Archive for the ‘Movies’ Category

Wednesday’s Media Column

May 11, 2010

Two documentaries shot on video about people as constructs, J. X. Williams L. A. and Exit Through the Gift Shop

J. X. WILLIAMS’ L.A.

It is probably just a matter of time before the Wikipedia entry for J. X. Williams is edited within an inch of its life. Being the pragmatic type, I’ve archived it at the bottom of this entry. It is an explosive amalgam of Hollywood Babylon style anecdotes too fantastic to be believed, a shorthand index of subversives in the film industry, with a few jokes here and there just to keep things humming.

J. X. Williams is most likely the invention of Noel Lawrence who manages the JXW archive. His biography is essentially that Williams worked on a (exceedingly large) number of exploitation films as a way to make his own experimental films, in between drug binges and fleeing the mob.

In J. X. Williams’ L.A. , his story is more or less told by Lawrence and Chris Manz wandering around to locations, discussing just how and when Williams was thrown out of said location, and then moving on to the next anecdote, with a lot of stock footage thrown in.

In its present form (presently unreleased), the documentary doesn’t work nearly as well as Lawrence’s presentations, which are incredibly dodgy tightrope acts. The Q&As can get a bit intense, particularly when a film student points out that the footage used could not have been found at the time credited. To which the official response is something like:

“Right, well, I now believe that this may be a forgery and have not certified it as an official J. X. Williams release.”

The upshot is that the Q&A and lecture portions of JXW viewings are more performance driven and incur more risk than the actual films and documentaries. And with the documentary so focused on the stories of JXW, and with so little evidence of the man himself, it’s hard to get involved with the movie, which is essentially the well-trod celebration of grindhouse, b-movies, pornography, etc.

At one point, there is a roundtable discussion of JXW, in which the panelists briefly mention of Wizard Videos’s oversized videocassette boxes, which were plastic and attracted grime (Supposedly, Wizard released one of Williams’ horror films). For me, this anecdote lends more credibility to the whole legend than all the drug-related escapades. Those boxes hold a certain mysticism, being packaged as one of the panelists notes, “as a collector’s item” and it seems like the kind of thing a JXW would be involved with, and something that cult cineastes should be be paying attention to.

But by that same token, once a JXW association is used to pay tribute to already over-established icons (such as when Lawrence states that Tarantino and Scorcese have borrowed or stolen ideas from JXW), things start to bloat very quickly.

These short films and excerpts themselves are sort of like Saturday Night Live sketches made with found footage – - they start off goofy and continue to get goofier: but the more seriously Lawrence takes them during the Q&A and the lectures, the better they work.

At some point, a documentary will have to be made about Noel Lawrence, and that will probably be much more engaging than J. X Williams’ L. A.

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP

Exit Through the Gift Shop should probably come with a warning that audiences be prepared to be completely horrified by accurate depictions of the people who line up for graffiti exhibitions who probably should have left their gold chains in their well-furnished homes. In any case:

Once Shepherd Fairy’s Obama image became as ubiquitous as Disney, it became easy to forget that not particularly long ago, he was climbing walls, wheatpasting Andre the Giant images, and fleeing the police. Similarly, after Banksy had his art shows and strange pet store, his installations of phone booths and museum invasions seemed a faraway memory.

Exit Through the Gift Shop is the story of someone, the charismatic, likable, and funny Thierry Guetta who followed these artists when they were still young and far from ordinary vandals, videotaped them under the premise of making a documentary, and then did nothing with the footage for over ten years, before being compelled by Banksy to finally finish it – - instead, preferring to make a movie that had nothing to do with anybody but his own vision. (2)

This may not sound like such a betrayal, despite the fact that it means that many of us will never see Theirry’s footage of Borf, Kaws, Swoon, Neckface, and other notables -  – despite the fact that these artists wanted it to be seen. But it doesn’t sit well with Banksy, who, like a serial villain, sits with his face obscured in darkness and his voice distorted. His telltale hands (which he seems to be quite conscious of) gesticulate occasionally as he relays his involvement with the movie and street art in a pleasantly self-disparaging tone.

