pulls the rug out from all the fun of watching Indy do what he does best.

16) The second problem is that the discovery of the skull was too simple and too easy. He handed a corpse to Mutt and flipped up some fabric. Are you kidding me? Consider the past films and all the great care that went into the revealing of the all-important McGuffin, which was always made as special as possible for the audience.

17) Consider how the metal objects of the warehouse trailed behind the skull, which was wrapped up inside a lead container inside a wooden box. If the skull was behind the corpse’s head in Peru, why wasn't all the gold lying RIGHT NEXT to the corpse all over the head?

18) How did Oxley, of all people, get past the graveyard guardians? Plus, who did they work for? And who did their wardrobe and make-up?

19) Dialogue - WAY too much confusing dialogue in Act Two while they were searching for Oxley. There were too many double-meanings of words, which is beneath the caliber of an Indy film. I didn't understand much of it on my first viewing. The scene in the tomb should’ve ended almost immediately after they found the skull, but they just kept talking and talking. That was a bad pacing misstep.

20) The skull looked like cheap plastic filled with Saran Wrap. There was no discernible rhyme or reason to its properties except that they were carefully designed to save Indy whenever he was in trouble.

21) Irina Spalko - She was the worst and weakest of the villains. She wasn’t even as ruthless as Julian Glover. Koepp cock-blocks every opportunity to make her a great villain. First, he should've established early just how BAD she really is. The worst thing she ever did was whip out her sword. I would’ve been happier if, instead of Mac betraying Indy in the warehouse, Spalko kills Mac to prove that she meant business. The fact that Spalko couldn't communicate with the skull was another misstep, in my opinion. Her mental connection to the skull would've raised the stakes and turned her into a more dangerous antagonist. Also, why make Spalko a psychic if A) she can’t even read Indy’s mind and B) nothing else develops from it? Her psychic abilities, I guess, was her motivation to obtain the skull’s power of mind, but she was so weak as a villain that I never felt she deserved what she got in the end. (I get the sense that they made her a soft villain so they wouldn’t offend today’s Russians, but to make her weak would be even more offensive, would it not? Besides, there is nothing worse in an Indy film than an under-motivated protagonist and a soft villain.)

22) Marion - We never got the sense that Marion was ever in real danger. Consider how quickly and simply Marion was in danger in the bar scene in Raiders.

23) I never once believed that Marion would not have told Indy about their son. The only reason she didn’t tell him was because a contrived plot forced her to do so and we can have a special moment in a sandpit.

24) Why was Indy helping the Russians? Wouldn't he have told them one thing to send them on the wrong path while he goes off to do something different? Wouldn't that be more in his character? The fact that Indy was asking for help when only the Russians were around (and they always complied) just made them even LESS formidable as foes. Could you imagine Indy asking the Thuggees for help?

25) Mutt - I never once believed that Mutt, a supposedly tough 50's teen rebel, would've been so emotional about Oxley – even more so than for his own mother who's in just as much danger as Oxley.

26) The fact that Mutt was able to surprise a trained Russian army by pushing over a table, pushing them back with the table, and throwing down a lantern was beyond implausible.

27) Why did Indy tell Oxley to “get help” when he and Marion were in the sandpit? The only humans within a square mile were armed Russians actively searching for Indy. And Mutt already went to get help. Indy would’ve known better. Besides, they were surrounded by trees. Why didn't they just grab a nearby branch? I’ll tell you why. Because the screenplay called for a contrived slapstick moment with a snake that was too forced and unbelievable to get real laughs.

28) Early Reviewers - I’d like to give a shout-out to ShogunMaster who wrote that scathing early review. He took a lot of heat for that in the media. David Poland at Movie City News described him as “one idiot.” There were actually 3 reviews, David. Try to keep up. The thing is, ShogunMaster was right. All of his complaints about lack of tension were not only spot on but also echoed by many other top critics, including Robert Wilonsky, Joe Morgenstern, James Berardinelli, and the great Manohla Dargis who said she was “bored out of her mind.” Here’s a perfect example of this film's lack of tension. How can there be any tension leading up to the Third Act when Indy has the McGuffin in his possession and he’s doing what the Russians want him to do (without forcing him to do it) and he’s also doing what the skull wants him to do? What the hell does Indy want? When we get into the chamber, he strangely changes his mind when Spalko puts the skull on the alien’s body. If anything, the Russians should’ve obtained the skull in the chase sequence, captured Indy and the gang, and they all marched up to the chamber together. Indy could’ve known what would happen if the skull is returned, DIDN’T want to see that happen, and tries to stop Spalko from doing it. THAT, my friends, creates TENSION.

29) Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about the Third Act climax and the aliens made any sense to me. How did the 13 become one? Why do they become one? What was the “gift” exactly? Melting Spalko?

30) I actually didn't like the exchanges between Marion and Indy. It was all too angry, on-the-nose, and not much fun for me. Marion’s return was just a ridiculously contrived fanboy concept, and I believe Jeb Stuart’s wedding (and the surprise appearance of Marion and Willy in a bar afterwards) would’ve played better with audiences.

31) So Indy, Marion, and Mutt are prisoners in the back of a truck, which of course, they manage to escape from AGAIN by suddenly kicking everybody. Question - why would Russians have a bazooka stored in a truck transporting prisoners?

32) The Chase - Ebert had a funny observation: “We get such sights as two dueling Jeep-like vehicles racing down parallel roads. Not many of the audience members will be as logical as I am and wonder who went to the trouble of building parallel roads in a rain forest.” Actually, Ebert’s wrong. There shouldn't have been ANY roads, because the sequence began with that monster vehicle cutting up the rainforest and paving the way for the convoy behind it. After Indy blew it up, they should've been on foot or turned the truck around and went back.

33) Nearly everyone made this complaint and it’s true - excessive, bloated CGI. I hated those stupid prairie dogs. The "big damn" CGI ants would've never worked. In Raiders, you felt tension with Indy fighting around that plane because it was a real, physical plane. You'll never feel that same kind of tension with CGI ants, which frankly betrayed years of promises to fans about no CGI.

34) No blood. Anywhere. Just a bit in the Soviet soldier's mouth before he toppled into the ants. That was it. Hardly any bullet holes in the dead Indians and no blood after the soldiers got gunned down in the beginning. This was the most cartoonish, fake, sanitized Indiana Jones film ever made and one that should’ve been PG instead of PG-13.

35) The sword fight between Mutt and Spalko was pointless and failed to advance the story in any way. Mutt was given what amounts to a razor burn and that’s it. Mutt’s talent for sword-fighting was fed to us via bad verbal exposition. If a character has a particular skill that the audience needs to know about, then that skill better be used to advance the story in some meaningful way, not so that we can have a 10-second sword fight on top of two moving cars that has no affect on the outcome of this giant “tent pole” chase sequence.

36) Shia swinging from vines was the dumbest idea in not only the entire Indiana Jones franchise but also the Spielberg canon. It’s worse than the high bar crap in Lost World, which by the way was also written by David Koepp. But even worse than that is the simple fact that Indiana Jones did NOTHING in the big chase sequence. All the action was handed to Mutt. Tell me: whose movie is this? Indy’s or Mutt’s?

37) Oxley - What was with the funny-sounding rod that Oxley was playing with the first time we see him, which is presented to us as if it has some kind of significance and then is quickly forgotten?

38) Here's Ebert again: “At his advanced age, Professor Oxley tirelessly jumps between vehicles, survives fire and flood and falling from great heights, and would win on 'American Gladiator.' Relationships between certain other characters are of interest, since (a) the odds against them finding themselves together are astronomical, and (b) the odds against them not finding themselves together in this film are incalculable.”

39) I also wholly agreed with James Berardinelli: “Unfortunately, not only is the level of tension at an all-time low but the choreography is dubious. The film can't keep track of all the characters so one car disappears for half the chase only to reappear at a critical juncture near the end. The movie contains its share of other action scenes that, while less lavish or extensive, are no more thrilling.”

40) So those natives were just plastered into the walls, waiting for someone to come along for the last 500 years? The idea was too similar to the crazy protectors of the graveyard in Peru. The entire discovery of the skull should’ve been completely scrapped and re-done.

