Monday, February 11, 2008

JUMPER—Anywhere Is Possible

I liked Jumper so much that I wish I could be the chump who could jump right into (what I assume will be) the sequel. Do I really have to wait?

David Rice (Hayden Christensen) discovers he has latent powers to teleport any place he visualizes. His initial reaction is to escape from a stifling home environment, school bullies, and poverty. In no time at all he beams himself in and out of bank vaults and scores big money, a penthouse suite, and global access. And just when he thinks he has it made, sitting on top of the world (or, at least, the Egyptian sphinx), along comes Roland (Samuel Jackson)—a "Paladin" committed to ridding the Earth of "jumpers"—as well as Griffin (Jamie Bell), a firebrand jumper equally committed to resisting and defeating the Paladins. Add luscious girlfriend Millie (Rachel Bilson) and an absent and enigmatic mother (Diane Lane, in a charismatic performance that bears no trace of Untraceable), plus locations in New York, Rome, Tokyo and Egypt, and kick-ass jumping effects and you have all the markings of an entertaining action sci-fi thriller.

But wait, there's more! This film is enrichened by believable character arcs that the sequel can only serve to deepen. Christensen plays his bruised soul to perfection. Yes, it's a superhero cliché that with great power comes great responsibility, something every young superhero needs to learn, but it's genuinely engaging watching Rice mature from a self-serving teenager to a young man giving thought to using his powers to help others. You truly sense that hiding his secret and living alone with so much power, even if it secures him material wealth, simply is not enough. The chemistry between Christensen and Bilson is sweet and sexy, which—linked to the film's opening on Valentines Day—reminds that Jumper is basically a love story about two people learning how much they can really reveal and share with each other. I imagine it will be the perfect date movie.

There are also solid veins of inquiry. As Rice learns that his gift has passed down through generations for millennia and that—like it or not—he is caught up in something of an ongoing holy war; Griffin guides him to make the historical connections between the Paladins and the Catholic Inquisition. The Magisterium's ageold dispute against divine immanence takes a pop cult turn in Roland's zeal to destroy anyone who possesses the power of God to move at will. Roland is not just a basic bad guy cut from dark broadcloth, however; Jackson exhibits genuine concern that the power bestowed upon jumpers inevitably drives them to madness and evil. One senses feral Griffin leaning that way. And one can only wonder if Rice's protestations that he's "different" will be borne out? I sure would like to know right now. Where's a worm hole when you need one?

Cross-published on Twitch.

MICHAEL CLAYTON—The Greencine Interview With Tony Gilroy

As Dave Hudson has prefaced at The Greencine Daily: "Tony Gilroy had been writing screenplays and watching directors turn them into movies for about a decade when he wrote Michael Clayton. For six years, the project simply would not get up off the ground. Then along came Jason Bourne. With the help of, among others, George Clooney, Sydney Pollack and Steven Soderbergh, he was finally able to get Michael Clayton made—and direct it himself.

"The film was well-received when it premiered at the Venice Film Festival and lauded in Toronto. But when it hit theaters . . . well, you may have missed it. Now's your chance. It's out on DVD this week, just in time for the Oscars. It's been nominated for seven of those, including Best Picture. And Gilroy's been nominated for Best Director and Best Screenplay."

My interview with Tony Gilroy is up at Greencine's main site.

Cross-published on Twitch.

Friday, February 08, 2008

SILENT CINEMA—Border Crossings: Rethinking Silent Cinema

Here at The Evening Class I've been monitoring Daisuke Miyao's study of silent screen star Sessue Hayakawa—Sessue Hayakawa: Silent Cinema and Transnational Stardom (London, Duke University Press, 2007)—for some time now. First, with an overview of the book and an announcement of the Museum of Modern Art program "Sessue Hayakawa: East and West, When the Twain Met"; next, in conversation with Daisuke Miyao; and, lastly, with an announcement of this weekend's Pacific Film Archives "Readings on Cinema" program featuring Professor Miyao introducing three of Sessue Hayakawa's films: Cecil B. DeMille's The Cheat (1915), Forbidden Paths (1917), and The Devil's Claim (1920).

In conjunction with the Hayakawa screenings at Pacific Film Archives, UC Berkeley is likewise hosting a seminar of related interest: "Border Crossings: Rethinking Silent Cinema", February 9 and 10 in the Nestrick Room, 142 Dwinelle Hall. Daisuke Miyao will be among the speakers at this conference that considers how early cinema moves across national boundaries, initiating cultural traffic that re-envisions race, gender, nation, empire, and cinema itself. The "Border Crossings" website provides the conference schedule, commencing with this evening's introductory address "Rethinking American Silent Cinema," Scott Simmon (University of California, Davis); 5:00PM. Panels are free and open to the public and are sponsored by Film Studies, the Townsend Center, the Consortium for the Arts, the Graduate Film Working Group, the Department of Rhetoric, the Department of Scandinavian, the Department of German, the Department of East Asian Languages & Cultures, the Department of Gender & Women's Studies and the Beatrice Bain Research Group.

Of further related interest is the recent news release that Nederlands Filmmuseum—inspired by the renewed academic interest in Sessue Hayakawa's career—has uncovered the only extant prints in the world of The Man Beneath (1919), His Birthright (1918) and The Courageous Coward (1919). All three films star Hayakawa in the leading role, and were produced by his own company Haworth Pictures.

Following the publication of Daisuke Miyao's volume on Sessue Hayakawa, the history of Hayakawa, as "the first Asian Hollywood star" was revived in the public memory. Miyao also researched the holdings of the Nederlands Filmmuseum and in his book refers extensively to His Birthright (1918), preserved by the Nederlands Filmmuseum. In 2007 the Museum of Modern Art in New York (MOMA) organised their Hayakawa retrospective and drew the audience's attention to the remarkable position of this Japanese actor and film producer in Hollywood and his willingness to negotiate between cultures and to disseminate American values.

Anticipating this revival, the Nederlands Filmmuseum decided to re-assess its Hayakawa related holdings in the past years. This comprehensive research revealed that the holdings of three films represented the only remaining footage of these films in the world.

All three titles, produced by Hayakawa himself, reflect the constant negotiation between different cultures and identities in their plot, starring Hayakawa as the lead character in the center of the action. The nitrate prints, acquired through private donations in the eighties and nineties, are Dutch theatrical release copies, carrying Dutch intertitles. Despite their overall good condition, and well-preserved tinted colors, the prints are missing footage. Only The Man Beneath can be considered to be complete. While the first and fourth reels of His Birthright are missing, nothing but the last reel of The Courageous Coward (co-starring Tsuru Aoki) survives.

Considering their historical importance, the Filmmuseum has decided to make new prints of all the three titles, adding explanatory intertitles, in order to be able to present the films to new audiences.

My thanks to Frako Loden for alerting me to these recent events.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

THE TALKIES—George Romero and The Night of the Living Dead

A congratulatory shout-out to my friend Tim Massett who runs the San Marco Theatre in Jacksonville, Florida. As reported earlier, Tim's series "The Talkies" is furthering a new art form of live commentary on classic films; his most recent (and successful) event being George Romero talking on The Night of the Living Dead.

Here's a 15-second photoclip of the evening's event.