Image is everything when it comes to Banksy’s activities – - nobody can know who is, but everyone has to know what he’s done – - and tellingly of who produced the movie, if you had to be one person in this documentary, you would want to be Banksy. The footage of Shepherd Fairy in Kinkos, cutting out a large Andre image with a knowing smile on his face is also a wonderful characterization, but it gives way to a muddled, confused person who doesn’t quite understand how things got to where they are. Banksy’s face remains completely unreadable, under a dark hood, and his “ums” and “uhs” are as calculated as the stencils that he assembles on his midnight runs.

As a documentary, the film is in a thoroughly gray area – - it is strongly titled against Guetta, the police, the public, and is in favor of Fairy and Banksy, which is how you would expect things to play out.

But in this case, I’m not sure that any of that matters. There’s so much blood on everyone’s hands that it’s really hard to take offense.

External Links:

New York Times on J. X. Williams

Wall Street Journal on Banksy and Mister Brainwash

(1) J. X. Williams, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

J.X. Williams (193? – Present) Numerous critics have proclaimed J.X. Williams (birthname unknown) as one of the most influential figures in American avant-garde cinema (along with Stan Brakhage and Kenneth Anger) as well as an innovative cult director for several notorious exploitation films produced in the 1960s and 1970s. Tarantino, Scorsese, Waters and other directors acknowledge a huge creative debt to Mr. Williams yet his films are rarely exhibited today, due to legal issues and the poor condition of surviving prints.

Born in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, he was raised in a working-class Jewish family with strong ties to organized labor and the Communist Party. His father, a set designer for Warner Brothers, was a labor agitator and his activities clearly influenced Mr.Williams early leftist leanings. After dropping out of high school, he took a job in the mailroom in RKO studios and quickly rose through the ranks to become an assistant in the Writers’ Division. Though never credited on any production, he was known to have Dore Schary’s ear and would likely have been taken under contract if not for unforeseen events.

Like many screenwriters of his time, Mr. Williams had leftist sympathies and was known to frequent meetings of groups with ties to the Communist Party. After these activities were reported, he was subpoenaed to appear before HUAC during their 1947 hearings on Communist infiltration of the movie industry. Mr. Williams refused to testify and, although he did not serve time, the major studio subsequently blacklisted him.

Without means of support, he drifted into petty crime and fraternized with low-ranking members of the Los Angeles Mafia. These associations soon brought him in contact with notorious mobster Johnny Rosselli who took him under his wing. Recognizing Mr. Williams interest in film, Rosselli put him in charge of directing and distributing mob-funded nudie and pornographic films. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of these loops have been lost or destroyed so little is known of this early period of Mr. Williams’ career.

Over the next ten years, Mr. Williams amassed a small fortune as a smut impresario with the blessing of Johnny Rosselli. At the same time, he continued to operate in the shadows of legitimate Hollywood productions as a ghostwriter. Mr. Williams claims to have penned 72 screenplays that became major motion pictures. Although almost no one has been able to verify his claims, a consortium of studios quietly settled a copyright lawsuit filed by Mr. Williams for an undisclosed sum.

As the 1960s opened, Mr. Williams debauched years of hard drinking and reckless gambling caught up with him. He found himself in debt to the Mafia and his life was in danger. As a result, he fled to Europe in hopes of directing legitimate films without the stigma of the blacklist. After a few false starts, he produced his firstfeaturette PEEP SHOW (1965). Hailed by Henry Langlois as the harbinger of an American “Nouvelle Vague”, PEEP SHOW chronicled a mafia conspiracy against Frank Sinatra to addict him to heroin.

PEEP SHOW holds a significant place in cinematic history for a number of reasons. Most notoriously, the film’s use of pornographic imagery got it banned from several countries and even resulted in the director’s brief incarceration in Rome.

