Before Katniss; Other Teen Dystopia

April 3, 2012 / / No Comments

Yes, The Hunger Games is a box-office phenomenon, and good for them!

The film’s creative team did a good job translating the book to screen (and yes, I know there are some detractors out there, but screw ’em. A film is it’s own separate work of art and has its own needs and requirements). The producers also did a fantastic  job keeping the budget down and production values high. Who can’t appreciate a film that can succeed artistically and financially, right?

But this isn’t the first teen-dystopia film. Not by a long shot. A really quick, top-of-my-head review would include Lindsay Anderson’s “If…“ with an incredibly young Malcolm McDowell; Michael Anderson’s “Logan’s Run“ with Michael York; and Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange“, with a not-as-young Malcolm McDowell. I could go on and mention Peter Brooks’ “Lord of the Flies“, and even “Children of the Corn,” but we’re getting younger and younger with these films. (And, with that last mention, crappier and crappier.)

The film I’m REALLY here to talk about is arguably the best teen-dystopia film ever made. You’ve probably never seen it, possibly never heard of it, and that’s a crying shame. It’s a disturbing, exciting and even hilarious work of genius by one of Japan’s premier directors, and he regarded it as his warning cry to younger generations.

That film is “Battle Royale” by Kinji Fukasaku. It came out in 2000, never got a real US release, but it will knock you on your ass. It’s been release on Blu-Ray recently, although you can also find regular DVD versions. The story takes place in a near-future totalitarian Japan that keeps its population in line and entertained by a yearly battle to the death of an entire randomly-selected school class. The set up takes place in just minutes, and the students literally have to come out of the room fighting. Beyond that, it’s a gigantic bloody game of hide-and-seek among the adolescent characters.

I first saw the film on DVD, with my nephew. We had no idea what to expect, and our jaws dropped in awe, terror and admiration as the movie played out. At the end, he turned to me and said, “That was the best movie EVER!”, so we promptly turned around and screened it again. It’s that damn good.

Even though the film won several awards and was the buzz on the festival circuit, word was an American release wasn’t possible so soon after the 1999 Columbine massacre. It looks like an American version is in development, but that’s been a rumor with different production houses for years now.

Do yourself a favor and check out the original, on Blu-ray or regular DVD. Keep in mind this film ISN’T for young children, and it’s in Japanese with subtitles. Oh, and under no circumstances should you check out the sequel. The director died while production was under way, and the film was completed by his son. It’s not good; really not good at all.  Trust me on this.

All that said, I can’t recommend “Battle Royale” highly enough. Here’s the trailer:

Big Star’s Third, “Holocaust”, new video

March 3, 2011 / / 2 Comments

First the clip, then the story:


This is a passion project. This is a labor of true love.

This  is the song “Holocaust,” from Big Star’s Third/Sister Lovers album, performed recently by a group of local and nationally-known musicians coming together because of a shared love and shared inspiration.

Time has proven Third/Sister Lovers reputation as a beautiful, haunting masterpiece – and a fitting tribute to the talents of songwriter, Alex Chilton. The group’s influence has continued on, to this: “Big Star Third,” a ongoing concert series by a diverse community of musicians performing the whole of Third, working from scores re-created by composer Carl Marsh. Chris Stamey (the dB’s) provides additional orchestration and serves as the series producer.

This video captures two separate performances, in December 2010 and February 2011. Players included Big Star’s own Jody Stephens, Mike Mills (R.E.M.), Mitch Easter (Let’s Active), Stamey, and members of the Love Language, Megafaun, The Rosebuds, Lost in the Trees, The Old Ceremony, Birds and Arrows, Mayflies USA, the Tomahawks and the NC Symphony.

Video by CreatoDestructo Imagery.

The next performance of Big Star’s Third/Sister Lovers will be on Saturday, March 26, at Mason Hall in NYC, 8 p.m.

The NC core group from the Cat’s Cradle show, complete with the rhythm section of Jody Stephens, Mike Mills, Will Rigby, Charles Cleaver, and Mitch Easter, will be joined by Tift Merritt, Matthew Sweet, M. Ward, Norman Blake (Teenage Fan Club), Ira Kaplan (Yo La Tengo) and others to be announced shortly.

