tuesdays with jeff

anyone who's been to the movies with me knows that i stay for the credits, and this is for several reasons. respect to the people who worked on the flick, to see what city they actually filmed in, and sometimes there's a little surprise at the end [this helped pacify our group at 'pirates 3']. when the camera crew credits go by, i wonder what life is like for them. who are the people who get the call, 'hi allen. we need a second a.c. for august through september; yeah, rodrigo prieto's shooting it.' or, 'hey, marty [scorsese] is crewing for his next movie; want to come and load for us?'

as far as i know, all changing tents are the same--there's no magical tent that really makes sure your film doesn't get flashed. is it their tape measures? do they lay their marks with a flair or class that i don't have? if i wound my film cores differently, would steven soderbergh hear of my work and call me some morning, demanding that i load for his next movie?

the same thing happened last year, only worse this year--spring blossomed with work, allowing me to pay off the credit card debt that had accumulated over the barren winter months, and now work has dried again. i saw a friend at a church meeting a few weeks ago and he asked me if there was anything going on. he's a great assistant, ambitious, and personable, so hearing that he was parched, too, made me feel better.

this morning i got up and kept the attitude i had last night--i would get going with my day and be productive. a bowl of malt-o-meal honeynut cheerios with a dvr-ed 'seinfeld' episode had me off to a great start. somewhere around 11 i was at 'screenit.com', reading the specific reasons that made 'saving private ryan' rated R [this included 'many people who are shot are bloody' and 'extreme disrespect/bad attitudes from the german soldiers'] when i got a phone call from an unknown number. the caller said he got my name from a couple of guys i haven't seen in a while and identified himself as a grad student from the l.a. area planning to shoot a music video and needing a 2nd a.c. he prefaced by saying that it seems everyone in utah is working right now [what the--?? who are all these working people and why haven't they called me?], but if i was available, they would like me to help out. the shoot days were this saturday, sunday, and monday, and when i told him my day rate, there was a bit of hesistation, followed with a re-affirmed tone that they could pay for my travel expenses and food and could pay me a day rate, though not what i was used to.
it didn't matter though, because i knew from the start that i wouldn't do it--with few exceptions, i don't work on sundays, and this was not making any sort of an argument to change that. and so i politely declined, citing just such reasons, feeling bad that i had asked about pay when i already knew that i wasn't going to take it. but i did give him the names of some people who may or may not be willing to work on sundays.

i set the phone back on my desk and continued to browse 'screenit' to if 'the departed' really deserved its R-rating. at least i was now not working by choice. 'yeah, i've had some work offered, but i don't work on sundays.' passing on this job certainly wasn't going to make or break me, and i had kept my integrity. i was hoping this would turn into a story i could send to the 'ensign' at some point: '...and then steven spielberg personally called me to load for his next movie, saying he'd heard how accurate my numbers are.'

i remember hearing the morning radio show host talking about all the movies being shot right now; usually when these things happen, i get a call when all the 1st string guys are unavailable. did i insult the wrong guy somewhere?

my room is still an undying mess: like the heads of the hydra, where a head must not only be severed but the neck then cauterized by fire, lest a new one grow back, the piles of stuff--my fourth grade teacher never let us use that word, declaring it to amorphous, yet that is what i have: piles of papers, clothes, books, yes, but there is more that can only be properly classified as 'stuff'--will reform and grow back stronger. the piles must be completely eradicated. a notepad lying next to a film can and a deck of trick cards will soon encompass binders, notebooks, a holey pair of jeans and a japanese flag. we went to ikea on saturday and i spent $15 on two sets of small designer swedish cardboard boxes. i think i may have found the weakness of my personal room-hydra.

i genuinely planned on carving out a severe victory in my room/quagmire today, but opted first for the shower, declining to style my hair out of anything more than moderate apathy. i like the way my hair looks and even smells when 'done', but for some reason the 70 seconds that it takes to rub tea tree pomade or hair wax through is a battle that i only win about half the time.
instead, i relaxed back in my director's chair and read the final few essays in my david sedaris book. i've blazed through all 257 pages rather quickly, leaving me excited to again attack my 'collected works of jane austen'; if i read five short chapters a day, i can have 'sense and sensibility' done in a week and a half.
as i sat reading, my japanese bracelet broke. i wasn't doing anything. my wrist was on the armrest, where it had been resting for five minutes, when a couple of the pink beads made a successful escape. not used to having things just leap from me for no given reason, i moved my hand to see, and, sure enough, the rest of the buddhist rosary beads scattered. i just sat there, not so much saddened by the loss of my favorite little token from japan as i was puzzled as to how this happened--do bracelets really 'just break'?
of course they do. mine just did.

this was my second such trinket and i knew how fragile they were. i was a bit surprised it had lasted for a full year. in japan, they're available from the moneychangers at every shrine and temple, so i picked up two, knowing that east asian religious artifacts are a little harder to come by in the states. my current debate is whether to open up the new beads or to allow a period of mourning first.

somewhere in my last batch of sedaris essays the phone rang again. there is a certain benefit of not keeping very strong social relationships with people i work with. i think it would be a sort of psychological torture to see rich's name on my phone and get excited about the prospect of an intermountain health care commercial, only to be crestfallen as he suggests we go see 'die hard 4' this weekend.
thankfully, the people i see movies with are not the same people i make movies with, and so my hopes rightfully went up as i answered brandon's call. we exchanged pleasantries and mutually admitted that there isn't much work right now [me feeling somewhat validated now], then he asked if i would tentatively be available to work as a 1st a.c. a shot-on-video, straight-to-dvd movie he'd MIGHT be shooting. i considered passing on it, as the shooting dates would mean i'd miss the midnight showing of 'harry potter 5' and also the midnight book release of 'harry potter 7'. perhaps if i hold to what i really want, an even better job will come along later this evening.
call it a lack of faith, but in the end, i decided not to risk it.

heck yes.
while it is 'singles ward 2', work with brandon is always good, feature work means three weeks of work, and being a 1st a.c. is better than being a second or a loader, and i will have an assistant. should it all go through, someone will be calling me in a few days.

it's time to get to this room mess.

who knows, maybe martin scorsese will be impressed with my focus pulls?

rantings and hollerings

they took it seriously and got it right.
there was no watering-down for the common movie goer; many of the films would be unknown to today's teenagers, just like me ten years ago. there were several changes [23 new entries on the list], and most of the remaining 77 shifted positions, with a handful of surprises, even to the point of me yelling at the tv [usually for the better]. and most of the new movies were in the lower third of the list, reaffirming that the choices made 10 years ago still held. there was no concern of redundancy; if it was still a great movie, it was still a great movie.
the american film institute established its 'top 100' list not as a 'one-hit wonder', but as a continuing institution for serious consideration; being that it is 'american' films only, it is not as esoteric nor scholarly as the bfi's 'sight and sound' top 10 poll, yet similar movies are seen in similar rankings.

