This week's film is a documentary, one that I watched at the San Diego Film Festival in 2009. I found it very, very well done and also incredibly engaging.
Prince of Broadway (2008) Dir. Sean Baker
Why this film: Set in an urban, immigrant community in New York City, the film centers around Lucky (Prince Adu) and Prince (Aiden Noesi), the "son" Lucky wants nothing to do with. As a barely-aware infant, Prince's "performance" is both touching and heartbreaking, so much so that it is almost unbelievable that this film is fictional drama and not a documentary. Getting an infant like that to behave and perform in that way speaks of a director's ability to get it right and also speaks to the director's ability to be patient with his vision.
The relationships between characters in this film can probably be only characterized as brash and tolerating, but it is the relationship between Lucky and Prince that is probably the most engaging. It's a gut-wrenching story of hope and humanity, where the question about "What will happen to the child?" always looms in the audience's mind. But the film is also humorous in the painful kind of way, things that shouldn't be funny but it is.
If nothing else, I commend Dir. Baker on his approach to the film, rejecting the delineation between fiction and documentary. It is a difficult approach and I think he executes it very well. (With a little luck on his side, I'm sure)
Availability
Netflix: Available
Amazon.com Instant Video: Not Available
SDSU: Not Available
UCSD: Not Available
San Diego Public Library: Not Available
(Note: According to Amazon.com, this film is being released in October 2011. No idea why it is being released 3 years later. Anyway, I imagine with the pre-order pub for the film that it will eventually be available at the very least on Amazon Instant Video)
Welcome to The Official Blog of Refine Films for all things film-related. This will be a blog for posting reviews of films, of film festivals, interviews, thoughts about filmmaking, etc. etc. I hope you'll tag along and gain some useful information from this blog.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Favorite Film Series [Wk:3]
Labels:
aiden noesi,
direct cinema,
documentary,
fiction,
hope,
humanity,
immigrant,
infant,
lucky,
new york,
NYC,
prince,
prince adu,
prince of broadway,
sean baker,
urban
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Favorite Film Series [Wk:2]
Last week's Still Life by Dir. Zhang jia-ke might have been too slow or too subtle for some filmgoers and for others, social commentaries with narratives just don't tickle their fancy.
For this week's Favorite Film Series, we'll be going in a slightly different direction.
(Note: I'll try to post films that are available. Some favorite films of mine, I realize, are not as accessible, which obviously makes it hard to watch.)
In the Mood for Love (2000) Dir. Kar Wai Wong
Why this film: Dir. Kar Wai Wong has been around a long time and a number of his films have done well internationally. Besides the themes of love and loyalty, the film is crafted with very sensuous overtones. Heavy orchestral arrangement, drawn out scenes with slow motion, very dramatic photography all combine to give a seemingly overly romantic film. I don't think that is a problem actually, and I find the film very enjoyable at that level. Tony Leung (Chow Mo-wan) and Maggie Cheung (Mrs. Chan) both have exceptional performances. Maggie Cheung, in my opinion, not only has a great performance but the way she looks is also exceptional.
Some people might say the film drags, but I think considering the push-pull affair within the text, the film's pace is appropriate. And, for what it is worth, I think this is a perfect date film.
Language: Cantonese, with English subtitles
Availability:
Netflix: Available
UCSD: Available (Limited)
SDSU: Available
San Diego Public Library: Available
For this week's Favorite Film Series, we'll be going in a slightly different direction.
(Note: I'll try to post films that are available. Some favorite films of mine, I realize, are not as accessible, which obviously makes it hard to watch.)
In the Mood for Love (2000) Dir. Kar Wai Wong
Why this film: Dir. Kar Wai Wong has been around a long time and a number of his films have done well internationally. Besides the themes of love and loyalty, the film is crafted with very sensuous overtones. Heavy orchestral arrangement, drawn out scenes with slow motion, very dramatic photography all combine to give a seemingly overly romantic film. I don't think that is a problem actually, and I find the film very enjoyable at that level. Tony Leung (Chow Mo-wan) and Maggie Cheung (Mrs. Chan) both have exceptional performances. Maggie Cheung, in my opinion, not only has a great performance but the way she looks is also exceptional.
