crewless news and notes

… check out the Interplanetary blog…

http://interplanetarymovie.blogspot.com

… check out the Interplanetary blog…

http://interplanetarymovie.blogspot.com

If you’re up late enough tonight (or early enough tomorrow), you can catch Hide and Creep on the Sci Fi channel at 3 a.m. Eastern time.

And you can catch it again in March. I’ll try to post another “news” item a little closer to that March date.

Hope you’re all having a good Valentine’s Day…

At least this one doesn’t. If I’m reading the Babelfish translation correctly, at least.

More importantly, Hide and Creep is for sale on DVD in Germany! Now I just have to figure out where to order a German edition…

I’ll quit apologizing for the infrequent updates – I guess I’m just not cut out for blogging. And I’ll keep this one short. I just wanted to let you know that we’re gearing up to start shooting a new feature soon. Real soon – seems like I’m already behind, actually. If things go as planned, we’ll have it done and show it somewhere before the end of 2007.

That’s all I’ll say for now. I’m planning to make a more “official” announcement in early January, after I have more details about the cast and crew.

I’m getting more annoyed the more I think about critics complaining that good movies must be about something, implying something “important.” Crash was about racism, and it sucked. Million Dollar Baby was about assisted suicide, and it sucked, too. The problem is, movies that are about something tend to get hung up on what they’re about and forget to be good movies.

I love that there’s some subtext to Star Trek II, that the movie, on one level, is about Captain Kirk getting older and how the various indiscretions of his youth are coming back to haunt him in various ways. But what I really love about Star Trek II is that it kicks ass with those movie things I talked about last time–acting, editing, cinematography, etc.

As I watch more movies and learn more about movies, I find myself less interested in story and more interested in the emotional effect a movie has on me. It’s like pop music. Unless lyrics are really great or really terrible, I usually don’t notice them. I listen for the singer’s melody and delivery. I mean, I love Radiohead, but I rarely know or care what Thom Yorke is going on about. But it makes me feel something every time, so I keep listening.

One problem with a lot of so-called “independent” films is their over-dependence on dialogue. The characters talk and talk, but the talk is not particularly clever, and it’s damn sure not particularly cinematic. Tarantino gets grief sometimes for too much talk, but there’s a lot of cool cinematography and music and acting and editing in his movies, and watching them makes me feel something.

Same thing with Lost in Translation. A lot of critics liked that one, and it got a screenplay Oscar. But I can’t imagine the screenplay, on the page, was all that great. That movie is all about the mood, and the mood has very little to do with the script in that case. Like John Carpenter says, let’s thread that screenplay up on the projector, and we’ll take a look at it.

I think if you look and theorize hard enough, you can probably create some subtext for any movie. And it’s fun to be an armchair film scholar and do that sometimes. But does it really matter? I can’t think of any subtext for The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark, and I love both those movies. My favorite movie ever, Dr. Strangelove, is about guys who start a nuclear war because they’re having trouble functioning sexually. With text like that, is there even room for subtext?

Stacey and I caught the The Departed yesterday. Holy shit, what a great movie. The story, about cops and criminals in Boston, is interesting enough, but the things that make it a movie–the acting, sound, music, editing, cinematography–are fantastic. Director Martin Scorsese took a talented cast and crew out to the ballpark, and they hit about two and a half hours worth of home runs.

Since The Departed is the best movie of the year, probably the best movie of the last few years, all the critics love it. Except the ones who don’t. Browsing the ‘net, I’ve noticed complaints. I’ll now list and debunk a few.

“It’s not really about anything.” It’s about cops and criminals in Boston.

“The characters are one-dimensional.” These lucky critics have somehow never seen a movie with truly one-dimensional characters. The characters in The Departed have plenty of dimensions.

“It doesn’t make any sense.” I can’t believe someone who couldn’t understand The Departed could muster enough brain cells to type that sentence. The movie’s plot is twisty, but clear.

“It’s violence for the sake of violence.” I don’t even know what this means. It’s not like there are random insert shots of a slaughterhouse or something. The movie is violent, and the violence always has some effect on the story.

“Actor Jack Nicholson is over-the-top.” What else is new? Fortunately, it’s an over-the-top character, so Nicholson’s acting is just right.

