The ABCs of Death

The ABCs of Death: Trailer

Anthology horror should be a much bigger influence on the American film industry than it is. You have a form that allows you to tell a few complete stories in the same running time as one feature length film. If people are turned off by the first story in an anthology, there’s a chance they might fall for the second, third, fourth, or fifth (or even the framing device or an intermediary quick cut gag). It should be a crowd pleasing form that brings some kind of satisfaction for a lower budget.

Instead, it’s a form that struggles to find its footing in America. The last time we regularly received wide releases of anthology horror was the 1980s (Creepshow, The Twilight Zone, Heavy Metal, etc.). Even then, it was falling out of favor. Studios like Amicus (Torture Garden, Asylum, Monster Club) made their big money on star-studded anthology horror. The box office returns matter, obviously, but the lower budgeted format–each big actor only needs to be there for a fraction of the shoot, the technical demands are smaller as each story can only have a few locations, a single crew and creative team for multiple stories, etc.–would mean that an anthology film doesn’t need to sell as many tickets to recoup. And if the one segment blows up, more people will pay to see all the other stories just for that one moment of brilliance.

ABCs of Death

Leave it to the incomparable Alamo Drafthouse to take a chance on anthology horror again. The company, championed for its zero tolerance cellphone and public disturbance policy in its expanding chain of theaters, launched Drafthouse Films as a nationwide distributor for more unusual productions.

Drafthouse Films, the film distribution arm of the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, is a curated brand of provocative, visionary and artfully unusual films new and old from around the world.

Is it any surprise, then, that The ABCs of Death would be championed for a nationwide release on 3 November? The anthology film got a lot of press when it announced its concept and a contribution contest to go with it. 26 directors would direct 26 short films about death under the structure of the alphabet. The letter T comes from amateur submissions sent in from all around the world. YouTube animated gore phenom Lee Hardcastle took the prize with “T is for Toilet.”

Obviously, The ABCs of Death will be gory. They hired genre directors to do shorts about death. There will be blood, guts, and general mayhem. The trailer promises just that. It’s quite exciting if a bit heavy handed with the kill scenes. I mean, you have 26 to choose from so they can’t all be spoiled. I would have gone with just a little more restraint on the blood factor.

NSFW.

The trailer also introduces a new aspect of the anthology horror’s concept. Fans can vote at the official website for the best entry. Suddenly, a collaborative labor of love has become a competition for top death. It’s an odd choice, but one that could raise the profile of the post-Halloween fall horror release.

What do you think? Will you be seeing The ABCs of Death in theaters? Sound off below. Love to hear from you.

Best Original Song Rules Change

Best Original Song is Saved!

I have written quite a bit about the music categories at the Academy Awards before. The inane rules for Best Original Song got so bad last year that even I, a devout musician and staunch defender of the role of song in film, suggested they might as well get rid of the entire category if they don’t plan on overhauling it. Even Randy Newman called them out for terrible decision making during the Oscars.

Guess what? Randy Newman predicted the future. The category is defaulting to five nominees.

During the nominations process, all voting members of the Music Branch will receive a Reminder List of works submitted in the category and a DVD copy of the song clips. Members will be asked to watch the clips and then vote in the order of their preference for not more than five achievements in the category. The five achievements receiving the highest number of votes will become the nominations for final voting for the award.

Sound familiar? It’s the preferential balloting system that virtually every other category uses. Members of the Music Branch will nominate their favorite eligible songs in preferential order. Top fives songs are nominated for the award. This is how it should have been for years.

So what was so destructive about the old system? Scoring.

Members of the Music Branch had to view all of the eligible songs in the context of the film (ie: as seen on screen). Then, they had to assign a numerical score on a scale of 10. If no films reached the minimum threshold of an 8.25 average, there would be no nominees. If one song reached the threshold, the next highest scoring song would also be nominated. If two nominees reached the threshold, those were the nominees. If three through five reached the threshold, those were the nominees. If more than five reached the threshold, only the top 5 could be nominated.

Hurts your head, doesn’t it? It gets worse. How easy is it, in a branch as small as the Music Branch, to tank a song you just don’t care for with a low score? A handful of people give an otherwise 8 to 9/10 song the lowest possible score and BAM!–denied a nomination. Music is also so subjective that finding a consensus based on a numerical quantity rather than an emotional or artistic response would be near impossible. This is why, in a year with 39 possible contenders, only two songs managed to save Best Original Song from being shelved for the 2011 film year.

