Movie City Indie Archive for April, 2013

COMPUTER CHESS and Karaoke at True/False 2013

Andrew Bujalski‘s swimmingly strange and dense Computer Chess debuted at Sundance, and showed most recently at SXSW, but an appearance at True/False, a festival dedicated to the crossing of boundaries between nonfiction and fiction, and the surprise Skyped-in interview afterward to the Blue Note venue all fit keenly with the film’s field day with anachronism and its succession of narrative wormholes.

Fine young doc-maker Robert Greene introduces. (There are sync issues.)

Colleagues were mid-wowed and post-wowed, none more than Vadim Rizov, who brings up Thomas Pynchon to the man upon the screen.

(Outtakes and oddments from the film show up in this Secret Teaser, including Gerald Peary’s fantastic impersonation of Gerald Peary.)

Earlier, New Yorkers and Chicagoans were empaneled in central Missouri to explain why movie reviewers don’t know how to write about documentary. Glum jokes reigned.

And earlier still, the annual karaoke shootout, an off-the-books tradution at T/F, begun by filmmaker A. J. Schnack, who was debuting We Always Lie To Strangers at SxSW this year instead. The troops rallied.

And only a few seconds later… Filmmakers rise and filmmakers fall… get carried away

T:F Karaoke from Ray Pride on Vimeo.

Covering Seitz’s “Wes Anderson Collection” (Oct. 2013)

Trailering ELYSIUM (2’16”)

It’sBetterUpThere.com.

Werner Herzog on Les Blank (3’01”)

Trailering BEHIND THE CANDELABRA (1’40”)

“I’ll See You At The Movies”: The Daily Illini’s Ebert Front Page

[Click three times for largest size.]

A Rose For Roger

Seat 1, Lake Street Screening Room, Friday, April 5, 2013, before a screening of To The Wonder, which will be Roger Ebert’s last review, according to editor Jim Emerson.

1 Comment »

Ebert’s 2011 TED Talk (19’30”)

Siskel & Ebert On TAXI DRIVER (8’34”)

2 Comments »

“Our Roger Ebert wins Pulitzer” (1975)

“This is my happening… and it freaks me out!!” (0’18”)

WED, APRIL 5, 1967: Ebert Named Film Critic

To Roger And Russ

Trailering The 3D Snow Globe Of Baz Luhrmann’s Busy, Busy Gatsby (2’44”)

Will the finished film be cut ever faster, and approximate the effect of a swirling rack of snow globes from a concession at a smaller Midwestern American airport?

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon