"If each film ‘generation’ has its own particular point of view, as surely, drastically, the next one will, then what is ours? And how does it aid/impede us?" wonder editors Michael Koresky and Jeff Reichert in the new issue of Reverse Shot:
One obvious answer, the depths of which haven’t been plumbed enough in our film culture, is that most of us came of age as cinephiles in the era of home video. In our early years, films for us weren’t hallowed objects writ large on movie palace screens, or even out-of-the-way art houses â€” Â€Â”they were cramped onto TV screens, played on VCRs, wrenched away from their "Â€Âœproper"Â€Â place of worship. Yet this didn’t change the value they held for us. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we were the first generation which had access to a wide array of movies all of the time.
And so they charge their writers to dwell on a film each has seen over and over, leading to an interesting array of essays ranging from Brendon Bouzard on "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" to Chris Wisniewski on "Cabaret." Interesting stuff, and a nice way of sidestepping the too-common question of the guilty pleasure.
We overuse the term "infuriating," as do many others, but there really is no more accurate way to describe Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk‘s doc about Michael Moore, "Manufacturing Dissent" (our thoughts from SXSW are here). Melnyk has an article in the Telegraph’s Seven Magazine that essentially lays out the premise and contents of the doc, and echoes the dissonance that arises in the film â€” the Caine and Melnyk make use of the most irritating of Moore’s own tactics and tone to criticize him:
At a recent event in New York, Moore was asked about our film, which we’d decided to call Manufacturing Dissent.
‘The Noam Chomsky film?’ he replied, coyly referring to the Chomsky documentary Manufacturing Consent. The journalist who had asked the question persisted: ‘No. Manufacturing Dissent, the film about you and your film-making methods.’ But Moore claimed he knew nothing about it.
The Onion AV Club offers a list of "wildly mismatched romantic pairings," among them the classic John Travolta and Lily Tomlin in "Moment By Moment" and James Woods and Dolly Parton in "Straight Talk."
Give or take a song, the scenario itself has played out like a Bollywood storyline – two lone innocents representing common sense and human values battling against an unjust and repressive society. The furious activists, including those burning effigies of both actors, mainly hail from Hindu fundamentalist groups: Shiv Sena, and the rather sinister youth wing of the rightwing BJP. Both have appointed themselves the guardians of Indian womanhood against corrupt western influences.
According to Min Lee at the AP, Chow Yun-Fat has ankled John Woo‘s $80 million "Red Cliff" just as the film started shooting. The film is the latest in an ancient tradition of films to be declared the most expensive ever made in the nation; a producer claims "the Chinese government views the film, based on an ancient battle, as a showcase of Chinese history and wants it released before the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing."
Because Ms. Shellyâ€™s life may have ended in a way that her protagonist both fears and escapes â€” at the hands of a violent young man â€” parts of â€œWaitressâ€ are more painful to watch than Ms. Shelly could have intended. But the film always finds solace in the kitchen, where picturesque clouds of flour drift in warm light, where custards never boil over, where crusts never burn.
+ Issue 19: On Demand (Reverse Shot)
+ Taking on the big man (Telegraph)
+ Inventory: 13 Films With Wildly Mismatched Romantic Pairings (Onion AV Club)
+ The Richard Gere/Shilpa Shetty kiss: made in Bollywood (Guardian Film Blog)
+ Chow Yun-Fat drops out of `Red Cliff’ (AP)
+ Looking for Solace in a Slice of Pie (NY Times)