Some people might say the film drags, but I think considering the push-pull affair within the text, the film's pace is appropriate. And, for what it is worth, I think this is a perfect date film.
Language: Cantonese, with English subtitles
Availability:
Netflix: Available
UCSD: Available (Limited)
SDSU: Available
San Diego Public Library: Available
Labels:
affair,
criterion,
hong kong,
in the mood for love,
Love,
loyalty,
maggie cheung,
romance,
tony leung,
wong kar wai,
花样年华,
花樣年華
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Favorite Film Series
People always ask me what my favorite film is. I generally dislike that question because 1) there are too many films to just pick one and 2) if I tell them what my favorite films are, they will stare at me blankly because they've never heard of the film, since most of them are foreign films.
Then, recently, I had this brilliant idea to use this blog to talk about my favorite films and give people reasons to watch them. I don't know why I didn't think about this before, but I tend to be late on a lot of things. Oh well.
So, I will begin a blog series, My Favorite Films Series. Most of these films are films that you've probably never heard of, which is all fine and good. It's always good to watch something different and unique, unlike most mainstream films that are mostly all the same.
Hopefully, I will be able to open you guys up to new films. And, if you do watch them, please let me know what you thought.
Okay, enough pretense. Here is the first film (in no particular order):
Still Life (2006) Dir. Zhang Ke Jia
Why this film: In my humble opinion, since I am no expert on foreign cinema, I believe that Director Zhang is the best and most important filmmaker out of China. A number of his films could probably be a part of this series. This film is essentially social commentary on modern China and the country's conflict of past and present. If you know anything about China, it's that things are changing very rapidly and Director Zhang film comments on its human impact. The danger of this approach, however, is that the film can become an overt, preachy, talking heads piece that takes the typical Western-model of Big Bad China vs. The Poor People. Rather, Director Zhang works in irony and subtlety with both the narrative and the images. Watching his films does take some patience for the Hollywood-raised audience, but if you're paying attention, you yourself may feel the conflict that is going on for both country and individual.
Both Tao Zhao (Shen Hong) and Zhou Lan (Huang Mao), who play two of the film's main protagonist, have great performances in working with the film's style and theme. If you have any interest in China, at all, "Still Life" is a must-watch.
(I'll limit my reviews, so I don't spoil it or talk it up too much and let the film speak for itself)
Language: Mandarin, with English subtitles
Availability (San Diego)
Netflix: Available
UCSD: Available
SDSU: Not Available
San Diego Circuit: Available (Limited)
San Diego Public Library: Available
Then, recently, I had this brilliant idea to use this blog to talk about my favorite films and give people reasons to watch them. I don't know why I didn't think about this before, but I tend to be late on a lot of things. Oh well.
So, I will begin a blog series, My Favorite Films Series. Most of these films are films that you've probably never heard of, which is all fine and good. It's always good to watch something different and unique, unlike most mainstream films that are mostly all the same.
Hopefully, I will be able to open you guys up to new films. And, if you do watch them, please let me know what you thought.
Okay, enough pretense. Here is the first film (in no particular order):
Still Life (2006) Dir. Zhang Ke Jia
Why this film: In my humble opinion, since I am no expert on foreign cinema, I believe that Director Zhang is the best and most important filmmaker out of China. A number of his films could probably be a part of this series. This film is essentially social commentary on modern China and the country's conflict of past and present. If you know anything about China, it's that things are changing very rapidly and Director Zhang film comments on its human impact. The danger of this approach, however, is that the film can become an overt, preachy, talking heads piece that takes the typical Western-model of Big Bad China vs. The Poor People. Rather, Director Zhang works in irony and subtlety with both the narrative and the images. Watching his films does take some patience for the Hollywood-raised audience, but if you're paying attention, you yourself may feel the conflict that is going on for both country and individual.
Both Tao Zhao (Shen Hong) and Zhou Lan (Huang Mao), who play two of the film's main protagonist, have great performances in working with the film's style and theme. If you have any interest in China, at all, "Still Life" is a must-watch.
