Author Archives: Keith Garlington

Arkansas Cinema Society, Filmland 2018, and Growing a Local Film Culture

by

14

ACS banner

My mind was racing as I walked to my car under the glimmering street lamps of Little Rock’s cozy River Market. It was a late Thursday evening and I had just left a screening of 1998’s “The Newton Boys” followed by a Q&A featuring acclaimed filmmakers Jeff Nichols and Richard Linklater. Needless to say that’s a pretty big deal for any fan of cinema. At the same time I kept thinking of how bigger it was for my home state of Arkansas and its growing movie culture.

The screening marked the start of Filmland, a four-day event put together by Arkansas Cinema Society. Filmland would feature a day set aside for Arkansas-made movies complete with Q&As with local filmmakers. Other days featured a comedy panel, a documentary screening, and a closing night sneak preview of the upcoming historical drama “Operation Finale”. In addition to Linklater, ACS brought in Will Forte, Mary Steenburgen, David and Christina Arquette, and a host of other writers, directors and producers.

Arkansas Cinema Society’s inaugural event was just last August but in a short one year’s time the organization has seen tremendous growth particularly in local sponsorships and in exposure. This is great news for local filmmakers and cinephiles. Filmland built upon last year’s success and expanded into several intriguing areas. But ACS isn’t just about annual events. Throughout the past year they have featured outdoor screenings, a writing seminar, the introduction of their Homegrown Film Series, and many other activities.

Cinema

The driving force behind ACS is Jeff Nichols. With five stellar feature film credits serving as both writer and director, Nichols has earned the reputation as one of America’s best cinematic voices. Yet his love for his hometown and his desire to see an ever-growing Arkansas film community has driven him to use his resources and connections to bring quality films and talents to Arkansas. His goal for the ACS – to educate, encourage and inspire both filmmakers and film lovers from the Natural State.

But Nichols couldn’t do this alone. Co-founder Kathryn Tucker tirelessly works to make the local events happen and she is always quick to thank her incredible team. Much of the preparing, promoting and running of the events fall in their laps and observing their dedication and enthusiasm is infectious. ACS simply couldn’t function without them. As Tucker herself has stated, “It takes an army.”

The true beneficiaries of all the hard work and effort are us – the Arkansas film fans. Whether we aspire to make movies, write about them, or simply love the art form, Arkansas Cinema Society has given many of us a seat on the inside where the filmmaking process is opened up and made alive. Not only is it enlightening, but it offers opportunities for our love of cinema to be nurtured and expanded. That has certainly been the case for me whether it’s seeing good movies, listening to the artists who made them, or watching those hard at work to make the events happen.

As I was getting closer to my car a big smile spread across my face. I had just watched a movie with a theater full of fellow movie lovers. I had just listened to, met and had a photo with 5-time Academy Award nominee Richard Linklater. That same photo was photobombed by one of my favorite working filmmakers Jeff Nichols, a proud and unashamed Arkansas guy. It was truly a great night and it was only day one! Thanks ACS.

LINK2peg

BlindSpot Review: “The Producers”

by

18

PRODUCERS POSTER

Mel Brooks burst onto the filmmaking scene in 1967 with his raucous satirical comedy “The Producers”. It was his big screen debut as writer and director. After a wild variety of initial reactions, “The Producers” would eventually earn Brooks an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Not a bad way to start your moviemaking career.

“The Producers” started as a joke, moved to a play and ended up a movie. Initially it was a tough sell for Brooks who had a difficult time finding backers amused by his melding of Hitler and a musical. Once funded Brooks was given $1 million and 40 days to finish his movie. He pulled it off but not without some bumps along the way which mainly stemmed from Brooks’ inexperience as a director. After release initial reviews were all over the map including some that ripped the film to shreds. Yet it still won an Oscar and over time “The Producers” has gained a much more positive following.

PROD1

As nutty as they are, the film’s two lead characters are based on actual real-life inspiration. Washed-up Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) stays afloat by duping wealthy elderly women into supporting his “next big production”. But with his well running dry, he solicits the help of a neurotic and gullible accountant Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder). The two concoct a wacky plan to make the worst play possible. Max will oversell the shares, Leo will doctor the books, the play will bomb, and the swindled money will be theirs. What could go wrong?

The desperate and dimwitted duo begin by seeking out the worst possible script. They find it in “Springtime for Hitler”, a musical love letter to the Führer sincerely written by a loony ex-Nazi (played by Kenneth Mars). Next they hire a notoriously bad director Roger De Bris (Christopher Hewett) who has a long history of Broadway flops. Finally the lead role of Hitler is given to Lorenzo Saint DuBois, a trippy hippie who fittingly goes by L.S.D. All the pieces are in place for a sure-fire disaster.