41) There were jokes about Indy's age, but his fights were treated as if he was still young. So which is it? Is he old or is he young? Don’t bones get more brittle with age? One of the charms of Indy in the past is that the filmmakers allowed him to show pain. But in this film, he takes more abuse than he ever did in the three previous films, doesn't show any pain whatsoever, and yet, he's much OLDER.

42) Way too many characters: Indy, Mutt, Marion, Mac, and Oxley.

43) We were frequently ahead of the story (when we weren't confused) such as “Mary” being Marion Ravenwood or Mutt being Indy’s son or that Indy will win the fight with the Russian soldier who will fall into the ants, or frankly, the mysteries about the skull itself.

44) The spaceship taking off lacked any sense of wonder. Nothing Spielberg could give us in that sequence will ever compare to the emotional impact of E.T. or the stunning visuals of Close Encounters. I blame Lucas for putting Spielberg into the position of giving the audience an impossibly unsatisfying ending any way he approached it.

45) “It's the space between the space” might actually be worse Third Act dialogue than “Illumination.”

46) I don’t know about your crowd, but when Shia was getting ready to put Indy's hat on, people in my theater started BOOING.

47) You know it’s bad when even John Williams turns in a lame score.

48) Should I even mention how joyless and unfunny it was? I’d recommend that Koepp reads Mel Helitzer’s Comedy Writing Secrets.

49) By my count, Indy should’ve died 168 times.

50) And finally, they should’ve turned to me for the writing duties.

Hehehe…


[I'd like to thank Erin, Joel, anonymous, Octavio, Mickey Lee, Nic, Purpletrex, James, Pat, and Kevin Lehane for their thoughts. -MM]

Post Your Indy IV Comments!

I'd like to try something new.

Since most of the world will be watching Indiana Jones this weekend, I'd like to ask all of my readers one, simple question:

What did you think about the screenwriting of Indy IV?

Forgive My French

I Can't Hear You from My Little Black Pot

Language is the most interesting (and damn hard) subject to learn. At a "tender" age of 20, I already learn several languages such as English, Arabic and the latest is French. And of course, there is my mother tongue (why they don't call it father tongue?) language which is Bahasa Melayu (or Malay language or Bahasa Malaysia. Whichever they call it now). I always wanted to write a post in Malay but I am not confident enough with my ability to construct beautiful sentences that will captivate my readers (I never had an "A" for my Bahasa Melayu subject in school). So, just hope that the day will come soon.

Language may sometimes misinterpreted. The ability to diagnose a language must be achieved with a full consideration of its culture and where the place of language is spoken. How we portraits our ideas into words, to make a sentence just to form an understandable argument. It's a hard process to learn a new language. Sometimes, your tongue just couldn't handle it. As my Indian friend once said, we need a short tongue to learn Malay language, a shorter one to learn English, and a longer one to learn Tamil's. Can anyone tells me how to grow your tongue LONGER?

So, in the midst of my struggling to learn French, I flip up my ultimate guide into the French language, which is The Complete Idiot's Guide to Learning French On Your Own, and it stated that there are ten reasons only why you should learn French:

1. You love Colette's romance novels.
2. You'd like to root for the Montréal Canadiens in French.
3. You loved Les Misérables so much that you decided to read the original version in its entirety—all 600 plus pages.
4. You want to avoid ordering francs with mustard and sauerkraut.
5. You never know when you're going to run into Catherine Deneuve.
6. You want to impress your date at a French restaurant.
7. You love French movies but find the subtitles too distracting.
8. They won't let you onto the topless beach in Martinique without it.
9. Two words: French Fries.
10. You want to meet St. Exupéry's “Little Prince.”

Note: I only know what the heck he's talking about start from the number 6 and higher. So, which one is my reason for learning French? It's not even there! I wanted to learn French because of its beauty and for the art of the language itself. I wanted to feel good, sexy and could make anyone drooling in my presence. It's the same feeling when you wish to learn British accent so that your partner will mistakenly think that you're as hot and as sexy as Jude Law. Or when you have the urge to learn Chinese so that you will be master in kungfu. Or when you though that if you speak in Korean or Japanese, you will be automatically beautiful (without any clear gender line) and your partner will somehow become irresistible-dolly-cute.

