Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Lindsay & Moskowitz (and friends)
This is from a screening a few weeks ago of Cassavetes' Minnie and Moskowitz at Film Streams, with Seymour Cassel in person for a post-show Q & A. Seymour was as charming as ever and told many great stories about his experiences making films and being great friends with John and talked a bit about his work with Wes Anderson. I had never seen the film before, and it was great to see it on the big screen.
Seymour as Moskowitz is vivacious, unpredictable and a thrill to watch (and he sports some pretty sweet sideburns and mustache - see below). The film also solidified that Gena Rowlands is indeed one of my all-time favorite actresses.
I always seem to leave Cassavetes films inspired and itching to make a film, and those for me are the best movie-watching experiences. I enjoy a lot of films, but there aren't too many that come along that really give me that feeling that I really want to and almost have to make a movie.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Arts funding
Okay, I know I run the risk of coming off like a spokesperson for the N.Y. Times, but I also wanted to mention (and link to) a really interesting article about arts funding that was in today's Arts section.
The arts is an area of all this economic and stimulus package talk that often gets ignored, and the reality is that I hadn't even heard about this section of the bill before today (though I have generally bypassed many articles on the economy because how many of those can you really read?), so maybe it was my own ignorance. However, I think it's a facet of an important issue that deserves attention, and I'm happy to say that after a close call, the final version of the recovery package does indeed include $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.
It is just disturbing to me to read about people in positions of power and government not recognizing the importance of art on a country's culture, well-being, and cultural and economic prosperity. And there seems to be a lot of ignorance floating around when you have a Representative (Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia) saying things like this:
“I just think putting people to work is more important than putting more art on the wall of some New York City gallery frequented by the elite art community...call me a sucker for the working man."
Is Jack not aware that many (or most) artists make less than say, an electrician or plumber? I have pay stubs if he needs to see the proof. By the way, Jack, many people who would fit into your championed group of "working men" are employed in artistic fields: electricians and grips on film sets, construction/woodworkers, set builders, lighting technicians, audio technicians, builders/electricians/plumbers/accountants for art galleries, ticket takers, garment workers, and arts writers (or maybe they don't get dirty enough to qualify as the rough and tumble "working man"). There are too numerous to continue on with this list, but you get the picture and those are only examples of the directly employed...think about those who benefit economically indirectly, for example, the restaurant next to the Broadway theatre, etc.).
I hope we can move towards a more holistic understanding of the arts and its role in society and not have preconceived notions of who "artists" are and who enjoys art. There are people of every race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status who are artists, who try to make a living doing something that relates to art, and who enjoy art in some way.
Why would there be a stigma attached to giving money to people that try to make a living making/supporting/disseminating art or involved in preserving art or educating about art when there is no stigma attached to giving money to people who try to make a living making cars, through investments or the stock market?
Anyway, I think it's an important article to read, especially if you're in the arts, have friends and family in the arts, or care about the arts. If you don't follow into any of these categories, I probably don't know you personally, but I recommend it anyway.
I could go on, but I'll stop myself...here's the article: Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force.
The arts is an area of all this economic and stimulus package talk that often gets ignored, and the reality is that I hadn't even heard about this section of the bill before today (though I have generally bypassed many articles on the economy because how many of those can you really read?), so maybe it was my own ignorance. However, I think it's a facet of an important issue that deserves attention, and I'm happy to say that after a close call, the final version of the recovery package does indeed include $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.
It is just disturbing to me to read about people in positions of power and government not recognizing the importance of art on a country's culture, well-being, and cultural and economic prosperity. And there seems to be a lot of ignorance floating around when you have a Representative (Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia) saying things like this:
“I just think putting people to work is more important than putting more art on the wall of some New York City gallery frequented by the elite art community...call me a sucker for the working man."
Is Jack not aware that many (or most) artists make less than say, an electrician or plumber? I have pay stubs if he needs to see the proof. By the way, Jack, many people who would fit into your championed group of "working men" are employed in artistic fields: electricians and grips on film sets, construction/woodworkers, set builders, lighting technicians, audio technicians, builders/electricians/plumbers/accountants for art galleries, ticket takers, garment workers, and arts writers (or maybe they don't get dirty enough to qualify as the rough and tumble "working man"). There are too numerous to continue on with this list, but you get the picture and those are only examples of the directly employed...think about those who benefit economically indirectly, for example, the restaurant next to the Broadway theatre, etc.).
I hope we can move towards a more holistic understanding of the arts and its role in society and not have preconceived notions of who "artists" are and who enjoys art. There are people of every race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status who are artists, who try to make a living doing something that relates to art, and who enjoy art in some way.
