SHOOTING WALL

ISSUE 3

Dear Readers,
As Shooting Wall unleashes our 3rd Issue on the world, we want to take a moment to think about where we started, where we have gone, and where we think Shooting Wall is heading in the future. As we reach our one year anniversary, all of us here at Shooting Wall feel the need to analyze both ourselves and our mission so we may continue to move forward into the cinematic future. We have come a long way since our 1st Issue, despite the short amount of time which has passed since we first hit the scene. Issue 1 was a chance to get our name out there and to let it be known that Shooting Wall was a new and unique force in Philadelphia and in the world of cinema. Issue 1 has all the trappings of a first (first film, first novel, first album); its energetic, forward thinking, and all over the place. There was a charm to this issue, but we knew it was not the definitive statement of Shooting Wall. If Issue 1 was essentially a call to arms, then Issue 2 was an explanation and overview of what were fighting against and some of the things Shooting Wall wanted to do for the future. Issue 2 was more concise, bolder, and called for more action and more anger at the film world at large. We took great pains in creating a cohesive, informative and eloquent issue in order to lay out what Shooting Wall is and what we believe. And since Issue 2, Shooting Wall has come a long way. We have more members, have been putting on more events, continue to update our blog regularly, and now have our own website. With the momentum weve had since the release of Issue 2, we have been able to reach more people than ever and forged ahead with Issue 3, which you now have in your hands. In this Issue, we try to move forward again; this time not just offering criticisms of films and institutions and harping on what we dont like, but also trying to pinpoint the specific problems and where we think we can improve on them. This is a more specific call to arms; we are offering readers and filmmakers an alternative to what they, and we, 2

do not like in the film industry. In addition to our critiques of the industry, we are also focusing on what we do like, forging ahead to define a criterion for what constitutes the most forward thinking cinema. We have devoted a good amount of space in this issue to the films and filmmakers both past and present whom we think represent the ideals and passions of Shooting Wall and its members. Issue 3 finds us expanding our horizons, broadening our scope, and adding new contributors and sections which we hope to continue cultivating in future issues. Shooting Wall is all about progress and growth. All of us believe that film is not dead, but merely at an impasse. We are not content with simply praising past masterpieces and lamenting the death of film, cinephilia, or criticism; we want to see film succeed. We are first and foremost interested in the future of cinema. The majority of us are filmmakers and when we write pieces about what is bad about film right now and what can be good, we are not just saying, but we are also doing. We have also envisioned Shooting Wall as a place for filmmakers to talk about what they want to do, and take notice when they do it. We believe this gives Shooting Wall a real time, more salient approach to the problems plaguing cinema right now than found in any mainstream or academic film rags. As we move forward, Shooting Wall wants to continue growing and changing as our members, and as cinema, grows and changes. We are not going to be happy with simply putting out a zine; Shooting Wall is about forming a community of cinephiles, theorists, critics and filmmakers who are committed to leading the charge into the cinematic future. You can certainly continue to look for more issues of Shooting Wall in the future, but you should also be checking our blog and our website for reviews, podcasts, discussions, reading groups, events and Shooting Wall films. We are truly attempting to form a community and this means watching, writing about, discussing and making cinema in an age when that is what is needed most. Shooting Wall is only rigid when 3

it comes to proliferating good, new and exciting cinema. We are not simply a filmmaking, film criticism or a film theory group, but we are all of those things at once. We go wherever our ideas lead us and we will not be pigeonholed nor will we create an overly intellectualized, insular, fantasy world where only one kind of film, one kind of idea or one kind of filmmaker is allowed to exist. As this issues cover shows, Shooting Wall is not breaking with every other cinematic tradition, but instead is embracing all the good that has come before and criticizing all the bad that has resulted. Shooting Wall looks to the past for both inspiration and for warnings; Shooting Wall is about moving cinema forward, but not about stroking our own egos by acting like we invented cinema, theory or criticism. No more stuffy intellectualism! No more vanguards! Shooting Wall is about making people enjoy cinema; we believe there is an audience for difficult cinema and we are willing to help people discover it. Long live cinema! And long live Shooting Wall!

Table of Contents
Theory Art, Technology and the Cinematic Revolution by Joshua Martin 6 Cinema Taken into Context by Leila Hilali 11 Film, Meet Television by Carrie Love 12 Through the Smog and Despair by Jesse Pires 20 A Cinematic Decline by Leila Hilali 25 Film Theory and Neoliberalism by Karl Starkweather 36 The Merit of a Moviemaker by Jonathan Seidman 58 Filmmakers Jia Zhangke by Karl Starkweather 15 The Hermetic Auteur by Joshua Martin 28 The Hermetic Universes of Frans Zwartjes by Herb Shellenberger 31 Whit Stillman: A Tragedy of Manners by Carrie Love 50 Harmony Korine by Derick Crucius 56 Columns Trivia 18 Best Film Criticism 28 Best Films of 2011 So Far 34 DVD Recommendations 47 Shooting Wall Filmmakers 49 Local Filmmaker Series: Dante Aleman 52

Editor-in-Chief:

Jonathan Seidman

Executive Editors: Design/layout: Cover Design:

Carrie Love

Carrie Love, Joshua Martin, Karl Starkweather Josh Christensen

Art, Technology, and the Cinematic Revolution

by Joshua Martin

Technology has always played a crucial role in the development of art and it has remained particularly important with regards to cinema which is, arguably, the art form most dependent on technology. Now and in the past, technology has helped shape the ways in which people understand, view, and make cinema. As technology advances, filmmakers attempt to find new ways to integrate this technology into their films, and use these new methods to revolutionize filmmaking. The trend, in general, has been this: there is a need among artists, industry professionals or consumers for something innovative (and often the advancement begins as a consumer product), a new technology is invented, adventurous filmmakers and artists are attracted to the new inventions and utilize it in creative,

interesting, and novel ways to make new kinds of cinema; their breakthroughs are recognized and then appropriated by the mainstream and made part of the general lexicon and then ultimately overused until there is a need for something new. This cycle has been seen in all art forms throughout the centuries and can be recognized in cinema with Neo-Realism, Nouvelle Vague, No Wave, and the American Independent film movement of the 1990s. In each case, a new form of technology allowed young filmmakers to break with past traditions to forge a new kind of cinema. With the Nouvelle Vague, it was the proliferation of lightweight and mobile cameras and sound, as well as faster film stocks which allowed for location shooting and cheaper productions. With No

Wave films, it was the abundance of Super 8 film equipment, as well as the advent of cassette tape formats. Along with these advancements that made the creation of these films possible, there were also groups of people who had ideas and who wanted to make films differently. They wanted to see things changed and they found the ways and means to make these changes via new technologies. This interplay between art and technology has been vital to the growth and expansion of cinematic ideas, however, it appears to me that at this very moment the interplay has broken down. In the last ten years or so, we have seen some of the most important and rapid changes and updates to cinematic technology since the early years of cinema, yet we have witnessed very little growth artistically and have yet to experience any kind of cinematic revolution equivalent to the Nouvelle Vague, New German Cinema, New Hollywood, etc. We are at an unusual juncture where technology is developing rapidly, yet film viewership is down and the idea of the cinephile seems to be waning. Film has finally reached a point where democratization seems possible, yet very little is being done by

young filmmakers to make anything of this. The new technology seems to have made our contemporaries lazy instead of invigorated with the possibilities to do whatever they want more or less whenever they want. A person can buy the equipment and editing software necessary to make films for relatively little money, while the internet and low cost projectors make it easier than ever to screen and/ or distribute films without the greedy, corporate fist of producers and Hollywood stifling creative visions. And yet, almost nothing of interest is happening in this regard. People seem more content with shooting music videos for their friends crappy band or making videos for YouTube than with making cinema or taking real chances. This generation seems to lack any taste or willingness to engage, discuss, or criticize other peoples works or even their own. The self-conscious artist seems to be dying. There is such an earnestness and self-absorption to the younger generation of movie-goers; they seem to lack the critical skills to know when something is mediocre or bad and to call it that. This attitude has carried over into the mainstream and into film criticism and film festivals who feed on mediocrity. Nowadays your film not being terrible

automatically makes the critics gush. This hearkens back to an article in the previous issue of Shooting Wall (Shooting Wall Issue #2 Spring 2011) dealing with complacency. We have the means for revolution and yet we do nothing. The filmmakers who seem the most interested in truly exploring these new technologies are older filmmakers, who were comfortable doing this in the past. Francis Ford Coppola has shot his last three films with low budgets and on digital video and these have been his best films in 30 years. It makes the cinephile imagine all the great cinema Coppola could have been making in the 1980s and 1990s had he been willing to work outside of the mainstream earlier. David Lynch has also claimed he will never go back to shooting on film after seeing what kind of freedom shooting on digital allowed him. He was able to shoot when and where he wanted, whenever an idea struck him. Digital video allowed Lynch to make Inland Empire, his most audacious and difficult film since Eraserhead. The freedom of digital filmmaking also inspired him to distribute the film himself so he didnt have to deal with Hollywood in any way. Werner Herzog also recently shot the strange and beautiful film My Son, My Son

What Have Ye Done digitally and made his best fiction film since at least Fitzcarraldo. And filmmakers like Agnes Varda

and Jean-Luc Godard have long been on the forefront of technology and have utilized new methods since the beginning to continue to make their own highly individual films. Now certainly these filmmakers have name recognition which makes it easier for them to be successful even when they work outside of the mainstream, but if these filmmakers who are all older than sixty are willing to embrace these new technologies so fully, then why arent younger people? We have a whole group of filmmakers who began making films years before anything like digital filmmaking seemed possible fully embrace new technologies to make some of their most interesting films to date.

