Here are new recently released trailers.
Here is a trailer for Catch a Fire, the new film of Phillip Noyce (Clear and Present Danger, The Quiet American, Rabbit-Proof Fence).
http://latinoreview.com/films_2006/focusfeatures/catchafire/hi-res.htmlHere is a trailer for a film called "The Last King of Scotland" by director Kevin Macdonald, who previously directed the excellent documentary Touching the Void.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thelastkingofscotland/trailera/Random film news.
Paul Giamati is set to play Philip K. Dick in an upcoming biopic. Odd coincidence, since the last film I reviewed, Scanner Darkly, was based on one of his novels. I love Giamati, so I'm intrigued.
Director Rian Johnson's next film will be The Brothers Bloom. He directed last year's Brick which just came out today and I will watch shortly (and then write up a review later in the week).
Alan Ball (the writer of American Beauty and Six Feet Under) will be directing his first film, which is as of now untitled, but reportedly inspired by a novel named Towelhead by Alicia Erian. Here is a link to a description of the premise and the story.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=19291Lastly, Wes Anderson's next film is named The Darjeeling Limited and Adrian Brody and Jason Schwartzman have just joined the cast.
Idle thoughts on the Dogma 95 movement.
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of finally being able to watch two dogma 95 films, The Idiots by Lars Von Trier and Festen by Thomas Vintenberg. Both directors wrote the cinematic manifesto for the dogma 95 movement which began in 1995 when Von Trier unveiled it to the world in Copenhagen. Now, at this point, I had read the manifesto from the dogma 95 website (oddly, they have their own website, here ) and understood the movement's basic (as well as excessively bizarre) tenets and goals.
http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htmHowever, after reading it once, I came to the realization that some of the movement's strict guidelines were just a tad excessive (somewhat of an understatement) and thought: How can these insane guidelines not impair the natural flexibility which directors need to work and aren't they all a little silly? Then, I remembered the actual name of the said manifesto, The Vow of Chastity, and then thorougly benefited from the healing powers of laughter for a good two hours. The following question arose: What the fuck does "chastity" have to do with film or cinema? Possibly, the word "chastity" was meant to convey the stringent self-repression needed to actually make a dogma film, but this explanation did nothing to reduce the sheer stupidity of the manifesto's name.
Then came the introduction before the manifesto and its harangue against the 1960 French New Wave (not specifically, but implied) and the general cinematic innovation of the 1960s. According to the dogmatists, although once reacting in defiance to the "bourgeois" concept of art, the directors of this wave became "bourgeois" themselves and thus did not represent a genuine cinematic revoltuion. If you want to disparage an entire movement without any argument, then simply proclaim it as the creation of the bourgeoisie and you do not have to any further. Arguments and rational criticism, who needs those? Thus, the directors who once rebelled against bourgeois conventions were now seen as hypocrites and the fabricators of an internal revolt which became an obstacle to cinematic progress. If labelling them "bourgeois" does not work, then simply call them "decadent film-makers". Although, there is some truth to this claim in that most of the New Wave directors were middle class, this fact does not negate their entire work and render it worthless. In addition, the term "bourgeois" has such a wide definition that Lars von Trier, Thomas Vintenberg, and other dogmatists could just as well be accused of being "bourgeois" and thus contributing to bourgeois cinema (whatever that is). Are they also guilty of an internal revolt? Umm...possibly.
The preface to the manifesto then goes on to declare auteur cinema or cinema produced through individualism as "decadent" (another silly label which is thrown around quite frequenly). In contrast, dogmatists construct films through harsh discipline and work together to create a uniform film. Furthermore, dogmatists believe cinema must reflect reality rather than propagate illusions or cinematic cosmetics (if you do the latter, then you are obviously a "decadent"filmmaker which is frowned upon). Oddly, if the dogmatists acknowledge that the French New Wave or 1960s film movements were initially anti-bourgeois (and they do on their website), but eventually degenerated into triviality, then by taking a diametrically opposed position and aesthetics to this once "anti-bourgeois" movement with "anti-bourgeois" aesthetics, are the dogmatists not simply returning to a "bourgeois" conception of art. In fact, the modernists of the twentieth century reacted against realism and classicism in art because they deemed it a reflection of "bourgeois" triviality. Its emphasis on the material world, its truth, and its uniformity were all grounds for frustration among modernists who desired more subjective, individualistic, and ambiguous art. Is the dogma movement's realism then "bourgeois" by promoting an extreme form of realism? It is all rather absurd and funny when one thinks of it too much.
