Out of Focus

GOODBYE 2005 ... AND GOOD RIDDANCE

I sit here today in my still not completely organized "new" bedroom with a sudden reemergence of the migraine-like tension headaches that afflicted me a couple years ago before (I thought) going away for good. 2005 might have been an overall good year for the movies, and it even started as a good year for me. But much like the rest of the world that has not enjoyed nice things in 2005 -- whether it's tsunamis or hurricanes or earthquakes or war -- eventually this year decided to start wiping its ass with me as well, and at least since the beginning of May, it's been a rough one on many fronts.

So far that reason along with a few others, I can't wait for this year to be over. In fact, I wish I could go to sleep now and wake up on the other side of Sunday. I'm not even in the mood to "celebrate" the end of 2005 or ring in the promise of 2006. I just want to sleep to dream and wake-up and try to work towards making things better.

To that end, I'm not going to stress any longer about writing this post or that post (stupid things to contribute to my tension headache anyway) for the remainder of 2005. I'm just going to bid you all adieu for the weekend and promise (oooh, dangerous, dangerous territory) to come back on Monday (maybe Sunday, but more likely Tuesday) with actual things to say: my Top 10 2005 TV shows list; my short lists of most overrated and best but so-far unreleased films of 2005; a whole slew of reviews in one form or another (for real this time); and that eagerly anticipated (likely by nobody but myself), definitive "Best"/"Favorite"/"Top" movies of 2005 list as well. I'm working feverishly to catch-up.

So to everyone out there who has been kind enough to stop by my little space here and give two craps about what I've had to say -- love it or hate it -- here's wishing you a happy and healthy New Year, and whether your 2005 was the best or worst year of your life, I hope 2006 is a dramatic improvement ... for all of us.

Happy New Year!

REASON #681 THAT I'M A BIG DORK: NOT ATTEMPTING TO SAY HI TO SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE A LONG-LOST FRIEND ON THE STREET, FOR ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON

Back in July, I revealed what I called "Reason #437" for my being a big dork. It had to do with not saying hello to Paul Scheer after unintentionally walking behind him for several blocks after we both left a performance of Glengarry Glen Ross on Broadway. Well, I'm sure that there have been at least 240 more reasons since then that would help solidify my dorkitude, but today's absurd situation is the first one I've chosen to reveal.

Today I was walking east down Houston St. approaching Sixth Ave. As I was getting to the corner, I saw this petite woman walking with a tall guy north on Sixth perpindicular to me. She looked really familiar, but I wasn't sure if I was right. She looked like a friend of mine with whom I used to work at a small talent agency in Beverly Hills. I probably haven't seen or spoken to her in at least seven years, and I have no idea where she might be. She's around my age -- maybe even a year or two older; I can't remember -- although she certainly never looked it. She was always a bit bubbly, but not in a ditzy way, and as I walked past, I did about three double takes. She leaped in front of a discarded Christmas tree, starting to pose in a goofy way so that the guy she was with could take her picture, but he seemed to be having some camera issues.

My friend's name is Nina Barry. She was originally from New York, but was still living in LA when I last spoke to her, and if I remember correctly, she had no real desire to move back her. Her father is the playwright PJ Barry; her brother Matthew has been a successful casting director for some time, and her other brother Neill is an actor. The last conversation I had with Nina I seem to remember was about how much she hated the musical Rent. This was back when it was still relatively new -- only 2-3 years into its successful hype.

How am I a dork (if it isn't already obvious)? Because instead of shouting, "Hey Nina!" or even walking up to her and saying, "Hey, are you Nina Barry?" my lame ass suddenly decided to walk away rather than risk being wrong. Yeah ... that's really really lame. Maybe lame enough, in fact, to be pushed up to reason #1! I did the google search and the Friendster and MySpace searches, but the only "Nina Barry" who came up was a 25 year old artist who seemingly lives close to me in Brooklyn (or at least she went to Pratt so she used to live in the 'hood).

So, if by some chance somebody who knows the Nina I'm talking about comes across this post, I would appreciate it if you would contact her and embarass me to her or email me with a way to email her so that I can take my shame further and actually say hi. And yeah, if Nina isn't in New York and that wasn't her ... whew. But I'd still love to reconnect.