There are a handful of filmmakers only slightly older than us (Albert Serra, Pedro Costa, Jia Zhangke, Steven Soderbergh, David Fincher, etc.) who have also embraced digital cinema, but we filmmakers just now coming of age and beginning to make our own films have the opportunity to exploit this technology like no one else before us. The technology exists for the new cinematic revolution, yet we prefer to make YouTube videos. Where is the disconnect? Surely we cannot feel like there is nothing new to do or that there are no ideas out there that need to be filmed. What has happened? Is it possible that we have grown so used to accessibility as to make us lazy? Filmmakers of older generations knew and experienced how difficult it was to make films and to make unusual, different, or new kinds of films, so as soon as something new came along that allowed them to do what they couldnt before, they were eager to embrace it. And they had ideas. Perhaps none of us ever had to work so hard to get our films made and so it has made this generation lazy. Our laziness is going to cost us our technology. Hollywood is stupid, but not that stupid. They see what the new technology does and could potentially mean, and they see

no one using it to revolutionize cinema as an art form. So what are they doing? They are sitting back and slowly finding ways to exploit the new technology for their own gain. They block our access to the technology (such as pirating movies and music) and set up ways to cheaply create and exhibit their own trash and then continue to charge us the same price for it. They are cheating us. They can film reality television for almost nothing, post it online or on demand, and then charge us what they would have charged us before. They havent decreased their prices at all. Often when you go the movies, the film is a digital projection which costs very little in comparison with a physical print which they have to make and mail out to the theaters and yet they dont charge us less to see these movies, in fact, movie theaters are forced to charge us more because Hollywood demands more from the theater. No one is challenging them. If we dont start now, then Hollywood will develop and steal this technology, which will then become like everything else in America: a corporate run, capitalistic monster sucking up our money while giving us less choice and a worse product. Our best hope at a new form of cinema could be

dead if we dont take back the technology and use it the way WE want to use it and not how Hollywood or other corporations want us to use it. Watch

good movies and then go out and make cinema! It would be a shame to waste this technology and this incredible opportunity to do something new.

10

Cinema Taken into Context

by Leila Hilali
When you sit in front of a giant silver screen; hypnotized by its lone illumination whilst hanging onto the edge of your seat as the potent obscurity sinks in; one is instantly immersed in the visual and auditory assault that is Cinema. This perceptive siren beckons and coaxes us, and if successful, ultimately transports us into her transcendental universe of illusion. She engorges us; kidnapping us from reality for what seems like an eternity; but then regurgitates us back in a matter of hours, during which time we seemed to have forgotten ourselves in her presence. We have all experienced this perpetual occurrence before; its ritual ingrained in our collective consciousness; and yet we find ourselves returning back for more, time after time, much like drug addicts looking for the next fix. What makes each experience so exceptional and significant unto itself are its remarkable components and ingenious make-up. We inhale the ether when we grasp how film functions to achieve her collective splendor: the meticulous synthesis of all art forms. Cinema is the great integration; surpassing all that came before her in her jeunesse; and not merely another creative outlet to be perused, but an overpowering refuge of refinement. Film is alive and mobile whereas a painting or sculpture is not. Music, as provocatively profound as it is, is merely visceral ear candy. Books cannot truly come to life unless we use the power of Cinema to empower and animate their vision. Thus, film engages its audiences senses with an assertive force of aesthetic intellect, whereas other art is lacking in retrospect. She alone has the power to liberate us from the shackles of intellectual idleness and cultural conformity. But we must destroy her pedestrian enemies; corporate slavery and stupidity; in exchange. We must truly sacrifice ourselves in her name, or we will never be emancipated. Cinema must be taken into contextor else she will cease to captivate, becoming futile, and so shall we.

11

Film, Meet Television

by Carrie Love
Todd Hayness HBO mini-series Mildred Pierce has been nominated for 22 primetime Emmys and was watched by close to 2 million people. Amazingly, the mini-series event attracted a crowd of viewers who have most likely never even seen the original Mildred Pierce (1945, Michael Curtiz). Though this isnt the first time that HBO has had success with bringing film directors and actors to the small screen, this time was particularly striking because of the director. Todd Haynes doesnt appear to me to be the most likely director to have a hit mini-series on cable. In fact, I remember being a little bewildered when I first heard of his foray into television. My immediate thoughts were something along the lines of why is he messing around with this crap while he could be working on a new film? Well, in some regards, the mini-series can be considered a complete film. Each episode (there are 5 in total) has the same director, writer, and actors and could conceivably be watched as a film on its own. The series received an enormous amount of buzz on the internet and the question that most often seemed to come up was this: Are television networks (especially premium cable channels) taking more risks than the movie industry? Is television giving

12

directors more freedom and reaching more of the masses than the Hollywood film industry? Is this a viable method for lesser known and independent filmmakers to get their work shown? In the previous issues of this zine we have been asking ourselves similar questions about the fate of not only the movie industry, but about what tactics are the best for filmmak-

this miniseries and it seems as though it was a productive experience for him: the film is very Todd Haynes (yes, Im using that as an adjective) and its clear that he had his hand in every piece of its making. It may be a viable option to have more independent filmmakers working with cable channels to bring innovative cinema to the masses. This is really a foray

ers to actually get their work shown, delivered, and appreciated by a wide audience. Make no mistake, Mildred Piece is a huge production with all the force of capital and celebrity buzz behind it, but is this a model that can be helpful to other independent film makers? I believe that Todd Haynes approached HBO about doing

into a larger question that we have also been grappling with: the relevance and importance of the cinema as a physical place. It is uncertain as to the role that film houses will continue to play in presenting good cinema to the masses. Gimmicks like 3D seem to be falling quickly out of favor and many cineplexes have closed since

13

the beginning of the recession. Perhaps this is the beginning of the specific moment when television is, in many ways, truly turning into the Home Box Office. We at Shooting Wall have begun to imagine, and I implore others to consider, a future where the physical cinema is no longer king. As Jesse Pires notes in his article in this issue, the physicality of the moviegoing experience seems to be moving from the silver screen to the gallery (and I add to the home screen). Comcast, the nations largest provider of cable television, has increased emphasis on delivering straight to on demand movies that you can watch at home the same day they are released in theaters. Ive seen a few good independent films this way and their listings seem to be expanding. As the worldwide economy continues to crumble, we feel the four walls of the movie place crashing down on us. We must begin to imagine and realize ways of moving out of the theater before we get stuck in the rubble. At Shooting Wall we host home screenings (with a projector that we all pitched in to purchase) and we watch the films on our terms. As the theaters remain complacent churning out 3D blockbusters, we play the mov-

ies we want to see, because, sadly, weve realized that if we dont do it for ourselves, no one will. I also implore filmmakers to begin thinking about their films outside of the cineplex. When you are making your films you should also be thinking about non-standard means of display, and really experiment with different effects of time and space. I guess what Im suggesting is that film makers should really take to curating their films exhibition, much like other visual artists have for many years now. Take some control over the delivery of your film, and dont rely on the theaters, who obviously have very little interest in going the extra mile for film makers. Perhaps you decide that you want to project on the side of an abandoned building, or exhibit your own films in your basement. We must begin really using the means of exhibition to our advantage without regard for the theater chains. Be unorthodox: exploit the web (vimeo, youtube, ubu) but lets start thinking even beyond that. If we continue to take for granted the fact that the physical environment of the movie theater may not exist much longer into the future, we will be unprepared when we must find new ways of exhibition.

14

My Auteur: Jia Zhangke

by Karl Starkweather
In 2009 I had a crisis. I was a couple years into filmmaking, having made my first film -- an homage to Romero and Godard -- called Tony Hawk in 2007. Making an absurdist rom-com called Minnie Driver a year later, a film where I threw blood on a female while she yelled society, I later sensed a selfhatred for what I felt I was going towards: the art film. All that I was watching as a filmmaker was from before 1975 and I felt I came into something too late, got into some weird cult. The equipment I was working with -an HD camera and other digital media -- made me make films differently than my heros. And I didnt understand why I couldnt make films like my heros, but also expand on them, but do them in new ways. Then I came upon Zhangkes The World, at the now defunct South Street (a major tourist attraction in Philadelphia) TLA video store. Im not sure what spurred me to pick it up, but whatever cognitive forces led to that decision helped lead to the end of a crisis. Going home I put the DVD on a massive HD television my roommate at the time had, which was really the only nice thing in the mouse-infested place. The movie started, I followed performers in their dressing rooms. Then after a few minutes, after realizing the film was shot in HD, I was shown an immense wide-shot of a stage, gleaming with light. Then, after that, I was shown this amusement park in the background transposed by characters in the foreground. All details seen, everyone in focus, shots at night beautifully visible, generally in long-takes. I felt, at that moment, I found the future of cinema. Now his technological understandings -- epitomized in a film like The World -- generally highlight what one can do with what film schools and real filmmakers say you cant do, shoot on the amazingly inexpensive and ever perpetually better HD equipment my part-time job can afford. Yet, his dominance of pushing what one can do with digital, understanding how to light it, what is good at shooting (his wide shots being key examples of what HD is good at, also theyre some of the best wide shots in film history), etc. All these formalist things are definitely not the only part of why I am rallying so hard

15

behind this filmmaker. When I was convinced that the type of films that I liked and wanted to make (the kind that do not force feed the viewer, but are layered and immense) were from the long gone era, Jia Zhangke proved me wrong. Zhangke pushed the boundaries of the art. Taking the best elements from Godard, De Sica, Antonioni, and Bresson. While it is said he is a realist, he owes nothing to the modern failed project of 21st century functionalist-realisms (see my piece in Shooting Wall #1) of mumblecore or post9/11 pseudo-documentation (the kind all the rage in everything from horror films to action films at present) that find skill in something which, in no way, does anything new for cinema. Rather, it brings you to try to

believe in more of the general ideological line of Hollywood, admixed with the growing desire to resemble the shittiness of reality television. Zhangkes realism is more a political motivation, filming the real Chinese, just like De Sica did in Italy. I feel Godards politics, De Sicas humanism, Antonionis alienation, and Bressons meditative style with Zhangkes everexpanding political and psychological analysis of the modern, post-Mao, Chinese socioeconomic capitalist situation. All of that has led to some of the best films I have seen in my lifetime, all of them coming out in the last 15 years: The World, Unknown Pleasures, Still Life, The Pickpocket, and Platform all being masterpieces. Then Zhangke did

16

something quite unique: he made me question documentary. Here in the Shooting Wall offices, an anti-documentary contention has been dominant: we have come to feel the objectivism held by the flyon-the-wall camp is a farce. Much of the material outside of this failed to really push the art, generally being one-issue propaganda films. There are also the biographical documentaries, which either had only historical-not-cinematic value or were on quirky people that didnt really do much more than ask us to laugh at some supposed portrait. But Zhangkes documentary, 24 City, comes close to having the same aesthetic value of his other

films. Making me question the objectivity of it, which Zhangke negated through having it live up to the visual standards in his other films, but also by using actors interspersed with people from the actual factory the film is documenting. His last film, a documentary called I Wish I Knew, sadly didnt come to Philadelphia. I am eagerly awaiting to see it, hoping it once again makes me question documentary, but also continue what Zhangke has done for me: Open my mind to what a filmmaker today can do with what cinematic tools a self-financed filmmaker can obtain, and who is trying to advance the cinematic art (see Joshua Martins Art And Technology).

