Savages: The Recession Hits Drug Cartels

Title: Savages (2012)

Director: Oliver Stone

Writer: Shane Salerno, Oliver Stone, Don Winslow (Novel)

Starring: Aaron Taylor - Johnson, Blake Lively, Taylor Kitsch, Benicio Del Toro, Salma Hayek, John Travolta

Tagline: Pot growers Ben and Chon face off against the Mexican drug cartel who kidnapped their shared girlfriend.

Grade: C-

Good Movie For: Polygamists, Sub-Par Drug Lords, Mexican Politicians, Cougars

I watched this on a whim. I was wavering whether or not to see it. I generally liked the cast that was in it, but I was apprehensive about the story. So when one of my best friends called me up and persuaded me to watch it with her, I agreed. I've been a fan of Aaron Taylor-Johson since he first appeared on my TV screen in Angus, Thongs, and Perfect Snogging. So I was looking forward to seeing him in this. Yes. Even with the dreadlocks. Usually having one of my favorite actors in the film is a win for me, but this just fell short.

I don't entirely know if it was something that went wrong between the adaptation from book to screen, or if it was just too little amount of time to engage with the characters before the real shit happens, but it just didn't work for me. The story basically hinders on the two male characters and their love for their girl. Yes. Girl. Singular. They like to share. I just didn't see or feel the connection between the three. Because I didn't believe it, the rest of the film just didn't feel right. I wasn't rooting for them to get her back because I didn't believe they really loved her.

I had really high hopes for this movie. Reviews and interviews with Oliver Stone were stating this as his comeback. That Stone was now going back to his roots. If this is his roots, I'm not sure I want to watch those movies anymore. (No wait. That's a lie. I'll probably have to watch Platoon. It's on the list.) This fell short for me.

Also, I may just be completely disillusioned with the whole drug cartel because of the skewed views it has in films, but 10 million dollars? Really? You're making a big fuss about that petty ass bitch shit? Apparently the recession hits everyone. Including top notch Mexican drug lords. 

Dumb and Hot vs. Smart and Ugly - What's More Important?

Going off of the Holy Motors review from yesterday, a glaring topic came into mind. There's an ongoing debate, it seems, as to what exactly is the most important aspect of a film? Is it the story? Is it the visuals? Is it the stars? 

I have debated this idea in many discussions with fellow film students and have come up with my own philosophy. I believe that the importance of a film all hinders on what you, yourself, place the most emphasis on. For screenwriters, it's generally the story that they key in on when they watch a movie. For cinematographers, the visuals dominate their thoughts. Basically the question of whether the visuals or the narrative are more important than the other is something that does not truly have a definite answer. There are some films that are able to achieve a balance between the two ends of the spectrum, but there are often times where films veer towards one end only. But at the end of the day, the question still lingers. Is it more important to make a impact in the film visually or within the story? While it's hard to justify a singular answer, here are my thoughts.

As a wannabe screenwriting, I tend to steer more towards the story end of the spectrum. In my mind, I don't fully feel emotionally satisfied with a film unless is has a good story. That's not to say that I don't appreciate the visuals of a film, I do, but when push comes to shove, story will always be the top in my book. That being said, I can fully understand where the other half comes from. If a film isn't visually engaging, then what's the point in shelving out loads of money to watch it? Cinema is inherently a visual medium so the image must look good, but does that come at the expense of the storyline? Movies depend on the visual, but without a story, movies end up just being sequential pictures without any real resonance of emotion in them. Beautiful images can only get you so far, but if you have a narrative that is just as beautiful, more times than not, you'll have a memorable film experience. 

Holy Motors: What the Fuck just happened?

Title: Holy Motors

Director: Leos Carax

Writer: Leos Carax

Starring: Denis Lavant, Edith Scob, Eva Mendes, Kylie Minogue

Grade: B-/C+

Tagline: From dusk to dawn, a few hours in the life of Monsieur Oscar, a shadowy character who journeys from one life to the next. He is, in turn, captain of industry, assassin, beggar, monster, family man...

Good Movie For: Stoners, Eva Mendes Lovers, Cannibals, Dragons, People Named Alice

I recently joined the Cinema Society at my school. With being a member, we usually get deals with the local movie theatre to view screenings at a discounted student rate. I'd seen the trailer for Holy Motors during many previous outings with the society. The trailer left me both intrigued and angry, all at the same time. Now, last time I checked, I did not suffer from bipolar disorder, so I denoted that my strain in feelings must be from the film. Basically the trailer didn't tell me shit. I was left wondering "Well what the fuck is this all about?", even after the tenth time I watched it. Yes. I watched the trailer ten times. I sit through a lot of previews. But even after basically knowing the edits and scenes shot for shot, I still had no clue what the film was about. But I watched it. How could you pass up on a discount student rate? I'm a student. This movie shit doesn't come cheap.

So I sat there, with my discounted ticket, homemade popcorn, and smuggled in soda, ready to finally figure out what the fuck was going on. Well, I didn't. I still don't know what the fuck is going on. That might just be my inherent nature, but shit. Still no clue. I had to bring in a movie review to analyze for class so I decided to use one about Holy Motors, secretly hoping that this might finally shed light on what exactly I experienced. It did. Sort of. It wasn't a spotlight, but more like one of those lights you mount on the front of you bike, with a half dead battery in it.

Basically the review tells the audience to just sit back and "experience" the film. To not think too much while watching it. Stop analyzing it, and just be in it. Well. I can't do that. I'm a film student. It's basically ingrained into our brains now to dissect a film. I dissected the shit out of Breaking Dawn: Part 1. Why? Not because I had to for a class, but because that's how my mind works now. I can't take myself out of it. I need to figure out how all of the pieces of the puzzle come into play so I can talk about it later. But this, this is like trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together blind, with one hand. Not even with a hand. With a hook for a hand.

But I sort of get it. I get what the review was talking about. Visually, this movie was incredibly intriguing and beautiful. The different setups and different characters that Denis Lavant played were astonishing. But that seems to be as far as it goes. Something that is beautiful to the eye, but fucks up the mind. This film sort of feels like a gigantic inside joke that we're never really in on. There may be glimpses of connection, but then you realize that you have now been shoved into the corner on time out, not allowed to play with the others. I may not be sophisticated enough to understand this, but may I not want to be at that level of posh. At the end of the day, this movie had many good points, but if you're going into it looking for a clear cut narrative, you might just be better watching Breaking Dawn: Part 2. (OK. It wasn't that bad. You should probably watch this over Twilight, but just enjoy the pictures.)

Movie List: Back to the Future - 1.21 gigawatts?!?! Great Scott!

Title: Back to the Future (1985)

Director: Robert Zemeckis

Writer: Robert Zemeckis, Bob Gale

Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, Crispin Glover

Grade: A

Tagline: A teenager is accidentally sent 30 years into the past in a time-traveling DeLorean invented by his friend, Dr. Emmett Brown, and must make sure his high-school-age parents unite in order to save his own existence.

Good Movie For: Time Travelers, Mother Lovers, Skateboard Enthusiasts, People Named Scott

I'm a hoarder. OK. That might have been a little too intense. Let's just say that I may or may not possess some hoarding tendencies. I don't hoard newspapers or memorabilia, or anything that would remotely bring me any profit in the future. I hoard movies, DVDs to be specific. I haven't actually counted exactly how many DVDs I have, but it's somewhere in the hundreds. It's not that bad actually, but in a time where instant streaming has blossomed into this juggernaut, DVDs and actual concrete evidence of movies have seemed to disappear into the cuts. But I'm not budging. I love the feeling of opening the cling wrap from around a brand new DVD package. I also love the feel of actual books. Yes. I do have a Netflix account, and I read books on my iPad, but the tangible feel of these things will always surpass the digital for me. 

That being said, I actually own the Back to the Future trilogy on Blu-Ray, thank you Black Friday and Amazon.com. But even though I own a movie, it doesn't necessarily mean that I've watched it. I watched Back to the Future in my dorm kitchen, while studying abroad, thousands of miles away from my actual copy of it, because my flat mate thought that it was ridiculous that I haven't watched it. I knew the basic storyline of Back to the Future. It plays endlessly on channels in America, but I don't think I've ever sat down and fully watched the entire movie. I've seen bits and pieces here and there, but nothing fully at the same time. 

I get it. I get why this movie is one that seems to appear on many people's favorite films list. I get why this is a top contender in many of my friends' favorites. Yes, it has some campy bits to it, but its an amazing movie. The novel idea of time traveling in the 1980's. The imminent danger that Marty faces trying to get his parents to finally fall in love. The disillusionment of Doc. The pieces fit perfectly together. I can see why Back to the Future is a top contender. If you haven't seen it, then what the fuck are you doing with your life? Just kidding. But really, this is a movie that everyone should watch. If not because you love the cast or the idea, but because you need to hear 1.21 gigawatts screamed by a white haired maniac just once in your life. 

Movie List: Why I'm not really a film student

I'm a film student, but I'm not really a film student.

The title of my major is Cinema, but I possess no lifestyle attributes that decipher that I am in fact pursuing a life of film. I'm the film student who doesn't watch any movies. I mostly watch television, which would initially be deemed acceptable, if I was watching award winning television programs. Sadly, that is far from the case.

I watch reality TV. Bad reality TV. It's my crutch, my vice, my ultimate chocolately treat. So after determining this sad, but true fact, I have decided to come up with a list of films that I must watch as a "film student". Well I'm not the only contributor to this list. My fellow film students are also a huge determinate as to what films should be watched. Basically every time I mention I haven't seen a movie and the eyes roll or the throats scoff, I write down that mother fucker.

The list is long. Excruciatingly long, but I will get through it. Someday. Somehow. I will get through it.

Well Shit...

What  happened?

I should get back to this.

I will get back to this.

Sorry.

Peep World: Real Life Fiction

Title: Peep World

Director: Barry W. Blaustein

Writer: Peter Himmelstein

Starring: Michael C. Hall, Sarah Silverman, Rainn Wilson, Ben Schwartz

Grade: C+

Synopsis: The youngest son of a dysfunctional family writes a fiction novel that turns out to be real. 

Good Movie For: Dysfunctional families, Jean Ralphio Lovers, pre-mature ejaculators

I've recently found that I have an inherent obsession with Ben Schwartz. Ever since Leslie Knope asked Jean Ralphio to "dance up on her" I was hooked. I watched Mr. Schwartz at an improv show in LA and was starstruck. I thought he was hilarious. I've since watched every episode of Parks and Recreation that he has been in, and have followed his new show House of Lies on Showtime. I normally wouldn't have watched this movie, but since Ben was in it, and I liked the rest of the cast, I thought I would give it a shot.

The movie was good. Amazing? No. Horrible? No. Good? Yes. There are many heart wrenching and humorous bits in the story. Although there are 5 different storylines weaving into one, it doesn't get confusing. The younger brother has reached this unthinkable magnitude of success, but his penis won't let him enjoy the hoards of vagina that will soon come his way. The oldest brother is the epitome of the golden child, but the ego crunching debt that has been building up has made him succumb to the relaxation of a weekly trip to the Peep World, a slimy sex shop hidden away in the outskirts of town. The middle brother is a failed Lawyer, whose balls have been cut off by his father. And finally the sister is a never worked actress who can't understand why she wasn't cast as herself in the remake of her life.

All in all, the movie was good. The characters were interesting and the story was engaging. I think that the best performance by far is that of Hall. His portrayal of the all knowing oldest brother who is actually full of bullshit is both heart wrenching and heart warming. The movie was good. Would I buy it on DVD? No. Would I watch it again? Maybe. Should you watch it? Sure. 