THE WEEKEND IN PREVIEW: A SUNDAY AT THE IFC CENTER?

My weekly "Weekend Movies" post is up at Gothamist. I'm quite tempted to get tot he IFC Center for their Fassbinder "BRD Trilogy" marathon on Sunday, but that also means making it to the Village by Noon on New Year's Day and sitting through more than six hours of Fassbinder. I'm not so sure I will be physically and mentally capable of doing so. But then again, considering that my New Year's Eve plans are currently nebulous at best, who knows. I could be well rested! (Except for the fact that my roommates are planning to throw some big party here in my new apartment which would likely mean I'm going to be up until 4 or 5 whether I like it or not.)

Match Point is the only major new release this weekend, and I for one am excited to get to it at some point, maybe tomorrow. I also really want to try to make The Power of Nightmares while it's still playing at the Cinema Village. I believe it's there through next Wednesday or Thursday, but they're only showing it once a day at 1:20 PM. Yet another movie that I should have tried to find a way to see at Tribeca last year, on DVD or otherwise, yet I didn't.

GENIUS, PURE GENIUS: THE ONLY TOP 10 YOU PROBABLY NEED (NO, IT'S STILL NOT MINE)

My good friend The Reeler (how's that for hyperbole? I believe we've met thrice, but isn't that how one's supposed to mention such a blogleague?) has posted the first half of his inaugural entry in a year-end Top 10 list of Top 10 lists, and so far it's the best criticism of criticism I've read this year. (How many levels of meta can I sink?) Even as I fall into my own version of self-absorbed criticism, compiling my own list which surely he will have an easy enough time picking apart should he still care (probably not) by the time I actually post it, I can't help but revel in the astute comment he has for the lists that range from "frustrating (10)" to just short of "useless (5)."

I took particular joy in his critique of the NY Times writes (grouped together at #6), especially this comment about A.O. Scott: "Scott is Scott, actually writing things like 'The Squid and the Whale hit me where I live, and not only because it was filmed a few blocks from where I really do live" (a little bourgeoisie hand lotion never hurt an intellectual masturbator, I guess)." And then while praising Manhola Dargis in the same post by comparing her genuine pursuit of cricitism as movie-love rather than pursuit of intellectual superiority, he writes, "As usual Dargis tends to reward her readers for their time, but is rewarded herself by getting sandwiched between two writers [Scott and Stephen Holden] whose inconsistencies--at their worst--lapse into insufferable autoerotic impulse."

Go to it Stu. Can't wait for tomorrow. I'm just sorry I wasn't finished in enough time to be lovingly ripped to shreds.

ADDENDUM TO THE BELOW KING KONG BOX OFFICE POST

Just to continue my attempt to throw a wrench into the inane box office crisis so many have created around King Kong (see below post) ... I just received the email Daily Variety sends out with final box office figures for the three day, Friday-Sunday 12/22-25 weekend. Apparently, the earlier numbers underestimated the grosses of both Narnia and Kong. So here are the apparently official numbers (via Variety):

In 13 days of release, King Kong has grossed $120,597,410, including $33,274,680 this past weekend on 3,576 screens for a per screen average of $9,305.

In 18 days of release, Narnia has grossed $165,135,135, including $31,692,295 this past weekend on 3,853 screens for a per screen average of $8,225.

Again, I'm not trying to knock Narnia at all. It's showing stronger legs and should easily pass the $250 million mark, especially considering its virtually unheard of 0% change in weekend box office compared to Kong's perfectly normal 34% drop. I will argue, however, once again, that there is nothing wrong with Kong's box office other than it not fulfilling the extraordinary (and potentially unreasonable) expectations everyone seemed to have for it in the first place.

THE WEEKEND IN REVIEW (OR AT LEAST IN REPORTAGE): A VERY GOOD CHRISTMAS JEW

My oldest and best friend returned home to San Francisco on Christmas Day after a week's vacation in Hawaii. While neither of us are particularly religious, we both love movies and Chinese food, therefore making the longtime Jewish tradition of how to spend one's Christmas the most important tradition of all? Canvas sneakers with a suit on Yom Kippur so as to avoid wearing anything from an animal? I'm a reform Jew -- I should barely even know about that. But movies and Chinese food -- that's a tradition I can whole-heartedly endorse. (And I'm sure I will be struck down any moment now for even saying as much. Moving on.) I was quite disappointed with my friend. He had watched a movie on the plane, but somehow, even in a city with as many wonderful choices as San Francisco, he didn't eat so much as a potsticker.

