{Originally published in Loomings}
Monday, September 26, 2011
Face The King Barely Falters, Let Alone Falls: The Burning & The Falling Down EP by Face The King
(Kinda) The Gershwin's Porgy and Bess
{Originally appeared in Loomings}
So, it seems like the talk of the town these days isn't the lack of Book of Mormon tickets available, nor is it the odd mystery of how Memphis is still running. No, my friends, it appears all of the lights on Broadway burn with rage over Diane Paulus' (director of the revival of Hair) attempt to "flesh out" Porgy and Bess in her newest revival. Retitled The Gershwin's Porgy and Bess (because apparently f*** co-author Dubose Heyward, am I right?), the revival features changes so dramatic it led none other than Stephen Sondheim (The Stanley Kubrick of musical theatre) to write an angry letter to the New York Times (which was the best thing he's written since Passions.* Oh!).
For those not well versed in musical theatre history, George Gershwin is undoubtedly the greatest American composer, and his masterpiece (co-written with his brother Ira and the above mentioned Dubose Heyward) is Porgy And Bess, a "folk-opera" (and considered by many to be the greatest American opera) written in 1935 about the struggles of two African-Americans in Charleston, South Carolina. Not only is this the quintessential piece of American musical theatre, revered by any American to ever put notes on a page and folks on a stage, it's so good it made rich white people care about the plight of African Americans in 1935! Sure, is it a little out of date? Yeah. Is it not totally in-touch with the African American community? Sure, Duke Ellington said the original production fed into racial stereotypes and made black men sound ignorant, but he would later praise the first revival with "Your Porgy and Bess the superbest, singing the gonest, acting the craziest, Gershwin the greatest." And the truth is, for two middle-class Jewish guys deciding to write a show about the plight of the African American in 1935, making a show that ended up becoming the first with an unsegregated audience in national theatre history, I think we can all live with a few speed-bumps.
The fact of the matter is some of the more radical changes in the show (a lesbian love affair and an altered, "happier" ending) were removed from the finished product which opened recently, probably in part due to the uproar, but back-stories are still added and lyrics revised, and people still dissatisfied.
One might want to wonder why it is we feel we must "revise" everything, to make it more accessible. Is it a cultural dumbing-down? I don't think so. I think it's a cultural cowardice. For the same reason we take the infamous “n-word” out of Huckleberry Finn, we feel the need to hide all the hate and all the political incorrectness in art of the past, but we fail to realize that in doing so we’re destroying part of what makes that work great: it’s place in history. Porgy And Bess is a period piece, though maybe not in its day. It’s concepts and views on race are important, if not accurate. The Gershwins and Dubose were trying to create something wholly American, something beautiful and artistic, and while they may not have been as racially sensitive as they could have been, Porgy And Bess is far from a minstrel show. It depicts, perhaps not the African American community in the 30’s, but at least a progressive white America’s view of the African American culture. The brilliant works of Langston Hughes have their place in society, as does Native Son and Invisible Man. They stand as reflections on the African American experience as an aspect of the American cultural landscape. But then so too does Porgy And Bess have a place. So too is it essential part of understanding the trials and triumphs of civil rights in America? Is anyone (besides the crew behind the new production) that troubled by Porgy And Bess’ racial errors? I’m pretty sure everyone’s competent enough to go “It was the 30’s. That’s just how people thought back then” rather than try and hide how people thought.
Indeed, for some, Porgy And Bess could stand as a testament of how far we’ve come since then in terms of race relations and understanding. For others, the show can still be viewed as remarkably racially progressive, despite its few non-PC moments. Hell, is Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? any less progressive or poignant because it uses the term “Negro”? It upsets me to see that certain people in the theatrical world (and the entertainment field in general) seem to think less of the black community by trying to “be sensitive”, as if to say that at the slightest hint of a non-PC attitude towards race in a historical piece of art, the average African American will shut down and be unable to enjoy the piece as a whole. I’m not saying that writers today should go back to putting characters in black-face (though Tropic Thunder did without much complaint), I’m saying we shouldn’t try and hide the fact that once-upon-a-time, we did.
I cannot claim, and nor would I try to, that I understand how it feels for an African American to see dated stereotypes on stage, but if I had to, I’d imagine it’s similar to someone like myself sitting through La Cage Aux Folles, a show littered with glittery gay stereotypes (a musical version of the French film of the same name, known to most American audiences by its state-side remake The Birdcage) that made the gay man “fun and friendly” to mainstream straight America. Does it portray all gays as flamboyant girly-men? Yes, as art throughout Hollywood and Broadway continue to do today, and I will go out on a limb and say that the “flaming gay man” is this generations “ignorant black man” as the vile but socially accepted stereotype we have to combat.
So yes, La Cage can be offensive if one balks at every stereotype and non-PC behavior displayed on stage (granted, no one has tried to PC-ify La Cage a la Porgy since there seems to be less interest in protecting the imagined delicate sensibilities of the gay community). But it’s also a touching musical with a good score and a gorgeous love story at its heart, and all that and more can be said for the classic Porgy And Bess. Ernest Hemingway’s classic novel The Sun Also Rises captures the spirit, the culture and the language of the expatriate lifestyle of the late 20’s, and at one point the infamous n-word is used. Again, I cannot speak for how it feels for an African American to come across that word, and whether or not the average African American reader’s sensibilities are so damaged they cannot continue reading the novel, and would rather the word removed than read the original text. What I can say is that less than 40 pages later, the word “faggot” is used, which is another word loaded with hate, one that has plagued the gay community for many years. I continued reading, unaffected. I saw past the bygone bigotry and realized the beauty at the heart of the work, without anyone having to “revise” it for me. I’ve been able to do the same with La Cage Aux Folles, and I encourage anyone of any race to do the same with Porgy And Bess. The original, unsanitized, un-PC, brave and bold Porgy And Bess. Because if you do, instead of getting the “new and improved” version, you get a simple time capsule of history and beauty, like the gorgeous gem below. And that kind of beauty should not ever be tampered with.
*Actually, his book Finishing The Hat is exceptionally good.