21 Jump Street: Not Another Fucking Remake

Title: 21 Jump Street

Directors: Phil Lord, Chris Miller

Writer: Michael Bacall

Featuring: Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Brie Larson

Grade: A

Synopsis: Whatever the TV show synopsis was.

Good Movie For: Everyone

I've noticed that the movie industry is plagued with reworked ideas. Hell, one thing that they teach you in screenwriting class is how to take a story that is already out in the universe, and try to make it better. It's the same shit with just different words. Welcome all of the remakes and sequels of sequels that have graced the silver screen for as long as I've known. 

I don't have very high expectations for remakes. It was done once, why do it again instead of trying to come up with a new story and a new idea? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing inspiration from the past stories to come up with something today, but I don't think Hollywood needs to have that as their crutch. There are a lot of new and interesting stories out there that should be made, instead of Fast and Furious 128. So whenever a new remake releases to the public, I don't expect much from it. In this case, I was completely wrong.

21 Jump Street is good. Maybe even too good. It threw me for an unexpected loop. I watched this movie with one of my friends because like me, she appreciates the greek god we call Chatum. I expected him with his shirt off more often, but whatever, I digress. 

This movie is smart. It realizes that it's a played out remake of a favorite television show, and it plays that up. You're not supposed to take this seriously, they get that. They make you understand that. It takes conventions and aspects that you expect from an action comedy and turns it on it's head. The first shot isn't going to kill the bad guy, but hey maybe this will. 21 Jump Street is hilarious, and it should be a must watch for everyone that is interested in writing a remake. "Hey! Watch this! This is how you remake something the right way!"

My favorite part of the film is not in the story or in a character. It actually is a tiny aspect that most people probably will not catch. I think the most hilarious thing about 21 Jump Street is a tattoo across the face of one of the main villians. He has a bunch of tears tattooed down his eye, I murdered some bitches in prison, but at the bottom of his cheek is the tattoo of a bucket, collecting the tears. This little detail sums up just how ridiculously hilarious this movie is. 

Drive: The Movie Only Film Students Loved

Title: Drive

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn

Writer: Hossein Amini

Featuring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Bryan Cranston

Grade: B

Synopsis: A driver who only drives, stops driving.

Good Movie For: Film Students

I'm a hoarder. I hoard movies. When the latest sale on blu-rays and DVD's happens online or at my local store, I can't help but buy the entire stock of marked down movies. Case in point why I have hundreds of movies in my collection that I haven't yet watched. I'm slowly, but surely, making my way through the heap of unwatched stories.

When Drive first came out in theaters, I was extremely excited about it. I love Ryan Gosling and practically everything he is in, so I thought that this was going to be an instant favorite. That is, until all of the reviews started coming in. Not reviews from critics online, but reviews from family and friends. I tend to take reviews from other people with a grain of salt. My mother suggested that I watch The Tourist because it was an amazing story. My friend said that it was the worst movie he had ever seen and didn't comprehend how it even got made in the first place. The consensus for Drive was very similar to this, but skewed in the other direction.

My family and some of my friends absolutely hated this movie. My father and cousin even went as far as asking for a refund from the movie theater. On the other hand, my friends who are also film students absolutely loved it. I wasn't quite sure where the disconnect was. Why were only a select few people in love with the movie, while the rest thought it was a waste of time? This tug of war of whether or not the movie was good or bad left me afraid to watch it in theaters, but of course when it went on sale at Costco I had to have it. 

I get it. Looking at it from the two different standpoints I understand why this had such a weird effect on the people around me. When you go into a movie called Drive you expect some badass driving, which this film does have, but not to the extent that people wanted. They expected Fast and the Furious 17, but got something a little above Cars. "He's a driver, but he never drives." Looking from that standpoint, yea. It was a let down, but looking at it from a story standpoint, it was really good. 

This guy drives. That's all he does. He doesn't stick his neck out for you if shit goes down. He gets you to one place from another. We get it, but when he finally does put everything on the line, shit hits the fan. The stoic driver starts to fuck shit up, all while clad in an amazing golden scorpion jacket. 

Is there a lot of driving in Drive? No. Is it a great story? Absolutely. Although the title and premise is a bit misleading, I still think that this is a film that needs to be watched. Get out of the mindset of car chases and street races and just try to enjoy the movie for what it is. A driver who only drives, stops driving. 

Helpful Hint: Advice from Screenwriters - The Oscars Series

I try and follow as many screenwriting blogs as I can. Although I don't read all of them daily, I try my best to peruse the proverbial web of world wide proportions to extract as much information about screenwriting as I can. From listening to podcasts to watching interviews and movies to reading books. I try to be as big of a sponge as I can and soak up as much information that is available.

I have talked previously about my love for the talented Mr. John August. I download his podcast, Script Notes, with Craig Mazin, and I try and look through his blog everyday, http://johnaugust.com/. Recently, August put up a link to a series of videos that the Oscars had produced a couple years ago where they interview a group of Oscar winning and note-worthy writers to discuss the successes and pitfalls of screenwriting.

The series is short and sweet, consisting of about six video all around 5 minutes in length; a 30 minutes well spent if you ask me. They talk about a wide range of subjects, from the myth of writer's block to advice for up and coming writers. So if you are looking for some advice and knowledge about the world of screenwriting discussed by the top dogs of the field, take a gander at these videos. 

http://www.oscars.org/video/watch/screenwriters_advice.html

Girl In Progress: Having Sex Makes You an Adult

Title: Girl In Progress

Director: Patricia Riggen

Writer: Hiram Martinez

Featuring: Eva Mendes, Patricia Arquette, Cierra Ramirez

Synopsis: The coming of age story of a girl who comes of age. 