Now? Five songs will be nominated. I would formally like to congratulate Karen O on her 2012 Academy Awards nomination for “Strange Love” from the feature film Frankenweenie. Were it not for these stupid rules, she would have already been nominated for “All Is Love” from Where the Wild Things Are. I’d say Arcade Fire is a sure bet, too, but even mandatory five song years only allowed one genuinely odd entry.

What do you think? Has the Academy patched this rotting hole or what? What songs released so far this year have a shot? Sound off below. Love to hear from you.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen Review

Salmon Fishing in The Yemen Review (2012, Film)

There’s nothing wrong with a good romance on film. There’s nothing wrong with a fluffy story or kooky fantasy, either. These elements only become problematic when they’re not treated in a consistent and believable way.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen could be the odd and endearing story of a British bureaucrat forced to take on the seemingly impossible task of transporting thousands of cold water salmon to the Republic of Yemen for sport. Unfortunately, it’s also a slapdash love triangle between a Shiekh’s British representative, a soldier called into active duty in Afghanistan, and a happily married bureaucrat. It’s also a comedy about public relations in politics, a satire of bureaucracy in general, and an inspirational story about learning to accept fate.

Casting

If screenwriter Simon Beaufoy had focused on the actual driving task of Paul Torday’s novel, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen could have been a great film. Director Lasse Hallstrom (Chocolat, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape) is quite skilled at bringing out the romantic nature of odd and endearing stories. He does not need ham-fisted character shifts, blatant melodrama, and 2D almost magical figures to get that vision across. The screenplay is so unfocused and inconsistent that it’s a miracle the film is as watchable as it is.

The cast, though perfectly capable of playing these roles, cannot escape the physics-defying fluidity of the characters. Ewan McGregor as Dr. Alfred Jones, the bureaucrat, can play an uptight work-obsessed know it all and he can play an idealistic fantasy seeker. Emily Blunt can play a sharp and shrewd businesswoman and a fawning victim of love with ease. Kristin Scott Thomas does not struggle to play the blunt executive or the charming wit.

Casting

All three could even combine their character trait pairs into one cohesive vision. With this screenplay, they’re not even given the opportunity. One minute they’re column A; the next, Column B; then back to A; then back to B; on and on until the movie ends in one or the other molds. It’s maddening. There’s no reason to believe that this cast couldn’t have found the truth in this story with a more cohesive screenplay. Instead, they’re stuck creating really beautiful and engaging moments that don’t add up to a single narrative arc between them.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is a beautiful film to watch. Everything from the costumes to the sound design is executed to perfection. Are there some moments that take the salmon spawning metaphor a bit too far? Perhaps, but that minor self-indulgence is only used at key moments in the film. Too bad those key moments only act as literal pivots in character or plot rather than a logical extension of an overriding vision.

There are far worse films than Salmon Fishing in the Yemen that distract themselves with cliched romance and poorly defined characters. Somehow, this cast and crew get so much right in their scene by scene execution that a rather messy structure swings back into watchable and endearing.

Rating: 6/10

Thoughts? I wanted to see this in theaters but never got the chance. I’m not exactly crushed by that loss anymore. If they axed the romance between McGregor and Blunt, it would have been a fine inspiring story.

Aimee Mann Charmer

Aimee Mann “Charmer”: Laura Linney’s a Rock Star

Laura Linney is Aimee Mann. That’s all you really need to know about Aimee Mann’s new music video “Charmer.”

Curt? Quite. But that’s all it took for me to watch the video for the first time.

I presume you’ve already hit the replay button on the YouTube embed. I can’t blame you. That song is catchy. Catchy is one of Aimee Mann’s strengths.

I think the most interesting aspect of “Charmer” is the New Wave-styled synth leading into the verses. It has this almost human quality about it that is quite fetching. It’s just off enough to stand out from the vocal but works wonders in the context of the video.

The video has a cool concept. I’m prone to fits of sci-fi and robotic doubles are a trope I’m drawn to. Aimee Mann takes it a step further with her own desire to take a break leading to her potential demise.