So, it seems like the talk of the town these days isn't the lack of Book of Mormon tickets available, nor is it the odd mystery of how Memphis is still running. No, my friends, it appears all of the lights on Broadway burn with rage over Diane Paulus' (director of the revival of Hair) attempt to "flesh out" Porgy and Bess in her newest revival. Retitled The Gershwin's Porgy and Bess (because apparently f*** co-author Dubose Heyward, am I right?), the revival features changes so dramatic it led none other than Stephen Sondheim (The Stanley Kubrick of musical theatre) to write an angry letter to the New York Times (which was the best thing he's written since Passions.* Oh!).
For those not well versed in musical theatre history, George Gershwin is undoubtedly the greatest American composer, and his masterpiece (co-written with his brother Ira and the above mentioned Dubose Heyward) is Porgy And Bess, a "folk-opera" (and considered by many to be the greatest American opera) written in 1935 about the struggles of two African-Americans in Charleston, South Carolina. Not only is this the quintessential piece of American musical theatre, revered by any American to ever put notes on a page and folks on a stage, it's so good it made rich white people care about the plight of African Americans in 1935! Sure, is it a little out of date? Yeah. Is it not totally in-touch with the African American community? Sure, Duke Ellington said the original production fed into racial stereotypes and made black men sound ignorant, but he would later praise the first revival with "Your Porgy and Bess the superbest, singing the gonest, acting the craziest, Gershwin the greatest." And the truth is, for two middle-class Jewish guys deciding to write a show about the plight of the African American in 1935, making a show that ended up becoming the first with an unsegregated audience in national theatre history, I think we can all live with a few speed-bumps.
The fact of the matter is some of the more radical changes in the show (a lesbian love affair and an altered, "happier" ending) were removed from the finished product which opened recently, probably in part due to the uproar, but back-stories are still added and lyrics revised, and people still dissatisfied.
One might want to wonder why it is we feel we must "revise" everything, to make it more accessible. Is it a cultural dumbing-down? I don't think so. I think it's a cultural cowardice. For the same reason we take the infamous “n-word” out of Huckleberry Finn, we feel the need to hide all the hate and all the political incorrectness in art of the past, but we fail to realize that in doing so we’re destroying part of what makes that work great: it’s place in history. Porgy And Bess is a period piece, though maybe not in its day. It’s concepts and views on race are important, if not accurate. The Gershwins and Dubose were trying to create something wholly American, something beautiful and artistic, and while they may not have been as racially sensitive as they could have been, Porgy And Bess is far from a minstrel show. It depicts, perhaps not the African American community in the 30’s, but at least a progressive white America’s view of the African American culture. The brilliant works of Langston Hughes have their place in society, as does Native Son and Invisible Man. They stand as reflections on the African American experience as an aspect of the American cultural landscape. But then so too does Porgy And Bess have a place. So too is it essential part of understanding the trials and triumphs of civil rights in America? Is anyone (besides the crew behind the new production) that troubled by Porgy And Bess’ racial errors? I’m pretty sure everyone’s competent enough to go “It was the 30’s. That’s just how people thought back then” rather than try and hide how people thought.
Indeed, for some, Porgy And Bess could stand as a testament of how far we’ve come since then in terms of race relations and understanding. For others, the show can still be viewed as remarkably racially progressive, despite its few non-PC moments. Hell, is Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? any less progressive or poignant because it uses the term “Negro”? It upsets me to see that certain people in the theatrical world (and the entertainment field in general) seem to think less of the black community by trying to “be sensitive”, as if to say that at the slightest hint of a non-PC attitude towards race in a historical piece of art, the average African American will shut down and be unable to enjoy the piece as a whole. I’m not saying that writers today should go back to putting characters in black-face (though Tropic Thunder did without much complaint), I’m saying we shouldn’t try and hide the fact that once-upon-a-time, we did.
I cannot claim, and nor would I try to, that I understand how it feels for an African American to see dated stereotypes on stage, but if I had to, I’d imagine it’s similar to someone like myself sitting through La Cage Aux Folles, a show littered with glittery gay stereotypes (a musical version of the French film of the same name, known to most American audiences by its state-side remake The Birdcage) that made the gay man “fun and friendly” to mainstream straight America. Does it portray all gays as flamboyant girly-men? Yes, as art throughout Hollywood and Broadway continue to do today, and I will go out on a limb and say that the “flaming gay man” is this generations “ignorant black man” as the vile but socially accepted stereotype we have to combat.
So yes, La Cage can be offensive if one balks at every stereotype and non-PC behavior displayed on stage (granted, no one has tried to PC-ify La Cage a la Porgy since there seems to be less interest in protecting the imagined delicate sensibilities of the gay community). But it’s also a touching musical with a good score and a gorgeous love story at its heart, and all that and more can be said for the classic Porgy And Bess. Ernest Hemingway’s classic novel The Sun Also Rises captures the spirit, the culture and the language of the expatriate lifestyle of the late 20’s, and at one point the infamous n-word is used. Again, I cannot speak for how it feels for an African American to come across that word, and whether or not the average African American reader’s sensibilities are so damaged they cannot continue reading the novel, and would rather the word removed than read the original text. What I can say is that less than 40 pages later, the word “faggot” is used, which is another word loaded with hate, one that has plagued the gay community for many years. I continued reading, unaffected. I saw past the bygone bigotry and realized the beauty at the heart of the work, without anyone having to “revise” it for me. I’ve been able to do the same with La Cage Aux Folles, and I encourage anyone of any race to do the same with Porgy And Bess. The original, unsanitized, un-PC, brave and bold Porgy And Bess. Because if you do, instead of getting the “new and improved” version, you get a simple time capsule of history and beauty, like the gorgeous gem below. And that kind of beauty should not ever be tampered with.
*Actually, his book Finishing The Hat is exceptionally good.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Is The Film Festival Dead? An Examination of The Internet Age
{Originally published in Loomings}
Is the film festival dead? The casual reader may very well wonder “Who cares?” Indeed, most outside the cinephile set rarely if ever attend a film festival in their lifetime, and most, if pressed, would hardly be able to name more than a handful. Film professors nation-wide scoff at such a notion, and are likely to respond with something akin to “Well, you should care! That’s how new films are discovered! That’s where new talent gets showcased!” and indeed, such is true of indie and hipster darlings like Napoleon Dynamite and Juno, films that would have fizzled and died were it not for festival buzz. Indeed, this year the Academy Award for Best Live Action Short (also known as “Time to go to the bathroom” in most homes) went to Luke Matheny’s God of Love, a film he made while still a student at NYU which gained massive exposure through festivals.
