Filmbound - Episode 21: Life of the Party

Occasionally a tweet will pop up on my timeline that features a mixture of disbelief and amazement at the passage of time relative to pop culture products.  For example, the number of years separating the releases of SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY and STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE is equal to the number of years between the original STAR WARS film and Charlie Chaplin's MODERN TIMES.  JURASSIC PARK is now as old as 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was in 1993.

The brain-exploding reaction is the realization that comes when comparing something from your youth or young adulthood that doesn't seem particularly old with something that did seem old at that time.  The same effect can be achieved by seeing college students wearing vintage t-shirts of rock bands that were popular when you were their age.  The process is probably more accelerated in music, which can "date" faster.  We're as far removed from Radiohead's OK COMPUTER now as we were from Led Zeppelin's PRESENCE in 1997, which seemed old to me a decade prior. 

It didn't occur to me while watching LIFE OF THE PARTY or talking about it on episode 21 of FILMBOUND that Melissa McCarthy's frumpy character, styled as an early 1990s film mom stereotype than a contemporary woman, is supposed to be roughly the same age that I am.  Becoming aware of that is enough to feel like time is coming totally unglued.  The math adds up, but it feels like a significant miscalculation exists in there somewhere.



Maybe it's just as well that I didn't grasp this fact until afterwards.  It wouldn't really have any bearing on my assessment of this sluggish, disjointed comedy, even if I did nitpick it for seeming mostly out of touch with what college life is like today.  Plus, the last thing I need right now is an additional item in the existential crisis column.

In the recommendations segment I endorse the futuristic action-thriller UPGRADE, which provides a little food for thought about the convergence of human biology and technology but primarily delivers the simple pleasures of a genre film.

Upcoming episodes:

-June 20: DEADPOOL 2 and a discussion about film clichés we like and dislike
-June 27: SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY and our recommendations segment
-July 4: FIRST REFORMED and a discussion about the role of the film critic
-July 11: HEREDITARY and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 20: Tully

Episode 20 of FILMBOUND features TULLY, which finds director Jason Reitman back to form after two fairly bad and misguided efforts in LABOR DAY and MEN, WOMEN & CHILDREN.  As it is summer movie season, Paul Markoff and I also kick around some ideas for sequels, cinematic universes, and crossovers we'd be interested in seeing.

For the most part our conversation is an exercise in wishful thinking, but there might be an idea or two that a studio runs with eventually.  If my ideas seem limited to a particular type of film, chalk it up to my jet lag as I scrounged for ideas.  (In editing this show and the three preceding it, I've been pleasantly surprised that I don't sound fatigued because I certainly felt that way during the recording.)



It seems a little anachronistic to talk about summer movie season because the event films launched during that roughly three-month period are now dispersed throughout the calendar.  You don't have to wait until Memorial Day weekend for expensive, FX-focused entertainment.  Still, I think there's a tendency to perceive films released in late May, June, July, and early August to represent Hollywood's latest, greatest mass appeal movies, even if inevitably some fail to live up to studio or viewer expectations.  (In reality, the timeline has shifted up to late March.)

For whatever reason, the 2018 summer movie season looks lackluster.  Removing the actual quality of these films from the equation, I'm having difficulty finding big movies to be excited about.  That indifference applies to those I've already watched as well as those I've yet to see.  This season has already delivered AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, DEADPOOL 2, SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY, and OCEAN'S 8.  Through July the presumed biggest films of their weekends will be INCREDIBLES 2, JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM, SICARIO: DAY OF THE SOLDADO, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP, THE FIRST PURGE, HOTEL TRANSLYVANIA 3: SUMMER VACATION, MAMMA MIA! HERE WE GO AGAIN, THE EQUALIZER 2, and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT.  All of these are part of film franchises or new entries in series.  Out of all of those titles, I'm looking forward to the latest MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE the most, but with it being the sixth film in the series, it's not like I can't contain my anticipation for it.

Summer tends to lean on established properties, so this isn't out of the ordinary; however, last summer produced BABY DRIVER, DUNKIRK, ATOMIC BLONDE, 47 METERS DOWN, THE BIG SICK, GIRLS TRIP, and LOGAN LUCKY.  Whether I liked them or not, at least these were a break from franchise installments.  Granted, only one of these summer 2017 films likely had and fulfilled blockbuster ambitions, but unless I'm overlooking them, I don't necessarily see the non-franchise films in summer 2018 similar with the similar potential to surprise on a moderate scale.