17

TRIVIA
Do you think of yourself as a cinephile? Do you pride yourself on your knowledge of obscure and lesser known films? Then perhaps you should try our Shooting Wall trivia challenge. When you have solved the puzzle, send us an email at shootingwallzine@gmail. com for a chance to win a prize of 2 tickets to the Ritz movie theaters here in Philadelphia. We will do a drawing at random and the winner will be notified and announced on our blog. We also welcome your comments along with your submission. Directions: Looking at the stills below, try to determine who directed each film. Arrange the secret phrase below using the first letter of each directors last name. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _____

18

19

Through the Smog and Despair

by Jesse Pires
One frequently hears the proclamation Cinema is Dead - most typically in response to low attendance figures, or radical changes in technology and distribution methods. Of course, commercial cinema continues to thrive as it churns out blockbuster after blockbuster, based on video games or previous pop culture crowd-pleasers such as comic books and television programs. These films continue to infiltrate our new media platforms while propping up the old media spectacle of The Cinema. On a recent visit to Los Angeles I was fortunate to view several new video installations that draw from the moving images past while affirming that the new cinema space is, indeed, the gallery. Marco Brambillas recent single-channel video EVOLUTION (Megaplex) is part of a larger survey of the artists work at the Santa Monica Museum of Art. EVOLUTION is paired with another recent work, CIVILIZATION, which is also permanently installed in the elevators at the Standard hotel in New York City. Both are presented in 3D - hence, the Megaplex addendum. If cinema is dead, EVOLUTION (Megaplex) is like watching its life flash before our eyes, or, conversely, like watching it be reborn within a gallery context. The hundreds of images that comprise EVOLUTION are all culled from a century of film history: Alex and the Droogies from Kubricks A Clockwork Orange, a young, resplendent Sting from David Lynchs Dune, the giant, robotic AT-AT walkers from Star Wars all hypnotically intermingle on a three-dimensional, Hieronymus Bosch-inspired moving canvas. The effect is pure phantasmagoria. Kubrick, in fact, figures quite heavily in the work as it begins with the apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey and ends with the starchild from the same film, which itself is an investigation into evolution. Brambilla, whose origins are in commercial moviemaking (Demolition Man), has brilliantly evolved the form. Another L.A.-based artist closely aligned with cinemas migration into the gallery is Drew Heitzler. Heitzlers recent three-channel projection at Blum & Poe titled Spiral Jetty/ Crystal Voyager/Region Centrale (Bootlegged, Re-ordered, Combined, Sometimes More, Sometimes Less) is as epic in scale as Brambillas EVOLUTION (Megaplex), if not more

20

so. By placing appropriated footage from three films (Robert Smithsons Spiral Jetty, Michael Snows La Region Centrale and George Greenoughs Crystal Voyager) side by side, Heitzler offers a fascinating meditation on artists unique relationship to the natural world. Smithsons documentation of his legendary land art installation anchors the work as it is flanked by Snows mechanical manipulation of landscape and Greenoughs immersive view of the ocean.

The soundtracks of the films merge into a psychedelic swirl. Smithson repeating mud, salt crystals, rocks, water becomes a trance-inducing mantra as it overlaps with Pink Floyd. Each film captures a world far removed from the four-walled gallery space - when combined, they allow the viewer to reach back to a primordial world, a place that prefigures the existence of man, or at the very least, the camera.

21

Best Film Criticism:

Manohla Dargis & A.O. Scotts In Defense of the Slow and the Boring
by Karl Starkweather
The most valiant work of film theory since our last issue was a critique of film criticism from Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott in their June 3rd New York Times piece: In Defense of the Slow and the Boring. Dargis and Scott destroyed the reactionary notions posited by Dan Kois article in the New York Times Magazine called Eating Your Cultural Vegetables. Kois basically surmised art film as equivalent to digesting cultural vegetables. This was incited by the excellent and enriching Kelly Reichardt film Meeks Cutoff. Kois then goes on from there to talk down the relevance of Andrei Tarkoskys Solaris, Derek Jarmans Blue, and the filmmaking of Hou Hsiao Hsien. Proclaiming that nothing happens in these films, that he was alienated by even having to watch them, and that he only likes them because he thinks he has to like them. Ultimately coming to the point of suggesting that perhaps I just lack the youthful exuberance that led me to believe I could rewire my brain through repeated exposure to Antonioni. Alright scumbag, how the hell did you get to be a critic? Isnt your duty to open up the world of art to people? Help them wire their brain so they can get the most out of art and life? Sure, when I was 3 years old, a film like Solaris or Meeks Cutoff would seem foreign to me, now many years later these films have become important elements of not only getting joy from the cinematic art, but also from helping me get more from life. This was done, in-part, by the help of film criticism, theory, and history. Film, slow and boring might constitute cinema that is layered, immense, and pushes

the film art. Thank Hitchcock that Dargis and Scott came through to destroy this douchebag. And not with some infantile loweranimal gut reaction like Kois.

22

No, they used logic - deductive, concise, and to the point. Dargis begins, deriding the non-cultural vegetables, giving an example of a non-boring film Hangover Part II, then explaining possibly the logic of why people attend: Its the kind of boring that makes money, partly because its the boring that many people like, want to like, insist on liking or are just used to, and partly because its the sort of aggressively packaged boring you cant escape, having opened on an estimated 17 percent of American screens. She continues from here, getting deeper, explaining possibly a more psychological reason for Kois ineptitude: If youre entertained, or so the logic seems to be, you wont have the time and head space to think about how crummy, inane and familiar the movie looks, and how badly written, shoddily directed and indifferently acted it is. She sums it up perfectly with her question: So, is boring bad? Is thinking? Good question. Kois, are you even human? Scott then takes over the theoretical-beating, taking head on the assault the critics and public has against art. He first gives a historical note: Some of this anti-art bias reflects the glorious fact that film has always been a popular art form, a great democratic

amusement accessible to everyone and proud of its lack of aristocratic pedigree. A point that epitomizes a tactical failure of film intellectuals if anything. Yet, we live in a different era, with film history being liberated, production lowered, etc., so hopefully the game will change. Scott then criticizes another N.Y. Times critic, Richard Schickel, who with his limited cognitive ability put forth that there are other ways of making movies, naturally, and theres always a small audience available for these noble strivings - and good for them, I guess. Scott amazingly comes in with: Yes, good for them. I will stipulate that Mr. Schickel has forgotten more film history than I will ever know, but in this instance his summary of that history strikes me as strangely narrow. A whole lot of cinema, past and present, falls into that other ways of making movies category, and dismissing it outright in the name of fun risks throwing out quite a few masterpieces with the bathwater. The limited hindsight of critics is illuminated here for the public, bringing to the table the lack of rigorous analysis that someone like Schickel, Kois, etc., have, and possibly this suggests the need for criticisms of modern critics. A task that we thank Scott and Dargis for starting.

23

Then, just because it was hilarious, Scott makes a great contention: Is there a recent movie more deserving of being called pretentious than Thor? This quip does suggest an area for critics and theorists to start from, throwing back at the mindless complacent critics lacking all theory and history that their backing of such garbage as Thor constitutes a blow to the very foundations of cinematic art. If they want to watch as the structure crumbles, so be it, but hopefully voices like Scott and Dargis (the better critics at the NY Times anyway) get heard and attack the betrayal inherent in reactionary positions. After talking about artfilms, Scott then notes that he doesnt think they will threaten the hegemony of the blockbusters, so why is so much energy expended in defending the prerogatives of entertainment from the supposed threat of seriousness? This is a good question, why do the dominant cinematic forces and those critics, historians, and theorists

who rally complacently behind them, see cinematic-art as a threat? Possibly, as Dargis and Scott show, they lack the right to even be those who get to propagate film knowledge. Should we let this scum continue to be heard? Or should we keep throwing their shit back at them? Embarrassing them until they are seen as the jokes they are? YES. A NOTE: Continued research into the influence of critics is yielding mixed results. Statistically it is uncertain if the critic even results in influence on what films get seen. Were not critics at SW partially for this, as it seems criticism does lack some tactical impact that needs to occur, especially in our age of the dominance of what really are the most dull and boring films in the history of what is the best art.

24

Why Honest Film Is Losing To Corporate Interests, Ignorant Audiences, & Mindless Critics
(Or Why Honest Film is Important And In Dire Need Of A Renaissance)

A Cinematic Decline:
by Leila Hilali

When I read the NY Times article In Defense of the Slow and the Boring, (Manhola Dargis and A.O. Scott. June 3, 2011) I was delighted to see sensible critics succinctly articulate what Shooting Wall believes and fights for, amidst an American wasteland of motion pictures gone bad. But at the same time, the reality sank in a little deeper for me to know that those writers shared my long held beliefs about the current state of film. Of course, Hollywood has always been an oppressive dream factory, but never has it been as destructively homogenized as it is today. One need only recall Kubrick, who managed to fund and film his masterpieces within the studio system, a sad echo of a time when Honest Film still had a significant audience. But with the recent releases of The Hangover Part 2 and Cars 2, one must be entirely braindead to fail to realize how bad its gotten for audiences and aspiring filmmakers alike. Sowhat is Honest Film? And why does it matter? Honest Film, not to be confused with Cinma Vrit, is the worthiest of all films; it is

the type of film that most filmmakers aspire to create. The greatest example of which, in my opinion, is Citizen Kane. Such a film is brilliant on more than one level and transcends the medium entirely. An Honest Film need not be independent or realistic. It can be commercial or even mainstream (gasp), but such a film is not solely made for corporate profit. Honest Film is true to film theory but also manages to rise above it with experimentation, ingenuity, and intellect. All of which were employed by Welles. Without those three qualities, it is not Honest Film. For me, as of 2011, Honest Filmmakers are on an endangered species list. American films are no longer made with a decisive spirit that challenges or enlightens moviegoers; at least not in Hollywood. Of course, there are always exceptions. However, most unapologetic filmmakers find it irrefutably difficult to sell and distribute their films; which makes it harder for them to reach a large audience. This only hurts their chances of succeeding in the industry without selling-out, or compro-

25

mising their vision. But does the majority always rule? Yes and no. Most audiences have been sedated into believing Film is merely cheap entertainment and nothing more, and settle for much less than they should. Critics dictate what films we should see, and tell us why the latest RomCom or Buddy film is a worthy amusement. Films are no longer given the platform to educate, enlighten, or inspire on a large enough scale. Another sad note is the fact that American audiences seem oblivious to other types of films, such as experimental, foreign, and art-house fare. I can only pity the sincere filmmakers (both foreign and domestic) that lack ample distribution due to the omnipotent corporate stranglehold, the MPAA, Movie Audience Demographics, and other grotesque agents that strive to exclude noncommercial, boring, or artsy films. Without exposure to said films, no wonder people settle for something as dastardly as Thor! I agree that from time to time Oscar-nominated pictures have considerable merit, but The Kings Speech certainly didnt expand or raise my consciousness. It seems Hollywood and the

American masses are in dire need of an Honest Film renaissance. We need talented young filmmakers to revive the dying genus of Honest Film. We need dedicated and passionate auteurs whose imaginations know no limits! We need all genders, colors, and creeds. With all the remakes, sequels, prequels, and rehashes after rehashes, what is there to lose? Film is not a mirror, but a hammer which one uses to crush the enemy: the status quo. Honest Film will captivate and engage audiences of all backgrounds. The majority is us! We only need our voices to be heard, loud and clear.

26

27

The Hermetic Auteur: An Introduction

by Joshua Martin
There exists in the world of cinema a particular kind of filmmaker whose style, methods, concerns and commitments are so decidedly, so willingly outside of the generally accepted cinematic traditions (both mainstream and art house) that they occupy a unique place in the cinematic landscape and push our understanding of the medium to new territories. These filmmakers reside in a precarious realm between art house, underground, and marginal; their films are not wholly experimental and yet they are by no means typical art house films. Their visions are unique and seem particular to them alone. They remain obscure, insular, and illogical and utilize a grammar and style contrary to most accepted forms of cinematic expression. It is wrong, however, to merely label these filmmakers simply as marginal, outre, or shock artists. Instead, I propose a new term and understanding of this atypical, paradoxical, and wholly distinctive brand of filmmaker. I have chosen to label them as hermetic auteurs; filmmakers whose themes, styles, and methods of working so unique to them that they appear to work only from their own personal logic, eschewing what we may consider rationality for a style particular only to them, as if they had managed to discover a new form of expression to which no one else is yet familiar. That is not to say that these filmmakers lack influence or perspective because they are quite literate in regards to artistic movements, philoso-

28

phies, and political discourses both past and present. It may be that their influences are so very diverse and often exceed merely an understanding of film traditions to encompass many diverse mediums which can include literature (romantic, modern, gothic), music (opera, classical, pop, jazz), painting, theater, and even many of what would be considered low arts. They have managed to synthesize their influences into seemingly heretofore unseen techniques, unafraid of their obscurity or seeming irrationality. They exist both within film movements, yet completely outside of them at the same time. The hermetic auteur is inherently contradictory with their fusion of low and high arts; cinema and performance; the personal with the collective; the poetic with the narrative. And yet they have managed to gain a small, but loyal group of fans who consume every obtuse image and esoteric reference with rapturous joy. At the same time, many of even the most ardent cinephiles find their films absurdly difficult and impenetrable. Regardless of this fact, these hermetic auteurs remain consistently individual and have never swayed from their visions or ventured into the mainstream. They have carved out a place in cinema not easily de-

fined and not well understood. They are passionately loved by a few, hated by some, and remain totally obscure to most. They are a breed of filmmaker which is becoming increasingly rare in the money and corporate driven film industry, and film festivals have tried more and more to push aside and leave in obscurity. Those of us, however, who have searched and fought to see their films are unswayed and remain steadfast in our admiration for the hermetic auteur and committed to exalting their uniqueness and, yes, even the difficulty of these filmmakers. Their works are fascinating and maddening; obscure yet familiar; and insular yet understandable. The hermetic auteur represents the best in the spirit of true independent filmmaking; they lack even the smallest concern for commercial appeal and are dedicated to their visions. Within the pages of Shooting Wall (over the course of many issues) my cinematic comrades and I will be profiling and highlighting these hermetic auteurs and doing our best to expose readers to their names and films and convince readers and cinephiles of their singular visions and provide the best resources available to view their films. Below, I also offer a brief summary of some of the film-

29

makers whom I believe fit into this mold and the years they have been active. This current list is preliminary and will continue to grow and expand, and I hope readers will offer their own unique take on the hermetic auteur and reveal more of these filmmakers to Shooting Wall. Already in this issue you will see Herb Shellenbergers piece about Frans Zwartjes of whom I was previously unaware, but could easily fit into this category. Philippe Garrel, French, 1967-present Jackie Raynal, French, 1968-present Serge Bard, French 1968-1969 Jean Eustache, French, 19631981 Vera Chytilova, Czech, 1960-present Werner Schroeter, German, 1967-2010 Ulrike Ottinger, German, 1973-present Jon Jost, American, 1973-present Mark Rappaport, American, 1971-present Albert Serra, Catalan, 2003-present

30

The Obsessive, Hermetic Universes of Frans Zwartjes

by Herb Shellenberger
Dutch filmmaker Frans Zwartjes is a criminally under-hailed figure in the history of the avant garde in film. His body of work is largely unseen. Out of reportedly over forty films, only fourteen are available (in a European double-disc set Frans Zwartjes: The Great Cinema Magician released by Nederlands Filmmuseum and Moskwood Media, also streaming on UbuWeb). It is through these magnificent restorations of this wild and unhinged material that viewers can see Zwartjes is one of the most important Dutch filmmakers of all time, as well as a shockingly controversial artist on the vanguard of extreme cinema. What few articles do exist stress that Zwartjes has been active in many disciplines -- music, painting, sculpture and performance among them -and, more importantly, note his importance as a teacher to multiple generations of Dutch filmmakers since the early 1970s (such as avant-gardist Paul de Nooijer, who made his first film Moving Pictures in collaboration with Zwartjes). An influence can be found in Dutch filmmaker Adriaan Ditvoorst, whose 1967 film Paranoia contained many touchstones of Zwartjes work: penetrating close-up shots, high contrast black and white photography and eerie organbased soundtracks. Zwartjes surrounded himself with a small stable of actors, among them his wife Trix, the brooding Moniek Toebosch, the sometimesandrogynous Lodewijk de Boer and stoic Buster Keaton lookalike Christiaan Manders. Different combinations of these four actors appear in all of the films we see today. The content could be as banal as a woman playing with a toy bird (Birds, One, 1968) or as antagonistic as a sadomasochistic food orgy (Visual Training, 1969). Indeed, it could be said that in some films, ostensibly nothing happens, in the traditional sense. But regardless of the content, in each film Zwartjes creates fractured portraits of each character, externalizing the internal feelings -- lust, jealousy, despair, emptiness -- without the use of dialogue, as his films were shot with non-sync sound. In fact, Zwartjes scored many

31

of the films himself, conveying similar emotion with droning organs and minimal electronics. The films, so fractured by his technique of editing in-camera, create moods and atmospheres unseen anywhere else in cinema. In Film as a Subversive Art, Amos Vogel says, Zwartjes creates hermetic, obsessive and decadent universes, in which desperate, dissociated males and females, though inextricably bound to each other, never connect. It is through this delicate balance of interaction-but-disconnection that the films of Frans Zwartjes perfectly describe feelings of alienation, emptiness and despair. Audition (1973) is one such film where we see this alienation and despair in excess. It is also a film where to a great extent nothing really happens. As far as traditional plot in concerned, we see a man watching a woman perform, while another woman watches them both. The content of the film is the camera searching around the face and body of the three characters, as they are being affected by different, extreme lighting. Zwartjes, who acted as cinematographer for his films, could be considered one of the best cinematographers working with black and white, alongside such luminaries as Sven Nykvist and Raoul Coutard. The

portraits of Toebosch in particular seem like post-modern renditions of classic silent-era vamps Theda Bara and Musidora. The interplay between light and dark is integral to this and many of his other films. In the films 38 minutes, we see powerful and predatory sexuality, manic shifts in mood from ecstatic to downtrodden, and kinetic portraits of three characters who, as Vogel put it, never connect. Another film on the subject of the inability to connect is Visual Training. In this film, the three characters, caked in makeup as they are in all of Zwartjes films, enact a particularly gruesome ritual involving food and the nude body. Christiaan Manders slathers Trix in unidentifiable food materials while Tineke (so singly named in the credits) lathers his hair. These orgiastic, non-erotic displays of nudity and sexuality bring to mind the filmed documents of the Vienna Actionist performances orchestrated by Hermann Nitsch, Otto Muehl and Gnter Brus, as well as the Cinema of Transgression films of Nick Zedd and Richard Kern. While slightly less offensive than either group, the film is still galling and would be completely repulsive for the viewer uninitiated in extreme cinema. Zwartjes would go on

32

to an even further extreme with the 1979 film Pentimento. Somewhat outside of the mode of all his other now-available work, the film is both feature length and in large part narrative. But a number of trademarks do carry over, including the stark contrast portraits, synthesizer soundtracks and many of the same actors as the previous shorts. In color (largely blue-hued) and with a sync soundtrack, the film concerns a group of scientists in a remote bunker who perform cruel and unusual experiments on a group of people, mostly women. This caused an outrage and feminist groups reportedly rioted at screenings, some burning film prints and even throwing a projector out of a window. Zwartjes explained that he was challenging the systemic misogyny, as indicated by the term pentimento which refers to the evidence of alteration

in a painting. It is by making explicit these evasive, systemic inequalities that Zwartjes was trying to illustrate that the casual misogyny commonly tolerated in daily life is tantamount to violent, brutal torture, however masked it may be. The fourteen films of Frans Zwartjes available today indicate that he was a master filmmaker who was capable of expressing unique and often inexplicable feelings and moods that are generally unseen in cinema. While this challenging work, highly concentrated with magical moments and visionary technique, could provide material for much discussion and analysis, it is a wonder that more of Zwartjes films have not been restored or made available in any format. Two seemingly major works In Extremo (1981) and Medea are only hinted at on the web and in the 2005 documentary The Great Magician (part of the aforementioned DVD set), but one can hope that they, and the other 30 or so films that are now unseen will be excavated, so audiences can further examine Zwartjes obsessive and hermetic universes.

33

Best Films of 2011 So Far

This is what we have been able to see in Philadelphia. We dont want to put down half our paychecks to take once-a-month trips to the overly expensive, upper-class wonderland of New York to visit the IFC Center and Film Forum, with their cultural elitist crowds and small screens (Film Forum even has columns right in front of the seats, blocking the screen!) - just to maybe see 1 or 2 art films? Were gonna have to work harder to bring the films we want to see here to Philly.