what's out: the oldest movie on the previous list, d.w. griffith's 'birth of a nation' [1915] is out. so are other early landmarks, including 'the jazz singer' [1927], 'all quiet on the western front' [1930], and 'mutiny on the bounty' [1935]--kind of sad to see that last one go; it's nothing exceptional, but a good movie that i wouldn't have seen had it not been the first list. perhaps it did its job. 'an american in paris' [1951], 'close encounters of the third kind' [1977] [don't worry, speilberg picked up one, too], 'dances with wolves' [1990], 'fargo' [1996] [the most recent on the previous list], 'frankenstein' [1931], 'from here to eternity' [1953], 'the manchurian candidate' [1962], 'patton' [1970], and 'a place in the sun' [1951] are all out, and fairly so. my biggest frustration of the list was that audrey hepburn was not represented, but i'd rather her be out than have 'my fair lady' [1964] be on the list again. most of these movies were in the bottom half of the list, though the highest to leave entirely was #39's 'dr. zhivago' [1965]. david lean, omar shariff, and julie christie are all represented better elsewhere on the list, though my condolences to those who love the movie. [it never did it for me; my favorite david lean movies remained strong on the list]. my one outcry from those that were knocked out was 'the third man' [1949-previously an appropriate#57]. amazing cinematography, one of the most famous appearances in cinema history--how could this be left out?

what's in: this list is even better than what's out. on the first list, there were eight movies released within the last 10 years. this time, there are only four movies since 1996, though all belong on the list: 'titanic' [1997] at #83, 'saving private ryan' [1998] at #71, 'the sixth sense' [1999] at #89, and 'the lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring' [2001] at #50. 'titanic' and 'ryan' are where they should be; 'sixth sense' is an expertly crafted movie and has earned its spot--i'm just curious how well it will hold in the next 10 years. and while i love 'lord of the rings', #50 seems a little high.
following the most recent movie on the list was the oldest: griffith's racist 'birth of a nation' was replaced by his apologetic follow-up, 'intolerance' [1916]--good choice. and with one exception, that was the highest any new movie placed on the list. 'sunrise' [1927], the apex of the silent era ellicited a whoop and cheer when it came on the list, though at #82 it was a little underfavored.
16 of the bottom 30 were new, including 'toy story' [1995] at #99, 'blade runner' [1982] #97, 'do the right thing' [1989] #96, 'sophie's choice' [1982] #91, '12 angry men' [1957] #87, 'spartacus' [1960] #81, and 'all the president's men' [1976] #77. the marx brother's gained a movie with 'a night at the opera' [1935] at #85, and fred astaire and ginger rogers were given a place at #90 with 'swing time' [1935]. and i was very happy to see the largely unknown 'sullivan's travels' [1941] appear at #61.
once #49 passed, no new movies were seen for a long time, and i began to get nervous, fearing that, despite 'sunrise' being added, a travesty had occurred, especially since chaplin had already had two movies show up. but buster keaton's 'the general' [1927] came in with deadpan force at #18.
the 'ins' and the 'outs' were done with great skill and care; with the few changes that i already mentioned, my only other recommendation would be to see 'traffic' [2000] somewhere in the bottom 20. but i can wait.

the changes: 'pulp fiction' [1994] only moved from #95 to 94, while 'goodfellas' [1990] hopped from #94 to 92. give it time.... the marx brothers' timeless classic 'duck soup' moved from #85 to 60, which is comforting. happy to see it, the optimistic 'yankee doodle dandy' [1942] survived and moved from #100 to 98. 'a clockwork orange' [1971] fell from #46 to 70 [hooray], but so did 'dr strangelove' [1964] #26 to 39, 'butch cassidy and the sundance kid' [1969] #50 to 73, and 'bridge on the river kwai' [1957] #36 from 13; sad. 'the godfather part II' [1974] and 'the best years of our lives' [1946] rightfully held their places at #32 and #37. and 'the deer hunter' [1978] moved a wonderful 36 places, to #53 from 79.
and, to my happiness, '2001' [1968] moved to #15 from 22.
there were a couple of big surprises in the upper ranks: chaplin's 'city lights' [1931] going from #76 to 11--my favorite of his movies, and deserving of the top 20, i think 11 is too high, especially since he already has two others on here. and, moving up 84 places to come in at #12 is john ford's 'the searchers' [1956]. i didn't know of the movie when i saw it ranked at #96 ten years ago, but after hearing all the reverence for it amongst critics, scholars, and directors, it seems much better appreciated now.
'the graduate' and 'on the waterfront' fell from the top 10--7 and 8 to 17 and 19, respectively , but they felt out of place there anyway. the top 10 did hold the most interesting and corrective changes. the fun thing about these lists is that, once you get to a certain height, you know what has to be on there, and so you can start to deduce what will be where by process of elimination. the first time i saw the list, when were down to the final three, i picked 'the godfather' and my brother named 'casablanca', but we couldn't guess what #1 would be.
the new top 10 is great: 'wizard of oz' [1939] went from 6 to 10, while hitchcock's 'vertigo' burst in from it's previous #61. 'schindler's list' [1993] is still the most recent of the inner circle, up one spot to #8. 'lawrence of arabia' [1961] sadly fell from #5 to 7, but it's got tough competition. 'gone with the wind' [1939] was nudged from 4 to 6, leaving the final five predicted by elimination.
the happy: 'singin in the rain' [1950], timeless, ageless, near-perfect [i usually skip the 'modern' sequence at the end] moved from #10 to 5, where it belongs.
the surprise: 'raging bull' [1980], fighting all the way from 24 to 4. it's nice to see scorsese and de niro honored.
the classics: last time it was 'godfather' [1972] then 'casablanca' [1942]; now they've switched, with the corleone family taking the #2 spot.
the winner and still champion: you can't beat 'citizen kane' [1941]. it may not be your favorite movie, but in the crowds of those who know film, it's the most important thing to us all.

you can see both lists, side by side, here.

how does it breakdown?
robert deniro and jimmy stewart each have five, though deniro's range from #92 to #4, while stewart keeps all of his work in the top 50. and, if you want to count 'american graffiti' and 'apocalypse now', harrison ford also has five movies. marlon brando has four, as does humphrey bogart.
orson welles, peter o'toole, and tim allen each have one.

spielberg has directed the most, again with the magic number of five. billy wilder and alfred hitchcock each directed four, and scorsese and coppola each directed three.

all in all, this is a better list to introduce yourself to the greats of american cinema.
which is good, because i've only seen 68 of this new list.

babel

last summer i went running quite often. i really enjoyed it and was getting alright at it. in the morings or the cool of the night, i'd grab my little ipod shuffle and take off down the neighborhood, enjoying the air as i ran to 'the killers', letting the music carry me until i was far more tired than i realized.
i'd always try to run up the hill, pushing myself. i'd then walk for a fair while once atop the hill.

this year, i haven't been out as much, and when i do go, i don't have quite the enjoyment of it nor the strength for it. i can go for some distance, but i invariably slow down and don't get started again as i used to. the ipod is still there, but the heart isn't.
and such is life, at times. and it's hard. i want to be out there, running, working, fighting. i get out when i get out, but i wish i were more disciplined.

listen.

atr

during my senior year of high school, our fall musical was 'little shop of horrors'. i was unfamiliar with the movie or the broadway musical, but my friends said i'd be great as the voice of the plant. when auditions came around, i was perhaps a little over-confident that i would get the part; i didn't practice much, i just went out and recited some of oogey boogey's lines from 'the nightmare before Christmas' and then sang a few bars of 'seventy-six trombones', all in the richest baritone voice i could do.
and sure enough, when roles were posted at 9 a.m. some morning, i was 'the voice of audrey 2'.