PROD2

Brooks takes this goofy band of misfits through the play’s production and eventually opening night. The entire concept screams absurdity and one of the great things about “The Producers” is that it can be delightfully tasteless in its humor. Not crass or vulgar, but unashamedly politically incorrect. It’s almost prodding people to be outraged while at the same time ridiculing the very thing which stirs them up. Lines like “We’re marching to a faster pace. Look out, here comes the master race.” and “Don’t be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the Nazi Party!” only touches the surface. But it’s all done in such a preposterous fashion it’s impossible not to laugh out loud.

And you can’t say enough about the comic chemistry between Mostel and Wilder. In some scenes Brooks takes off their leashes and lets them run wild. There are moments where it can be a bit much (and a bit loud), yet at the same time it’s fascinating to watch – the deviously deceptive Mostel and always nervous Wilder bouncing their lines off each other. Most important it’s really funny and it serves as a nice introduction to the brand of zaniness Mel Brooks would share over the three decades that would follow.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4-stars

REVIEW: “The Legacy of a Whitetail Deer Hunter”

by

6

Deerposter

In one very specific way I felt a lot like Josh Brolin’s Buck Ferguson. Where he was looking for the elusive monster whitetail deep in the Appalachians, I was looking for the untapped potential in his movie. I looked everywhere, waited patiently, and after 83 minutes it never came. Well, not completely.

As that bad metaphor falls apart in your mind, let me put it a bit clearer. “The Legacy of a Whitetail Deer Hunter” has so much potential. Pieces are there for a rib-splitting indie classic (and that’s no overstatement). Unfortunately it never quite gets out of first gear. It’s also trapped in a swirling vortex of ideas and identities. Is it a full-blown comedy? Is it a moving character study? Is it a coming-of-age story? A movie can certainly be all of the above, but central to its success is that they work in harmony, at least in some capacity. That just isn’t the case at all here.

Deer1

The architects are Jody Hill and Danny McBride of HBO’s “Eastbound & Down” fame. They co-write the script along with John Carcieri, Hill directs, and McBride plays a supporting role. Fans may have a good idea of what to expect, but as someone with little connection to their collaborations, they weren’t the biggest draw for me. Instead it was Josh Brolin and his seemingly perfect fit as Buck Ferguson, a whitetail enthusiast who makes VHS quality deer hunting videos for a living (believe it or not, for a time those things were fairly popular).

Fresh off of a divorce Buck envisions a whitetail deer hunt as an opportunity to mend his relationship with his 12-year-old son Jaden (Montana Jordan). For Buck, killing your first Whitetail is like a rite of passage and he has grown deeply concerned that if his son doesn’t “take to it now he might not ever”. With his loyal cameraman Don (McBride) in tow, the three venture deep into the beautiful Appalachian Mountains in search of what Buck calls the monster “non-typical” (for the uninitiated that mean a huge whitetail deer).

The problem is Jaden has no real interest in deer hunting or being in the woods with his father. He’s much more into Wi-Fi signals, Panini, and checking in with his girlfriend Caroline back home. This not only stymies Buck’s hopes of bonding, but also his plans to shoot a father-and-son episode for his “Buck Fever” series. So again I mention the pieces are here for a ‘good ol’ boy’ southern-fried comedy.

DEER2

Unfortunately “Whitetail” is only an occasionally funny satire. I kind of see what Hill and McBride are shooting for (no pun intended), but it’s never silly enough, never thoughtful enough, or even clever enough to land with much conviction. And the character treatments aren’t much better. Take McBride’s wildly inconsistent Don character. One minute he is a loyal and sympathetic sidekick only to act disgusting two scenes later. I’m sure giving a 12-year-old drags off his cigarette and showing him pornographic Polaroids will be funny for some. I found it to be jarring both with the tone of movie and the character himself. Young Montana Jordan fares a little better although he is never as funny as the movie wants him to be.

Thankfully we get Josh Brolin, so superbly cast to play this ‘type’. Without a hint of parody and a ton of sincerity, Brolin is firm enough in his conviction to make Buck easily the movie’s funniest character. There is no winking at the camera, only commitment which is exactly what the character needs. He’s perfectly positioned for an off-the-rails wacky comedy but Hill never really goes for it. Ultimately Brolin can’t save the movie from spinning its wheels and feeling like a terribly missed opportunity. Not a horrible film, but a needlessly bland one.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

2-5-stars

REVIEW: “Ready Player One”

by

24

ReadyPoster

In “Ready Player One” the world has become a pretty crummy place. Energy shortages, economic stagnation, and overpopulation has turned many of the world’s cities into slums. Aside from widespread poverty it has also resulted in cases of social unrest (my personal favorite being ‘The Bandwith Riots’).