I however managed to have a Super Jewish Christmas. It involved a weekend long movie-watching marathon (in the theater and at home on DVD) totalling 14 films (I think ... I don't have the patience to actually count). But how was it "Super Jewish" you ask? Well, let's see: not only did I watch several movies (in the theater and at home on DVD), and not only did I eat my egg roll and Chicken and Shrimp in Garlic Sauce (hey, I didn't say it would be kosher Chinese food! Although the pork fried rice -- in my world -- cancelled out the shellfish, making everything copacetic), but I also managed to earn personal bonus points. Bonus point #1: One of the movies I saw was Munich. Now come on -- regardless of whether it's good or bad, it sure as hell was the choice of Jewish people large and small this Christmas, at least as evidenced by my audience. Not just the choice -- it was probably the responsibility of all Jews to rush to Spielberg's opus, to see it and therefore be able to justly praise or demonize as they saw fit. And bonus point #2: I saw Munich at the City Cinemas Village East, the older of the two East Village/Lower East Side former Yiddish theaters now reinvented as movie houses. (The Landmark Sunshine obviously being the other one. The Sunshine is certainly more high-tech and modern and a "better" place to see movies, but the Village East has its own peculiar charm, especially the main and largest theater in which (at least it seems) that 75% of the seats have you looking down at the screen.)

THE MYTH OF KING KONG's POOR BOX OFFICE; SOON TO AFFLICT MUNICH AS WELL?

I'm so bored with the constant box office attention being paid to the most notable "blockbusters" this holiday season, especially King Kong. The most recent culprit (recent, at least, in terms of my readership) is Fishbowl LA which manages to both continue the trend of criticizing Kong's box office and Universal's comments on its prospects while also make the incredibly astute comment that the media coverage of the film's commercial success or lack thereof is possibly more entertaining than the film itself.

Nobody's "coverage" has been more annoying, however, than the just plain stupid comments of Jeffrey Wells in the "Wired" section of his site. Jeffrey: We know you hated the first 70 minutes and loved the rest. We also are aware that you apparently sit at your computer hitting refresh for the box office prognostications at Movie City News and Box Office Mojo. But you know what? The nearly three-hour Munich's $5.7 Million take on 532 screens for a $7,706 per screen average during the most crowded Christmas box office weekend in recent memory with five films entering the fray on Sunday in no way signals trouble at the box office as you seem to think. I happened to catch Munich this weekend. It was the third screening I tried to get into because the first two (at different theaters) were sold out, as was mine. I'm not saying it will be a huge hit, nor am I making any comment (at least not right now) on whether or not it's a good movie (I have major issues with it, and they're not political ones), but your own little problems with the movie does not mean that's it's just barely holding on. I know that two downtown Manhattan theaters on Christmas Day aren't representative of the rest of the country, but come on. If you use that average and boost it to a wide release of 2500 screens, you're still talking a potentially $25 Million take during a crazy crowded weekend with two other blockbuster films grossing over $30 Million each in the mix. That's basically unheard of.

Everybody is trying to make sense of the box office this winter and the fact is, we can't. There is too much competition at the box office. There is nothing normal about the past weekend, and the real determination about what did well versus what didn't won't be able to be made for another two to three weeks as people play catch-up and see the things they really wanted to see Christmas weekend, just not as much as the other movie they really wanted to see. And then, once the Oscar nominations are announced and the Golden Globes are handed out and some films get boosts while others don't.