More importantly, however, the film tackled a multitude of subjects that did not come in vogue until the seventies. Nearly a decade before Coppola and Scorsese, PEEP SHOW offered an unrelentingly grim and realistic portrait of organized crime, undoubtedly influenced by Mr. Williams’ personal experiences as a onetime “gofer” to Johnny Rosselli and other mobsters in Los Angeles.

Released less than two years after the assassination of JFK, PEEP SHOW was also the first film to explore the dark side of Camelot. Besides tracing the tangled web of theories that may have led to the assassination, PEEP SHOW gives a blistering account of the fixing of the 1960 election and the unholy alliance between Joe Kennedy and La Cosa Nostra. Large portions of the film were made from appropriated footage, predating similar works by Craig Baldwin, Jay Rosenblatt, and other avant-garde directors by more than a decade.

Mr. Williams followed a year later with the tawdry I, JEZEBEL (1966). Reviews were mixed, however, and it may have prompted his return to the US. With the power of the blacklist finally diminishing in the late 1960s, Mr. Williams undertook a series of exploitation features that pushed the limits of taste and taboo. This period includes such gems as E.S.P. ORGY (1967), MONDO VIETNAM (1968), and THE PHANTOM OF THE CINEMA (1969).

During the next two years, he struggled with production for THE VIRGIN SACRIFICE (1970), a three-hour long Satanic horror epic. Reputedly, Sammy Davis Jr. was an early backer of the film and a contributor to the soundtrack before a falling out with Mr. Williams. After a short but promising stint on the festival circuit, the film was lost and the negative was destroyed in a fire in the lab where it was stored. A film maudite in every sense of the phrase, the film is infamous in the annals of film history for the rampant drug use and violence on the set. As Peter Bogdanovich later observed “Though most people have forgotten the film, few have forgotten its tortured origins. It immortalized Mr. Williams as perhaps the greatest enfant terrible since Von Stroheim.

Despite the disastrous undertaking, Mr. Williams continued to release films through his Cine-Vision Studios, including kaboom! (1973), L.A. DEATH TRIP (1975), and YOU AXED FOR IT! (1978). These low-budget exploitation pieces were panned by critics but proved commercially successful on the drive-in and grindhouse circuit. He spent an increasing amount of time making hardcore pornographic films to fund his productions but his last film, Nunf*cker (1979) is considered one of the best. Not surprisingly, the title, if not the film, also attracted a great deal of controversy, especially from Catholic groups who picketed the screenings.

J.X. Williams also became a director of early music videos for various punk and new wave groups in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

After a legal settlement in 1981 with several major film studios over copyright disputes, Mr. Williams moved to Zurich, Switzerland and retired from filmmaking. He is infamous for his reclusiveness and distaste for the public eye.

(Redirected from J X Williams)

2) There’s a telltale shot of Guetta experimenting with his own graffiti exploits, pasting a giant image of himself underneath Shepherd Fairy’s Giant, which is incredibly awkward. I’ve heard that putting something up in the same space as another artist – - unless you’re specifically working together at the same time- -  is generally considered a gaffe. And so Banksy including it in the movie is an indication of how he regards Guetta.

TYSON

February 5, 2010

I was introduced to Mike Tyson through Nintendo. He was big – - incredibly big, pixelated, and moved very fast. Our meeting was brief, for the most part, because he was punching me.

Since that time (1987), Mr. Tyson has punched me, and a bunch of other people, a lot less. He can still be pixelated, especially if you’re streaming through Netflix. I wasn’t initially sure why I would want to watch an entire 100 minutes about Tyson – - I am really not into sports, especially boxing, and the idea of celebrity-driven documentaries doesn’t really excite me. But “Tyson” the movie was on the front page of my Netflix and I figured it just had to be for a reason and if it wasn’t interesting, I could always turn it off. Right?

Tyson is nearly impossible to shut off because it’s narrated by Tyson himself, talking directly to you, and you don’t want to be rude and break eye contact. There’s also the editing, which is brilliant. In his narration, Tyson gets distracted, periodically forgets what he’s trying to say, begins listing multiple words for the specific one he’s trying to think of, and during these sequences the filmmakers begin to overlap dialogue and footage to create a collage of muddled thoughts.