Oh, and it may be because I will be having my short holiday there. I will be going to Paris for 10 days (or more) with my family. My flight will leave this Sunday, which means I have to go to Kuala Lumpur either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. I am not sure whether I will bring along my laptop, so just in case I am not, I just want to tell all my readers that I am won't be updating my blog until I am back to Malaysia.

This year has done plenty of good things for me. Nevertheless, when it comes to my study, it was one of the most busy, mind breaking, hormone building year. I am looking forward for the half of this 2008 year! Have a great week, and happy holiday everyone!!

à bientôt (so long),

Bluecrystaldude

On GreenCine Daily

Hey guys,

Let me say that GreenCine Daily offers the best coverage on films on the web bar none, and no, they didn’t pay me to say that.

I receive their daily e-mail updates, which you can also get for free by signing up here. I’ve said before that one major problem I’ve noticed in some aspiring screenwriters I’ve encountered over the years is that they limit their vision by ONLY hanging out with other screenwriters and by ONLY reading screenwriting books and screenwriting magazines. You hurt yourself and your creativity by limiting the information you get about films. Most discussions about films are usually, by extension, discussions about screenwriting, too.

These guys really open your eyes to films in ways you won’t expect, and today’s e-mail was no exception. So I’d like to share their coverage on three Cannes films that I personally can’t wait to see. The way that David Hudson compiles all the articles and quotes is certainly no small feat, and my hat goes off to him.

-MM

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

Cannes. Changeling.

"A thematic companion piece to Mystic River but more complex and far-reaching, Changeling impressively continues Clint Eastwood's great run of ambitious late-career pictures," writes Variety's Todd McCarthy.


"Emotionally powerful and stylistically sure-handed, this true story-inspired drama begins small with the disappearance of a young boy, only to gradually fan out to become a comprehensive critique of the entire power structure of Los Angeles, circa 1928."

Updated.

"Changeling rings the muckracking bells of the likes of I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang, and the devoted-mother high notes of Stella Dallas," writes Glenn Kenny. "Its old-fashionedness, or I should say respect for verities, goes hand-in-hand with a particularly Eastwood-esque directness. The result is not as perfect a film as Eastwood has made, but it's damn strong, both as a story and an exploration of the parent-child bond and a polemic. Because despite the fact that it deals with the corruption and venality of a past era, Changeling is at times a very angry picture; Eastwood's angriest, I think, since Unforgiven."

"Beautifully produced and guided by Eastwood's elegant, unostentatious hand, it also boasts a career-best performance by Angelina Jolie who has never been this compelling," writes Mike Goodridge in Screen Daily.

The true story the film's based on, "as incredible as it is compelling," as the Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt puts it, was "uncovered by screenwriter J Michael Straczynski in the city's own records and newspapers, adds a forgotten chapter to the LA noir of Chinatown and [LA Confidential]."

Updates: For Time's Richard Corliss, Changeling "juggles elements of LA Confidential, The Black Dahlia, The Snake Pit and any number of serial-killer thrillers. But at its center are the heartache and heroic resolve of a woman who has lost the one person she loves most and is determined to find him, dead or alive, against all obstacles the authorities place in her way. In that sense the movie is a companion piece to last year's Cannes entry A Mighty Heart, in which Jolie played the wife of kidnapped journalist Daniel Pearl - except that Changeling is far more taut, twisty and compelling."

"Because the film is based on real events, we know going in how it's going to end; the film's tension rides, therefore, not in the destination but in the journey to get there," notes Kim Voynar at Cinematical.

Eugene Hernandez has a snapshot and quotes from the press conference.