Most of these complaints were compiled by Jim Emerson for his blog. Emerson wasn’t too impressed with The Departed, either, but I’m starting to think Emerson is one of those art-house idiots who can’t appreciate a great movie unless it’s got some subtext or addresses an important “issue” or some shit like that. I like a little subtext myself, but what I really like is a film that kicks me in the ass, and that’s what The Departed does.

I’m mentioning this for two reasons. One, you should go see The Departed in a movie theater. Like right now. Unless you’re one of those art-house idiots or are afraid of movie blood. Two, when I see a really great piece of filmmaking getting pissed on by critics, I don’t feel so bad about those negative Hide and Creep reviews. I mean, if a genius like Scorsese can’t catch a break, what should a non-genius like me expect?

This is groovy. Looks like we’re getting yet another late night encore on the Sci Fi channel – Sunday October 8 at 3 a.m. Eastern time. So, if you still haven’t seen the “TV Cut” of Hide and Creep, stay up late on Saturday – or get up really early on Sunday – and check it out.

Or just do like me and get your Tivo on.

Something else annoying from the New York Times…

“David Lynch Returns: Expect Moody Conditions, With Surreal Gusts”

The short version: Lynch says, “Film is like a dinosaur in a tar pit.” He says if he ever had to shoot on film again, he “would die.”

But, Chance, David Lynch is a genius, and you’re just some asshole with a blog. What do you know?

Well, I know that David Lynch is a genius. And as far as his opinions on film go, I know he’s full of shit. Maybe he’s shilling for Panasonic or something…

“Survival Tips for the Aging Independent Filmmaker,” from the New York Times online, written by John Clark.

The short version: it’s difficult to make a living as a director of independent films.

No shit, Mr. Clark. Thanks for the newsflash.

I started up this “Notes” section so I’d have somewhere to post stuff when there isn’t any major Crewless stuff going on (like, now, for instance). I also told myself I’d post at least once a week. So much for that plan.

In my defense, I have been busy helping Kenn McCracken and Chris Carr finish up movies (Muckfuppet and Golden Age, respectively) for next weekend’s Sidewalk film fest. I’ve also been busy with two or three bands and the day job. And I’m trying to finish my new screenplay (it’s getting there).

So… I’ve forgotten my point. I’ve been busy – what else is new? Sidewalk is next weekend. Uh… man, I need some sleep. My mind is just mush at this point. Perhaps I’ll be back later in the week with something coherent…

You know, I’m totally over computer-generated movie effects. They have their place (Jackson’s Kong remake is pretty impressive, and some CG gore saved my arse in Hide and Creep), but I generally prefer in-camera and other old-school-type effects. Especially in older films. Nothing makes CG stick out like forcing it into a movie from 1977, say Star Wars, for example.

And, since they ruined Star Wars with unneeded CG, I shouldn’t be surprised that they’re getting ready to ruin the classic Star Trek television series the same way.

I mean, damn. You can read more about this depressing turn of events over at The Digital Bits.

Stacey and I caught a matinee of Snakes on a Plane today, a movie anyone with an Internet connection has been hearing about for what seems like forever. Snakes is basically a combination of two of my favorite film genres: horror and cheesy-70s-disaster. Not a particularly intelligent recipe, but an effective one.

Except for the brilliantly-disgusting Slither, I haven’t enjoyed any of the horror movies I’ve seen this year. Films like the Hills Have Eyes remake and The Descent are well-made, but they’re so convincingly disturbing that they end up being no fun. In Snakes, an attractive couple is attacked by venomous reptiles while smoking grass and having sex in the lavatory of a 747. Said couple broke a federal law when they disabled the lavatory smoke detector, so I guess they had it coming. Set pieces like this one might not be very realistic, but they evoke a smile and, sometimes, even a scare or two.

The movie isn’t perfect. Like many disaster and horror movies, it spends too much time setting up the motivations of a plethora of characters who aren’t particularly interesting. But, after the snakes get loose, and the only motivation for any of the movie’s characters is “don’t get killed,” Snakes on a Plane is a good time.

I helped Chuck shoot some Super 16mm film tests last weekend. On Wednesday, we went over to CineFilm in Atlanta and got the 12 minutes or so of footage transferred to high definition video. Hi-def has twice the resolution of standard video, and we were wondering how well the Super 16mm would hold up. The answer: it held up pretty damn well. I’ve heard people say that hi-def video origination is sharper than shooting Super 16mm. After seeing Chuck’s tests, I ain’t buying it. I’d been getting more and more annoyed with the shortcomings of video origination lately, and these tests were kind of the last straw. You can keep your Panasonic and your Sony stuff – I’ll stick with Kodak and Fuji.

