The House Next Door

A great friend of mine has kicked off his own blog.

The House Next Door

He is a film and television critic for the NY Press and the New Jersey Star-Ledger. More importantly, he can write about any topic with a clear voice and mind.

This may be enough of a catalyst to get me kick-started with Elliptic again.

What's cooking...

Here is a quick recap of some of the events and items capturing my attention these past few weeks:

Flickr
Opened an account in Flickr and placed a photo feed on Elliptic (see the right-sidebar). This will allow me to keep a frequent feed of photos rather than only creating albums every so often. Flickr is an interesting site for many reasons - I've already discussed one of them.

"Home"
My old college friends, Matt and Jen, have made a film that is curently touring the film festival circuit. In true independent (read: financially-strapped) spirit, I was an actor, cameraman, boom operator, lighting monkey and associate producer (among other things). Now if I could only get my act together and assemble a crew to do my own script.

Philadelphia Film Festival
Here is an initial list of films I am planning to view:

• 5 x 2: Five Times Two  dir. Francois Ozon
• Ma Mere  dir. Christophe Honore
• Lonesome Jim  dir. Steve Buscemi
• Clean  dir. Olivier Assayas
• Kings and Queen  dir. Arnaud Desplechin

Before Sunset & Armond White

Saw this film at the Ritz recently and was enchanted and moved by it. For the most part, critical reception has been quite positive. I did bump into Armond White's negative review in the New York Press and felt the need to jot down some responses to that review. Here are some excerpts:

Now comes Before Sunset, a so-called love story that encourages the selfish tendencies of modern movie-makers and audiences. Our cultural divide can be felt in the very concept of this movie about the mutual attraction of two navel-gazers: Ethan Hawke as an American novelist and Julie Delpy as a French environmentalist, the same pair that met nine years ago in Before Sunrise. Not just thirtysomethings, now they're smug thirtysomethings; other people and the outside world do not puncture their intellectual cocoon.

I do not think that Before Sunset "encourages the selfish tendencies of modern movie-makers and audiences," but, if it did, it is not clear whether this is a criticism of the aesthetic merit of the film or a scolding for not undertaking a noble sociological goal. It is true that there are plenty of art critics that include the social value of a work of art as part of the evaluation of the work's merit, but Armond White's review does not provide the necessary arguments to support that view.

When he mentions that Jesse and Celine are "smug thirtysomethings" and that "other people and the outside world do not puncture their intellectual cocoon," he is correct. However, he seems to treat this as premises in support for the bad quality of the film. The representation of smugness and solipsism is, in my view, part of the intended characterizations. The audience is intelligent enough to realize that they may be witnessing a pair of smug people carping on about love, memory and other philosophical topics and still find their characters appealing and valuable. A representation of smugness does not necessarily make a film smug. Granted, Linklater may be extremely sympathetic to his characters, but the audience is given the space to dislike aspects of Jesse and Celine's personas.

Everything wrong with today's movie culture can be found in Before Sunset. Not to exaggerate this pipsqueak movie, but its very "smallness" is symptomatic of the diminished expectations and paltry substance that have become standard. Linklater's screenplay collaboration with his performers enshrines the indie audience's solipsistic taste. Their nonvoluptuous love story reduces courtship rituals to talk—and unexciting talk at that. The woman is slyly aggressive, and the man is abashed about his desperation. Linklater, Hawke and Delpy are not rejecting the screwball comedy model so much as indulging their own lack of imagination. (Any episode of tv's Elimidate or Blind Date tell us as much about how men and women feign and risk.) It's a grim joke that anyone took this method seriously the first time around, and the sequel will feel superfluous to anyone except those viewers vain enough to see themselves in Hawke and Delpy. The sign of Linklater's facetiousness is that his couple comes off as over-sincere and pretentious rather than embarrassingly real.

"Not to exaggerate." Whenever a film critic resorts to dysphemisms and ridicule ("pipsqueak"), one should be immediately suspect of the critic unless the film is obvious garbage or the critic provides strong arguments supporting the ridicule. Neither is the case. The movie will not be superfluous, according to White, for "those viewers vain enough to see themselves in Hawke and Delpy." Jesse and Celine's self-absorption and vanity may resonate strongly with my particular generation (in their 30s), but I find it hard to believe that those qualities are not found across the spectrum. Eric Rohmer films, which Linklater is obviously riffing on, can be equally as vain and solipsistic. The ultimate point is that a representation of those features in characters, by themselves, does not constitute an aesthetic flaw. Viewing representations of character flaws and flawed choices have been an integral component of storytelling for a long, long time.

