Cinemascope

Israel got to see Barack Obama in the flesh this week. Israel has sled into an ugly conservatism in the last few years and right-wingers are pretty vocal here. To them Obama is the devil incarnate (Israel’s right wing think George W. Bush is the best American president ever). One talkbacker on the website for leftish newspaper “Haaretz” wrote, in response to Obama’s quote that he thinks Palestinians should get their own independent state (a notion anyone with brains intact should applaud), wrote “This Obama guy scares me. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter”. Yup, Carter is also hated here. He’s too fond of Palestinians, caring about their rights. Not like Saint Bush who hates them and like the average Israeli right winger considers every Arab a terrorist. Carter, who engineered the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt (and for which he won a Noble Peace Prize) is a crucifix in front of our right-wing vampires.

Obama’s wailing wall note, exhumed and reprinted in Israeli papers

Anyway, yesterday before he took off to Germany he visited The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, the only remaining relic of the ancient Temple of David, and the most sacred spot for Jews. As customary, he placed a note in the cracks of the stones. It is believed that a wish or a prayer stuffed in the cracks gets fulfilled by God. Obama, in what seems like a last minute improvisation, wrote a small prayer on his hotel stationary (nice product placement). Journalists then promptly stormed the wall and ransacked his note and had it reprinted in “Maariv” (it’s a big faux-pas from a Jewish traditional point of view and I’m quite certain that if Obama were Jewish no mainstream reporter would’ve dared violate his privacy so bluntly).

But, although this whole thing - the note, the reprint - might’ve been staged it made me like Obama all the more. Not only for his respect for tradition but also for his great handwriting and his touching prayer: “Lord - Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.”

In 2004 Jon Ronson wrote this piece for The Guardian, about his visit to the Kubrick estate. Four years later he made a documentary out of it, which premiered this week on UK’s Channel Four. Here is the 50 minute doc in its entirety:

via Jeff Wells

Aaron Eckhart plays Two Face, who decides who’ll live and who’ll die by a toss of a coin, in “The Dark Knight”. ==> Tommy Lee Jones played the same coin tossing villain in 1995’s “Batman Forever”. ==> Tommy Lee Jones played Sheriff Tom Bell in “No Country For Old Men” ==> Where Javier Bardem played a villain who decides who live or dies with a toss of a coin.

Sacha Baron Cohen filmed scenes for his 2009 release “Bruno” in Israel recently interviewing Israeli and Palestinian analysts about the middle-east conflict and the going all Zohan on them confusing Hammas with Hummus.

Yossi Alpher wrote candidly about his encounter with a “German Rock Star” who came to interview him. He added in writing it was Baron Cohen, although it was clear that he had no idea who was in front of him in real time. Alpher ends his column saying of Baron Cohen that “he is exploiting our tragic and painful conflict in the most cynical and deceptive manner. I doubt he’ll give us anything in return”.

But before that, the following mayhem ensued, and Alpher provides a behind-the-scenes look on how Baron Cohen and his team still manage to fool the world:

We confronted a tall, blond-ish man in his thirties, dressed in leather and studs, his face heavily powdered, his arms and chest shaven. He spoke in a heavy German accent, his movements and mannerisms ultra-gay. He tried to write down our names, but they came out dyslexic.
“This guy is going to interview us?” (more…)

“The Godfather Trilogy” box-set first came out in 2001, but only on region 1 NTSC DVD’s, and never on blu-ray. Now, after seven years region 2 users get to lead he pack: the new and restored “Godfather Trilogy” was released first in Europe on PAL DVD and only later in the year it will be released in the States. This version is also titled “The Coppola Restoration”, due to the massive involvement of Francis Ford Coppola in the re-scanning of original negative in 4k resolution.

Two bonus discs are added: the first is identical to the one added to the American box-set in 2001, the second holds brand new 2008 documentaries. One of them is particularly exceptional.

The doc “Emulsional Rescue”, produced by Kim Aubry, is only 18 minutes long but in its bright and succinct way it tells not only of the process used to save The Godfather deteriorating negatives but of what made this movie cinematographically exceptional.

Gordon Willis, one of the best DP’s in the history of American movies, was called out of retirement to help restorators achieve his original vision, distorted through years of reprinting and duping. The 77 year old Master hasn’t lensed a movie in over a decade (since 1997’s “The Devil’s Own”), he is considered too slow and too dark and too opinionated for the current Hollywood mentality.

Amazingly, Gordon Willis, now 77, has never won an Oscar

Ace restoration maverick, Robert A. Harris, who was in charge of restoring The Godfather, gives Mr. Willis his due credit. The darkness of the movie, Harris explained, resulted in a print that’s low on emulsion, therefore thinner and more susceptible to wear and tear. Throughout the years there were prints that tried to brighten up the picture.
DP Allan Daviau (”E.T”) is called up to the stand to explain: Willis’s negative had nothing in the black. And Harris adds: “usually when when you want a darker picture you print it down” (meaning: you shoot it in normal exposure but darken the shot in the printing and post-production process). With The Godfather, Willis shot and lit the interior scenes in such a way that you only have one way to print it - DARK!

Robert A. Harris gave The Godfather its original tones back: black and gold

Coppola’s longtime friends, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas (and also William Friedkin) are interviewed in the 2008 docs. Spielberg reveals that his involvment helped pave the way to the trilogy being restored. It all started in December 2006 when Dreamworks was bought by Paramount, and Coppola wrote to congratulate Spielberg and ask him whether - now that he’s a part of the Paramount family - he can help him save the deteriorating state of the original Godfather negatives. Spielberg called up Brad Gray, head of Paramount, who put up the money for the project. Wise move: Gray was the executive producer of “The Sopranos”, a series that holds The Godfather as latter-day gospels.

Steven Spielberg made Brad Gray an offer he didn’t refuse

And so the image was cleaned from scratches and unwanted hues eliminated.

Before and after, a work-in-progress

The following frames show the difference in quality from the worst Godfather edition, on VHS tape, and two seconds later on that same shot, from the current restoration.

(Sorry for the grab: Sonny Corleone in hiding behind The Man With The Hat).

Via “Wired“:

Here’s “Presto”, the Pixar short written and directed by Doug Sweetland with a Chuck Jones-Hanna Barbera groove to it, that’s playing in front of “Wall-E”:

Download it here.

And because I’m guessing the Disney/Pixar people will be all over this post in mere hours, I want to attach here a letter I tried sending through Pixar’s public relations but never got a notice as to whether it was received and read.

The subject: how is it possible that “Wall-E”, the best reviewed studio movie of the year so far, is getting released in Israel tomorrow WITH ZERO REVIEWS, due to negligence of the Israeli distributor.

Dear John and Andrew,

Great news about “Wall-e” opening the Jerusalem Film Fest, over at my English blog I couldn’t get enough of the Jerusalem “wall” and “wall-e” wordplay. I’m sure seeing the movie on an outdoor screening, on a huge screen, beneath the ancient walls of Jerusalem, less than a mile away from the Western Wall, will be as spectacular as you can imagine.

But as a film critic and film scholar who adores the Pixar product (I’ve interviewed John in Hamburg for “Toy Story 2″, I’ve added the “Ratatouille” script to my “Great Screenplays” classes in the Jerusalem Film School and the Film Department at Tel Aviv University) I’m miffed at the way Israeli distributors release your films here: ever since “Cars”, critics have been banned from preview screenings of Pixar movies (and Disney movies). Your movies come out over here without any reviews.

You might say that Pixar doesn’t need critics to succeed and you’d be absolutely correct: “Ratatouille” was the number 1 movie in Israel in 2007. So this habit by local distributor Forum Film, to ban critics, may not hurt your business, but it sure does hurt the image, the brand. Critics start the write-up with a mention of the ban, explaining the belated review, instead of focusing on the film. Some may even watch movies on downloaded cam copies, just to make the deadline and bypass the ban. And the general notion is that the ban is in place because they have something to hide, a bad movie worth hiding from the press. That may be true of non-critic-friendly movies, but couldn’t be wronger when it comes to Pixar. I have a feeling that if it were up to you, you wouldn’t authorize such a ban on journalists. I hope you take this into consideration and make them stop this behavior.

Read my related posts:
http://cinemascopian.com/2008/06/17/wall-e-set-to-open-the-jerusalem-film-festival/

http://cinemascopian.com/2008/05/10/critics-banned-from-reviewing-hancock-wall-e-narnia-sex-and-the-city/

Hope to see you guys sometime in Israel.