But is that necessarily true anymore, the idea that that’s how films are discovered? Isn’t one more likely to stumble across a hidden gem on Netflix Instant or a video streaming site than in some small column in the Village Voice packaged between phone sex ads? Indeed, is it perhaps better for the burgeoning young filmmaker to let his creation loose on the internet than ship it off to 1,001 festivals in hopes that one excepts? Undoubtedly its more cost-effective monetarily (posting on the internet is free whereas most film festivals charge $30 to $50 just to submit without a guarantee of acceptance), but is there a different cost one pays for taking the digital route?
I chose to speak with two filmmakers on campus who are on opposite sides of the argument. Joshua Paige, a recent graduate of CW Post, told me the choice to send their film Super/Heroes (the review of which is featured on page 8) through the festival circuit was a unanimous one. “{It} was a group decision. We decided to go the 'festivals route' in hopes that we could spread the film to critics and audiences throughout the country and get our name out there the old fashioned way.” Super/Heroes, the story of a retired superhero mourning in the wake of the September 11th attacks, was a highlight of this past year’s crop of student films at Post, being nominated for 15 Loomings film awards and winning four, including on for director Paige. “It's more professional” Paige said of usin film festivals to promote the film “…and will most likely reach out to more people who have enough passion for film to want to submit or pay admission to go see a film on the big screen.”
Conversely, some filmmakers like Jae Kim, director of last year’s Shadow play (review on page 9), feel there is another route to be taken with regards to gaining an audience. “Unfortunately Shadowplay wasn't met with the desired festival responses I had hoped for, so in turn we looked to internet exposure. Though unintended at first, it seemed like the next right thing to do. It seems today filmmakers are able to popularize their work solely through sites such as Youtube and Vimeo, in some cases more then those on the festival circuit. In the end I was happy with the route we chose.” Kim seems optimistic about the potential for great exposure through the internet, stating “There will never be an audience as big as the online community. Millions are constantly online 24/7 across the globe. If one person enjoys it, he or she can pass it on to the next person with ease. Before you know it, people can catch on like wildfire. Also it is easily accessible and free of charge to view; I'm sure people wouldn't mind that.” When asked if Super/Heroes would ever make the leap to the digital world, Paige replied “I don't see why we would post it online. We've promoted trailers, websites and other information dedicated to the film online that should be enough to make people want to get up and see the film for themselves.”
While Paige was right about the trailers and websites available on the internet (as I discuss in my review of the film) I wondered where exactly Paige had hoped these people would go when the ‘got up and saw’ the film. When asked how the reception’s been for the film, Paige replied “Super/Heroes is going extremely well. It's been sent to quite a few festivals. It was recently screened at the Long Island Fringe Festival and NewFilmmakers NY Film Festival for a 9/11 special program. So that was really exciting.” However, despite Paiges sentiments, the film’s website (www.superheroesfilm.com) reveals that these are the only two festivals the film has screened in, making it difficult for one to see the film should one want to. Indeed, Paige’s statement of the film being sent to “quite a few” festivals indicates that perhaps the film has heard more “no” than “yes” in its struggle to find a fanbase. Yet, Paige seems optimistic even in the face of rejection, stating “I mean, it's obviously a disappointment when your film gets rejected from festivals but that's why we keep trying and do the best we can to spread the film.”
So Super/Heroes may not be the next God of Love in the festival world, it would seem. One might think Shadowplay took the better route. Indeed, it’s a lot easier for people to see a film from their laptops than on a screen in the ever elusive film festival. However, don’t think Kim is celebrating his decision. Every answer he gave was tinged with regret. When asked simply how the film had been received, he replied “Although we haven't had much opportunity to show the film to as many people as we liked, from the small crowds we usually gathered the reception was fairly good.” Kim added “I wanted the film to have a successful festival run, but not everything always turns out the way you want it to.” When Shadowplay was screened last year it was nominated for 16 Loomings film awards, taking home 10 (the most of the night) including Best Picture. However, despite the enthusiasm of Post voters, the film has failed as of yet to pick up a huge following online. “I can say for certain Shadowplay is currently not an internet sensation” Kim said “…but we are slowly getting more views as time goes by. I think it has about 173 views now, but that could be 173 individuals or just one person like myself clicking on it 173 times. Who knows?”
Kim’s humor masks an obvious sense of regret (though he doesn’t always hide it, in statements like “Of course there are downsides. It seems as though once the film goes online, it loses it's ‘prestige’. It won't be able to compete in the festival circuit anymore. And with the online video community growing everyday, it gets harder and harder to fight for those views.”), while Paige never lets his optimism drop when discussing his film (”People seem to be emotionally moved by the concept. A lot of people can see all the hard work and dedication that went into making the film so that's obviously a good thing.”) Even when we talked about his other film, Raw Umber, which he described as “Two people fall in love in a mental institution and attempt to break out”, he told us he intended to send it out to festivals as well.
It seems like a bold, brave new world, this thing we call the internet. Careers can be launched, messages heard, lives changed. Indeed, one thing in Kim’s favor is that a lot more people who read this article can see Shadowplay should they like than have a chance of seeing Super/Heroes (as of printing there are no upcoming screenings). However, after being online 3 months, the film has failed to crack 200 views, despite a newly released music video for “Parachutes” by Face The King (read the review of their new EP here) featuring footage from the film. But what carries more prestige, to label your film with “Official Selection” wreaths from festivals, or to have been mentioned by an actor in Soap Opera Weekly (which recently happened when the publication interviewed Shadowplay actor Michael Derek)? Which brings more attention to the film? Sure, the difference between Super/Heroes’ 38 fans on Facebook v. Shadowplay’s 23 may not seem like much, but for one film that has been screened twice in festivals and one that is available for viewing every day online, one would think the fan base discrepancy would be no only greater, but in the other film’s favor. However, it appears that while there’s a larger potential audience out there for films on the internet as opposed to the festival screen, without those magical little olive leaves on your poster, the average ‘net user will skip your film for some Farmville, at least for now. If the internet truly is a new frontier for films, then it is a frontier without many pioneers.