I haven’t seen too many instances where the human has to train the robot to behave in a certain way. The more typical use of the learn by example concept is cloning, but that’s not this situation. Aimee Mann has ordered a robotic double that is uncannily like herself. After a trying learning cycle, the double begins to assume the identity of the star full time.

If the song were any less bubbly, this could be quite disturbing. “Charmer” actually balances out a surprisingly dark concept for a music video. It’s not that music videos can’t handle mature content (look at the Skrillex video for First of the Year/Equinox for a recent example). It’s that a song this bright doesn’t normally dance with a darker, more satirical narrative.

Leave it to an artist like Aimee Mann to betray expectations with a really catchy song/video combo. I think the key to its success is Laura Linney. Forget that Aimee and Laura really do look alike. Linney is a strong enough actress to sell the transition from mindless robot servant to confident rock star without a single line of dialogue. It’s how she carries herself and barely moves her face in her interactions. The perma-smile is creepy and 100% Laura Linney.

I’m always glad to see an artist, especially an established one like Aimee Mann, take a risk like this with a music video. It might be just a bit too odd to really take off. It’s still a rewarding artistic exercise that compliments the song nicely.

Thoughts? Love to hear from you. Share yours below. I don’t bite. Promise.

Pirates

Face Off 3.2: Arrrr

Last night on Face Off, SyFy finally went with the most obvious challenge based on the judging panel. Ve Neill is a regular judge on the show. Two challenges have previously gone into her wheelhouse. Ve won Academy Awards for her work on Mrs. Doubtfire and Ed Wood. So, the gender swap challenge in season one and the Tim Burton challenge in season two made sense.

But why has it taken three seasons to challenge the contestants to make an original pirate for the Academy Award winning makeup artist behind many of the designs in the Pirates of the Caribbean series? It finally happened last night and Ve, once again, looked like she was having the tmie of her life. The challenge was so amazing that the show didn’t even air the Foundation Challenge. No complaint there. It allowed for an entire cutaway segment on bad pirate jokes.

Challenge

The full Spotlight Challenge was probably one of the hardest in the history of the series (outside of the finale challenges). Each contestant was randomly assigned a pirate-like element–barnacles, swords, netting, etc.–that they had to incorporate into an original pirate character in three days. The winner would receive $5000, the largest challenge prize in the history of the show.

The results were overall quite impressive. The judges decided that Roy, Sarah, and Laura had the top looks for the challenge. Would you look at that? Three repeats from last week. Looks like execution as well as design are the criteria to win this year.

Roy had to create a pirate based on daggers. His design was insane (again). His pirate was a vicious woman who storess her assortment of weaponry in her body. These daggers were designed to look like an extension of her rib cage and the whole thing was brutal. The paint job was solid. I just wish he didn’t go with a gray skin tone against the bright oceanic colors.

Roy

Sarah had to find inspiration in sea urchins. She studied her subject in depth to pick up every detail she could. From the thickness of the spines to the yellow uni–the roe, Sarah did not miss an opportunity to focus her design on sea urchins. She also sculpted and molded so quickly that she was able to blow Ve away with a completely fabricated costume on the Day 2 workroom visit. The rancid yellow skin town was a perfect match for the model-operated oozing uni gag for the judges.

Sarah

Laura, once again, brought flawless execution to a well planned concept. The only reason I can think for her loss here was her randomly assigned object: shells. Shells are easy. What Laura chose to do with them was extraordinary. She turned her model into a living snail obsessed with a glowing jewel at the bottom of the ocean. The movement of the fabricated plant life in the back was especially impressive.

Laura

Ultimately, Sarah won the challenge for gong that one step above everyone else. Pirates are crowd pleasers. Why wouldn’t you try to add on a surprise for the judges when they evaluate your work up close?

The bottom three contestants were Eric, C.C., and Jason. Each rankled the judges for very different reasons.

In Eric’s case, his technical execution was bad. He had to incorporate a spyglass into his design and it came out like a bad Halloween costume. The proportion was all wrong. The telescoping handle was far too long to look believable in the context of the character. With a better paint job, he might have gotten away with it; he didn’t. Even the costuming and roughed up flesh weren’t particularly well done.