Next up: Jonathan Cameron Mitchell on Hedwig and the Angry Inch. You can keep abreast of the series at Tim's humble blog Notes From A No Name.

Cross-published on Twitch.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

2008 GIFF—Sergio de la Mora's Preview, Part One

Sergio de la Mora is a San Francisco-based critic and curator. He is Assistant Professor of film, literature and popular culture at the University of California, Davis; the author of Cinemachismo: Masculinities and Sexuality in Mexican Film (University of Texas Press, 2006); and a contributing writer to The Evening Class. He graces us once again with his expertise as he anticipates the upcoming Guadalajara International Film Festival ("GIFF").

* * *

The XXIII Festival Internacional de Cine en Guadalajara (Guadalajara International Film Festival), Mexico's highest profile film event, runs March 7-14, 2008, in the fabulous Guadalajara, Mexico's second largest city, considered the cradle of Mexican traditions. And now a film capital. In the last few years, the festival has consolidated its importance. The number of film-related events have increased to gargantuan proportions (from a busy film market to numerous workshops, conferences and more). Jorge Sánchez, the festival's director, a veteran film producer (responsible for many of Arturo Ripstein and María Novaro's films), recently announced an exciting and dynamic program. Highlights include what promise to be among the strongest offerings of Mexican films in some time and a focus on Argentina. GIFF is the best place to see the newest Mexican films, although it caters to commercial cinema and independent work does not usually occupy a prominent space.

Twelve films were selected to compete in the Mexican feature category. These include auteur Julián Hernández's fourth feature Rabioso sol, rabioso cielo (Angry Sun, Angry Sky), which I've heard runs over 3½ hours and was shot both in color and black and white on location in legendary Mexico City "gay" hotspots; Fernando Eimbcke's ¿Te acuerdas de Lake Tahoe?, his highly anticipated follow-up to Temporada de patos (Duck Season, 2004); Rodrigo Plá's second film Desierto adentro (Desert Deep), hot on the trail of his Venice award winning La zona (The Zone, 2007); Walter Doehner's El viaje de Teo (Teo's Trip), his first feature since his much talked about drama of erotic obsession, La habitación azul (The Blue Room, 2001); new work by the veteran actor-director Gabriel Retes Arresto domiciliario (House Arrest); and the ever prolific commercial filmmaker Fernando Sariñana, Enemigo's íntimos (Intimate Enemies), best known for Amar te duele (Love Hurts, 2002) and Ciudades oscuras (Dark Cities, 2002).

Other highlights include tributes to leading Mexican producer Bertha Navarro and to Mexican golden age period comedian, the late Germán Valdés (Tin Tán), the original border pachuco. All but one of the five films selected to represent Navarro's work correspond to major voices of distinct periods of new Mexican cinema: Guadalajara born Guillermo del Toro (Cronos [1993], El laberinto del fauno [Pan's Labyrinth, 2006]); Carlos Carrera (Un embrujo [Under a Spell, 1998]; Nicholás Echevarría (Cabeza de vaca [1991]; and Paul Leduc, veteran of the politically edgy new Mexican cinema of the 1970s. Navarro produced Leduc's first feature Reed: México insurgente (Reed: Insurgent Mexico, 1971) and his latest Cobrador: In God We Trust (2006). The Tin Tán tribute includes an exhibition of posters and photographs from the actor's family archive.

Argentina and Quebec are the two invited national cinemas highlighted this year. Three towering giants in Argentine cinema are being honored with tributes: Fernando Birri, father of the new Latin American Cinema; Fernando Solanas, co-author (with Octavio Getino) of both the most influential Latin American film theory, "Towards a Third Cinema" (1969) and of the monumental La hora de los hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces, 1968); and to producer Lita Stantic, responsible for spearheading among the most dynamic films of the new Argentine cinema. The six films by Birri include the classic social documentary Tire dié (Throw Me a Dime, 1958-60), the neo-realist popular film Los inundados (Flooded Out, 1961); and two of his latest: Za 05 (2006), a tribute to his teacher, neo-realist Italian scriptwriter Cesare Zavatini, and Elegía Friulana (Friuli Elegy, 2007). In addition to the incendiary and emblematic militant documentary La hora de los hornos, the tribute to Solanas includes Tango, el exhilio de Gardel (Tango: the Exile of Gardel, 1985), Sur (South, 1988), and his latest Argentina latente (Latent Argentina), the last installment of the documentary trilogy about the causes and effect of Argentina's most recent economic crisis and the popular resistance to the adoption of neoliberal policies that began with Memoria del saqueo (Social Genocide, 2004). Scheduled to represent Stantic's contributions are her rarely seen directorial debut Un muro de silencio (A Wall of Silence, 1993), Lucrecia Martel's La ciénaga (The Swamp, 2001) and Diego Lerner's Tan de repente (Suddenly, 2002).

Also included in the Argentine focus is a tribute to legendary actor Isabel Sarli, an event I am terribly excited about since she is central in shaping the erotic fantasies of millions of Latin Americans from the late 1950s through the 1970s and into the 80s. Sarli has an international cult following. She is a pioneer of Latin American erotic cinema, having worked actively during periods of dictatorships and censorship, and is certainly one of Latin America's most infamous and intriguing sexploitation actors. Sarli will attend the festival and La diosa virgen (The Virgin Goddess, Armando Bo) will be screened.

Rounding out this national focus is the section, "Joven e independiente—Cine argentino de la última década" (Young and Independent—Argentine Cinema from the Last Decade). Scheduled features include work by the now renown directors Lisandro Alonso, Adrián Caetano, Pablo Trapero, Albertina Carri, Daniel Burman, and Lucrecia Martel. Finally, there will be a selection of classic films in the section, "75 años de Sonofilms." Sonofilms is one of two studios responsible for the creation of a great majority of films that constitute the golden age of Argentine cinema in the 1930s and 40s, a period in which this studio popularized tangos around the globe.

Cross-published on Twitch.

INDIEFEST08—Michael Hawley's Preview

It's hard to believe that 10 years have passed since the San Francisco Independent Film Festival (aka SF Indiefest) began serving up its annual spread of American independents, genre films and documentaries to Bay Area filmgoers. I first took the bait in 2002, sitting in a cavernous SOMA warehouse folding chair for a screening of Shut Yer Dirty Little Mouth, Robert Taicher's adaptation of the infamous Shut Up, Little Man! Raymond and Peter audio tapes. In the years since, the festival has afforded me the opportunity to see high-profile films many months before their theatrical release (Irreversible, The Devil and Daniel Johnston), and caused me permanent brain damage with the likes of 2LDK, Ricky-Oh: The Story of Ricky and Casuistry: The Art of Killing Cats. This year's SF Indiefest, which takes place from February 7 to 20 at the Castro, Roxie and Victoria Theaters, continues a tradition of presenting films that should fit anyone's definition of being truly "indie."

