INDEPENDENT’S DAY

Official Rejection

For the average person – ***

For filmmakers – ***1/2

Review by Justin Bowler

“Official Rejection” is an entertaining and enlightening look at the world of “independent” film festivals that all independent filmmakers MUST see!

I watch a decent amount of documentaries. They are mostly the big ones, the ones Netflix recommends and the ones my wife brings home (so, yes, I’ve seen more about pageants and dance competitions than I care to review) (As if I don’t get enough of that stuff from the TV that I have to watch… I mean LIKE to watch with my adorable wife). “Official Rejection” is one that I was asked to watch. And I’m glad I was. “Official Rejection” is an entertaining and enlightening look at the world of “independent” film festivals. It achieves what the perfect documentary should achieve: insightful revelations, combined with excellent narrative, and solid filmmaking. It is not only entertaining and enlightening, but also, the subject matter is of vital import to new filmmakers. Every student of film should be required to watch this movie. The documentary follows Scott Storm and his production team on their journey through the film festival circuit with their feature film “Ten ‘til Noon”. Through their story, you see the real “criteria”, politics, backroom dealings, triumphs and tragedies of the independent scene.

Scott Storm is a director with a finished feature film called “Ten ‘til Noon.” He’s very happy with it. His cast and crew are happy with it. All of his friends are happy with it. It has strong sexual content, nudity, violence and language. And it was shot on film to boot! Basically, it has all the stuff you want from a film. But, for some reason, he can’t get it into a film festival. Why? So, the story begins.

This documentary is incredibly informative. It provides an in-depth look into the inner mechanics of how many of these film festivals work. It gives a realistic look at what new, and even old, filmmakers can expect from the film festival circuit: the relentless rejection, the ongoing expenses, and the wear and tear on the personal lives of the filmmakers (and their significant others). From interviews with fellow filmmakers to programmers and film screeners, Scott seeks to find out why certain movies get picked and others do not. Are all the submitted films watched? “Of course they are” says one former screener, as he goes on to completely negate that answer. Following that logic, another filmmaker suggests intentionally sending blank screener discs to the festivals to make sure the screeners actually try to watch them. If they contact you (and that is a GIGANTIC “IF”), then you know they tried, and now you have just set yourself apart from the other 1000 submissions (because THEY contacted YOU). Is that what it takes to get into a festival? Apparently.

While investigating and informing, Scott and his team poke fun at themselves and the system. In one segment, the filmmakers illustrate the problem with many festivals: movies are not accepted unless they have big stars. Determined not to make that mistake with this documentary, instantly, the filmmakers cut to their own interviews with well known names like Bryan Singer (yeah that one, Bryan “I made ‘The Usual Suspects’” Singer), Kevin Smith (yup, Kevin Smith, Mr. Independent film himself, Kevin “I effing made ‘Clerks’” Smith) (which is really cooler than Bryan Singer in my opinion), and Traci Lords (yes, that’s right, I said it, TRACI LORDS, Mrs. Traci “I made a lot of underage porn” Lords). (And she is not just naked this time; she has something to say about… something). (This is actually a smart maneuver on the filmmaker’s part, since putting her in the credits makes one wonder if there is nudity in this documentary. Ahh yes, the distribution angle. I like it.) (Well does she get naked? You will have to watch the movie to find out. I don’t want to destroy this brilliant marketing idea from the filmmakers.)

This is first rate filmmaking. Documentaries are not an easy animal to tame. You usually have far more footage than you need. Then you must decide which aspect of the story to really focus on. From there you must still present it in a format that others will actually find entertaining or compelling enough to watch (that’s typically the biggest challenge). Director Paul Osborne, Scott Storm and their team make it look easy. From comedic moments to poignant moments, to truly outraging moments (mostly dealing with unbelievable idiocy from idiotic idiots), the film carefully tells the story of its heroes who are, like so many filmmakers, ordinary people with extraordinary dreams. I would like to say that the film satisfies in the end, but, and this may be a test of the filmmakers to see if I ACTUALLY watched the film, (and to answer your question, YES I DID), unfortunately, my screener died ten minutes from the end of the documentary (NICE TRY GUYS!). So, if there is a bittersweet catharsis, I did not get to experience it; rather I was left with my empathetic angst that was forming from the film’s final conflict.

