The schedule's up, I made my choices, now all I have to do is wait. Here's where I'll be and what will be keeping me up at night.
Thursday
Haze
Dir. Shinya Tsukamoto- Japan- 49 minutes
Saw meets Cube as a man wakes up in a small, cramped space and a stomach wound that is killing him slowly.
Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream
Dir. Stuart Samuels- 88 minutes
The directors, critics, and theatre owners that created, panned, and proudly showed "Midnight Movies" like, Night of the Living Dead, Pink Flamingos, Eraserhead, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and many others talk about these "cult" films and their journey into the wide, wacky world.
Last Supper
Dir. Osamu Fukutani- Japan/Hong Kong- 92 minutes
Based on the book by Kei Ohishi, and produced as a multi-country project, some said this could never be done. Never say never, so here is a gore-fest of a brilliant plastic surgeon with a taste for human flesh and the murderous impulses to fulfil it.
Parasite 3D (Link goes to a trailer)
Dir. Charles Band- 85 minutes
The first starring role for Demi Moore! Yup, it's that Parasite movie presented in 3D, with corporate assassins, a mad scientist, hoods, and... parasites. Charles Band is in town to present it and do a talk-back.
Friday
Inside (Link goes to a trailer)
Dir. Jeff Miller- 100 minutes
"...voyeurism gone very, very wrong." Really, do we need to know more than that? Jeff Miller's in town for the Q&A after the film.
The Beach Party at the Threshold of Hell
Dir. Jonny Gillette and Kevin Wheatley- 97 minutes
Post-Apocalpyse, year 2096, The Vice-King of New America- Tex Kennedy (heir to the Kennedy clan), android bodyguards, and the great-great-great grandson of Fidel Castro. Oh! And there's Benny, the rightful King, too! Yea, ya got me, too, but it looks like it will be fun!
Zhest (Junk)
Dir. Denis Neimand- Russia- 127 minutes
An investigative reporter follows the trail of a pedophile and rapist into B.F.E. Russia. It's fringe vs. mainstream as the reoprter devles into the often surreal Russian landscape where the denizens hunt the city-folk for fun.
Unrest
Dir. Jason Todd Ipson- 85 minutes
Stuck without a home until her student loans come through, first year med student Alison is living in the hospital where she takes her gross anatomy class. Curious, she looks into the history of her cadaver, and the murders begin. The director (a former teacher and surgeon himself), had the cast filming in a real morgue, with real bodies. Fun.
Saturday
Tideland (Link to homepage.)
Dir. Terry Gilliam- 122 minutes
You want more than just a title and a director? OK, Jeliza-Rose has lost her mother to a heroin OD and her Dad's taken her out to a rural setting to recover. She talks to Barbie-doll heads. There's a woman who's always in a bee-keeper's helmet. It's "odd" and "taboo." What can I say, it's Gilliam.
Nightmare
Dir. Dylan Bank- 111 minutes
What would you do if you woke up with a strange woman and a video camera that shows you committing a violent murder in a room that's now completely clean? You'd make a movie of it, of course. The line between film and fact blurs as the director struggles to find who's filming the murders he can't remember, as he's filming the murders he's not convinced he's not commiting. Confused yet?
The Hamster Cage
Dir. Larry Kent- Canada- 92 minutes
Ahh, holidays. Inappropriate gifts, family you love to hate, and a "hell of Oedipal scenerios." It's dark comedy at its freakish best!
Lie Still (Link goes to the trailer.)
Dir. Sean Hogan- UK- 80 minutes
It's a haunted house movie. A VERY haunted house movie.
Blood Trails (Link goes to the trailer.)
Dir. Robert Krause- USA/Germany- 90 minutes
A chance encounter leads to a night of violent sex that cyclist Anne would rather forget. Escaping to the mountains with her boyfriend, a hellish encounter with her one-night-stand leads to a hellish race downhill. Lion's Gate has snatched it up as the next Haute Tension or Wolf Creek, so look for a wide release next year.
And this is just the first three days! More to come, gore to come.
(Sorry, I just couldn't help it....)
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
Counting down!
So I finally printed out my festival schedule, and I'm probably more happy than I really should be.
I can't help it, my greedy little inner demons are going to get to feast on some of the best horror, sci-fi, fantasy, and any combination thereof, movies that are out there to be found. There are panel discussions, and special hosts, and all sorts of goodies to be had. Advance screenengs of movies like Gilliam's Tideland and Aronofsky's The Fountain. Asian, Irish, American, and films from all over will be screened for a very enthusiastic crowd.
I will not sleep and I will spend way too much money on the awesomeness Drafthouse goodies.
It's gonna be great.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The biggest fictional history book I've ever read.
"Many books are to be read, some are to be studied, and a few are meant to be lived in for weeks. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is of this last kind." -Michael Dirda, The Washington Post
To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.
Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.
So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis
Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.
Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.
Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.
But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.
My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.
1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!
To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.
Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.
So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis
Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.
Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.
Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.
But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.
My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.
1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