Josh/Karl

Meeks Cutoff by Kelly Reichardt The Sleeping Beauty by Catherine Breillat Mildred Pierce by Todd Haynes

Carrie

Biutiful by Alejandro Gonzlez Irritu Submarine by Richard Ayoade Somewhere by Sophia Coppola

Jesse

Certified Copy by Abbas Kiarostami The Future by Miranda July Rivers and My Father by Luo Li

Derick

Tree of Life by Terrence Malick Hobo with a Shotgun by Jason Eisener

Jon

Midnight in Paris by Woody Allen

34

Upcoming Films We Want to See

Josh
Un ete brulant (A Burning Hot Summer) by Philippe Garrel Le Havre by Aki Kaurismaki Almayers Folly by Chantal Akerman Mysteries of Lisbon by Raul Ruiz The Turin Horse by Bela Tarr Miss Bala by Gerardo Naranjo

Leila

A Dangerous Method by David Cronenberg The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by David Fincher Bad Love by Catherine Breillat The Bop Decameron by Woody Allen

Carrie

Damsels in Distress by Whit Stillman The Skin I Live In by Pedro Almodovar Dark Horse by Todd Solondz

Jesse

The Blood Countess by Ulrike Ottinger Face (Visage) by Tsai Ming-Liang (sad that this hasnt played Philly yet)

Derick Karl

Melancholia by Lars von Trier

We Need To Talk About Kevin by Lynne Ramsay We Have a Pope by Nanni Moretti Take Shelter by Jeff Nichols Nymph by Pen-Ek Ratanaruang I Wish I Knew + In the Qing Dynasty by Jia Zhangke Dau by Ilya Khrjanovsky Post Tenebras Lux by Carlos Reygadas Surviving Life (Theory and Practice) by Jan Svankmajer The Sleeping Unit by Ulrich Kohler Love by Michael Haneke Miracle by Hirokazu Koreeda The Grand Master by Wong Kar Wai

35

Film Theory and Neoliberalism:

A Theoretical and Economic Analysis for the Modern Film Artist
by Karl Starkweather My analysis here is based on an economic examination interspersed with what film theorists were doing in the 1970s when the global economy went towards the neoliberal shift. In the 1970s, when Hollywood came as close to being a directors cinema as it is ever likely to do, the industry was a socially critical, stylistically adventurous cinema that I contend via neoliberalism was, to be displaced by the ideologically [narrative wise] and formally [aesthetically] conservative blockbuster film (Schatz). The blockbuster being, as will be shown, a cinematic model integrally connected to the neoliberal shift. What was happening though in film theory, the advance guard of film art, when the blockbuster was born in 1975 and it became favored due to its totalizing characteristics akin to the totalitarianism that the capitalist class was articulating through the rhetoric and ultimately victorious strategy of neoliberalism? Film theory in the 1970s in the English speaking world became infused with the... events of [Paris, May] 1968 and the impacts of radical theories of Marxism, psychoanalysis,

36

feminism, and structuralism/ post-structuralism (Rosen). Now these strands are postmodern or post-1968 theory, which are comprised of several seemingly opposed strands, but the common affinity is, essentially, anti-influence on film-art. This I contrast with the reality that those entering the film industry are being thrown into something fighting for scraps akin to a scene from Passolinis Salo. So why did film theorists -- historically and in the 21st century -- not come to ask and implement the answers to the questions: Why does cinema in the modern fail to push the cinematic art? And what is the filmartist supposed to do in the age of neoliberal vertically stratified Hollywood hegemony?

New Hollywood was a period when several factors led to a period in Hollywood that, in relation to today, was favorable. Contemporary Hollywood dominates the film business internationally, so it is necessary to understand the difference between Hollywood now and Hollywood in the 1970s. New Hollywood was born out of the death of the 1948 Paramount Decree that barred the studios from owning the means of exhibition, which led to the rise

I NEW HOLLYWOOD

of a decentralized film industry. This decentralization admixed with the end of the extremities of censorship with the end of the Production Code in 196667 and the rise of the countercultural postwar baby boom generation raised on cinema (and one which television had not fully infiltrated) led to the advent of a directors Hollywood (Schatz + Zyrd). Due to the post-Paramount Decree, the film industry was left with empty screens and virtually in shambles, while at the same time the baby boom generation was looking for their voice, which led Hollywood to embrace young and edgy filmmakers like Scorsese, Altman, Peckinpah, Friedkin, Cimino, Coppola, Penn, DePalma, Nichols, Allen, Hill, etc. It is also important to note that all of them were white males from middle-to-upper middle class backgrounds, except for Scorsese whose class is lower than the rest, but still in the lower-middle class range. We see no working class, female, openly LBGQT, and/or people of color among the directing ranks of the top earning New Hollywood films like The Exorcist, The Sting, and The Godfather. Now conservative theorists reading might say that we shouldnt take their class, sexuality, or gender to be a negative

37

or for the more far-Right it might be seen as a positive, however, even a blind treatment of this eras films leaves out the fact that not all of them were spectacular. Film theorists who block films into eras or waves need to be coldly rational about what they mean. They should ask: 1. Did it advance the cinema art? 2. What brought it about? 3. Did it sustain itself? Did New Hollywood advance the cinematic art? It took elements of other waves happening before and/or at the time like Italian Neo-Realism, Nouvelle Vague, New German Cinema, Nuberu Bagu and Direct Cinema. Yet, in all honesty, the other waves and eras fulfill #1 much more rigorously. Yet, it did fulfill #1 in several ways: many films constitute a return to film-form and the advancement of narrative by partially breaking with the clichd staleness of Hollywood in the 1950s-60s. So it gets a pass there, but further discussion should be made on that front at a later time. With #2, we can take the decentralization of the industry, the competition from television, the 60-70s counter-culturer, shared formalist tendencies, etc., to be strengths and weaknesses to learn from. Yet with #3, the

dominance of the blockbuster shows New Hollywood to lack the viability that was needed. What are some of the reasons for #3? A blockade to all the options possible, found in the preference of those financing the films of a certain sex or race and class background, does note the reactionary nature of the industry and of the New Hollywood directors. The latter of which did not attempt to stop the blockbuster shift, Coppola did start American Zoetrope, but the others just got integrated into the game change. Another key reason was that New Hollywood wasnt profitable due to its lack of mainstream crossover success and ability to be transferred to the perpetually more profitable television arena (Schatz + Hall). There is more that could be noted, but this new model of era or wave analysis suggested was proposed 40 years too late. Such foresight should of been theorized and then propagated to the filmmakers.

What occurred during late-New Hollywood was a shift towards the blockbuster model. One that has integral links to the neoliberal ideology that the upper classes started to mobilize towards the mid-1970s. What

II NEOLIBERALISM

38

lead to neoliberalism was what occurred after WWII, the war developed a Keynesian war economy founded on Americas growing dominant imperial position after the war. A deal was struck during the obvious acceleration of Americas prosperity to quell any class antagonism, which on average mainly advantaged white males via the unions, which became wings of the State prior to the war and only became more symbiotically connected after (then this was obliterated later in the 1980s). The men after the war used their GI Bill to go to university, which in-turn raised their class status and that of their progeny, who eventually lead to the countercultural of the 60s-70s, a college boom, and filmstudies (Harvey + Zyrd + Grievson, Wasson). Yet, these class deals in the forms of welfare spending (from the GI Bill to the Great Society) and union support, along with war spending and a petroleum crisis in the 1970s, made the country come to the brink of an economic crisis in the late 1970s due to inflation. Neoliberalism then was the theoretical and strategical response formulated throughout the 1970s and carried out

in the later part of the decade by the upper-classes. To put it bluntly it is a political project to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and restore the power to the economic elites (Harvey). The landscape created in the United States was obviously still capitalist in the 1970s, even with the revolutionary spirit filling the air. The obvious reality was class, sex, and race inequality still existed in the 1970s, yet the growing strength of progressive forces, propped up sometimes by the government, but still destroyed other times (segregation, McCarthyism, Cold War),

39

lead to the upper echelons sensing a looming threat. Their economic situation, the top 1% having 16% of the nations wealth after WWII, got cut in half by the late 1970s, so something had to be done. Their neoliberal creed demanded the dismantling of social services, the destruction of labor and government support of labor, the battle cries for deregulation through Reaganomics and the financialization of capital. This move from a material economy to an immaterial economy via the reconfiguration of capital into an uppercapitalist sector stronghold of financial capital, eventually led to more profit and power. It also solidified the aggressiveness of capitalism through financial capital, pushing it more towards short term profits, something that generally leads to totalitarian-type economic demands and persistent crises. Yet, this continuing struggle on behalf of the upper-crust neoliberals that we see to this day against the public sector helped the 1% in the US to gain back half of what they lost, getting them back 15% of all the nations wealth by the 2000s (Harvey + Harvey Accumulation). The history of the blockbuster parallels neoliberalism. A more progressive, yet not perfect, cinema slowly emerged

after WWII. Then when things didnt favor the capitalists, they found a more suitable model. Lew Wasserman, a producer, helped pioneer the Blockbuster model with Spielbergs Jaws. With Jaws, Wasserman, coupled mass saturated advertising on prime-time television with simultaneous bookings in new shopping mall cineplexes (Gomery). The capitalists, who started to move towards a transnational corporation and financial capital model in-line with the totalitarian neoliberal logic and strategy inherent in the neoliberal war to regain control, started to buy Hollywoods once run and owned studios with companies like Gulf + Western buying Paramount and other media outlets in the late 1960s (Schatz + Gomery). This corporate takeover of media became the dominant model, as corporations soon came to own all the movie studios or studios started to move out of Hollywood, becoming corporations. With the neoliberal calls for deregulation of the film industry, tax breaks, weakened union strength, etc., the vertical integration returned after its death with the Paramount decree. This neoliberal support from the government, almost 15 years after Jaws, can be symbolized by The Washington Consensus, a phrase used by

40

John Williamson describing in 1989 the neoliberal preference of the world elites via their organized bases for neoliberal implementation the IMF, WTO, US Treasury Department, etc., that highlighted US governments support for the capitalist class, which through policy meant deregulation and tax breaks that

cable, music, publishing, and other media (Schatz). Being that Jaws represented a way for the corporations to mobilize the worlds masses through dominating the directions one can seek in media, rallying their print, television, and online media to shovel you into their blockbuster spectacles. These

ultimately really only helped the already entrenched corporations (Williamson). Then specifically with film the neoliberal blockbuster project became solidified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, where the government not only sanctioned but encouraged crossownership of film, television,

corporations, in the 21st century, are at any one time 6-8 media conglomerates (listed in order of size) who have numerous joint-ventures: The Walt Disney Corporation, News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS Corporation, and, Viacom. The following represent smaller, but still key players in the media

41

oligarchy: Sony, NBC Universal, and Comcast. This is a landscape in which these conglomerates, working together, take in about 70-75% internationally and 80-85% nationally of film business. This movement is fueled by the profit motive, the capitalist drive towards perpetual 2% a year profit growth demanded historically by the capitalist economy to persist without crisis (Harvey, Accumulation). In the film industry, 41 of the top-grossing films internationally were released after 2000 (not including films preBlockbuster era due to the leap to ultra-profits that occurred due to them). Other horrors: The Big Six control 98% of cable and network programs that carry commercial advertising, control 75% in non-primetime slots, 80% of on demand pay programming, 65% of advertising revenues in radio, and 96% of total US film rentals (Acland + Wasser). So, the neoliberal strategy has succeeded and seems to work. The dominance of Hollywood is coupled with their complete control of the media terrain. Its like were in a media prison, the warden is our media conglomerates, and we have been inside the prison so long, saturated with their products, were unaware what the world outside is like.

