Three random movies everyone should see: (Right Click to "show all" to view un-cropped trailers)
1. Special
Every day joe, Les Franken, played by Michael Rapaport inadvertently finds himself with newly discovered super human abilities. Realizing the potential of his powers, and the duty he now owes to the human race, he decides to become a super hero. The catch: he's really just medicated on an experimental drug that's making him suffer extreme hallucinations. A dark, weird, and comedic adventure to say the least.
2. Intermission
A dark comedy about people you'd likely never know or even want to meet for that matter. Just about every character in this movie is terribly flawed and despite being relatively young in age, seems decrepit and on the brink of self destruction. The story follows several characters, as they each go through points in their lives that end in a "just don't care anymore" state. Eventually coming together in order to pull off a robbery that ends in more laughs for the viewer than anything else.
3. The Iron Giant
There are only a handful of animated movies that I would say are truly must see. This would have to be number one in my opinion. The story of a giant mechanical man, (voiced by a then unknown Vin Diesel) sent from a far away planet to destroy earth. Damaging itself when crash landing on earth; the giant befriends a young child who teaches him the importance of life, death and caring for others. It sounds terribly childish, but the storytelling is so good; by the end, even the most staunch viewer will find her/himself completely immersed within it's well told story.
Lloyd Kaufman is a director, producer, screenwriter, and sometimes actor. Originally set to be a social worker, and majoring in Chinese studies at Yale; Kaufman was turned on to film in the late 60's by film students he had befriended. In 1974 he started up Troma Entertainment along Michael Herz; and together they have written, directed, and produced hundreds of movies under the Troma name. His most popular movies include The Toxic Avenger series, Class of Nuke 'Em High, and Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead; all of which are well known in the independent movie world as violent, comedic, and ultra low budget movies.
May 27th, 2009
Lloyd Kaufman is a humorous man. During his interview, he jokes a lot, and at times has to be interrupted by the host, Elvis Mitchell, who has to remind him that the interview is on public radio and some of the saucy jokes Lloyd is about to say might be a little too much. Interestingly enough, the majority of his jokes all seem to be out of bitter resentment and animosity towards the larger movie studios, of which he feels he have helped in "financially blacklisting" him. Most of what he says is in jest though, and he seems genuinely happy to be a fervent supporter of independent cinema and other filmmakers like him. He also mentions his fondness for helping out first time directors, and willingness to act in their movies.
A point Kaufman sets out to make almost instantly, is the fact that in both large studio productions, and smaller productions, much less concern is about the movie itself, it's story, and artistic merit. "Don't make meetings, make movies" he states. His distaste in how more than half of a movie's production can be wasted away on conferences and office meetings on topics such as "will the movie be commercially viable" or "will the masses get it?" Instead, he wants film makers to concern themselves with expressing themselves as they please, and forget about whether or not people will get it or not. I could not agree with this more; as I believe making a movie should be about enjoying what you do, and expressing yourself; not worrying about not pleasing everyone; and this is exactly what he's getting at. He also continues by stating "it's very difficult to do that, if you're trying to impress eleven different producers"
Another point he drills at, is the idea that nobody is above anybody else on his sets. Actors, producers, directors, camera men; they are all on the same level on his movies. "Everybody's equal" he states. The idea is, nobody get's an inflated ego, nobody kisses up to anyone else, and everyone pulls there weight without any sort of hitch. This is something I feel would probably work wonders in mainstream Hollywood. How many times have we heard these stories of Prima donna's that cause a scene on set, and then refuse to work unless they get their way? Would they still be acting that way if they were treated like everyone else?
The final and last points he made are by large and far the most true, and for someone like me, the most influential. "You can literally make your own damn movie for no money...and you should make your own damn movie for nothing" he states before continuing with "you don't have to be rich anymore" and lastly "you can make a feature length film for literally nothing". I agree, and definitely see what he's getting at. Huge budgets and expensive equipment isn't necessary anymore. In this technical age wherein all computers come with a standard video editing tool, and even our phones have video cameras in them; there really is no reason not to at the very least; experiment with movie making.