Upcoming episodes:

-June 13: LIFE OF THE PARTY and our recommendations segment
-June 20: DEADPOOL 2 and a discussion about film clichés we like and dislike
-June 27: SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 19: Avengers: Infinity War

In general I strive to keep extratextual information from being a significant factor in evaluating the movies I'm watching.  If it isn't on the screen, then it shouldn't be relevant in judging the work.  Ignore the marketing and publicity campaigns as well as reviews.  Focus less on what a filmmaker may claim he or she intended and just interpret what you see.  Sounds good, right?

Of course, this is virtually impossible unless you can block out the media cacophony in a way that I can't comprehend.  Even then, I realize that I violate this rule of thumb all the time, especially when examining a new film in regard to how it fits in with a director's larger body of work.  Granted, recognizing patterns in a filmmaker's oeuvre is more valuable in reading a film's text than coming at it through the filters of trailers, talent interviews, box office receipts, and fan reactions.  The challenge is to make sure that the tools worth using don't become boilerplate supports.  In other words, just because there is a common theme running through a director's films doesn't mean that it makes them all good. 



Back to extratextual matters...they play a major role in how I experienced AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR and are why I have a hard time buying what the film is selling.  If you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about.  If you haven't and don't want the end of the movie revealed, then I suggest waiting until you watch it to listen to this episode.  A big part of the discussion is about our disagreement in whether or not to accept what happens in that part of the film.

In the recommendations segment I throw support to John Woo's MANHUNT.  I thought this was a lot of fun, especially if you're familiar with Woo's older and most popular films.  I also am not entirely sure that it's a good movie.  I realize that might seem like a contradiction in terms, but as I mention during the episode, seeing MANHUNT with a knowledgeable crowd numbering a couple thousand at the 2017 Toronto International Film Festival heightened the experience even as I acknowledge that the film isn't as slick as his best work.  It's on Netflix if you're interested.

Upcoming episodes:

-June 13: LIFE OF THE PARTY and our recommendations segment
-June 20: DEADPOOL 2 and a discussion about film clichés we like and dislike
-June 27: SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 18: You Were Never Really Here

It's been my experience that most people have no idea how film critics do what they do, and the general public probably assumes critics' opinions are carved in stone rather than written in a material more amenable to revision.  When I started as a critic in the late 1990s, I probably would have held a similar view about the endurance of the first impressions captured in an initial review.  A verdict has been rendered, and that settles that.  The need to assert authority on a subject can manifest in the form of more definitive statements, especially as a nascent critic and young adult.

As I've accumulated experience, I've come to realize how much I don't know and how works of art can transform depending on a variety of factors.  My mood, age, fellow audience members, life circumstances, and foreknowledge, among a number of other things, can have a greater impact on how I evaluate a film than I may realize or want to admit as a measured, independent-minded person.  I'm not suggesting no review is fixed or that altering one's opinions mean they were objectively wrong before.  Rather, in developing our judgments critics should strive to account for the elements that become the filter through which we see what is on the screen.  A negative review that becomes positive upon reconsideration, or vice versa, isn't a sign of critical failure or inconsistency but is indicative of the willingness to engage with the film at whenever the moment in time with it occurs.

The main focus of episode 18 of FILMBOUND is YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE, the new film from writer-director Lynne Ramsay.  I enjoyed this dive into a grimy underworld--if enjoyed is the proper word for such an emotionally tough work--and left feeling as though perhaps I needed to reassess her previous feature, the 2011 drama WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN.  I had a strong negative reaction to that film, and while I don't have any reason to distrust those feelings, I am also curious if I approached it from the wrong angle.

This happens occasionally.  After being thoroughly surprised by how much I liked THE NEON DEMON, I questioned if my first assessment of Nicolas Winding Refn's ONLY GOD FORGIVES, which I thought was excruciating, needed to be challenged.  Maybe it's merely my auteurist inclinations, a prescriptive framework that wishes to integrate and resolve the unfavored works with the favored.

Setting aside everything above, revisiting a film doesn't usually result in drastic reappraisals for me.  Although I have made dramatic flips, it's more typical for me to feel mild shifts in degrees of enthusiasm than huge swings.



The discussion topic on this episode is an attempt to identify who are the biggest new movie stars to emerge in about the last twenty years and what even defines a star in today's Hollywood.  I'm satisfied with the top two or three performers I name, but after that the task gets exponentially harder.  I proposed the topic based on a prior conversation with my co-host in which he asserted that Chris Pratt belonged in that elite group, which I disagreed with.  Maybe I convinced Paul otherwise because he didn't end up naming Pratt, and the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY star didn't even get mentioned on the podcast.  My main reason for denying Pratt a spot among the biggest new movie stars is that he has yet to transcend franchise film roles.  In the contemporary industry, that quality is probably the biggest factor in determining who is new to the A list.