Eric

C.C. struggled the entire episode. She had no idea what to do with barnacles until most of the first day was done. Though she has special effects makeup experience, her expertise is beauty makeup. She didn’t have the experience to make a cool design concept actually pop on screen–symmetry is not your friend in effects makeup and this was a mirror image down the bridge of the nose–and she even struggled with painting the piece. This does not take away from the judges telling C.C. she has chops. The sculpt, poorly designed as it was, actually looked good and her application was great. She just got caught messing up in a week where most of the field really rose above expectations.

C.C.

Jason was in the bottom three for a simple reason: his jewel-themed pirate had nothing to do with jewels. Sure, he crafted a lofty backstory to justify a pirate covered by an octopus. The only reference to his actual task was a jewel in the palm. Not a good way to be remembered by the judges. You’re hired to do a specific job in the makeup industry and choosing to ignore that job for something cooler is not the way to build a reputation.

Jason

C.C. was eliminated. The judges heaped praise on her and encouraged her to pursue special effects makeup as a field. They saw tremendous potential in her–including her professional attitude and enthusiasm–and that’s a huge compliment from this panel.

Thoughts? Do you think the judges made the right choices? I would love to have seen Alana in the top 3 as her crab design was really well executed in spite of (once again) being rescued by her fellow competitors for time management issues. If she picks up the pace, she could take the title.

What do you think? Sound off below. Love to hear from you.

All the images from the post come from the SyFy Face Off galleries. Makeup shots here; contestant shots here. Check them out.

Sweet Fever! Review

Sweet Fever Review (Web Series)

Sweet Fever is a genre savvy web series about candy and pillow fighting. Sweet Fever owns a candy shop that isn’t doing too well. She finds out about a professional pillow fighting league with a $25000 prize fight coming up in a few weeks. The commissioner of the league, Crunchy Luke, will give her a shot if she completes a series of favors for him.

Mark Zanin (director) and Oliver Brackenbury (screenwriter) have hit on an interesting blend for a web series. The duo is riffing on classic exploit/grindhouse themes with a heavy dose of winking at the audience. When you have your leading lady say, “That makes no sense out of context,” in the first episode, you know you’re in for a show that’s not afraid to comment on genre and form.

Sweet Fever takes a little time to find its footing. The first episode, “How Sweet It Is,” exists only to set up the conflict and characters. I couldn’t really get a feel for the direction of the series until the final moments in the office. Sweet Fever convinces Crunchy Luke to make a deal with her. She tries to find out why he’s called Crunchy Luke, only to be mocked again for her perceived weakness in the pillow fighting arena. She puts on a look of determination, glances over shoulder, and the footage freezes and fades out to a typical promo pose for 1970s exploit features.

Closing Pose

The series has five episodes available so far. After the intro, the next three episodes focus on different favors Sweet Fever has to complete for Crunchy Luke. They also focus on different genre tropes in pretty clever ways.

The highlight so far is episode three, “Apartment on Atmospheric Avenue.” It blends together so many horror cliches it’ll make your head spin. Sweet Fever, her maybe boyfriend Chet, and her best friend Sam have to spend the night in a haunted apartment for Crunchy Luke. They’re brought in by a creepy landlord who warns them of the terrors within. Crunchy Luke doesn’t get his uncle’s inheritance unless the task is completed, but the poorly written will creates a number of loopholes for our heroes to exploit.

If you weren’t sure about the direction of Sweet Fever, episode three makes everything clear. The show is all about the context of genre and how genre impacts our perception of entertainment. “Apartment on Atmospheric Avenue” mocks the jump scare, the classic haunted house sound design, and even the logical explanation conceit that has plagued the genre since the pre-Victorian Gothic.

Genre

You still get a short web video connected to the story of Sweet Fever doing favors to get her way into the Pillow Fight Federation. This one just happens to be a horror story. It’s filled with all the wacky floating heads and horizontal dissolves that defined the low budget films in the late ’60s/early ’70s (not to mention a synth-heavy score and very broad sound design), but is still clearly about this group of characters in the overall story. The entire production team just chooses to have fun while telling it.