What Lloyd Kaufman brings to the table; is exactly what I'd like to see more of in the movie industry. (or should I say, the outskirts of the movie industry?) He tells it like it is; pleasing both himself, and his long time fans. By self producing his work, and avoiding major Hollywood producers, he can be as creatively open as he wants to be. He admits, it's not an easy road, but it's possible. In this age, when film school seems almost pointless and the studios are still one or two steps behind; it's up to the upcoming and new generation of film makers to go out there, and like Kaufman say's, make our own damn movies.
One of the most surprising scenes in Pulp Fiction involves Bruce Willis’s character “Butch” driving away from a scene after having just killed a man who was sent to kill him. The last thing Butch (or the viewer for that matter) expects is to see Marsellus Wallace, the man who put the hit on him, casually walking across the street, carrying what looks like a box of donuts and a cup of coffee. What ensues there after, are a chaotic group of events involving Butch hitting Marsellus with his car, a random passerby crashing into Butch, a dazed and injured Marsellus chasing after an equally dazed and injured Butch, and an eventual fight that leads to yet another oddball surprise. It’s the initial scene that is such a surprise though. Moments before Butch comes to the corner where Marsellus is walking, he proclaims to himself “That's how you're gonna beat 'em, Butch. They keep underestimating you” and low and behold, he comes across the man who wants him dead, casually walking down the street in broad daylight. This type of darkly humorous, almost cartoon-like scene is a perfect example of Pulp Fiction’s narrative in that the film consists of several seemingly random and strange stories about people we either don’t know or probably wouldn’t exactly want to know in real life. It also informs us on the characters Butch and Marsellus, one, an underdog who knows how lucky his been up till now; the other an overzealous gangster who thinks himself untouchable.
Butch runs into Marsellus
Ask anyone who’s seen Pulp Fiction what they might think was the most suspenseful scene the movie, and odds are, they’d almost immediately bring up the overdosing/syringe-to-the-heart scene. In that particular scene, Uma Thurman’s character, “Mia” is overdosing on cocaine, and Vincent (played by John Travolta) takes her to the drug dealer who he originally purchased the cocaine from. The scene is set up with the Lance (the dealer) receiving a phonecall from Vincent, who is frantic about Mia dying while under his care. Shortly there after, Vincent arrives at the Lance’s house with an unresponsive Mia. An argument between Lance and Vincent then brakes, leading to yet another argument between Lance and his wife. This all builds up to a tense and very unnerving scene where Vincent has to muster the courage to stab Mia directly in the heart with a very long needle. The buildup to the scene was so tense, that a during one of it’s original premieres at the New York Film Festival, when the shot to the heart finally struck down, a member of the audience famously passed out.* The scene also portrays Vincent in the recurring role of the bumbling and unlucky fool who can't seem to catch a break. It also shows his character in that he doesn't seem to actually care that Mia is dying, but more about the fact that if she dies, his employer will likely have him killed.
Vincent takes Mia to his dealer's house for help.
The tracking shot, in which Vincent and Mia enter Jack Rabbit Slim's and are eventually seated, is accompanied by diegetic music in the form of Ricky Nelson’s “Waitin’ in school” being sung by an entertainer/Ricky Nelson impersonator. The scene itself fits with in the overall motif of the film paying homage to all manner of older popular culture, in this case, it being the introduction to the 1950’s themed Restaurant that Mia insisted on eating at. The music sets the mood of the scene (Vincent entering the restaurant, scanning things as he passes, subtlety noting the waiters and waitresses he later mentions with a conversation with Mia, and the song’s cue “Come on, baby, let’s get somethin’ goin’” as he pauses to examine the Marylyn Monroe look-a-like) and along with the visuals, let’s the viewer know that this isn’t any regular restaurant.
(Not in English, but the scene doesn’t require dialogue anyway)
An example of non-diegetic material in this film would be Mia’s “Don’t be a” (square) comment aimed at Vincent as they both pull up to Jack Rabbit’s Slims and Vincent inquires about the restaurant. Like the rest of the film, and to coincide with the previous “referencing popular culture” statement, the outlined graphic effect is there to add that “hip, cool and strange” feeling the rest of the movie has. Tarantino could have just as easily had Mia simply say “Don’t be a square” or motion the square shape without any sort of effect; but instead, the outlined graphic square effect is placed to add to the aforementioned movie tone. (Outlining a square as a means of calling one a “square” was in fact, something that was used in popular culture in late 50’s, and 60’s television)
The “Don’t be a” (square) scene.
