From this brief analysis I've come up with the understanding that I have been here before.  To save time I'll refer back to another longheld and concrete (as those are not necessarily the same (very important to remember)) position of mine, which is we choose everything. 

Now this means a state of depression possibly functions only on a basis of repetitive feeling, of re-visitation.  This means one cannot experience depression if thoughts are not ... older than thoughts which are completely new.  (Also remember, not anew but new.)

Some questions I have is why do they start?  Are they able to be identified?  And most importantly, when they are painful, why would we begin a process which ensures a development of unease?

This is to be examined.  I'll take my own word for it by readying my finger for the "loop" button.

it is the november of every four years.  the christmas of politics.   the voice of the american people, or as it should be. 

it is election 08.  and either way, there will be made a considerable mark in history.  on the blue side, possibly the first black man to be the commander and chief of the united states of america.  on the red side, possibly the first female to serve as vice president.

so, to enjoy this night and embrace the excitement, shall i put aside the obvious ploy on both parts by picking a VP who compensates the candidate's most vulnerable attack, be as cheap as it may be?

is it over-emphasized to emphasize how predictable it is for a presidential candidate as young as he is to choose someone much more experienced, and more importantly, white, so to discourage already exceeding character hits?  is it over-emphasized to emphasize how predictable it is for a presidential candidate as old as he is to choose someone much younger and more importantly of a female format so to closely compete with what will be equivocally historical in the acknowledgement of social progress for this nation?

with all sincerety, it's okay.  it's part of the game. 


i remember back almost two years ago when i watched obama's internet video expressing his decision to run.  it was stiff and clearly marked by his careful choice of words.  the media ate it up, dis-secting every syllable, and some in cases, the tone in which he said it.  and he knew this.  he knew this going into it, as we are now coming off a presidential run that is (weakly) debatable in what is the worst performance of a president in the history of the united states. 

so how did Bush get into office?  more importantly, how did he get into office the second time, after it was well-known not only among anti-war liberals like myself but among the general public that there is and never was a reason for us to be in Iraq?  that's easy if you go according to the leading american investigative journalist, greg palast.   he explains both elections were rigged, squeezing out roughly three million american voters by registering them as convicted felons.  there are two problems with this.  one is obvious.  it's cheating.  the second is the original law that convicted felons cannot vote.  i won't get deep into it but this idea contradicts even the surface philosophy of prosecuted and sentenced individuals, and it's displayed in the name of the location to where they are sent:  CORRECTION facilities.  that's the very reason citizens are sent to these places, with sentences correllating to the degree of the crime, a few months or certainely in the case of a few years or more, these people have time to think about what they've done and deserve a fresh start.   america is about, in the least, second chances, is it not?  if we truly want to rehabilitate such individuals, why discontinue the dehabilitiation upon release from a facility by reminding them every four years they are not like the rest of us?

so Bush was a joke as a president.  that's not new. 

so enter a fresh young "talent" named obama. 

i donated five dollars to his campaign in the first weeks of his run. 

it wasn't until i became of aware of ron paul when i realized how vague obama's notion of change really is.  ron paul's first order of business would be to discontinue the income tax and the cia. he followed this with, "and in my second week..." 

i believe he was too honest.  but not only that, he happens to be a senator who values conservative spending, something that i think most would agree would play quite well over the next four years, considering the deficit of this country. 

then there is denis kucinich, a senator who i've liked since i came to learn about him back in 2004.  i liked him so much, i used a quote from him in the VIOLENCE song i composed as a bonus track for the CP soundtrack. 

.......

i became discouraged to learn of obama's voting for appropriation bills, his position on yucca mountain (the site of storing nuclear waste), his vouche for shallow rap music, his avoidance of piercing questions from random, his claim of willingness to go into pakistan, passing po tential voters and ron paul supporters, his breaking of the promise regarding public financing, his position to oppose gay marriage) as a minority of a history of great historical oppression, how can he do that?), his audacity to call the bailout a rescue package and favor it.. 

based on what he says, i have not given him my vote. 

obama has had such a short record in the senate.  as a person of quality over quantity, i began looking at his record in the senate.  it's short, but it's liberal.  in fact, he has the most liberal record in the senate. his running mate, biden has the third liberal record in the senate.   now, here's where it's importnat to consider quantity of time in teh senate becasue as great as this sounds for a person like my liberal self, obama has not been there nearly as long as the other senators, so the question is, is this liberal record based in relativity?  in other words, obama may have voted liberally on all counts of action, so it appears he's the most liberal but only before considering his lack of opportunity to encounter a liberal proposal he would turn down, whereas others, as liberal as they are, were in the senate at the time.  these other liberal senators may very well have voted in the same way as obama but also had participation in decisions of which obama did not.  so, the original claim of obama's most liberal nature is possibly highly misleading. 

so what am i left with?

shall i go by the evidence of his words and opposing policies of which i am in favor? 

i would if this were TRUTH OR DARE, but in politics there exists only the former. 

i have been feeling for some time that obama is telling the public, the media and everyone else he must in order to achieve the white house.  why not?  why be honest in a world where honesty is rewarded with an absence of advancement? 

he's dodged questions, he's changed with the political climate, he says a whole lot of material yet without confirming a definitive position.  this is called mastery of equilibrium.  many obama fans would fervently disagree withthis.  and that's because equilibrium is truly mastered. it's a way of explaning your position, while giving people a clear answer, and later re-visiting what you've said and re-explaining what you actually meant by it.  it works because people originally claim to know what you meant based on everything from gesture, to voice inflection, and of course, party affiliation.  until you later point out their assumption.  it's a trademark of lawyers, but of course it works everywhere.  in this case, it's no surprise that most politicians come from a law school background.  and it's clear why both candidates have repeatedly referred to Reagan, as he was probably the latest president who excelled at this invaluable political ability.  he was of a discipline that might top the educational back of law:  an actor.  go figure.   but i agree.  reagan was probably the first president in a long time, if not ever, to have such a vibrant personality.  a person with unforced humor, candid delivery, and an overall trustworthy aura.  

obama clearly has this. once again, he knew from the beginning of his run.   


but based on the highly possible placating to the world, i have not given him my vote.  


if i were to give obama my vote for that reason, that would send the message that politicians must lie to me in order to get my vote.  by doing so perpetuates the current system of appeasement.   


the hint is in the former obama slogan: CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.  because when all evidence to the contrary, a question is all we have.  we look to the furthest depths of the unknown.  and since it's clear no one single "popular" voter knows what obama will do, or if he will even follow through with what he says he will, or in the event he does do his part to follow through by proposing his bills, it's uncertain that he will able himself to convince congress to pass the bills comprising the fuel of his anthemic promises...  we're left with hope, with unconfirmed comfort...  we're left with what is bigger than ourselves, with what is beyond our world of what is measurable and tactile...  we're left with belief.

...and i am a believer. 

for this reason, Barack Obama, you have my vote.

last year i was going to write about this, but for some reason or another, it fell off the coarse of written expression.  i've gotten a new job and have already been working for it for six weeks!  there's that and the political fire of which the world now waits for results, however manipulated they may be.  there's the gasolinesong.com movement underway as jay looks to the day where he will arrive in washington to perform his song price gouge'n in front of the white house...

but let me talk about something that is more important than all of this.  it's something that has either found it's way back to my plate of desire or, as i mentioned at least once before, it never left...

i want to move to a place that is non-existent in the reality as we know today.  it's a place where fear fears the idea of being feared.  in this place i talk of, the people are just as alive as any, yet do no appear to be.  as a matter of fact, you may be, well, quite terrified, to say the least.   but fear not, for you lack the understanding.  i would say, stick with it, but that would mean you must first pursue it. 

it begins in your dreams. 

how do you dream?

i guarantee if you were to see what i see, you would want to go there, as well.  actually, more than i. 

much
much
more. 

there will come a time where i illustrate this for you.  it will be a vision of grande expense, full of life, care, color and personability.

until that day, don't undernourish your thoughts.  believe that anything is possible, because there's no reason to make it harder than it can be.  isn't it hard enough?

i tell you there is nothing to be afraid of, yet when you get there, you will forget this.  and for the few that remember will, in the beginning, choose to think foolish of me.  and i understand why.  yes, it's a creepy sight.   but see the relation, see with sensibility.  try with all your might.

tonight, we all can get a little closer to realizing this parallelization.  

when i take you there, just grab my hand.  close your eyes if you must.  but no matter what, do what you feel you need to in order to trust.   if you can manage the walk to the station, the train will take you the rest of the way.  what a sight it is.  the dark hillside, the moonlit night, the glowing eyes, and red lights. 

i am excited.   but more than that, i am thrilled and feel loved to know no matter what you say and think before you get there, you'll be glad you went.  and if you ask me to wait for you, i will.   but don't be long, because others are waiting for me.  we've got music to play.  it's what we do.  so hurry up, do what you have to, find your bearings, join me in hand if you like, and we'll go.  i want to more than you know.

current mood: content

my brother emailed me to inform me that HANCOCK is crap.  i had a feeling it is so i wasn't planning on bothering with it.  on the flip side, as soon as i saw the trailer for WALL-E i just knew it's amazing.  i still haven't seen and i don't need anyone to tell me how wonderful it is.  i know it's one of the best movies of the year, as far as worldwide releases go.  

because i don't want to spend energy repeating myself, here's some documentation of my response to my brother's comments on THE DARK KNIGHT:

"during the first forty minutes the score felt like it was originally conceaved for a silent film, as it piled on the layers during expository scenes, provided a sense melodrama.  and throughout the film it jumps into moments with Gordan and other key character than gets out in no less than it took to get in.  i think i counted a nine second scene.  it created this feeling of, hmmm...  director doesn't seem to know the story that well.  or it was the studio breathing over his neck to cut it down.  as far as overall content, i felt as though they tried to stuff a little too much into what should have been a nicely compact two hour film.  and the sonar in the end??  even some batman fans of mine rolled their eyes.  i minded less but can see where they're coming from. 

don't get me wrong.  i liked it.  it clearly doesn't have some of the philosophical insight like the first one, and i really didn't like the pacing and claustrophobic camera angles that seems to be populating the styles of most contemporary hollywood directors.  and, of course, the biggest bitch:  this film's execution is a product designed for the ever-shrinking attention span of the modern audience.  as for chris nolan's camera movements, i usually am unable to tell what is happening in action sequences.  the political party scene where Joker encounters Batman for the first time hit me the hardest as i thought, Ohhh, this could work work if he'd pull out here and there, crossing full shots with mediums and medium close-ups.  but nolan is farily strong with actors, with an exception of some one-liners by some of the cops on radios.  but that could be second unit.

you're definitely right in that chicago was the star.  i hope it encourages more films to be shot there.  if for no other reason than the fact that i get tired of the same ol' LA metropolitan context.  but of course, i understand it's considerably cheaper to film in LA, especially in this, hmmm... national consensus denial of an apparent economic depression.

i'm sure it was nice chattin with nolan. 

that's my two and half cents."


my brother thought it was phenomenal.  but i'm sure his experience was at least somewhat influenced by the fact that he sat next to the director, Christopher Nolan and Chuck Roven.  I don't know who the second guy is but i'm sure he's famous in some way, probably on the business end.   

so i was in the library two days ago and was looking for Mission Impossible 3 because i finally discovered an interest to pick it up.  but then it wasn't in.  instead i saw a film laying next to it and with a rush of excitement and a little nostalgia, i picked up the film of which holds some of my most cherished of works of one of the most financially successful directors of all time: MINORITY REPORT.  

i watched it two nights ago.  and again tonight i watched it with Jay.  

MINORITY REPORT was, for the first time in awhile AND way back when i saw it, the first film in a long time that i was interested enough to see a second time in the theatre for sheer respect.  and then i learned something during the second watching.  i wasn't dazzled like i've been during second showings of other films of my liking.  this was new.  i remembered it all too well.  i absorbed.  it might have been the first big jolt i received as to the evidence of my noteably strengthening film-watching ... acuity.  i then knew something was happening with me.  it was from there on that i began to notice how it took much much more to ignite the storyteller fire in me... and it just so happens that this realization occured only weeks after something else.  MR came out in June of 2002.  I even remember seeing the trailer earlier that year, thinking, oh jeese.  this looks like it might difficult to pull off.  aka: most likely dumb.  and then i liked it even in light of low expectations.  this occured only a couple weeks after the CP premiere.  

something magical occurs... okay dozens upon dozens of magical things occur when you stand behind the audience with the lights off/sit anxiously next to your family/pace nervously in the hallways while you share with others what you've been doing for the past four years of your life.  i was changed after that, in ways that i think not only just other filmmakers would understand, but filmmakers who've taken it upon themselves to invest a whole lot of energy into a project and during a most vulnerable period of growth - what is probably generally the most vulnerable time in any person's life: late teens early twenties.  

in my current self study of music composition of which i've never before undertaken to this degree, i wonder how more advanced a composer i would be right now had i been composing through my teenage years and not learned of my ability as late as a nineteen year old.  and don't forget to add that to my disposition as a sensitive person, one who absorbs energies of people and events considerably more than an average individual, manifested through my general anxiety.  i mean, that's what an artist does.  if i weren't able to pick up on such things, there would no way i could imitate it because i would not be aware of anything to imitate.  it's in part a pisces thing.  i'm not joking.  (it's wild how in-depth is the astrological system.)   

it's interesting, too how MR marked a point in my growth of which i find it so critical to recall even so many years later.  and the parallels the movie has to my philosophies of approaching story-telling for the screen.  MR has primarely three to five action sequences in the film.  yet i feel like the movie is action throughout.  this is due to the material presented through the use of intense emotional implication.  another parallel is the Cruise's character's son died just like Carl's.  funny, i just realized that while typing the first part of the sentence.  i was going to say another parallel which is Cruise's character died six years ago from when the film takes place.  And it's been six years since i first saw MR in the theatre both times. 

i am frustrated the film made a domestic profit of only roughly 50 million. (it's production budget was 100 million).  but the more i think about it, i see why this could be so.  even with the likes of Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg, it's not enough to outweigh the objective reality that the film is dominated by structural development, something of which does not in and of itself manage to grab the attention of the today's average movie-goer, especially during a time when people are fooled into mediocre spectacle appearing as grand spectacle when accompanied by mediocre-at best character development.  No. MR chooses to emphasize the psychology of the characters and, what's better (but worse for its bankability) to do so not in the adrenalized circumstances but in the delicate moments of discussion.  this film has every opportunity to make eye candy out of nothing more than events provided through gimmicks, yet chooses not to.  further, nearly the entire film is CG but doesn't feel like it.  this is because it's set up so well you believe it, you accept it.  

i feel there have been a few science fiction films that have come close to matching the caliber of T2.  crazy, huh?  seeing as though it was made and released in 1990-1991.  MINORITY REPORT, is obviously one of them that is up there with T2.  CONTACT is another.  and again, oddly, where's the fight sequences in contact?  

i feel like i owe a few thoughts to CONTACT as i've watched it a few weeks back.  in the film the battle is our inability to trust a species other than our own.  the film accomplishes the illustration of this quite well, especially when the NASA advisors added a seat to the space "pod" in which jodie foster's character goes in.  and yet, during her worm hole trip there is a noise, as if it has come with the territory of venturing off into space at the speed of which she does, yet it the sound terminates when jodie's character unbuckles her belt and the seat breaks off.  it's the only human-made component of the pod ship, an addition to the design not included in the directions provided by the aliens.  and of course, the movie modestly approaches the battle between religion and science as jodie's character, when asked refuses to believe in a higher power when there is no evidence, without realizing that until her discovery of alien lifeform, she was carried by nothing other than her belief that there are alien lifeforms out there, a belief that was worth seeking funds of possibly what would be more than a hundred million.  There must be aliens or the universe is simply a "waste of space" as she puts it so eloquently.  and of course, when she testifies to the surpreme court of her experience, she acknoledges the entire event could have been psychologically induced motivated by her "need to believe".  and when the tables are tuned on her by james wood's character who procedes to attempt to eradicate her testimony of any validity and get her to conceade her position, she says, "... because I can't."  and when the judge inquires are they simply to take her word inspite of not a shred of evidence of her alien encounter and traveling through space, and he finishes with, "Are we suppose to take your word ... on faith?"  jodie's character is in nothing more than the position of the staunch believer, the person who chooses to believe and live by the belief despite all evidence to the contrary.  and of course, the finishing touch when the film concludes with an illustration that ...  i won't say what it is because it's a thing of beauty.  i'll just say it "states" we do not live in an age of information, but rather disinformation.

what a predicament we're in today.  as techonology provides for easy access and affords the most common of services that were, so many years ago, nothing less than a fantasy of which only scientific progress would advocate... however, this technology affords the creators the most advanced knowledge of its capabilities and, therefore, a reality in which no one individual beyond the circle of scientific, political and social insiders is aware.  put another way, if i design and build a house, there isn't a soul who will be as intimate with its structure, including the man who trades it for his most cherished of goods and lives in it the majority of his long life.  


i'm looking forward to WALL-E.  i'll probably catch it on dvd.  i anticipate it will be one of those films which offer more than just a movie could.   it's my new term.  

film - substance, relative realism, depth

movie - .... funny, i'm not even sure how to define this.  because i'm a little confused.  if it has little to no substance, little realism even relative to its narrative context and hardly what could be considered depth, then why am i watching it?  then again, i can ask the same to certain people in my life.  

the answer is: i choose to live by the belief in giving people and things a chance despite all evidence to the contrary.

I awoke this morning, decided to lye in bed a little longer.  Then I hear my dad tell me he wants to leave at 9:45 – that’s AM.  I looked at the clock and it was 9:22 – that’s AM. 

I sped through a shower, scarfed down a banana and scrimmaged around for my contacts packed away in boxes in the basement because I lost my (expired) glasses when I was filming for the price goug’n music video weeks back. 

I didn’t find them and decided that my enjoyment could potentially be dismantled because I would have to squint during the one film I most care to see this year – and in recent years, probably.  It was then I decided to be happy I was seeing this film with my dad.  It might have happened another way.

Ohhh, the filmmakers might not have known what their challenge was – the stage of nostalgia was set, as I’ve hardly been to the movies with my dad since 1989 when we saw INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, of which we saw at least a handful of times. 

In the car, music played, but it wasn’t just any music.  Years ago I was writing a book called, December.  A sixty or so page story with an undertone of emotional context about the relationship between a boy and his late father.  I even mixed music together on a cassette tape while pretending it was the score to the film (which i saw in my head).  I was in my early teens.  One of the various soundtracks I used (there were a dozen or so) was NORTH BY SOUTH by Bill Conti.  Most people know Bill Conti through the Rocky theme song.  He’s a highly accomplished composer.  The music holds a sentiment of which no other album can touch. 

It was playing as we made our way to the theatre.  Yes, my eyes watered.  Because I knew that however good this movie will or will not be, the event was powerful and will live in my memory for my remaining life.

It was the first time in a Valpo theatre, oddly it was in the area of Valpo – right by highway 49 where for years I’ve been saying a theatre should be built.  I stood before the Indy 4 poster as my dad bought the ticket.  Yeah, they’ve jacked the price since he last watched Star Wars Episode III. 

We got small popcorns – well, he got them for us. 

There was no sound, and I heard the young projectionist talking to someone and finally figured out what was wrong.  Good thing it was only the previews. 

Valpo theatres… hell, and portage, and merrillville, and Hobart – do the staffs purposely hire people who don’t know how to work a projector and sound?

Then I saw the PARAMOUNT logo.   No introductory musical chord.  I saw a gopher in hopes it was a slick preview for some CG toy-story-wanna’ be film.   It was so entirely fake. 

Nope, it was the first shot of Indy 4.  With this unabashed cartoonish approach and no john Williams here to manipulate the content, I began to worry.  My stomach began to turn.  Then I hear Elvis fade in and see a wagon of boys and girls in un-modest fifties outfits.  I’m still not sure if I liked what’s happening.  Now, this is due to my immodestly elevated expectations.  It’s happened many a time.  If this was years and years ago, like during The Lost World, I would be in emotional turmoil, borderline breaking out with a sweat. 

But I’m more experienced than that – obviously in my anxiety and being faced with the prospect of destroying the magic of a long-established franchise of emotional thematic involvement.  

So it was okay.  I said in my head, it’s a different approach, things change.  And quite so, because this is now in the fifties whereas the previous three took place in the thirties. 

The first twenty minutes or so, up until the end of the motorcycle chase, and even in Indy’s home talking to Mutt, was wonderful.  I liked it all very much.  I especially liked the Nevada sequence of the nations secretes, in which the ark of the covenant coolly makes its 22 frames of participation.  Nice touch. 

I feel the comedy was consistent.  This film was definitely not lacking in jokes.  But I think it’s important not confuse the strength of laughter with the presence of charm.  This film was funny precisely when it wanted to be, although I feel it continued to choose comedy because it was afraid to get serious, much less know how to do so.

I felt the biggest problem before the forty-five minute mark, which was at a time in the film where it may have been premature to call it a problem.  However, in current film culture i'm spoiled with experience of pinpointing this problem considering, if you haven't noticed, we live at a time when films that lack courage to slow down and breathe represent the majority.  And when I say breath, I mean it in every way.  This film was not sure enough of itself in order to last more than one and a half minutes without tires spinning, ants devouring human flesh or monkeys swinging from tree branches - or humans, for that matter. 

The very thing of which I was afraid is precisely what spoiled this film.  And I mean spoiled not by completely ruining it but most generously filled it with CG.

Frank Darabont took a year to pen a script of which Spielberg loved, Harrison loved. So why did it not get made?  I’ll tell you why.  Because Lucas put down his foot.  But I cannot entirely blame Lucas for this.  It was one thing to get stubborn over Star Wars.  The first film of that story is more his than anyone else’s, but Indiana Jones was visually conceived by a far better director.  Spielberg, what would have Indy have done if he knocked down?  He would have got up and knocked the other guy harder!  And if that didn’t work, he would have hit him again!!

The problem with this film – I feel – lies in the approach.  Spielberg said he made this film for the fans of the trilogy.  When I saw the comicon interview almost a year ago I remember thinking how that doesn’t sound good.  Compared to Spielberg, even inspite of the much less I’ve directed, I’ve learned not to make a project based on audience expectations.  Because as a consequence, you find yourself placating to a mass mentality that is constantly in a state of shifting and consequently, it never really knows what it wants.  It's your job to tell them.  It’s important to work the story based on the story, itself – not the audience.  No offense to the general public, but as much as people in general know how to identify a great film, collectively it is diminishing.  And they certainely haven’t got the damn-dest clue how to make one. 

I partially think Spielberg said that because even he (deep deep deep down) knew it wasn’t going to come close to matching the tone of the other three. 

Strangely, though, I find myself liking the crystal skull as the third best of the four, ahead of temple of doom.  Because as respective of the Indiana Jones style as doom was, it was dark.  The crystal skull at least had a light-heartedness to it, of course, as I’ve hinted at above, it could have used slightly less of it. 

The approach I was hoping for has everything to do with the feel of the Indiana Jones films – heartfelt dialogue and gritty action of which relied little to any on effects.  I really can’t say the previous indy films used CG effects quite simply because before the nineties CG simply wasn’t around.  Everything was done optically.  The only (and first ever) to accomplish CG effects was James Cameron’s THE ABYSS with the water tentacle. 

I had slight doubts about the story of Indiana Jones, but I have little to any that Spielberg would stick to his word and keep it light on the CG.  He emphasized that plan of action.

Was he kidding??????

This film was clamored with CG.  And this brings me to my dad’s reaction.  There was a moment while he, my sister, Mariusz and I were watching live free or die hard in january, and i pounded my hand on the couch moderately shouting, “This is bullshit!”  because I felt what is one of the most likeable action stars in one of the most beloved franchises was a bunch of action sequences thrown together and as quickly and haphazardly as possible all to make a buck. 

And my dad said to me, “Oh, it’s just fun.”  He didn’t get it. 

But after watching the crystal skull, I saw in his eyes and heard the disappointment in his voice after the movie was over.  I agree with everything he said.  He said he was disappointed that of all directors, Spielberg had succumbed to the over-use of unbelievability.  I said he had faith Spielberg, unlike any other director, would stray away from it.

Like when, ahem, Indy’s son was sword fighting, a foot on both jeeps moving through the south American jungle, need I say how unsteady that would be?  And if you’re saying, well, you can forgive that.  It’s not like it happens throughout the film.

Well, if you’re saying that, you obviously haven’t seen the film. 

That was probably the biggest moment when I got that WAR OF THE WORLDS feeling as Tom Cruise is running, camera is reverse dolly as the city is blowing up behind him by maybe ten feet. 

This film was not made for Indy fans.  The Indy fans are mostly comprised of two generations below me and upward.  We grew up on films not packed with the number of effects shots this film has.  Then one might say, well, nick, you’re not a big fan of blockbusters.  You don’t understand the demand.

I’m not a big fan of blockbusters??  If you mean mindless, unmotivated compilations of uninspired events, barely coherant, then, no.  I’m not.   But if you’re talking about mindful structure with great emotional awareness whereby producing nothing short of cinematic splendor, then yes. 

The market has changed because the demands have changed.  I bet all my future films that attention span is at an all-time low.  This is why these non-stop conceptions of violence are released month after month by the dozen.  If they moved any slower, the audience would loose interest.

But at a time when arousing people’s interest to go and see a film has become more difficult than ever, a long established thematic context such as Indy films near overshadows what most other films have to face for the first time; Indiana Jones had a chance to get people in the theatre almost effortlessly.  And, I guarantee that if the film was not strongholded at the throat by blue screen bliss the initial crowd would have recruited the minds of people who have lost hope in adventure films and would find themselves re-discovering the word “quality” accompanying the words “summer blockbuster”.

My dad said he’ll see it again, and I probably will, too.  I have to see it with Ryan for sure. 

As far as the score goes, one might think I’m not at liberty to judge because I haven’t listened to it on its own.  This has some truth.  As developed as my ears are, there is only so much I can tell from a score while listening to it against the film’s noise, relatively speaking of course.  However, there are wonderful scores of which I’ve identified while watching a film.  I’ll probably get it in the mail early next week.  At this point in time, my dad and I agree.  The score sounds - the word he used - bland.  No memorable thematic material, that is, unique to this film.  From what I heard it was a compilation of previous Indy film themes. 

It’s as if the score was not willing to go to a new place. 

I might understand why.  From a composer’s perspective, this movie was highly challenging to identify thematic material.  The movie did not slow down.  Consequently, it was a continuous ménage of sequences, and each sequence was less identifiable than the next.  The blandness in the music reflects the non-stoppable form, as there was hardly a moment at which Williams could create an identifiable theme in a progressive fashion.  So he did the best he could, which was to reprise familiar themes of which the audience – there it is – the audience has pre-established emotional subtext. 

I’m interested to discover elements I was not able to in the film by listening to the score free from the footage. 

I did hear WAR OF THE WORLDS at one point - literally.  It’s interesting how it struck me and perhaps no one else in the theatre. I even leaned over to my dad and whispered how it sounded exactly like it.  It was track four called THE INTERSECTION SCENE.  It’s clear Spielberg and Williams used this as a foreshadow of aliens, known only to us soundtrack nerds. 

I’ve heard of aliens possibly having a part in Indy 4.  At first I didn't like it, then eventually I actually liked it a lot.  I know Spielberg is fascinated with aliens.  I am, as well.  And, yes, I do firmly believe the government knows about them, has seen them, and are studying alien bodies as I write this.  Area 51?  Whatever number it has in the title, it exists.   And I ask this with all the excitement and warmth accompanied by a general thought that a place like Hollywood is where I may belong after all – who over there doesn’t think it exists?

I won’t say much about this at all, but one of my screenplays is based on an idea that the crystal skull touched upon.  Straight up, I don’t feel Indy 4 it did it very well.  It just kinda’ threw it in there at one point.  Plus, my film has a different take on it.  I told my friends Ryan and Jon this idea years ago when I was still in LA living with Jon (and my brother, Mike).  I told Jay my idea about two years ago.  He remembers and is living proof I thought of this before I saw Indy 4.  It’s really not a big deal because, like I said, Indy 4 does not convey this effectively, and I take it further and in different ways.  It’s one of my ideas I’m most excited about - clearly top five 

Regarding Indy 4, what was this business about making tributes to other film genres??  Spend another film doing that.  Indiana Jones potentially has enough momentum.  Again, emphasis on potentially. 

It’s as if improving the film is a matter of taking away some of the material and replacing it with a strictly dialogue scene or two – between Indy and his son, Indy and Marion.  Take away a bit of the action - a good start is to take out the sword fight.  Without any development in Mutt's ability to do that and no reprisal of it, it feels like a gimmick.  It's as if Spielberg and the writer said, we can do it, so why not??  I got a similar feeling I did in The Lost World when Macolm's daughter performs her acrobat routine to knock down a raptor from the top of the woodshed.  But at least her ability was established within the first scene of hers - frustratingly, The Lost World was a director Spielberg/screenwriter David Koepp production as well.  

One thing I liked was simply giving a knodd to Marcus Brody and his father and that's it.  I think I would have used a different pic of his father.  It felt like a precise angle used in Indy 3 - an example I've learned in CP not to underestimate your audience.  I feel I've seen many films in recent years reminding us and reminding us and reminding us and reminding us what happened in earlier movies, as if we immediately forget the moment we sit down in the theatre what happened in previous installments.  

There is an ideology of filmmaking that I discovered months ago that will serve me outrageously well in the futre, one that this film very much demonstrates what occurs when not followed, but I'll talk about that later because I want to stop typing now.  

Overall, I would have spent more time developing the material.  This was in pre-pro for how long????  There certainely was some highly interesting things with which to work.  

It's interesting how I have little comments about the strictly dialogue moments.  Here's one:  MORE OF THEM WANTED!

However, I must hand it to Spielberg because yet again I see why he’s revered at one of the best with the camera.  This is the first movie with complicated action sequences where I can tell precisely what is going on since I saw....  

I discovered in my late teens how most directors do not know how to do that.  They almost rely on confusing the audience because the director’s coverage is not of a high enough quality.  But rest assured because audiences probably have grown used to filling in the gaps so much with their imagination that most people – especially today’s younger audience does not know how great camera work can actually be. 

I also loved the colouring of the film.  I loved it from the moment I first saw the trailer.  I swear I felt the screen sparkle at moments due to the textures of cinematography.  Yes, the graveyard scene got my juices flowing.

All in all, I’m sure the film will clean up.  Mostly because in asking, who’s actually not going to see this?  But hey, that’s what it’s about, right?

Sadly, I think it is for many. 

Mark my words:  I will not make a film solely based on monetary acquisition.  I would say I hope the industry does not change me, but I know better than to think the industry can change me.  I'm not about to give it that much credit.

For me, watching films has always been about discovering what I like because it aids in my search for my voice as a filmmaker.  I’ve learned a good deal watching Indiana Jones 4 today.  Am I disappointed?  Yeah.  At least a little.  But it’s not like I haven’t had my heart broken before and found myself in a place trying to convince myself it’s just as good as its predecessors, most notably The Lost World and Terminator 3 and add to it Die Hard 4.  I’m a little down about Indy 4 not meeting my expectations, but in spite of my maturity as a filmmaker, as a businessman, and, frankly, as a human being, I have a better understanding of the world at large.  As much as I love to get caught up in cinematic fantasy and regard anything less as, well, less, it simply does not work that way.  There is a bottom line to maintain, and it doesn’t consist of fine art for the sake of fine art.  But make no mistake, this doesn’t mean I’m not going to fight/manipulate my way through to the path to creating fine art.  No one will get in my way.  If they do, they will most assuredly not be the same after I put them in their place. 

I think the key is to find people who Truly share the same goals as I.  This will not be easy, but as I’ve said before, most things worthwhile are not (maybe none of them are).  What makes it easier for me is understanding that others do not necessarily have to understand the importance of achieving such goals, because they’re willingness to help out based on Trust in me and others will make all the difference. 

current mood: okay