Why would there be a stigma attached to giving money to people that try to make a living making/supporting/disseminating art or involved in preserving art or educating about art when there is no stigma attached to giving money to people who try to make a living making cars, through investments or the stock market?
Anyway, I think it's an important article to read, especially if you're in the arts, have friends and family in the arts, or care about the arts. If you don't follow into any of these categories, I probably don't know you personally, but I recommend it anyway.
I could go on, but I'll stop myself...here's the article: Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force.
Neko Case
This Sunday's NY Times Magazine had a great article on Neko Case. For those of you not fortunate enough to get the Sunday N.Y. Times, you can read it here.
The photo above is taken in her newly acquired barn in Vermont, with her "piano strays."
Also, the Arts and Entertainment section had an article on M. Ward. Another link for you.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Sheena is a Punk Rocker...
was covered by the Yeah Yeah Yeahs for the War Child:Heroes compilation out February 16, and can be heard on their MySpace page.
They've also set a release date for their new album titled "It's Blitz!": April 14. Their single "Zero" will be available on iTunes February 24th. The album is said (from the band's newsletter) to be inspired by '70s disco collaborations between Italian producer Giorgio Moroder and Donna Summer, Joy Division and Karen O's love of dancing. Supposedly Nick was ordered by Karen O to trade in his guitar for synths. This all sounds very intriguing. I'm excited!
Snow!
It's snowing here. A lot. My planned trip to the grocery store is canceled, and I will try to make do with what I can scrounge up here. I see coffee and frozen pizza on my menu for today.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Once again to Witch Mountain
Today I was alerted to the fact that Walt Disney Pictures is remaking one of my favorite movies from childhood: Escape from Witch Mountain. The movie was based on a book, and one of the many that I religiously checked out of Dearborn Public Library. It was followed by the just-as-good-if-my-memory-serves-me sequel, Return from Witch Mountain.
I was on the phone with Laura when she described the billboard and said the name of the film. My heart jumped at the name and memory and then sunk upon realizing the inevitable: a remake. "The Rock is in it," Laura said. Oh no, I thought. "Are their two kids in it?" I asked, hesitantly. "Yes," came her reply. "Around thirteen or so?" I was thinking of Tia, the older sister, and my hero - an orphan with ultrasonic speech detectible only to the fellow orphaned, telekinetic brother she protects. "Maybe like eleven." "What else is on the poster?" I asked. There was a pause and then: "A taxi, a helicopter and a spaceship." Yep, that's the one.
The studio gave it a new title, Race to Witch Mountain, and added what they must have considered the crucial ingredient of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. I am very disheartened by this. I'm curious to see the movie, but don't want to interfere with my mind's idealized version of the original. I can still perfectly picture the de-saturated colors and 1970s outfits (it was made in 1975) and the clunky visual effects that will (sadly) no doubt be replaced by the technical wizardry of today. What I most remember about the films (besides the amazing scene where they get dropped off in the Rose Bowl by a spaceship early on in the sequel) is the intelligence, spunk, freedom and paranormal powers that the kids possessed - pure fantasy for a kid.
To illustrate the assumed difference in artistic merit between these two films I present the poster of the original and the upcoming remake.
I was on the phone with Laura when she described the billboard and said the name of the film. My heart jumped at the name and memory and then sunk upon realizing the inevitable: a remake. "The Rock is in it," Laura said. Oh no, I thought. "Are their two kids in it?" I asked, hesitantly. "Yes," came her reply. "Around thirteen or so?" I was thinking of Tia, the older sister, and my hero - an orphan with ultrasonic speech detectible only to the fellow orphaned, telekinetic brother she protects. "Maybe like eleven." "What else is on the poster?" I asked. There was a pause and then: "A taxi, a helicopter and a spaceship." Yep, that's the one.
The studio gave it a new title, Race to Witch Mountain, and added what they must have considered the crucial ingredient of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. I am very disheartened by this. I'm curious to see the movie, but don't want to interfere with my mind's idealized version of the original. I can still perfectly picture the de-saturated colors and 1970s outfits (it was made in 1975) and the clunky visual effects that will (sadly) no doubt be replaced by the technical wizardry of today. What I most remember about the films (besides the amazing scene where they get dropped off in the Rose Bowl by a spaceship early on in the sequel) is the intelligence, spunk, freedom and paranormal powers that the kids possessed - pure fantasy for a kid.
To illustrate the assumed difference in artistic merit between these two films I present the poster of the original and the upcoming remake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