Fishbowl LA said that King Kong is "still not quite a hit." That's absurd. Any other film that had grossed $118 million in 13 days would be celebrated for its quick race above that $100 million mark. The problem here is simply one of expectation. Narnia has done much better than most people expected; Kong has not – commercially – lived up to its hype. But has it done poorly? Everyone is making fun of Universal's comments, but they are all fair excuses to be made. Kong may not have opened to Spider Man like numbers, but there's nothing wrong with a $50 million weekend. It got hurt by the popularity of Narnia for sure, and chances are that, especially in those red states, if parents were choosing whether to allow their kids to go to Narnia or Kong, the ape was losing out. Additionally, Universal's choice of release date seemed pretty poorly thought-out to me. Kong came out on a Wednesday of a non-holiday weekend. Schools weren't out yet, and for that matter, many colleges were in the middle of finals. The natural audience that would turn-out for a Wednesday release simply wasn't available yet. That's why the grosses plummeted on Thursday only to kick back-up on Friday of it's opening weekend.

The three hour explanation also isn't simply an excuse. A three hour movie has a harder time grossing high because theaters will have at least one fewer screening per day. Narnia in comparison, I believe, has benefited in this way too as Disney's film runs just a bit over two hours. One extra screening per day for seven days in 3000 theaters? That's 21,000 extra screenings per week. Let's assume every theater only held 100 seats (and that's probably the least amount any one theater actually holds); that's $2.1 million extra possible seats to sell. The average ticket price in the US right now? I think it's somewhere around $6.50. That comes to potentially $13,650,000 more that Narnia could conceivably gross each week if both films sold out every single screening.

Obviously, that's a non-scientific (and very conservative) estimate, but my point is still valid. Narnia has grossed about $50 million more than Kong and has been in release for just five more days, but why even the mainstream Hollywood trade publications can't acknowledge that this whole argument is simply one film exceeding expectations while another is doing perfectly fine while not necessarily living up to its own Titanic-like hopes is beyond me.

Lay off already. The fact is, Kong is still likely to gross over $200 million, maybe even $250 if it holds on through this onslaught of other new releases, and there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. And as for the praise/backlash see-saw that is Munich -- geez, let it open wide already before anyone makes utterly ignorant comments on how "this doesn't portend an ecstatic reception when it plays Boobville."

WHY PEOPLE HATE KIM'S

I know it's cliche to talk about how annoying it is to rent or buy videos at Kim's on St. Marks. Is it better/worse/as bad as it used to be at the old Avenue A location? I don't know. I hadn't been to the now closed shop in probably seven years, and until recently, I didn't really shop at Mondo's either. But when I was doing the Albert Maysles interview, I wanted to watch a bunch of his films. I didn't have time to wait for Netflix, and none of the shops near my new Brooklyn home had anything of their's. I'm including the big three of Salesman, Grey Gardens and Gimme Shelter. Two Blockbusters? Nope. Some indie store on Fulton? Hell, they hadn't even heard of the Maysles or these films.

OK, so there was one place -- after walking through the Ratner wasteland and trekking over to the Blockbuster on Flatbush, I found a store called Video Edge that had Gimme Shelter. They had Grey Gardens too, but it was checked out. (If you happen to go to Video Edge, bring a utility bill. They don't accept credit cards. In order for me to sign-up for membership, since my name isn't on any utilities in my new home, they accepted -- believe it or not -- the forwarding sticker on a recent Premiere magazine I had in my bag showing my new address.)

And that led me to Kim's because I knew Kim's would have not just these three movies, but others as well. They likely would have Primary (directed by Robert Drew, but Albert Maysles was one of the camermen). And they would likely have all the Christo films. And they did. (Of course, Kim's also only allows you three rentals at a time, and since I needed more -- and their Grey Gardens was checked-out as well -- I found myself at , I found myself at Two Boots Video as well. They also had everything I needed.)

Anyway, this brings me to this weekend. My weekend in review will arrive shortly in another post, but suffice it to say, I didn't get to 10 in the theater, the Christmas rain got me frustrated and wet, and on my way home, I found myself at Kim's. One of the movies I missed earlier this year and was dying to see was Park Chan-wook's Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. I absolutely loved both Oldboy and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, but I never caught the first film in his thematic revenge trilogy.

So last night I was watching the disc when suddenly I see a weird jump happen. It was instantaneous and I thought nothing of it, except for the fact that it felt like something was missing. One of the main characters (Ryu) had just gone to try to buy a kidney on the black market for his sister. He would need to pay 10 Million Won (apparently around $8500, according to Filmbrain) and give-up one of his own kidneys. They're about to make the deal, and suddenly Ryu is sitting across from a doctor telling him that he's very lucky because an ideal donor organ was just discovered for his sister, but the surgery would cost 10 Million Won. So wait ... what happened? The bad guys somehow got the real doctor the organ? That makes no sense.