(I'll limit my reviews, so I don't spoil it or talk it up too much and let the film speak for itself)
Language: Mandarin, with English subtitles
Availability (San Diego)
Netflix: Available
UCSD: Available
SDSU: Not Available
San Diego Circuit: Available (Limited)
San Diego Public Library: Available
Labels:
China,
Favorite Film Series,
filmmakers,
foreign,
international,
irony,
modernization,
social commentary,
Still Life,
Zhang Ke Jia,
三峽好人,
叁峡好人,
賈樟柯,
贾樟柯
Friday, July 29, 2011
When submitting: Not-to-do Checklist
Being part of a group of film screeners for a mid-level film festival the last two years, I have observed a few tendencies of filmmmakers submitting their films. Some of these tendencies, in my opinion, can impact the chances your film gets to the next step. The impact might seem incremental, and in many respects, they are probably just that. However, with the probability of your film making it to the second round incredibly slim, avoiding negative points with the screeners might help in the end. At the very least, it'll leave the decision on your work, rather than how you submitted your film. At the very most, you'll have saved yourself time and effort on superfluous things.
Don't be pretentious or presumptuous
Assume that the screener knows how to operate a DVD menu. I saw one case where the DVD menu said "Use the remote to select play." Be careful how you list "cameo" or "special" appearances. It really cannot be either of those things unless they are even slightly well-known. It will just come off as silly.
Don't include anything but the film
This includes DVD jackets, DVD labels, booklet inserts, and letters/notes. DVD jackets, unless it is incredibly accurate and well-written, it can create false or misleading expectations when the film is actually watched. As for the other three, screeners generally don't have time to read them or they don't care to read them. In terms of data not to include, trailers, blooper reels, anything but the film itself. Just a waste of space, in my opinion. The screener, again, won't have to time to watch them. I say just keep it simple. The only exceptions are 1) if it is a working cut 2) it contains temp music/soundtrack, then a small note would be appropriate.
Don't allow corrupted screeners
This really goes without saying. Test your screeners. If it fails, guess what is the chance of acceptance?
Don't assume copyright clearance
If you have copyrighted songs or film clips in your film, listing them in the credits doesn't qualify as clearance. I know it works on YouTube sometimes, but if there is even a question of copyright violations, it won't make it to the second stage, even if your film is brilliant. Obviously, screeners don't know every copyrighted song or film in the history of music and film, but if it is popular enough or well-known enough, it will raise huge red flags. If you do have clearance to use "Saving Private Ryan" in your short, you'd better write a small note saying you do or make it clear in the credits "Used with permission."
None of this will matter, of course, if your film is no good or if your film is just absolutely brilliant. Since you probably don't think it is either, for better or worse, it is important to (or don't) do everything you can to help bump your chances. Remember, film festivals have a limited amount of slots and they are looking for every reason to say no. And lastly, remember screeners are people, too, and you just never know what makes them tick.
Don't be pretentious or presumptuous
Assume that the screener knows how to operate a DVD menu. I saw one case where the DVD menu said "Use the remote to select play." Be careful how you list "cameo" or "special" appearances. It really cannot be either of those things unless they are even slightly well-known. It will just come off as silly.
Don't include anything but the film
This includes DVD jackets, DVD labels, booklet inserts, and letters/notes. DVD jackets, unless it is incredibly accurate and well-written, it can create false or misleading expectations when the film is actually watched. As for the other three, screeners generally don't have time to read them or they don't care to read them. In terms of data not to include, trailers, blooper reels, anything but the film itself. Just a waste of space, in my opinion. The screener, again, won't have to time to watch them. I say just keep it simple. The only exceptions are 1) if it is a working cut 2) it contains temp music/soundtrack, then a small note would be appropriate.
Don't allow corrupted screeners
This really goes without saying. Test your screeners. If it fails, guess what is the chance of acceptance?
Don't assume copyright clearance
If you have copyrighted songs or film clips in your film, listing them in the credits doesn't qualify as clearance. I know it works on YouTube sometimes, but if there is even a question of copyright violations, it won't make it to the second stage, even if your film is brilliant. Obviously, screeners don't know every copyrighted song or film in the history of music and film, but if it is popular enough or well-known enough, it will raise huge red flags. If you do have clearance to use "Saving Private Ryan" in your short, you'd better write a small note saying you do or make it clear in the credits "Used with permission."
