On my knees

Donya had me and some friends over for a dinner party. It was a bit of a house warming. Unfortunately she didn't have enough chairs, so I had to lend her the chairs in my bedroom. So here I am, typing on my knees.

I went to Sylvian's house the other night. We watched a movie. Well, it would be considered an honor to call the Truth About Charlie a movie. This movie was horrible! Sometimes bad movies are the best mentors. They enable you to clearly identify what you dislike, and what you consider to be poor filmmaking. Sometimes we learn more from these examples. Even when I watch a bad movie, I try to find something of interest. Sylvain was so pissed that Hollywood's depiction of France included old cars. "we haven't had cars like that in the past ten years," he exclaimed. Sylvain couldn't get over the cliche depictions of American France. I posed the following as an answer and refute to his statement. I don't hold too many expectations of the American public. Especially when it comes to films. I told Sylvania that had the classic old French cars and cliche idiosyncrasies not been presented, that the American public would forget what city we were in. That's literally how bad it is. We are told what to believe and how to feel. Editing, music, mise en scene force us to feel the way a director chooses. This power is something I admire and idealize, but it becomes interesting when it crosses cultural boundaries. We have to trick our own audiences by giving them stock resemblances of a lifestyle that we can only imagine through the eloquence of film. Its fake, and it's real to us all at the same time. We know what we are watching, and we are told how to feel. What an incredible art form.

Harry Potter 3

If I knew the actual title of this film I would have written it. I don't though. I would like to start this post by pointing out how excited I am that the last post inspired so much discourse. I can only hope for the same kind of attention in future posts.

Despite what you might think, I don't go to the movies that often. There is never really anything that I want to see. In a state of depression, I tagged along with my friends to see Harry Potter 3 (HP3). During one of the previews I remember leaning over to my friend Monica and saying, "I think I'm going to change my career." It's frustrating as a filmmaker to see previews for what I consider to be crap and realize that these are the kinds of films that get funding. I was worried as to what the film itself would be like.

I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. I can only hope that my films will one day inspire the kind of loyalty in that of a Harry Potter fan. As far as the film goes, I could care less. I'm told that the books are great. I'm told that if I read the books I'll love the films. In my opinion, a film should stand on it's own. You shouldn't have to bring anything with you, like already reading the book. There are no prerequisites in movie watching. Harry Potter 3 does seem to stand on its own; it's just not my kind of movie.

I've never made it through the first two Harry Potter movies. I fall asleep midway every time. I made it through Harry Potter 3, so it must be the best film of the three. I suppose what I am really trying to say about this film is that my opinion is indifferent. If you're into the books and the first two movies, you're going to like the film. So go and see it if you haven't. If you're among the 1% of American's like me who could care less, then rent Sunset Blvd. You'll be much happier and have the luxury of seeing the old lady who threw the heart of the ocean overboard when she was 40.

"The china had never been used, the sheets had never been slept in, Titanic was called the ship of dreams, and it was, it really was."

I have no idea where that came from. Back to Potter. Even when I see a bad movie I manage to come back with something that I liked. HP3 is not a bad movie. It's just not for me. It's very standard, which is fine. The audience is not there for symbolic imagery or theoretical editing. You're there to see your book come alive, and I'm told the film does a great job at that.

What I find to be the films best feature is Act 3. The entire resolution comes via time travel. Now I would normally say that the screenwriter painted himself in a corner and came up with time travel as a way to get out, but I'm letting it go because it was so well written. I've been obsessed with time travel ever since Back to the Future. I tried to remake the film with a time traveling bike in sixth grade. The footage was sadly lost. The way HP3 was different was that before the time traveling occurred several events took place that were a bit odd, all of which were explained when the characters went back in time. For example, Harry and that sick girl hear a noise from the forest... later we find that it was them traveling back in time looking on themselves. Did that make sense? I don't really know how to write this for it to make sense so you may have to watch the movie to know what I'm talking about. It was very cool though. They really drove it home with a ticking clock in the score and images of clocks throughout the entire movie. This is a bit obvious for the average viewer but is quite satisfying to find.

Do I recommend the film... sure. If you have seen one and two, then you are going to see three. That's the way it works. You will most likely love it. If you haven't seen any of the films, then I wouldn't bother.

While the film has three distinct acts, it is very episodic. Every film has the same plot line. The kids go back to school and have to overcome something using their magic and Harry always saves the day. My question to you is how many times you will buy this plot line with different actions substituted? Did you like the film? Why? Has anyone seen all the films but not read the books?

Fag Sunday

I had my gay friends over last night to watch a movie. Most of the night was spent talking, catching up, and comparing Toby to the gangly character in All Over The Guy. This is a movie that I really like. It's a gay romantic comedy that lends itself to clever wittacisims and smart dialog. When the movie is funny, it's really funny. But when the movie is cheesy, it's almost painful. In this respect it really is just like any other romantic comedy but with gay characters.

Did the boys like it? Not really. Sylvain moaned and said, "when is it going to be over?" Jared was counting down the minutes. Toby and I found it romantic when one character made breakfast in bed for the other, while the other boys proclaimed that they would run out of the room if a guy ever did that for them. It's interesting to me to see this kind of perspective. Identity is so important in cinema. It's how we relate to the film. It's what keeps us there for two hours. In the case of standard Hollywood movies, especially in the case of romantic comedies, us gay folk, have to assimilate the roles of the straight couple being depicted on screen. This is something that doesn't usually cross the mind of the average straight white person because they have never had to assimilate to any Hollywood film.

For a gay male, or female for that matter, we have to pick one of the characters in the romantic comedy, the one with which we most identify, and assimilate their feelings and perspectives. Something to think about. So wouldn't tou think that five gay guys watching a gay romantic comedy would be pleased? Chris said, "it's gay so we almost have to like it." But most of the boys did not like it. They just thought it was a bad movie. I happen to really like the film. I own it. Perhaps we have become so accustomed to assimilation that we are somehow removed from the gay characters. We picked them apart and laughed at them, instead of with them. I find this paradox very interesting.

So would I recommend the film? Well, before last night I would have. :-) I still think the film is worth a watch. Most of my straight friends who saw the film seemed to really like it. That could have been a rouse in an effort to support me, but hopefully it was not. After my experience last night, I'm more interested in the straight assimilation of the film. I'm curious to know how a straight audience would view the film. Would they think it bad as well? Would they like it because they feel like they are supporting a cause? Or would they set aside the cliche attitudes of popular American culture and isolate the story for what it actually is?

In reality, most romantic comedies are cheesy. The chick flic, or the weapies as they used to be called, are sometimes painful to watch because they push the cheese factor. Usually they have their strong points, and we all hope for the idealism they portray in our own relationships, but have yet to find. If you know what the film is, you can really enjoy it. You can't go to see How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days and expect to come out talking about Oscar. But if you know what the film is, you may actually like it. The same is true for this film.

I could go on about this some more but I won't. I don't feel as if I've even made a point yet, but I wanted to offer some perspective. If this is the kind of movie you are in the mood for then it is certainly worth a watch, otherwise, you may want to pick something else.

foppish films

It's nice to have somewhere to place your thoughts where others might be inspired to comment. It gives you a sort of journalistic feel, while at the same time allowing the public to either make retractions for you, or embellish your thoughts. The most fulfilling aspect is when a comment perpetuates an idea and gives you the freedom to go somewhere you hadn't anticipated going. This is the first, of hopefully many blog postings on foppish films. While the site is still not fully functional, I think it is important to have a forum where people can see what foppish films is all about, directly from its creator. So I suppose this is an informal mission statement. I hope to give you insight on current films, as well as foppish films. I hope that you can introduce me to new film ideas as well as your insight to films that you watch and admire. Until next time...