i was taking voice lessons at the time and so spent many hours with dr rothlisberger, practicing breathing, pronunciation, and learning all of the correct notes to pseudo-post-modern classics as 'feed me' and 'supper time' [sadly, 'mean green mother from outer space' is not in the broadway play]. and i got pretty good. during rehearsals, i would stand just offstage, saying my lines into an at&t operator headset while one of my friends was inside the giant plant costume. i sang all of the notes on key and followed what was written, doing the best i could. and it was fine.

then, just a day before our final dress- and techincal rehearsal, i thought, 'dang it, i've got this awesome role and i'm probably doing it rather blandly, to be honest. heck with it, i'm doing it how i want.'
and i let loose.
i screamed. i yelled. i swung my voice everywhere it could go. i didn't get every note pitch-perfect, but i probably wasn't as on as i thought before, and now i at least had attitude.
and i was having a lot of fun, too.
and while i was doing all of this, our director had suddenly run up from the auditorium and was now right in my face, jumping up and down and making every known sign, symbol, and leap for 'YES YES YES!!!'

that turned out well.

the greatest movies

i love lists.
i've usually got my 'top 5 cds', 'top 10 movies', and whatever else suits my fancy. and i think that's why i like the oscars so much--it's something to talk about. did sean penn really deserve 'best actor' over bill murray or johnny depp [of course not!] interesting that 'how green was my valley' beat out 'citizen kane' for best picture; could anyone have topped audrey hepburn for 'best actress' in 1953?

in the summer of 1998, the american film institute aired a special called '100 years,100 movies', listing the 100 greatest movies in the century since the invention of the movie camera [1896-1996]. my interest in film had been ignited a few months earlier, but this was like diving head first into the waters. for three hours listening to industry professionals discuss their favorite movies and why they were so influential. looking through a published list, i think i had seen about 20 of the movies, but that soon changed. for the remaining weeks of the summer, i went to the local video store and, thanks to their '7 movies, 7 days, 7 dollars' special, watched a lot of really good movies. i was surprised at how good the 4-hour lawrence of arabia was, didn't quite appreciate 'the philadelphia story' the first time, and was not at all expecting what i saw in '2001'. that weirded me out.

it is now 9 years later and i've seen 79 of the top 100 and the afi has decided it's time for another list, airing tonight at 7 p.m. adding ten years means that movies up through 2006 are now eligble, which has is interesting. when the original list came out, i knew nothing much about movies [i was hoping 'the nightmare before Christmas' would be on there, but understood when it wasn't] and so the list has always been a special collection to me: my introduction to a new world. so a new list has me feeling a little protective, especially to more recent movies. does 'fight club', 'eternal sunshine of the spotless mind', 'finding nemo' or 'harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban' belong among the ranks of 'casablanca', 'butch cassidy and the sundance kid' and the third man'? this is getting to be touchy stuff. and i'm starting to understand the controversy over putting 1993's 'schindler's list' at #9 of all time.

the afi selects 400 american movies [with 'lawrence of arabia' and 'lord of the rings', this is a fuzzy line] and asks voters to make their choices based on the film's critical appeal, major awards, popularity over the ages, historical import, and cultural significance. looking over the nominees is interesting. during an IM conversation with my brother [we looked through the list yesterday and debated what should and shouldn't make it], i broke down the selections by decade--it felt like the 90's and 2000's were too favored. thankfully, i was wrong:
silent era [up to 1929, actually]- 22 movies
1930's- 49
1940's- 57
1950's- 50
1960's- 41
1970's- 55
1980's- 55
1990's- 43
2000's- 28

will 'citizen kane' be #1 again? hard to say. certainly nothing has changed in the eyes of the critics, but for a mass-appeal list, will they change it up to make it interesting? when rolling stone magazine put out their 500 greatest albums list, 'sergeant pepper's lonely hearts club band' was #1; not much suprise, nor is there much room to argue. but when vh1 did a top 100 list a few years ago, they chose 'revolver', stating that they want to simply choose something different. 1998, the afi list didn't surprise many people [well, didn't guess it, but i didn't know what to expect then]. if it isn't 'kane', my guess will be for either 'casablanca' [prev. #2] or 'gone with the wind' [#4]. 'the godfather' was #3 before, but it too dark to be crowned the greatest movie of america. ...not that 'citizen kane' is a really picker-upper....

what do i think?
the silents: first and foremost, if 'sunrise' is NOT on the list, there is a serious flaw here [it wasn't on the first list]. 80 years later, this is still a relevant and accessible movie. and one of the few movies to show the redemption of a marriage. chaplin had three on the list last time; i'll let him keep 'city lights'. keaton was sorely absent. either 'sherlock jr.' or 'the general' will be acceptable. and harold lloyd's 'safety last' will be another wise inclusion. 'birth of a nation' was on there 10 years ago; why not griffith's follow-up, 'intolerance'?

1930s: marx brothers' 'duck soup' again, of course. and 1933's 'king kong' is a better movie that peter jackson's. 'mr smith goes to washington' is another requisite. the uniquely titled 'i am a fugitive from a chain gang' is a surprisingly good and poignant movie still. and representative of the great verbal comedies, i'd add 'my man godfrey' and [sadly missing from the first 100] greta garbo's 'ninotchka'. for fun, what about tod browning's 'freaks'. it get points for originality.
1940s: 'yankee doodle dandy' came in at #100 last time; with it's over-zealous patriotism for an unfallible america, it could easilly be seen as nieve in the modern politcal climate. 'best years of our lives' is still strong and worthy about the difficulties of coming home after the second world war. 'casablanca' and 'citizen kane' of course, but what about welles's next movie, 'the magnificent ambersons'? bogart and bacall's first movie together, 'to have and have not', another great noir along with fred mcmurray's 'double indemnity'? 'miracle on 34th street' is as classic as 'the wizard of oz'. and how about a couple of lesser-know hitchcock greats, 'notorious' and 'rebecca'?
1950s: 'all about eve', 'sunset boulevard', and 'singin in the rain' are all guarantees for the top 20 ['singin' should be in the top 10 again]. martin scorsese thinks 'the searchers' is one of the absolute greatest movies ever [as does spielberg]--i don't see it. but i would like to add 'night of the hunter', 'touch of evil', and delightfully charming 'roman holiday'. and of course, 'bridge on the river qwai'.
1960s: 'lawrence of arabia' belongs in the top 10 again, and '2001' deserves to be higher than #22. i don't think much of 'my fair lady' or 'dr. zhivago', and 'the graduate' is much too high at it's former #7. 'psycho' again deserves the top 25, and 'cool hand luke' is worthy of a spot on the list. 'night of the living dead' and 'goldfinger' are worthy of consideration, too.
1970s: 'godfather' part I and II are among the greatest films in the world ever, as are 'jaws' and 'star wars'. 'apocalypse now' and 'the deer hunter' are transgenerational war movies, certainly worthy of the list again. 'rocky', for sure, but it'd be fun to see 'rocky horror' on there, especially considering 'cultural impact' [in it's own way]. terrance malick is arguable, and 'days of heaven' is one of the five most beautifully shot movies ever. mel brooks? 'young frankenstein'? maybe.
1980s: 'raging bull' and 'raiders of the lost ark' for sure. please, don't let 'born on the fourth of july' be on there; i'm not even sure if 'platoon' should be back again. instead, 'the breakfast club', 'back to the future', and 'field of dreams' are worth considering. action movies? 'die hard' is one of the best. and 'this is spinal tap' seems funnier 20 years later.
1990s: 'goodfellas' again, and 'pulp fiction' should be much higher than its previous #95. 'saving private ryan' deserves a spot if its votes aren't split to 'schindler's list'. 'jurassic park'? it's notable. 'the matrix' revolutionized special effects like nothing since 'star wars', and fight sequences have never been the same since. 'the lion king' is not only the apex of disney's second golden age, but one of the greatest movies ever. 'toy story' is noteworthy, 'T2' is possibly the greatest action movie ever, and 'titanic' should be included on basis of cultural impact, box office records, and academy awards. does all this leave room for 'shawshank redeption', 'good will hunting,' and 'fight club'? i don't know, but i hope 'sleepless in seattle' can slip in a spot next to the great classic romances.
2000s: 'american beauty' will most likely make it, though i won't vote for it. my votes go to, first and foremost, 'traffic'. 'erin brockovich' is also very good, but soderbergh won't get two movies from the same year. 'mouin rouge' has potential, creating the post-modern musical so cooly. certainly a 'lord of the rings' belongs on the list, and my vote goes to 'fellowship of the ring' [or else 'return of the king', but the first usually gets the credit]. 'shrek', 'spider-man 2'? congratualtions on making the 400 nominees. 'eternal sunshine of the spotless mind' and 'lost and translation' each bring a worthy argument to their consideration.