Grade: C

Good Movie For: Chicks who love Flicks

I typically will spend some free time sitting down and watching trailer after trailer for upcoming movies. Good or bad, I try to watch them all. The first 15 minutes at the beginning of every movie in the theatres is my favorite time. When the lights dim and the shine from the green ratings card shows up on screen the corners of my lips turn up into a faint smile. I watched the trailer for Girl in Progress, and I honestly was not interested in seeing it. It didn't really attract me. A mother who acts like a teenager and a teenager who acts like a mother. Been there, seen that. Also, I don't particularly like Eva Mendes, so that was another point in the negative column. Would I have watched this movie on my own request? No, but my friend asked me to come along with her, so I obliged. 

Honestly, I was quite surprised at how much I actually liked this movie. I thought that I would hate it, but it was alright. Am I going to buy the DVD once to comes out? No. But it was an hour and a half somewhat well spent. The storyline is a bit predictable and the situations are ones that we've all seen before, but I believe that the saving grace of this movie was Cierra Ramirez. Her spunk and demeanor on screen is really what kept me in. She owns this movie, while others around her seem to falter.

Ramirez is set on becoming an adult. In order to become grown she must have sex. As if that act is what propels everyone into adulthood. There are some truly funny bits in this movie, one of which involves a burnt condom. They should have just invested in some glasses a la left eye (RIP). All in all, the movie wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. If you particularly love come chick flicks you should think about watching this, on an uneventful sunday, for free, if it's on TV.

Dark Shadows: Keep the Vampire in the Closet

Title: Dark Shadows

Director: Tim Burton

Writer: Seth Grahame-Smith, John August

Grade: C-

Synopsis: A 200 year old Vampire must resurrect his family's failing fish cannery in order to beat the psychotic bitch of a witch who put him in this immortal loveless dread.

Good Movie For: Hippies and fish cannery historians.

My father used to watch the Dark Shadows TV show when he was little. He said it was the scariest thing he had ever seen. I had high expectations for this movie. I love Tim Burton. Or should I say, I used to love Tim Burton. Old Tim Burton. Burton circa Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice days. 

I expected a lot more out of this movie, and I was sadly disappointed. I typically go into movies with a set of expectations garnered to each movie. I didn't go into 2012 thinking "Oh Shit! This is going to win an Oscar! Definitely!" I went in expecting a not so great script, but great visuals. The fact that I am madly in love with Tim Burton and believe that he is my long lost twin made me walk into this movie with extremely high expectations. I should have lowered that shit. 

The story was predictable. Honestly, the best parts of the movie were probably seen in the trailer. There were some hilarious jokes, but hilarity doesn't ensure a good story. It was confusing at first to know exactly what the story was going to be about just by the contents of the trailers. So he's a vampire and he comes back to his bloodline who now live in the 70's. 

There were so many different character storylines crossing so many different ways that I believe there wasn't enough development for all of them. He's trying to get back at his ex, but the family business is failing, but his lost love has come back from the dead, but the crazy self adopted doctor is in love with him, but there's ghosts and a drunk butler. The main storyline I think they should have focused on was the family dealing with their failing business, but that got muddled in all of these love affairs. 

The one upside of this movie was that the locations and the costuming was impeccable. It's very Tim Burtonesque, which I love. Besides that, this wasn't something I would want to watch again. Please Mr. Burton, get back to your old amazing ways, or else I might have to replace you as my favorite.

10,000 Hours: Why writing a shitty scene everyday is better than writing an OK scene every week.

During one very poignant lecture in screenwriting class, the teacher decided to break down how to become a successful writer. It takes 10,000 hours of practice to master a task. Whether it's cooking, the cello, or even writing, putting in that many hours and that much dedication helps to further your knowledge of any task you wish to master.

After hearing this number, I began to calculate exactly how long would it take for me to achieve the Master Ninja status. If I decided to take speed everyday, gave up sleeping, eating, pissing, and shitting, and dedicated every single second of the 24 hours in a day, it would take a little over a year to clock in 10,000 hours. I love sleeping, and my low tolerance for recreational drugs would kill me instead of keep me awake (Advil is strong enough to make me see unicorns), so the whole, up 24 hours thing wouldn't work. If I dedicated 8 hours a day to the 10,000 hours, it would take about 3 and a half years to reach 10,000. My full time job is to be a student, which I might be failing at, but none the less, I don't have 8 hours in a day to allot to writing. After I graduate I plan on the whole writing working day, but as of now, I have to settle for 1 hour a day. Which by my calculations means I will be hitting the 10,000 mark in about 27 years. 

Yes, hours each day may fluctuate, 3 hours here, 1 hour there, 13 hours that one day, but the bottom line in order to achieve this Master status, you need to write EVERY SINGLE DAY. A bit of advice that I struggle with at times, but have gotten the hang of recently. Making sure to write every single day will ultimately help you down the road. You'll be able to write faster, better, and longer. Even if it's a shitty scene every single day, some where down the line you'll be able to grab that one piece of genius from the 100 pieces of shit.

In order to keep on track I've decided to employ a progress chart made popular by the legend, the master, the guru of the world, Jerry Seinfeld. Seinfeld has talked about his "Don't Break the Chain" method. You print out an entire year calendar on a single sheet of paper, or just list 1 to 365. The idea is that each day you accomplish say, writing for an hour, you get to make a cross on the date. By a week or two, you have the makings of a chain. You're compelled not to break this sweet little chain of encouragement so you continue writing for an hour each day. This method doesn't just pertain to writing, but it could be anything in your life that you wish to be active about each and everyday.

The more you write, the better you'll get. Or at least that's what they say. Don't break the chain man. Don't you break that chain. 

Film School vs. Experience

With every blog or podcast or interview that deals with the film industry there are a couple key questions that always seem to arise when people think about making this into a career. From the structure, "How do I write a script?" to networking "How do I get an agent?" to everyone's carnal desire "How do I make it and become dirty rich?". The same questions always rise to the top of these conversations. Another question/debate that seems to follow this pattern is the standings on Film School versus nitty gritty experience. 