Example in popular culture:
At 1:04, Kermit explains that he doesn’t like jazz…a square is then outlined around his face.
Although Pulp Fiction is a series of varied stories, and its character’s all go through very different scenarios, (some intertwining and not all in chronological order) the Macguffin of the film is the briefcase, or to be more exact, what’s in it. The opening scene begins with Jules and Vincent on there way to retrieve it (the briefcase and its contents) from a group of men who have apparently done something wrong against the man who employs both Jules and Vincent. Later on, we see Jules and Vincent delivering its contents to this man, which is followed by two other instances wherein Jules and Vincent are still in the middle of trying to get the contents to their boss. In fact, the movie's last major conversation begins when a would-be robber tries to take the briefcase, only to be shown it's contents, be sent along his way and have Jules and Vincent walk out of a robbed restaurant, briefcase in the position of Jules.
When I started typing about the subject of what I find makes a good movie, I initially thought "camera work"; but instantly corrected myself and thought "a good story" to which of course I still thought "well, you still gotta have great directing, and cinematography, and a great musical composition etc...
The point is, to me, it's not just one single thing that makes a good movie. While yes, it's possible for someone to write a script that rivals even the best tales ever told, if the rest of the movie isn't up to par, well, then the whole thing just becomes subpar. Simply put, every movie is a product of pure teamwork. A common misconception, is that the director does everything. Hardly the case in any movie, as the director is there to primarily coordinate the actions of the crew around them; and although the director is usually the one with the most creative control, (provided, he stay within budget, and on the good side of his/her producers) he/she is almost completely debilitated without a team to help bring forth his ideas and overall vision.
Now with that in mind, let's name just a few key ingredients of that team.
Writing: The most obvious; a good script is the necessary backbone in making a good movie. (story, dialogue, proper arc)
Directing: Arguably, the second most obvious necessity in making a good movie. I wouldn't say just the director belongs in this role either, as he is always backed by a cinematographer and director of photography, who as a trio, work to make a scene not just work, but come to life. (provided, they are all good at what they do of course)
Sound: Bad sound can completely ruin a movie. Whether it's a bad score/soundtrack, sound effects that just don't match, or something as simple (sounding) as the live sound levels themselves. A good score, worthy sound effects, and proper sound levels will only serve to enhance the experience, and pull you deeper into the film.
Art: whether it's wardrobe, set design, make-up, or props; great art designs are crucial to making a world within a movie seem all the more believable.
Lighting: Proper lighting can add so much to a movie, as it sets the mood to every scene and can even be used to both hide visuals, make key elements stand out or as a crucial aspect of the story.
Acting: Bad actors can ruin even the best story...simply put. (and vice versa, course)
Editing: To me, the editor is the one person with the most control over a movie. He/she decides what works and what doesn't, arranges the entire movie, and most of all, makes sure a movie works. A good editor can even take a so-so film, and turn it into something much more...but none the less, he/she still needs the rest of the team to properly work.
Well, you get you get the point. What do I think makes a good movie? Everything; and I stand by that. I know, in the past, I've seen movies before where in I have found myself thinking "wow, if only they had used a better music here, this scene might have been good" (Chase scenes accompanied by rock music...ugh) or "Um, I can't even hear what they're saying" (I'm looking at you, Rescue Dawn) to "wait, what just happened?" (Dreadful fight scenes where in the camera is just way too close and the viewer is treated to the sound of punches been thrown and what seems to be a bad case of vertigo)
It all has to come together, to make something enjoyable.
As for my favorite aspect of a movie? Tracking shots. Without a doubt, there has always been something about a long take that moves around, follows the action, and never cuts away, that I absolutely love. My first introduction to the style of film making came in the form of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. In the scene, the camera follows a boy on his tricycle as he rides throughout the house, never cutting away, always following closely behind the child. Watching the scene, I could only imagine how gratifying it must be for a director to be able to shoot long takes without ever cutting away and strictly focusing on the action at hand.
As for my favorite tracking shot of all time:
Yet another key example of the perfect tracking shot, and everything coming together to make an excellent movie. Absolutely brilliant cinematography, spot-on acting, excellent design and attention to detail (notice the car's windshield) and digital editing that would make even the best editor envious.