the afi list isn't the definitive list to cinephiles, though; many film snobs look at it with disdain, it peddling too much to the popular masses. if you really want to see the serious list, check out the british film institute's top 10 list, updated every 10 years. 'citizen kane' has topped the list every year since 1952, and i'm happy that many of my favorites are often on there [including '2001', and, at #2, 'the rules of the game']. and if you don't think 'citizen kane' is the greatest movie of all time [different from your 'personal favorite'], watch it with roger ebert's commentary--the movie's strength rests largely on all the ground that it broke for the future of cinema.

change of ideas

this is not the post that was supposed to be here. i had a nicely though-out essay about what i can't even remember. all day long i've been sifting through ideas, refining and rewriting, and now that i'm home with time to write, i haven't a clue what it was i'd composed. i found the pictures that i had gathered for the essay, but i have no idea what i was going to write. none.

however, today em posted a sublime posting that is far better than what i would have written anyway.

I finally finished reading Raising Cain. (I also finally got a photo of Oliver sleeping...) I bought the book almost a year ago. One of the ideas that kept resurfacing was "the big impossible" and it's horrific effect on adolescent boys. But "the big impossible" actually nags at all of us. It's the idea that we are failing because we haven't reached some herculean ideal that we feel (for whatever reason, some say it's a societal pressure) we are supposed to have reached. The funny thing is that we tend to feel like a failure for not reaching an ideal that nobody has reached. Doesn't that seem silly?
We really ought to be a little kinder to ourselves. There's more than one kind of smart, more than one kind of beautiful, and a million ways to be valuable to the people around us.
Do the good things that you like to do, and feel good about it. Don't feel bad about not having a meticulously clean house if you aren't the sort who likes to clean (there are people who like to clean, believe it or not). Don't feel bad about not being a fantastic cook if you don't like cooking. Don't feel bad about the things that don't matter much in the end. Feel good about the good that you do, and enjoy doing. Try to improve yourself in ways that you enjoy. As long as you are meeting the basic needs of yourself and the people who depend on you, there is no need to feel like a failure!
The idea of being a Rennaisance man or woman is great, and I'm all for well-roundedness. But nobody is good at everything, and so nobody needs to feel bad about not being good at everything. Yet I think deep inside we all do feel bad about not being good at everything.
It's time to stop being silly, don't you think?

twilight

coming home from institute tonight, mark commented on how this was his favorite time of day--the time from when the sun sets until nightfall. what cinematographers call 'magic hour'.
twilight.

in lieu of the air conditioner, we opted to just leave the door open. i went outside to get the mail. in the box was just one envelope, and my initial glance of a handwritten 'L' in the name of the return address made me think it was a paycheck i had been waiting for, and i was happy.
it turned out that this was not a paycheck, but a letter from a friend.
an actual physical letter. like what we used to send in the days prior to adding vowels in front of nouns to modernize them.
a letter.
i was more excited than when i thought i was holding a paycheck, yet i walked slower, and chose to sit on the grassy knoll separating the sidewalk from the parking lot as the light of magic hour painted the row of houses in colors that would have made cezanne proud.

there was nothing immensely profound, and the handwriting was a little difficult to read [about the time i was thinking that, the author apologized for writing whilst standing up on a subway; i was somewhat impressed after that], but it was nevertheless a lovely way to appreciate the summer evening.

i lay back onto the grass and drifted up into the darkening blue sky. whispy pink cirrus clouds moved imperceptibly thousands of feet above me, while my thoughts acted similarly. i've been told that pink color in a sunset is a sign of pollution. i was ok with that--it looked nice. my mind wasn't particularly doing much, but i began to look for shapes. after a while i realized they were gone, and the best i had come up with was the form of a bear skin rug that was actually the blue 'negative' space between the whispy pink clouds.

i reread the letter, just enjoying the niceness of getting a letter in the mail. i regretted, as i did the first time, the small hole on the side of the envelope that i had not torn off; i didn't think much of it when i pulled out the letter, but when the p.s. explained the origin of the 'enclosed' button, i felt sad. sad that a little meaningless button enclosed with whimsy was now lost on a postal room floor.

i continued to lay on the cool grass and watched as pair of swallows flew by. when i was a little boy, my dad explained to me that swallows chose a mate and stay with them. i think ducks do, too, which is one more reason why i like ducks so much. i watched the swallow fly around with his companion. i saw a third tag along behind them.

i bought another book

a year and a bit ago, i bought a jane austen book. a book that had all of her books in it, actually. and i was surprised at how much i enjoyed what i read--the first three pages of 'sense and sensibility'.

i like books. like my sister, i love to wander through barnes and noble, looking at all of the books and feeling 'cultured'. but lately that feeling soon fleets as i realize that a have a heartily stocked bookshelf at home of books i genuinely want to read. then i leave the classy bookseller and head home, where the dvd collection stops me before i make it to the books shelf in the back of the room. the marx brothers' 'duck soup' is still an extremely funny movie 74 years later.

since buying the very nicely bound collection of miss austen's works, i have purchased several other books of various sorts, including 'dune', 'the da vinci code' [which i actually read all the way through and thoroughly enjoyed], and 'heart of darkness', as well as having currently read a third of the thomas jefferson biography that my sister got me for Christmas.

a few days ago i was browsing amazon, and along with a used cd of 'the best of bach' [which has proved to be an extremely excellent purchase, especially for $3.49], i also bought david sedaris's 'wrap your family in corduroy and denim' for $1.29. hardcover and in like new condition. even with the $2.99 shipping cost, i love amazon.

i was first introduced to david sedaris four or five years ago when chris moved from the apartment next door into #104 with the rest of us. he loved literature, writing and reading, and, like me with movies, loved share his medium with others. [he was also one of the best room-roommates i've ever had, but that's for a different post] before i knew him very well, i would overhear him reading bits of a book to my other roommates as i was rushing out the door in the mornings or rushing in door in the evenings [life was pretty busy in college]. when i slowed down to listen, i found myself laughing as chris read. this rather funny book turned out to be 'me talk pretty one day' by david sedaris, an extremely clever freelance living in paris and musing about mundanities of life with mark twain-like wit.
while working with jared hess on a movie several years ago, i felt a frustration as he was telling a story. jared is, without question, the funniest person i have ever known personally. and when he starts telling a story, everyone on set stops working and gathers around, because they know that they will not be just chuckled, but genuinely laughing from the belly. he was talking about an incident at a hospital on his mission; nothing particularly out of the ordinary, but his point of observation made it extremely funny. it was much more mundane than extraordinary. and i realized that i've probably had just as many mundanely-zany instances in my own life, i just could recall, polish, and present them as well as he could.