Three days later, the filmmakers got me another copy, “swearing” it was not intentional . The end of the film provides exactly the optimistic POV we hope for. It’s fulfilling and moving while still realistic.

Overall, as I said, it is a truly entertaining and informative film. Every future, educated, daring, or wannabe filmmaker needs to see what the road ahead looks like. The downside is, for the filmmakers of “Official Rejection” (and I’m sure they have thought of this), though they made an excellent documentary (with stars, this time) (and maybe some nudity from them) (no, I’m not talking about Kevin Smith, that would be gross), the antagonists of their movie are the very people who hold the keys to the festivals they wish to be accepted to (truly, a poetic irony). I say, Scott and Paul, you and your balls of steel need to submit to every film festival you can. But, as you do, you need to make a sequel to your documentary that chronicles the story of “Official Rejection”’s official rejections. Yes, I realize that is a lot of money to spend, but it must be done. (By the way, I’m typically very passionate when it comes to spending other people’s money). Your target audience needs to see your film! The good news is… they will actively seek it out, when they hear about it. (I’m glad I could help spread the word.) (Keep up the fight!)

3 stars for the average person.
3.5 stars for filmmakers. Find it, watch it, learn from it, and revolt.

Until it gets wide release, here is where you can see “Official Rejection” in 2010:
- Los Angeles United Film Festival, Friday, April 30th @ 9:45pm
Los Feliz 3 Cinemas, 1822 Vermont Ave., LA

And until they make they make a film documenting their rejections, you can follow the festivals “Official Rejection” DOES get into here.

Directed by: Paul Osborne
Country: USA
Rated: No Rating
Distributor: Conspicuous Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

Don’t Know Much About History

By Steven Lewis

Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” was undoubtedly one of the most accomplished and entertaining films to play in theaters last year. Yet its ending opens up such a messy can of worms, it’s kind of worth considering apart from the film itself. If you don’t already know about that finale by now (and for God’s sake stop reading at this point if you don’t – or at least consider yourself warned), Quentin essentially alters the ending of World War II (European theater, anyway). He has his “basterds” successfully infiltrate and blow up a movie theater attended by Adolf Hitler and all of his top brass. End of the Nazi power structure, in one neat and clean stroke.

Now, Quentin seems to always find a way to smuggle audacious scenes or plot developments into his movies and make them work. But even for him, this is a doozy – and I’m hard-pressed to explain why it doesn’t bother me. It should, shouldn’t it? I should at least feel – shouldn’t I? – that the Academy should have snubbed the script at Oscar time, withholding a nomination as penalty for such a blatant crime against history.

I mean, it’s not like the film does anything “intelligent” with this re-write of the facts – like use it as a springboard to create an alternative history, such as many sci-fi stories do. No, it simply uses it as an action climax – deciding that the defeat of the Nazis deserves a bigger bang for the modern cineplex crowd. Makes you wonder how a “Die Hard” film where John McClane single-handedly averts the 9/11 terrorist attacks would play. Or another World War II thriller where daring undercover American operatives kidnap Emperor Hirohito and ransom him for Japan’s surrender – thus ending the conflict in the Pacific without need for America’s A-bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But hey, if we’re gonna re-write here, let’s re-write something that REALLY calls out for it. Tarantino himself would be the ideal candidate, in fact, to write and direct “The Passion of the Christ, Volume 2″. You know, the one where Jesus rises after three days to go on a bloody rampage against all those who set him up and sold him out? I mean, come on! – the actions of Uma Thurman’s Bride would be as nothing compared to the supernatural Wrath of God shit that Jesus Christ would have at his disposal to reign down (to say nothing of the six years of FX and CGI improvements that QT would have at HIS disposal to portray all of it). And it would finally give the Gospels the dramatic action finale they’ve been crying out for, for the last 2,000 years.

But perhaps I overstate. Maybe the reason “Inglourious Basterds” does not inspire (or warrant) outrage about its ending is that, even though Tarantino altered the facts, he didn’t alter the outcome. After all, he doesn’t make the Nazis WIN the war, does he? And he even takes care to set the main action of the story late in the conflict – close enough to the REAL end to make an audience member plausibly say “Ok, the Nazis are just a matter of months from losing anyway — this isn’t a SERIOUS breach of history . . . ah, what the hell, let’s just give it to him. OK, in Quentin’s universe this is how the war ended – I can live with that.”