A listener who has already heard this episode suggested Bradley Cooper, who neither of us brought up.  As with a lot of the other names we kicked around, he probably merits consideration, but is he that big of a star?  I'm not sure.  In the time since recording this episode, I thought of a couple actors neither of us mentioned but probably should have:  Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg.  Notice that it's harder to identify the big stars since a little before the turn of the century than it would seem.  In terms of social media fan intensity, Kristen Stewart would surely be fighting for a place as the biggest star of today, but that rabid support hasn't translated to robust box office totals for her non-TWILIGHT films.  Are the stars just smaller but more numerous these days?

Upcoming episodes:

-May 30: AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR and our recommendations segment
-June 6: TULLY and a discussion about sequels, cinematic universes, and crossovers we'd like to see
-June 13: LIFE OF THE PARTY and our recommendations segment
-June 20: DEADPOOL 2 and a to be determined discussion
-June 27: SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 17: I Feel Pretty

Although I FEEL PRETTY is too sluggishly paced and not funny enough to merit a positive review, I appreciate that co-writers/co-directors Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein avoid one of the big pitfalls of romantic comedies, even if their film is more romantic-comedy-adjacent.  (It's primarily a self-empowerment film with a romantic comedy element.)

So many contemporary romantic comedies force relationships that I don't believe because the would-be lovers are constantly snipping at one another or contrive exaggerated conflicts to set up the inevitable climactic reconciliations.  In I FEEL PRETTY the relationship between a newly confident Renee (Amy Schumer) and Ethan (Rory Scovel) makes a lot of sense.  While the event that signals trouble for them as a couple is very much a movie mechanism--Renee's second head injury undoes the optimistic self-perception the first one gave her--it strikes a more familiar note in what can cause problems in real relationships: the internal hang-ups and self-questioning of one or both people.  It would be nice if more screenwriters see that this common, relatable quality can be as, if not more, effective than the idiot plot trope of a simple misunderstanding that regular people would easily reconcile.



In the recommendations segment I praise--and hopefully pull off a credible title pronunciation of--Jacques Rivette's LA BELLE NOISEUSE, which is now available in a fantastic 2-disk Blu-ray set.  (It's also out on DVD and can be streamed in HD.)  At times the film evokes Henri-Georges Clouzot's THE MYSTERY OF PICASSO (LE MYSTÈRE PICASSO).  The similarity is not in the technique but in access to the process involved as a work of art takes shape.  I realize that a nearly four-hour French film with significant stretches in which the camera observes an artist's strokes of charcoal or a brush as he tries to get his visions on the page or canvas is not the easiest sell, but the experience of watching it is quite absorbing.  Inspiration isn't a flash that produces something in an instant, and I was fascinated in watching Rivette try to capture what it is like to make the intangible tangible.

Why make one recommendation when I can make two?  I also give the proverbial thumbs up to Roger Ebert's Film Festival and provide an overview of the event's 20th year.  (If you want more in-depth coverage of Ebertfest, click here.)

Upcoming episodes:

-May 23: YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE and a discussion about who are the biggest new movie stars of the last twenty years and what defines a star in today's Hollywood
-May 30: AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR and our recommendations segment
-June 6: TULLY and a discussion about sequels, cinematic universes, and crossovers we'd like to see
-June 13: LIFE OF THE PARTY and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 16: Isle of Dogs

Episode 16 features a main review of Wes Anderson's ISLE OF DOGS as well as the creation of the FILMBOUND canon.  From time to time we’ll devote a segment in which Paul Markoff and I will induct a film into our personal collections of all-time greats. Our FILMBOUND canons are separate, so we do not have to agree on whether a film belongs. There’s also no requirement that what we pick conforms to critical consensus.

To make constructing our lists less predictable, we will be limited to films released beginning in 1995.  That year provides enough distance from today to search for important films during our lifetime and dig up forgotten gems. It’s also after PULP FICTION’s release in 1994, which seems like a watershed moment in film history, especially in helping to shape the tastes and willingness to look beyond the mainstream for our generation.



As a starting point 1995 is also shortly before the introduction of DVD.  Although there's the impression that everything made it to disk, arthouse and foreign films, particularly those released in the mid-1990s and a bit after DVD technology became available to consumers, sometimes fell through the cracks or, if they were published, have gone out of print.  CITIZEN KANE and VERTIGO don't need more critics championing them at this point in time to get burgeoning cinephiles to search for them; however, films in recent history may need a revival, especially as each year's flood of titles threatens to have us drowning in new films.

Although it wasn't planned, Paul and I each picked films by filmmaking brothers to establish our FILMBOUND canons.  I inducted THE KID WITH A BIKE (LE GAMIN AU VÉLO), the 2011 drama from directors Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, while Paul selected the love-and-baseball comedy FEVER PITCH from directors Peter and Bobby Farrelly, which also made my 2005 Honorable Mentions list.  While my choice wouldn't be characterized as an obscure pick--it's available as an excellent special edition from The Criterion Collection--I thought this particular film made sense in representing what I value in cinema.  I also feel as though the remarkable consistency of the Dardennes also means that individual films don't necessarily stand out.  Consider this a good place to start if you're not familiar with their work.