It's a Sundance fallacy that Linklater (and Kevin Smith's execrable Chasing Amy) gets the precise tone of modern lovers. Loving doesn't change, but how people fancy their attractiveness or intelligence is often a matter of fashion, and Linklater is practiced at hipster intellectuality. (Waking Life was a snooze.) A screenwriter as gifted as Whit Stillman can show how lovers avoid talking about themselves, but all Hawke and Delpy do is parade their obnoxiousness. When he says, "I'm designed to be dissatisfied with everything," and she boasts, "I'm a romantic," it's a meeting of non-minds. This couple and their enabler are really stuck on themselves. By rejecting traditional movie romanticism, they deprive the audience's romantic needs.

When White writes that "how people fancy their attractiveness or intelligence is often a matter of fashion," he gets close to what I believe to be a central theme of the film. I do not think that Linklater, Hawke, Delpy et al. want us to think that their characters represent some intelligent and charming lovers -- I believe they are trying to represent the struggles and temptations all people have to face when trying to take stock of their lives and their romantic emotions. Jesse and Celine often say silly, pretentious things, but to take that as evidence that the entire enterprise is silly and pretentious is a classic error.

"By rejecting traditional movie romanticism, they deprive the audience's romantic needs" -- I am not sure what the audience's romantic needs are but I am pretty sure that Armond White cannot be the repository of that knowledge.

Before Sunset's key insult is its pretense of realism. Starting with Linklater's long-take, dollying-camera scenes (a favored trope since Slackers [sic]), the eavesdropping technique can only fool the most naive spectators. Linklater's real-time fascination is not fascinating; he insists that audiences acquiesce to his refusal of wonder; he films Paris like Hoboken.

Frankly, relying on the long take as a showy sign of technical prowess is a common ploy used by many filmmakers. But when considering the merit of that technical choice, one should ask oneself: "Did the filmmakers have good reasons to rely on the long-take? Was the choice well motivated?" The answer is "yes" in Before Sunset. The essence of the film is the conversation (spoken and unspoken) and body language of two characters trying to determine the depth of their romantic attachment. If a filmmaker had chosen not to rely on long-takes but, instead, chosne to pepper the film with more cuts, the addition of these cuts would raise at least two issues: (1) The film could lose the ability to study, in a sustained fashion, a character's behavior and mannerisms over extended periods of time as the conversation develops and (2) the choice of an editing cut often adds psychological or interpretative meanings to what we are witnessing.

By relying on long, uninterrupted takes, the audience can choose who to focus on and can see a wider range of their physical behavior with each other and with their environment. The point is this: criticizing a long-take, dollying style by stating that it can "only fool the most naive spectators" is not criticism in the classic sense of the word. It is a rhetorical ploy appealing to peer-pressure: "Oh, I must be naive if I admire Linklater's long-takes." But he does not provide authentic reasons for rejecting this technical choice.

Back in my days as a philosophy teacher, many principles guiding intellectual evaluation and criticism were part of my daily life. Two in particular come to mind when I read many of Armond White's pieces: (1) Straw Man arguments and (2) The Principle of Charity.

Straw Man arguments occur when we distort our adversary's claims or works to such an extent that it becomes easier to reject or critique their views. The Principle of Charity suggests that when you are faced with a claim, argument or work, try to understand it as best as you can and identify the strongest features of it before beginning a critical assessment. I find Armond White having fun with straw men all the time but I rarely see him applying charity.

Philadelphia Film Festival

Well, despite my initial doubts, it looks as if I should get a 10-film pass for the Philadelphia Film Festival this year.

Here are 11 films I would like to see this year:

• Berlin Blues


• She's One of Us


• The Corporation


• The Best Thief in the World


• Distant


• Kill Me Tender


• Last Life in the Universe


• Young Adam


• Bright Young Things


• The First Letter


• Time of the Wolf

So, who is joining me?

Oscar 2004

Well...it does not seem that I will be participating in any Oscar pools this year. So, what else to do but post the predictions and predilections on the blog!

