Movies - Fall 2007

1. Across The Universe (Julie Taymor)
2. The Darjeeling Illimited (Wes Anderson)
3. No Country for Old Men (Coen Bros.)
4. Margot at The Wedding (N. Kidman)
5. There Will Be Blood (PT Anderson)
6.

Interview with Hugo Alexandre (Notes on Cinema.com)

This is an inteview with Hugo Alexandre from the cinema-blog notesoncinema.com.

Ok. Your style of writing is very interesting to me. You seem to not want to call it ‘reviews’. What do you write then? How do you interpret it?
It’s pretty simple. I think you can find conventional reviews everywhere, and I wanted to write something that you could set apart. Something more personal. Something that speaks to what interests me about cinema. And I wanted to set myself apart from the kind of structured reading you’re used to from magazines or newspaper articles.
That’s why you use the blog-form?
I don’t think I use the blog-form. Yes, the site is formatted as a blog, but I think the writing is quite unrelated to regular film-blogging. Although I consider the writing ‘personal writing’, I try to not be too personal and digressive. You see a post, you know it concerns one film. I may talk about a different film and go in detail about it, but it always pertains to the original film. With that said, it’s only personal in the sense that it’s about very precise aspects of cinema that specifically interest me. With a regular review you have this sort of standard where the writer has to talk about the story, the cinematography, the acting, etc. Well I believe that sometimes the acting matters, sometimes it doesn’t. The same thing with the cinematography, and the story, etc. Put it like this: I try to write about what I think matters in the film. I always try to guess the intent of the people who made it and then judge it from there. Although sometimes my guesses are not the most popular!
So can you tell us what exactly interests you in a film?
Well like I said. I always try to guess the intent and then go from there. So if I write about a romantic comedy, I have to be aware as to why it was made. Most of the time, they are made simply to keep the finances of the studio consistent. Romantic comedies are often a sure-shot. The production values are low, and the revenues can be high. But if you watch closely, you can always tell where the studios think the hook is in a romantic comedy, and then you can see how they based the whole movie around it. Sometimes it’s on the strenght of the main actors. The viewing then becomes much more interesting because you can pick up on some of the choices they made and understand why they made them. Other times you have smart actors who make ‘popular’ movies. That’s interesting too because you can literally watch them manoeuver in waters you wouldn’t usually see them in. So it’s an adventure to see if they are lazy or if they are smart and try to outsmart everyone else. That really is the best acting school: watching good actors interact with bad actors, and bad stories.
Ok. But how do you watch an art-film then?
Most artfilms or ‘independant’ films as they’re called, are not very good. Most of the time the budget is very low, and since there’s less people working on the project, the production values are not as good. But I’m a little against the blanket term arthouse-film or indie-flick. Sundance to me is the same as any other studios. If you look at their movies, they follow a template that is Sundanc-ey you could say. After all, they are a TV channel, and TV relies on consistency, so they have to function in that way.

So when I watch an art-film, I always look for honesty. I assume that since it’s not a major studio releasing the film, there is more room for the director to be himself. Artfilms are like direct conversations between the director and the viewers. I like that. Some people in life you like to talk to. And I have talked with some great directors, through their movies obviously. Sometimes they are not great directors, they are merely good, but they are great people, and that shows through their cinema. That’s much better to me. I would rather talk to a great person, if he is a good director, than a great director who is an unpleasant person.