david sedaris is the same way. many of the essays are about his childhood. he plays in the snow. he attends a sleepover. nothing notably different than what most of us do, yet his deadpan observations have me laughing out loud as i read.

he is also a regular contributor to national public radio, and when i heard him read his 'santaland diaries' [he got a job as an elf a macy's department store in new york; google it], i was surprised at how droll his readings were. no emotion, but sounding as if he were as bored as could be, similar to how jenna fischer explains her audtion for 'pam' on 'the office' [perhaps why i love both oh so much]. the passive expression worked amazing for the material.
hearing sedaris's work read this way was a surprise, because that is not how chris would read it. he would read with effort, trying to put the right emphasis on the right words, adding emotion to what the characters said. and until i head the author read his own work, i thought chris was reading it perfectly.

the day i got my book, i turned to the essay that i had bought it for and coerced mark into pausing 'the simpsons' during a commercial break [i love dvr]. while i tried my best to read as deadpan as i could, i sounded more like chris, just about to laugh at what i was reading, barely able to hold back the excitement of knowing that what i am about to say is undesputedly funny, occasionally losing the humor by laughing in the split seconds between when i read the words and when i say them.
his commentary on santa claus in the netherlands is worth the cover price of $24.95.
but if you can find it for $1.29, go for it.

flowers of sarajevo

tuesday evening i'm driving to the provo temple when i get a text message. i love getting text messages. i don't care much for voice mails for whatever reason.
it's from a number i don't recognize: 'you might want to invest in a hose to water your flowers'

while i do my best to upkeep my little house, i know there are areas i miss--the dishes are piling a little high or the bathroom is overdue for a cleaning--but i couldn't think of any flowers we even had, much less ones that would be in an unsightly need of watering.

'i have flowers?'

'i see flowers, don't you?'

'not that i can think of. but then again, i'm not home right now'

'well well you need to check it out then'

i wondering if there would be a vase of flowers waiting for me on the front steps or something.

'perhaps, but i'm cautious about taking botanical advice from strange numbers.'

'but i have a green thumb'

i had reached the temple and had to end the conversation. i texted to mark about this situation, and he had receieved the same initial text and had also been carrying on a conversation with the mystery flower bearer.
so the simultaneous hope of a secret admirer and the dread of an over-zealous female admirer was partially dispersed, knowing that my roommate was an equal recipient/target.

coming out of the temple, i found a small note on my windshield, printed on a patterned stationary, eloquently stating that for my serving at the temple tonight, the river view ward young women had cleaned my windshied.

when i got home, mark suggested i go look out back.
now, our back yard is a sadly neglected part of our house--mark's combination grill and smoker usually sits in the middle of the concrete area, while weeds of all sizes grow in the sandy dirt by the house and also by the fence. it looks like the remnants of a crumbled civilization. i used to say it looked like sarajevo, but i really don't know what the bosnian capitol looks like; it's probably a nice and growing city [a quite google image searchs confirms that the latter is true].
i've sincerely been meaning to get out and at least weed our backyward lately.

but that was before.
the grill and related implements had been neatly arranged to one side. the dirty, dusty concrete had been swept clean. the patches of dirt were now edged with a simple brick wall [i don't remember if the wall was there before; if it was, it certainly wasn't as neatly alligned]. and the sections of dirt were now flower beds, with several little flowers planted with care. there was also a little tomato plant, as well as two more medium sized pot of flowers on the steps.

i didn't know what to think. it was beautiful. it was what i'd wanted to do with the yard since last summer.

i just wondered who did it and why?
mark and i discussed the usual suspects and potential motives. it seemed most logical that someone from our fhe group would do it, as we were out having a water balloon fight there just last week, so people could see our demilitarized yard. and, as i think about it, i remembed talking about how i wanted to prune and care for the poor little spot of land.
what concerned me was that it was some girl hoping to win one of our hearts. and while it is a truly impressive gesture, i'm not really interested in anyone i know, despite having a great respect and admiration for many of the potential gardners.
in discussing the mystery with my sister and her husband last night, the elements of the situation--mark and i both getting the same texts, there being no other clues as to how to find the person--it seems more likely that it was just someone doing a really rad act of kindness.

it's really cool. i love it.
now i have to go to wal-mart to buy a hose.

pink roses

'ruby tuesday is available for purchase on itunes.
i purchased it.
i think i've listened to it four times already.
and i smile.
i smile because the song makes me smile.

and that's pretty cool.

great expectations

remember back in the day, when 'sheep go to heaven' was like 'homestarrunner' was back in the day? when there were updates on a regular basis. lately, 'sheep go to heaven' has been like 'homestarrunner' has been lately, new material coming forth at irregular intervals.
i miss those good old days.

a handful of weeks ago, my roommate mark commented about 'the office'. he observed that michael [steve carell] is so often disappointed, frustrated, or upset because his expectations are too high. i think i was making a sandwich at the time and, while i momentarily gave more thought to the insight than to my peanut butter, i soon returned to my lunch as we began another episode.

this idea of over-developed expectations has stayed with me and has proved to quite profound.
consider how many moments in our own lives we become discouraged, angry, or depressed because things didn't turn out how we wanted them to. we wanted our family to go to the park and to laugh and play in the daisies beneath the sun; we wanted to come to college and have memorable roommates and stories of zany adventures; we wanted to be the most amazing employee our company has ever experienced.

what encouraging is that i have had fun memories with my family; i have had some fun experiences with many roommates who have also become very close friends. but it didn't happen the way i imagined it would, and it certainly didn't happen immediately.

the advertising world is based largely on the idea of extraordinary expectations. when i go out with my visa card, i expect i can buy things. but the new credit card commercials now tell me that if i go out shopping, i won't just get the sweet pair of pumas, i will get all of my worries and sadnesses whisked away; that this credit card will give me precisely what i'm missing in my persuit of happyness.
yes, it is fun to buy new things. my 'best of david bowie' cd turned out to be very good choice in the midst of a weekend full of changes. i'm glad i bought it [even after i found out there was an even better 2-disc set]. but what has felt even better is what the commercials don't tell you to expect at all: paying off my credit card debt. that felt good.

socially, it is very easy follow over-inflated expectations. we look at others and see them laughing with people and presume any number of things; that they must all be very close and dear friends, that they have more fun, that they call each other and go upscale shopping or hangliding everyday, or whatever it may be. then, we who have several good friends, suppose that we do not have good friends, or that we do not have enough or do enough, pushing our perspective of what is desired of us higher and further from us.

i've been reading a biography of thomas jefferson, and even that alone has been enlightening. when i visited the jefferson memorial last fall, i was struck with historical stars of awe at the work he did. thinking about what jefferson and the other great founding fathers achieved, i soon found myself thinking of them as being perfect, saying all the right things at all the right times. reading this book has shown that jefferson preferred to be quiet and ponderous, that he faults and shortcomings, but worked to elminate them and accomplished many great things in spite of them.
on a more specific point, the 'gentlemanly' class of the era [those who had acchieved a level of financial fortitude such that they did not have to work] were excessively concerned with appearing carefreely wealthy, purchasing luxury to show that they could, as they slid further under debt.

is this leading to a philosophy of 'can't win, don't try'? heck no. i very much agree with the idea to 'commit yourself to excellence', even as i struggle to live it. but there is a significant difference between expecting something to be good, and wanting it to be the most amazing thing you and/or your friends/complete strangers have ever experienced. hoping for your date to be endlessly romantic will most likely leave you lying on the couch at home afterward, wondering what went wrong. looking forward to a fun evening will probably bring you home with a good attitude, and maybe even a spring in your step.

true it is also, that we will most often not exceed our goals, so that the high we set our goals, the more we will accomplish, even if we do not meet our goals, but that's not what this is about.