People have different answers in regards to this question. I am in film school. I plan on getting a film degree. Am I an advocate for film school? Sure. If that's the path that best suits you. My whole belief on this topic is that some people are meant for film school, and others aren't. I've been privileged to have some experience in both worlds and I've drawn positives and negatives from both. 

I'm not the most motivated person in the entire world, hence why I have ruts in my postings, so having a strict deadline to learn things and to create things helps me get further. That being said, I have learned so much more being on a film set than I have being in a lecture hall. Nothing beats hands on experience. No article or chapter in a textbook beats having to set up this light or move this piece of equipment.

Purely speaking jobs on set wise, real world experience is much better than taking an introduction to production class. If you want to learn more about the business and filmic aspects of things, than school really is the best bet. I've learned devices and different view points on films and styles from lectures and books than I could not have possibly learned working. Having to analyze and dissect a film truly helps when coming up with your own content. I have found that I am able to tap into different perceptions of the world and of people in my own scripts and films because of studying styles from the past.

A major positive about experience is that you are able to actually work, and if you are actually decent as a production assistant than people will ask you to help them again and again on various different projects. Networking is key in this industry, and film school provides something that set work doesn't have, a built in network. Film school allows students to branch out to each other, an aspect that is much harder to do in the real industry. It also provides the chance for students to work in different fields and positions in a set. You could dabble in directing, or cinematography, or screenwriting in school. In the industry you would typically just start off as a production assistant. 

Ultimately there are many pros and cons for each side of this debate. I've decided to be in film school mainly due to the idea that if I'm not lucky enough to break into the industry, I could fall back and teach, something that almost always requires a degree. The film industry is a funny environment. While other careers strive on scholastic competency, film is more about dedication and knowledge of the craft rather than what grade you got on your senior thesis. Film school is not for everybody, but that is a decision that I think ultimately comes down to the person in question. You decide if school is the right choice for you. If not, strap on that leatherman and find the nearest set to work on.

Objectified: How do we make a better toothbrush?

Title: Objectified

Director: Gary Hustwit

Featuring: Naoto Fukasawa, Paola Antonelli, Anthony Dunne, Fiona Raby

Grade: A

Synopsis: A closer look into the world of design. From the aesthetic to the functional. Everyday items that have transformed through time and use.

Good Movie For: Everyone

Lately I've been a sucker for good documentaries. I remember once my teacher in directing class discussing the topic of a good documentary. A good documentary can do many things. Some focus on extraordinary people while others help to grow our knowledge of the world and it's worldly possessions. Documentaries always seemed like such a foreign beast to me. How can something that's educational also be engaging? I used to shun the real life story and instead gravitated towards the reel life story, but I've realize that documentaries convey just as engrossing stories as the written feature.

Objectified helps to shine light on things that we would normally just bypass. Things that are the utmost of importance to our functional ability every single day, that we just forget the importance of. It was amazing how much thought and innovation went into the grip and hand of vegetable peeler. Or how many ideas came up when thinking about how to improve the toothbrush. Everyday things that have been tailored and sculpted to help us live better. The cushioned grip and the contoured edge help to lessen the strain on your bones. A removable head will prevent the cluttering of discarded toothbrushes. This movie was short and straight to the point. Every object in our lives has a meaning and a purpose. Whether it's to help with our cleanliness or assist in the dinner preparation. Every thing around us has been thought up by someone, and improved by many others. This was an engrossing and engaging documentary that makes me appreciate every time I brush my teeth.

The "Useless" Degree

So while I was trolling around on the web of world wide proportions I stumbled across this picture. 

The Today Show had recently discussed the topic of useless degrees. Now there is some sort of mathematical and scientific equation that figures out the median income of graduating students added to the circumference of the earth times the latitude of a straw divided buy Shaquille O'Neal's shoe size to come up with a plausible basis for determining the best majors to strive for in college. 

I have a huge problem with this. I've always felt that a career in the arts or degrees in the arts have been deemed as unimportant in society's eyes. As if being an art major was merely just a dreamers sense of false importance. My main gripe is that some people feel so unaffected by these creative people when in all actuality everything we touch, see, hear, and wear are all products of creativity.

Most of my friends have gone the route towards the holy grail of parentally accepted professions; being a nurse. Stable job, stable pay, always a demand. I get scoffed at for picking a major centered on the arts. "What good is that going to do for you?" "Dreams don't pay mortgages."

They feel so isolated from artists and designers, but in all actuality everything centers around art. A fashion designer designed the scrubs you wear to work everyday. A product designer made sure that your syringes and tools were the most efficient use of materials and space. An architect designed the hospital and the halls that you walk down everyday. If we didn't have people pursuing these "useless" degrees, we'd all be naked in the middle of the woods with caves as our shelter.

I think the biggest irony that I see is that the actual Today Show would not be functioning if it weren't  for the skills of the people whose degrees they call "useless".

I'm just taking this out of context of what I see in the picture. I didn't watch the segment, but this has been a sore spot for me for a while now. Taking into consideration the term "useless" in the picture, the list could be implying that you wouldn't actually need a degree to succeed in these fields. Now that, I sort of understand with the whole film school thing. The other degrees I'm not sure that this mentality holds true. But there has always been a debate of whether film school is the answer for people to break into the industry. That's a topic for another post.

All in all, I'll leave you with this. The products of creativity are all around us, no matter how secluded we believe we are. Every time you change your clothes, or watch that movie, or pick up a box of cereal at the grocery store, art and design are forever a presence in our lives. So it's about time we stop overlooking the art and appreciate it. 

Just Take a Look, It's in a Book: The Hunger Games

Title: The Hunger Games

Director: Gary Ross

Writer: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks

Grade: A

Synopsis: Twenty four tributes are sent into a secluded playing field. They must fight to the death until one victor emerges. That victor is allowed to rejoin civilization. 

Good Movie For: Teens, Adults, Parents, Kids. Ok. Maybe not kids. Babies might cry. 