FILM EDITING
• Daniel Rezende, City of God
• Walter Murch, Cold Mountain
• Jamie Selkirk, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Lee Smith, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• William Goldenberg, Seabiscuit

Prediction: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Predilection: Did not see enough of them to have a preference

VISUAL EFFECTS
• Jim Rygiel, Joe Letteri, Randall William Cook and Alex Funke, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Dan Sudick, Stefan Fangmeier, Nathan McGuiness and Robert Stromberg, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• John Knoll, Hal Hickel, Charles Gibsona nd Terry Frazee, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Prediction: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Predilection: Did not see enough of them...

SOUND EDITING
• Gary Rydstrom and Michael Silvers, Finding Nemo
• Richard King, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Christopher Boyes and George Watters II, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Prediction: Finding Nemo
Predilection: Finding Nemo

SOUND
• Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer and Jeff Wexler, The Last Samurai
• Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peck, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Paul Massey, D. M. Hemphill and Arthur Rochester, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Christopher Boyes, David Parker, David Campbell and Lee Orloff, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
• Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer and Tod A. Maitland, Seabiscuit

Prediction: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Predilection: Did not see enough of them...

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
• Balseros
• Capturing the Friedmans
• The Fog of War
• My Architect
• The Weather Underground

Prediction: The Fog of War
Predilection: My Architect

MAKEUP
• Richard Taylor and Peter King, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Edouard Henriques III and Yolanda Toussieng, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Ve Neill and Martin Samuel, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Prediction: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Predilection: The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

COSTUME DESIGN
• Dien van Straalen, Girl With a Pearl Earring
• Ngila Dickson, The Last Samurai
• Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Wendy Stites, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Judianna Makovsky, Seabiscuit

Prediction: The Last Samurai
Predilection: The Last Samurai

ART DIRECTION
• Ben Van Os and Cecile Heideman, Girl With a Pearl Earring
• Lilly Kilvert and Gretchen Rau, The Last Samurai
• Grant Major, Dan Hennah and Alan Lee, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• William Sandell and Robert Gould, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Jeannine Oppewall and Leslie Pope, Seabiscuit

Prediction: The Last Samurai
Predilection: Girl With a Pearl Earring

CINEMATOGRAPHY
• Cesar Charlone, City of God
• John Seale, Cold Mountain
• Eduardo Serra, Girl With a Pearl Earring
• Russell Boyd, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• John Schwartzman, Seabiscuit

Prediction: Girl With a Pearl Earring
Predilection: Girl With a Pearl Earring

ORIGINAL SONG
• "Into the West" from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Fran Walsh, Howard Shore and Annie Lennox
• "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" from A Mighty Wind, Michael McKean and Annette O'Toole
• "Scarlet Tide" from Cold Mountain, T Bone Burnett and Elvis Costello
• "The Triplets of Belleville" from The Triplets of Belleville, Benoit Charest and Sylvain Chomet
• "You Will Be My Ain True Love" from Cold Mountain, Sting

Prediction: "You Will Be My Ain True Love" from Cold Mountain, Sting
Predilection: "The Triplets of Belleville" from The Triplets of Belleville, Benoit Charest and Sylvain Chomet

ANIMATED FEATURE
• Brother Bear
• Finding Nemo
• The Triplets of Belleville

Prediction: Finding Nemo
Predilection: The Triplets of Belleville

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
• Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman, American Splendor
• Braulio Mantovani, City of God
• Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Brian Helgeland, Mystic River
• Gary Ross, Seabiscuit

Prediction: Brian Helgeland, Mystic River
Predilection: Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman, American Splendor

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
• Denys Arcand, The Barbarian Invasions
• Steven Knight, Dirty Pretty Things
• Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson and David Reynolds, Finding Nemo
• Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan and Kirsten Sheridan, In America
• Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

Prediction: Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation
Predilection: Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
• Shohreh Aghdashloo, House of Sand and Fog
• Patricia Clarkson, Pieces of April
• Marcia Gay Harden, Mystic River
• Holly Hunter, Thirteen
• Renée Zellweger, Cold Mountain

Prediction: Renée Zellweger, Cold Mountain
Predilection: Did not see enough of them...