The festival kicks off at the Castro Theater on Thursday, February 7 with Jeff Nichols' Shotgun Stories. Set in a contemporary American South of cotton fields and strip malls, Shotgun Stories is a revenge tale between seven half-brothers who share a common father. The three oldest (named Son, Boy and Kid) are adrift in their lives and knew Dad as the no-good drunk who abandoned them. The other brothers had the benefit of being raised by Dad after he re-married, got religion, and became an upstanding citizen. When Dad dies and they all turn up at the funeral, Son (effectively played by Michael Shannon, the creepy guy who shared a motel room with Ashley Judd in Bug) spits on the coffin and well, like the title says… Director Nichols demonstrates a knowing familiarity with both his characters and setting, and he lets the drama unfold in an assured, low-key manner. This is no amped-up yarn about Southern lunkheads getting' even. The film was produced by David Gordon Green (George Washington, All the Real Girls, Undertow), another Southern director whose films Shotgun Stories shares an affinity with).

The festival's opening night co-feature was supposed to be a "Super Secret Surprise Screening", but the secret appears to be out. The film is Nic Balthzar's Ben X, which was Belgium's entry for this year's Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. It's the story of an on-line gaming geek who's ruthlessly bullied at school, until the day he arrives at the perfect way to avenge himself. Ben X has been winning awards at festivals all over the world, including the Palm Springs International Film Festival, where I saw it last month. My contrary write-up can be found here.

Of the dozen films I've previewed for this year's festival, my unequivocal favorite is Chris Smith's The Pool (another film I saw in Palm Springs). Smith, who directed two of the finest documentaries of the past 10 years, American Movie and The Yes Men, shows he's equally adept at narrative filmmaking—and has given himself the added challenge of directing in a foreign locale (the Indian island/former Portuguese colony of Goa), and in a foreign language (Hindi). Our hero Venkatesh is an amiable young man who scrapes by cleaning hotel rooms and selling plastic bags on the street. Each day he escapes the world by climbing a tree that overlooks a luminous residential swimming pool. We're introduced to the wealthy man who lives in the adjoining mansion (played by Bollywood actor Nana Patekar, the only professional in the cast) and his rebellious grown daughter. The film's principal pleasure is in watching how Venkatesh slyly inserts himself into their lives, forming bonds that cross lines of class, age and gender. Smith directs in a light, neo-realist style befitting his documentary roots and never sentimentalizes his characters. Curiously, the short story on which the film is based (written by co-screenwriter Randy Russell), was set in Iowa. The Pool is scheduled to open in NYC in September and depending on its success there, may or may not make it to other cities. In other words, SF Indiefest may be your only chance to see this gem of a film, so try not to miss it. In Palm Springs, Smith regaled his audience with some pretty fascinating "making-of" tales during the Q&A, and I would expect no less when he accompanies The Pool to SF Indiefest.

One of the most anticipated films at this year's Indiefest is Ronald Bronstein's Frownland, which appears on IndieWIRE's Ten Best Undistributed Films of 2007 list and is nominated for an Independent Spirit "Someone to Watch" Award. The film is a relentless paean to miserablism in which insufferable losers careen their way through a world that hates them. We're introduced to main character Keith as he watches a TV monster movie from his bed in the kitchen. An open oven door doubles as a bedside table from which he dines on scrambled eggs and popcorn. When his depressed girlfriend comes over, she masochistically rubs her face all over his down pillow, to which she's hyper-allergic. She asks for a mirror in which to see her blotchy face, and cries when he hands her a metal spatula. He tries to cheer her up by using his dirty white tube socks as hand puppets, and she responds by jabbing him in the arm with a push pin. The balance of the film follows Keith as he screws up his job selling coupon books door-to-door, deals with his obnoxious Yanni-wannabe musician roommate, and pesters to death the one normal person he considers a friend (who of course, wishes Keith would disappear off the face of the earth). Although tiresome in the extreme, I had to admire Frownland for the singularity and consistency of director Bronstein's (impaired) vision. A special mention should to be made of Dore Mann, whose unhinged film debut as the sniveling, sputtering, inarticulate Keith is every bit up to the task.

SF Indiefest has always featured a choice assortment of documentaries and this year is no exception. Although none of the four I previewed are what I'd consider exemplars of the form, all are skilled and effective looks at their subject matter and will certainly appeal to those with a predisposed interest. I chose these four because of my own preoccupations with 60's Cambodian garage rock, women truck drivers, drug rituals of Afghani nomads and pop culture memorabilia.

Fans of the band Dengue Fever (and there are many in the Bay Area) will definitely not want to miss John Pirozzi's Sleepwalking through the Mekong, which documents their 2005 tour of Cambodia. In addition to showcasing the band performing live in the country that inspired their sound, the film touches on Cambodia's efforts to recover from the Khmer Rouge years, during which time several generations of artists and musicians were nearly exterminated. The films also works nicely as a travelogue, and the 60's archival footage of bell-bottomed Cambodians grooving to the sounds of popstars Sinn Sisamouth and Ros Sereysothea is the kind of thing I live for.

Alligator on the Zipper is Ivo Stainoff's nifty look at the world of women truck drivers (the title is slang for those strips of blown-out tire lurking in the middle of a highway). The film profiles seven very different women who have all chosen this profession for similar reasons: money, freedom and autonomy. Or as one of them matter-of-factly states, "I need a drug. And my drug is this road." They also share the same basic problems, such as the rising cost of gas (six miles per gallon is average for these rigs), long periods away from family and friends, as well as a general lack of respect for women who dare to do a "man's job." "You can be a trucker and still be a lady," opines one, and this film leaves no doubt as to the truth of that statement.

Chris Turner is a man who spent roughly 40 on-and-off years living in, and making films about Afghanistan. Tonya Dreher's A Life in Hashistan tells his amazing story, which begins in 1967 when he started making 16mm ethnographic films of the country's nomadic tribesmen. The most fascinating of these films documents the Hashshashins, fundamentalists who commit murder while under the influence of hashish, and whose very name has given us the word assassin. Turner's time in the country also included 10 years spent traveling with the Mujahadeen as they battled the Russians, nine months in a Soviet prison and a 1984 meeting with Osama bin Laden. The documentary effectively mixes this original footage with present-day interviews of Turner, the soundmen who accompanied him on these trips, and most movingly, the family members who were always left to wonder when and if he'd be coming home.

My favorite of the docs I previewed is Richard Kraft and Adam Shell's Finding Kraftland, a very entertaining vanity piece about one man's obsession with collecting American pop culture memorabilia. Kraft is an agent for movie composers like Jerry Goldsmith and Danny Elfman, a lucrative job which allows him to buy everything from the original bicycle from Pee Wee's Big Adventure to vintage bubble bath bottles and Tampax boxes. This is a man who confesses that he had "a more intimate relationship with Captain Crunch than I did with my own family," and would one day like to see his own skull used as a prop on Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride. The film is partly structured as a tour through Kraftland, the overstuffed house he shares with his amassment of miscellany. The other, more inspiring part of the film documents the loving, buddy-buddy relationship Kraft has with his teenage son Nicky, who appears to whole-heartedly share his Dad's obsessions (the two have ridden over 400 rollercoasters around the world). As if to counterbalance the often blatant ostentatiousness of these pursuits, the film also includes scenes of Kraft's work for Crohn's Disease (from which his loving brother David died) and his establishment of orphanages in Cambodia (including scenes of his family tromping through a Phnom Penh garbage dump on Christmas morning, which I found to be a bit much). Between Kraft's plus-sized personality and the film's hyperkinetic visual style, Finding Kraftland was a thrill ride I didn't want to end.

