This is Shooting Wall

Shooting Wall is a revolutionary cinematic organization. Its

aim is to embolden the filmmakers and film theorists who
assert what we refer to as “film truth.” Indeed, there
exists a criterion for the cinematic. For us, it lies not in
the advocating of film movements that revolve themselves
around the complicated ideas of counter-cinema; it lies in
our definition of cinematic, which we tell in 3 simple
points:
Film is a visual medium.
Film is an auteur-based art.
Film is not reality.

Organization:
Shooting Wall will be comprised of various chapters, with
its own magazine being the central organ. Those who will be
starting the chapters are any grouping of people who agree
with our 3 points of cinema. They will be the council to
head all stances and theories, developed through the
magazine and meetings; spreading film truth must be done in
the most organized and effective method possible. With
cinema the way it is today, we need to go beyond the petty,
bourgeois and individualist style that has been evolving on
the internet. We need to concentrate moreover on collective,
committed and experimental forms of action.

Ideology and Film Movements:

Shooting Wall believes unity will shape our stances,
theories, and the way in which we will persistently make
known what is cinematic. We have no use involving ourselves
with the type of counter-cinema that has prevented past film
movements from taking power due to their strict ideology;
after all, it is exactly why film theory and criticism have
lost their way. We will not be hindered by ideas that have
already been proven as failures. We will leave behind
academia since there is no use having it mixed with film
theory. Our idea, simply, is to strengthen the foundations
of pure cinema. There are weapons specific only to cinema
which we take hold of through analyzing the greats and by
having an unbiased opposition to Hollywood cliches. We arm
ourselves with these weapons in a desire to save cinema and
if there is to be a war, it is between those of us who use
the weapons and those who do not.

Cinematic Revolution:
Shooting Wall knows times are dire; the cinematic has been
derided and the hunt for an honest piece of work is weakened
by one-hundred herds of films lacking any integrity. It is
gradually losing its importance as art. There needs to be
something to assure a cinematic future that's worth a damn.
To anyone in support of this manifesto, to all who can agree
upon the meaning of film truth, those who care about the
sweetness of cinema, join us. We will have a foundation;
through the magazine, by the power of social networks, and
in our protests of non-cinema, we must push our cause and
express the truth. Filmmakers, theorists and critics,
Shooting Wall is insisting you need to start taking film
more seriously. We are proposing that you join us and make
cinema a way of life. Our war cry:

NO FILM BUT CINEMATIC

FILM!
Shooting Manifesto

Wall Interview with Joe

Issue 1
EDITOR Film Etiquette
Jonathan Seidman by Elodie Selavy

CONTRIBUTING Toward a Cinema of IDEAS

EDITORS by Joshua Martin
Karl Starkweather
Joshua Martin The Perfect Kiss
Carrie Love by Alex McCarron

Functionalist Realism
ARTWORK
by Karl Starkweather
Sarah Beahm
Kelly Braun
The Art of Kicking the Tripod
Alex McCarron
by Katy Gronsbell
Karl Starkweather
Jonathan Seidman
Bert and Smith review Synecdoche,
New York
BLOG EDITOR by Jonathan Seidman
Joshua Martin
Jonathan Seidman Enemies of Cinema

Shooting Wall is
responsible for all
content and retains Shootingwall.blogspot.com
the rights to logo,
design, and cinema.
 Interview with Joe
In December 2008, there was a screening of
Has
Benjamin Button at a Philadelphia movie theater
which was disturbed by a father and his loud
anyone
family. Our interview is with Joe, a fellow ever
filmgoer who pulled out a handgun from his
jacket and shot the father who failed to keep his talked
family quiet. Joe tried warning them by throwing
popcorn pieces at the son's head, but they didn't during
want to listen. Now, many wonder if they deserve
our pity? I sat down with Joe and recorded our the
time together.
movie
What are your favorite kinds of films?
I prefer the work of the Italian Neo-Realists. And
and you
also, Punisher: War Zone. begin
You are a hero, many are saying. feeling
Who?
your
Many filmgoers, constant filmgoers, they say
this is what we need; we need people to take heart
violence onto the people who talk during the
film.
beat
What is this line of questioning about movies?
You contacted me to talk about my service in
quickly
Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are you instead with
talking about the incident at the movie theater? I
really thought this was going to be about the war. anger?
.
 Yes, the cinema war.
I took charge during a
dire instance when the
movie's audience needed
me the most. Let's get
down to brass tacks. I did
what I did because I
wanted to enjoy the
movie. People don't care
about movies anymore. A
man brings his explosive
child to the theater and
sits him down to watch
the movie without restraining him. What an impediment on my
movie-going experience. Where do they think they are? The
response in my head was, "This is not your living room." I wanted to
say that through violence. People think that they go to the theater to
talk. It's not a party. Someone has to pay. Next question.

