Friday

Cinemaker Shorts Program 3
"Let the Devil Wear Black"
"Attack of the Bat Monster"

Day two of the Austin Film Festival brought the complete range of films

into focus for me. From horrible shorts, humorous works in progress to an
indie film waiting to happen, Day Two exceeded my expectations and dashed them
to the ground.

The night started well with the appearance of one of Harry Knowles
minions, 3 adorable teenaged boys and director Guillermo del Toro. Ominous,
perhaps. Enjoyable, without a doubt.

When I got to the Dobie there were two lines for AFF. One gigantic one
to see "Mr. Show," and meet it's makers, and one short, stubby little line to
see Cinemaker Shorts Program 3. My friend J.C., who was yet to arrive, and I
were going to the shorts, so I got a place in line. A nice lady came up
behind me and asked me to hold her spot while she got her parking ticket validated.
I gave her mine to validate as well. When she returned, she asked me if I
had seen anything the night before and I told her I had seen the Lynch. I
asked her what she had seen and she said she had seen "Joe the King" and
"Rockford." She liked both films but had left "Rockford" early cause she could see
where it was going.

We got inside and J.C. arrived as did 3 of the cutest young guys to be
seen in Austin this fall who sat directly in front of us. The woman sat behind.
We talked more and I ask her if she had ever seen del Toro, thinking I
would wow her with my story of seeing him at the Alamo (Cinematexas Day 3). She
said she had met him. I asked her if it was at the Alamo. She told me no, she was
a friend of Harry Knowles and she had met him at one of the backyard blowouts
Harry throws. After talking to her more, throughout the night, I realized that
she must write some things for his website. One of his little spies, I presume.

I also engaged the boys ahead of us in some convo as well. Asked them if
they had met del Toro too. They had. "At the Alamo?" I asked densely. No,
they had met him at one of the scriptwriters seminars earlier in the day. The
Program Director for the festival arrives, introduces Gonzo from Cinemaker Co-op
and del Toro. I also overheard her call the lads in front, "future
filmmakers of America," in casual conversation. So I assumed, since they were
wearing the expensive passes and had went to some of the seminars, that they
either won some contest which allowed them to come to the Festival, or were just
rich kids. One of them, a boy with a rather large nose, was extremely cute.
All of them spoke with such youthful exuberance that it was a joy to eavesdrop
on their conversations.

Del Toro spoke briefly and then, unfortunately, the shorts began. 5 of
the most dismal shorts I have seen since the last Cinemaker Co-op sponsored
event I went to. (See Cinematexas Day 1)

The first, "War of the Angels" (writer/director Jim Sonzero) was a
dreary little WWII piece about the corruption of youth. How do I know it was
bad. It has an adorable, half-naked Aryan youth taking a bath as it's
centerpiece and I still think it was crap. Trying so hard to be poignant, monumental
and to "make a statement," the film is dies with a dull thud. I will tell you
what's in it, so you don't have to endure it ever. A young Nazi lad, one of the
Hitler Youth, is forced to kill a Jew and his wife. Left alone, he
bathes to get the blood off of himself. Meanwhile, their daughter, who was hiding,
comes out, finds his gun, hides again and then kills him. Garbage. Drivel.
Crap. My worst fear is that Sonzero thinks this is some sort of statement about
modern youth violence. It's just pretentious, beautifully photographed, black
and white crap. The editor was at the Q&A afterward and really said nothing
of import. He certainly cannot edit a scene so that it has any emotional
impact or tension, so what could he tell us?

Next was "Peep Show," a misogynistic "joke" splayed out over 9 minutes.
Apparently it also showed at SXSW. The piece, written by Damon Jones,
Bob Kirsh and Patti Frick and directed by Charlie Call has one of the most
derogatory punchlines aimed at women that you can imagine. Worse yet,
it's an old, old, old, old, old fucking joke. Yawn.

"Strange Parallel" was abhorrent, mind-numbingly abysmal crap. If anyone
ever offers to show you a 30 minute documentary about Paul Simon clone Elliot
Smith, run for the hills with a vengeance. Director Steve Hanft's
blurry, slapdash, boring, masturbatory, "documentary" has Smith as it's
centerpiece. You remember Smith, he sang the music on "Good Will Hunting." He is also
one of the must butt-ugly people you can possibly imagine. Watching him on
screen for 30 minutes is the equivalent of watching a stranger have his stomach
pumped. Hanft's stupid, erratic, ridiculous garbage that accompanies the
oh- so-dreary Smith music segments are retarded. This is revolting,
unamusing, crap that no person with free will should ever be subjected to. If
anyone ever forces you to listen to more than one of Smith's tunes in one sitting,
cut your wrists at the first available opportunity.