Although, not as funny as the actual manifesto, dubiously titled "The Vow of Chastity" (I get chills everytime I write it).
First rule.
All shooting must be done on location. No constructed sets in order to emphasize the complete reality of the environment. Sounds reasonable enough. Yet, there is an added qualification to this stipulation. The props needed for a scene must be found on the location and can not be brought in. If they are not on the location, the director must find a location with the needed prop in place. Now, this is the part which seems a bit much. Picture the perfect shooting location and you need a specific prop which the location lacks . Alas, you could not obtain the prop and shoot in this Edenic location according to a staunch dogmatist. If I had to follow such rules, I could go stark raving mad over the lack of a broom on a specific location.
Second rule.
Sound must never come from outside the film's events, so as to disrupt the sense of realism. So, no film scores by John Williams or any composer. A real pity.
Third rule.
The camera must be hand-held at all times to emphasize the realism of the scene because all humans see reality as if from a wobbly camera perspective (this could arguably be true, although it still is odd). This rule is feasible and perfectly understandable. This is one of the lesser stringent restrictions and Lars von Trier would use it frequently in his future films, although his other films do not all qualify as dogma films (in fact, only "The Idiots" does, which emphasizes the difficulty of actually following these rules).
Fourth rule.
The film must be shot in colour. No special lighting is permitted. So, the beautiful and atmospheric colour compositions in urban landscapes of cinematographer Christopher Doyle would be impossible. Hell, some have actually claimed that a shot from Festen defies the dogma movement (including the director himself). It was a shot through a window curtain or near a window curtain where the light could be interpreted as artificial light. Dear God, these people are finicky and obsess over the most trivial details (almost like a bourgeois gentleman obssessively seeking to keep up appearances).
Fifth rule
Optical work and filters are not allowed during shooting. Now, come on, really. Bah. As a result of this silly stipulation, credits can not be shown in the normal fashion since they are deemed to be an optical intrusion. Thus, in The Idiots, the credits are hand-written with a chalk on a wooden board (or was it on a pavement). Why...just...why would you do that? Who cares? Really, what is wrong with these people?
Sixth rule.
The film must not possess any superficial actions such as actions involving weapons or murders, etc... Honestly, this rule is so vague that I doubt any film would get made if it was sincerely followed. There is no such thing as a superficial action inside film and in real life. According to the manifesto, a murder is a superficial action. Right...sure. If this rule were applied to Hamlet, there would not be a play because Claudius' murder of Hamlet's father would be appropriately excised for its superficiality. Sometimes, what is named a superficial action can be an important motivating force which moves the story.
Seventh rule
Temporal and geographical dislocation is forbiden. The story must take place in a specific environment and time (no Pulp Fiction or Memento-like narratives here). This rule is actually understandable given the movement's aesthetic goals.
Eight Rule
Genre films are forbidden. Now, virtually, any film can be categorized into a genre if one tried hard enough and new genres are bound to be invented later in the future, so good luck with that.
9th Rule
The film format should be Academy 35 mm. This rule is just trivial and reflects a pointless constraint on the filmmaker.
10th rule
The director should never be credited in order to subvert auteur cinema and its reliance on individualism. In all due honesty, who are these directors kidding? Everybody knows who made the film, so what is the difference whether he is not directly credited in the film. The Idiots is still known as a Lars Von Trier film. Von Trier was even nominated for a few awards for this film and won one. And, I thought he didn't direct the film.
In the end, I don't hate dogma films and I actually liked both The Idiots and Festen, but its excessive restrictions and inability to accept artistic flexibility would drive any director mad. Even Von Trier has not yet made another dogma film, although he keeps manipulating some the movement's components (hand-held cameras). Yet, when I see the long list of small and often trivial aesthetic constraints which these directors impose upon themselves in the name of realism and opposition to cinematic illusion, I am reminded of that stereotypical image of the nineteenth century bourgeois gentlemen who with similar overt discipline desires to achieve society's idealized individual within a material world while often forgetting his true self, or, in this case, his true artistic temperament.
However, all in all, Von Trier and Vintenberg have managed to evade this problem and produced two good films (I am still puzzled as to how after glancing once more at their inflexible manifesto), so what matters if their method is insane and self-destructive, given the positive end result. Self-sacrifice can often produce good art as well as artistic selfishness.