With workers, what specifically is the situation for those in the blockbuster film industry? It is akin to the way a society works when the empire is dying. There are loud voices amongst the destruction, coming up with ways out, but in our crumbling cinematic landscape what are the dominant ways suggested? The cinematic wing, as now more than ever the film worker has to be differentiated from the New Media worker, of this camp sees hope in indie film. Were informed, in everything from film periodicals to film studies textbooks, that there are two cinemas in the 21st century: Blockbuster and indie. First major issue: the two were combined during the 1990s with the Big Hollywood Conglomerates starting indie divisions like Fox Searchlight, Sony Pictures Classics, Warner Independent, Newlines Fineline Pictures, Universals Focus Features, etc., to use their hegemonic strength to force films that fit the accessible Hollywood of new-but-still-familiar mold like several of the top independent films from 2000 on: Crash, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Juno, Sideways, Slumdog Millionaire, Paranormal Activity, Black Swan, and The Kings Speech. Films that use the totalizing cultural strength of Hollywood,

42

shoveling you into the smaller theaters at their multiplexes for the indies. None of the films above fulfill the model laid out prior: #1, of advancing the cinematic art or #2, as none of the top indie films of the 2000s were brought about in a way to learn from. The only minor 1990s industry specific strengths of the Hollywoodindie cinema were some of the

ness overseas, which resulted in dwindling foreign funding opportunities for independent filmmakers. (Christopherson + Pendakur). Therefore the more edgy filmmakers of the 1990s camp, with less funds from international channels, have had a hard time even making films. So with #3, Solondz, Hartley, and Stillman being key examples of filmmakers who didnt

risks taken in the early 1990s. Films by Solondz, Van Sant, Clark, Hartley, Soderbergh, etc., were breaths of fresh air after 20+ years of blockbuster monotony, as many of these filmmakers received funding from artier film producers-distributors overseas. However, in the late 1990s, the global neoliberal tentacles of Hollywood expanded and began acquiring about 75-90% of the movie busi-

get the deal with Hollywood due to artistic integrity, means that even the small window of hope in the 1990s had been destroyed (Schamus). Now the merits of selling out can come into question, but isnt the real question why youre asking this question? Is this self-perpetuating myth of the heroic white male filmmaker, paying his dues, and getting to make his vision just a slap

43

in the face to the multitude of millions who come to enter into the film industry? The neoliberal situation is one of pitting unionized film industry workers against the New Media film school graduates hungry enough to work for non-union reality and/or low-budget television productions that currently dominate media production, nationally and internationally. Workers in America, Toronto (Hollywood North), England, Germany, France, etc., are all being told that they demand too much. Everyone then feels the neoliberal steel boot and is asked to do more for less. The majority of media workers, the below-the-line crew positions and skilled craft positions, are the first to be cut or asked to sacrifice. Making ones chances of moving up the industry ladder an ever more difficult affair. Then the transnational Big Six use other countries (or states in the US with tax breaks) for productions with state subsidies to gain more profits (Christopherson). On state subsidies, locations outside of Hollywood used to making films or television, generally favor Hollywood productions, as they dominate the business internationally so are less of a risk, creating jobs through those productions, but also creating jobs through the countries

needing to make the proper production and post-production infrastructures to please Big Hollywood. Yet, if transnational Hollywood production, the ones gaining from the governmentfunding or breaks that still exist cant re-pay due to funding defaults or their film being a commercial flop, the people of that country front the bill. In this sense the stream of productions in that country, if the company does poorly, will slow down. Worse, leaving the country to front for the infrastructure built to please Big Hollywood if they decide not to return (Christopherson + Pendakur). Rarely do the subsidies go to the smaller filmmakers working under $100,000 budgets. Except for an example here and there, like The Irish Film Board granting micro-budgets to first time directors. A move though that is nipping at the heels of the neoliberal global economic landscape. Due to Irelands economic crisis, which paralleled the USs 2007 crisis in several ways, the capitalists in that country (and internationally) have been suggesting and will continue to suggest a cut to the arts. As it is in-line with the neoliberal private over public strategy that perpetually lines their pockets. Seen best in the US with a 30+ year call to end The National Endowment For

44

The Arts (NEA), which at most has constituted less than 1% of the US budget throughout its history, as a easy point of neoliberal public sector hatred. Its easier to couch cutting social sector arenas that help millions if you put them under the blanket of arts spending. People who are understandably effected by the growing stratification of class divisions in American society see the arts as something completely separate, upper-class and intellectual, from their universe. On tax breaks, many Hollywood firms move certain aspects of their productions, which research into the subject yielded as many legal and clerical costs, to states (Louisiana being a major example) to get tax breaks in areas that in no way help the cinema (Pendakur). Tax breaks in the US were initiated in 1971 and are in-line with the global neoliberal shift with a series of tax credit investment laws like the Revenue Act (1971), Tax Reduction Act (1975), and the Tax Reform Act (1976), etc. These tax breaks have done little to increase production and relieve unemployment in the film industry (Guback). It seems to have only led to hundreds of millions of dollars in welfare for the wealthy of Big Hollywood and the multiplex companies

that also can get in on the deal. So, with tax breaks and state subsidizing, the question now for discussion is what arena we should continue to fight in as film-artists? Or would it be a reformist waste of energy with the continued fortification of an international neoliberal economy? Now indie film, the outlet for the film-artist, is a farce made by the fact that less than 15% of media business on this planet occurs outside of the blockbuster/indie dichotomy. There is still several hundred million dollars here, but this is an impossible market if you aim to actually push the art in our current cinematic landscape unless you come from a class background that can front the bill or one that can fund the time it takes to pay your dues. A landscape dominated by cutthroat non-union labor and a mass grave filled with failed micro-production houses. In this mess, the greatest films, the ones we at Shooting Wall have devoted our lives to are rarely seen outside of an art museum or a lonely showing at a film festival. Or, maybe if were lucky, propagated in an obscure film journal or a paragraph write up in Cineaste. When this dynamic of the neoliberal blockbuster shift took place in the mid-1970s,

45

where were the critics and theorists? What were they doing to stop the epidemic were facing now? The critical establishment is always going to be a mixed bag; their influence uncertain statisticically (Basuroy, Chatterjee, Ravid). And due to the connection of critics to mainstream newspapers, magazines, websites, etc., to the media

conglomerates (Chomsky, Herman), their opinions should be treated as suspect. Yet with the theorist, the advanced guard of film-form, what were they doing in the mid-1970s, before cinema became what it is now? The answer to this, an in-depth investigation into postmodern stain on film theory, will be in our next issue.

Bibliography (some stuff is cited in text, other stuff is not):

Acland, Charles Theatrical Exhibition: Accelerated Cinema in The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry Basuroy, Suman., Chatterjee, Subimai., Ravid, Abraham S. How Critical Are Reviews? The Box Office Effects Of Film Crtics, Star Power, And Budgets in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader Blackstone, Erwin A., Bowman, Gary W. Vertigal Integration In Motion Pictures in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader Chomsky, Noam., Herman, Edward S. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy Of The Mass Media Christopherson, Susan Behind The Scenes: How Transnational Firms Are Constructing A New International Division Of Labor in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader Gomery, Douglas Economic And Institutional Analysis: Hollywood As Monopoly Capitalism in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader Grieveson, Lee., Wasson, Haidee The Academy And Motion Pictures in Inventing Film Studies Guback,Thomas H. Government Support Film Industry In The US in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader Hall, Sheldon Blockbusters In The 1970s in Contemporary American Cinema Harvey, David A Short Introduction To Neoliberalism Harvey, David The Accumulation Of Capital Meers, Phillipe Its The Language Of Film!: Young Film Audiences On Hollywood And Europe in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader Mulvey, Laura Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema in Film Theory And Criticism Pendakur, Manjunath Hollywood And The State: The American Film Industry Cartel In The Age Of Globalization in The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry Rosen, Phillip Screen and 1970s Film Theory in Inventing Film Studies Schamus, James A Rant in The End Of Cinema As We Know It: American Film in the 1990s Schatz, Tom The Studio System and Contemporary Hollywood in The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry Wasser, Frederick Ancillary MarketsVideo And DVD: Hollywood Retools Williamson, John What Washington Means by Policy Reform (1989) Zryd, Michael Experimental Film And The Development Of Film Study In America in Inventing Film Studies

46

DVD Recommendations
Out Now:
This excellent 4-disc box set from Facets was the first to unleash the films of Luc Moullet to American audiences in 2007. The set contains Moullets first 5 features films and also 2 later works from the late 80s / early 90s, offering a perfect introduction to the directors cinematic universe. Moullet has remained largely unknown to cinephiles in the US, despite his association with the French New Wave (he was a writer for Cahiers du Cinema and was friends with Jean-Luc Godard and Jean Eustache), yet he provides a vital link between the French New Wave and what could be considered the post-French New Wave (slightly younger filmmakers starting out around 1963-66). Moullets obscurity may be partially self-imposed as his films have remained steadfastly minimalist, absurd, referential, and odd. His films, however, are not as obscure or difficult as they might sound on paper; he is a filmmaker of great humor and economy. I defy anyone to watch a Moullet film without laughing at least once. One of the main goals of Shooting Wall has been to expose cinephiles to yet undiscovered filmmakers from both the past and the present and I think Luc Moullet is ripe for rediscovery. Films included in this box set are Brigitte and Brigitte (1966), The Smugglers (1967), A Girl is a Gun (1971), Anatomy of a Relationship (1975), Genesis of a Meal (1978), The Sieges of Alcazar (1990), and Up and Down (1992).