You seem to have wide-ranging taste. You review all kinds of movies, and seem to not have the ‘press bias’ that Hollywood is crap.
Some Hollywood is crap. But everybody makes mistakes. Some artfilms are crap too, mostly misunderstandings. To me, a movie, is a movie. You can find some art in everything. Even a romantic comedy with very simple production design, you can find ‘art’ which involves ‘risk’ and ‘commitment’, in the acting. A Micheal Bay film has some art too. He makes interesting choices when it comes to camera movements or simply the use of space in-frame. The thing with cinema is that a movie has so many layers of meaning moving throughout that the viewer or critic who is looking to explain or summarize his experience in simple terms, has to discard many dimensions of it. Even myself, when I write, for the sake of the comment, I do avoid writing about the story, or the cinematography, or maybe some stellar acting. I am not an obsessive completist. I don’t consider my writing as the final word on a movie. I admire the scholars who dissect and analyze movies and write hundreds of pages about them. I think the task is daunting because everything can be open to interpretation. However, I don’t believe in an objective truth and anybody who aspires to an objective truth is fooling themselves. I know that many academics do, and sometimes they reject new perspectives on this or that filmmaker, preferring to stick with the established one. That is the death of intelligence to me.
One thing you never review is experimental or avant-garde film?
That is true. I am very wary of such cinema. I think it’s a question of concerns. I enjoy cinema because it is primarily a narrative art. But what they call avant-garde cinema, like the optical impressions of Brakhage, is not a living space of the mind like regular narrative cinema is. It is more like paintings, on film, or motions on film. I am not interested in writing about such exercises. I admit I do watch it, but I relate to it like I relate to other pictorial arts, like painting.
What about video installations in museums?
I have yet to find video artists that interest me. I know the work of Jem Cohen is not video but he is considered a ‘museum artist’, and out of that bunch, he is one of the few that I really enjoy. I can’t wait till he makes a real feature film.

I must admit, I rarely go to museums, unless there is a painting exhibition that interests me. I am not very much into the culture of cultural events. I imagine I was at first when I first began to be interested in art. But today, I cannot be bothered to leave the house, if only to go to school.

But I did notice that the market of contemporary art also thrives on consistency of product. As you know, that is the death of any art. But I have seen some video installations that show great sensibility, but it is always in the small. It is a minor art to me. To begin with, the way some of this art has to be accessed, through museums, has a lot to do with a sterilization of experience which in the end harms the art more than it helps him. It’s a bit of a catch-22 because you need museums to help you. I think an artist that really wants to make a change should work hard to get his projects viewed by the public. That would mean to go beyond museums, but maybe enter public spaces, or infiltrate advertising. Thank God we still have books. Literature can still be one of the last pure art experiences.

Do you think advertising is art?
You know, art is a dirty word. I think what you are asking me is if I find any merit in ads. Well I don’t watch a lot of TV. And let’s just say that I wouldn’t think of looking at ads for inspiration. Although I know Cannes holds an advertising festival. No, I don’t watch ads. I even warn my friends against it. TV and Ads. It is very addictive, and it can dull the mind. You can see it in some recent movies where the art in the framing has totally been removed. That’s an influence from reality-TV where engagement is assumed simply by the act of recording. The sophistication of framing we had some years ago is currently dying out. And yes, I do blame the stupidity of directors who do not care to stimulate their mind with imaginative images and compositions.

I was told that you are currently going to school to study film. Why did you decide to do this?
It’s very simple. I used to fix computers for a living, and it was very dull. I went to school for 4 years for that. It was very easy for me to find a job. The problem was that I did not like the job. Following the same logic, film school will make it easier to find a job. A job that I might enjoy. There is also all the business of cinematography and directing that you can’t learn in books. Film school provides a context to learn such skills. And I am grateful they have accepted my application.
So have you made any films yet?
Yes I have. But they are not for public consumption.
Will you show them online?
Never.

Royce Da 5″9

I think Royce, at his best, is the best of Grafh, with Jay-Z’s wry wit. Only problem is the intensity he often embodies…agressivity is not fierceness, intelligence is. Otherwise, his presence has swagga…he bites his lips.

“Best to do it”

Pack your bags, pick your punches
Know where you are and where you goin’…Fix your compass (haha)
Oh yeah, O-6 is my year…Mo’ guns with no prints for shit I’m prepared
Mo’ fun with yo bitch…but now she my bitch
Used to be your bitch…Allow me the clear out the air
Yeah, about to pull out the pair…stick out the thing
…and piss on the King like ‘It’s my chair!’
Peel out and leave, feel out the breeze
…with the window down on the ‘vette…should I proceed?
Yes, the tattoo had to be on the right spot,
to remind me of how notorious that my life got
True story: used to hold the gat in my hi-tops
Adidas track suit, black & white like the White Sox
Feel as cold as an icebox…
The older you get you know where you stand, you know where you might drop