Upcoming episodes:

-May 16: I FEEL PRETTY and our recommendations segment
-May 23: YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE and a discussion about who are the biggest new movie stars of the last twenty years and what defines a star in today's Hollywood
-May 30: AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR and our recommendations segment
-June 6: TULLY and a discussion about sequels, cinematic universes, and crossovers we'd like to see

Filmbound - Episode 15: A Quiet Place

If you were to collect and analyze the complaints about going to the movies, you would probably reach the conclusion that other moviegoers are monsters.  People checking their phones, talking, and doing heaven knows what else are constant distractions from the main reason why everyone is supposedly at the movie theater.  A QUIET PLACE, the spotlight film on episode 15 of FILMBOUND, raises the stakes for watching a movie with a crowd.  More than most films, it requires a hushed viewing environment, so seeing it in public charges the the experience with an even higher expectation and need that everyone will be respectful.  A QUIET PLACE also pressures the most conscientious attendees not to create any noise, even inadvertently, by shifting in their seats or consuming their snacks of choice too loudly.  I don't know if this factor was taken into account when making the horror movie, but it certainly benefits from making all viewers keenly aware of the social contract in going to the movies.

I've witnessed enough impolite conduct at the movies to know that audience behavior can leave a lot to be desired, but in general the notion that movie theaters are packed with the unruly masses does not reflect my typical experience.  Yes, I've been frustrated by the people who can't avoid looking at their phones and those who are oblivious and unconcerned that they're providing an unwanted running commentary, but it's pretty rare to have a screening completely ruined by this.  Then again, I also tend to go at off-peak times and see some films that only attract a handful of people, although sometimes the smaller crowds invite the most irksome people to share a theater with.



I use my part of the recommendations segment to suggest director Andrew Haigh’s LEAN ON PETE and Chloé Zhao’s THE RIDER, two dramas about the powerful connections between people and horses.  Both films are currently in limited release.

Upcoming episodes:

-May 9: ISLE OF DOGS and the creation of the FILMBOUND canon
-May 16: I FEEL PRETTY and our recommendations segment
-May 23: YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE and a discussion about who are the biggest new movie stars of the last twenty years and what defines a star in today's Hollywood
-May 30: AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 14: Ready Player One

With the encouragement of Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and Paul Thomas Anderson, 70mm film projection is en vogue again.  For those in big cities, something may be showing in 70mm on a regular basis, whether it's a new release or an old film.  Here in Columbus the Gateway Film Center may not play a film in 70mm every week, but their schedule features screenings in the format often enough that attending one doesn't seem like trying to catch a fleeting glimpse of a comet.  If you live outside larger areas, chances are that seeing films in this format is unavailable to you unless you're dedicated to making a long drive.

The reemergence of 70mm film projection is a welcome development for those of us who still appreciate seeing movies from physical prints rather than digital sources.  If I'm on the fence about seeing an older movie in the theater, I'm more likely to go if it is being projected from film.  A physical print provides a different aesthetic experience that I can't duplicate at home.  Along that line, the renewed interest in and availability of 70mm prints surely stem from the mild pushback to the digital conversion of the nation's theaters.  Some makers, fans, and exhibitors wish to support the philosophical mission to preserve the native film experience. What had been normal for most of the art form's existence mostly went away in a relatively short period of time.  In 2002 I had to pay an upcharge to see STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES digitally projected.  Sixteen years later some places charge extra for 35mm and 70mm screenings.



On episode 14 of FILMBOUND we review READY PLAYER ONE, which I saw in 70mm.  While I'm glad that I was able to see Steven Spielberg's latest work in this format, the existence of the film in 70mm reflects some of my issues with READY PLAYER ONE's fetishization of the past.  I don't know what percentage of the film's scenes exist entirely as digital creations, but it's surely more than half and, if I'm guessing, probably close to 75%.  If most of it wasn't shot on film, is there real value in having 70mm prints available, or is this merely a marketing gimmick?

Paul Markoff and I also discuss the benefits and detriments of film review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.  Increasingly I'm not persuaded that the site is of much use other than being a one-stop shop for finding links to several reviews at once, links that I suspect most visitors rarely click on because they're just looking for the Tomatometer percentage or the blurbs.