...half the time, i imagine my these blog postings to someday be read alongside thoreau. or at least published and sold at barnes & noble...

neverland

i had the opportunity to go home for a week, celebrating my sister's wedding reception, brother's college graduation, and spending mother's day at home. i've written before about the wonderment of going home, of how much more i appreciate the land that seemed so mundane when i grew up there, and that hasn't faded. being in my parent's home is equally fun. living in my own little townhouse, i appreciate all that my mom has accomplished in ways of keeping her home organized and beautiful.
returning home feels like a treasure hunt. i love looking through the boxes of toys and junk are now piled in the room that used to be my brother's and used to be mine [and used to be my sister's, if you want to go back that far]; i leafed through my old role-playing books, read a comic book, and, of course, went through 'the legend of zelda' yet again [i was surprised at how much even my sister remembered about the game].
but the problem with going home is that it can so easily become little more than frosting [especially with all the cakes we had for the festivities]. the freelance workstyle makes it very easy to leave it all in utah, so that when i go home, i have no real responsibilities. and while that can sound good and is nice for a while, responsibility is like vegetables; we can get by with skipping for a short while, but that's what actually makes us healthy and wise. getting up at 10 [or, shamefully later], watching the cats over a bowl of cereal, playing nintendo with my brother, and not doing much more because there isn't much inherently required of me; you're not really going anywhere. blah.

however, i did play a couple of good games of frisbee golf [little did i know, moorhead has a really good course, one that is surprisingly popular], spent a nervous day taking a mysteriously sick cat to the vet, went running, got some work done on my scrapbook, and, of course, played mah-jong.

the paradigm has shifted

on friday, may 4th, 2007, my sister got married to a very nice boy.

the next day, one of my best friends got married to his best friend [and who would have thought it would snow that day?].

with all this happening around me, i did the best i could and bought a david bowie cd.

some kind of creative drought

remember in grade school art class, when you'd get the clay and try to sculp that good idea that you had? and when it didn't turn out as you imagined, you reworked it again and again and while it did get better, it never really got 'good'? clay, drawings, blog postings, it doesn't really matter--sometimes art is hard.

that's where i've been at lately.
editing our group's fhe video has been like sculpting a pile of dirt. after several hours, it was much better, but still not really good. we didn't win 'best picture' tonight, but we didn't deserve to.

work today was the same--big scenes that just didn't look right no matter where i put the camera or how i placed the lights.... mountainview high school has very odd architecture and horrendous available lighting. there, i said it.

if you want to find me, i'll be out in the sandbox, building castles in the sun.

confessions of a green d.p.

tonight feels like a 'summer night'. and it's started acting like one, too. some good techno is the ideal counterpart to such times.

a few weeks ago, i was working as the loader on a little horror movie we were shooting up at the rocky point haunted house [which, i come to find out, is one of the best haunted houses in the contry]. one day, as i was hanging out in dr. frankenstein's laboratory, i got a call--the kind of call you never actually get:
'hi jeff, this is brian. i'm directing a movie in a few weeks and i'm wondering if you'd like to shoot it.'

* * * * * * *

i thought had to work and sweat and network and then you get the chance to shoot a movie. i didn't think people just called you out of the blue. and yet, as i look back as i write this, i realize that maybe i was actually working and sweating and networking, all without realizing it.
and while inside of me i was jumping up and down and couldn't stop thinking 'ohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboy', i mustered up a yes-i-think-i-can-if-can-fit-it-into-my-schedule reply of 'i'd be happy to'.
i then spent the rest of the day balancing the bafflement of 'dang, i'm dp-ing a feature' with illusions of granduer, feeling that i was now the next big thing to blossom in the film world, that the american society of cinematographers could prepare a seat for me at their next convention, and that i would have to make time in my schedule for the parade in my honor. then i realized that i'm shooting a small low-budget movie and that many of my friends have done much bigger projects and still do not own their own tigers....

...all the same, i was ecstatic on the way home, singing loudly to the radio [which seemed to take my requests] and shared my joy [many thanks, lj]. equally fun was finally being able to call up my friends from school and offer them real, paid work on a real live movie.

on friday we picked up the equipment. we have a tiny little truck with a handful of equipment, barely more than an oversized student project, and i felt like a kid in a candy store. having a truck, packed with equipment that i personally selected, was almost intoxicating. talking with some other people there, i met a guy who, upon hearing that i was the 'director of photography' on a feature, began pitching himself to me as camera operator. i was very kind and gracious, gave him my information, and can't help but wonder what he'll think when he looks me up on imdb and sees several credits of 'loader' to my name....

yesterday was our first day.
i hadn't been nervous all weekend, but pulling up to our first location, the weight of leadership began to rest upon me. one of the hardest things was the initial awkwardness of working with the other crew. our gaffer was a good friend of my from school, someone whom i'd worked with on many projects, and it was nice seeing him. what was weird was that our key grip, despite being a good friend, was a good 15-20 years older than me and i've only worked with him when i was a 2 a.c. i did a commercial a few months ago when i ended up taking a camera and shooting some 'b roll' inserts; asking him to set up a light or stand even then felt a little strange: 'um, do you think you could maybe move that light over here if you have some time?' being the d.p. with him as my grip took some getting used to--his quiet and humble nature almost made it harder. even my camera assistant was a friend who, just last week, i was working under.
and so i spent several moments throughout the day thinking about leadership; about finding a balance between giving people their space and autonomy, yet also realizing that part of leadership is leading, going forward and walking ahead, directing the way to go. and often there is no one 'right' way, but the mantle of leadership entitles one to simple choice--where you choose is where we go.

in addition to pondering over and dealing with the 'director' part, the 'of photography' aspect occupied the rest of my mind space. there's the inherent pensiveness of 'what if this doesn't look' very good? with momentary exceptions, i haven't really done this since i was at the byu, over two years ago. sometimes a scene just seems to light itself beautifully. other times, it feels like a bad cowlick--no matter what you do, it just doesn't look right.
while i haven't been shooting since school, i have been watching and learning, and it's paying off. [having a broader arsenal of 'brushes' since college helps, too]. there were times when i would look at a scene and be quite happy, and other times when i would be at the limit of what i could try with the time and resources available and think, 'well, it looks like a 'jeff' scene'. for the director's last movie, his cameraman wasn't someone who was a 'cinematographer' so much as he was a 'moviemaker', and so i think the attention paid to the camerawork is higher, but, for better or worse, i never really feel comfortable until the director and crew are exclaiming how freakin' amazing the shots look.