Is the film festival dead? The casual reader may very well wonder “Who cares?” Indeed, most outside the cinephile set rarely if ever attend a film festival in their lifetime, and most, if pressed, would hardly be able to name more than a handful. Film professors nation-wide scoff at such a notion, and are likely to respond with something akin to “Well, you should care! That’s how new films are discovered! That’s where new talent gets showcased!” and indeed, such is true of indie and hipster darlings like Napoleon Dynamite and Juno, films that would have fizzled and died were it not for festival buzz. Indeed, this year the Academy Award for Best Live Action Short (also known as “Time to go to the bathroom” in most homes) went to Luke Matheny’s God of Love, a film he made while still a student at NYU which gained massive exposure through festivals.
But is that necessarily true anymore, the idea that that’s how films are discovered? Isn’t one more likely to stumble across a hidden gem on Netflix Instant or a video streaming site than in some small column in the Village Voice packaged between phone sex ads? Indeed, is it perhaps better for the burgeoning young filmmaker to let his creation loose on the internet than ship it off to 1,001 festivals in hopes that one excepts? Undoubtedly its more cost-effective monetarily (posting on the internet is free whereas most film festivals charge $30 to $50 just to submit without a guarantee of acceptance), but is there a different cost one pays for taking the digital route?
I chose to speak with two filmmakers on campus who are on opposite sides of the argument. Joshua Paige, a recent graduate of CW Post, told me the choice to send their film Super/Heroes (the review of which is featured on page 8) through the festival circuit was a unanimous one. “{It} was a group decision. We decided to go the 'festivals route' in hopes that we could spread the film to critics and audiences throughout the country and get our name out there the old fashioned way.” Super/Heroes, the story of a retired superhero mourning in the wake of the September 11th attacks, was a highlight of this past year’s crop of student films at Post, being nominated for 15 Loomings film awards and winning four, including on for director Paige. “It's more professional” Paige said of usin film festivals to promote the film “…and will most likely reach out to more people who have enough passion for film to want to submit or pay admission to go see a film on the big screen.”
Conversely, some filmmakers like Jae Kim, director of last year’s Shadow play (review on page 9), feel there is another route to be taken with regards to gaining an audience. “Unfortunately Shadowplay wasn't met with the desired festival responses I had hoped for, so in turn we looked to internet exposure. Though unintended at first, it seemed like the next right thing to do. It seems today filmmakers are able to popularize their work solely through sites such as Youtube and Vimeo, in some cases more then those on the festival circuit. In the end I was happy with the route we chose.” Kim seems optimistic about the potential for great exposure through the internet, stating “There will never be an audience as big as the online community. Millions are constantly online 24/7 across the globe. If one person enjoys it, he or she can pass it on to the next person with ease. Before you know it, people can catch on like wildfire. Also it is easily accessible and free of charge to view; I'm sure people wouldn't mind that.” When asked if Super/Heroes would ever make the leap to the digital world, Paige replied “I don't see why we would post it online. We've promoted trailers, websites and other information dedicated to the film online that should be enough to make people want to get up and see the film for themselves.”
While Paige was right about the trailers and websites available on the internet (as I discuss in my review of the film) I wondered where exactly Paige had hoped these people would go when the ‘got up and saw’ the film. When asked how the reception’s been for the film, Paige replied “Super/Heroes is going extremely well. It's been sent to quite a few festivals. It was recently screened at the Long Island Fringe Festival and NewFilmmakers NY Film Festival for a 9/11 special program. So that was really exciting.” However, despite Paiges sentiments, the film’s website (www.superheroesfilm.com) reveals that these are the only two festivals the film has screened in, making it difficult for one to see the film should one want to. Indeed, Paige’s statement of the film being sent to “quite a few” festivals indicates that perhaps the film has heard more “no” than “yes” in its struggle to find a fanbase. Yet, Paige seems optimistic even in the face of rejection, stating “I mean, it's obviously a disappointment when your film gets rejected from festivals but that's why we keep trying and do the best we can to spread the film.”
So Super/Heroes may not be the next God of Love in the festival world, it would seem. One might think Shadowplay took the better route. Indeed, it’s a lot easier for people to see a film from their laptops than on a screen in the ever elusive film festival. However, don’t think Kim is celebrating his decision. Every answer he gave was tinged with regret. When asked simply how the film had been received, he replied “Although we haven't had much opportunity to show the film to as many people as we liked, from the small crowds we usually gathered the reception was fairly good.” Kim added “I wanted the film to have a successful festival run, but not everything always turns out the way you want it to.” When Shadowplay was screened last year it was nominated for 16 Loomings film awards, taking home 10 (the most of the night) including Best Picture. However, despite the enthusiasm of Post voters, the film has failed as of yet to pick up a huge following online. “I can say for certain Shadowplay is currently not an internet sensation” Kim said “…but we are slowly getting more views as time goes by. I think it has about 173 views now, but that could be 173 individuals or just one person like myself clicking on it 173 times. Who knows?”
Kim’s humor masks an obvious sense of regret (though he doesn’t always hide it, in statements like “Of course there are downsides. It seems as though once the film goes online, it loses it's ‘prestige’. It won't be able to compete in the festival circuit anymore. And with the online video community growing everyday, it gets harder and harder to fight for those views.”), while Paige never lets his optimism drop when discussing his film (”People seem to be emotionally moved by the concept. A lot of people can see all the hard work and dedication that went into making the film so that's obviously a good thing.”) Even when we talked about his other film, Raw Umber, which he described as “Two people fall in love in a mental institution and attempt to break out”, he told us he intended to send it out to festivals as well.