Moving along from documentaries to mockumentaries, we arrive at Jim Finn's La Trinchera Luminosa del Presidente Gonzalo and Michael Mongillo's Being Michael Madsen. The former is perhaps more of a docu-drama than mockumentary, as it imagines a day inside a Peruvian prison for female Maoist guerrillas. Filmed inside a cleverly converted New Mexico fairgrounds dormitory, we observe as the women march, chant, recite political tracts, practice first aid and learn to make bombs. I was particularly drawn to a segment in which the prison kitchen manager is put on trial by her peers for micro-managing and humiliating her staff—that is, until a mind-numbing discourse on revisionism put me to sleep. I was jolted awake by the sound of women shrieking "Death to the traitor Deng Xiaoping!" at the poor repentant kitchen manager. It's a bit hard to figure out what director Finn was going for with this film. It's all played pretty straight, with little or no evidence of irony or satire (except perhaps in the title, which translates as The Shining Trench, as opposed to The Shining Path, the real name of Peru's Marxist movement). Maybe a clue lies in the final scene, where at day's end the women do a folk dance that morphs into a rave, complete with techno music set to lyrics by Shining Path ideologues. Or maybe the film, as stated in the festival's program notes, simply "tries to understand how ideological certainty and Marxist rhetoric can turn a 16-year-old Indian girl into a trained killer."

I don't have much to say about the mockumentary Being Michael Madsen, which imagines what would happen if the Reservoir Dogs/Kill Bill actor were to be so rabidly hounded by paparazzi that he hired a documentary film crew to hound the paparazzi right back. The film attempts to satirize both our celebrity-obsessed culture and documentary filmmaking in one fell swoop, and I turned it off after the entire first hour failed to produce a laugh. I can see how the film might appeal to fans of Christopher Guest, which for better or worse, I am not. Others may appreciate the film as well, as evidenced by this 5-star review from Film Threat.

Satirizing celebrity culture is also the raison d’être for La Crème, a film from French director Reynald Bertrand. The story begins with an interesting premise: Two unemployed men named François and Bruno are competing for the same job, and their potential employer tells them that they must decide between themselves who is the better candidate and more deserving of the job. That premise goes out the window, however, when François receives a mysterious jar of face cream for Christmas. By putting a dab or two on his face, people are convinced he's somebody really famous. From that point on, this mundane film is totally about how a famous person can get away with anything, be it paying a fancy restaurant check or even rape. There is one truly subversive moment near the end, however, when François' nemesis Bruno gets a hold of the cream and slathers it on his face while looking into a bathroom mirror. What happens next is too raunchy to print in a family blog such as this one, but if you ask the next time you see me, I'll be happy to tell you.

The festival unofficially closes on Sunday, February 17 with a screening of Gus Van Sant's latest, the beautifully complex and elegiac Paranoid Park. (I say "unofficially" because festival screenings at the Roxie continue for three additional days). The latest word is that Van Sant will make every attempt to attend the screening, but may have to bow out due to the unpredictability of his shooting schedule for Milk.

Two films I intend to see during the festival that were not available for preview are Eric Zala's Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation and Stuart Gordon's Stuck. Raiders is a shot-by-shot recreation of the Spielberg original, made by three teenagers between 1982 and 1989. It was the hit of Indiefest in 2005 and is being brought back for a 10th anniversary revival screening. The pitch black comedy Stuck has garnered multiple rave reviews, and tells the story of a homeless man (Stephen Rea) who goes crashing through the car windshield of an intoxicated woman (Mena Suvari). The fun begins when she gets home and has to decide what to do with the man in her windshield who is still very much alive.

Cross-published on Twitch.

Monday, February 04, 2008

RUINS / F IS FOR PHONY—"Staging the Real" With Jesse Lerner

I met Jesse Lerner a little under two years ago when he guest-curated a program on La Raza for Stephen Parr's Oddball Cinema. We exchanged addresses and, shortly thereafter, Jesse generously forwarded me copies of his films Natives (1991), Frontierland (1995), and Ruins (1999), along with the 1998 catalog for Mexperimental—a traveling retrospective of 60 years of avant-garde film and video from Mexico, which he curated. (The Mexperimental catalog is available in its entirety online.)

I have been meaning for quite some time to profile Lerner's work. Impetus to follow through on my intentions has arrived with the publication of F Is For Phony: Fake Documentary and Truth's Undoing (University of Minnesota Press, 2006), edited by Lerner and Alexandra Juhasz. Helping to promote the anthology's publication, the Pacific Film Archives is sponsoring a book signing Tuesday evening, February 5, with a program of shorts that highlights the anthology's themes and invites suspicious attitudes.

As the PFA program capsule states: "Fake documentaries date to the earliest days of cinema, when incidents as diverse as a boxing match and a war were staged. The articles in F Is for Phony examine some modern-day precursors to the mockumentary, including Luis Buñuel's Land Without Bread, but focus on contemporary independent films in which artists astutely interrogate distinctions between fiction and nonfiction, the relativity of truth, and even when a lie tells the truth. Juhasz writes that the book highlights 'films that don't just deconstruct but reconstruct; films that unmake and make reality claims; films that mark that it matters who remembers and in what context. The fake documentaries studied here are productive and progressive in that they unlink and link their text and viewer to knowledge about many documentary truths, and an equally many documentary lies, about identity, history, authenticity, and authority.' "

Flavorpill's Matt Sussman anticipates the presentation, noting the anthology's "titular nod to Orson Welles' unreliable documentary on forgery, F for Fake (1974)." Among the short films in the program, Sussman notes the Spanish-American War newsreels (1898)—"sterling specimens of yellow journalism"—; the "parodic ethnography" of Luis Buñuel's Land Without Bread (Tierra sin pan/Las Hurdes, 1932); Mitchell Block's controversial No Lies—"in which a rape victim recounts her ordeal to an increasingly hostile cameraman"—; and Elisabeth Subrin's 1995 "found" portrait of feminist Shulamith Firestone as a young firebrand, Shulie.

Michael Sicinski has reviewed the anthology for the Summer 2007 issue of Cineaste. Admittedly tethered by legit assignment to the "discourse of sobriety" that the anthology systematically skewers, Sicinski nonetheless manages to appreciate the anthology's jests and gibes and its own inside joke. Apparently there are some "dubious entries" in the anthology alongside "exemplary models of academic writing by premier cinema scholars." In other words, editors Lerner and Juhasz are practicing what they preach. Sicinski gives credit to the "termite traction" of the fake documentary, let alone the partially-fake anthology of fake documentary.

This quality of academic tricksterism has been a preoccupation of Jesse Lerner's for at least the past decade, if not long before. Lerner's 1999 hybrid film Ruins toyed with many of the same disruptive yet insightful historiographic subsumptions. In that film Lerner made the apt analogy: "Is not this film like a museum filled with artifacts, some authentic, some not?" It seems he and his co-editor have applied the same conceptual aesthetic to F Is For Phony.

I would be hard pressed to outdo Steve Anderson's consummate analysis of Ruins, included within the F Is For Phony anthology and—luckily—available on-line in PDF format. What I can add is my vested appreciation of Ruins as an armchair Mayanist: Ruins is a flower left as a sacrificial offering at the altar of "Quasicoatl".