when i wasn't musing about the philosophy of leadership, i was musing about the philosophy of lighting. like so many other things, the skill and difference is in the details. an average person with a camera shooting a landscape would get an image 90% identical to a professional cinematographer. but that 10% makes all the difference. being able to see where 'good enough' and can become 'even better'; where a shadow could be lessened, where a little gold light could be bounced, that is where the subtle but significant changes are. looking back on my own work, the shots i am most proud of are those where i saw space for a detail--a little light placed down the cliff, acting as the glow from the city lights below, the light hidden in the hummer's sun visor; and on monday, we were at the peaks ice arena, where the light is prett even and flat and generally usuable. put i had our grip just 'float' a small, soft light off camera, so that the light on their faces was a little brighter on one side. they didn't 'need' it, but once it was there, they looked better.

ice. yes, my first day as a professional d.p. we shot a hockey game scene--maybe i was inspired to take the hockey class my last semester at school.... out there on the ice [on skates] with the camera was interesting, and we shot several small moments with blocked scenes; actors scoring, checking, getting revenge, etc. but we also needed some general shots of the game. so the director called both teams together and had them do a full on scrimmage, first warning them to watch out for me.
i'm confortable enough on the ice, but when i'm trying to also shoot a movie and dodge hockey players [whose minds are on the puck, not the camera guy], i begin to wish i could use more than 10% of my brain. i got some good shots of the game, and had a few close calls with some focused players. as i was coming around and following the puck rather well, even getting a little ambitious, a player crashed in front of me and i couldn't do anything about it.

falling over him, i was glad that my cinematographer instincts were still sharp: 'i heal; the camera doesn't'. my arms were out, because that's what we do when we fall--we want to brace ourselves. unfortunately, in my hand was the camera. instict overrode instict, and i tucked the camera in toward me, meaning i landed on my bent wrist.
when the flash of action was over, i was lying on the ice and wondering what condition the camera was in and what the was that i saw go spinning across the ice when i landed.

the spinning object was the battery, and the camera seemed to be fine. yes, i was proud of myself. my wrist still hurts [just a nasty bruise], but the cheers that came from the section full of extras as i stood up did wonders.

my mom makes 'to do' lists each day, and crosses things off as she does them. she once told me that if you do something that wasn't on your list, put it on the list so that you can cross it off, too. i am putting 'shoot a movie on ice skates' on my list of life goals and am crossing it off.

[for those of you wondering, yes, i still wear my 'ninja cinematographer' headband]

can't buy me love

i bought a small 'moleskin' on monday night. i like it. it helps me feel 'cultured'. i liked the selection at barnes&noble, and considered getting the 'journalists' flip-style booklet, since that's easier to write in with a left hand, the un-lined pages seemed to invite more freeform writings, and i smiled at the book that also had parisian maps in it--even though i'm not a paris-phile, there's something charmingly bohemian about it; but i went with the standard, and i regret nothing. i like carrying it around and jot down things when i want to. i hope to someday have little drawings in there, or perhaps a poem [i wonder if i should write poems], and maybe even a grail map.
an excerpt from today, writing about little good things:
*we've been on the same battery all day
*i've eaten a good amount of fruits and veggie. probably five servings
*i've been talking and laughing with people on set
*i haven't had to rush at all [that one came crashing down on me but a few minutes later...]
*the day has gone by pretty fast--only 80 minutes left
*i sat on the standards [tripod] without spreaders and fell but didn't get hurt

$20

i stopped by the tiny wellsfargo branch down by centennial, where i used to live, to deposit a couple of checks and got a little cash back. stuffing a small handful of bills into my wallet, i was reminded of my former roommates from the aforementioned area once laughing at my slighly oversized wallet.
back at home, i joined mark in a dvd episode of the simpsons and enjoyed a bottle of cream soda. partway into the second episode, i got a call from the teller at the bank, asking if i had left received my money. i said that i had, clearly remembering the slight struggle to get it in. he said there had been some money left on his counter and wondered if it could be mine. i pulled out the cash and counted it, and, sure enough, i was missing a twenty.

when i got to the bank, he said that he had stepped away for a moment after i left, and when he came back the next customer questioned about the mystery money lying on the conter. the teller checked his books and found that he was balanced, and so deduced that the dude whose haircut with malinna the amazing paul mitchell student had just been rescheduled probably left it there. he somehow tracked down my phone number and gave me the call.

it's nice to be reminded that there are still intengrious people in the world. = )

other happy things:
*e.l. fudge cookies are on sale for $1 at macy's
*my 'babel' poster came today. brand new and $2 on ebay
*it's conference weekend. oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy

all these things that i've seen, part 3

elizabeth [1998] -long, slow, and as difficult to keep the inter-character politics straight as 'braveheart', but without the great battle sequences and blue facepaint. while no aspect of the production showed a lack of quality, i really didn't care much.
as is the case with most movies, however, the last 15-20 was somewhat interesting and brought together the story through a montage that was most certainly homage to one of the greats. in a sequence paralleling the 'baptism/execution' scene of 'the godfather', we see that elizabeth is eliminating her enemies to consolidate her power as well. further referencing coppola's masterpiece, the film ends with elizabeth ceremonially assuming her throne, establishing in no uncertain terms that she rules, and that you should never takes sides against the country. after the fade to black, the film informs us that the queen ruled for another 40 years, creating england's golden age and making it the most powerful country in the world.
interesting how information like that can make the film that much more enjoyable.
--less than i expected--

four weddings and a funeral [1994] -the pacing moves along briskly, leaving no time to get bored; keeping track of the eponymous number of weddings and funerals helps, too. edited for tv, it's interesting how the british profanity was left in; it means nothing to me, but would have burned the ears of some of my friends. the movie gets in just as things get interesting and gets out before anything becomes dull; the story brings a joyful array of characters, including a deaf brother, whose signing ability becomes more than just another flavor to the story.
i am a hugh grant fan--he's just too darn charming. 'about a boy', 'sense and sensibility', 'the englishman who went up a hill but came down a mountain', and this; you just can't beat the bloke. i think this was his introduction to u.s. audiences, and over ten years later, his sheepishly pathetic charm shows no signs of fading.
it was interesting to see the film's philosophizing on the institution of marriage, this being an early predecessor to our current climate of nervous bafflement toward matrimony. the movie looks at marriage with a mixture of yearning and apprehension. a mentality that has only grown amidst the late 20's early 30's crowd in the new millennium, notably dealt with in both of zach braff's directed features, viewing marriage can be a scary thing. the reservation toward entering into the commitment shows that there is still some respect for the sacred covenant, evidenced by the fear of breaching such. yet even the careless hugh grant character [and his surrounding enterouge] felt a yearning for something more than just a night in bed; the desire to be one with someone is within each of us.
not until the final act of the story did i find myself really caring about the characters, but during the closing sequence, i was smiling because i was happy for them.
--better than i expected--