I'm a reader. Or well at least I try to be a reader. I have learned along this wiry road to becoming a scribe that many movies are adaptations of best selling novels (i.e. The Help, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.) I had heard some inklings about The Hunger Games from friends and family and finally bought it once the movie posters came out. It collected dust on my shelf for a couple months until about a few weeks before the release of the film. At first I wasn't all that into it. I had sped through the Twilight books and this was just a bit harder for me to dive into. It wasn't until around the half way mark when I couldn't put it down. There's two more books in the series and I'm itching to start reading those.

I think that the main reason why I had trouble connecting with the book and why I wasn't entirely thrilled that the movie was coming out was because the story was so eerily similar to Battle Royale, a movie that I absolutely love! Did no one tell this woman that she's writing a book that's already been made? Did no one tell these producers that Battle Royale existed? With all my hesitation and apprehension I still found myself hooked on the characters and the story, so when it came time to see the movie, I was completely excited.

The movie was great. I had some gripes about it though. Generally they take out a lot of points in the story because it's a film, which is completely understandable. The movie held true to the book, but that brought up a complaint in my mind. The movie seemed too fucking long. Two and a half hours? I mean it was a time well spent, but still, it was pushing it. This stands at the other end of the spectrum with adaptations. When is too much just too much?

Overall I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, but I did have one major redflag. Why in the hell was everything shot with a handheld not so steady cam? I completely understand using handheld filming while inside the battle grounds because the action and movements help to emphasize it, but a tripod could have been used in their home or at the reaping. I understand that it was used to portray some gritty effect to the shooting, but ten minutes in I was starting to feel bouts of motion sickness. Regardless of that though this movie is a great watch, and I honestly would take the Hunger Games series over Twilight any day.

The Film School Lecture: Talent vs. Marketability

This goes along the lines of a post I did a couple weeks ago, based on a lecture that I heard in screenwriting class about how many new scripts are sold each year.

The film industry is a tricky beast to conquer. It praises for unique ideas, yet scolds because of failure to conform. The idea that you need to fit into this mold is not one that is a new concept. The idea of how marketable a person is, many times overcomes their genuine talent as an actor, writer, etc.

This sadly leaves many of the immensely talented people left on the way side due to their lack of popularity. Big names sell tickets.

Case in point the barrage of teen queens who could take a few (or many) pointers from an actual acting class, that are getting leading lady roles merely based on their status and name.

I'm not trying to ride some high horse here. I too have been sucked into the perils of the newest Twilight movie, but sadly, looking at this career wise rather than audience wise, it's a bleak realization.

I watch trailers for new movies coming out and I think "Who in the hell approved this to be made? Oh. My. Jesus."

I sadly can't seem to find the disconnect. Why is a name much more important than talent? That my friends is a tough question to answer. Amazing actors and actresses are looked over just because they want to sell tickets.

Audiences will watch movies if they are good. True, they will watch bad movies too if they can see some abs, tits, and ass. The idea of the smart audience who can tell what a good story is has been eliminated from the equation of making a movie. The shiny name instead has replaced the talent.

Ugh. I digress. Ramble ramble ramble. Although I've come to this sad realization I still strive to make in the industry. But rather than just break in, I'd actually like to change the industry and make the head honchos realize that just like rock shatters scissors, talent will rise above a name.

Helpful Hints: Scriptnotes Podcast

So as a budding screenwriter and word slayer, I'm always on the prowl for books and information that will give me more insight into the world of the scripted word. I've read numerous books/blogs and sat in on various lectures all centering around scripts and screenwriting.

Along my perversive journey through the scriptwriting blogitude I've stumbled across the blog of John August, screenwriter of films such as Big Fish and Corpse Bride. For the past couple of months, August and a fellow screenwriter, Craig Mazin, have come together to talk about scripts. 

The content of the podcasts range from tips and tricks for writing, to how to cash in on six figures. Script Notes is a great view on the screenwriting world from two of its residents. All in all the information in each episode is extremely informative, while still being insanely entertaining. 

Definitely a must listen for anyone interested in screenwriting. 

Story: but you fuck one goat.

I don't consider myself a script guru or a script doctor, but I have been around the proverbial script block. I've taken many classes, and have even been the teaching assistant to a spectrum of students. I've even written some shit. Ok, so they may not be award winning shit, but I know a thing or two about story and scripts.

It's a big pet peeve of mine when people denounce the value of a good story. "Story isn't everything." I should smack you upside the head for that remark. Yes, there are a lot of things that go into making a movie good, but my ideology is that if you don't start off with a great script, you might as well quit.

Good scripts have a potential that bad scripts can never reach. Yes, you can still make a bad movie from a great script, but you can't make a great movie from a bad script. Having a good script allows you the chance to have a good movie.

So it always seems a bit laughable to me when people all of a sudden decide to become writers. Anyone can write a script. That's true. But very few people can write good scripts. Scriptwriting takes time and effort. Something that many "writers" seem to lack.

I'm in no way saying that I've reached the expert status of screenwriting, but I'm trying to be get there. With each book or logline or beat sheet I come across, I'm slowly trying to get there.

This in point brings me to Andrew Stanton, and why he fucked one goat. He didn't really fuck a goat, but his imaginary friend fucked a goat. Andrew Stanton, one of Pixar's amazing writer/directors, recently did a lecture for the TED interviews. His points are extremely accurate and helpful to the green, and even the weathered, screenwriter. His lecture was all about story.

I'm a firm believer in story. I think that there are many great concepts for movies out there, but that good stories for movies fall short. So if you want a little insight on what makes a good story, and how not to be known as the goat fucker, watch Andrew Stanton's TED lecture.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/andrew_stanton_the_clues_to_a_great_story.html

50/50: I'm more than just my cancer

Title: 50/50

Director: Jonathan Levine

Writer: Will Reiser

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick

Grade: A

Synopsis: A 27-year old man struggles with the diagnosis that he has cancer.

Good Movie For: Anyone really. 