Perhaps not so coincidentally, PFA curator Steve Seid has championed Ruins from the get-go. He, in fact, wrote the notes on the VHS jacket: "Counterfeiting is a practice with broad and devious implications, from the merest of fake objects to entire histories shaped as facsimile. The prologue to this wizardly jumble of newsreel snippets, travelogia, and stagy rants collates early colonial misconceptions of Mexico's populace, a stewpot of ethnographic and political distortions. From there, Lerner charts the rarefaction of this process that contextualizes archaeological objects as art. In this cultural valuation, Mayan and Aztec objects are severed from their origins and further rarefied within the confines of museums. At the center of Ruins is Brigido Lara, a master forger whose pre-Columbian objects have been exhibited in major (and unwitting) museums throughout the U.S. and Europe. Is this the final subterfuge of the colonial projects—the real and the fake indistinguishable?"

As Ruins states itself after profiling Brigido Lara, "Concern for authenticity links forger and documentary filmmaker—both create an illusion of the real through an elaborate web of artifice."

As has been written elsewhere, Ruins "blurs the line between fiction and documentary, melds culturally skewed anthropological films, staged scenes, and documentation about a Mexican antiquities forger to question not only the traditional reception and understanding of pre-Columbian culture, but also our very assumptions of historical truth as mediated through the camera lens."

Cross-published on Twitch.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

INDIEFEST08—Bomb It!

Citing Goethe as literary precedent—"I was, after the fashion of humanity, in love with my name, and, as young educated people commonly do, I wrote it everywhere"—Jon Reiss then explores nature's (i.e., the human ego's) horror vacui in his energized global graffiti documentary Bomb It!—my "don't miss" pick from the 10th Annual San Francisco IndieFest.

Retaining the revolutionary cry for action inherent in the graffiti art form, Reiss tempers that cry with a sense of social responsibility (keenly aware of that term's malleability) as well as providing a thoroughly captivating overview of the art form's cultural variance in cosmopolitan centers around the world, namely New York, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, London, Barcelona, Capetown, São Paulo, Tokyo and Los Angeles (though several others are featured on the film's Flickr site).

Tracing street graffiti's origin to Philadelphia where "Cornbread" came to the realization that—if everyone was talking about him because he'd written his name all over the walls of the jail where he was serving sentence—how much more would they talk about him if he took it to the streets? That aesthetic of self-promotion was amped up by New York's Taki 183 who—in his job as a messenger—spread his nickname all over New York's five boroughs, inspiring the next generation of ranging "street soldiers" committed to "bombing" the system by competitive tagging. That range increased further when TKID began tagging New York's subway trains, creating a veritable "museum on wheels."

This urban art form took a major leap when Tracy168 and his team developed "wildstyle" graffiti with its aggrandized expressions of the alphabet, with Lady Pink paving the way for female graffiti artists to compete with their male counterparts.

When Simon & Garfunkle sang that "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls", they might as well have been referencing the autobiographical strategy of REVS who claimed those spaces to diarize his existence when tagging trains became problematic and ineffective. Unfettered by aesthetics of beauty, the power of REVS' work lies in its commitment to anarchic spectacle. He's also situated at the pivot where—in an effort to contain and control the burgeoning graffiti movement—it was criminalized.

Contextualized as a "gateway crime", street graffiti initiated the ongoing debate and fight for control over public space and the ensuing global proliferation of "Quality of Life" behavioral modification laws. Reiss has perfectly pitched this debate in his documentary, giving voice not only to the urban artists who protest foisted gentrification and its class-structured arguments of neutral space but the anti-graffiti advocates who question and seek to exclude its presence. Eloquent in this regard is Marc Ecko's refutation of the "broken glass" theory that if you "clean it up", you get rid of crime. "Issues that are messy," he states, "classrooms, class structure, you can't cosmetically sandblast those off a wall. They are much harder to legislate around and to get people to understand."

Bomb It! is essential for any comprehension of the birth and development of the street graffiti movement within the United States, but it intelligently ventures further to situate this urban art form in global resistance, providing an essential "who's who" of the global graffiti community. I was particularly impressed with Paris street artist Blek the Rat who has adopted the rodent as a symbol of freedom. Blek's stenciled work adapted the New York wildstyle lettering to the environment of Parisian architecture. Placing his work in dilapidated structures, Blek confesses to an almost "supernatural relation to the past." Adamant that art should serve a social cause, Blek focuses on the plight of the homeless, further accentuating the great divide between the haves and the have nots via the continuing tension between private and public space.

Barcelona's street graffiti scene is likewise aesthetically captivating. Kenor & Kode appropriate architecture in a wildly imaginative and colorful collaboration. When they saw each others' work it was "love at first sight." PEZ likewise caught my attention with his awareness that the iconic travels further than mere lettering. He uses a fish to promote himself.

In São Paulo the work reveals a concentrated effort to resist the mass commodification of public space by either reclaiming contaminated space, co-opting corporate images, or posing the question of—not so much what is beautiful—but what is ugly? The work of Os Gêmeos ("The Twins") seeks to capture the inhabitants of São Paulo through carnivalesque yellow-skinned caricatures. Nina aggressively creates portraits of wide-eyed children to comment upon the fact that so many of them are forced into prostitution. Nunca—working against what he felt were the illegible characters of wildstyle lettering and responding to the verticality of São Paulo's skyscrapers—developed a lettering style that separated characters and elongated them. Zezão, in some respects, emerges—in my estimation—as the most radical of them all for reclaiming contaminated space and leaving his blue-themed art in darkness, surrounded by roaches, sewage and trash, where few will ever see it. It's his "gift" of healing to a filthy, diseased city.

Yet another fascinating and controversial issue raised by the documentary is whether or not graffiti can go mainstream; taken off the streets and placed in the art galleries? Is graffiti on canvas the end of graffiti? Is the commodification of graffiti its antithesis? Is it stripped of power when its criminality is sanctioned? How various graffiti artists negotiate the dance between their street credibility and mainstream acceptance is enunciated through a series of testimonials. Shepard Fairey's "Obey Campaign" is perhaps the most singularly successful crossover that retains a philosophical integrity. In its very commodification, it comments upon commodification. The billboard art of Ron English not only addresses the "visual pollution" of billboard advertisements and its intrusion upon public space through private enterprise, but notates the control over access. When he tried to place a billboard in Toronto that read: "Support Divorce: The Great Heterosexual Institution"—his way of expressing solidarity with the issue of gay marriage—he was told there was no way that statement would ever be advertised on public signage. "There is no democracy without public space," English cautions and adds, "What good is an idea if you can't disseminate it?"

There is a wealth of ideas disseminated in Jon Reiss's Bomb It! It's been a while since this reviewer has been prompted repeatedly to think and found it so entertaining. Again, don't miss this one!

Cross-published on Twitch.

Friday, February 01, 2008

TREThe Evening Class Interview With Eric Byler

When Eric Byler's narrative feature Tre played at the 2007 San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival, it immediately polarized critics and—as the film is poised to open theatrically this weekend in Los Angeles and a couple of weeks later in the Bay Area—I imagine the response will continue to be mixed. San Francisco Chronicle critic G. Allen Johnson dismissed Tre as "a borefest" even as Dennis Harvey dispatched to Variety that Tre was the "most compelling" of Byler's three films with characters etched "in terse, credible, assertive strokes that resist 'explaining all' in terms of personal histories"; a "sharply realized" project that "sports juicy conflicts and prickly dialogue, though the directorial approach remains judiciously low-key." I'd have to concur with Harvey and wonder if Johnson wasn't too busy being bored to pay attention to the film in front of him?