The Dobie projectionist must be a moron because he fucked up Jim Shirts'
short (is it a short shirt?) "Bubblepac." This is too bad because the second
half of the film, which we did get to see, was quite interesting and seemed to
hold a little promise.

Idea for a short film:. A female Jenna Elfman clone who works as a
writer on the Drew Carrey show wants to make a short film but doesn't have a brain
in her head. One day while trying to suppress a memory of her abusive
childhood she writes "Fuck You Jesus" on a napkin and thinks it is a cinematic
Epiphany. She takes $50,000 of her own money, hires a couple of familiar TV faces,
and makes a movie about Jesus' car breaking down in Florida.

Words cannot begin to describe the abhorrent film that is "Lord of the
Road." Holly Hester's 24 minute short is the kind of shit that thinks it's
cutting edge because it's blasphemous. Any high-school sophomore who has ever
said "fuck Jesus" could come up with a better story, script, and better
characters and dialogue than we get here. Worse yet, it's filmed like a stupid TV
pilot. Where's the freaking canned laughter Ms. Hester? There's certainly no
true originality or proper jokes in the film. When you have to resurrect a
self- hating fag like Alan Sues to defile himself on screen to get jokes, it's
a pretty sure sign of poor judgment. It's bad when you make a film which
makes an Agnostic like myself want to defend Jesus Christ. Don't shit where
you eat Ms. Hester. Oh wait a minute, you eat in Hollywood.

The saving grace of the night was a short not in competition. "George
Lucas in Love" is a delightful spoof of everything "Star Wars." It's amazing how
many comic jabs Joe Nessbaum gets in the film in under 10 minutes. And these
aren't pokes at Lucas, but light-hearted and humorous jokes, some visual, some
dialogue, which any fan of the series would find hilarious. This short
is a pure joy, the only delight to be had in the first part of the entire
evening that actually involved something on the screen.

The only thing more amusing than the final film short were the
ridiculous synopsis written for them by the filmmakers. Even Nessbaum calls his
film a "spoof on 'Shakespeare in Love'" which never once entered my mind while
viewing it.

I know I voiced my opinions pretty loudly at the screening of the
shorts, and I also said what I feel about them here, but if your going to put your
movie up for the world to see, you better be prepared to hear criticism. It
will come twice as quickly and twice as sharply as praise. If you simply
people a screening with your friends and family, you will get nothing that will
ever help you as a filmmaker. And Lord knows, almost all of these filmmakers
need help.

Okay. Out with the bad air, in with the good air.

After the shorts, I took a short break to go to the lobby. Stacy Title,
who directed the next feature I was going to see, invited me to her movie. I
told her I was already going but she gave me a ticket anyway. I asked her if
she was going to do a Q&A after and she said yes. A man next to her said,
"Ask her a hard question," and when I looked up it was that guy from IFC, Elvis.
Okay. I can't remember his last name but he used to be on "Four on the Floor"
on VH- 1 and he has interviewed Lynch and Waters for IFC and, he's black. And
his name is Elvis. Also in the lobby I saw Bob Ray of "Rock Opera" fame and
the cool guy who stars in that film. I couldn't remember his name, so I
didn't go up to him and tell him how much I liked his performance. They were
talking to Gonzo of Cinemaker's Co-op, so I didn't really want to interrupt.

"Let the Devil Wear Black" is a modern take on Shakespeare's "Hamlet"
that may owe a slight thank you to Baz Luhrman's "Romeo + Juliet." Not that
director Stacy Title copies that film in any way. but without the former, would
this one have gotten made? It is a much darker and more bleak film than "R+J"
and it updates the dialogue to modern times. Title's brilliant script, which
was co-written with actor Jonathan Penner, has it's most wonderful moments
when it takes that which is commonly known about the original and twists it into
something fresh and new. The "To Be or Not To Be" speech is a perfect example.
Here it becomes a sort of pop psychology, inner-turmoil, analytical
struggle verbalized by young Hamlet. Followed by the obvious yet perfect line
from one of his posse, "Dude, you think too much." These characters, Hamlet's
young friends, those who are betraying him, and quite good characters. The film
could easily simply revolve around them.

There are several well known actors in the piece but it is Title's
dialogue and wonderfully stark, almost colorless film that really steals the
show. Sure, some small knowledge of the classic is helpful - but not
necessary. I personally have always preferred to see the bard modernized. I remember
my thrill and disappointment when, as a high school student, I was told
about a "punk rock" version of "Romeo and Juliet" that I missed at a local
community college. Title's "Hamlet" mixes indie film coolness with the harsh
blackness of night to concoct an explosive treatment of the classic that literally
implodes on the screen (in a good way). Where Luhrman was excessive and
brilliantly vivid, Title is darkened and devoid of color. It is by no means
perfect, but it is an exceptional work.