Upcoming episodes:

-May 2: A QUIET PLACE and our recommendations segment
-May 9: ISLE OF DOGS and the creation of the FILMBOUND canon
-May 16: I FEEL PRETTY and our recommendations segment
-May 23: YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE and a discussion about who are the biggest new movie stars of the last twenty years and what defines a star in today's Hollywood

Filmbound - Episode 13: Unsane

With end of the semester projects, Ebertfest, another trip out of town, and various other things devouring my time, I've slipped behind in posting these entries about new podcast episodes.  That the thirteenth episode of FILMBOUND was published twelve days ago, while feeling like it was months ago, is indicative of how my recent experience of time has felt particularly unmoored.  Never fear, I'm not suggesting I'm having any uncertainties about what's real and what isn't, unlike Claire Foy's protagonist in UNSANE.  For me it's a situation more along the lines of everything moving so quickly that the past feels farther away than it really is.



Regardless of the degree to which I like director Steven Soderbergh's films, the product-minded side of me appreciates that he turns out new work with an often-startling frequency compared to other major filmmakers.  His willingness to experiment--or mess around with methods more visibly than his peers--appeals to my process-minded side.  The equipment, techniques, and format Soderbergh used for UNSANE seem crucial in developing how he tells this story, so in opening the podcast discussion about this, I didn't expect to encounter my co-host's objections to the director's choice to shoot the film with an iPhone.

I won't try to characterize Paul's stance but rather leave the podcast discussion to convey what he thinks and where our conversation led.  Still, I did want to say a little more about an aspect of one of his criticisms.  Whether Soderbergh was using an iPhone for the sake of using one or, as I believe, he employed it for qualities particularly suited to the material, should the intent ultimately matter?  If he was doing it just to prove he could, why should the audience hold that against him and the film except in determining if it was successful?  I've heard or read this criticism that artists are showing off, particularly when pushing techniques and style to the limit, but rather than leveling accusations of creator arrogance, such a charge really seems to mean that complainants didn't like the outcome.

Upcoming episodes

-April 25: READY PLAYER ONE and a discussion about the benefits and detriments of Rotten Tomatoes
-May 2: A QUIET PLACE and our recommendations segment
-May 9: ISLE OF DOGS and the creation of the FILMBOUND canon
-May 16: I FEEL PRETTY and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 12: Minority Report

In the later years of NOW PLAYING Paul Markoff and I adapted the show so that the fifth film reviewed on an episode might be non-current.  We would use that portion of the show to evaluate something one or both of us had never seen but were interested in catching up with, such as Barry Jenkins' debut MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY or THE MYTH OF THE AMERICAN SLEEPOVER.  We would also revisit films, like PULP FICTION, which I hadn't watched in years and my co-host was not won over by when he initially saw it.

With FILMBOUND we want the freedom to take the occasional break from contemporary films, so episode 12 brings us back to MINORITY REPORT.  I realize that a film that came out just sixteen years ago may not seem "old" to many of you reading this, but working with college students, like I do, can disabuse one of the notion that something released a couple years after the turn of the century is relatively recent.  I also thought that it could be fun to compare and contrast daily life today and MINORITY REPORT's speculations of 2054 technology.  Good news for the print industry, home newspaper delivery is still going strong thirty-six years from now!



In the recommendations segment, I go long on extolling the virtues of the True/False Film Festival.  I've attended True/False since 2015 and consider it one of the highlights of my moviegoing year.  I posted grades in my March 2018 Film Log, but for those who want a definitive ranking, here is how I'd group and order every film I saw at the festival:

Best of True/False 2018
1. BISBEE '17
2. AMÉRICA
3. WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?
4. SHIRKERS
5. THE RIDER
6. HALE COUNTY THIS MORNING, THIS EVENING

Very Good to Good
7. Secret Screening Gale
8. Secret Screening Mistral
9. GRAVEN IMAGE (short)
10. OF FATHERS AND SONS
11. THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS
12. AMERICAN ANIMALS
13. CRIME + PUNISHMENT
14. LOVERS OF THE NIGHT
15. BABY BROTHER (short)
16. Secret Screening Zephyr

Mixed
17. OUR NEW PRESIDENT
18. ADRIANA'S PACT (EL PACTO DE ADRIANA)
19. TAMING THE HORSE

Difficult to Evaluate - No Grade
-FLIGHT OF A BULLET (POLET PULI)
-HANDSWORTH SONGS

In last month's film log post I explained why I didn't grade these last two films, and on this podcast I say a little more about wrestling with FLIGHT OF A BULLET.