In which case, here are a few alterations of my own I’d like to suggest to any would-be makers of historical epics. They wouldn’t change anything drastically – just simply allow the documented outcomes to “play” a little better, movie-wise:

* “Washington’s Last Stand” – This could be an exciting, emotionally stirring movie about George Washington coming out of retirement to lead American forces against the British in the War of 1812. True, Washington had actually been dead for thirteen years at the time, but that shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way of a surefire hit narrative. Think of it: Washington in his old age, having already served his country nobly as warrior, statesman and president, is roused out of the civilian comfort he has so justly earned by yet another British invasion. Reluctantly, but with grim determination, he laces his boots up one last time and repels the limey hordes once again, dying gloriously on the field of battle. Not a dry eye in the house – guaranteed!

* “Inglourious Coloreds” – We all know (don’t we?) that the South was eventually brought to its knees in the Civil War by the scorched earth campaign of General Tecumseh Sherman – his famous “March To the Sea” (from Atlanta to Savannah, Georgia) destroyed all Southern property in its wake. It was a savage, bloody campaign which applied the concept of “total war” for perhaps the first time in American military history. And wouldn’t it make a cool movie for it to instead be waged by an all-BLACK regiment of soldiers? We know – if not from history, then certainly from the movie “Glory” – that such regiments existed by the end of the conflict. Why not set it up so that the powers that be decide to set one loose to wreak maximum carnage: The South laid waste by the very people it had been enslaving! “I want me some Confederate scalps!” I can practically hear Brad Pitt exclaiming to his charges, as the defiant General Sherman himself. Throw in Samuel Jackson as well as a cool posse of rappers-turned-thespians as the soldiers and you’ve got yourself a crossover hit of massive proportions.

* “Reagan’s Heroes” – No one’s ever made a movie about the end of the Cold War – and no one ever will. Know why? There’s nothing sexy about it. No final climactic event to really send things out with a bang and get audiences cheering. Oh sure, there’s the Berlin Wall coming down – but then, America didn’t really have anything to do with that. Or did we? Suppose we’d actually sent in a crack team of covert operatives – a secret team recruited by Ronald Reagan himself before he left office – to slip in behind East German lines, act as agitators, and get the populace riled up enough to push for a final breakthrough. Sounds plausible to me. Or at least entertaining.

As you can see, history truly has so many wonderful stories for filmmakers to tell. And these increase exponentially if they allow themselves the freedom of not being constrained by the facts. Thanks again, Quentin for showing us the way!

INTO THE DAHKNESS

Edge of Darkness

***1/2

Review by Paul Preston

I wouldn’t call myself a Mel Gibson apologist. That would presume I’m OK with the fanaticism that seems to follow his real life. But, artistically, I’m a HUGE fan. Naturally, I wish there wasn’t a “Bird on a Wire” or “Maverick” mucking up his imdb.com profile, but his career high-points include some GREAT acting that may get underappreciated.

For example, Gibson’s first great role was Martin Riggs, and a role he’ll probably be remembered for forever. “Lethal Weapon” was a huge hit, and a universally enjoyed movie, but where was the Oscar nomination? Gibson probed some DARK areas of the heart and soul to create a true action movie original. I thought the award praise should definitely have accompanied the box office love.

Riggs’ passionate drive was so strong and compelling, Gibson’s best work usually involved that truthful exploration of the dark side. Gibson’s “Hamlet” was obsessed and tragic, easily up to acting alongside stalwarts like Alan Bates and Paul Scofield. Perhaps his performance was undervalued because the whole film underachieved as it cut Shakespeare to pieces.

Gibson’s performance in “Signs” was heartbreaking, in an otherwise flawed sci-fi film. When his character, Rev. Graham Hess, held the last conversation he would ever have with his wife, who was pinned to a tree by a car, Mel MADE that scene. It was a tall order in the script, and he delivered big-time. But in a dopey alien movie, perhaps Mel’s acting took a back seat as far as accolades are concerned.

Perhaps the most oft-occuring theme in Mel Gibson movies is the man who’s had something taken from him, and the nasty revenge story that follows. This played out beautifully in “Braveheart”, “Ransom”, “Payback”, “The Patriot” and now in “Edge of Darkness”. The intensity Mel brings to these roles is often-times the movie’s greatest asset (certainly the case with “Payback”, and probably not so much with “Braveheart”, which succeeded on so many levels, it’s tough to pick a ‘greatest asset’!).