I knew Filmbrain had a review somewhere and in reading his synopsis, I discovered that I was missing the crucial scene where the black market people take out Ryu's kidney and then disappear, leaving him to wake-up cold and naked and out 10 Million Won ... and a kidney. I went back in the DVD and discovered that my player had jumped a full two minutes. I then slow reversed and played and was able to see Ryu wake-up, but the entire surgery sequence was gone. There was a full minute of the film that I simply couldn't access.

This happened two more times, and oddly enough, at two crucial points in the movie. The first was a missing 10 seconds -- for those who have seen the film, it was the 10 seconds during which the kidnapping takes the ultimate turn for the worse. Then, near the very end, another full minute gone -- the minute during which Park has taken Ryu out to the same lake and exacts his revenge. Looking at the bottom of the disc, I could see three small gashes. Were they the reason for the missing bits? I don't know, but it certainly seemed possible.

So ... Kim's. I bring the discs I had rented back today, and I tell the guy behind the counter that this disc has a problem. I had written down the specific time points where the disc became unwatchable before playing normally again. I didn't even ask for a credit or mention that three crucial moments in the film were lost to me.

Don't get me wrong – the guy behind the counter wasn't a complete asshole. He tried to be nice, and he said right away, "Oh, I can give you a credit for this" – as I mentioned, without me asking. But that phrase came with a "but." It came with telling me that this was a brand new pristine disc (new, maybe; pristine?). I mentioned the gashes on the bottom; he looked at it and tried to rub them away (which didn't work because they weren't smudges), and yet he continued to argue with me that maybe it was my player or something else. I said, "Look, I'm not trying to argue with you. There's something wrong with the disc and I just wanted to let you know so that you can check it and consider not renting it to others."

The conversation basically ended with him saying, "Well, I'll give you a credit," and then pulling off the little post-it with the times of the incidents written on it, crumpling it up and tossing it.

I have an entirely different story regarding the actual rental the other night, with the woman behind the counter who gave me the blankest, deadest stare that I thought I had somehow rented and already started watching Land of the Dead. Or the guy who was either an off-duty or wannabee employee who was talking about how the only critics he could stand were J Hoberman and AO Scott, and he didn't even pay them that much mind. (Obviously, because reading Scott simply makes my eyes bleed. I'm guessing this guy only reads people who don't use their entire first names, preferring to use initials.) Then there was the counter-person who decided to heartily endorse Michael Haneke's Cache, although it was two minutes later he admitted that he hadn't seen it. (I criticize his stupidity in praising something he hadn't seen; the fact is, Cache is brilliant, but watch the movie for yourself first jackass.)

So, if you're considering renting Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance from Kim's on St. Marks … check the disc. If you see three little dashlike gashes on the bottom, you might want to ask for a new copy. Of course, you then must beware those behind the counter.

THE GOTHAMIST INTERVIEW: DEC. DAY 4 - ALBERT MAYSLES (THIS POST IS A WEEK LATE)

So no ... I did not write the Gothamist interview with the Cuddle Party founders. That was my friend Rachel. But last week I did post an interview with the great documentary filmmaker Albert Maysles. I'm sure 99% of you reading this blog know who Maysles is, but in case you don't, he and his late brother David were responsible for helping to revolutionize documentary filmmaking in the late-'50s and early-'60s with the development of "Direct Cinema," and they made three of the most fascinating docs of all time in Salesman, Gimme Shelter and Grey Gardens. Plus he's had a relationship with Christo and Jeanne-Claude for over 30 years that has involved his documenting most of their public arts projects (including a film about The Gates currently in post-production). The interview was set-up in part because of the "Maysles Films: Five Decades" series which gets restarted tomorrow at MoMA.