Oftentimes, you see that excuse with many forms of gun

violence. Do you believe your sudden action with the bullets--
My sudden action? Excuse me.
Your sudden action with the bullets, sir. Do you believe it was
the most reasonable way to have this noisy family dealt with?
Would it have been a better decision to simply remain throwing
popcorn pieces at the young child's head, rather than pull out
the gun?
Sir, have you ever been in a theater? Has anyone ever talked
during the movie and you begin feeling your heart beat quickly with
anger?
Yes, of course. I like to make a connection with the film; when the people
around me are talking, it prevents that from happening. With the amount of
money we spend on a single day at the theater, I believe silence amongst the
audience is to be mandatory.
It has nothing to do with the money. I go see a movie so I can escape the humdrum of
society and all that crap. But sometimes, society follows behind me into the theater
and even while the movie's playing I still have to hear their crap. I shot my gun off in
self-defense. The police took me into custody and I immediately plead guilty because
I had a reason for what I did. A bullet takes .01 seconds. A film is, on average, 2
hours.

There's no arguing with the math. Besides, wouldn't you agree that shooting a
gun is far less obnoxious than shushing?
Shushing only leads to more violence.

Sir, I have to ask: Are you a member of the Cinema Defense committee?
Is that a war? Can I fight in it?

Yes.
Shooting Wall, I thank you for thinking of me as a martyr. Let's keep doing what
needs to be done. Sign me up on this committee then, maybe I can teach you boys
and gals something about defending your national born right to enjoy movies.

If the situation arose, would you do it again?

When it comes down to it, what I did had a purpose. I will now serve my time in
prison and when I'm released, you will find me at any theater where a cell phone
goes off or where a child opens its mouth and talks a bunch of crap to its father while
the movie is playing.

You will do this again in the future.

I'm not saying that. But I will say that if there is ever a disruption of movies
somewhere, I, Joe, will be among you, and I would say to lock your windows, shut
your doors, stay inside and stay out of the cinemas. I love this country.

Thank you, sir. We will be sending you a care package for prison if you do not
win trial. We will devise a plan to break you out of your prison cell. No matter
the prison, we will get you out from behind those bars.
 La Femme Auteur
by Elodie Selavy
The budget of James Camron’s Avatar could have been used to finance
at film by each of these women directors:
Chantal Akerman • Asia Argento • Gillian Armstrong • Dorothy Arzner
• Susanne Bier •Kathryn Bigelow • Alice Guy-Blaché • Catherine
Breillat • Jane Campion • Zoe Cassavetes • Sofia Coppola • Julie Delpy •
Claire Denis • Maya Deren • Vivienne Dick • Germaine Dulac •
Marguerite Duras • Valie Export • Luise Fleck • Su Friedrich • Amy
Greenfield • Barbara Hammer • Mia Hansen-Løve • Mary Harron •
Sarah Jacobson • Miranda July• Sondra Locke • Lucrecia Martel •
Anne-Marie Miéville • Kira Muratova • Shirin Neshat • Sarah Polley •
Yvonne Rainer • Lone Scherfig • Adrienne Shelly • Liv Ullmann • Agnès
Varda • Lina Wertmüller
 People who talk in theaters are scum. People who use their cell phones during the film
are fice, dregs, riffraf of a society that has encouraged and cultivated this unacceptable
behavior. Additionally-children, though really quite helpless to their predicament, should
not be allowed into theaters until they can understand the importance of looking with
their eyes and not their mouths. It seems to be a basic function that even many adults
have not quite mastered. Therefore, it has become of the utmost importance to correct
these abnormalities with behaviorist treatment. Punishment and extinction have the
effect of weakening behavior, or decreasing the future probability of a behavior's
occurrence, by the application of an aversive stimulus, removal of a desirable stimulus,
or the absence of a rewarding stimulus, which causes the behavior to stop. The best
way to deal with these “people” is not to simply avoid them. It is our duty to bescumber
these people with both punishment and reinforcement. What follows is a list of tactics
and stratagem to employ when you find yourself in the company of cretins.