Luc Moullet Collection (Facets)

Again, Facets has taken the lead in releasing desperately needed DVDs of the films of Alexander Kluge, one of the founders and purveyors of New German Cinema. Though Kluges name may not be as recognizable as the most famous New German Cinema filmmakers (i.e. Fassbinder, Herzog, Wenders, Schlndorff), he is probably the intellectual center of the movement. Kluge was there at the signing of the Oberhausen Manifesto in 1962, which signaled the start of New German Cinema and was making short films as early as 1961 and his first feature, Yesterdays Girl in 1966. Kluge was making New German Cinema films before anyone else in the world knew what New German Cinema was. His collage-like, deeply referential and deeply political films have left Kluge on the edges of New German Cinema; he never gained the attention Fassbinder or Herzog has received and this is largely due to his films being unavailable in America for so long. These DVDs from Facets have been long anticipated by cinephiles and fans of New German Cinema. Kluge is a cinephiles dream and I do not hesitate in saying that if you are reading Shooting Wall and have not seen the films of Alexander Kluge, please, run out and see them immediately. The Kluge series from Facets includes nearly all of his feature films from 1966-80 as well as a smattering of short films that range from his first short film, Brutality in Stone (1961) through short pieces he made for German television in the 1980s-90s. The highlights include Yesterdays Girl (1966), Artists Under the Big Top: Perplexed (1968), The Indomitable Leni Peikert (1970), PartTime Work of a Domestic Slave (1973), and Strongman Ferdinand (1976)

The Films of Alexander Kluge (Facets)

47

Coming Soon:
Eclipse Series 29: Aki Kaurismakis Leningrad Cowboys (Criterion, October 18, 2011) The Criterion Eclipse series adds another sampling of the films of Finnish director Aki Kaurismaki to their roster in October. Criterion appears to be the only company in the US releasing older Aki Kaurismaki films on DVD and we are thankful for it. Kaurismaki is one of the most interesting and original filmmakers in cinema today, and this box set represents some of his oddest films. The 3 films in this box set concern a Finnish rock band called Leningrad Cowboys and their travels. The films are told in typical dry, deadpan Kaurismaki style and feature bizarre hybrids of rock n roll, blues, polka, and traditional Finnish music. I highly recommend this box set and Eclipses other Aki Kaurismaki release, The Proletarian Trilogy. Films included: Leningrad Cowboys Go America (1989), Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses (1994), and Total Balalaika Show (1994). Identification of a Woman (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1982) Criterion Collection, October 25, 2011

Three Colors Trilogy - Blue (1993), White (1993), Red (1994) (Krzysztof Kielowski) Criterion Collection November 15, 2011

48

Shooting Wall Filmmakers

WHM a film by Karl Starkweather vimeo.com/karlstarkweather

Expectations a film by Joshua Martin vimeo.com/nanakproductions

JOSEF. a film by Derick Crucius vimeo.com/derickcrucius

Also! Keep an eye open for upcoming Shooting Wall events. You can often find us at the local coffee shop playing our films, other peoples films, or your films. And we dont stop there - other events include show & tells and reading groups, and heck we even take group trips to the movie theater! Stay up to date by signing up for our mailing list - just hit up the About section on our website, www.shootingwall.com. See ya around!

49

Whit Stillman: A Tragedy of Manners

by Carrie Love If you dont know who Whit Stillman is, join the club. Most audiences remain unaware of his work, though some may be familiar with his most well known film, Metropolitan (1990) and to a lesser extent The Last Days of Disco (1998). Until recently he had only directed three feature films, but his fourth, Damsels in Distress, is due out this fall. the work of Whit Stillman, edited by Mark C. Henrie (2001). Throughout the essays, the editor weaves a convincing narrative of Stillmans films as political and social commentary, but leaves me with my mouth wide open when he claims that Stillmans films proclaim his Christian Humanism. HUH? What? What information in the films point to the filmmakers Christian Humanism or at what point does he make any reference to Christian doctrine at all? What is particularly disturbing here is that this book is basically the only book available about Stillmans films (the filmmaker has published companion pieces to his own films, but they are not analyses of his films) and this is the angle they are taking with his films? One article in particular: Nature, Grace, and The Last Days of Disco by Peter Augustine Lawler (a catholic scholar who was appointed to President Bushs Council on Bioethics) claims that Stillmans films are Christian and ambiguously conservative. To me this is a blatant and purposeful misreading of the major themes and

In preparation for his new release I recently picked up Doomed Bourgeois in Love, a book of collected essays on

50

ideas of his films. The most that could be said is that the characters, especially in Metropolitan and Last Days of Disco, are only marginally religious and they can only be considered such because they rely on family traditions to maintain their ties to their upper class communities. Stillmans films always contain a character that is trying to chip away at these inherited ways of being (that includes the P in WASP), even if they actually admire it from afar. Maybe Stillmans films are Christian in the sense that Woody Allens films are Jewish, as if there are certain aspects of ones upbringing that people believe they can detect in your films. But I certainly dont believe that he is pushing a Christian

doctrine (whatever that means anyway) and furthermore, I dont think that is the most important way to understand his films. Political? Yes. Social Commentaries? Definitely. But not religious. The point here for me is that when watching films and writing criticism, one must work from both the physical structure of the films as well as their content. We as cinephiles, have a responsibility to look at what is contained within the film, not what information we know or think lies outside of it. If you havent seen Stillmans films - you must! Please join me on our message board at forum.shootingwall.com and see if we can make sense of this. Perhaps you agree or maybe Im totally off point.

51

Local Filmmaker Series: Dante Aleman

by Karl Starkweather To continue our propagation of the best in cinema, we now focus each issue on a local filmmaker who is doing something new with film-form and has a sense of history. Dante Aleman is a local Philadelphia filmmaker, based in Conshohocken. We at Shooting Wall highly recommend his work, all 40+ of his films made since 2005 now can be seen at youtube.com/poopydiarrhea. He and I found each other at an open screen night. Dante is a man who makes cinema that, at one moment, can be a horror movie, the next an essay film, the next something abstract and experimental, seconds later cinema harkening back to the No-Wave (see his film Hobby), but all connecting together to create something very enjoyable to watch. My favorite film by the man, while I have several ones that have stuck with me, some of the first that come to mind being Turkzilla and Black & White, but the one that stuck out the most was his feature Eight. Like in all his films, he tests our notions of the cinema, breaking with the reality, testing what you can do. Yet, in the very amazing 65 minutes that is Eight, he did so much that blew me away. In the beginning scenes, he redefines the landscape, making inanimate characters animate, plays with our understanding of time/space, has people speaking of an end to the planet. All of this contrasted with scenes of flashing color and blaring unique techno music that Dante creates himself. These elements combining and moving towards something horrific, spiritual, and apocalyptic. And, oh yeah, this film, like his others, was low budget. Dante and I met to discuss his cinema, he noted influences like filmmakers Ingmar Bergman, Jess Franco, Rob Zombie, Tim Burton, John Hughes, and Christina Lindberg. He informed me of his theology and philosophy collegiate background. A revelation I had no idea of, but made sense with his unique take on the spiritual. So unique in fact that what he purports in his films is blasphemous to Christians and religious people, but to people that are atheists come to me and say I love the movie, but Im deeply offended by how many times you say God in your movie, which I find ridicu-

52

lous. His religious conception being complex, that in one film he takes off his clothes, we are shown a couch with a blow-up doll, then he threw off the blowup doll, and instead laid there holding the bible. A film Dante explained to be the crystallization of a lot of Christian symbolism. This conflict also occurs in the realm of cinematic understanding, he notes that he doesnt fit in at a horror convention, but the art people think its too horror or offensive. This being something that I find to be one of his strengths. Dante also puts on events. I have attended a couple at his Conshohocken abode, I highly suggest them, and a schedule can be found at www.apartment1014films.com. They usually go in line with a film screening he puts on in his basement, which he outfitted to be a really well made movie theater. Films that sometimes are his, Lynchs Inland Empire, or could be a night of slasher films. What he will do prior though is put on his own brand of theater in some room in his house. Generally you come up to his house, a normal looking row home on a picturesque suburban street, to the front door where fog is blasting out. Walking in you can be in store for some staging of a Dante experience. Sometimes its a

play ranging from 5 minutes to a couple hours, with props, multiple characters, outfit changes, etc. Sometimes it can be a social experiment or puzzle of some sort. I asked Dante once what he does if only one person or no one show up to his events. Something that generally doesnt happen, as he has a whole family of fans -- some mainstream people to others looking like his type of person (Dante dons long hair, wears black, and comes off more as someone into punk than cinema) -- does seem dedicated, yet it could happen. His response made me like the guy even more, he said I would do them anyway. The thing about his events, that range from a movie night to a whole month of Halloween events (octoberpanicattack.com) is when you do them its almost like being in one of his films. He brings you into a new universe, all nestled in an ultra-normal suburban situation, or recreates a common space in his vision. Something that he informed me was part of his being, as he always put on things for people since he was a youth, and in this sense has always been a collective person. Putting on haunted apartments and making makeshift plays in his room for his friends when he was younger. Informing me

53

that he tended to draw people from all subcultures and groups throughout his life, highlighted by the fact the crowds he draws dont fit one social set, but for some reason came together under Dantes amusements. Dante feels he is an outcast, a word he takes pride in, and it seemed his stories were of people from disparate backgrounds, finding some sense of community, as they were outcasts and never felt they fit in until they came under Dantes collective banner. Cinema, a collective art, should have come naturally to Dante, but it wasnt until 2005, in his mid-20s, that he picked up a camera and made a film. He taught himself everything. One amusing story was he started editing on his DVD and VCR players before he moved over to his computer. Deciding hed teach himself more that way than moving to a computer program, which I will contend could be possible. Being that, Dantes editing is quite well done, but actually his shooting -- for someone who hasnt taken one cinematography class -- also shows that he has a lot of talent. And all of this auto-teaching culminated, I feel, at a screening once with the guy, someone asked what he shot his film on and he retorted, a camera! Since then, he has

made 40+ short films, ranging from a few minutes to 30 minutes, constantly putting out material like one of his idols Jess Franco did (producing 250 films in his lifetime, all lowbudget and underground, but most of the time you wouldnt even notice). His films continue his collective push; he is the guy that, as I noted and he agreed, creates magic in peoples lives. We live in an age when the energy and creativity someone like Dante has, should not only be commended, it should be rewarded. On a Saturday night you have a choice of going to a bar with people you hate or possibly you can enter into a new world with someone who has created one through his films, events, and personality. He has made me smile so many times and he let me know there were filmmakers in the area that werent just making shit, but were letting their understanding of the cinematic art take precedent over the need for a high budget. In conclusion, what Dante told me he adored the most about film was that people came up to him after films and told him, I didnt know that others felt that way. Dante, I feel the same watching your films and I hope your cinema continues to give me that feeling.