The cast of the series is strong. They’re all able to play into the genre of the episode while maintaining the characteristics that defined them at the start of the series. Imogen Grace (Sweet Fever) is always going to use her brain to get her out a jam. George Gray (Chet) is always going to be frustrated by how people perceive his place in the story. Tiffany Claire Martin (Sam) is always going to respond with hyperbolic emotions to even the most insignificant detail. The actors just slide into the new context with a clear understanding of what the genre requires.

Sweet Fever is a fast moving comedy series. The favor through line allows the show to slide between a variety of B-Movie concepts without losing track of the overall series arc. It’s silly, not inane, and that’s a hard line to balance.

Here’s one of the teaser ads and the first episode. Give them a shot. I think you’ll like them.

Thoughts? Going to give Sweet Fever a try? Already watching? What do you think? Let me know below.

Featured image on homepage from Sweet Fever

Jeff, Who Lives at Home Review

Jeff, Who Lives at Home Review (2012, Film)

If a 30 year old man who lives in his mother’s basement and smokes pot all day told you everything is connected in the world, would you believe him?

That’s the premise of Jeff, Who Lives at Home, written and directed by Jay and Mark Duplass (aka the Duplass Brothers, Cyrus, Baghead). It’s an intriguing concept that plays with audience expectations and the role of the unreliable narrator. If you know there’s no way the main character, Jeff (Jason Segel), could possibly have an accurate view of the world, how do you follow along with a single idea he has the rest of the film?

Destiny

The humor of Jeff, Who Lives at Home comes from this conceit. Jeff’s family–his mother, Sharon (Susan Sarandon), and his brother, Pat (Ed Helms)–serve as a proxy for the viewer in the film. The action is set into motion because Sharon wants Jeff to actually do something on her birthday. She leaves him a note and five dollars to go pick up wood glue at the Home Depot and fix a broken slat on a door. Pat gets pulled in to force Jeff to actually follow through with something outside of the house. Jeff has other plans. He received a strange phone call asking for Kevin and now is convinced that somehow he must find and help Kevin that day.

The rest of the film is a madcap comedy of paranoia, throwing out stories about secret admirers, fidelity, and the nature of fate in the world. Each individual strand is fine. Taken together, they start to get a bit muddy.

Take Sharon’s story. Sharon, frustrated that her younger son is wasting his life, just wants the simple home repair as a birthday gift. She knows she won’t get anything else. When her frustration peaks, she receives an anonymous instant message on her work computer. The man claims to be her secret admirer who doesn’t care that she’s older or frustrated with her life.

Sharon

Taken alone, Susan Sarandon makes what’s essentially a one woman storyline (with an assist from a PC) quite compelling. Her reactions to the escalating office fling are hilarious and adorable. I would easily watch a whole movie about this character falling in love with the idea of falling in love.

Sharon’s story is not the whole movie. It’s only a fraction of what happens during the film. At the same time, Pat is in a fight with his wife (an excellent turn by Judy Greer) over the purchase of a Porsche (“surprise,” he says, before she makes her true feelings known). Jeff follows a teenager with the name “Kevin” on his jersey while riding the bus. Pat finds Jeff wandering around a parking lot and starts fighting with him over his status in life. The stories only branch out further from there.

Family

I understand where the Duplass Brothers are going. They want to make a sweet little story about doing the right thing and how the choices you make impact the direction your life will go in. Jeff, Who Lives at Home is quite successful at being sweet.

The problem is that this larger matrix they’ve built up exists only to make an emotional climax on its own terms feel more grand. It’s a poor choice. By the time you get there, everything feels too calculated and twee to feel real or substantial. It’s worse than a slapped on happy ending; it’s a satisfying conclusion ruined by scale and scope.

Rating: 4/10

Thoughts? I had a lot of fun watching Jeff, Who Lives at Home, but felt a little empty at the end. Sarandon is the MVP, but Segel has never been better. What about you? Share your thoughts below. I love to hear from you.

Margaret

Margaret Review (2011, Film)

Margaret is, in some ways, a love letter to everyday NYC. The environment writer/director Kenneth Lonergan brought to life onscreen is the New York City I remember from when I lived there. No matter how private your life is, how personal the moment, you will always be surrounded by people. Someone will always see you. Whether or not they choose to be that witness is another story.