Upcoming episodes:

-April 18: UNSANE and our recommendations segment
-April 25: READY PLAYER ONE and a discussion about Rotten Tomatoes
-May 2: A QUIET PLACE and our recommendations segment
-May 9: ISLE OF DOGS and the creation of the FILMBOUND canon

Filmbound - Episode 11: A Wrinkle in Time

Assuming good faith on behalf of the person expressing an opinion ranks near the top of qualities I would like to see change in the internet discourse about films.  A WRINKLE IN TIME reviews elicited a lot of bad faith assumptions about those who didn't like the film and those who did, although my general impression is that those who disliked director Ava DuVernay's fantasy adventure were more likely to assign ulterior motives to the writers of positive reviews.  From samples of what I read, I'm inclined to agree that some, not all, of the favorable reviews seemed willing to give A WRINKLE IN TIME a pass in a manner that I didn't consider particularly persuasive, yet I also need to recognize that I am surely guilty of doing the same thing in some of my assessments. 

Chances are that everyone writing about art does this from time to time.  It's natural to be more generous or protective of those things we have a history of enjoying.  Am I more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to a veteran filmmaker whose prior work I've frequently praised than a new director?  Probably.  The goal is to account for our subjective tendencies and support our opinions so that when our reflexive perspectives emerge in the writing, there is still a solid foundation for the argument.  Obviously that can be easier said than done, so while we all try to be better, let's grant the leeway that people are being genuine with what they put in their reviews, even if we're not always convinced by what they say.



The second part of episode 11 features a discussion about films from about the last fifteen years that were commercial and/or critical flops that Paul and I think may be considered classics in the long run.  I've been reviewing films since 1997, so it's interesting to look back at what dominated conversations and observe which ones have demonstrated more staying power.  Pick a year at random, and then look up the Academy Awards and critics groups' nominees or a critic's best of the year list.  You'll find a number of films or performers that were considered essential to give validity to those lists at the time but have mostly faded from memory while hindsight now reveals what has endured.  (Naturally, this isn't a perfect system, so some things that have fallen off the radar may not deserve it.)  Of course, there's nothing guaranteeing that the films we name in this segment will last, but as we recorded this show a couple weeks after the most recent awards season wrapped, I found it instructive to note that victory in the short run didn't necessarily translate to the long term and vice versa.

Upcoming episodes:

-April 11: MINORITY REPORT and our recommendations segment
-April 18: UNSANE and our recommendations segment
-April 25: READY PLAYER ONE and a to-be-determined topic
-May 2: A QUIET PLACE and our recommendations segment
-May 9: ISLE OF DOGS and a to-be-determined topic

Filmbound - Episode 10: Red Sparrow

It's been my aim to have something to say when preparing these new podcast episode posts, but I think this week the well is running dry.  I've been up to my ears with researching foreign direct investment in Nigeria and the Chinese car market for a Global Competition class, and I feel like I've hit a limit of things to say.  So, this week I'll keep it simple and to the point.  Episode 10 features RED SPARROW and our recommendations.  I chose THE DEATH OF STALIN, which is a pitch-black comedy I appreciated but which didn't provide me with the kind of lift that funny movies usually do.  I certainly can understand if folks seeking a break from daily political news might not want to turn to something this bleak--but funny!--as an escape.



Upcoming episodes:

-April 4: A WRINKLE IN TIME and a discussion about films from the last twenty years that were critically or commercially unsuccessful when released but may come to be considered classics
-April 11: MINORITY REPORT and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 9: Game Night

I suspect I'm not alone among writers in doubting the quality of what I produce.  Being hypercritical of one's work isn't inherently bad--it can push you to improve what you write--but I'd be lying if I claimed that taking a tough view of my writing is a mostly positive process.  It's rare that I'm satisfied with the final version of a piece because there tends to be some ideal version in my head that didn't make its way to the page.  Weirdly, I have more confidence in the research papers I'm writing for my MBA classes even though I don't feel I know that subject matter nearly as well as films.  Maybe it's because I don't have any bases of comparison for that writing while I have plenty when it comes to movie reviews.

Podcasting is not the same as writing something to be read, but there are enough similarities, plus the performance pressures, that doing the show doesn't eliminate the self-doubt but merely modifies how it is experienced. I edit FILMBOUND, and to be certain that it sounds OK, I also listen to the episodes after they're released.  So I'm interacting with these episodes as a participant, a producer-editor, and a listener.  I think I went overboard in removing breaths and filler words in one episode, and I've been tinkering with improving the master volume.  (Episodes 8 and 9 should have volume improvements, if you ever thought there was an issue.)

Still, the big surprise for me is that I've been relatively pleased with how the episodes have turned out.  After recording I've felt like some of these weren't so hot, but buffing the episodes for release and listening to them in the car has helped me feel that the show is a respectable effort.  I suppose feeling that way is progress for me even if the same doubts will probably creep in after the next recording session.