Ordinarily, this would be pointless and distracting but in this particular documentary it’s successful because it shows (and some might say “exaggerates”) what a mess the human brain can become after being walloped at high-impact over a series of decades.

The idea of a Tyson documentary seems superfluous if you look at it from the simple “he hit people professionally, and occasionally for personal reasons”, storyline, but one thing that Tyson shows is just what a huge effect being in prison – - particularly solitary confinement – - had on the latter part of his career. Suddenly, he has problems being in crowds, and is easily started. Next thing you know, he’s biting people in the ring – - something incredibly out of character for such a strenuously disciplined fighter.

But outside of that narrative, there are the weird bits of trivia, particularly in regards to Tyson’s tattoos. That Maori tattoo on the eye? Initially, he had wanted little hearts.

DAVID THOMSON ON HITCHCOCK

February 4, 2010

I picked up David Thomson’s The Moment of Psycho this evening. I wasn’t really sure that I wanted to read it because as Richard Crouse notes below, soooooo much has been written about Psycho.* But Thomson is very hard not to read, because his work always manages to feel a little bit like a very smart conversation you have with the author.

One curious effect of the book though is that it has forced me to think about something that I thought might have been an incredible waste of time, Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Psycho, something that I suspected might be a joke on Hollywood; some kind of homework exercise in directing that became commercially viable; or possibly some kind of surreal-occult attempt to communicate with Hitchock through film. But after reading this, I think it was more of a way of writing about the film through making a new film (Oh hell, now that seems incredibly obvious. Goddamn it, I hate having a blog).

But actually, after looking at it on YouTube, I come to the conclusion that I have no idea why this film was made.

In any case: Thomson calls attention to a lot of aspects of the film that I’ve already filed under “Why didn’t anyone tell me that?”, so if you have more than a casual interest in Hitchcock you might want to read it.

*My favorite is the mention in Hitchcock, where Hitchcock advises that Truffaut try making a film like Psycho. Sure!

WHEN YOU’VE GOT THAT GLOW

January 7, 2010

For whatever reason, my parents decided it would be OK if I had a copy – - not a subscription – - to a martial arts publication whose name escapes me. It wasn’t Ninja monthly. It was something like American Martial Arts Monthly, something like that. Something that applied to me, the american martial arts enthusiast.

I should add that I was twelve and still fainted at the sight of blood.

In any case, this was a magazine which showed you exotic weapons and training techniques to uh, defend yourself with. This was the 80s. and ninjas were commonplace, delivering pizzas or working as car-hops, which was often a conflict of interest when a pepperoni or a cheeseburger had to be delivered to a powerful shogun or executive of a technology-driven company.

So I don’t think this was a failing of my parents that I ended up with an illustrated catalog of illegal weapons with information on how to acquire and use them. Ninjas were everywhere, and you would have to pick one up and shake them in order to figure out if they were good or bad (if they were bad, sharp objects would fall out of their pockets. If they were good – - pepper.)

While I tired of the metal-bladed fans and the nunchucks and the variations of push-ups, and yes, a one-man helicopter, the movie reviews were INCREDIBLE.  And by that, I mean they had movie reviews about martial arts.

I remember a tepid review of American Ninja (which should really be called American Smoke Bomb), something awful about streetfighting, and a review for a musical called The Last Dragon.

They noted that the film made actually no distinction between Asian cultures, had nothing to do with actual martial arts, and was racially insensitive (Yes, a martial arts magazine made all these distinctions, at least, in my mind it did. ). They did not care. They wanted more. And I wanted to have whatever they were having.

But largely due to the fact that I didn’t personally own a VCR until I was twenty, I didn’t get to see the movie until at least ten years later. By then, Busta Rhymes had already done his impression of Sho Nuff the Shogun of Harlem* and I was well behind the curve of people who had seen The Last Dragon and were put off by its uneven plot and tone.

But somehow, that made it better. I wanted more.

That’s because no matter what your gender, class, race, or creed, whether or not we read American Martial Arts Enthusiast Monthly for the metal bladed weapons or the movie reviews, we all want heavily 80s themed martial arts musicals heavily salted with an upbeat mysticism and nebulous spirituality.

I mean, most of us anyway.

I say all this because even though I’ve only seen it once, I still get songs from the movie stuck in my head. Like this one:

And I am not the only one who get infected by this weird energy (let’s just call it the Glow for consistency). For example, this scene. On one hand, it’s dorky and a little embarrassing. On the other hand – - I turn this over to YouTube commenter llcawthorne:

Imagine if a chick made you a custom music video to your favorite movie (and this is the 80′s when people didn’t do that stuff for Youtube everyday)… You’ld be pretty impressed/excited/whatever.

You know what? I would be. Even in the YouTube era. Because that’s just awesome.

(I must go now.)

_________________

*Julius Green, who played Sho Nuff, passed away in 2008 at the age of 56. IMDB notes that “His favorite role was playing Lord Bowler on “The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.” (1993). Between this and learning that the actor who portrayed Blacula was also the King of Cartoons on Pee Wee’s playhouse, I am again starting to respect TV.

ANNE CHARLOTTE ROBERTSON

December 13, 2009

Last night I went to Light Industry at Artists Space see selections from the Five Year Diary by Anne Charlotte Robertson. It would be difficult to view the entire work in one go, as it’s over thirty six hours long.

Robertson’s work makes you realize just how lazy most memoir — if not just the act of remembering – - is. During the Five Year Diary (which spans a much longer time than that) she shot roll after roll of 8mm film and documented her struggles with her everyday life – - which is made vastly complicated by mental illness.

One of these complications are simply the presence of signs. Living in Boston, Robertson is overwhelmed by signs that tell her to pay tolls, quote Justice James Thurber, advertise products that would have next to nothing to do with her. She documents them, as well as her reactions to them, and you can see just how hostile these signs would be to someone who was struggling with their everyday life (and also, just how ridiculous signs are in general).

Another issue is garbage, which when you live in Boston (which she does at the time) would make just about anyone a little crazy. Because it’s collected once a week, the result is that you’re left looking at it in your apartment for a little too long. Yes, really.

But Robertson struggles with living as an ethical vegetarian, so she’s also composting in her own apartment, sorting through garbage, trying to determine which objects should be “returned to earth.” And she loses a boyfriend that way, throwing his leather satchel into the wilderness so that it can do everybody a favor and be inconspicuously subsumed by nature.

At one point, Robertson tries to throw away her reels (I can’t remember if they were developed or not at this point – - at one point she had 900 rolls of undeveloped film) only to be returned by her landlord, accompanied by his illustration of a bee and the words “Bee Optimistic.”

Robertson recorded an audio diary to accompany the Super 8 reels, but years later she would speak over the audio diary in performance, and this is where the genius of the Five Year Diary becomes obvious.

In most memoir, we have the benefit of being able to look back at things with an experienced mind, and tailor details or events so that they’ll fit either in the context of a story or as some kind of reasoned approach to how we approach life (see this entire blog for details, or perhaps you and I could go hit the New York “monologue” circuit).

By preserving her original inner voice and leaving in that initial audio diary, you hear the raw anguish and emotion of events Robertson’s life as the older Robertson explains to you the reasons for that aspect. And this isn’t to say that the older Robertson is no less poetic, mysterious, or enigmatic than the younger one, but the combination of the voices gives it a much weightier context.

It’s hard not to be a little jealous of Robertson’s mythologies. Even when she is haunted by what to eat or confounded by the importance of Tom Baker in her life (she gets a major crush on Dr. Who, and compares him to Jesus.*), it all feels so much more real than just rattling off anecdotes on a blog or during a party or whatever, because all these events have a tremendous amount of weight. But just as this slight envy or amusement might settle in (and this is probably a tribute to how well these selections were curated) we see how Robertson struggles with the loss of her friend’s child. She films flowers, brings them to the child’s grave, the vocal track in both past and present, simply repeating the name over and over . . . the simple repetition manages to be both harrowing and sublime, and it captures what the feeling of loss is really like, a complicated and yet sickeningly simple experience which is well outside of the parameters of obituary columns or eulogies.