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
• Alec Baldwin, The Cooler
• Benicio Del Toro, 21 Grams
• Djimon Hounsou, In America
• Tim Robbins, Mystic River
• Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai

Prediction: Tim Robbins, Mystic River
Predilection: Can I say "none"? -- didn't get to see Alec Baldwin, though. I suppose Benicio Del Toro, though it was a bit over the top.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
• Keisha Castle-Hughes, Whale Rider
• Diane Keaton, Something's Gotta Give
• Samantha Morton, In America
• Charlize Theron, Monster
• Naomi Watts, 21 Grams

Prediction: Charlize Theron, Monster
Predilection: Naomi Watts, 21 Grams

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
• Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
• Ben Kingsley, House of Sand and Fog
• Jude Law, Cold Mountain
• Bill Murray, Lost in Translation
• Sean Penn, Mystic River

Prediction: Bill Murray, Lost in Translation
Predilection: Bill Murray, Lost in Translation -- and a special nod to Keith Richards as a queer pirate.

DIRECTOR
• Fernando Meirelles, City of God
• Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation
• Peter Weir, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Clint Eastwood, Mystic River

Prediction: Clint Eastwood, Mystic River
Predilection: Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

BEST PICTURE
• The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• Lost in Translation
• Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Mystic River
• Seabiscuit

Prediction: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Predilection: Lost in Translation

On the Radar Screen

Given my interest in urban planning, it is shameful that I have yet to read this book hailed by many interested in the development of cities as an essential tome; as a seminal text of the New Urbanism movement. According to critics and pundits, the observations and predictions within The Death and Life of Great American Cities were prophetic. I'll have to check it out. Anyone out there who has read this?

The Design of Cities is a discussion of city planning principles dating from ancient Athens to modern Brasilia and is also considered an essential text. I must admit that my principal interest in it would be his discussion of Philadelphia. Edmund Bacon was the principal city planner who converted and developed Philadelphia throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s -- with mixed results.

Always wanted to get this DVD but always found some odd excuse not to get it at the moment. I could go on and on about the riddle of how Tarkovsky can manage to communicate philosophical and mystical themes without too much dialogue, but that would be a bit much and contrary to the spirit of his films. Watching Nostalghia provides the same phenomenological qualities as spending a long time watching rain and fog do their thing on a craggy, mossy landscape. Doesn't that sound like fun?

By the way, I decided to provide a public service for all of you who have a difficult time figuring out what gifts to give me -- a link to my Amazon Wish List. This is part of my quest to increase epistemic clarity for all.

| Project for Public Spaces | Eric's Amazon Wish List |

My Architect: A Son's Journey

Just came back from the Ritz 5 after viewing My Architect: A Son's Journey and chatting a bit with D.C. about it. This is a documentary about architect Louis I. Kahn made by his son, Nathaniel.

It is a wonderful film and not, as you may suspect given the themes of this blog, only because it surveys and discusses Kahn's architectural works and battles. The documentary gracefully allows other themes to bubble to its surface without any apparent dramatic manipulations. These themes include:

- the tension between pragmatic/political pressures and the artistic ambitions of architecture
- a clear-eyed resistance against "great, misunderstood artist" interpretations
- an unforced exposition of how families create myths and narratives to make sense of their lives

In a woeful nutshell, Kahn's works exhibit a reverence for the inherent properties of the materials used in his structures paired with a generous and gracious use of space allowing light and human movement to interact with these materials. You can view several of his works and plans at the Architectural Archives of the University of Pennsylvania. You can also find some images of his best known works here.

The film presents interviews and conversations with several figures ranging from architecture icons such as Philip Johnson and I.M. Pei to former lovers to cab drivers that used to shuttle him around Philadelphia. The profile that emerges from all these discussions is incomplete and often contradictory, yet nevertheless illuminating.

Two aspects of Kahn struck a chord. He rarely settled in one place for long, preferring to travel to and fro and to remain holed up in his office rather than to interact with human beings -- though for a hermit, he did manage to leave a couple of children from extra-marital relationships. His nomadic nature is, in essence, an example of how to be a modern flâneur. It also presents a paradox in his character -- though he preferred not to engage with inter-personal relationships in a sustained fashion, one of the central motivations of his work was to create spaces were people could live with inspiration.

Finally, the film's treatment of Kahn's participation in the design and construction of the Capital Complex in Dacca, Bangladesh is, simply put, an emotional knock-out. The presentation of the building (and, I would assume, the building itself) is stunning. Kahn was often involved in the design of religious or political structures though his motivations for his involvement were focused on providing people with an inspiring space rather than with the endorsement of any particular religion or political structure.