Episode 9 features GAME NIGHT and a discussion about what constitutes the ideal theatrical experience, a topic carried over from the interview questions that are part of a project I'm doing in an Advanced Brand Management class.  In my admittedly small sample size of interviewees, I was surprised how often an empty or near-empty auditorium for a screening was preferred, even if that's probably how I see most current releases.  (In my case it's because the cheapest admission can be purchased at those times.)  I suppose the incessant talkers and smartphone users during movies, or anecdotal reports of them, have boosted this preference, but I didn't expect the communal nature of moviegoing to be something people specified that they were going to efforts to avoid.

Upcoming episodes:

-March 28: RED SPARROW and our recommendations segment
-April 4: A WRINKLE IN TIME and a discussion about films from the last twenty years that were critically or commercially unsuccessful when released but may come to be considered classics
-April 11: MINORITY REPORT and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 8: Annihilation

On this week's episode Paul Markoff and I venture into ANNIHILATION.  It didn't occur to me until I was writing this that the film's metaphorical zone, The Shimmer, could be thought of as cinema itself, although I don't think that's what writer-director Alex Garland was necessarily trying to say.  Still, art can refract how we understand ourselves and our surroundings.  This reading could put a more pointed or amusing spin on the climax as it regards the interaction between the observed and observer.  I really need to have this kind of revelation prior to or during the podcast recording and not days after the fact, though.



The recommendations segment on this episode is expanded a bit because I wanted to spread the word about the Wexner Center for the Arts' Cinema Revival: A Festival of Film Restoration. The event is a fantastic way to see a bunch of old films that look and sound perhaps as good as they ever have.  The educational components, such as an enlightening session on the art of subtitling, are well worth attending too.  A pass costs less than the manufacturer's suggested retail price of a Criterion Collection Blu-ray, so you get great value for all the films you can see at this easy-to-attend festival.  Aside from the presenting guests, I suspect it draws few out-of-towners, but if you live within a reasonable drive or somewhere unlikely to get most of what is shown, it's worth your time and money to make a weekend of it.  Screenings are spread over six days, but the bulk of the festival takes place Friday through Sunday.

We also spent more time than usual talking about Paul's recommendation of writer-director Cory Finley's debut THOROUGHBREDS.  The drama with dark comedic elements was on my shortlist of potential recommendations for this month's recording session as well.  If it hadn't been a film I was unaware of until it showed up in theaters, we might have given it the featured slot on an episode.

This is the first of two new episodes this week in an attempt to put out future episodes about three weeks from their films' release dates.  You'll also notice below that we have scheduled our first episode featuring a film not in current release.  I don't know how often we'll dig into the past for an in-depth film discussion, but it's something we'd like to do from time to time.   

Upcoming episodes:

-March 23: GAME NIGHT and a discussion about the ideal theatrical experience
-March 28: RED SPARROW and our recommendations segment
-April 4: A WRINKLE IN TIME and a discussion about films from the last twenty years that were critically or commercially unsuccessful when released but may come to be considered classics
-April 11: MINORITY REPORT and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 7: Early Man

To state the obvious, the big difference between FILMBOUND and our defunct TV show NOW PLAYING is that Paul and I have much more time on the podcast to talk about the selected films.  On a typical TV episode each of the five films was allocated 30-40 seconds for a scripted intro, 45-60 seconds for a clip, a minute and a half to two minutes for one person's scripted review, and 70 seconds for the impromptu discussion between us.  If there was time left over at the show's end, we could use it to add to the conversation about one or more of those films.

With the podcast our discussions per film have generally lasted 20-25 minutes, yet neither of us say everything we would like to or intend to.  For instance, a couple comparisons I'd meant to make regarding THE 15:17 TO PARIS came to mind after the show was recorded.  The way the conversation gets steered sometimes veers away from comments I intended to make.  Nevertheless, I appreciate that the podcast provides the space for fuller analyses of the films.

If the discussion about EARLY MAN seems shorter than the time we usually set aside for a film, that's because it is.  It happened that both of us saw Nick Park's stop-motion animated comedy directly before our recording session for episodes 4-7.  In theory that should mean we would have more to say about it than something more distant in memory.  I don't know if our more limited conversation had to do with needing more time for reflection, holding positive but mild appreciation of the film, or being tired from hours of recording.  Maybe it was a combination of those three factors.



The episode gets a little feistier when we consider if qualifying some films as guilty pleasures diminishes them.  I am not a fan of such a classification, so as things tended to go with our spoilers discussion on episode 5, I play the role of the grumbler. 

We're recording this weekend, and as I mentioned before, we're going to try to get new episodes released a little closer to their opening dates.  To do that the plan is to release two episodes next week so the RED SPARROW and A WRINKLE IN TIME episodes don't arrive via your preferred podcast service more than a month after they've opened.  We'll also be doing our first episode devoted to a non-current film, but I'll wait to reveal what it will be.