In “Edge of Darkness”, Mel plays Thomas Craven, a police officer whose daughter is murdered, and you KNOW he’s gonna kill everybody who gets in his way until he finds out who did it! Do you need anything more to see this movie? Why’d you see “Ransom”? They kidnapped his son. Why’d you see “The Patriot”? They killed his son. It’s a shame that Gibson’s off-screen extremism kept people from coming out in those same droves to see “Edge of Darkness”, because the ride was just as intense and Mel was in his element.

Officer Craven’s daughter is offed VERY early on in “Edge of Darkness”, dispatched quickly and non-cinematically. Director Martin Campbell (“Casino Royale”) wastes no time putting Mel on the revenge trail. Peeling back layer after layer of those behind his daughter’s death, Craven reveals a deep conspiracy that is topical and socially relevant, further building hate for those responsible.

Is it wicked cathartic to watch Boston’s Finest Thomas Craven settle the score? HELL YES! And it’s also an involving and complex police story. The fun of the movie (and it is fun, although it’s very dark) is determining where the story will go next. Craven runs into bent politicians, questionable allies and a very unique character in Jedburgh, a government operative played by Ray Winstone. Craven and Jedburgh’s conversations are razor-sharp and Jedburgh has some of the best lines of the film. The script was written by Andrew Bovell and Oscar-winner William Monahan (“The Departed”). Monahan has a gift for putting realistic, intelligent dialogue in the mouths of his characters that apparently have a Boston dialect.

It’s difficult to go on about this film without giving away key elements of the plot, but it unfolds nicely, as we learn what Craven learns, as he learns it. There is a great supporting cast, too, including the great Danny Huston, Jay O. Sanders and Denis O’Hare. If you don’t know these actors by name, “Edge of Darkness” is a great way to get introduced.

Martin Campbell is one of the quietest high-quality action directors in the business today. His resume includes “The Mask of Zorro”, “Goldeneye” and “Casino Royale”. There are bumps in the road, but never has he cheesed it up like Michael Bay or Tony Scott, keeping his films decidedly adult. That’s very much on display here and very much refreshing. Next up for him is “Green Lantern”, and I feel the franchise is in good hands. It doesn’t hurt that Campbell was involved with the original BBC miniseries that “Edge of Darkness” is based on.

Are there flaws? Sure. There isn’t a whole lot of humor, some “villains” are pretty easily spotted. But overall, this is a major return for Mel Gibson to above-the-title acting. I hope this leads to non-January releases that get people in the theater to see one of the best, back in the business.

Directed by: Martin Campbell
Release Date: January 29, 2010
Run Time: 117 Minutes
Country: USA/UK
Rated: R
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

NOT DRAGGIN’ AT ALL

How to Train Your Dragon

***

Review by Paul Preston

Welcome, DreamWorks Animation. I know, they’ve been at it for close to ten years now, but “How To Train Your Dragon” is the first movie I’ve seen from them that fires on all cylinders. In close to ten years of films, DreamWorks has made a name as the little brother to Pixar, finding major box office, but not always finding respect (unlike Pixar, they’ve had some projects that didn’t sweep the country – “Bee Movie”, “Over the Hedge”). It seems they always went more for laughs with “Shark Tale” and “Madagascar”, but they show that with a little heart, their movies are capable of being a more complete entertainment.

“Dragon” is about a young Viking named Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), whose village is routinely attacked by dragons, who take the resident’s sheep and livestock. Dragons are the sworn enemy of the Vikings, who vow to kill as many of them as possible. Killing a dragon is a badge of honor, but Hiccup doesn’t share this bloodlust, much to his father’s chagrin. Once Hiccup befriends a dragon, the traditions of the village are challenged. There are familiar elements here, most notably “Beauty and the Beast”, with themes of misunderstanding and befriending an enemy of the town, plus Hiccup fancies himself an inventor, much like Belle’s father, but it’s scattered with enough original choices to make it fresh on most fronts.

“How to Train Your Dragon” is based on a book, which might be another reason for the film being the first I’ve seen from DreamWorks Animation that really has heart (I know “Shrek” was a novel, but that movie was all about snarkiness). I rooted for Hiccup, and the directors (Dean Debois & Chris Sanders) do a good job of keep the danger very real for our heroes so that it never feels trite. Sure, it’s a fantasy world, but if the characters don’t invest in it, why should I? “Dragon”’s characters are alive in their world, in humorous, dramatic and exciting moments, never skimping on one to serve the other.