"Whatever it winds up being called, 'L'Ex-Changeling' got a warm reception from the press this morning," reports Salon's Andrew O'Hehir:

"Whether that really reflects the film's inherent qualities, or just the experience of observing two prodigious stars of different eras collaborate on a major Hollywood project that wasn't made for morons, is open to debate. For anybody who's ever felt passionate about the movies, it was impossible to resist the spectacle of Eastwood, looking both dapper and weatherbeaten in an elegant cream-colored suit, strolling slowly through a rooftop garden here with the gloriously pregnant Jolie on his arm. It was of course the impersonation of casualness and spontaneity rather than the real thing; they were walking through a forest of photographers on their way to the press conference. But the appearance of being at one's ease while maximally exposed to public scrutiny is the essence of stardom."

Much more follows.

Online viewing tip. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times.

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

Cannes. Of Time and the City.

"[T]he one truly great movie to emerge so far has been Terence Davies's Of Time and the City [site]; it's not only this writer who considers it some kind of masterpiece."


This writer is Geoff Andrew (Time Out): "Watching the film, you realise that Britain has no other filmmaker to match Davies in terms of his purely cinematic sensibility. Fine as our other far-from-inconsiderable big names are, it's hard to imagine any of them creating sheer filmic poetry as may be found here. Davies's juxtapositions of music and image, especially, are consistently audacious, original and exhilarating, whether the compositions reflect and reinforce each other or whether they make more complex by way of superbly sharp irony."

Updated through 5/20.

"[E]ven though it runs a brief 72 minutes, this documentary memory play about Davies' hometown of Liverpool is so rich with emotion, nostalgia, clarity, and love that it feels epic," writes the Boston Globe's Ty Burr. "Davies himself narrates over the inspired onrush of historical and archival footage, and his hoarse, whispered cadences have the urgency of the confessional and the scornful humor of the outsider.... [I]t's easily the most haunting work I've seen at Cannes."

"[T]his is mainly a biography of a place and time," writes Mary Corliss for Time: "of its stately old civic monuments and, later, its soulless estates (an expression, Davies says in the narration, of 'the British genius for creating the dismal'); of its residents' football mania and fondness for radio's corniest comics; of the contrast between postwar rationing and the regal excesses of Queen Elizabeth's coronation ('the Betty Windsor Show')."

"Davies has always been fascinated by both out-of-reach glamour and the banality of everyday life," writes Howard Feinstein in Screen Daily. "Revisiting what he calls 'the happy highways where I went and can not come again,' is obviously cathartic for Davies, even if melancholy seeps through every frame."

Earlier: Frank Cottrell Boyce talks with Davies for the Guardian.

Updates, 5/20: Davies "ranges far and wide through both the city and its history, waxing personal and then political as he lingers at the movies (an early love), pauses in bleak homes and passes through one grim brick-lined Liverpudlian street after another, strewn with litter and busy with children," writes Manohla Dargis in the New York Times. "Mixing his words with quotations (from Friedrich Engels to Willem de Kooning), pop songs and classical music, he brings the past sensitively to life with black-and-white and color footage of a time long gone, both distant and still."

"Nothing in Cannes has given me as much pleasure as Terence Davies's glorious Of Time and the City," writes the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw. "It is by turns tender, lyrical, angry, shrewd and, above all, funny. This tough, unsentimental film refuses to use cliches and it got enormous, deserved laughs from festival-goers of all nationalities.... I was reminded of Philip Larkin's request that his poems should be read aloud as simply as if giving directions in the street: Davies's poetic cinema has precisely this clarity and force."

Variety's Leslie Felperin finds the film "by turns moving, droll and charming, and niftily assembled, but not necessarily that profound."

"Who's the happiest man in Cannes this week?" asks the Telegraph's David Gritten. "My vote would go to British director Terence Davies, who's walking around the place looking like the cat who got the cream."

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

Cannes. Ashes of Time Redux.

"National cinemas have different Golden Ages," writes Mary Corliss for Time.


"For Hong Kong, it was the decade from the mid-80s to the mid-90s, when directors like Tsui Hark and John Woo were revitalizing the crime film, and when young Wong Kar-wai was revolutionizing the misty romance. At the time, Hong Kong also had perhaps the world's greatest roster of glamorous stars, and prominent among them were Leslie Cheung, Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, the two Tony Leungs, Jacky Cheung, Carina Lau and Charlie Young. All of them are in Wong's 1994 martial-arts reverie Ashes of Time, which had a special screening last night in a version revised by the director."