Upcoming episodes:

-March 21: ANNIHILATION and our recommendations segment
-March 23: GAME NIGHT and a discussion about the ideal theatrical experience
-March 28: RED SPARROW and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 6: Black Panther

One of the tricky things about developing and planning the FILMBOUND podcast has been determining the release schedule.  Originally I thought we'd feature two films, utilize a third segment per episode, and release twice a month.  After our first recording session and my time editing the initial batch of episodes, it seemed like we'd be better off releasing weekly and focusing on one film, plus devoting additional time for recommendations or a topical discussion.  The catch, though, is that recording once a month and distributing the episodes over four weeks has meant that the films being discussed have already been in theaters for three or four weeks, which seems like an eternity in the front-loaded film conversations online.  Will EARLY MAN, the film featured in next week's episode 7, still be in theaters by the time our discussion becomes available?  Then again, it's not as though these episodes have an expiration date on them. 

While the studios and theaters cycle films through the system at an increasingly rapid pace, I recognize that the average moviegoer isn't seeing these films on the same kind of schedule.  Nevertheless, we're working on trying to shrink that gap a little when we record in March, although in most cases we're probably going to have about three weeks between a film's opening day and its episode release.  With BLACK PANTHER, the featured film on episode 6, that isn't a big deal as the blockbuster continues to dominate film discussions.



Upcoming episodes

-March 14: EARLY MAN and a discussion about the concept of cinematic guilty pleasures
-March 21: ANNIHILATION and our recommendations segment

Filmbound - Episode 5: The 15:17 to Paris

There's some nice synchronicity at work with releasing episode 5 of FILMBOUND as I'm headed to the True/False Film Festival.  This episode is focused on THE 15:17 TO PARIS, clearly a fictionalized narrative drama yet one that recreates real events with three of the people who played central roles in disrupting and stopping a terrorist attack on a train.  It's not as though Clint Eastwood has morphed into Abbas Kiarostami with his approach on this film, but it's a conceptually interesting, albeit dramatically inert, project that prompts good discussion.  We also mix it up, more than I expected, regarding the topic of spoilers in film criticism and in casual conversations about movies.

Upcoming episodes:

-March 7: BLACK PANTHER and our recommendations segment
-March 14: EARLY MAN and a discussion about the concept of cinematic guilty pleasures

Filmbound - Episode 4: Fifty Shades Freed

After recording the first three episodes of FILMBOUND, the new podcast I'm doing with Paul Markoff, we decided to make a minor tweak with the format and release schedule.  The good news is that a new episode discussing one film will be released weekly on Wednesdays rather than covering two films per show and releasing twice a month.  The idea is to deliver shorter episodes more regularly than long episodes less frequently.  Episode 4, which is focused on FIFTY SHADES FREED and features Oscar-related recommendations, follows this revised plan. 



Upcoming episodes and release dates are:

-February 28: THE 15:17 TO PARIS and a discussion about spoilers
-March 7: BLACK PANTHER and our recommendations segment
-March 14: EARLY MAN and a discussion about the concept of cinematic guilty pleasures

As we're recording once a month, there will be some lag between opening weekends for the films and when our episodes are released.  Anymore it feels like a film is old news a week after it has opened, but our hope is that, by providing more space between the availability of what we're covering and the episode releases, listeners will have had time to check out those films.  Although we may need to adapt to keep from getting too far behind, that's the idea.

Announcing new podcast Filmbound

Although our cable TV show NOW PLAYING has ended its run after 550 episodes, Paul Markoff and I are keeping the film conversations going with our new podcast FILMBOUND.  You can listen to and download episodes from the FILMBOUND site and also find them on iTunes and Google Play Music.  Subscribing gets new episodes to you as quickly as possible.  We've also submitted to be available on Spotify and the RadioPublic app, so if the show isn't at those locations when you read this, it should be there soon.



We have three episodes already available for you.  The first episode covers STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI, PADDINGTON 2, and a recommendations segment to touch on other films we've seen that are worth your attention.



Episode 2 features MOLLY'S GAME, PHANTOM THREAD, and a discussion about how to attract more ticket buyers to movie theaters when ticket sales are trending downward.



Our special edition episode 3 reveals our picks for the best films of 2017.

As this format is new to us, we're still figuring out how best to structure and release the episodes.  The initial idea was to record two episodes per month, with each episode covering two films.  To make episodes a little shorter and maintain a more regular and predictable release schedule, we may be switching to episodes that feature one film each and publishing weekly.  Stay tuned for updates, and enjoy the show.

For your listening consideration

My half-hour conversation with Columbus Alive's Melissa Starker about the Central Ohio Film Critics Association 2008 award winners and some of the year's other notable films is now online. Listen to the podcast here.