Sundance 2011: Days 1 & 2

January 21, 2011 / / 1 Comment

First, a clip, then some stories:

This is an interview with first-time director Elgin James, whose film “Little Birds” is in the Dramatic Feature competition at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival.

“Little Birds” is also the film Robert Redford hopes will win the competition, not that there’ll be any undue influence with the judges or anything. Has Redford come out and said that? Not in so many words, but the will and intent is there.

What Elgin James’ film represents is a shifting of the festival’s  focus by Redford and Sundance’s leadership (speculation on my part).  James is a product of the Sundance Institute’s filmmaker lab, and “Little Birds” is one of six films in competition this year that came out of the labs.

— In previous years, it wasn’t a given that being selected for the directing, screenwriting or producing workshops held by the Institute would be in any way a ticket into the festival itself.

(Background: the two things are essentially separate entities. The Sundance Institute is actually based in Sundance, Utah, not Park City, although it also has offices in Los Angeles and New York. The festival is an offshoot of the Institute, but it’s firmly based in Park City, although there are some screenings in Salt Lake City, and this is the second year the Festival is conducting a multi-city, same-day screening of feature entries. This year it’ll be Jan. 27.)

Back to topic, it had actually become kind of a knock on the prestige of Sundance that much of its carefully selected and nurtured talent hadn’t really broken out into successful (read, “popular”) careers — although Institute folks will tell you that’s not their focus at all — but these “homegrown” films weren’t even represented significantly in past festivals.

For whatever reason — perhaps it’s a great, breakout collection of young filmmakers this time, perhaps not — one of the narratives of 2011 is this is the year of Institute-nurtured films competing with the rest of the world.

How will they do? The festival just started, so there are 9 more days for word-of-mouth to generate, but “Little Birds” has buzz. Is it buzz based on a great film? Too early to say.

Other “homegrown” Sundance films include “Here” by director Braden King; “Circumstance” by director Maryam Keshavarz; “On the Ice” by director Andrew O. MacLean; “Pariah” by director Dee Rees; and “Martha Marcy May Marlene” directed by Sean Durkin.

So break out your scorecards and start taking notes. We know at least the first storyline of SFF 2011.

And the Best Mockumentary of 2010 is…

January 20, 2011 / / No Comments

First, the clip, then the story:

You might have already seen “Exit Through the Gift Shop”, the film by famed street artist/social provacateur Banksy.

For a film placed in the documentary category, it’s done well at the box office: nearly $5 million worldwide so far, which places it in the Top 40 gross of all documentaries released theatrically. (Trivia: “Farenheit 9/11”, “March of the Penguins” and “Earth” are the top performing docs. I knew you’d wonder…)

I got on the “Exit” tangent because I mentioned to a friend recently that I’d hoped to be blown away by “The Philosopher Kings” — but wasn’t.

They followed with “Hey, you know what’s a great documentary? ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’. That was a great documentary.”

After I stopped pulling out my hair, I mustered a “You really thought that was a straight-up doc?”, and got just a quizzical look in return.

— Don’t get me wrong. If you haven’t seen this film, definitely check it out. It’s incredibly entertaining. But while the filmmakers themselves will be loathe to ever tell the whole and full story about how it was made, I’ll bet everything in my 401(k) that it ain’t what many believe it to be: a real documentary.

It IS a fascinating look at the history of street art (think Banksy, of course, but also Shepard Fairey, Space Invader and Zevs, to name a few); Andy Warhol and his continued influence on contemporary art and contemporary society; and then, essentially a one-sided pissing match between the street-art community and contemporary, famous and well-paid “established” artists. Guess who comes out on top?

Oh, and this fight is cleverly wrapped inside another “fight” between alleged original director
“Thierry Guetta” and Banksy himself — who claims he had to take the project over because of “Guetta’s” incompetence as a filmmaker. Incompetence like this, which I challenge you to match yourselves:

Anyway, Banksy says you can, at home, in a couple hours or so. and that’s why he took over the project.