I would argue careful attention is requisite in watching an
Eric Byler film, whose cadences are exploratory, circumabulating around the doubts and fears of the lovelorn with wary curiosity. I first met Eric when he brought his third narrative feature AMERICANese to the 2006 San Francisco International Asian American film festival, where I likewise wrote up his panel discussion with author Shawn Wong regarding the adaptation of Wong's novel into Byler's film.

Byler graduated from Wesleyan University where his senior thesis film, Kenji's Faith, went on to be selected for the Sundance Film Festival in 1995, won six film festival awards and was a regional finalist in the Student Academy Awards. His first feature film,
Charlotte Sometimes was nominated for two Independent Spirit Awards in 2003: The John Cassavetes Award for Best Feature under $500,000 and a Best Supporting Actress Award for Jacqueline Kim. The film was called "fascinating and illuminating" by film critic Roger Ebert and won numerous festival awards, including the Audience Award at the South by Southwest Film Festival (SXSW), The Special Jury Prize at the Florida Film Festival and The Best Dramatic Feature at the San Diego Asian Film Festival. The film was distributed theatrically by Visionbox and Small Planet Pictures before being released on DVD.

Byler's second feature Tre won a Special Jury Award at the 2007 San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival. His third feature,
AMERICANese is an adaptation of Shawn Wong's seminal Asian American novel, American Knees. It won the Audience Award for Best Narrative Feature at SXSW, in addition to a Special Jury Prize for Outstanding Ensemble Cast, which includes Joan Chen, Kelly Hu, Ben Shenkman, Autumn Reeser, Chris Tashima, Allison Sie and Michael Paul Chan. The film will be released by IFC First Take in 2008.

Byler also directed the PBS/ITVS Television pilot, My Life Disoriented and is currently producing and directing documentaries about Asian Pacific Islander political empowerment. He is also teaming with filmmakers Annabel Park and Jeff Man on an interactive documentary about the immigration battle in Northern Virginia called
9500 Liberty. Byler is a member of the Directors Guild of America and the Writers Guild of America.

After several failed attempts to hook up for an interview, I was delighted that Eric Byler and I were finally able to do so on the eve of Tre's theatrical distribution.

* * *

Michael Guillén: Eric, to be honest with you, when I first saw Tre last year at the San Francisco Asian American Film Festival, I found it exasperating, which is to say that it was an uncomfortable viewing experience for me because the film demanded a requisite engagement on my part, attracting attention to a somewhat unattractive protagonist. Sitting with the film all these many months, I've come to respect the level of discomfort it caused in me, which revolves around a term that comes up a lot when reviewers write about your films; namely, that they're "anti-romantic." Is that a fair characterization?

Eric Byler: Well, yes, but only if I get a chance to clarify—does that sound like a politician?—I don't mean that I'm against romance and I hope that's not what people mean when they say that the films are anti-romantic; but, in the sense that a hero can be an anti-hero—not necessarily because he's the villain but because he has the same flaws, the same doubts, the same challenges that people have in real life and, in that way, is different than the way heroes are depicted typically in movies—then, yes, that's how I approach romance: with all the flaws and the doubts, the pitfalls and the disappointments and not typically the way romance is depicted in movies.

Guillén: Let's explore that. Why the movie grew on me as time went on is precisely because I think it's brave of you as a filmmaker in your examination of relationships to create a hero who is heroic precisely because he is diving towards an interactional authenticity. The romance you are "against" is actually the commodified version supplied in movies, meant to feed consumer desire. In your effort to provide a more accurate portrayal of relationship, you remind me of Ingmar Bergman's films—such as Scenes From A Marriage—where he fearlessly explores the vengeful underpinnings of passion. Which filmmakers have influenced you in your own cinematic renderings of relationship?

Byler: The goal is to have the influence come from real life and not from movies. Too many movies are inspired from other movies and that's how the genres become so repetitive and why so many of us are just tuning out with the studio fare. But the movies that really made me aware that it was okay to tell the stories that were inspired by life as opposed to other people's movies were films like Carnal Knowledge, Five Easy Pieces, Sex, Lies & Videotape, Midnight Cowboy and The Graduate; films where the relationships are so complex. Five Easy Pieces was the one that really blew my mind. The Robert Dupea character played by Jack Nicholson has many of the kinds of flaws you see in Tre. In fact, in some scenes Daniel Cariaga's performance as Tre reminds me of Jack Nicholson's: for instance, the hobby vs. work argument that he has with Kakela (Kimberly-Rose Wolter) shows no reservation about dissecting someone with the truth that is in their own heart that he can see.



I draw from life, but also lessons I've learned from the masters and those films that were already doing that shortly before I was born. When I rediscovered that era of American cinema when American studios were making art films, and the best and most talented directors and actors were collaborating on art films, that was when I said, "I can do that." The main difference is that I would say I'm influenced by films that were made longer ago than, say, most of the people making films modeled after last year's crop of festival darlings.

Guillén: And thank God for that! It's interesting that you reference those films as influential because those were the films I was watching as a teenager that were affecting me as a young person trying to learn how to get along with people and fall in love.

Byler: I wouldn't recommend those films for a 15-16 year old and I don't recommend my films to anyone who hasn't had their heart broken. You need to have been there once to understand Charlotte Sometimes and Tre. You need to have committed crimes in the arena of love that you're ashamed of and wish you could take back. Heartbreak is really the only thing that brings people there and—if you notice in both of those films—it's heartbreak that causes the most shameful betrayals.

Guillén: And yet those betrayals are necessary illuminations to further growth.

Byler: Yeah. You could say that in Tre the betrayals allow the characters to escape their cycle of loneliness and disenchantment. Not that they find anyone, but that they finally break the circuit and are able to grow up.

Guillén: Exactly, with becoming an embodied individual superceding the romantic myth of the couple. What I appreciate in all of your films is their rebellion against that myth, that there's not an easy reliance on commodified notions of love, even as your characters accept the daunting task of continuing to look for love. Which leads me to ask—since the task is so daunting—who are your films for? Who is your audience?

Byler: I honestly don't make the movies with that in mind. The best answer—in terms of when I'm conceiving the film—is me. I'm making films that I would like to see. I would love if someone who watched one of my films had the reaction that I had when I saw Five Easy Pieces. I should mention McCabe & Mrs. Miller and The Long Goodbye, films where Robert Altman turned genre into an art film. I would love if people could say when they see one of my films, "Oh my God, you really can be that honest! You really can be that revealing. You really can be that daring." But I certainly wouldn't be sad if they'd already seen some of those great films; but, if you were born after that era, you have to find a way to discover them. A lot of younger people grew up thinking that movies made before Aliens are all dumb.

Guillén: The flip side to the question of who is your audience and what are you asking of them is what are you asking of yourself as you mature as a filmmaker?