One of the stricken cities is Columbus, Ohio. Orphaned 18-year-old Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) lives with his Aunt Alice (Susan Lynch) in a poor neighborhood known as The Stacks. Like everyone else, Wade escapes the harshness of life through the OASIS, a massive virtual reality playground of interconnected worlds. It was the brainchild of sheepishly eccentric James Halliday (the always wonderful Mark Rylance) who posthumously reveals that an Easter Egg is hidden deep within the OASIS. Whoever finds the virtual three keys can unlock the Egg and gain full control of Halliday’s fortune and the OASIS.

Ready1

These are the worlds director Steven Spielberg plays in – both real and virtual. It was first conceived through the creative mind of Earnest Cline whose award-winning 2011 novel has been a phenomenon in itself. Cline joins writer Zak Penn in adapting his story to the screen and Spielberg takes it and runs. The CGI is as endless as the opening narration but it does allow Spielberg to do some pretty crazy things. Look no further than an homage to “The Shining” which is nothing short of fabulous. But by the third act CGI fatigue had set in.

Wade, an unabashed Halliday enthusiast, begins scouting for clues within the OASIS. His hunt for the first key leads to an elaborate vehicle race through virtual Manhattan. It’s an extraordinary sequence featuring Bigfoot (the monster truck, not Sasquatch), the 1933 King Kong, Jurassic Park’s T-Rex, and a DeLorean time machine for starters. Wade encounters and quickly falls for fellow racer Art3mis (Olivia Cooke). The two reluctantly ‘clan up’ to find the keys and keep the Oasis out of the wrong hands.

Ben Mendelsohn provides the story’s antagonist, an evil corporate head who wants the OASIS for himself. Mendelsohn is a good actor who can do these kinds of roles in his sleep. But he feels a little off here. Maybe bland is a better word. I don’t think it’s Mendelsohn’s doing. It’s more of a script issue and indicative of the lack of depth we get in several of the supporting characters.

Ready2

The story delves into several obvious themes: the haves versus the have-nots, self-identity, etc. But it’s most effective as straight-up pop culture science fiction. It’s essentially a virtual treasure hunt where the characters are searching for three keys while I was hunting for as many culture references as I could find. And there are a ton of them. You could say “Ready Player One” is relentlessly nostalgic and that turns out to be a positive. There are moments when the nostalgia is all that keeps the film afloat.

It’s hard not to be impressed by the sheer volume of pop references scattered throughout the hefty 140 minute running time. The Iron Giant, Hello Kitty, Saturday Night Fever, Freddy Krueger, Mortal Kombat, even Buckaroo Banzai! I’m sure someone out there has compiled a list. For me that was the fun of “Ready Player One” and it’s what made the movie stand out. It’s threaded throughout the story just enough to keep me interested. But if you happen to look past the nostalgia for something more, you may have a hard time finding it.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3-stars

REVIEW: “First Reformed”

by

22

First poster

“A world without hope”. It’s an idea wrestled with (in some form or another) by several characters and it’s one of many things on the mind of “First Reformed”, the latest film from writer-director Paul Schrader. This hopelessness feeds a lingering despair that is mirrored in the lives of several key players and is woven into the very fabric of this hypnotic exploration.

I realize that may not be the most upbeat way to introduce a movie, but when honestly dealing with themes of guilt, obsession, self-destruction, and despair the rays of light should be just as difficult for us to find as it is for the characters. And much like the ‘Crisis of Faith’ classics it follows, “First Reformed” is more interested in the spiritual and emotional struggle as well as the toll it takes on the human psyche.

Giving the performance of his career, Ethan Hawke plays Reverend Ernst Toller. He pastors a Dutch Colonial church is upstate New York known more as a historical landmark than a place of worship. First Reformed Church gets by thanks to its parent megachurch, ironically named Abundant Life. It’s ran with a businesslike prowess by Pastor Jeffers (Cedric Kyles, better known as Cedric the Entertainer). Jeffers preaches to packed houses and has big community connections. Toller sees more sightseers than parishioners and struggles in his alone time to reconnect with God.

first1

After a Sunday service Toller is approached by one of his few faithful church members, a pregnant woman named Mary (Amanda Seyfried). She implores him to meet with and counsel her husband Michael (Philip Ettinger) whose environmental fanaticism has driven him into a deep state of depression. Michael questions the “sanctioning” of bringing a child into a world he believes to be doomed and he poses a question that haunts Reverend Toller for the duration of the film, “Can God forgive us for what we’ve done to this world?”

Always a solid actor, Hawke dials back from the type of performances he’s known for. It’s a quiet and reserved portrayal allowing much to be told through expression and even appearance. Deep wrinkles etched in his brow held up by tired, forlorn eyes. You truly get a vision of a man who as Schrader himself put it “has lived a life”. In his case it hasn’t been an easy one. Harboring guilt from his past, unable to connect with God through prayer, and sickly due to a worsening stomach ailment. You can’t help but see shades of the struggling young priest from Robert Bresson’s “Diary of a Country Priest”.