Lisa Cohen is a high school student wise beyond her years. In many way, she still acts like a child who wants everything she wants and doesn’t take no for an answer. Yet her ability to conduct herself as an adult and demand respect is unparalleled by anyone else in her life. That is until she plays a key role in the death of a pedestrian in a terrible bus accident. Lisa chooses to see what she wants to see during her fleeting relationship with a cowboy hat wearing bus driver and chooses to lie to the police about what really happened.

For the next two hours and ten minutes, Lisa grapples with the choice she made. Lonergan brings in a bunch of superfluous details–her mother is starting a new relationship, her teachers are growing frustrated with her know it all attitude, she’s embracing the male gaze as a sign of power–but the driving force is the accident. Her memory and choices overtake every aspect of her life until they become the only thing she lives for.

Margaret is a difficult film to watch. The main plot is engaging, but every diversion Lonergan throws in makes it that much harder to follow the story. Everything comes back to Lisa because Lisa is the center of her own universe. She is a self-centered teen who loves hyperbole and relishes every opportunity to throw out a big word and put someone down for not being as smart as her.

In the Classroom

What makes the film as watchable as it is in its bloated and meandering flesh is the cast. Anna Paquin is electric as Lisa Cohen. She looks older than a high school student in the classroom scenes, but place her against any adult and she looks like she’s barely thirteen. It’s a brilliant casting choice and Lonergan does everything he can to play up this disparity to isolate Paquin’s performance from everyone else in the film. With the exception of one very emotional scene (she loses the American accent when she’s on the verge of tears), it’s as close to flawless as you can get as an actor.

J. Smith-Cameron, as Lisa’s physically absent but emotionally engaged mother, is pitch perfect in her performance. She has the worst plots thrown at her–the opening of her Broadway show, especially is a distraction that could have been shown once or twice and established the point–yet manages to trick you into thinking every moment she has is important. I’d gladly watch the Joan Cohen feature film from Kenneth Lonergan; I just wish it wasn’t part of Margaret.

Distractions

Then there’s the wide ensemble with only a few scenes to their names. Allison Janney plays the victim in the bus accident and she should have been nominated for every award during the 2011 film season. What she does with one short scene is what acting is all about. Matthew Broderick and Matt Damon play two of Lisa’s who coddle her a bit too much because of her intellect. The arcs they create with only a handful of scenes do more to define the growth of Lisa Cohen than anything Lisa Cohen does on her own. Kieran Culkin and John Gallagher Jr. (Tony winner, Spring Awakening) play the only friends Lisa has in her age group and find authentic moments in some absurd scenes.

But herein lies the problem with Margaret. All the individual elements–the actors, the design, the editing, the sound, the self-contained scenes–are excellent. They just don’t all add up to much of anything at all. There is a point about 90 minutes into the film where, if the story just stopped, it would be a brilliant film. Lonergan has established all the key story points and put these characters on very clear paths to their destinies. Instead of allowing the audience to define the experience, Lonergan stubbornly ties up every plot point with a big scene regardless of the impact on the overall story.

I want to say all the film needed was some judicious editing, but that’s a big aspect of the production that cannot be ignored. Margaret was shot in 2005. From there, a wide variety of reports have come out all claiming to explain why it took the film until 2010 to be complete. The most pervasive rumor is that Lonergan demanded perfection in the editing room, but his desired three hour cut of the film was not acceptable to the distributor. He had to knock at least thirty minutes out of a film with a 168 page shooting script. That’s a significant change.

So, if this is the carefully edited, screen tested, satisfy the distributors edit of the film, how do you reconcile the odd diversions within the tighter focus? I think the problem comes from having to spend too much time with the story. To Lonergan, what he kept in is essential to his vision of Margaret. To a film audience that doesn’t know what the full version of the story is–how he actually intended to tell it–it feels a bit misguided.

I liked what I saw. I just wish that Lisa’s story was the clear focus the whole way through. That’s what I wanted to witness.

Rating: 6/10

Thoughts on Margaret? I’d actually love to see Lonergan adapt this for the stage. I think a nice three act structure and the constraints of a physical set could do wonders to bring this story alive. The one drawback would be the cast size. If you move everything indoors, you don’t need the constant flow of traffic to create NYC. You’re still dealing with full classrooms of active participants and all the friends, relatives, and players in the accident that drives the narrative. I’d be interested in seeing how that could come together.

What about you? Sound off below. Love to hear from you.