My older brother Chris came over this evening. He is finishing up a whirlwind tour of the eastern seaboard: Vermont to Maryland to Virginia to Maine. He stopped by shortly after Bethany and Isaiah returned from the gym.
Contrary to what I was expecting, Isaiah instantly was interacting with Chris. They have met before, but it has been a few months. I figured we would have to patiently wait for Izzy to warm up to his uncle. Instead within a few short minutes he was pointing out Chris' beard, saying his name and even asking to be held in his lap (though that was during dinner and we have a no-lap-at-dinner rule.
The reality and "weight" of our life often strikes me, out of the blue: we have a son. Another human being. With a rapidly developing mind and body. Who is constantly seeking and learning and emoting and trying things out. It is an incredible time and I am very thankful for it.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
COOKIES!
My neighbor has three daughters; one of them is a doctor focused on healthy living. She has a line of "Healthy Junk Food"
http://www.lauraswholesomejunkfood.com/
Check it out...Whole Foods and other places sell them.
Anywhosul, I got some yummy cookies from my neighbor...I am going to eat them now.
http://www.lauraswholesomejunkfood.com/
Check it out...Whole Foods and other places sell them.
Anywhosul, I got some yummy cookies from my neighbor...I am going to eat them now.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Artistic Introspection
Last night, I dug through my archived video projects to find my senior thesis, Slip. I had been prompted by my brother's blog post that quoted from the film I made while a student at the University of New England. I was shocked to find that I only have one copy of the film; I must have chucked a whole mess of copies during moving, because I used to have way too many discs of this crazy little film.
I popped in the DVD with a bit of trepidation, since I know that the years can be unkind to artistic endeavors (especially initial, novice ones). But I wanted to take a moment to see where I was six years ago, creatively, and take stock of what steps (hopefully) forward I have made. Here's a breakdown of good stuff/bad stuff:
GOOD: opening credits, which used a projector shooting onto a tub of water. I remember rigging this up knowing that if anything went wrong, a $2000 projector and camera could get destroyed. Looks great, though!
BAD: v e r y s l o w b e g i n n i n g
I would have done well to have others in the editing suite with me, forcing me to cut out many of the bits I wrote. The first third of the film just drags, with a dull attention to detail: showing every piece of the morning as the protagonist, Charles, gets ready for work. I wrote in some comedy, but it just falls flat because it is so slow. Lesson learned: a good artist knows that some ideas have to be scrapped.
GOOD: casting! A smart director who has limited time doesn't cast actors who need to prep, he casts people who actually are his characters.
BAD: audio. While this was due to a lack of equipment and crew, it makes me cringe to have audio levels bump up, then down, be covered with wind noise, or include camera clicks. I now have some better equipment, but haven't done a talkie in a while...
GOOD: script. I'm still proud of the script I wrote. I think it did a good job of exploring the concepts of id, ego and superego with an eye towards zaniness and action. With some appropriate editing, I think it could make a very nice little TV show.
CUTE: my casting of future wife Bethany as "Thief/Butt Slapper" Guess who's butt she slapped? Also, I knew she was the one for me when she let me destroy her car for the film.
The film was inspired by a course I took that dealt with Freudian psychoanalysis, among other things. I made the film under a huge time crunch (my advisor doubted I would produce a final film) and starring friends that I coerced/begged into sacrificing for me. I pulled favors from the media department, facilities management and the Biddeford community at large. Thinking back, I am kinda shocked that I pulled it off...amazing the things we do when we are younger.
I'm going to try and post it online soon...look for it.
I popped in the DVD with a bit of trepidation, since I know that the years can be unkind to artistic endeavors (especially initial, novice ones). But I wanted to take a moment to see where I was six years ago, creatively, and take stock of what steps (hopefully) forward I have made. Here's a breakdown of good stuff/bad stuff:
GOOD: opening credits, which used a projector shooting onto a tub of water. I remember rigging this up knowing that if anything went wrong, a $2000 projector and camera could get destroyed. Looks great, though!
BAD: v e r y s l o w b e g i n n i n g
I would have done well to have others in the editing suite with me, forcing me to cut out many of the bits I wrote. The first third of the film just drags, with a dull attention to detail: showing every piece of the morning as the protagonist, Charles, gets ready for work. I wrote in some comedy, but it just falls flat because it is so slow. Lesson learned: a good artist knows that some ideas have to be scrapped.
GOOD: casting! A smart director who has limited time doesn't cast actors who need to prep, he casts people who actually are his characters.
BAD: audio. While this was due to a lack of equipment and crew, it makes me cringe to have audio levels bump up, then down, be covered with wind noise, or include camera clicks. I now have some better equipment, but haven't done a talkie in a while...