But let’s move on to the REAL controversy.

— Will “Exit Through the Gift Shop” get nominated in the Best Documentary category at this year’s Oscars? (It’s on the short list of 15 docs, although only 5 will make the final selection…)

— If it does, is that like Milli Vanilli getting nominated for and winning a Grammy? Okay, assume Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus actually were self-aware and in control of their careers, if you wanted to make it a better comparison.

— What if it actually wins the Oscar for Best Doc? (“Waiting for ‘Superman'” will take it, although “Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spencer”, “Inside Job” and “Restrepro” are better, but far more political and therefore problematic.)

Oh, and just so you know, “Exit” was nominated for the 2010 International Documentary Association’s “Distinguished Feature” award (it lost to “Waste Land”), and is also up for the “Independent Spirit Award” sponsored by IFC.

It could win (the event is Feb. 26), but if I were Banksy, I’d keep a wide berth from Sebastian Junger if “Restrepro” loses to him. Something about all that time spent at a forward operation base in Afghanistan, real bullets, real death, etc…

Sundance 2011 comes to you Jan. 27 (possibly)*

January 18, 2011 / / 1 Comment

Get ready for the hype overload that will be the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. It officially kicks off Thursday, Jan. 20, opens for business Friday, Jan. 21 and continues for 10 days, with winners announced Saturday, Jan. 29.

Between now and the first of February, it will be hard to get away from the media coverage. That said, here’s a discussion by actress Vera Farmiga, who’s starring in “Higher Ground,” a film in the U.S. Dramatic Competition produced by my friend and indie film legend, Gill Holland:

To see this particular film during the next two weeks, though, you have to be in Park City, Utah.

— But don’t despair if you don’t have an incredibly overpriced hotel room booked for the gala.

*If you live in Ann Arbor, MI; Brookline, MA; Brooklyn; Chicago; Los Angeles; Madison, WI; Nashville; San Francisco or Seattle — the Sundance 2011 festival comes to you.

For one day, Thursday, Jan. 27th. And at specific arthouse venues.

This is the second year Sundance has managed this event, and its intent is to promote the Institute, the individual films and filmmakers, and the independent, arthouse theaters where the screenings are held.

And Park City will be directly involved: the “Life In A Day” documentary that kicked off on YouTube this summer — inviting submissions for ordinary people to record what was happening on July 24 around the globe — will be shown there as part of the connected, nationwide experience.

“A major component of the Sundance Institute mission is to expand and engage audiences for independent storytelling,” Keri Putnam, Sundance Institute Executive Director, said. “Sundance Film Festival USA is an extension of the Institute’s year-round support of independent theaters across the country – designed both to provide people with access to films premiering at the Festival, and to encourage interaction between artists and audiences.”

Oh, and the Sundance Channel might possibly provide some information about what’s going on during the festival. Plus CNN, MSNBC, Fox, USA Today, the New York Times, etc etc etc. And let’s not forget US Weekly.

Pondering “The Philosopher Kings”

January 16, 2011 / / 1 Comment

First, the clip, then the story:

This is directed by Patrick Chen, produced by Chen and Greg Bennick.

If you work in higher education, you should take the time to watch “The Philosopher Kings” documentary. It’s available on iTunes and Netflix (streaming and DVD). Consider it a homework assignment, or a continuing-education requirement.

For those not in the sector, I’m somewhat torn about recommending this documentary, which focuses on the lives of janitors and custodians at a handful of prestigeous, well known universities — including Caltech, Cornell University, Duke University, Princeton University and U.C. Berkeley, to name most of them.

I was led to this doc by a friend who knew about the Duke University connection: one of the people profiled is Oscar Dantzler, who takes care of Duke Chapel itself.

Don’t get me wrong — it’s certainly well shot (in fact, some of the visuals are absolutely gorgeous), has a fantastic music score,  is well edited, and the people featured have interesting life stories (but of course; otherwise, they wouldn’t have made the final cut).

In my opinion, while “The Philosopher Kings” is a good documentary — it simply isn’t a GREAT documentary.

And that’s problematic.