Near the end of the film, Nathaniel discusses the Assembly Building with a Bangladeshi architect he meets inside the building. This architect delivers an emotional, loving account of Kahn and the ultimate impact of the building. It is a powerful account and it helps us understand many of the previous themes explored by the film in one crystalline, beautiful moment. I have to find this architect's name -- I'll post it when I do.

Highly recommended.

| Louis Kahn @ Great Buildings.com | Salk Institute by Louis Kahn |

Mystified

I saw Clint Eastwood's new film, Mystic River, with D.C. last week. I have not had the chance to chat with him about his views on the film, but I have to admit I am a bit mystified about the critical reception it has been receiving.

I admired Eastwood's command of a particular genre: the thriller/mystery elements of a police procedural. However, his combination of this with a study of the sub-culture affected by the crime did not seem authentic. In fact, there seems to be a certain layer of condescension throughout the film. The portrayal of the rough-and-tumble, working-class Irish community that is connected to some type of organized crime background included these elements:

1. A "naturalist" presentation of damaged, not too bright individuals struggling to respond to a tragedy.
2. A "classic" presentation of a Tragedy where the protagonist unwittingly ends up damning himself.

However, these get sullied by:

3. A misogynist and woefully underdeveloped approach to the women in the film.
4. A tone that shifts from an observational portrayal of damaged characters to a romanticized attitude about the toils of the urban, Irish working class.

I did not think it was a good movie and I definitely have no clue what David Denby of The New Yorker was smoking when he called it "a masterpiece."

Though I tend to dislike Armond White's tone and about 90% of his judgments, I think he has come closest to expressing my view on the film:

"Mystic River’s sentimentality gets most deplorable when it becomes grandiose about the working- and criminal class. 'That’s what I’ve done. I can’t undo it,' Jimmy intones after he whacks an innocent man. And his wife Annabeth (Laura Linney) also gets a crazy speech, 'Everyone is weak, everyone but us. We could rule this town... Nothing you do can ever be wrong.' But this female fealty is wrong. She’s Lady Macbeth with no consequence. Eastwood and Helgeland’s suggestion that this is low-life truth dangerously imputes nobility to unhealthy machismo—another middle-class myth about the lower classes."

In Boston

I'm in Boston attending the User Interface 8 conference in Cambridge, next to MIT. I've had the good fortune to bump into two small gems:

"To Be and To Have" is an unassuming and disarming documentary about a teacher and his young students in a small schoolhouse in the French countryside (Auvergne) during, I believe, a one year period. It earns our emotional connection without any traditional dramatic manipulations and it avoids the trap of relying on precocious children to spark our amazement. It was one of the few unabashed and pure emotional experiences I've had with a film.


Have not read "The Art of Taking a Walk" yet, but I bumped into it while exploring the MIT Coop's class textbook area -- I believe it was part of a film studies course. In the preface, the author promises, among other things, to discuss the cinematic nature of being a flaneur on the city streets and to discuss what she considers to be a phenomenon that is rarely discussed: female flaneurs and the particular ways the cityscape is read/interpreted by them. Add to this a discussion of Weimar Germany and....well.

Perhaps, if you are oh-so-lucky, I'll write more about the book once I read it.

longpauses.com

One of these days, I'll spend enough time to produce something as nice as longpauses.com. Until then, you folks will have to deal with this, somewhat skeletal, template-reliant interface.

It's a good place -- especially the "films" area.

Lost in Translation

Saw Lost in Translation (2003) with E.C. at the Ritz Five last night.

It's a jet-lagged, hermetic film about making an unexpected emotional connection with someone who might have been a transient figure in your life. It is moody, understated and, yes, elliptic.

I think it is an excellent film -- though I am not as effusive about it as some critics have been.

It does suffer from a common malaise: Primary characters that are well-developed tend to be surrounded by secondary characters that are either caricatures or are designed to magnify the primary characters' virtues (e.g., the frivolous movie star, the distracted husband, the surreal Japanese characters). Think of all the silly babbling aunts and bumbling displaced suitors in Merchant-Ivory type films.

It would have been nice if Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray's traits emerged on their own rather than through a stark contrast. That said, they were well-developed and unique characters nevertheless.

Go see it.