I looked forward to my conversastion with Maysles; he's probably one of the most important filmmakers I've ever spoken with in any capacity since I first interviewed anybody while at UCLA in 1991. He was very nice, although sometimes I found it difficult to get him to elaborate and converse while others he would tell long interesting stories that didn't necessarily get to my question. While transcribing the interview, I couldn't be sure if I was the smallest bit unhappy because I had not conducted a good interview or he and I just didn't connect in a way that allowed it to become as converstional (and therefore, as interesting) as I always try to make all my interviews. Ultimately, I think it edited together pretty well, but it took some work.

Meanwhile, I had no idea that my questioning him about a certain mini-controversy would actually lead to my being contacted by some of the people involved. In 2004, a filmmaker named Michael Wilson made a documentary called Michael Moore Hates America. Maysles is interviewed in the documentary -- which I have heard of but never seen, but is apparently an attempt to denounce the kind of constructed hyperbolic arguments of recent (especially political) documentary films more than being a specific attack on Michael Moore. Wilson sent me an email in which he states, "I'm very disappointed in Albert. I really made him this icon of virtue in my film."

Wilson became upset because when talking to me, Maysles indicated that the Michael Moore Hates America filmmakers had been somehow underhanded, tricking him into participating in an attack film on Moore and never getting him to sign a proper release. The specific exchange that I'm sure caught Wilson and a credited Executive Producer Brian Cartmell (who actually wrote me first) off-guard was this:

ME: You appeared in the documentary Michael Moore Hates America, but there's been some controversy both about what you said and your very presence in the film.
MAYSLES: What you don't know about that is that when they finished filming me I heard one of them say, "Michael Moore hates America," and I said, "Wait a minute. What's that all about?" I told them, "No, I'm not signing a release," and I didn't. But I consulted my lawyer, and there wasn't anything I could do about it. In a sense they had stolen some of that footage. They had misrepresented themselves, and I never would have participated in that kind of a film.

ME: So you didn't know it was an anti-Michael Moore film?
MAYSLES: I didn't know that at all.

Now I don't know (since, as I mentioned, I haven't seen the film) that me characterizing Michael Moore Hates America as an "anti-Michael Moore film" is even totally fair, but I certainly inferred that was what Maysles meant by "that kind of a film." So the day the interview goes up, I receive an email from Cartmell that includes a link (I think this plays in Quicktime) to a small piece of video which shows a slightly different situation than the one Maysles described to me.

After the email from Cartmell, I got the previously mentioned email from Wilson who was equally, if not even more, upset at the way Maysles characterized his film and essentially him and his crew. If you're curious, I've reprinted the email after the jump.

I'm not specifically taking either side. The video certainly shows a slightly different situation than what Maysles described, but the possibility of a grand misunderstanding is also more than likely. And as I haven't actually seen Michael Moore Hates America, so I can't speak to Wilson's intentions or what the film seems to really mean to say, especially whether or not it comes off as a Michael Moore-attack piece. (It is interesting to read some of the comments on IMDb which indicate that Wilson's film is no different than the films he criticizes.)

So who knows? I did want to mention the Michael Moore Hates America filmmakers' rebuttal though, and again, if you would like to see the specifics of what Wilson wrote to me, just click below to continue reading. And if you're interested in seeing Michael Moore Hates America, you can order the DVD from the film's own website or rent it from Netflix.

WHEN YOU NEED TO BUY SOME TAIL

Ooh, I can't believe I almost forgot about this. I saw this post on Curbed a few minutes ago and it reminded me of a photo I took of the same building last night.

After last night's Producers screening, my friend and I made a spontaneous stop at the legendary 2nd Avenue Deli because she had never been, and as I hadn't eaten at quite possibly the best Kosher Jewish deli anywhere in over six years, I thought why not nosh on some pastrami and pierogi. Afterward, we were driving back to Brooklyn (transit strike + friend with car + 20 degree temperatures = driving back to the BK), and we're headed down Essex toward the Williamsburg Bridge, stopped in traffic at a light. She taps me and says, "Hey look," and there it is. The edge of the building so perfectly creating a shadow covering the "ES" and the RE" on the far left side of the sound. I snapped the photo below with my crappy cameraphone -- it is really grainy and hasn't been altered whatsoever.

Curbed's post seemed to wonder what was going to happen to the building, but if it's true and "The Shadow knows," it seems like this place already has a new business -- at least after midnight -- although it seems to be on the wrong street.

click on photo for larger version