Byler: When I get back into narrative filmmaking, I think I might be a different person and be making different films; but, I'm not sure exactly who I'll be and what those films will be. The three pictures I've made are all seeking to answer the unanswered questions from my twenties, especially Tre and Charlotte Sometimes because those films are not based on a novel written by someone with more life experience. Now that I'm in my thirties, those stories, maybe in my life I haven't quite answered those questions but my films may move into perhaps a little bit more political awareness, a more political commentary, which I really shied away from early in my films. In fact, I would vehemently resist being pinned down for having a political agenda in making Charlotte Sometimes. Now, I'm not ashamed to share my views.

Guillén: You've actually been doing some constructive and effective political filmmaking through your YouTube projects, namely your engagement with last Fall's Virginia race and currently with the Presidential primaries. You're saying, then, that you do think this political work will affect your future feature filmmaking?

Byler: It might. I just know and feel that I'm a different person now and—because my films are so personal—my films will change; but, I'm still discovering who I'm becoming and so I can't predict how my films will change. I know that I could continue to make anti-romances and make them well and I probably will make more of them; but, I've changed through this process and I'm glad I have. I find it more rewarding to make a difference than to make a movie, frankly. I don't know if that means the films will be better or worse in the eyes of others.

Guillén: As someone in their mid-fifties, my life experience has taught me that the personal is political. I consider your filmmaking a potential bridge between the personal and the political, being that you're so attuned to the true examination of the personal, which informs politics much more than it's given due.

One of my favorite scenes in Tre, and its appropriate tagline, is that a whole life can change on the basis of 10 seconds. The scene where you have Nina (Alix Koromzay) count out the 10 seconds reveals it's not a dismissive amount of time. The importance of that 10 seconds reminded me of martial philosophy in the sense that every battle is won or lost at a particular moment in the melee, at a particular pivot on the battlefield, and it seems that—as a filmmaker—you are keen on capturing those moments when individuals change.



Byler: If you were to create a formula for Charlotte Sometimes and Tre—and, by the way, I hope to create a third film where characters from the two films intersect more substantially because the intersection here is peripheral—but, if you were to create a formula for the first two, you ask the question: could an ordinary life be depicted as a movie? Can you find something universal and revealing in a life that doesn't include saving the Earth from a comet that's going to destroy us all or a life that doesn't include running from zombies? [Laughter.] That never happens to any of my characters. It's not the events that make their stories extraordinary; it's the character of their hearts. It's who they are as people.

My hypothesis is that in any person's life, any person that's ever lived, there was a period of time when they were most alive, when everything mattered, when they felt that everything in their life up to that point had led to this particular moment or this particular night and everything that followed was in some sense an aftermath. We could all find that time in our lives if we look back. If there was a movie about my life it would be about the two weeks that led up to that night, after which everything else was just an epilog. In Charlotte Sometimes and in Tre you see four people in each movie who all go through that experience in a short span of time. None of them are going to go down in history. None of them are going to run for public office. None of them will ever fire a weapon at an extraterrestrial. But those extraordinary moments that they lived, any human being could live if they're really open to falling in love or if they have conflicts about being open to falling in love, which is the essence of the title characters in both films.

Guillén: I agree with you on that and it reminds me of what the diarist Anaïs Nin—infamous for recording everyday moments—once described as the large dimension of small gestures. You don't have to be dodging comets or avoiding zombies to feel the drama of your own biography as it's unfolding, moment by moment. As I said earlier, the battlefield of life has these pivots when people change. It'd be fair to say life contains a succession of these moments where everything turns and the individual personality shifts into a larger dimension.

Byler: That's true. I could probably make two or three movies out of most people's lives.

Guillén: These moments are frequently placed within silence in your films. Can you speak to your use of silence to further narrative?

Byler: I only notice the silence in my movies when I spend a lot of time watching "normal" movies and then I come back to mine. Silence is not so uncommon in life and my movies are, as I've said, always an attempt to try to come as close as possible to approximating real life. The choices I make artistically are not necessarily defined by or governed by choices other filmmakers have made. In the case of silence, if a film is about loneliness—as Charlotte Sometimes and AMERICANese both are—you can't depict loneliness without the ache of time. A really quick scene about loneliness I can't imagine I can do sincerely. So, yeah, there are these sprawling long takes that show a person alone in their apartment. I don't know why I've always been interested in what people do when they're alone and how observing them can tell you something about their characters when they don't intend to be emoting or communicating with anyone; they're alone. You really can't do that anywhere but in a movie because—in real life—just as soon as there are two people there, there's something of a performance and a little bit of artifice involved. Here, not only in the scenes about loneliness but in scenes where people interact, in both of those films and in Tre you see people that are hiding more than they show. It's sort of the opposite of the way that most people might approach a movie where a character is designed to emote as much as possible to provide as much information to the audience as possible in a limited amount of time because you know the commercial is coming soon. I assume that if you sit down to watch an Eric Byler movie, you're okay with a slightly unorthodox approach to storytelling and you're not going to begrudge me a secret or a subtlety or a moment of pause or silence.

Guillén: I would group your films as well into a category of film being called "contemplative cinema" where the camera is aimed at everyday life, often in long still takes, to allow the inherent drama of life to emerge without being bullied by an imposed narrative.

Byler: That's the illusion that the films create. I have a specific approach to achieving that illusion; but, obviously, it's not true that these are real people. But, yeah, that's what I'm trying to present. Everything, in terms of where I place the camera, the way I direct the actors, the way I write the script, the way we change the script as we're filming, the way many of the scenes are actually shot as improvisations, all of those things are designed to create that illusion. I don't want people watching the movie and thinking about my storytelling or my directing or my agenda. I want them to believe for that 90 minutes that these characters are real people who existed before the movie started and will continue to exist after the movie's over.

Guillén: Speaking of improvisation, can you speak a little bit about how you work with your actors to capture that feel you're going for?

Byler: The basic premise is that if you've simply memorized a series of desired results and then attempted to execute them, they're not going to have the nuance and complexity and chaos of real life. I try to capture that nuance and complexity and chaos while we're shooting the scene. When the story's already scripted, it's easy to fall into a series of memorized results. You have to find ways to keep it alive. One of the ways that I do that is I don't allow the actors to memorize their cadence or reaction to a line. I make it very clear that how the scene develops and how they react and whether they dare to touch someone or dare to kiss someone depends on what they read from the other actor. They'll actually see me whisper to his or her scene partner a specific direction that he [or she] knows will surprise him [or her]. During the actual take, it's alive because you have no idea what direction it's going to go. You have an idea what [your scene partner] is going to say, but your scene partner might say something completely different than what you were expecting and you'll have to react to that.

In Tre we used that technique a few times. The first two that came to mind were both after sex scenes. Gabe (Erik McDowell) and Kakela have sex and I secretly instructed Erik McDowell to ask Kakela if she came. After the sex part of the scene, there was some dialogue I wanted to capture. Kimberly's reaction was beautiful and so much more beautiful than it would have been if it was written on the page and she was expecting it. Another example is after Nina and Tre have sex, an unscripted line I asked Daniel to say was, "You're not the kind of woman who usually does this. I can tell by the way you hold me." Alix's reaction [as Nina] was so beautiful because she didn't expect that to happen. She didn't expect him to say that. Her reaction—"How do I hold you?"—was improvised. That was what she wanted to know as Nina, but as Alix I suppose, about that moment and why he chose to say that. Daniel's decision to leave was also something that just happened spontaneously and we had to go and shoot another shot to cover it; but, that's one of the great things you can do when you're shooting digitally: to have that complexity to roll with the way the improvisations go. [It's important to have] actors know at every moment that something could change and that something I whispered to the scene partner could throw the scene in a different direction and answer some of the overarching questions that they know their characters are seeking to answer in the process of making the film and exploring the story, that they look at the whole movie as a discovery, not as an execution of pre-determined results.

Guillén: Sounds like it's a challenge as well as fun to work with you on the set.

Byler: I don't know if the actors would say it was "fun" because there's an emotional wringer they have to go through. I do try to get to know them as people as much as possible and change the characters to match their own life stories. I'm open with them and they're open with me about their weaknesses, insecurities and their worst fears, the things that they need most, and a lot of the time it's the same for all people but I'm able to sharpen the character by allowing the actor to be themselves and be in character at the same time. The super objectives, these questions—sometimes they're not even objectives but questions—Tre, for instance, his overarching question is could a woman like Kakela, or any woman for that matter, truly love him as he is? Or do they see him as a sexual object in the same way that he tries to see women? In particular, did Kakela really love him or was she just—as he says at the end of the film—using him so that she wouldn't marry Gabe?

Daniel knew that Kim and I had written the script together and he felt that we were keeping secrets from him. [Laughter.] But that's how I like the actors to feel and that the answer was something that we were going to reveal. I tried to make Daniel believe that it would be discovered and that I wasn't even steering it in any direction, it could go either way, and every scene was written to move things in any way; but, the truth is that I am manipulating the nuances as I go along. In certain scenes I'm getting both, or two or three different variations that will help me craft the overall arc and giving me options later because the way that the final scene went would ultimately color how it would edit scenes that come before that in the movie. The most important thing is that the actors believe that these questions are not already answered so that—as they live each moment—they don't know the future. They don't know their destiny. Everything is shot out of order in a film shoot, but—if they don't know the answers to the questions—in a sense, they don't know the ending of the story. Then every moment is that much more closer to approximating the uncertainty and the complexity of real life.

Guillén: That irresolution is as much of a working definition to describe my discomfort watching the film as anything. These questions raised by the characters in the film are the fabric of existence. It isn't about the answers really. It's about properly articulating the questions. That's the narrative arc of a person's life. I appreciate that as a filmmaker you don't try to impose false answers either on your audience or on your acting ensemble.

Byler: That's true. Life never really does come to a resolution until you die.

Guillén: And we don't really know if death is a resolution. The jury's forever out on that one. Notwithstanding, it's the irresolute that I find so powerful in your examinations of relationship. Tre is here and there being described as a "quasi-sequel" to Charlotte Sometimes and you mentioned your wish to do a third feature combining the characters of your first two. Can you expand on that?

Byler: I would really like to see what would happen when Tre meets Charlotte. That's what I've been chewing on. If you look at them, they are two sides of the same coin. Tre is the male version of Charlotte. If you look at the structure of the constellation of characters and even the spatial relationships, you have this stranger-comes-to-town structure and—in both cases—it happens to be a person who has an incisive, penetrating wit and a crushing vulnerability that they hide with a ferocious, aggressive wall. They seem to be the most dangerous characters, each of them, but ultimately they're the ones who are hurt the most. I would love to do a movie where you meet the characters that they've become and you see how they interact together. Again, it would be an exploration because I've never gotten Jacqueline Kim (Charlotte Sometimes) and Daniel together before. I've never seen them together; but, I have a hunch that it would be fascinating.

Guillén: I want to see Charlotte and Tre go toe to toe! [Laughter.] What is the distribution strategy with Tre? How are you hoping to get this film out?

Byler: Like a lot of the low-budget indie films, you go as long as the money lasts. You start in cities where you feel that you're confident that you have an audience—for my films that would be the multi-ethnic metropolitan areas—and then you see how long it runs. In the case of Charlotte Sometimes, it ran for several months and ended up making it to over 30 cities. With Tre, we're starting out with less money so I don't know if we'll last as long and I don't know if I want to travel to as many cities as with Charlotte Sometimes. We are going to go to L.A., Chicago, San Francisco, Honolulu, New York and D.C. Those are places where Charlotte Sometimes did well so those are the cities we'll be sure to hit. The South Carolina and Texas venues that Charlotte Sometimes made it to, I don't know if Tre will be as fortunate. Even Charlotte Sometimes, a helluva lot more people saw it on DVD than during theatrical.

Guillén: Regarding your other projects, what became of your TV pilot My Life Disoriented?

Byler: We had hoped that it would spawn a real series on a network. PBS doesn't do series so we knew we were on a dead-end track with PBS but we hoped that we would capture the attention of one of the main networks. Unfortunately, a lot of the channels that would have been right for us began to have financial problems about that time and have now folded. Then, the networks have the same mindset from the previous decade, which is that the Asian best friend is allowable but you can't have a story in which the people that you go home with at the end of the day are also Asian. It took us a long time just to convince them that a hospital in San Francisco should have some Asian people. Now they have hospitals in major cities that have Asians in them but when you go home everybody's white. But they do reflect how Caucasian people experience life—they go to work and see the multiethnic world—but then they go home and their family's white and that's how television series are designed these days.

Guillén: And what about AMERICANese?

Byler: AMERICANese we plan to release later this year. It's interesting, neither of the two movies wanted to open first. Tre ended up being the one that opened first. There are also some contractual things that have to be worked out before AMERICANese can come out between the financer and the distributor. I've just been too busy to get myself involved in all that so I don't even have any details.

Guillén: Sure. Finally, what about your YouTube political work? Where are you going with that?

Byler: I really hope that I'm going to spend the year supporting
Barack Obama's candidacy for President. It's great to be part of a movement where there is a leader who inspires people so easily to take on that civic duty—that "Ask not what your country can do for you" feeling—that I see returning even in the hearts and minds of people who believed in it once a generation ago and had their hearts broken. I see those people daring to fall in love again. It's beautiful. As far as the younger generation—people younger than me who I have been struggling for many years to engage and motivate to take on that responsibility—I really feel young people will lead this country in the right direction. All of the hatemongering ideas about voting against your own best interests because you hate Gays and you love your country kind of thing doesn't make any sense to people under 35. Whatever else it is, hating Latino immigrants or hating Muslims more than you love your country, none of us get that. If we could just find a way to break this cycle where the politicians annoy us and turn us off, mislead us and manipulate us, and therefore we don't want to have any part of the process, and then the politicians get away with these misleading, manipulative propaganda grenades because we're too disinterested to know better—which is basically how our political process works—if someone comes along who can communicate with us and who we trust and who we want to listen to, someone who can explain to the American people what our problems are and how we can work to solve them, and actually engage people in that "ask not what your country can do for you" mindset—we could really make those changes that everybody's talking about a reality. It would be so much easier for me to continue if Obama is the person who is emblematic of this movement.

Guillén: Eric, I thank you for taking the time today. I wish you the best with the L.A. premiere of Tre this weekend and I look forward to seeing you when the film opens here in the Bay Area.

Cross-published on
Twitch and in condensed format at Entertainment Today.