GOOD: script. I'm still proud of the script I wrote. I think it did a good job of exploring the concepts of id, ego and superego with an eye towards zaniness and action. With some appropriate editing, I think it could make a very nice little TV show.
CUTE: my casting of future wife Bethany as "Thief/Butt Slapper" Guess who's butt she slapped? Also, I knew she was the one for me when she let me destroy her car for the film.
The film was inspired by a course I took that dealt with Freudian psychoanalysis, among other things. I made the film under a huge time crunch (my advisor doubted I would produce a final film) and starring friends that I coerced/begged into sacrificing for me. I pulled favors from the media department, facilities management and the Biddeford community at large. Thinking back, I am kinda shocked that I pulled it off...amazing the things we do when we are younger.
I'm going to try and post it online soon...look for it.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
My Yearly Post Habit...
...must be stopped! Therefore, I am going to attempt a more regular blogging schedule. We'll see how it goes and whether a newborn baby interferes (all signs point to, "yes").
As usual, the desire for blogging was inspired by movie-watching. This time around, it was the live-action and CGI hybrid Alvin and the Chipmunks.
You read that right: Alvin and the Chipmunks.
I feel like the masochists at the AV Club who watch something they know will be terrible but do it anyway. Though you are now disregarding me as a fool and navigating away from this page, please let me explain.
See, I have a wife and she is a very kind, gentle, loving soul. When someone offers her a movie to borrow, she accepts. Even if that movie was found to be pointless by some people and
sparked an online feud. She brings it home and causes me to physically cringe as she pushes the dreaded DVD close to me, threatening to touch my skin with it. I must not be tainted by this affront to cinephiles everywhere! A no-talent, phoned-in, greedy, cash-sniffing turd of a movie. A film trying to wring more $$$ from a 50-year old silly, sped-up recording gimmick.
This, I was sure, would be a case where I could judge a book by its cover or, rather, a movie by its poster. Even Jason Lee, whose slacker sarcasm is always appreciated, could not make this worthwhile. In fact, his presence almost guaranteed that this would be a painful viewing: every moment tinged by, "C'mon, I loved you in Chasing Amy and that Sasquatch movie!"
So, after a discussion with my wife, we agreed to only view a few key scenes, so as to give her enough fodder to stumble through any discussion of the movie. A perfect picture of domestic duplicity, we sat down to take a Cliff Notes' tour of Alvin and the Chipmunks. We ended up watching it straight through, even pausing it when one of us had to get a snack!
And, amazingly, I kind of enjoyed the movie. Sure, it was cheesy: few people question talking and singing chipmunks, the slightly forced "we are a family" theme, the silly pratfalls early on. Many moments were uncomfortable: every song and dance sequence had the three 'Munks grooving with midriff-baring backup singers. A lot of the performances were lazily done, Mr. Lee's particularly. But on the whole, the movie tries to just be simple fun for kids. It has an honest message that is important for kids (and parents): rules help us be better people, and family helps us follow the rules. Put another way, family is important because they (should?) look out for you and try to give you a safe place to grow up in.
I have to get used to movies like this. My son is growing steadily in Bethany's tummy and is due in just six weeks. Soon, he'll be old enough to be requesting movies and I'm sure his picks will drive me nuts. But as long as they have a good message, I can't complain.
Beyond the message, the filmmakers were smart enough to give Lee and David Cross (who, spoiler alert!, plays the villain) moments to show their distinctive comedic styles. These moments are few and far between, but I appreciated them. Deadpan humor always gets me.
Also, the cheesiness gets so excessive at points that I couldn't help but laugh. The obligatory montages (rise to stardom, music writing, cleaning house) are just spot on in their complete refusal to have any sort of originality. And that takes guts. Also, David Cross's final scene is brilliant in it absolute lameness.
All in all, I think my slight enjoyment of Alvin and the Chipmunks came from my expectations. I was sure I would be witnessing a creative trainwreck with a massive body count; instead, I got to see a slight fender bender that cause minor whiplash.
As usual, the desire for blogging was inspired by movie-watching. This time around, it was the live-action and CGI hybrid Alvin and the Chipmunks.
You read that right: Alvin and the Chipmunks.
I feel like the masochists at the AV Club who watch something they know will be terrible but do it anyway. Though you are now disregarding me as a fool and navigating away from this page, please let me explain.
See, I have a wife and she is a very kind, gentle, loving soul. When someone offers her a movie to borrow, she accepts. Even if that movie was found to be pointless by some people and
sparked an online feud. She brings it home and causes me to physically cringe as she pushes the dreaded DVD close to me, threatening to touch my skin with it. I must not be tainted by this affront to cinephiles everywhere! A no-talent, phoned-in, greedy, cash-sniffing turd of a movie. A film trying to wring more $$$ from a 50-year old silly, sped-up recording gimmick.