1. *As a precaution to those people who insist on sitting directly next to or in front of
you, you can bring a bottle of water and wet the seats around you.*
2. Try lightly blowing on the back of their head. They will turn around in anger. At this
point, it is your decision to either pretend as though you didn’t do it, or to stare them
back directly in the eyes. They will get the point. Repeat if necessary.
3. If the distractions continue, pull on the bottom of their ears or any other part of their
body (hair, neck, etc) that is available. This requires both finesse and valiance but can
be well worth the effort.
4. If you are less inclined to physical manipulation, try handing the person a pre-printed
card that says something to the effect of “My brother Jimmy is waiting outside. If you
continue to talk I will have to ask him to begin honing his machete.” You can make this
statement as personal as you like.
5. You may believe that dealing with children in the theater is a more complicated
matter. This is not true. Children respond best to negative reinforcement. Simply tell
the child you are going to kill them if they talk, or if you feel especially intense, you
can state that you are going to kill them and their whole family. Remember, it
becomes your duty to be proactive when the parent fails.
6. Babies are, in fact, more complex. For men: If it is within your range, feed the baby a
piece of hard candy. When the baby begins to choke, the parents will be forced to
retreat. For women: attach a breast pump and begin to siphon the milk to the child.
This tactic is only for the very brave of heart, but if necessary you can claim that the
crying brought out your post-partum depression.
7. Laser pointers, though somewhat unfashionable at this point, are still a good tool for
dealing with talkers. Pointing the laser directly into the offender’s cornea, especially
with the intent to do permanent damage, can be useful for those people who just can’t
learn. In fact, they will have very little reason to ever attend the cinema again if they
cannot see.
8. Consider pouring a drink onto the person next to you. They will almost certainly have
to get up and leave, possibly for the entire film, but at least for a few minutes to the
bathroom.
9. Another use for popcorn and candy: chew a whole ball of popcorn and then spit it out
onto your hand. From here you can proceed to throw or smear this substance onto
them. Sticky candy also works well in hair.
10. Of course, water boarding is a last ditch effort but has also been highly successful.
From its inception, cinema has had
an onerous preference for Toward
narrative, logic and conformity.
Despite all of the advances cinema a
Cinema
has made in 115 years, narrative has
constantly remained the dominant
force; from mainstream cinema to of
independent and art house films,
the majority of films rely largely on IDEAS
narrative and on linear structure. I
By
propose that there is an alternative
to constructing films based around Joshua
a plot and a storyline. There is
instead a cinema that is based only Martin
in ideas; the complete and total
dominance of the idea over all else;
a cinema which abandons logic
and linearity and is only true to the
ideas. I offer the below rules as a
guide for filmmakers abandon all
narrative logic and become a slave
only to their ideas!
 CINEMA OF IDEAS
1. When finishing a script or editing a film, a filmmaker should cut out
any scene for which the only purpose is to move the plot along. Any
scene that has no thematic relevance to the film should be immediately
cut; if these cuts create plot holes which remain unresolved, all the
better.
2. Every filmmaker should question in each film the integrity of linearity.
Is it necessary for art to be linear? If scene A takes place at 1:00pm does
it necessarily have to proceed scene B which takes place at 1:30pm?
Which is more relevant to the film’s ideas? If A does not need to come
before B, why should it? Always be true to ideas and themes, not to
linearity.
3. Abandon all logic. Work instinctually, yet thoughtfully. Shoot! Shoot!
Shoot! and Edit! Edit! Edit! There is no right way to make, edit or
construct a film. The only right way is the right way for the film and
the ideas the filmmaker wishes to express. Always be aware of your
ideas. Never abandon your ideas. Cinema (art) is IDEAS!
4. A film should end when the only thing left is narrative resolution. If all
ideas have been explored fully and all that remains in the film is to
resolve action or plot points or to tie the narrative together, then a film
should end. An ending is when the film is over. An ending does not
need to be resolution, explanation, catharsis, etc. If this leaves the plot
of the film illogical, all the better, as it will force the viewer to consider
the ideas and not the plot of the film.
5. Once the above methods become conventional, standard or clichéd,
then they should be abandoned, torn apart and reacted against in order
to create something entirely new! Film (art) should always be
progressing, never standing still or resting on its laurels. There are
always new ways of expressing, filming and constructing cinema.
Cinema is alive: moving and growing!
The central thesis of this article is that there is such a thing in existence as
an accidental auteur, that there is such a thing as a person who is more
brilliant than they are able or willing to explain, that there is a strength in a
film beyond how it was theorized. The film I wish to look at is Jonathan
Demme’s music video for New Order’s “The Perfect Kiss”. The video was
made after “Stop Making Sense” and “Swimming To Cambodia”, films in
which Demme applied what he describes as a very simple directorial
approach: to simply allow the camera to linger on his subjects to replicate
the experience of being physically in a concert space, unable as you are
to cut with your eyes.
In “Stop Making Sense” this approach is aided by the visual
appeal of what’s going on on stage; the Talking Head’s concert