None of this will matter, of course, if your film is no good or if your film is just absolutely brilliant. Since you probably don't think it is either, for better or worse, it is important to (or don't) do everything you can to help bump your chances. Remember, film festivals have a limited amount of slots and they are looking for every reason to say no. And lastly, remember screeners are people, too, and you just never know what makes them tick.
Labels:
copyright,
Film Festival,
screeners,
screening,
submissions,
submitting
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Things people hate/love to hear on set.
There are certain things that people in certain positions or departments hate and love to hear when on a production set. I thought it'd be fun to list of some of these as I've been on both ends of these statements. Enjoy and feel free to add your own.
Hate
Things that a producer or AD hates to hear:
"One more"
"One more for safety"
"Last one......one more"
"That was great...one more"
What an AD hates to hear:
"She/he is still in make-up/wardrobe. 5 (more) minutes."
"I have no idea where they are."
"Actress/Actor isn't here yet."
"Waiting on audio"
"Audio no good"
"Boom in the shot"
What a crew hates to hear:
"We're out of food"
"There's no more coffee"
"Pizza is for lunch (for the 100th time)"
Love
What a crew loves to hear:
"Moving on (to the next shot)"
"Lunch time!"
"That's a wrap!"
What an AD loves to hear:
"We're cutting that shot"
"We did that shot already"
"You can wrap [fill in name]"
"Audio was good"
"Actress/Actor is ready"
Hate
Things that a producer or AD hates to hear:
"One more"
"One more for safety"
"Last one...
"That was great...one more"
What an AD hates to hear:
"She/he is still in make-up/wardrobe. 5 (more) minutes."
"I have no idea where they are."
"Actress/Actor isn't here yet."
"Waiting on audio"
"Audio no good"
"Boom in the shot"
What a crew hates to hear:
"We're out of food"
"There's no more coffee"
"Pizza is for lunch (for the 100th time)"
Love
What a crew loves to hear:
"Moving on (to the next shot)"
"Lunch time!"
"That's a wrap!"
What an AD loves to hear:
"We're cutting that shot"
"We did that shot already"
"You can wrap [fill in name]"
"Audio was good"
"Actress/Actor is ready"
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Want to be a producer?
Today I was asked by a colleague to part of his production team and one of the things the roles he mentioned was producing. I enjoy producing and I've come to like it a lot. It's been one of those things I didn't know much going into school and I have come to learn a lot about it.
Along the way, I have learned a couple of lessons about producing. Unfortunately, often times I learn these things too late and it's not a pleasant realization. Filmmaking is much like everything else: the foundation of the project must be set correctly or things may get out of control or out of hand really quickly.
When my colleague asked me today, a couple of questions came to my mind that I thought I'd share here. These are questions that should be asked to the filmmaker (usually the director):
1. When do you want to have a festival-ready cut ready for release?
This, of course, sets in motion all the other dates for pre-production, production and post-production.
2. Who is editing the film? And can he do the job within our time-frame?
I've come to realize this is important and you have to take this seriously. A super busy editor, even though he is good at what he does, may not be the best choice, depending on the time constraints.
3. What is the budget? Is anyone being paid?
Goes without saying. Having paid people changes a lot of things and opens up possibilities that having everyone do pro bono doesn't (duh!).
4. Where is this money coming from?
Again, goes without saying.
Lastly, and this is not a question, but YOU MUST READ THE SCRIPT before saying 'yes'. I know this sounds obvious, but working on a script you really don't dig will kill any gung-ho attitude you may have. You may do it anyways but at least know what you're going to do be dealing with.
Those are probably not all the questions and things you must think about when getting onto a project. It also may not be relevant for the higher level filmmaking, where some of these decisions may have already been made. At a low-level of independent filmmaking, though, you'll want to make sure you don't just take anything because that marks you prospective projects to come.
Till next time... (I know, I have yet to finish those LAFF reviews, I will get there soon)
Along the way, I have learned a couple of lessons about producing. Unfortunately, often times I learn these things too late and it's not a pleasant realization. Filmmaking is much like everything else: the foundation of the project must be set correctly or things may get out of control or out of hand really quickly.
When my colleague asked me today, a couple of questions came to my mind that I thought I'd share here. These are questions that should be asked to the filmmaker (usually the director):
1. When do you want to have a festival-ready cut ready for release?
This, of course, sets in motion all the other dates for pre-production, production and post-production.