I’m with nearly everyone else I talk to – on board the “done with 3-D already” train. But “How to Train Your Dragon”’s digital 3-D projection was quite excellent. As with most other 3-D films lately, in my peripheral vision, on the corners of the screen (also the outer edge of the glasses), there was some color distortion and blurriness. Small, inconsequential, and not entirely distracting sections of the screen, mind you, but is there something preventing 3-D glasses from being giant, bug-eyed glasses like the ones Elton John used to wear in the seventies? This way, NO part of our vision gets away from the effect. I think the result would be more immersive. Then you could throw in a boa, and it’s a party.

Gerard Butler appears in his fortieth movie in the past year, here voicing Hiccup’s father Stoick. Craig Ferguson is great as Gobber, the Viking who’s in charge of training the young dragon fighters. This brings up a weird, ongoing thing. For some reason it works that these Scottish actors are convincing playing Norse Vikings. It plays into the ongoing trend that if you need foreigners…hire the British!! They don’t even need to change their dialect! Anthony Hopkins just got hired to play Viking Odin in “Thor”, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes just chewed up the set of “Clash of the Titans”. It’s especially weird ‘cause it works. Foreign = British. So be it.

The animation here is also the best I’ve seen from DreamWorks. The textures and colors are vibrant. The dragons are just colorful and decorated enough to be imposing without being entirely scary – until the end, when an expertly imagined action scene introduces a truly intimidating and foreboding dragon. I think the crisp, digital 3D I saw contributed to the impressive you-could-touch-‘em surfaces of the world of the film.

The film surprises with big laughs as well as poignant moments, including real consequences for the big, impressive action sequence towards the end. Baruchel provides just the right voice for Hiccup, a young hero worth following for 98 minutes. I don’t think there’s anyone live-action under twenty who I’d want to watch for 98 minutes. So, job well done.

Directed by: Dean Debois & Chris Sanders
Release Date: March 26, 2010
Run Time: 98 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG
Distributor: DreamWorks Animation

OFFICIAL TRAILER

I liked the Book, but the Movie Was Better

By The Lazy Film Critic

One of the most tired arguments as to why someone didn’t like a movie is to say, “The book was better.” I have never understood this argument. I mean that literally; I do not understand what this argument even means.

A movie is a story communicated through visuals and audio, and with the exception of the occasional Mel Gibson indulgence, requires little to no reading. A book is a story which is entirely dependent on reading (if you don’t count those cheaters who listen to audio books). Comparing the two media is like saying, “I liked the painting but the opera was better.” It’s like comparing apples and an heirloom pendant of an orange.

Full disclosure: I don’t read fiction because I don’t like reading fiction. I prefer to get my fiction in the form of movies. That being said, the argument still holds because the premise underlying the statement “The book was better” is that somehow the two media are competing to best communicate a story. They’re not in competition any more than a Hemingway book can take the place of actually going to the sea.

Movies and books both communicate a story but that’s as far as the comparison goes. Yes, a book is better at giving you a richer description of the psychological motivations of a character. Yes, you’re a genius if you can read a Tom Clancy book versus the rest of us morons who prefer listening to Sean Connery’s Scottish-Russian accent. But movies aren’t trying to be a book. If they were, you would just have frame after frame of words and you wouldn’t have to mess around with all that unnecessary artistic direction, music score, set design, cinematography and editing which makes movie-making so cumbersome.

I love the movie “The Silence of the Lambs”. It was so good that I actually read the book afterward. But while I was reading the book I wasn’t criticizing it for not being visual enough (although a “Silence of the Lambs” picture book might be a fun addition to any family’s book shelf).

The only reason people like saying “The book was better” is because they want the pat on the back that they read. What strikes me as funny about that though is that people are usually bragging about a book like “Twilight” or “Harry Potter”, not exactly modern equivalents to “Finnegan’s Wake”.

So, okay book-readers, here’s your official pat on the back from all of us movie lovers. Now here’s a much harder whack on your head to get you to snap out of your snobbery and realize that movies don’t want to be books any more than books want to be movies.

SEX. CHECK. DRUGS. CHECK. ROCK ‘N’ ROLL. CHECK.