When I left the viewing, I found myself in the surreal concoction that is Manhattan at Christmas time. In keeping with New York tradition, rowdy bar enthusiasts were dressed up as Santas (the false presumption being that someone being dressed up as Santa is less likely to be arrested or thrown out of a bar. Or possibly slapped.). And for once, I allowed myself to just be confused by it and just appreciate the weirdness of torn up cotton beards in the gutter, and the surprising number of all red outfits on the street.

Hopefully in this day and age we can look forward to Robertson’s work being on ubuweb, or maybe selections on YouTube (let’s all chime in and say “BUT OF COURSE THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE WORK WILL BE DIMINISHED BY BEING SO READILY AVAILABLE” or something to that effect). I was hoping to find some work of hers online to share with you, but for the moment, all I can do is try to summarize. Which seems incredibly silly with a work like this.

*This makes complete sense when she documents the show’s introduction, which shows Baker’s head wreathed in points of light.

UPDATE: This blog gets a lot of hits for people looking for Anne Charlotte Robertson, but this post doesn’t really do her work justice. Here is an interview with ACR herself.

NEW MOON IN SUMMARY

November 28, 2009

Edward’s passive-aggressiveness reaches new heights, underage werewolf gives dreamcatcher to heroine who waits in her room while her emails bounce back for months, then he cuts his hair and runs around shirtless with his buddies and eats gigantic muffins in a house where dreamcatchers are more accepted. One black vampire arrives and is quickly killed off camera. But at least he doesn’t have to wear a shirt or gloves with fingers. A young Tori Amos vampire fails to make it through the woods into town because she’s too busy playing Crouching Tiger up in the trees.

Edward decides to off himself by flashing a bunch of humans. He is thwarted by our heroine’s Jesus Lizard impression as she runs through a fountain and manages to keep him from taking off his pants. Members of Kraftwerk are displeased with this whole pants business and order Duran Duran to smack around Edward and Co. Dakota Fanning realizes she was meant to be the weird little girl from Dune and causes psychic pain to the audience and maybe some of the vampires.

Finally, Edward realizes he really should ask our weirdly dysfunctional heroine to marry him because she just will not go away, and his hand is probably broken from crushing his cell phone with it, so she could probably open doors and containers of bryl cream for him. The end.

RE-ANIMATOR

October 31, 2009

MOVIE TO RENT FOR HALLOWEEN #1

re-animatortitle-1

Of Herbert West, who was my friend in college and in after life, I can speak only with extreme terror.”

This film has always seemed more or less perfect to me. The zombies just seem utterly unstoppable, every shot is played with a sense of melodrama, and of Herbert West . . . I can speak only with extreme terror.

I particularly like the use of one of the themes from Psycho in the opening credits.

COSTUME IDEAS: You could be a zombie, but one white lab coat puts you in charge of all the zombies. That’s an investment, my friend.

UZUMAKI (SPIRAL)

October 30, 2009

MOVIE TO RENT FOR HALLOWEEN #2

Uzumaki is pleasantly unconcerned with the fact that it’s a J-horror movie. It’s just going to play around and come back to that theme– a lot, as you can see from the first ten minutes.

COSTUME IDEA:There are a whole bunch of costume ideas in this movie, and they’re all shaped like an uzamaki.

THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL

October 22, 2009

MOVIE TO RENT FOR HALLOWEEN #5

OH MY GOD! Vincent Price has all these people over in scary mansion for one night and he gives them guns and there are witches and an ACID BATH and there are three wonderful things about this movie:

1) The plot is spelled out within two minutes. And for that, William Castle, I thank you. You understand that American audiences do not have a lot of time to figure out the nuances of a horror movie. We have cookies to bake, costumes to make, medications to take.