Updated through 5/20.

"The first surprise about Wong Kar-wai's revamped, re-edited and rescored version of his 1994 cult wuxia classic Ashes of Time is just how little has been changed," writes Lee Marshall in Screen Daily. "The second is how much these minor tweaks still have helped clarify the Hong Kong auteur's interpretation of Louis Cha's historical fantasy novel The Eagle-Shooting Hero, confirming that his most poetic, experimental film belongs not in the curiosity cabinet but on the big screen."

"Wong was not content merely to repeat or reinvigorate the genre when he began shooting Ashes of Time more than 15 years ago, but decided to reinvent it completely," writes Peter Brunette in the Hollywood Reporter. "[O]ne wonders what fecundity of imagination - or perversity of artistic willfulness - it took to shoot a costume epic that is made up almost entirely of dark rooms, close-ups and tightly constricted long shots... Wong's obsessive themes of memory, the irretrievability of the past and the impossibility of love, trump those of the traditional wuxia film, which tend to deal more with honor and the indomitability of the spirit."

"The original 1994 Ashes, which I haven't seen (it's available in a poorly done DVD version) apparently didn't make much sense, and it certainly doesn't now, but, lord, is it a vision to behold - a wuxia film turned into an abstract expressionist action painting," writes the Boston Globe's Ty Burr.

Patrick Frater has a brief report on the emotionally charged screening - and a pick of Wong and cinematographer Christopher Doyle, together - at the Circuit.

Updates, 5/20: "Culled from prints gathered from around the world, this newly re-edited and digitally tweaked iteration runs about 10 minutes shorter than the original, and rather more coherently," writes Manohla Dargis in the New York Times. "Drenched in shocking color - the desert shifts from egg-yolk yellow to burnt orange under a cerulean sky - the film is Mr Wong's most abstract endeavor, a bold excursion into the realm of pure cinema. It also now seems like one of his most important. Ashes of Time Redux will be released by Sony Pictures Classics in September."

The Guardian's Xan Brooks gets a few words with Wong.

Ray Pride's found the poster.

Tags Redemption

Tag 1 - My silly (yet highly participated) answers

I was tagged by beautiful Fara. And I am tagging Nisha (who hasn't come by for quite some times, miss you :)

+START COPY+

Instructions: Remove ONE question from below, and add in your personal question, make it a total of 20 questions, then tag 8 people in your list, list them out at the end of this post. Notify them in their chat box that he/she has been tagged. Whoever does the tag will have blessings from all.

1. Do you believe in love at first sight?
- Nope.. Although, I judge a book by its cover

2. Have you ever felt stupid? Why?
- Hey, Stupid is a mean word!

3. Where is the place that you want to go the most?
- Outer space.. Must be very appealing to see aliens out there..

4. If you can have 1 dream to come true, what would it be?
- To live my life as a dream! (When you hate your life, you just need to wake up, and start a different dream all over.. Yeah, I know.. I am a genius!

5. Do you believe in seeing a rainbow after the rain?
- "Do you believe"?? Hell-o, it is a scientific occurrence dude! It's always happen when... blah blah blah.. Oh God, just Google it for God sake

6. Do you like being who you are today?
- Well, people are jealous with me..

7. If you win $1 million, what would you do?
- Reinvest it

8. If you meet someone that you love, would you confess to him/her?
- Hey, Love is a mean word!

9. Who are the top five people in the world you would wish to meet?
- I want to meet five dead people.. They must have amazing stories to be told

10. What are the requirements that you wish from your other half?
- To have the other half

11. Which type of cars I love the most?
- Bentley

12. Which do you prefer from your other half? hug? or a kiss?
- Please, it's against my religion! (lalalala)

13. If you have faults, would you rather the people around you point out to you or would you rather they keep quiet?
- I don't really care what people said

14. What do you think is the most important thing in your life?
- Life it self

15. Are you a shopaholic or not?
- I am a profess shopaholic.. Which the main reason I don't have a card credit until now

16. What kind of electronic device/gadget you own that you like most?
- Laptop, Camera, and my PDA

17. If you have a chance, which part of your character you would like to change?
- None

18. What makes you feel disappointed?
- Puny stuffs are unbearable & petty matters are dragged.

19. If given a chance, do you want to see your future?
- No.. There will be no fun after that

20. What is your philosophy of life?
- Impossible is Nothing

+END COPY+

Tag 2 - Which was way too long, so I decided to pass it

Sorry man. I got this 35 questions tag from Faisal Admar. As I am not doing it, I don't think I have to tag anybody.