This, I was sure, would be a case where I could judge a book by its cover or, rather, a movie by its poster. Even Jason Lee, whose slacker sarcasm is always appreciated, could not make this worthwhile. In fact, his presence almost guaranteed that this would be a painful viewing: every moment tinged by, "C'mon, I loved you in Chasing Amy and that Sasquatch movie!"
So, after a
And, amazingly, I kind of enjoyed the movie. Sure, it was cheesy: few people question talking and singing chipmunks, the slightly forced "we are a family" theme, the silly pratfalls early on. Many moments were uncomfortable: every song and dance sequence had the three 'Munks grooving with midriff-baring backup singers. A lot of the performances were lazily done, Mr. Lee's particularly. But on the whole, the movie tries to just be simple fun for kids. It has an honest message that is important for kids (and parents): rules help us be better people, and family helps us follow the rules. Put another way, family is important because they (should?) look out for you and try to give you a safe place to grow up in.
I have to get used to movies like this. My son is growing steadily in Bethany's tummy and is due in just six weeks. Soon, he'll be old enough to be requesting movies and I'm sure his picks will drive me nuts. But as long as they have a good message, I can't complain.
Beyond the message, the filmmakers were smart enough to give Lee and David Cross (who, spoiler alert!, plays the villain) moments to show their distinctive comedic styles. These moments are few and far between, but I appreciated them. Deadpan humor always gets me.
Also, the cheesiness gets so excessive at points that I couldn't help but laugh. The obligatory montages (rise to stardom, music writing, cleaning house) are just spot on in their complete refusal to have any sort of originality. And that takes guts. Also, David Cross's final scene is brilliant in it absolute lameness.
All in all, I think my slight enjoyment of Alvin and the Chipmunks came from my expectations. I was sure I would be witnessing a creative trainwreck with a massive body count; instead, I got to see a slight fender bender that cause minor whiplash.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Second Time Around
Last night I took the time to re-watch Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. When I had initially seen the film a year ago, I left the film slightly let down. I had loved the original, seeing it multiple times in the theater. This second chapter seemed to lack the spark of excitement from the first adventure, and was merely a showcase for several huge action set pieces.
But a second time around gave me the chance to focus on many subtle aspects the filmmakers put into this film. It is so jam-packed and rollicking that they are easy to miss when you first watch. Much like the original, clues about the mystery are given non-verbally and through the actors' reactions to events/dialogue. A shifted gaze, or slight furrowing of the brow shows so much.
Art (which film is supposed to be) requires multiple interactions with the piece to foster introspection and contemplation. Great art allows one to find new details and learn more with each interaction. While I am not saying that Pirates is high art or anything, I do want to recognize and applaud the filmmakers. Gore Verbinski and his crew have created a deep, twisting experience with these films; a product that rewards rewatching and rethinking. From its unique and rough visual style, to its (sometimes) nuanced acting.
The details don't matter for this post, because what all this got me thinking about was the nature of the film industry in our nation. Time was you could count on a movie playing for at least a month, if not several. Now, anything less than blockbuster is immediately gone after just a week or two. Sad, because we miss the chance to explore deeper by watching and rewatching some great artistic work.
But a second time around gave me the chance to focus on many subtle aspects the filmmakers put into this film. It is so jam-packed and rollicking that they are easy to miss when you first watch. Much like the original, clues about the mystery are given non-verbally and through the actors' reactions to events/dialogue. A shifted gaze, or slight furrowing of the brow shows so much.
Art (which film is supposed to be) requires multiple interactions with the piece to foster introspection and contemplation. Great art allows one to find new details and learn more with each interaction. While I am not saying that Pirates is high art or anything, I do want to recognize and applaud the filmmakers. Gore Verbinski and his crew have created a deep, twisting experience with these films; a product that rewards rewatching and rethinking. From its unique and rough visual style, to its (sometimes) nuanced acting.
The details don't matter for this post, because what all this got me thinking about was the nature of the film industry in our nation. Time was you could count on a movie playing for at least a month, if not several. Now, anything less than blockbuster is immediately gone after just a week or two. Sad, because we miss the chance to explore deeper by watching and rewatching some great artistic work.
Friday, May 18, 2007
My Spidey Sense is Tingling
After talking with my brother at length last night, I decided to take the time to post some thoughts about a favorite movie franchise. Spider-Man!