So now that you know my love of Mr. JGL it's not too surprising why I choose to watch this movie. Everyone knows that I'm slightly obsessed with him, so whenever something JGL-y pops up, my family and friends automatically send it to me. (Hence why I got 7 different messages the day he made a duet with Zooey Deschanel) So when 50/50 came out, everyone told me to watch it. I was itching to watch it in theaters, but I never got the chance. So once it came out on DVD I quickly snagged it.

Everyone told me to prepare for the waterworks. Typically I'm a pretty emotional person, so I expected to shed a couple (lot) of tears. I laughed, I cried, then sobbed uncontrollably, but overall the movie left me with an extremely big smile on my face. Not just because I got to spend 2 hours gawking at JGL, but because the movie was really that good. 

50/50 is definitely an interesting take on cancer. Yea, that's the main bulk of the journey, but the movie is so much more than just a movie dealing with a man who has cancer. It centers on the different relationships that occur between this man and the people close to him. From his seemingly uncaring best friend to his overbearing mother to his too young therapist, the relationships in this movie is what helps to propel it away from others that have touched this topic.

Probably one of the most compelling things that stood out to me production wise was the timing of the beats that were hit in the story. From the big bad news to the first indication of love, the beats of the story line helped me to continue on further. An aspect that this script nazi was quite thankful for. This is also a prime example of the screenwriting notion "Write what you know". Reiser actually was diagnosed with cancer, and Seth Rogen is one of his best friends. I'm sure that not all of the events in the movie are completely factual, but Reiser took a real instance in his life and transformed it for the big screen. Write what you're familiar about, but don't leave in all of the mundane and boring details. 

This movie is much more than just a movie about cancer. You'll weep, you'll laugh, but overall it's just a down right good movie.

Uncertainty: Make up your damn mind!

Title: Uncertainty

Director: Scott McGehee, David Seigel

Writer: Scott McGehee, David Siegel

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lynn Collins

Grade: C

Synopsis: The flip of a coin sends a couple into two extremely opposite outcomes on a hot July 4th day.

Good Movie For: JGL lovers

If you look at the screen saver to my phone, you will instantly know why I watched this movie. I've been a JGL-er since his long haired days as Tommy on 3rd Rock from the Sun. I really should stop picking my movie choices based on my infatuation for the lead actor, but hey, you need a little eye candy to help you get through an excruciating two hours. Not that watching this movie was excruciating. It did have many high points, but yet again it did have many low points. 

I think one of the many reason why I love JGL is the fact that he has been able to blossom from a child actor into an amazing adult actor (that kind of sounds like he's a porn star. Adult Actor). Anyway, I personally think that he strives best in romances. I mean don't get me wrong, I loved all the room tilting in Inception, but one flash of those deep set dimples and you continue to believe that he is truly in love with his co-star. The boy could make a romance with a lamp post believable. That being said, the chemistry in this movie between Gordon-Levitt and Collins just seems off. It seems extremely forced. Not necessarily an uncomfortable forced, but a let's touch and hold hands and kiss a lot so the audience remembers that we love each other.

Another nit-picky thing that I observed was the presence of a lot of filler and useless dialog. "Is he dead?" Of course he's dead. You just saw 6 bullets penetrate his back. He'll survive. Sure. At times it felt as if Gordon-Levitt was consoling a child rather than his girlfriend.

All knockdowns aside, the dual story aspect is an interesting take. While one storyline is steeped in drama, the other stenches of action. It certainly makes you think about the decisions you make in your life. What would have happened if I had taken that road, walked that path, or crossed that bridge. Overall, it was a decent movie. 

Friends with Benefits: Kriss Kross will make ya, Jump Jump.

Title: Friends With Benefits

Director: Will Gluck

Writer: Keith Merryman, David A. Newman, Will Gluck, Harley Peyton

Starring: Justin Timeberlake, Mila Kunis, Woody Harrelson

Grade: B

Synopsis: Two friends down on their luck in love decide to have a purely animalistic relationship with each other. It's just sex. But just sex soon turns into emotional bullshit. 

Good Movie For: N'syncers, That 70's show fanatics, anyone really (except maybe small children)

I wanted to watch this movie in the theaters, but I was a little skeptical when it came out. Friends With Benefits released around the same time as No Strings Attached. Ok. Two movies premiering at the same time, with basically the same story line? Yea. I'll pass. While people gave me fairly bad reviews on No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits was the top view between theses two contenders. I'm pleased to say that I'm quite surprised how much I liked this movie. The storyline at times seems a bit predictable, but it was able to throw in some decent twists and some naked booty here and there. 

The holy grail of this film is probably the chemistry between Kunis and Timberlake. They genuinely seem as if they like each other. Gasp. But really, their relationship is what kept me watching. I did however find it a bit of a stretch to have Woody Harrelson as the gay sports writer. It's seemed like an interesting angle, but it would have been better if that character was played up a bit more. Hot people fake making love? What more could you ask for? 

Oh, and if this hasn't persuaded you. This movie has also been able to rekindle my love of Mother Fuckin' KRIS KROSS! (I probably shouldn't call them Mother Fuckin' Kris Kross. They were like 12 when they told everyone to JUMP JUMP!)

Strangers on a Train: I've realized that I'm a crazy magnet.

I always sit next to the crazy people on the train. Not the blatant, I'm about to throw my feces on you crazy, but the, I look like a normal person but my brain is off crazy.

I've been sheltered and spoiled most of my life. My parents picked me up from school everyday. I got a car when I was 16. I've only known what it feels like to drive myself places, so this whole taking the public transit thing is a completely new idea to me.

Because of my new internship, I have to take the train all the way across the city. This hour long commute every couple of days had given me a bit of anxiety at first, but now, I feel a bit on better ground with the train. But last night has thrown me for a loop.

I finally sat down around the mid-point of my ride back home. A couple stops later, a girl with a red backpack sat down next to me. Red and I did what the normal protocol for train riders is, just sit there and don't say a word until you have to move. A couple stops passed, and neither of us uttered a anything. Then Red decided to throw a wrench in the machine and asked "So, what part of the city are you from?"