“The Philosopher Kings” was initially pitched to me as a story about these custodians/janitors, who worked at these great colleges and universities — and described what THEY learned while at work.

The documentary barely touches on that theme before pulling back and showing the real story, which is the disconnect between these people who are seen every day by faculty, staff and students — but aren’t really seen by them at all.

Where this project falls short is its nearly complete lack of interviews with some of these same faculty, staff and students, to find out what they know, if anything, about the lives of those also in service to the institution, and whose daily efforts make the offices, restrooms, lecture halls and labs habitable and useable.

In fact, if it weren’t for a sound bite delivered by former President Bill Clinton, who spoke at Duke University about this exact subject — but as part of a speech a different focus — there may not have been such a concise summary of this theme of seen but not really seen.

The exploration of the lives of the subjects is astounding. Most all of them have heartbreak in their past, and seem to have conquered that as they sought out normal lives.

It also seemed readily apparent that few if any people at these universities knew anything about these personal struggles and triumphs. Maybe that’s appropriate to a point — work is work, personal is personal, right?

But a university, a college, a place of higher learning is supposed to be about sharing ideas and experiences, building on knowledge from the past and the present, and moving society into the future with this foundation.

In a way, though, I want to promote “The Philosopher Kings” because it actively (and perhaps unknowingly) demonstrates a theme that I’ve been promoting for years. (And yes, I’ve worked in the higher education sector for a number of years, so I’m not simply shouting from the bleachers here).

Most colleges and universities are loaded with great stories, generated by their own people — faculty, staff, students, alumni and local residents.

And most colleges and universities do a poor job of identifying all but the most obvious stories (superstar faculty, high-achieving students, successful/famous alum) and getting these great stories out into the world.

Technological restrictions have fallen. True, budgetary constraints in this economy may be real factors.

But the limitations of imagination, the focus on how things have traditionally been done, and the will to move past categories, class and caste designations seem to be very real, if usually unspoken, barriers.

And it doesn’t require a philosopher king to realize that’s a shame.

“One True Thing” – the documentary starts

December 7, 2010 / / No Comments

First, the clip, then the story:

There are a lot of projects on my short list, but it’s the usual excuses of too long a list, and not enough money or time.

But excuses just don’t cut it anymore, so my plan to get this documentary project going is to just do it — and structure the plan in such a way that all the shooting can be done on incredibly flexible schedules, and the budget can remain miniscule (for now, at least).

So here’s “One True Thing”.  The idea is that our team sits down with someone at their preferred location, and once everything’s set up, all we do is ask for your first name, and to tell us one true thing.

It can be anything, from trivial to profound. So long as it’s true to you.

We also have some ground rules for ourselves/the project:

— First name only

— We won’t edit your response once you start on your true thing. That means once you being, we’ll run until you stop. So, no edits to make you look better, worse, or more concise.

— You can have more than one thing to say. We’ll just treat them separately.

— Don’t pressure yourself. We don’t expect Dalai Lama-league answers, so no worries. Something about your cat is acceptable…

What do WE get out of all this? Good question.

Expectations:

Sure, the first clip is three guys of various ages working in various levels of seriousness.

The real payoff should be when we reach a certain critical mass and broader themes emerge. Personally, I fully expect this to start focusing on religion, relationships and philosophy — but I could be completely wrong.

Maybe folks hone in on sports and cosmology, who knows?

If I were to point to an existing model for how I expect this to turn out, I’m going to reference one of my all-time favorite books and life guides: Directing the Film: Film Directors on Their Art, edited by Eric Sherman.

Yes, you’ll find a lot of practical advice on nearly every aspect of filmmaking by some of the greatest in the field — but that’s essentially a bonus.

What I find great is that within Sherman’s 352 pages of collected wisdom, you can read one absolutely sterling, profound and compelling piece of advice put forth by an absolute master of their craft — and on the next page, there’s another absolutely sterling, profound, and compelling piece of advice from yet ANOTHER master, completely and absolutely contradicting the first.

Example: Think about rehearsing your actors. There are a number of directors that weigh in on how their actors must be absolutely well rehearsed and prepared, so there’s no doubt about the lines, nuances or inflections before the cameras roll.