Tag 3 - Top Five Best Diary Blog

This tag was made by my friend, Bluedreamer. I am not sure what a Diary Blog means. But if I had to write a diary and too lazy to write it up. I will ask these writer to write it for me:

1. Angelbaby (Your Caring Angels)
2. Waliz (Waliz Diary)
3. Faisal Admar (Life too Short to be Ordinary)

The reason could be seen clearly by their blog name. Angels, Diary and Life.. What a combination :) Go and read their diary blog NOW!

Tag 4 - As always, I love linking others

I got this tag from (again) Fara and Faisal Admar. And I want to tag Axim. Hope his father will get well soon..

+START COPY+

This is the easy way and the fastest way to :
1. Make your Authority Technorati explode.
2. Increase your Google Page Rank.
3. Get more traffic to your blog.
4. Makes more new friends.

Rules :

1. Start copy from “Begin Copy” until “End Copy” to your blog(for bloggers paste on the “compose” not the “edit html” part in posting blogs so it will be linked automatically).
2. Put your own blog name and link.
3. Tag your friends as much as you can, the more the better!

List
1. Picturing of Life
2. Juliana’s Site
3.Hazel-My Life, My Hope, My Future.
4.Jeanne-The Callalily Space
5.Starz in De Sky
6. My Charmed Life
7.Denz Techtronics
8.Denz Recreational
9.Life’s Simple Pleasures
10. My Blog
11. Because Life is Fun
12. In This Game of Life
13.Scribbles of my Life
14.Changing Lanes
15. anna
16. joytoy
17.Surviving deployment
18. The Deviant
19. All I want is Everything
20. Shadows of love, fate and destiny
21.Tasteful Voyage
22.A mom’s note
23. Bittersweet Collide
24.Jackie Simplypinay
25.Jackie’s Everyday Life
26. Parisukat
27. Ang Sponge ni Bub
28. ee-ey
29. Life is too short to be ordinary
30. mangosteenskin
31. the art of FarA's realm
32. Hot Shit Form Here

YOU’RE NEXT

+END COPY+

Finally.. I done with all the tags.. Sorry for any miss out tags. I sometimes lost it somewhere. I am not a big fan of tag, but I don't want to disappoint some of my loyal readers. Have a nice day!

P/S: I am learning the basic French. The most important sentence that I learned was, "Je ne comprends pas" which simply means, "I do not understand". LOL. Oh, and my favorite is "Ou sont lest toilettes?" which means, "Where is the toilet?". I sure will need to use that a lot.


Au revoir, Adieu (Goodbye)

Bluecrystaldude

Hot News This Week #2

Politic - Dirty? Not-lah

I am not sure whether the news about Malaysia's former Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who finally decided to quits the ruling party or the American Idol finale news. Okay, fine. Mahathir wins hand down. He is a former prime minister (read detector) for 22 years. After all the bad things he had done, I still have a respect for him. As people say, he indeed 70% right most of the time. A percentage that equivalent with A++ in Malaysia's politic.

Although my father and I mutually agree that the medias are trying to light down the spotlight from Mahathir's case with the infamous six - which included a prominent lawyer, an attorney-general, a tycoon, 2 Chiefs Justice and the now Tourism Minister). The case is now not even in the front page of any local newspaper. Suddenly, the famous V.K. Lingam's tape (did you know that Lingam is also a Sanskrit word for male sexual organ? See the Lingam Massage) has disappear. Just hope that they will do something about it later.

Oh, don't forget that the showdown between Obama and Hillary hasn't yet reach the end. It had been a long run, I am glad we finally reach to the end of it.