I was taken back a bit. Were we really going to break tradition. I didn't want to seem rude, so I replied "I live near the school." She asked if I was a student, I am. I asked her if she was a student. She was. Awesome. End of conversation. I thought.

Then she asked me where I lived, on campus or off. I told her I lived down the street. She asked me how much rent was. How much rent was? I told her. I didn't really think much of it. Student to student. You tend to compare living arrangements. Then she asked me if I was looking for a roommate?

The hell? A Roommate? Red, I just met you on the train. You might be a Serial Killer. You might be really nice too, but I'm gonna lean towards Serial Killer on this one. I said no, and she immediately waved me off. As if she wanted to go back to being unfriendly, silent strangers.

I thought we had a good thing going Red. We broke the rules. We talked. But just because I don't want to invite you to live with me, you decided to turn the cold shoulder? Bah. Whatever.

Because of this, and other incidences, I have deduced that I am in fact, a Crazy Magnet. I try to be cordially and respectable, but apparently in this city, cordially and respectable gets you unwanted roommate offerings.

The Film School Lecture: Research - "I need to watch Jersey Shore, for research purposes."

I'm always amazed when my fellow film school friends talk to me about the new/old movie that they just watched. Their eager eyes look for some sort of recognition in my expression. But sadly, I always have to follow their inquiry with a "No. I'm sorry. I don't have time to watch movies." This is then followed by a cloud of grief that washes over their being. They hope to discuss their favorite parts of the film, but I am not the right audience for this debate.

Whenever I get asked the question of "Have you watched this..." or "Have you watched that..." I'm always left wondering. How in the hell do they have the time to sit down and watch a movie everyday? I can barely find time to eat in between classes, let alone taking two hours to sit down and focus on a screen. I used to be called the film student who never watches movies. People would joke that I would think of this great idea of a man trying to implant an idea into another man's dream. I've watched Inception bitch. I know that movie. Now, I actually watch around 5 movies a week. Ok, I am actually forced to watch them movies because of class, but hey, I'm still watching them.

But this brings up a more important topic. Film students and people in the industry NEED to watch things. Whether it's a movie, a television show, or a short. You need to be able to know the industry you are getting into in order to help you succeed.

I would always feel bad when I would sit down in front of the television and spend 3 hours just watching the shows that have been piling up on my DVR. I felt unaccomplished for some reason. But somewhere between making films as a hobby and actually trying to make a career out of this, my watching habits went from things to do in my spare time to doing research for my future. This is what helps me justify the hours I spend in front of the television.

"It's research." I tell my mother, as she asks me why I'm watching the newest episode of Jersey Shore.

So if a career in the film industry is your end game, don't feel bad about missing your sister's Quinceanara because you need to watch Transformers 4. Alright, she would probably be mad at you for that, but you shouldn't feel bad about watching movies.

If you ever see me in front of a television screen from now on, don't bother me. I'm doing research.

KONY 2012

Ok, so this isn't really a political blog. It's just me talking about movies, but this is an issue that I've been wanting to address since I watched this video last night.

If you aren't one of the presently 10 million people who have viewed this, then here you go.

http://vimeo.com/37119711

At first, my instinct was to post this all over the social networks, but people wouldn't really take note of the impact of this 30 min short at 3 o'clock in the morning. So I decided to wait. Upon waiting, many of my friends decided to post this video too, and others also posted their concerns about it.

The concern brought up is mainly in part due to an article written by a second year Political Science major in Canada. (Visiblechildren.tumblr.com)

He brings up some extremely valid points.

1. Invisible Children is using more money towards ad campaigns and traveling, then they are to actually funding a tangible resolution to this problem.

2. After Joseph Kony is caught, then what is there to do?

3. There are other contributing organizations that actually physically help the child soldiers rather than spreading awareness of them. Why don't you help these other organizations out?

All of these are true, but what the writer didn't take into account is the atmosphere of the public. Yes, there are other organizations that are helping rather than advertising, but those other organizations have not been able to reach the scale that the KONY2012 campaign has reached in the last few days.

Sad to say this, but the campaign for change has now become the campaign for advertising.

A good idea cannot truly denote a large impact on society unless it is publicized.

The political institution of the United States is a prime example of this. California's state education deficit is about $28 billion. Governor Jerry Brown spent $25 million dollars on his campaign to beat the Governator in the last election race. Although the two numbers are far from identical, there's still a correlation. Brown could have instead used that money to assure the job safety of a couple public school teachers. But instead, he used that money to campaign for votes. Votes that ultimately won him the election.

You need money to gain influence. This is the idea that many lobbyists in Washington DC walk down the corridors thinking. Money brings advertisement. Advertisement garners influence. Influence makes changes.

The race for political office now has changed from who has the most riveting speech to who has the most followers on twitter. Everyone and their mother wanted to Obama-ize their facebook profile pictures in 2008.

We have become a world centered on visuals. Striking images and videos are more of an impact that words and speeches.

Bottom line, the more money you spend on getting yourself in the public eye, the more influence and impact you can have.

Within two days, the KONY 2012 video has skyrocketed across various media networks. Sure, the funds of the Invisible Children organization may be put towards advocacy rather than activism, but in reality, would we be having this discussion if it weren't for the viral video? Would Joseph Kony's name be as prominent as it is without the advertisement?

The Invisible Children organization is set on shining a light on what is occurring across the world from us. They've taken tactics used by politicians to broadcast their images everywhere.

You don't have to support the organization, but do support the cause. Instead of scrutinizing the people who bring this topic to light, applaud them, and investigate how to help in other ways.

You don't have to buy the t-shirt or bracelet, but do help in some way. It may not be through Invisible Children, but somehow, someway, Kony needs to be stopped.

This is an issue that effects us all, not as a nation, not as individuals, but an issue that threatens us as moral human beings.