And there are a number of directors that talk about why anything beyond nominal rehearsal kills the energy and dampens the creative sparks from fresh discovery.

Who’s right? They all are. And that’s the point — the truths within this book are the truths that work for each person.

So that’s where I personally see “One True Thing”‘s potential. But we’ll see.

Technical Points:

As we add in clips, we’ll update the master video, and keep individual clips for easy reference.

We’re also COMPLETELY OPEN AND ENCOURAGING of outside submissions. So feel free to crank up your webcam or video recorder, work up a segment, and send it on.

Contact me at OneTrueThingDocumentary@gmail.com, or visit the project site at OneTrueThingDocumentary.com .

And of course, a special shout-out of thanks to my Creato Destructo compatriots, Jerry and Shay Stifelman. (Tracey, let’s get you taped!)

– James

Oracle’s Ellison Pledges Billions

August 5, 2010 / / No Comments

Larry Ellison

Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO of Oracle, has pledged to give away “at least 95%” of his $28 billion fortune to charity.

Oh, and in the same announcement, George Lucas said he’d do the same. But few people ever doubted that Lucas’ heart was in the right place. With Ellison, it was less certain.

During the 1990’s tech boom, I worked for a nonprofit that doubled as both a (free, open) news and information service, and as a service provider to nonprofits — we went around the country teaching 501(c)3 groups of all stripes how to use tech to further their missions (and that covered a lot of ground).

It was a great job — even after 60-hour weeks living in hotels far across the country from my own bed, I always felt my work had helped people in specific, quantifiable ways.

It was also an exciting time to be reporting in that sector, because fortunes were being made overnight. (Looking back, we now know most of these fortunes were only on paper, but still, it was exciting.)

And it was particularly exciting because many of these tech entrepreneurs were giving away big chunks of their new fortunes in very public ways. The attitude at the time was that the people drawn to the tech/start-up culture were more in touch with their core values through their work, more in tune with how social networks can bring real benefits to society, and that the type of people working in that field were driven primarily by the thrill of innovation and discovery; not simply greed and profit.

I believe a lot of these (positive) stereotypes were true, although it would have been interesting to see how these newly rich folks would have held on to their values if the tech crash hadn’t removed most of their fortunes.

But I digress.

I was reminded of that time by Ellison’s announcement. He apparently was motivated by the VERY public appeal by Bill & Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett, as part of their “The Giving Pledge” effort.

And during the time of the tech boom, the three biggest tech bazillionaires that HADN’T publicly pledged much of their personal fortunes (as opposed to corporate gifts and donations) were Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs.

Melinda Gates and Bill Gates Sr. went first, announcing plans were underway to create a massive foundation that would funnel the trio’s fortunes into specific areas of global health initiatives, global development (economic aid to the poor), and tech/access and education initiatives in the U.S.

They got off to a roaring start in 1999, and have grown the Foundation’s outreach ever since.

Ellison, not so much. At the time, he was fairly closed-mouth.

It turns out he has been giving away millions, but in a quieter, far less public way. Okay, there was that little dust-up with Harvard University, where he rescinded a $115 million gift because of their ousting of Lawrence Summers. (But Ellison also stated he’d increase his other giving to medical research.)

The reason he’s coming forward and signing this pledge now is that his example may lead other wealthy folks to give and/or make other commitments to the social good.

“Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said I would be ‘setting an example’ and ‘influencing others’ to give.  I hope he’s right,” he stated in his pledge.

Maybe one measure will be when (rather than if) Steve Jobs announces plans for HIS vast fortune, and how exactly he plans to give it away. That should be fascinating.

YouTube and You: 5 years, Celebrating

July 28, 2010 / / No Comments

Did you hear? YouTube is celebrating five years of dominating the world of online video.

Yes, the company is milking this for all it’s worth, but the extended celebration makes sense: YouTube was founded in February 2005, got their initial big funding in November of that year (from Sequoia Capital, as an FYI to all those start-up folks out there), then “officially” launched in December.

…And ever since has been the premier resource and destination for uploading and sharing video clips online.