Entertainment - Finally..
Another showdown this week is the American Idol finale. A match between two Davids - between a rock star and the prince of ballad. My vote (if I had one) will goes to the older and the rocker David. David Archuleta just too sweet (too innocent, too cute, too fragile and other "too" good qualities to describe him) for me to swallow. And Randy keeps calling him "Yo, babe". LOL. Love when he sang Chris Brown's though.

“Season seven will be remembered for that kid with the stage father who may or may not (as of this writing) have cost his son the title. It is the season when everyone thought an Irish girl with a failed CD just might be pimped to death by the show but in the end was never given a break. It was the season of guitars, pianos and yes, a ukelele. A season of forgotten lyrics. A season with iTunes. A season of an ill-advised mosh pit and useless Q&A sessions. And yet another season in which Paula Abdul upstaged the contestants for all the wrong reasons. In the end, it may be a season in which “American Idol” turned the corner and ultimately became the search for and selling of a rock star.” - Rickey Yaneza - who "has been posting MP3s and video of each "Idol" performance for as long as we can remember and treats every "Idol" season as a full-blown political campaign, complete with slogans, nicknames and online ralies" - MTV

Of course, there also Akademi Fantasia finale this week to cater for Malaysian drama appetite. Not sure who will win the it, but I think Stacy, Nadia and Riz are a good trio. That being said, I kinda annoyed with Nadia and Riz's attitude. Toi is upgrading himself very well and Nubhan is in it just to proof that Malaysian are still voting based on their look rather than talent.

Humanity - OMFG!

The first case is about the two women were arrested after being accused of allowing a fucking freakingly young 2-year-old to smoke at a restaurant. The aunt said she was concerned about the boy's welfare because the child can say and do other inappropriate things, and believes that may have picked up on the drug activity his mother displays. According to police:

The boy's 26-year-old mother and 39-year-old aunt were eating at the restaurant last week when they held a cigarette up to the boy's mouth and attempted to light it.

The aunt told police that the boy often says, "smoke, smoke," and sometimes takes cigarettes out of a pack and puts them in his mouth.

The child had been saying "smoke, smoke" while the aunt was smoking in the restaurant, and she held her cigarette up to the child's face. When she took it away,
he continued to ask for a cigarette and grabbed one from a pack on the table. - GreenfieldNOW

Oh my, could it be caused by a young motherhood? The mother too young to quit her much more enjoyable life? How do we know we are ready to become a parent? Do we need an age barrier? I don't think 26-year-old is considered as "young" nowadays, as people at the tender age of 15 already pregnant and having kids. To be matured beyond your age is a dangerous thing, especially when you have no guide from older people.

Second case is about an online hoax that ended with the suicide of 13-year-old girl, Megan Meier who hanged herself last year inside her parents' home. Their parents have said that their daughter's death was the result of the rapid decline of her online relationship with a person she believed to be a boy name "Josh Evans," who first flattered the self-conscious girl and then taunted her.

Her neighbor, Lori Drew and 18-year-old employee identified as Ashley, allegedly created a false-identity Myspace account to contact Megan, who thought she was chatting with a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. Truth is, Josh didn't exist. Meier hanged herself after receiving cruel messages, including one stating the world would be better off without her (!).

I am not in the position to urge people to be truthful in their networking sites when some people chose to create an alter image of themselves there, which I did for time to time. Well, life is bored if you don't know how to enjoy it. LOL. Nevertheless, try not to be safe when you're out there. Do not give any personal informations which include your instant messenger id, phone number, address, avoid upload your house's picture (which I accidentally did, and then some stranger start knocking on my front door), telling about your vacation date and place, and for underage kids, please let your parents know when someone saying that he/she is interested in you.

Oh I wish I had the power, the power to change the world
But I'm just one man trying to do it on my own
Somebody change the world,
we've got little boys and little girls,
growing up on this sinful earth,
oh whats happening?
I don't know, but please tell me,
we've got all these criminals and discretes,
killin people for no reason,
I don't know why..
Oh I wish I had the power, the power to change the world
But I'm just one man trying to do it on my own
- Sean Kingston - Change

Related post:

• Hot News This Week
  

Bluecrystaldude