It seems like a bold, brave new world, this thing we call the internet. Careers can be launched, messages heard, lives changed. Indeed, one thing in Kim’s favor is that a lot more people who read this article can see Shadowplay should they like than have a chance of seeing Super/Heroes (as of printing there are no upcoming screenings). However, after being online 3 months, the film has failed to crack 200 views, despite a newly released music video for “Parachutes” by Face The King (read the review of their new EP here) featuring footage from the film. But what carries more prestige, to label your film with “Official Selection” wreaths from festivals, or to have been mentioned by an actor in Soap Opera Weekly (which recently happened when the publication interviewed Shadowplay actor Michael Derek)? Which brings more attention to the film? Sure, the difference between Super/Heroes’ 38 fans on Facebook v. Shadowplay’s 23 may not seem like much, but for one film that has been screened twice in festivals and one that is available for viewing every day online, one would think the fan base discrepancy would be no only greater, but in the other film’s favor. However, it appears that while there’s a larger potential audience out there for films on the internet as opposed to the festival screen, without those magical little olive leaves on your poster, the average ‘net user will skip your film for some Farmville, at least for now. If the internet truly is a new frontier for films, then it is a frontier without many pioneers.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Interview with Jae Kim and Josh Paige
{Originally published in Loomings as a supplemental piece to the article "Is the Film Festival Dead?"}
- First off, let’s start with congratulations. Super/Heroes and Shadowplay took home most of the awards at the most recent Loomings film awards, including a Best Director win for you, Josh. How’s it feel?
Josh Paige (Director of Super/Heroes): Feels pretty damn good, seeing as directing is my passion.
Jae Kim (Director of Shadowplay): I was quite pleased with the results. It's nice to see that the effort that the wonderful cast, crew, and I put in was met with positive reception from the folks who attended the festival. Again, thanks to those who voted.
- Other than the awards, what’s the reception been like for your films (not including festival acceptances)?
JP: People seem to be emotionally moved by the concept. A lot of people can see all the hard work and dedication that went into making the film so that's obviously a good thing.
JK: Although we haven't had much opportunity to show the film to as many people as we liked, from the small crowds we usually gathered the reception was fairly good.
- It's interesting that you two films would choose such different mediums, what with Super/Heroes choosing to try their luck on the festival circuit, and Shadowplay choosing to forgo festivals and go online. Was it a group decision with regards to the respective mediums?
JP: Yes, it was a group decision. We decided to go the 'festivals route' in hopes that we could spread the film to critics and audiences throughout the country and get our name out there the old fashioned way.
JK: Yes it was a group decision. Unfortunately Shadowplay wasn't met with the desired festival responses I had hoped for, so in turn we looked to internet exposure. Though unintended at first, it seemed like the next right thing to do. It seems today filmmakers are able to popularize their work solely through sites such as Youtube and Vimeo, in some cases more then those on the festival circuit. In the end I was happy with the route we chose.
- With film festivals being the traditional means to showcase one’s work, and the internet being a fresh, new medium to view film and video, there’s obviously merit to both routes. So why did you choose to go the way you did? Any particular advantages?
JP: Like you said, it's traditional. It's more professional and will most likely reach out to more people who have enough passion for film to want to submit or pay admission to go see a film on the big screen.
JK: As I said before, it seemed like the next right thing to do. There will never be an audience as big as the online community. Millions are constantly online 24/7 across the globe. If one person enjoys it, he or she can pass it on to the next person with ease. Before you know it, people can catch on like wildfire. Also it is easily accessible and free of charge to view; I'm sure people wouldn't mind that.
- Are there any major downsides to the routes you chose?
JP: I mean, it's obviously a disappointment when your film gets rejected from festivals but that's why we keep trying and do the best we can to spread the film.
JK: Of course there are downsides. It seems as though once the film goes online, it loses it's "prestige". It won't be able to compete in the festival circuit anymore. And with the online video community growing everyday, it gets harder and harder to fight for those views.
- Jae, obviously releasing the film online means it cannot ever be eligible for most festivals. Any regrets in that regard? Josh, any intention of posting Super/Heroes online for mass consumption?
JK: As I stated before, it wasn't my primary intention to release the film online immediately after finishing it, so there are regrets. I wanted the film to have a successful festival run, but not everything always turns out the way you want it to.
JP: I don't see why we would post it online. We've promoted trailers, websites and other information dedicated to the film online that should be enough to make people want to get up and see the film for themselves.
- How is Shadowplay fairing online, Jae? How many views has it received?
JK: I can say for certain Shadowplay is currently not an internet sensation, but we are slowly getting more views as time goes by. I think it has about 173 views now, but that could be 173 individuals or just one person like myself clicking on it 173 times. Who knows?
-And how long has it been up since?
JK: I think it's been up for about 3 months.
- What type of promotion is the Shadowplay team doing to get the word out about the film?
JK: My producer, Mike Natale, has recently created a trailer/music video for the film to help get the word out. It features music from the Long Island based band Face The King ("Parachutes"). We also have a website up for the film (www.shadowplay-film.com). You can also view the film on the website as well. We're working on coming up with more promotion ideas, so hopefully this thing gets rolling faster.
-Josh, how’s things for Super/Heroes? How many festivals has it been sent to? And how many has it gotten into?
JP: Super/Heroes is going extremely well. It's been sent to quite a few festivals. It was recently screened at the Long Island Fringe Festival and NewFilmmakers NY Film Festival for a 9/11 special program. So that was really exciting.
- Josh, you recently finished editing your senior thesis, Raw Umber. Wanna give us a little synopsis?
JP: Two people fall in love in a mental institution and attempt to break out. It's a compelling love story but also an intense escape story. The trailer is up online.
- And will you be sending out into the festival circuit as well, or taking the online route?
JP: It will also be sent out to festivals.
- Thanks for answering these, guys. Any projects you’ve got coming up?
JP: While producing and helping out upcoming films from filmmakers here at Post, I'll be writing scripts and will continue to send my films out to festivals.
JK: Currently I'm working on another short film which is set to be shooting sometime in the beginning of next year. And I am also working on many side video projects as well.
- First off, let’s start with congratulations. Super/Heroes and Shadowplay took home most of the awards at the most recent Loomings film awards, including a Best Director win for you, Josh. How’s it feel?
Josh Paige (Director of Super/Heroes): Feels pretty damn good, seeing as directing is my passion.
Jae Kim (Director of Shadowplay): I was quite pleased with the results. It's nice to see that the effort that the wonderful cast, crew, and I put in was met with positive reception from the folks who attended the festival. Again, thanks to those who voted.
- Other than the awards, what’s the reception been like for your films (not including festival acceptances)?
JP: People seem to be emotionally moved by the concept. A lot of people can see all the hard work and dedication that went into making the film so that's obviously a good thing.
JK: Although we haven't had much opportunity to show the film to as many people as we liked, from the small crowds we usually gathered the reception was fairly good.