The great French auteur wasn’t the only influence for Schrader. Hints of Carl Dreyer’s “Ordet”, Ingmar Bergman’s “Winter Light”, Tarkovsky, Ozu and Rossellini are everywhere. You even see him pulling from the same thematic toolkit he used in his acclaimed collaborations with Martin Scorsese (“Taxi Driver”, “Raging Bull”).

First2

The cracks in Reverend Toller’s psyche begin to show after an especially troubling tragedy. Add to that pressures from his church’s upcoming 250th anniversary reconsecration ceremony. During his daily duties Toller puts up a good front. But it’s at night, alone with his thoughts and journal, when we see the gravity of his dark inner turmoil. He’s a man mired in self-destruction and self-contradictions, yet at the same time he is yearning for the voice of God. He’s a good man who has lost his way.

The mood of the film is nailed down via Alexander Dynan’s stellar cinematography. The cold gray tones and deep shadows are only occasionally washed with color and those instances aren’t without meaning. There is also the stillness of Dynan’s camera offering very little motion at all. But in the rare scenes where the camera does move, you can be sure the movements are rich with purpose. Add to it the intensely effective score from Welsh composer Brian Williams, minimal yet undeniably foreboding.

In the 27th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel Jesus cries out “My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me?” It’s a cry of anguish from the Son of God calling out to His Father but hearing no response. To an obviously lesser degree, you can imagine the same cry burning in the heart of Reverend Toller. It all builds up to an ending that feels slightly out of tune with the rest of the film (or does it?). And while fascinating to watch and contemplate, I’m still not sure how I feel about it. At the same time I love how I’m still wrestling with it. And when complimented by a bracing career-best turn from Hawke, strong supporting work throughout, and an auteurist presentation, you have a film that I can’t help but love.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4-5-stars

Oscar’s New Category – Best Popular Movie???

by

23

IMG_1001-0

Yesterday the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences announced the addition of a brand new Oscar category. A mere five months removed from their lowest rated Oscar broadcast in history, the Academy voted in some fairly big changes to their big show. Tops on the list is a new award “for outstanding achievement in popular film.” Really?

First and foremost whether this matters to you will largely hinge upon whether you think the Oscars do. There seems to be a growing number of moviegoers who dismiss the Oscars as a frivolous and pointless entity of no inherent value. They aren’t entirely wrong and I say that as a fan of the Academy Awards. But if you do fall into that group, humor me just a tad.

Much of the early reaction to this has been negative and for good reason. While “eligibility requirements and other key details will be forthcoming“, it’s hard to see this as anything other than desperate pandering. The Academy folks are clearly feeling pressure to increase viewership but come on. Talk about ridiculously transparent.

Don’t get me wrong, I get the logic. There is a chance the broader, more easygoing movie audience will tune in if the big box office blockbusters they love are in the running for a statue (I kinda doubt it, but maybe). And if the blockbusters are there so will their A-list stars. They will be on television strolling down the red carpet and talking about their movies. I get all of that. But does it in any way make ‘Best Popular Film’ anything more than a token award?

In an attempt to possibly quell any negativity, the Academy came out a short time later and clarified that a movie could be nominated as both Best Popular Film and Best Picture. Well that could seemingly snuff out any potential suspense for the new category. Let’s say “Avengers 15” is the only film nominated in both. Since it would be the only ‘popular’ movie worthy of a Best Picture nomination, it’s petty obvious it should win the ‘Popular’ Oscar, right?

And what about the prestige of the Academy Awards? Sure, sometimes they miss the mark (the last two years have shown that), but in many eyes the Oscars have maintained a pretty high standard and stature. While not without their scars, it’s part of what makes the Oscars special. I’m not sure this kind of pandering helps that reputation.

And couldn’t the very existence of this category give Academy voters an out when it comes to these types of movies? Why give them the Best Picture consideration they deserve when you can toss them a bone here? It could make for some easy and not-so-veiled marginalization.

As you can probably tell I’m all in for the Academy giving more consideration to quality box office hits and they’ve done so in the past. But for every “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” and “Titanic” win you have multiple “The Dark Knight” and “Wonder Woman” snubs. I can’t see a scenario where a Best Popular Film category solves the issue. A little more Hollywood introspection, maybe. But this, nope.

My favorite movie of the year so far is “Mission: Impossible – Fallout”. As of right now do I believe it should be a Best Picture nominee? Absolutely. Would I be remotely excited if it was in the Best Popular Film category instead? Absolutely not. So I’m sorry Academy, your experiment doesn’t work on me. Then again I was already going to be watching, even without a new gimmick award.

What say you? I would love to hear your thoughts on Oscar’s new addition.