2. Who is editing the film? And can he do the job within our time-frame?
I've come to realize this is important and you have to take this seriously. A super busy editor, even though he is good at what he does, may not be the best choice, depending on the time constraints.
3. What is the budget? Is anyone being paid?
Goes without saying. Having paid people changes a lot of things and opens up possibilities that having everyone do pro bono doesn't (duh!).
4. Where is this money coming from?
Again, goes without saying.
Lastly, and this is not a question, but YOU MUST READ THE SCRIPT before saying 'yes'. I know this sounds obvious, but working on a script you really don't dig will kill any gung-ho attitude you may have. You may do it anyways but at least know what you're going to do be dealing with.
Those are probably not all the questions and things you must think about when getting onto a project. It also may not be relevant for the higher level filmmaking, where some of these decisions may have already been made. At a low-level of independent filmmaking, though, you'll want to make sure you don't just take anything because that marks you prospective projects to come.
Till next time... (I know, I have yet to finish those LAFF reviews, I will get there soon)
Labels:
filmmaking,
independent film,
Producer,
Producing,
project,
questions
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
2010 LAFF SRR: Street Days, dir. Levan Koguashvili
2010 LAFF Screen Report and Reaction: Street Days, dir. Levan Koguashvili GEORGIA (warning: spoiler in the Reaction portion)
Screen Report
When I first saw on the official program a film from Georgia, I wondered when film festivals started listing the state in which the film was produced. It was shortly after Street Days began I learned that it was the country of Georgia from which this film came. I’m just kidding, of course, but I think most of the audience at the screener knew little about Georgia (minus that whole spat with Russia) and probably even fewer have been to Georgia or watched a film from there. That being said, I must’ve heard a couple of wow’s when the credits appeared in the very first frame, which was written in Kartuli, the native script of Georgians. It looked like something out of Lord of the Rings and right then and there most of the audience probably realized they were in for a voyage to a new world that seems as distant as Middle-Earth.
That journey that transpired on the screen was much less a drive through the countryside and more of a roller coaster of emotions, varying with unexpected speed and intensity. It is a style that is reflected throughout the film, with (dark) humor quickly turning into tragedy and prodding conversation flipping at once to physical violence. We see this as well in the film’s bigger picture, as dir. Koguashvili guides us through this small corner of the world called Georgia, two thoughts become apparent: This is a film where the nuances and sensibilities of both culture and language, of history and perspective, will make it hard for audiences to fully understand. That was certainly a prevailing thought as I watched this film, that I’m missing the subtleties that someone familiar with Georgia or is Georgian would understand. Far from being a deterrent to the film, though, I found this handicap rather as a point of positive engagement and watched with a genuine curiosity much like an outsider looking in. This film isn’t entirely indecipherable, however. The social issues and consequences of drugs, gangs, corruption and social stagnation that travels along with our main protagonist Checkie (Guga Kotetishvili) are certainly understandable and digestible. In addition, the film is interesting for the mere fact that, in my opinion, even the well-versed Western film critic becomes a typical tourist; in other words, it’s a pioneering journey of a new experience for all who wish to travel, leaving behind any preconceived notion (if there could be any) of a world like this.
On screen, Street Days is inherently bleak and almost every way depressing. Soviet-era architecture and design are evident in the buildings but there is nothing redeeming either in the building or in the street. The dilapidated roads, sidewalks and walls are pock-marked and the trees that line the roads are stripped of any signs of life. Add these drab images with the winter-clothed characters of the film and the screen image might as well have been monochrome instead of Technicolor. The characters themselves, of course, are a reflection of their surrounding aesthetics, middle-aged men hanging around, in front of the school no less, all day long jonesing for a hit of heroine. It is indeed a sad picture and certainly mirrors the image of Russia’s “lost generation” as we witness this slice of life in a former Soviet-bloc member.
One can’t help reacting to the film with sad and solemn feelings, a heavy heart that wonders how a world wrapped in that kind of social turmoil can find hope. In the ending scene with Checkie and Ika (Irakli Ramishvili), Dir. Koguashvili gives us a glimmer of hope, a small notion that there still exists goodness and a moral conscience, embodied within our main protagonist. However, this is not without a great price and a sobering realization that any hope is still not within the realistic imagination. As the film ends, dir. Koguashvili brings us to the classroom of singing children, prodding audiences to take note of the next generation and to ask the question “who is next?” Is there hope or will the vicious cycle continue?