- It's interesting that you two films would choose such different mediums, what with Super/Heroes choosing to try their luck on the festival circuit, and Shadowplay choosing to forgo festivals and go online. Was it a group decision with regards to the respective mediums?
JP: Yes, it was a group decision. We decided to go the 'festivals route' in hopes that we could spread the film to critics and audiences throughout the country and get our name out there the old fashioned way.
JK: Yes it was a group decision. Unfortunately Shadowplay wasn't met with the desired festival responses I had hoped for, so in turn we looked to internet exposure. Though unintended at first, it seemed like the next right thing to do. It seems today filmmakers are able to popularize their work solely through sites such as Youtube and Vimeo, in some cases more then those on the festival circuit. In the end I was happy with the route we chose.
- With film festivals being the traditional means to showcase one’s work, and the internet being a fresh, new medium to view film and video, there’s obviously merit to both routes. So why did you choose to go the way you did? Any particular advantages?
JP: Like you said, it's traditional. It's more professional and will most likely reach out to more people who have enough passion for film to want to submit or pay admission to go see a film on the big screen.
JK: As I said before, it seemed like the next right thing to do. There will never be an audience as big as the online community. Millions are constantly online 24/7 across the globe. If one person enjoys it, he or she can pass it on to the next person with ease. Before you know it, people can catch on like wildfire. Also it is easily accessible and free of charge to view; I'm sure people wouldn't mind that.
- Are there any major downsides to the routes you chose?
JP: I mean, it's obviously a disappointment when your film gets rejected from festivals but that's why we keep trying and do the best we can to spread the film.
JK: Of course there are downsides. It seems as though once the film goes online, it loses it's "prestige". It won't be able to compete in the festival circuit anymore. And with the online video community growing everyday, it gets harder and harder to fight for those views.
- Jae, obviously releasing the film online means it cannot ever be eligible for most festivals. Any regrets in that regard? Josh, any intention of posting Super/Heroes online for mass consumption?
JK: As I stated before, it wasn't my primary intention to release the film online immediately after finishing it, so there are regrets. I wanted the film to have a successful festival run, but not everything always turns out the way you want it to.
JP: I don't see why we would post it online. We've promoted trailers, websites and other information dedicated to the film online that should be enough to make people want to get up and see the film for themselves.
- How is Shadowplay fairing online, Jae? How many views has it received?
JK: I can say for certain Shadowplay is currently not an internet sensation, but we are slowly getting more views as time goes by. I think it has about 173 views now, but that could be 173 individuals or just one person like myself clicking on it 173 times. Who knows?
-And how long has it been up since?
JK: I think it's been up for about 3 months.
- What type of promotion is the Shadowplay team doing to get the word out about the film?
JK: My producer, Mike Natale, has recently created a trailer/music video for the film to help get the word out. It features music from the Long Island based band Face The King ("Parachutes"). We also have a website up for the film (www.shadowplay-film.com). You can also view the film on the website as well. We're working on coming up with more promotion ideas, so hopefully this thing gets rolling faster.
-Josh, how’s things for Super/Heroes? How many festivals has it been sent to? And how many has it gotten into?
JP: Super/Heroes is going extremely well. It's been sent to quite a few festivals. It was recently screened at the Long Island Fringe Festival and NewFilmmakers NY Film Festival for a 9/11 special program. So that was really exciting.
- Josh, you recently finished editing your senior thesis, Raw Umber. Wanna give us a little synopsis?
JP: Two people fall in love in a mental institution and attempt to break out. It's a compelling love story but also an intense escape story. The trailer is up online.
- And will you be sending out into the festival circuit as well, or taking the online route?
JP: It will also be sent out to festivals.
- Thanks for answering these, guys. Any projects you’ve got coming up?
JP: While producing and helping out upcoming films from filmmakers here at Post, I'll be writing scripts and will continue to send my films out to festivals.
JK: Currently I'm working on another short film which is set to be shooting sometime in the beginning of next year. And I am also working on many side video projects as well.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Good, The Bad and The Gaga: The VMAs 2011
{Originally appeared in Loomings}
So, another year the VMA’s have come and gone. Last year, it was all about the Meat Dress. Two years ago, St. Kanye bravely took the stage to denounce the foul, foul tyranny of a 17-year-old girl unjustly winning the popular vote primarily contributed by other 17-year-old girls.
Every year the VMAs has a memorable moment, and this year was no exception. Forgoing a host in order to avoid a) bad jokes and b) public drunkenness, the VMAs would prove almost unmemorable if it weren’t for two girls who run the world (one of whom sings a song with a similar theme).
Yes, it’s also true Chris Brown could make your head spin with his gravity defying performance (he can also make your head spin if he’s really angry with you, I hear), and seeing Tony Bennett at the VMAs was so awesome (to me) that it made up for having to hear more about how talented Amy Winehouse was.
While we’re on the subject of singers I just don’t get the appeal of, Adele performed. Look, she’s got a nice voice, but I don’t see why she’s raved about. All the nominations she raked in this year for a video where she sits. Now, while I’ve got the mainstream population fuming at me, I might as well please the hipster crowd by acknowledging the kick-ass performance by Young The Giant. Their performance (as well as a Best Rock Video category that featured five real rock groups) restored a bit of my faith in MTV, though if it weren’t for tonight you’d never know MTV knew what music was.
Anyway, I’ve digressed enough. It’s my damn MTV-generation ADD and all, you know? So, two ladies owned the night at this year’s show. The ever entertaining (if not always original) Lady Gaga took the stage to perform “You And I”. Now, I don’t want to say anything negative or all I have the thousands of “Gaga can do no wrong” fans down my throat and…you know what? F*** ‘em. After jacking Madonna’s style for years, most directly the song “Express Yourself”, she moved on to being “influenced” by Bruce Springsteen, a fact evident on the track “Edge of Glory” released earlier this year, which plays like a feminized, dance-friendly B-Side from Born In The USA, even featuring E Street Band saxophonist Clarence Clemons. So what, you say. She’s lifting Springsteen’s music style now. Big deal. It’s not a repeat of her Madonna phase until she starts emulating his fashion sen…
Well, there’s that. So that was one of the big moments last night, simply because it managed to please both sides of the Gaga debate. Her fans who adore the outrageous will embrace the gender-bending nature of the performance, while people like me (who judge her music based on, well, the music) got to see what was (for her) a stripped down performance, mostly free of distraction, to appreciate her talent as a musician. On any other night, that would be the undeniable big moment, but while Gaga had to make a radical clothing change to be a highlight, Beyonce just had to take hers off.