All the best,

Yair Raveh
Tel Aviv

Film Critic, “Pnai Plus”
Film Blogger, cinemascopian.com

Addendum: Regardless of this post I was informed that “Wall-E”’s Israeli distributor has decided to momentarily lift the ban and invite a handful of friendly critics and allow them to post their review on opening day. Four reviews were up. I added my online Hebrew review after seeing the film’s matinee showing.

Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.

The global village has never been tinier. Matt Harding, a video game designer from Connecticut who worked in Australia and now lives in Seattle, shot this video in 42 countries in 14 months, and recruited Palbasha Siddique a 17 year old Minneapolis singer who was born in Bangladesh for the original soundtrack.
Erik Lundegaard has already tagged his 4 minutes short “The Best Movie of 2008″. On You-Tube it was watched 10 million times since it was uploaded on June 20th. And who is Matt? What were his previous videos? And where is he right now?

(The title to this post is a tip to Tasha and Dishka who danced stupidly in front of 23 million You Tube viewers).

So I finally saw “Hancock”. A week after I posted this review by one of my readers, including a paragraph that foreshadowed (or perhaps influenced) “Variety”’s review, using the exact same analogy, I got a chance to see movie for myself. And I’ll say this out front: I was immensely entertained. This was one snappy ride.
Reviewers are focusing on what they call a “drop-dead awful third act“. The film’s trouble, I’d say, starts at the halfway mark, it is there that it shifts from being the one thing (a brilliant - brilliant! - loser superhero spoof) and going into doing something altogether different in tone.
First, let’s analyze the film’s structure (spoilers herein). The first act: inciting event - the train scene. Hancock and Ray meet. The first act ends when Hancock, heeding Ray’s advice, turns himself in. In this first act Hancock’s and Ray’s desire is made clear: to rehabilitate Hancock’s public image. The second act is made up of two parts - or sub-acts. The first half is “Hancock in Jail”. The second is “Hancock and Mary”. The film’s midpoint is a classic one-two punch: closing one story arc and opening another. At the midpoint Hancock and Ray’s plot is successful: Hancock learns how to be a hero - being civil, polite and wearing a clean superhero uniform, ultimately trading the usual boos for cheers (had the movie ended here, after 45 minutes, everyone would’ve been happy). At this point you may notice the film’s first screenplay flaw: there is no antagonist. No arch-enemy. Villain. The reason you didn’t seem to mind is that so far down, Hancock was his own antagonist. But you’d need a really brilliant screenwriter - think Chris Nolan or Steven Soderbergh - to carry the entire movie as an existential comedy with Hancock being his own worse enemy. Another Hollywood problem here: no romantic lead. Oh-oh, trouble.
Hancock’s band of writers thought up a brilliant premise - a sarcastic superhero for grown ups - but couldn’t carry it the entire distance. So this - the halfway mark - is where a villain is introduced (too late), and the second sub-act begins (we are still in the second act): Ray is now the drunk one (after celebrating his success), and Hancock makes a move on his wife (Charlize Theron) and learns that Ray’s angelic wife is… a superhero as well. And then: his own former wife for the past 3000 years. This is the head scratching twist that got the net buzzing. It’s not the third act twist, but the mid-point climax.
Structurally this plot turn is sound: after fulfilling his overt desire (to become a bone-fide hero) Hancock is now on track to realize that this was only a superficial need, and that something more internal - the solution to the entire riddle of his identity - is the itch he can’t scratch. This is where you get the sense that Hancock was actually quite dark from the get-go (and it would’ve been a finer movie as an R rated one, because Hancock’s problems are quite grown up). Think for a minute: the bit where Hancock is making a move on Charlize Theron - trying to fuck the wife of the guy who just saved you - is brilliant. This is where you know that it was not public congratulations and applause he was looking for and that his self-destruction runs deeper. Theron’s fridge-kicking response was brilliant as well.
But: whoa there. This is the main problem. This where your suspension of disbelief gets thrown out the window: of all the houses in the Valley, Hancock just happened to save the guy whose wife happens to be his millennial soulmate? Outside of comedies and farces, coincidences are the death kiss for believability. You can believe a guy is flying and is a drunk bastard, but having this coincidence is pushing it. This is “Hancock”’s major fault line.
Besides, it would’ve been a better story line for the sequel. Think “Superman 2″ with Charlize Theron’s character being both his fortress of solitude AND General Zod wrapped up in one. but apparently lost, “Hancock”’s writers tried to cram the sequel into the first film (thus killing the chance anyone would ever want a sequel).
The second act ends with Hancock returning to his old habit and going to the liquor store. There he faces a dilemma: buy the booze (and be the old Hancock) or save the Hindu shopkeeper (and be the new Hancock). He chooses the latter, but gets pays for it: he gets shot and realizes he is bleeding, no more bulletproof. The third act begins with Hancock in the hospital, the needle - we expect to break - now penetrates the vein. The third act ends with a witty move: the human saves the superhero.
Two problems arise here: the first is tonal - you ain’t laughing no more. The second is structural: you had a great character, Ray, and you lost him. Pity. “Hancock” would’ve been 87% better if Smith and his team gave it another afternoon’s brainstorming session and figured out a way NOT to make Hancock’s ex-wife and Ray’s wife the same woman (she could’ve seen him all clean up and shown up at his doorstep - it would’ve made more sense). With that solved, most of Hancock’s problems would’ve vanished.
But hey: “Hancock”’s third act is not all that weaker then the “Hulk vs. Abomination” act in “The Incredible Hulk”, or “Iron Man vs. Iron Monger” face-off in “Iron Man” or that dreadful “I am you’re father” twist in “Wanted”, so “Hancock”’s crime is not out-of-step with what’s going on around him this season. And just like the other films’ he overcomes this and remains on his groove, while boasting something of a quirk that gives him an edge.
It was witty of the movie to have a PR man - and not a shrink, social service worker, child or lover - initiate Hancock’s soul-search, and isn’t it ironic that a movie about PR, marketing and branding would itself become a public relations nightmare. “Hancock” is a fascinating car-wreck, and I’d love to read a Peter Biskind-y account of how this movie was so fucked over with. With a 90 minute running time you can bet there’s somewhere a 120 minute cut laying around that could be a whole lot better. I’d like to see that. And know what? I really want a “Hancock 2″.