The acting in the film is quite good. Here is another point to make
about the film. Updating "Hamlet," especially with Luhrman as a yardstick, is a
precarious business. This film could have easily turned to crud. Title
has a top-notch cast to assist her in bringing her clinched vision to the
screen. Penner plays Hamlet and his mixed bag of bravado, self-questioning and
cool good looks fits the role perfectly. He's quite good. Jacqueline Bisset
and Mary Louise Parker may be slight victims as the principle females, but
they bring just the right amount of lost hopelessness to the proceedings. The
erotic scenes between Penner and Parker practically beg us to question
them as characters and give a real, focused glimpse into the doomed nature of
the entire proceedings. Jamey Sheridan, Phillip Baker Hall, Maury Chaykin
and Chris Sarandon all give the film that perfect "flava" that it deserves.
They are the pepper in this spicy stew of familial battling and gangster
mentalities.

Ms. Title did do her Q&A and she was quite charming. She told us the
film had been picked up all across Europe but had not really found a deal in
America. It's budget was $900,000. She talked about the score by Christophe Beck,
which is quite good, and used the term "cues" to mean points in the story
where the score kicks in to accentuate the film. This is another term to add to my
lexicon of film language that makes me sound like I know what I am
talking about, so expect to see it pop up in my writing from now on.

She also told us the film was originally envisioned as an updating of
Harold Pinter's "The Dumb Waiter" and that it would have, indeed, involved 3
guys riding around in a car all night.

After this is was near 12 midnight and my friend J.C. opted to go home.
We went to the lobby for goodbyes and the director, presumably, of "Sweet
Thing" was handing out flyers for his film. When we said that we were already
wanting to see it, he gave us passes to an afterparty which I thought was quite
cool. I decided I could face another screening and took in "Attack of the Bat
Monsters," an Austin based film. When all was said and done, I was so
glad I did.

Calling upon our cinematic history's vast wealth of 50's B-Movies,
"Attack of the Bat Monsters" is a hilarious film that pays loving homage to that
genre. I pray to God this section of our film archives never dies. It's so
wondrous and so full of interesting stuff that I am so glad Kelly Green (surely not
his real name) has made this film.

I remember a late 70's film called "It Came from Hollywood." It had tons
of clips of these old 50's Drive-In films and was segmented with
introductions by famous 70's comedians like Gilda Radner, John Candy and Cheech and
Chong. One segment was a salute to Ed. D. Wood Jr. and this is how I was introduced
into my love affair for the man and his work. Green not only pays loving
tribute to this director, but to William Castle and Roger Corman and a thousand
other B- movie entrepreneurs. The film even might have subtle inspiration from
Warhol's "Frankenstien" and Wim Wenders' "The State of Things." It surely had
moments that reminded me of these two films as well as "Plan 9," "Women of the
Lost Mesa," "From Hell it Came," "Robot Monster" and so many other wonderful
old films. Please, God, don't let this genre die. I hope the youth of today
will one day get to see "Attack of the Bat Monsters" and it whets their
appetite for more. This is 10 times the film "Ed Wood" was and 100 times the film
"Matinee" could ever hope to be.

Everyone in the film, from bit players to the principles, seem to
understand perfectly the ideas and moments that they are referencing here. There is
a clear, crystal vision at work and Green seems to mold perfect little
moments every step of the way. And better yet, there is the humor of the film.
Humor? Hell, the film is just out right hilarious. I don't think you have to be
in on all the homages to get all the jokes. Anyone who has seen two of these
old B films will get the ideas being presented here. And the script, dialogue
and direction are so right on target that you'd have to be a fool not to get
it. It's just a great film. I wish I had a list of everyone in the film.
There is not a bad actor in the bunch. It is a treat in every way shape and form.

The print I saw was a video copy of the work print. It needs to be
tightened up a bit, which Green readily suggested himself in the Q&A. It had sound
that was obviously part of the rough cut; Music only came in here and there.
And it doesn't begin to show you what the 16mm print is going to look like.
Judging by this copy, it will look astounding. Green himself thinks it might be
a year before the finished product is ready. This is a shame because it is,
without a doubt, the definitive fictionalized account of an era in moviemaking
that is a profound part of our history. Green has done vast research into the
genre and it shows. For those like myself, who got numerous references, the
film is a pure fun-filled delight. The completely uninitiated will find a spark
that will ignite a passion within them for a bygone era when monsters were
made of rubber, not cyber code, and special effects were dry ice and seltzer,
not Industrial Light and Magic.

And so, Day 2 ended with the punch I needed so badly to face another day
of screenings and hobnobbing. Day 3 is but a few hours away...