2) This is the quintessential William Castle film, in that it celebrates scary stuff while still managing to be sinister enough to make an impression. It manages to celebrate horror movies without romanticizing them to the point of hokey rhapsody. If you’ve ever had to sit though a credit that reads “Dedicated to Lon and Bela!” written in a goofy font, you know what I mean.

3) The Witch on Wheels. She is mentioned in The 100 Scariest Movie Moments, and I thought that seeing the clip would make her a little less unnerving, but oh no. She’s still a great moment.

COSTUME IDEA RELATED TO THIS FILM: You could be a witch on wheels, or with a moustache and pomade, you could be Vincent Price who manages to stroll through the whole film without losing his composure.

This is what you would expect from a man who dedicated years of physical and emotional training to his craft . . .

BTW, I think Kermit’s confused. Vincent Price has never played a vampire, Vincent Price just is a vampire.

Incidentally, I have the 1999 remake of House on Haunted Hill, and nothing in it is as scary as actually living through the nineties.

LIVE FILM

June 9, 2009

livecinmaOver the weekend I managed to see two very different filmmakers host and interpret their own works.

Rosa Von Praunheim is a legendary filmmaker who is seen as one of the founders of the gay rights movement (you might be familiar with the title of his film, Silence = Death). On Saturday, Sarah and I caught his Q&A after his Fassbinder documentary, and the surreal film, Can I Be Your Bratwurst, Please? which he introduced as, “A film that starts the adult film star Jeff Stryker, and my Aunt Lucy. It’s thirty minutes, enjoy!”

I haven’t seen that many filmmakers speak, other than So Yong Kim and Takashi Miike. But Von Praunheim was the first speaker I’ve seen who had written poems on construction paper, as well as candy, both of which he handed out to the audience. I hope he’s not the last.

Sarah and I did not get a poem, sadly. But we did get some kind of coconut treat.

It was particularly rewarding to see Von Praunheim be able to talk about his own career, since two nights before after the Fassbinder doc he spent a lot of time answering bewildering questions about Fassbinder’s career.*

Von Praunheim’s work is lengthy and varied, his life is dramatic, and his outlook is humorous. When talking about his experiences as a film instructor, he mentioned that the first thing he taught his students to do, was how to use a gun, because movies were full of them (the second thing he told them to do was to abuse women). When told by his mother, at the age of sixty-five (and she was ninety), that he was not her son, he described his “excitement” at finding his own life becoming a movie plot. He just recently completed a documentary about the lives of his two mothers.

The format was a bit like a talkshow, with Von Prauheim standing in front of a large screen with selected clips at the ready. But absent from this talk were the discussions of technique, influence, or behind-the-scenes moments and casting decisions. His talk made it seem like there was nothing more natural than simply making a film, moving onto the next one, and making another one after that.

Then on Sunday, Sam Green presented Utopia in Four Movements which was a very affecting and unusual performance: Green stands onstage with a mic (and a script) and narrates footage in front of him, which has been assembled in Keynote. It’s so informal that it completely catches you off-guard when suddenly you’re dealing with very big ideas — a bit like This American Life, except it’s all just happening just a few feet away from you. In the film, Green explores the idea of utopia using the examples of Esperanto, a profile piece on an exiled black revolutionary, the only video footage of the world’s largest shopping mall–which really must be seen to be believed, and bookends these movements with a bit of discussion about the forensic studies of mass graves. Green’s evaluations in these movements are a very tricky bit of narrative footwork, and it wasn’t until I was three quarters into the film that I found myself having confidence in his analysis of how this footage fit the theme of utopia. But by then, I wanted five or six more chapters.

Green reminded the audience that this wasn’t a finished piece, that it would change a bit when and if it was released, and given that he’s the director of PBS’s The Weather Undergound, I can understand why — this wasn’t as polished as his other work. But in its context, it didn’t need to be. Like Von Praunheim’s talk, Green’s performance felt like an illustrated conversation, which I guess is one way to describe what live film really is.

*I don’t know if anybody really could explain the question that was shouted a few rows back: “WHERE DOES FASSBINDER STAND IN THE PANTHEON OF GERMAN CINEMA?”

chat6-9