I have always been a big Spidey fan, reading the comics, hoping for a faithful and creative movie adaptation. When the first Spider-Man was announced in 2001, I was beyond excited: I was pumped. I think I spent more time watching the preview trailer online than writing my undergraduate senior thesis (note to college students: don't do that.)
The first film took its time establishing the essential characters of the story: Peter, awkward yet diligent; MJ, fun, popular but with a true heart; Harry, awkward (in a shamed/defeated way; Aunt May, source of strength and love. More importantly than explaining who these people were, the film did an excellent job in exploring the relationships between the characters. This aspect of the story was essential to make a film faithful to the Spider-Man comic.
Spider-Man is a super-hero who's greatest power is his over-abundance of faith to his friends and family. He is a good boy. Whether it is helping his childhood bully (Flash Thompson) overcome his alcoholism or physically defending his greatest critic, J. Jonah Jameson, Peter Parker is a young man who superhumanly follows his moral code. In the comics, he is constantly conflicted by a desire to use his powers to help strangers and a need to take care of his loved ones.
This is why I enjoy the stories of Spider-Man and it is why the first Spidey film pleased me. Here the story had focused on dramatic moments rather than slam bang special effects (though there was plenty of that). And I think I understand how this happened.
Sam Raimi has long been a favorite director of mine, mainly for his daring and stubborn use of innovation. While creating his (in)famous Evil Dead trilogy, Mr. Raimi made due with the limited budget he had, creating 2x4 dollies and homemade rigs. He has what creative film people need to succeed: a visual style/dream that is buttressed by a keen technical sense.
Raimi's success, however, was mired by his love of slapstick and schlocky storytelling. Xena, Hercules, Army of Darkness, parts of Darkman. Mainly stages for exciting action, his work had little character development or substance. Some enjoy this and I can, when I'm in the mood. But it doesn't get you big budget films.
So Raimi started wearing suits on set and went small, directing less flashy films: the superb A Simple Plan, the muted For Love of The Game, and the thankfully short-titled The Gift. In all of these, he chooses a story about relationships and took the time to learn more about how to really pull a performance from an actor. These new skills, combined with his long history as a great visual director got him Spider-Man.
Since this was his first BIG film, Raimi focused even more, knowing that (in some way) his career was on the line. And he pulled it off to great acclaim.
Stay tuned for continued thoughts on Spider-Man 2 and 3.
I have always been a big Spidey fan, reading the comics, hoping for a faithful and creative movie adaptation. When the first Spider-Man was announced in 2001, I was beyond excited: I was pumped. I think I spent more time watching the preview trailer online than writing my undergraduate senior thesis (note to college students: don't do that.)
The first film took its time establishing the essential characters of the story: Peter, awkward yet diligent; MJ, fun, popular but with a true heart; Harry, awkward (in a shamed/defeated way; Aunt May, source of strength and love. More importantly than explaining who these people were, the film did an excellent job in exploring the relationships between the characters. This aspect of the story was essential to make a film faithful to the Spider-Man comic.
Spider-Man is a super-hero who's greatest power is his over-abundance of faith to his friends and family. He is a good boy. Whether it is helping his childhood bully (Flash Thompson) overcome his alcoholism or physically defending his greatest critic, J. Jonah Jameson, Peter Parker is a young man who superhumanly follows his moral code. In the comics, he is constantly conflicted by a desire to use his powers to help strangers and a need to take care of his loved ones.
This is why I enjoy the stories of Spider-Man and it is why the first Spidey film pleased me. Here the story had focused on dramatic moments rather than slam bang special effects (though there was plenty of that). And I think I understand how this happened.
Sam Raimi has long been a favorite director of mine, mainly for his daring and stubborn use of innovation. While creating his (in)famous Evil Dead trilogy, Mr. Raimi made due with the limited budget he had, creating 2x4 dollies and homemade rigs. He has what creative film people need to succeed: a visual style/dream that is buttressed by a keen technical sense.
Raimi's success, however, was mired by his love of slapstick and schlocky storytelling. Xena, Hercules, Army of Darkness, parts of Darkman. Mainly stages for exciting action, his work had little character development or substance. Some enjoy this and I can, when I'm in the mood. But it doesn't get you big budget films.
So Raimi started wearing suits on set and went small, directing less flashy films: the superb A Simple Plan, the muted For Love of The Game, and the thankfully short-titled The Gift. In all of these, he chooses a story about relationships and took the time to learn more about how to really pull a performance from an actor. These new skills, combined with his long history as a great visual director got him Spider-Man.
Since this was his first BIG film, Raimi focused even more, knowing that (in some way) his career was on the line. And he pulled it off to great acclaim.
Stay tuned for continued thoughts on Spider-Man 2 and 3.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)