The Runaways

***

Review by Joel Frost

The most striking thing about “The Runaways”, Floria Sigismondi’s film about the all-girl rock group of the same name, is that even as it navigates its way through a certain amount of standard rock-biopic fare, it is telling quite a unique story. A band in its early stages, a meteoric rise, the sex, the drugs, the rock and roll, the pissing on the guitars of the asshole headlining band while they’re on-stage. It’s all there, of course. What makes the film different, and what made The Runaways, themselves, unique is not exactly what they were doing, but that they were doing it at all. The Runaways were the first commercially successful all-girl hard rock band… one of the first all-girl rock bands at all… and try as hard as they could to fuck it all up with their wild and intoxicated judgement, they were actually pioneers. Rock and roll is still a bit of a boy’s club, but in 1975 it was almost exclusively so. Girls didn’t play electric guitars, as Joan Jett’s guitar teacher explained to her, as he tried to teach her “On Top of Old Smokey.” With assistance from a producer and a lot of grrl power, The Runaways helped turn that all around.

At the beginning of “The Runaways”, we meet Cherie Currie (Dakota Fanning), just as she gets her period for the first time. While it seems a little late for that in relation to Cherie’s age (15), it’s a poignant moment for the film… she’s not a girl anymore. She’s growing up fast, in the ways that an alcoholic/often absent Father and a distant, soon-to-leave-altogether Mother help spur along. She and her twin sister Marie rely on each other for support, and Cherie dreams of stardom.

Meanwhile, Joan Jett (Kristin Stewart) is in the midst of her own, somewhat similar struggle. She’s got no twin sister to rely on (or to rely on her), but she’s also adrift in the world of the 1970’s teenage girl with no parents to speak of. Her spirit and drive lead her to Kim Fowley (Michael Shannon), a record producer who she recognizes. He’s a no-bullshit extrovert who takes a shine to Joan and soon he’s got her and drummer Sandy West rehearsing together with a promise of rock stardom. He finds Cherie in a sweaty and dirty rock club in her Bowie make-up and pulls her on-board. Robin (Alia Shawkat) and Lita Ford (Scout Taylor-Compton) are there to round out the line-up. Fowley directs, cajoles and insists that the girls understand and take seriously what they’re involved in. The band begins to take shape, fashioned by their drive and talent, Fowley’s direction, and the inevitable struggle against a hostile reception.

It’s in this that we understand what made The Runaways a good rock band, beyond a gimmick. Their edge is sharpened on the hard stone of the establishment of popular music. There’s irony here, of course, and the girls seem to know it, all while Fowley refuses to allow them to fall victim to it. Rock and roll was born from rebellion and was meant to be the voice of youth. The musical sexuality of teenagers. Yet, these teenagers must run up against the same latent (and sometimes overt) sexism that rock and roll, at its soul, challenges. It’s your parents who don’t want girls to rock, and your parents have no place in rock and roll. The Runaways were helping to carve out and define the freedom of rock music, into an avenue that it somehow hadn’t yet truly explored. It makes perfect sense while being utterly shocking: up until this band came along, rock had little room for girls, unless those girls were screaming about the boys.

It’s no shame on the members of The Runaways that they were helped along by a male producer. They were kids, after all… something the film allows them to be. The vibrating freedom of the youth and sexuality of these girls is palpable, scene to scene. The film is not exploitive with this, but it does not shy away, and that is very important. To attempt to neuter or clean up their history would have been a crime and disservice. It’s perhaps easier to imagine, via the prism of our moralizing culture of today, that the sexuality of 15-17 year-old girls is at all ignorable in the context of a story like this. It’s not. The camera works mainly in close shots, giving us a hazy yet unflinching view of who these people are as they try to create and have some control over their world(s). Their sexual drive is a powerful force, and it drove their music, but it in the hostile, condescending world they were forging through, at their young ages, it wasn’t easy to find satisfaction. The film carefully addresses the ways that these girls looked to each other for assistance in that area, without purporting a frat-boys fantasy of a sapphic orgy. Joan is depicted as the caretaker of the band, and in that capacity she serves as a guide for their sexuality as well.