Also… the drive to and from Atlanta still sucks. Especially when you get pulled over by an Alabama State Trooper along the way. For no good reason. Seriously, I used to be okay with the Troopers, but no more. Those guys are dicks.

In Birmingham, Alabama, we get all the wide-release shitty movies – you know, stuff like You, Me, and Dupree and Little Man. But it takes forever for smaller movies (A Scanner Darkly) to show up here, and sometimes (Brick) they don’t play here at all. So it was nice to get to see Little Miss Sunshine in the a Birmingham theater just a couple of weeks into its limited release. I often get annoyed with “indie” movies, which can get too precious and quirky for their own good. Little Miss Sunshine has its quirks, but the movie is consistently entertaining, especially when it brings the funny. There’s a scene at the end that had me laughing so hard, I was crying.

I really shouldn’t read the “user comments” on the Hide and Creep IMDB page. Everybody’s a critic, especially on the Internet, and all those critics are happy to explain exactly how and why Hide and Creep is the “worst of the worst” (actual IMDB user comment).

I’m not about to start bashing critics, which seems to be a fashionable thing for filmmakers to do these days. Heck, M. Night Shyamalan made a whole movie about how much he hates critics. I enjoy reading well-written reviews, even when I don’t agree with them. And, since I have opinions, I’m a critic, too. For example, when it comes to music, I think Creed is the “worst of the worst” (actual scientific fact).

But liking critics doesn’t mean I like to read bad reviews of my work and my friends’ work, so I’d be better off staying away from IMDB, but I’m weak, and I check it regularly, hoping that now, finally, everybody has decided they love Hide and Creep, even though I know better.

So imagine my surprise when I found an IMDB user (handle: “Anti-Hollywood") actually defending Hide and Creep on the comments page. A little taste: “I would bet that this film cost a minimum of $30,000 to make. While its aesthic certainly wasn’t the polished, 35mm canvas of a Spielberg stinker, I found the look to be quite refreshing for a genre piece. In this day and age of digital video, I’m glad to see there are still some guys out there sticking with celluloid.”

I was happy to see that this person enjoys our movie and that he/she understands and appreciates that making movies is neither cheap nor easy. Not that I expect this thoughtful opinion to change anyone else’s mind…

For somebody who considers himself a fan of director John Carpenter, I haven’t seen many of his movies. I love Carpenter because I love The Thing, the best horror movie ever as far as I’m concerned. The Thing is a remake of sorts – it’s based on the same novella as the 1951 flick The Thing From Another World, also a good horror flick, but very different from Carpenter’s paranoid and gruesome take on the material.

So it’s no real surprise that I dig the heck out of Carpenter’s Starman, which I finally caught this past weekend on the Sci Fi channel. It’s a fun story about a curious alien, kind of an E.T. for grown-ups, informed equally by NASA’s Voyager program and the Biblical virgin birth. It’s held together by Carpenter’s solid direction and an enjoyable performance from the always-reliable Jeff Bridges.

I’ll have to watch it again on DVD, since Sci Fi showed a pan-and-scan version of the movie. One of my favorite things about Carpenter’s movies is his use of widescreen cinematography, and I bet I’ll like Starman twice as much when I can see the whole picture.

Looks like Hide and Creep won’t be playing June 20 on the Sci Fi channel as originally scheduled. We did pick up two other screenings, though – July 1 at 9 a.m. and July 6 at 3 a.m.

I know – not exactly prime time hours. If you’re not a TV early bird or night owl, set your TiVo accordingly.

A couple of online items you might want to listen to:

1) Chuck and I interviewed on Tapestry, a local Public Radio show.

2) Episodes 28 and 29 of In the Can, featuring a two-part interview with me.

Warning: the In the Can interview features a lot of talk about cameras, lenses, and other stuff that fascinates me but bores the heck out of most folks.

If anybody out there is looking for a Hide and Creep DVD, I’d recommend going with DVDEmpire.com instead of the better-known Amazon.com. DVDEmpire has a much nicer price ($15.23), and they’ll ship it “immediately.” Amazon always seems to have Hide and Creep on backorder, so shipping from them is usually slow.

So, if you’re gonna buy, buy it here. If you’d rather try it first, there’s always Netflix.