platoon [1986] -best picture 1986, on the afi top 100, i was curious to see it. sadly, it did not hold up to great vietnam movies like 'the deer hunter' or 'apocalypse now'. what happened? well, universal truths come from specific experiences. 'deer hunter' and 'apocalypse now' are the journey's and experiences of defined characters--martin sheen or robert deniro [and/or christopher walken] are all unique characters, following paths that we have not specifically seen before. charlie sheen in 'platoon', however, could have easily been one of thousands of grunts in the surreal jungle world. there is no clear objective or plot with the movie; its thesis statement is simply, 'war is hell', and spend the next two hours eloquently stating such. i disliked oliver stone's very anti-war 'born on the fourth of july', and was happy that 'platoon' was not so nauseatingly manipulative. still, the movie gave us little to hold on to. there were a dozen tertiary characters, including johnny depp [whom i did not recognize until his credit shot at the end] and john c. mcginley ['scrubs's dr. cox], all of whom i suspect most vietnam vets could recognize as being from their company.
my knowledge of old war movies is about as shallow as my experience with westerns, but john wayne, gary cooper, and the heroes of yesteryear made war look glorious and heroic, with clearly defined boundaries between right and wrong, the good and the bad. and, to a degree, it seems that things were moreso back then. even the modern wwII epic, 'saving private ryan', doesn't invoke the same nightmare as the contemporary vietnam stories. 'platoon' showed the horrors of war without leaving room for dispute while avoiding repulsion. in the end, we are left feeling like that of our everyman protagonist, not knowing what went on out there, but it was crazy.
--less than i expected--

patton [1970]-patton could have easilly be a movie about a stubborn and headstrong general who lived for war, believing in reincarnation and who won one of the most impressive victories in not only world war II, but in the history of the united states. and it would have been a fine movie that way. there are two aspects of it that make it become so much more. the foremost is an seemingly small incident that ripples through the entire movie. grandpa simpson put it best when he said, 'you can push them out of a plane, you can march them off a cliff, you can send them off to die on some forsaken rock. but for some reason, you can't slap 'em.' the general's slapping of a soldier who had lost his nerve created a stir throughout the military and government bureacracy as well as a spike of outrage among the u.s. civilians. soon patton was released from his command, even after making a formal apology for his actions, and was stationed around as little more than a decoy. when the germans read from the american newspapers that the great and formidable general, one of their biggest concerns [and rightfully so], had been demoted for slapping a grunt, they blow it off, unable to believe that the americans would dismiss their greatest leader for something so trivial.
the question is never explicitly addressed and barely stated, yet it is one of the movie's ponderings that makes it deeper than 'just a good war movie'. is there logic in removing a great strength in the army or any organization because of a relatively small indiscretion? is the loss of leadership worth the example made about the importance of rules above all else? in our current culture, we are much quicker to praise heroes who break the rules to achieve their noble goal, following that the ends do indeed justify the means. but in a movie made thirty years ago about people thirty years before that, it was much more of a question [making a wwII during the vietnam war is intriguing in inself, but won't be discussed here].
the 'always on the offensive' personality of general patton seems possibly impeccable early in the movie, that perhaps making people hate you at the moment but getting the job done is the way things work, not caring whether or not they like you afterward. the other strength of 'patton' is that it does not glorify it's emponymous character, but tells the story of an eccentric man. the antithesis is karl malden's character, omar bradley, whose book provided much of the source material for the screenplay [written, by the way, by a pre-godfather francis ford coppola]. general bradley is a good friend of patton's, and they work together throughout the war, but with very different attitudes. while we do not see much of his leadership, we can infer that bradley leads with respect, not blazing determination. when patton is given command over the 3rd army, he is under bradley, but he has also learned humility. he no longer reaps results through shouting and fear, he has learned that people respond even more effectively to support and affirmation, best shown in the wonderful scene where he hops out of his jeep and cheerfully directs intersecting patrols of tanks himself.
i've been wary of 'patton' for a while, not only because it seemed like a boring old movie that my dad likes to watch, but also because i wondered if i could ever take george c. scott seriously after his amazing role in 'dr strangelove, or how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb'. neither was a problem; the dialogue carried with it just enough fun and levity to keep it from being a dry and dull military movie and from the opening monologue to the final scene with him and willy [not william] the pit bull, i never doubted he was patton. the title is correct; it is not about world war II, nor anything or anyone else but george s. patton. there is no bias, no glorifying nor demonizing, but a movie that tells the story of a person.
--better than i expected--

turkey juice

i've worked with people from both sides of the united states, and have done a car commercial with some fancy dutch director, but turkey was a new one. we did a two-day commercial at the u of u huntsman center--kind of like the marriott center but covered in red and it leaves you feeling.... uncomfortable. the concept was to have memot okur, the turkish guy on the utah jazz, playing basketball against himself. he then proceeds to thoroughly school himself, and after knocking himself to the ground during shot, pulls him up and into himself again. he drinks 'dimes' fruit juice and feels happy. that meant a body double and a lot of place-marking, dots on the double's face [for motion-tracking and digital replacement], and even a green screen at the end.
getting the crew list was fun, because it was once again the usual group of guys i work with, and having a crew you know really makes a lot of the difference. the director and other ad guys were from turkey, which is really an interesting language, and i found myself looking up the country on wikipedia on my day off; interesting place. the dp was from new york but spoke turkish, as well as french, russian, and japanese, and thought it was neat that i did too [just japanese]. that was nice, because it gave me some brownie points, and eased the pressure off me when things got busy. the turkish guys were friendly and cool, and even though they spoke english, m&m's are also a universal language.

all during the shoot, i was curious to try some of this turkish fruit juice [apple, grape, peach, and pommegranate], but despite there being several cartons sitting on the craft services table, they were for the commercial and so were off limits. when we wrapped, however, they let us take some. i was thrilled and grabbed four. on one side everything is written in turkish, and on the other side is the english translation. alongside being toted with 'no sugar added', another spot on the carton says 'with cell'. i don't even know what that's trying to say. but the juice is good.

this is not one of my better posts. i need to write when i'm feeling it, not when it's convenient.

if i had a million dollars....

alexander nevsky (1938)
ashes and diamonds (1958)
l'avventura (1960)
ballad of a soldier (1959)
beauty and the beast (1946)
black orpheus (1959)
brief encounter (1945)
the fallen idol (1948)
fires on the plain (1959)
fists in the pocket (1965)
floating weeds (1959)
forbidden games (1952)
the 400 blows (1959)
grand illusion (1937)
haxan (1922)
ikiru (1952)
the importance of being earnest (1952)
ivan the terrible, part II (1958)
le jour se leve (1939)
jules and jim (1962)
kind hearts and coronets (1949)
knife in the water (1962)
the lady vanishes (1938)
the life and death of colonel blimp (1943)
loves of a blonde (1965)
m (1931)
m. hulot's holiday (1953)
miss julie (1951)
pandora's box (1929)
pepe le moko (1937)
il posto (1961)
pygmalion (1938)
rashomon (1950)
richard III (1955)
the rules of the game (1939)
seven samurai (1954)
the seventh seal (1957)
the spirit of the beehive (1973)
la strada (1954)
summertime (1955)
the third man (1949)
the 39 steps (1935)
ugetsu (1953)
umberto d. (1952)
the virgin spring (1960)
viridiana (1961)
the wages of fear (1953)
the white sheik (1952)
wild strawberries (1957)

late last year, janus films [parent of the criterion collection] put out an 'essential art house' set of 50 great films. i watched 'alexander nevsky' yesterday and really enjoyed it, and have since been eying this set again and again. i don't need it. that's a lot of stuffy, artsy, black and white foreign movies. and it screams 'culture.'
suggested retail price: $850. direct from criterionco.com: $650.
all the same, i put it on my amazon wishlist; it worked for my buster keaton collection.