54

55

Harmony Korine
by Derick Crucius Harmony Korine.What isnt there to say about the guy? His films have molded and created a window for independent filmmakers of the 20th century. I mean sure, theres guys like Godard, Herzog & Cassavetes as well as many others, but Korine is NOW, Korine is the filmmaker of OUR generation, and whether you love him or hate him, he is here to stay. Most of his limelight was from Kids (1995), which Harmony had written shortly after meeting Larry Clark and although I personally love the film, it should not be the piece that Mr. Korine will forever be known for. I personally love Korines style of directing and the overall tone that he strives to create. One of my favorite pieces is Julien Donkey-Boy (1999), which was Dogme #6 of the Dogme 95 Manifesto, which was perhaps one of my favorite film movements of all time. This film tells the story of Harmonys schizophrenic uncle and his relationship with his family as well as people on the outside world (a blind girl who ice skates, a rapping black albino, and a man with no arms). I love how Harmony adds a Cinema Verite-like style with the use of handheld camera work and making the film somewhat voyeuristic. I feel as though the viewer is suppose to be following these characters through their life and no matter how much empathy we have, theres nothing we can do to help. In my eyes this film tips its hat to the John Cassavetes film A Woman Under The Influence, which is also another one of my favorite films and it works the same way Julien DonkeyBoy does with its spontaneous action and fly on the wall aesthetic. The over-saturated, grainy, and occasionally out of focus imagery, in my opinion, was a gateway into the realm of VHS that Harmony utilizes nowadays. The recent Trash Humpers knocked me off of my feet when I went to the screening at The International House last August. In my eyes, this film is one of the best Slapstick com-

56

edies I have ever seen. The film created a mixture of pleasure, joy, anxiety, fear, and most importantly, sadness, and I feel thats what Cinema should create. Harmony Korine to me is like the Backstreet Boys to a 12-year-old girl. Each film is a great hit and I cant wait until the next. After Mister Lonely

cats and huffing glue. It is the film that should be shown to adolescent teenagers coming to terms with their acne, pubic hair, and tits. This guy knows what hes doing, despite what others think. He has great ideas and great motives behind every film he makes. Harmony Korine is not here to please your mom and dad, nor is he here to win

(2007) the wait was unbearable, but out of nowhere, Korine punches us in the fucking face with a lo-fi piece of gold (or trash). Trash Humpers is the film Tummler and Solomon from Gummo (1997) would watch after a long day of killing

an Oscar. Harmony is here to create the most beautiful shit anyone could ever lay their eyes on...Im just waiting for the day someone asks him to direct the next Batman movie...I really hopes he says yes.

57

The Merit of a Moviemaker

by Jonathan Seidman
Im a little frustrated after a recent date. Me and a girl went to the multiplex to see a new movie. During its end credits, I asked the girl what are your thoughts, she said it was ok. She asked what are my thoughts, I hated the thing! So much I couldnt put an end to my ranting, no matter how politely shed ask me to shut up, I had no self-control, delivering an in-depth analysis that Id later rework as material for Shooting Wall. Along with many of my acquaintances, the girl has a simple approach to movies: She watches them to escape the daily humdrum of life. My approach is almost the same, but no matter my love for the entertainment, I watch movies with a passion; Ive always had a fascination of why they exist, how theyre made and whats in their future. Through my years, Ive felt inspired to believe in life from the meaning of a thousand great movies. I cannot control my pursuit of more discovery, whereas many other people in my life havent a care for the deeper experience. When we saw the new movie, I told the girl it was so phoney that it destroyed the meaning of cinema. She called me a jerk, and punched my face. My passion had led me to ruining our date. The Artist I like comparing myself to a sports fan. With each game, they watch and root on their favorite team. Their passion leads them to criticizing not only the enemy team, but their very own, unafraid and unabashed to yell at players, yell at the coach, call them morons, tell them they arent trying hard enough, sometimes even turning their frustration onto referees or the commentators - thats if theyre losing. If their team is winning, what a feeling of inspiration and pride. This passion is precisely similar to my way of watching movies. While on the date and watching the boring movie, I felt inspired thinking of how many ways it could have been done better - thats a problem; I dont

58

want to concentrate on how it was bad. If the movie was interesting, it may have inspired me to try doing something in my life thats just as good - this optimism can be a more helpful kind of inspiration. Instead, Im treated like a buffoon. I pay $22 for the girl and I to watch characters, dialogue and sequences Ive already seen in 200 other movies - how unimaginative. Im not even sure how Im supposed to react to something when its the 200th time Ive seen it. Bubbling in the Hollywood cauldron is a stale soup made of old storylines and dull trends with recycled ideas sprinkled on top. I think its obvious what theyre doing with my money: making evil. Its served on the big screen in every town, and for some reason its always being purchased and eaten, so the Hollywood industry grows more gargantuan as they succeed in making moola by the millions with their soup. Being served by Hollywood is therefore a big risk. For me, theres no other choice: I must ignore all of it. For me, theres another world where movies thrive. They arent made as machines to generate money, they dont rely on tradition to boost success, and they certainly wont treat the audience unfairly. In

this world, someone has an idea for a story and its coming from a real place within, its running on emotions to find the meaning, so its desperately trying to be told - a world of artistic integrity. From this moment, an artist can be normal or weird. If normal, they spin an excellent story full of characters brimming with life, portraying a world much like reality. If weird, the world is warped, its a story full of hidden depths and mysterious meaning. No matter, any artist will tell the story honestly, letting their expressions be known fearlessly. Anything desired to be said or done, they find a way of making it happen, with freedom. I like this kind of story; it offers more than just entertainment. The Movie Auteur I should know, I think of myself as an artist, and I admit its kind of an arrogant thing to be - the artist will know they have something important to say, and envision the art that will say it; as they craft their vision into reality, they feel weirdly self-satisfied, hoping that after they finish, the importance of this artwork will reach people all over the world. At this point, the artist can sit back and wait for the people to notice what they

59

have done. Or, nobody notices. Their artwork has then failed. The fools. They try again. What arrogance! Its art, and yes the idea of it is stupid, but there are some who are arrogant enough to give it a try. Not only that, but they base their occupation, and therefore life, on their art; or, in other words, their poor excuse for not being able to do manual labor. No matter, from my observation, Id say its easy for society to live with artists, as sometimes a work of art will surprise; the imagination will help people see things in new ways, it will inspire possibility, sometimes frighten, maybe enlighten, cheer up and encourage. Its all why the artists must learn living with confidence in society, as many people will view them as annoying or useless, although when their work is experienced, they can potentially become extremely applauded individuals. At this point in my life, Im a writer, and sometimes I carry around my camera to take pictures. I try my best putting my heart into my work - that makes me an artist. Ive been applauded and found annoying for the things I do. Taking pictures: I have the world and all its subjects, which can be captured forever in time. I see anything and

Im enamoured with taking its picture however I desire, with my own style to make it seem special. It might be a couple dozen clicks of the shutter before I take the perfect picture, or I take a picture thats a wonderful surprise. With great energy, I fully escape everything thats not in front of my camera, only concentrating on whats there, and there I get a great picture, and a better appreciation of the beauty. Its fun when something ordinary can be seen so brilliantly in a tiny frame of space - these things exist wherever I lay my eyes. Writing: I have an imagination, which can become my stories. I let the world inspire me and I watch the writing take form. It might be a lot of problem-solving and a big thought process, but I fully embrace the totally mind-opening construction of story. The more Im developing, the more the story sees breakthroughs, so all the more written on the page by fingers excitedly thrashing the keyboard. What I write is the world I know - a story of characters, ideas, and feelings portraying life. Theres hardly anything I enjoy more than this. Theres no doubt about it, taking pictures and writing is my work and I approach it very seriously like an adult. Still, I must admit, whenever I experi-

60

ence the reward of a job well done, Im reminded of what it felt like to be a kid. Back when so many sights of the world were brand new to my eyes, Id often be caught in wonder, even the most ordinary things were thrilling - this energy now through the camera lens. Back when so much fun came from the make-believe, Id often play pretend in whimsy, even the smallest amount was fulfilling this excitement now matured to make it real through the keyboard. The satisfaction is like magic. Still, through it all, I must admit that one day there could be something even better for me. 116 years ago there was the beginning of a new era - the world had finally found its reflection, and it was shown to the people. This reflection was a picture of everyday life, and a story was being told by the picture, and the story was alive because the picture was moving before the eyes of the people. Mankind had made it possible to reflect the world back onto itself by saving its movement forever in time. The people loved it. It was a movie. The new great art had dawned. What an amazing thing to have come along for those like me. I imagine a movie: Whats the look, whats the sound, how its

done and how it lives. In 2011, as the movie is still young, all I do is close my eyes and imagine what itd be like to see my stories and my pictures combined, now the both of them truly coming alive. Nothing excites me more. What a day, what a dream. For however long Ive been playing with creativity, all through my childhood fun and with diligence as I age, to now let myself be immersed in the world of a movie; to tell my stories in my own style of vision, choosing the camera movements and what is being focused on, the angles, how things are revealed and how they happen, being able to control the timing of my writing, the pure depiction of something incapable of ever producing with words. To make the vision with real people, the camera capturing actors moving, capturing the motion of life, with a complete control of imagination. To be a director, a writer-director, a movie auteur. This must be something which is to be very personal with a unique perspective. So many visualizations limited by a white page full of words, so much to say limited by a picture. To combine the 2 makes me feel like the possibilities are endless. I would make a movie.

61

62

63

Shooting Wall 2011