Well, her jacket specifically, and when she did, I believe the world had two reactions. First: Damn, Beyonce can still look damn fine pregnant. Second: Wait, she’s pregnant?!?!?! Yes dear readers, Babyonce is on the way. Or maybe Babe-Z. Either way, the reigning Queen of Pop rubbed her belly with pride while Poppa Hova received a congratulatory hug from best friend Kanye West in a heartfelt moment so touching that I’m choosing not to insult Kanye for one sentence in tribute.
So, we’ve covered the highlights for the night. Well, unless you’re a pedophile, in which case the highlight of your night was the myriad of twelve-year-old girls inappropriately dancing in tribute to Britney Spears adorned in even her most scandalous outfits. We’re lucky they didn’t try and re-enact the Madonna moment, ferchrissakes.
So, how about them winners, huh? A lot of great videos were nominated. And for the most part, hose great videos remain just that: nominees. I don’t know, people can tell me that the VMAs are meaningless, the classic vids like “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Closer” fail to rack up the “Video of the Year” honor while forgettable crap shines, but scoff all you want, the VMAs is the most recognizable, most regarded, and seemingly most significant award for music videos, an under appreciated art form that’s spawned legends like Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze. Plus, for the most part, the videos that win typically are classics. “Tonight , Tonight” by the Smashing Pumpkins, “Money For Nothing” by Dire Straights, “Hey Ya!” by Outkast and far too many to list have all achieved the top honors (for those interested in the past winners, all have been compiled here for your convenience), so is it so much to ask that the current generation actually vote for the best video and not just what song they think is “prettiest”? Below we list all of last night’s actual winners, as well as those who probably should have walked away with the Moonman instead.
So, another year the VMA’s have come and gone. Last year, it was all about the Meat Dress. Two years ago, St. Kanye bravely took the stage to denounce the foul, foul tyranny of a 17-year-old girl unjustly winning the popular vote primarily contributed by other 17-year-old girls.
Every year the VMAs has a memorable moment, and this year was no exception. Forgoing a host in order to avoid a) bad jokes and b) public drunkenness, the VMAs would prove almost unmemorable if it weren’t for two girls who run the world (one of whom sings a song with a similar theme).
Yes, it’s also true Chris Brown could make your head spin with his gravity defying performance (he can also make your head spin if he’s really angry with you, I hear), and seeing Tony Bennett at the VMAs was so awesome (to me) that it made up for having to hear more about how talented Amy Winehouse was.
While we’re on the subject of singers I just don’t get the appeal of, Adele performed. Look, she’s got a nice voice, but I don’t see why she’s raved about. All the nominations she raked in this year for a video where she sits. Now, while I’ve got the mainstream population fuming at me, I might as well please the hipster crowd by acknowledging the kick-ass performance by Young The Giant. Their performance (as well as a Best Rock Video category that featured five real rock groups) restored a bit of my faith in MTV, though if it weren’t for tonight you’d never know MTV knew what music was.
Anyway, I’ve digressed enough. It’s my damn MTV-generation ADD and all, you know? So, two ladies owned the night at this year’s show. The ever entertaining (if not always original) Lady Gaga took the stage to perform “You And I”. Now, I don’t want to say anything negative or all I have the thousands of “Gaga can do no wrong” fans down my throat and…you know what? F*** ‘em. After jacking Madonna’s style for years, most directly the song “Express Yourself”, she moved on to being “influenced” by Bruce Springsteen, a fact evident on the track “Edge of Glory” released earlier this year, which plays like a feminized, dance-friendly B-Side from Born In The USA, even featuring E Street Band saxophonist Clarence Clemons. So what, you say. She’s lifting Springsteen’s music style now. Big deal. It’s not a repeat of her Madonna phase until she starts emulating his fashion sen…
Well, her jacket specifically, and when she did, I believe the world had two reactions. First: Damn, Beyonce can still look damn fine pregnant. Second: Wait, she’s pregnant?!?!?! Yes dear readers, Babyonce is on the way. Or maybe Babe-Z. Either way, the reigning Queen of Pop rubbed her belly with pride while Poppa Hova received a congratulatory hug from best friend Kanye West in a heartfelt moment so touching that I’m choosing not to insult Kanye for one sentence in tribute.
So, we’ve covered the highlights for the night. Well, unless you’re a pedophile, in which case the highlight of your night was the myriad of twelve-year-old girls inappropriately dancing in tribute to Britney Spears adorned in even her most scandalous outfits. We’re lucky they didn’t try and re-enact the Madonna moment, ferchrissakes.
So, how about them winners, huh? A lot of great videos were nominated. And for the most part, hose great videos remain just that: nominees. I don’t know, people can tell me that the VMAs are meaningless, the classic vids like “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Closer” fail to rack up the “Video of the Year” honor while forgettable crap shines, but scoff all you want, the VMAs is the most recognizable, most regarded, and seemingly most significant award for music videos, an under appreciated art form that’s spawned legends like Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze. Plus, for the most part, the videos that win typically are classics. “Tonight , Tonight” by the Smashing Pumpkins, “Money For Nothing” by Dire Straights, “Hey Ya!” by Outkast and far too many to list have all achieved the top honors (for those interested in the past winners, all have been compiled here for your convenience), so is it so much to ask that the current generation actually vote for the best video and not just what song they think is “prettiest”? Below we list all of last night’s actual winners, as well as those who probably should have walked away with the Moonman instead.
Best New Artist
Winner:
With an inventive video that plays like a mix of Mark Romanek’s best (“Closer” meets “99 Problems”) directed by the artist himself (in one of his other personas), Tyler, The Creator of Odd Future claimed the title of Best New Artist for his video “Yonkers”.
Should Have Won:
I gotta say, the voting public got this one right.
Best Pop Video
Winner:
Britney Spears does...the same thing she’s been doing for a decade, except now it’s in a post-apocalyptic wasteland in her bland video for “Till The World Ends”.