Screen Reaction
Heard around the theater: "great, liked it"..."interesting character with moral conscience"..."didn't understand whether that school was a good school...why was the wealthy son at that school? and what about the rich girl?"..."bleak scenery but there were moments of compassion"..."slow in the beginning but picked up in the middle"..."when the father jumped out, very powerful and there was a run of emotions in that moment"
Screen Report
When I first saw on the official program a film from Georgia, I wondered when film festivals started listing the state in which the film was produced. It was shortly after Street Days began I learned that it was the country of Georgia from which this film came. I’m just kidding, of course, but I think most of the audience at the screener knew little about Georgia (minus that whole spat with Russia) and probably even fewer have been to Georgia or watched a film from there. That being said, I must’ve heard a couple of wow’s when the credits appeared in the very first frame, which was written in Kartuli, the native script of Georgians. It looked like something out of Lord of the Rings and right then and there most of the audience probably realized they were in for a voyage to a new world that seems as distant as Middle-Earth.
That journey that transpired on the screen was much less a drive through the countryside and more of a roller coaster of emotions, varying with unexpected speed and intensity. It is a style that is reflected throughout the film, with (dark) humor quickly turning into tragedy and prodding conversation flipping at once to physical violence. We see this as well in the film’s bigger picture, as dir. Koguashvili guides us through this small corner of the world called Georgia, two thoughts become apparent: This is a film where the nuances and sensibilities of both culture and language, of history and perspective, will make it hard for audiences to fully understand. That was certainly a prevailing thought as I watched this film, that I’m missing the subtleties that someone familiar with Georgia or is Georgian would understand. Far from being a deterrent to the film, though, I found this handicap rather as a point of positive engagement and watched with a genuine curiosity much like an outsider looking in. This film isn’t entirely indecipherable, however. The social issues and consequences of drugs, gangs, corruption and social stagnation that travels along with our main protagonist Checkie (Guga Kotetishvili) are certainly understandable and digestible. In addition, the film is interesting for the mere fact that, in my opinion, even the well-versed Western film critic becomes a typical tourist; in other words, it’s a pioneering journey of a new experience for all who wish to travel, leaving behind any preconceived notion (if there could be any) of a world like this.
On screen, Street Days is inherently bleak and almost every way depressing. Soviet-era architecture and design are evident in the buildings but there is nothing redeeming either in the building or in the street. The dilapidated roads, sidewalks and walls are pock-marked and the trees that line the roads are stripped of any signs of life. Add these drab images with the winter-clothed characters of the film and the screen image might as well have been monochrome instead of Technicolor. The characters themselves, of course, are a reflection of their surrounding aesthetics, middle-aged men hanging around, in front of the school no less, all day long jonesing for a hit of heroine. It is indeed a sad picture and certainly mirrors the image of Russia’s “lost generation” as we witness this slice of life in a former Soviet-bloc member.
One can’t help reacting to the film with sad and solemn feelings, a heavy heart that wonders how a world wrapped in that kind of social turmoil can find hope. In the ending scene with Checkie and Ika (Irakli Ramishvili), Dir. Koguashvili gives us a glimmer of hope, a small notion that there still exists goodness and a moral conscience, embodied within our main protagonist. However, this is not without a great price and a sobering realization that any hope is still not within the realistic imagination. As the film ends, dir. Koguashvili brings us to the classroom of singing children, prodding audiences to take note of the next generation and to ask the question “who is next?” Is there hope or will the vicious cycle continue?
Screen Reaction
Heard around the theater: "great, liked it"..."interesting character with moral conscience"..."didn't understand whether that school was a good school...why was the wealthy son at that school? and what about the rich girl?"..."bleak scenery but there were moments of compassion"..."slow in the beginning but picked up in the middle"..."when the father jumped out, very powerful and there was a run of emotions in that moment"
Labels:
2010,
Georgia,
LAFF,
Levan Koguashvili,
Los Angeles Film Festival,
post-Soviet,
review,
SRR,
Street Days,
საქართველო,
ქართული
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