The 25th edition of the Jerusalem Film festival kicks off July 10th with the Israeli premiere of “Wall-E”. The first festival under the newly appointed manager Ilan De Vries will include some highlights of the 2008 Cannes Festival, before they head on to Toronto.

Highlights include:

“24 City”
Jia Zhang-ke, China

“Of Time and the City”
Terence Davies, United Kingdom

“Liverpool”
Lisandro Alonso, Argentina/France/Netherlands/Spain/Germany

“Tulpan”
Sergey Dvortsevoy, Germany/Switzerland/Kazakstan/Russia/Poland

“Acne”
Federico Veiroj, Uruguay/Argentina/Spain/Mexico

“Hunger”
Steve McQueen, United Kingdom

IL DIVO
Paolo Sorrentino

SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK
Charlie Kaufman

SERBIS
Brillante Mendoza

Also playing:

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Errol Morris

ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD
Werner Herzog

MY WINNIPEG
and
BRAND UPON THE BRAIN!
Guy Maddin

The full program is available online.

Read my previous:
“Wall-E” set to open The Jerusalem Film Festival
De Vries takes over Van Leer at the Jerusalem Film Festival

“Repo! The Genetic Opera”, the new gore-fest by “Saw” director Darren-Lynn Bousman had it’s second trailer released this week (see below), and it looks rather amusing, giving the term “Death Metal” back its proper meaning. The story, as much as I gathered from the trailer, tells of a future in which repo-men come to collect organs from those unable to pay their debts. Live Organ Transplants? Sounds brilliant…. BUT - unoriginal. Monty Python did it first in their 1983 movie “The Meaning of Life”: premature organ extractions, repo men AND a musical number. In the Monty Python sketch John Cleese comes to collect the liver from organ donor Terry Gilliam (who, for some reason, has dreadlocks and hears “Hava Nagila” in his home). When the organ donor protests that his donation is activated “only in the event of death”, Cleese reassures him saying “No one who has ever had their liver taken out by us has survived” (the transcript for the sketch is available here). He then goes on a sales pitch to persuade the Mrs. (Terry Jones) to donate her liver as well, right there and then and then segues off into a song.
Well, well, what’s all this then? A coincidence? A tribute? Or should “Repo! The Genetic Opera” be named “Rip-Off! The Generic Opera”?

Judge for yourself: the trailer for “Repo: The Genetic Opera” and below it the Monty Python bit “Live Organ Transplant” and “The Galaxy Song” (careful, it’s bloody):

.
.

.
.