Dakota Fanning couldn’t have found a better role to cross over from child-star to ingenue. She manages disaffection without being boring. She gives us vulnerability without pity. Her scene in a supermarket, wearing an outfit fit for a rock-star onstage, drunk and wavering while buying two onions and a bottle of vodka, is the heart of the film. The metaphor is clear and palpable: young girl, trying to do things her way in the established world, and of course stumbling along a bit. The supermarket’s lights wash her out and expose her as much as the stage lights make her look like a Goddess. The shaft of the vodka bottle with the two round onions seems an intentionally clumsy symbol of masculine oppression.

Michael Shannon has been systematically carving a place for himself in Hollywood as an eccentric. He was a creepy revelation as the human catalyst in “Revolutionary Road”, and he serves a similar purpose, with a much different character, in this film.

It’s Kristin Stewart, though, who anchors the film with her portrayal of Joan Jett. her physical and vocal work is on display in affecting Joan’s posture, attitude and soul. Apparently Joan Jett was played a version of one of the Runaways’ songs that Kristin had re-recorded the vocals for and Joan did not recognize that it was Kristin’s voice, thinking it was her own. That’s the kind of inhabiting that Ms. Stewart takes on in this film. Her growl seems just right.

The growl of this film in general is close to just right. The script isn’t perfect, perhaps… some parts a touch awkward or stilted. But what “The Runaways” loses in precision, it makes up for in emotion… like a lot of good rock and roll. There are some very powerful moments in the film, culminating in Joan and Cherie’s encounter at the end of it. At that point, with the short history of The Runaways over, what passes between the two characters is riveting. The sense is that these two women have experienced something together that no film could ever really explain. “The Runaways” makes a thumping, feedback-heavy, howling effort to do so and it’s a whole lot of fun watching it try.

Directed by: Floria Sigismondi
Release Date: April 9, 2010
Run Time: 109 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: River Road Entertainment

OFFICIAL TRAILER

CRYSTAL CLEAR

That’s Debatable – When Harry Met Sally

Film Debate by Paul Preston & Steven Lewis

PAUL: Steve, it’s come to my attention that when I said in the “To & From: Julie & Julia” video that “When Harry Met Sally” is just a lazy combination of “Annie Hall” and “Manhattan”, you TOOK UMBRAGE, correct?!

STEVE: Well, since “When Harry Met Sally” is one of my favorite romantic comedies, and since I generally find Woody Allen’s films to be wildly overrated – particularly the two you mentioned – yes, it’s fair to say that your comment didn’t quite sit well with me. It’s not like I didn’t realize, even at the time of its release, that “Harry/Sally” shared certain stylistic traits with some of the Woodman’s more prominent films (in particular the all-standards soundtrack, the picture-postcard shots of New York City, and the ending montage of previous scenes from the movie).

But so what? You could just as easily dismiss “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” as an “Annie Hall” ripoff because the lead character speaks directly to the camera. Ultimately, any film deserves to be judged not by whether or not it reminds you of other movies, but on how well it maps out and achieves its own particular tone, approach and intent. And I’d say “When Harry Met Sally” does a fine job on all counts.

PAUL: Steve, you ignorant slut. It’s not that “When Harry Met Sally” shares sylistic traits with Woody, it’s that it shares the entire “particular tone” you say it individually maps out. I’ll admit, I laughed a lot at “When Harry Met Sally”, there are loads of good jokes, and not just ones that are “jokey”, but good relationship stuff and the classic “I’ll have what she’s having” line. It spoke to me, too, ’cause it was a 1980s movie, and that was the era in which I grew up.

But it was AFTERWARDS that I saw “Annie Hall” and “Manhattan” (a late bloomer), and was surprised at how much of what “Harry/Sally” accomplished had been done in the ’70s. Taints the memory a little. Heh-heh….taint. But now that you mention it, did “Ferris Bueller” rip off “Annie Hall”‘s style, too

STEVE: Paul, really! “You ignorant slut”? I laughed, until I realized that comedic territory had aready been mined back in the ’70s by Dan Aykroyd on ‘Saturday Night Live’. What a ripoff artist you are! . . . But seriously now, to get down to cases: you say Woody’s movies already scoped out Harry and Sally’s territory years earlier. I’d say not. First of all, Woody’s films are told relentlessly from HIS CHARACTER’S POINT OF VIEW. This is a crucial difference. It makes the films, particularly “Annie Hall”, stories not of a relationship per se, but rather of one man’s reminiscences of a relationship (or relationships – several are touched on) and his attempt to draw meanings and conclusions about his life based thereon.

By contrast, Rob Reiner and Nora Ephron are almost schematic about ping-ponging back and forth between the Harry and Sally characters, making sure the film is about each equally. Secondly, Harry and Sally populate a landscape located squarely within standard rom-com convention: i.e. this is a story about how boy gets girl (or vice versa, as your sensibilities dictate). The success of the film comes from the way it adheres to, yet also rings changes upon, that fundamental convention. Woody’s films are much more interested in examining FAILED relationships, and so already exist outside of standard formula. A more apt comparison would actually be to John Cusack’s “High Fidelity” or this year’s “(500) Days of Summer” (both wonderful films, by the way). So there’s a complete difference of INTENT between the films we’re talking about – and that’s before we even get to the jokes!

PAUL: Ah, gotcha. Instead of saying “You ignorant slut”, I should’ve maybe thought of my own idea and forged out my own comedy path instead of re-treading what was done in the ’70s. That’s a great idea. So noted. I’ll easily give you the difference in point of view. Woody’s certainly more narcissistic than most filmmakers, and his films show it, making them unique.

So, perhaps I need to refine my argument that if Reiner and Ephron are starting from a different INTENT (and I do like the old couples reflecting on their SUCCESSFUL relationships), why re-tread the tone as a way to follow-through with the intent? I know “When Harry Met Sally” is the gold standard for recent romantic comedies, but I think I can safely now say that I go more for the films that don’t wear the genre on their sleeve, like “There’s Something About Mary”, which is so goddamn funny you forget it’s really a boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-chance-to-get-girl, boy-spends-YEARS-pursuing-girl romance. Or “Groundhog Day”, which mined a concept for laughs, but quickly used it expand a relationship. It’s just a shame that the ‘gold standard’ is populated with some contrivances.

STEVE: So let me get this straight: you identify Woody Allen’s films as displaying true quality, yet somehow disparage “When Harry Met Sally” for seeking to emulate that quality? Sounds like your argument is along the lines of “Since ‘WHMS’ is just a dumb romantic comedy, I expect it to well and truly BE dumb! Why introduce wit and sophistication into a genre that gets by just fine on dopey physical schtick, wacky plot contrivances, and overly calculated three hanky emotional moments?” What I love about “WHMS” is how it eschews all those standard rom-com devices and manipulations; instead, it utilizes beautifully crafted scenes and dialogue to offer pithy, hilarious takes on the male-female condition. And its development of friendship transforming into romance is still a damn sight more mature than 9/10ths of the movies following in its wake (for which it’s supposedly the “gold standard”).

Now, I could go on from here to detail the ways in which I feel the movie’s approach to dialogue and situation is very different from Woody Allen’s (his characters grope and stumble for words, whereas the conversations between Harry, Sally and their friends flow with the confident rapidity of a 20th century Shaw or Oscar Wilde – if anything, their rhythms are closer to “Seinfeld” than to Woody Allen), but I feel that’s somehow no longer even the argument. Your statement of preference for romantic comedies that “don’t wear their genre on their sleeve” leads me to suspect that your REAL problem with “Harry Met Sally” is that it’s too rich and sophisticated to be in the genre ghetto it has consigned itself to. That is, if the movie was going to be so adult and clever and mature anyway, then why didn’t it just go the extra mile and make itself into something more idiosyncratic and personal LIKE Woody’s movies are, instead of staying tied to its more streamlined, conventional approach. Is that what I hear you saying?

PAUL: That is definitely NOT what you hear me saying. I think I’ve made the disappointment I have over “WHMS” becoming too much like ANYTHING else quite clear. And what are the kids saying nowadays anyway? “WHMS” or “Harry/Sally”? Again, I’ll say that I like the film, but too much of it was verbatimly (yes, I made that word up) familiar, specifically pulling montages from two Woody Allen films, including the ending! When “Casablanca” came out, if it ended with the Rosebud scene from “Citizen Kane”, it would’ve lessened the movie, no?

It’s the very definition of a genre gold standard to stand above everything else IN the genre, and indeed many have come in the wake of “H/S” and failed to maintain “W/H/M/S”‘s quality. But I certainly don’t praise the film as highly as you. Over the course of this argument, you’ve gone from liking the movie to comparing Nora Ephron to Oscar Wilde. Hmmm….that’s debatable.

Directed by: Rob Reiner
Country: USA
Distributor: Castle Rock Entertainment

OFFICIAL TRAILER