Should Have Won:
I’m tired of the serious Katy Perry who shows up in videos like “Firework” or “Teenage Dream”, so it was an absolute delight to see the always colorful Katy come back in full comic form in “Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)”. Like “Thriller” pumped with glitter, this story-telling video set the internet ablaze, blending ironically-old (Kenny G) with flash-in-the-pan new (Rebecca Black) to make the most giggle-worthy video since Eminem got serious. Utterly screwed this year.
Best Rock Video
Winner:
Full of 90’s flavor, both in your ear and on your screen, the Foo Fighter’s “Walk” is one of their best videos in a while (though I still prefer “White Limo”). Rock may be dead, but with a great sense of humor and a snarling intensity, Grohl and company are banging away at that defibrillator trying to keep it going.
Should Have Won:
While musically the best song in this category is “The Cave”, Mumford and all his sons can’t compete visually with the Foo. The right winner was picked in this category, though I will give credit to “The Cave” for its gorgeous cinematography.
Best Hip-Hop Video
Winner:
Nicki Minaj, the newest music sensation to straddle fence between fad and fantastic unleashed a video for “Super Bass” that’s equal parts colorful fun and Katy Perry knock-off. An acceptable winner, but we’re gonna go out on a limb and say there’s one better.
Should Have Won:
While “Super Bass” was a Katy Perry vid with a bit of Nicki flair, and the same with “6 Foot, 7 Foot” being a Jay-Z video with a dash of Weezy style, it seems as though no nominees were truly original. Truly breathed a new air of excitement into the category. Let’s face it, the real winner should have been “Runaway” by Kanye and Pusha-T, but apparently MTV decided not to nominate it, and instead the lesser-but-still-brilliant Hype Williams video for “All of the Lights” by Kanye, Rihanna and Kid Cudi. The video succeeds for many reasons, ranging from its use of color and text to Rihanna’s outfit. Loomings readers will know I have rarely a good thing to say about the highly over-rated St. Kanye (his rhymes still suck on this track), but I gotta admit when he owns a category, and in this case he undeniably did. (But where were Video of the Year nominees “Make Some Noise” and "Yonkers"?)
Best Female Video
Winner:
Somehow, the winner for Video of the Year didn’t take this category, which instead went to Lady Gaga for “Express Yourself 2.0”. While the video is very exciting, and visually it is a spectacle, it’s weak by Gaga’s standards, and feels like a rehashing of what we’d seen done much better in “Bad Romance”.
Should Have Won:
Gaga’s “Telephone” partner Beyonce may not have had all the film-school imagery or odd imagery, but she did have the strongest video by far (Nobody even try and say Adele sitting in an f***ing chair was the best video. Just…no). Listen, Gaga, sometimes you don’t need insane visuals to make a good video. A good song and some great choreography is all you need; see “Run The World (Girls)”.
Best Male Video
Winner:
“U Smile” by Justin Beiber. This is just…well this is just…no. Just f***ing no.
Should Have Won:
Considering the lack-of-spectacular in “U Smile”, literally any of the other nominees should have conquered this category. But where the hell was "Yonkers" in this category? It’s Video of the Year material, but not in the lesser category of Best Male Video? “Yonkers” should have totally won this category, but since I have to pick out of the nominees, let’s go with “All of the Lights” again.
Best Collaboration
Winner:
With an ok video for an even more “eh” song, Katy Perry and St. Kanye took home the Moonman for “E.T.”
Should Have Won:
In truth, the winner undeniably should have been “I Need A Doctor”, the tantalizing release from the upcoming Detox by Dr. Dre, but somehow that wasn’t even nominated. So “All of the Lights” it is again.
Best Video With A Message
Winner:
So apparently the best video of the year is not the best video of the year? I’m confused as to how, if “Firework” is the best video of the year, and it qualifies as a video with a message (since it was nominated), how is it not the Best Video With A Message? Instead, it’s apparently “Born This Way”. And while it is a great message in the song, the video doesn’t really convey that…or anything at all really.
Should Have Won:
While some could argue the message in the song “Born This Way” is the best, the video that really conveys its message best is “Love The Way You Lie” by Eminem and Rihanna. Katy Perry vaguely touches on abuse in “Firework”, but Em and Ri expose it for what it is, exploring the dark theme of abuse and addiction, not to drugs but to love, as the couple fights and comes together again and again, acting out the message of the song, not just that he’ll continue abusing, but that she’ll continue enduring. It’s dark, it’s honest, and it’s undeniably eye-opening. You asked for a message, you never asked for a positive one.
Video of the Year
Winner:
For some bizarre reason, in a year with the Beastie Boys making their hilariously triumphant return, and Tyler, The Creator making a grand entrance into the music world, the MTV voters decided to go with ol’ sparkly boobs for “Firework”. It’s a nice song, and an equally nice video, and admittedly better than “Bruno Mars on a roof” and “Chubby chick sings from a chair and other chicks love it”, there were so many vids that went unnominated that far more deserved this title.
Should Have Won:
Let’s first get it out of the way: Despite my utter loathing for the rap stylings of on Mr. West, “Runaway” should have easily won this category. In reality, it probably wasn’t nominated to avoid him getting a chance to speak. Fair enough. Hell, you want Katy Perry to win? Give it to he far more deserving and yet not even nominated “Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)”. This kind of serious message music had best be left to Perry’s dark counterpart Lady Gaga (their kind of like the Superman and Batman of pop music. I don’t wanna see The Man Of Steel take on The Joker. It just doesn’t feel right). Plus, lets be honest, the best performance of “Firework” is a cover, so I really don’t see where this vid has a leg to stand on. To pick a winner from the nominees is tough, in a way, because while only two vids really should have won this award (for the quality of their videos, not because “I love Adele” or “Katy rules!” or whatever idiot reason people voted with), they were both incredible. And while I loved “Make Some Noise” for condensing the Beastie’s film Fight For Your Right Revisited and providing us all with a well needed blast from the past, the best video of this batch of nominees is undeniably the brilliantly inventive “Yonkers”. Tyler already threatens to stab fellow nominee Bruno Mars”…in his god-damned esophagus” on this track. Can’t wait to hear what he has to say about losing to a smurf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)