  • Quick fact 1: Five years in, visitors log 2 billion views a day. That’s billion with a “b”. Every single day.
  • Quick fact 2: For every minute that passes, YouTube users load 24 hours worth of video. That’s up from 15 hours of video every minute as of last year. So all this uploading is feeding the viewing, and all that viewing is feeding this uploading.

To celebrate these acheivements, YouTube is sharing the fun with the world. They’ve set up the “YouTube Five Year Channel“ and have invited, well, everyone — including you and me — to join in.

That doesn’t mean you can upload just anything and expect it to get posted; but it does mean there are some really interesting, insightful, funny and touching videos already up,  posted by regular people sharing stories about how YouTube has affected their lives.

It’s not just regular users, though. The company has savvily invited celebrities to curate their favorite clips.

This effort is more than just puffery; you can watch his intro below, then check out what Conan O’Brien likes:

And on the higher-art side, here’s some commentary by Spanish director Pedro Almovodar describing his list:

Amateur Hour and Professional Standards

July 23, 2010 / / No Comments

I’ve held off commenting on the Shirley Sherrod episode until now, because I wanted to make sure most of the major elements had surfaced.

When the Breitbart clip and resulting propoganda first broke, I was immediately suspicious because of where things originated — a partisan group with a history of questionable tactics, and a proven record of editing video to support a specific agenda.

To say the initial reactions from the administration, the NAACP, and much of the mainstream media were disappointing, is to let these groups off with minor slaps on the wrists. They deserve a proverbial whack on their snouts, followed by “bad dog!”

“Unprofessional” is one word I’d use. “Amateurish” is another. “Incompetent,” “negligent,” “unsuitable”, “naive,” “sloppy” and “half-assed” are some other words I’d suggest, and that’s only because I’m trying to be safe for work.

There’s a lot I want to say about the political and racial implications of what’s happened, but that’s a detour from the basic facts as they appear to be:

Shirley Sherrod, a woman who’s had a tremendously difficult background that might break many of us, worked hard to get to a position where she could help members of her community. She fought through her own biases and prejudices and was rewarded for it with a federal appointment, one that enabled her to do even greater good and on a larger scale.

Then she was targeted by an agenda-driven group, and a video of a speech she gave was edited, taken out of context, and spun to serve craven political purposes.. The group behind all this pushed claims of racism by Ms. Sherrod, and nearly every group that could and should have done some fact-checking… didn’t.

Their first reactions were FAILS. Working professionals that should know better took the edited clip at face value, failed to do basic vetting and verification, and the woman wound up being hounded from her job, her reputation smeared.

Things are now looking better for Ms. Sherrod — the full video and complete context is now out there, and if anything, she looks far better than even her personal narrative would suggest — and she’s reviewing multiple job offers, including her former post.

But those groups that first reacted have a lot of explaining to do.

As a former journalist, magazine editor, and now video producer, I’d like to offer a few tips and questions these groups should ask themselves — and they’ll work well for  anyone else that has to deal with “shocking, controversial” online content .

1. Carefully review the clip in question. Do you see any edit points? If not, look again. If you do see edits/transitions, WHY? What’s been cut out, and why would anything be cut/edited/trimmed?

2. Where’s the raw/full clip? If you’re going to make any judgements, or if there are any possible negative repercussions, get the original clip.

3. Remember to keep context in mind. Personally, if there’s any question about context, possible edits, or any manipulation at all, you need to do your job and make sure the original, authoritative source has been vetted thoroughly.

4. Once you have the original/full/raw clip… REVIEW IT. (It turns out that a few of the groups in question had this clip in hand shortly after the controversy began, but it was too much effort to sit down and watch it. That’s just shameful and unprofessional).

5. If for some reason this original material isn’t readily available, consider that a red flag. Hold off on any next steps until the source material is available.

Yes, it’s more work, but doesn’t this action involve people’s lives, careers, and reputations? It’s just basic double- and triple-checking

If the tables were turned, how would YOU like this to be handled?

Pavlov’s dog reacted quickly, but so what? You’re not a trained dog. You’re a working professional, right?