THE PERFECT
KISS
By Alex McCarron
that David Byrne and Demme augmented for film is incredibly dynamic
with many visual elements coming on and off the stage that might offer a
director a kind of security in the visual appeal of the shots he is lingering
on. He applies this technique again in “The Perfect Kiss” but this time
without any of that security. The video is nothing but shots of instruments
and band member’s faces. There is one conceived visual idea at the end
and one of the montage, but overall the appeal of this video is nothing but
a series of long takes of instruments and the faces of the most
uncharismatic, awkward, bored and annoyed looking band ever put on
film. And yet it is one of the most romantic, beautiful music videos I’ve
ever seen.
I’m not a huge New Order fan or even a fan of the album version
of that song (Demme had the band record a live version of
the song for the video) but after I first saw the video the song
haunted me for days afterwards. I would hear the song in my head
and I wouldn’t just be elated, I’d be inspired. I’d dream of that video
while walking down the street. I felt like I wanted something and I
would be close to it if I went home and watched it again.
How did that happen? It’s not the band, it’s not the
photography, it’s not an idea, it’s not a story, it’s not direction - it’s
nothing. It’s the confidence to point a camera as directly at a subject
as possible and know at the end of the day you’re going to have a
good film. That the presence of the auteur alone is enough.
Was the film constructed? It was. Obviously there is a conceit
in how image and sound relate to one another and how the shots of
instruments and band member’s faces are cut together. There is
also an appeal in lighting and framing as simply as those elements
are used. Is that the strength of the film? It isn’t.
It’s a totally Bressonian phenomenon and realized in a way
beyond what even Bresson had the balls to do. It’s filmed nothing
and it comes back from the lab as pure cinema. If you can’t feel this
film you can’t feel the richness of what is most essential in cinema,
something that is beyond construction.
I’ve searched and I haven’t found an interview where Demme
says anything about this video confirming what I’m projecting onto
him beside the approach described in the opening paragraph. I
don’t know if he would agree with my assessment of his film. I don’t
know if he had the balls of Bresson to say that was what he was
doing. Or the vision to see that happening. I can’t actually argue this
point. If this is anything it’s an appeal to independent viewership
and ultimately a recommendation of a great film that has nothing
that can be recommended about it on paper. It likewise has no proof
of its greatness. But I think it’s worth your consideration as a unique
and neglected mode of cinematography.
 Functionalist Realism

By Karl Starkweather
 SEND GREENGRASS A TRIPOD!
Functionalist- Functionalist Realism, a strain of Realism very in vogue at
Realism, the the present, encompasses methodologies of the techno-
children of social. Examples of it include handheld, auto-focus, digital,
Social POV and the elements specific to the documentary (direct
Realism and address, interviews, following-the-action). In other words,
Techno- byproducts of social reality (consumer electronics, 9/11)
Realism, is informing film language, but Realism exists devoid of
the later and film language. Past-present techno-methodologies of
getting at the “real” (enlarged screens, color, 3D) differ
final stage of
from the Social Realisms (Impressionism, Socialist
Realism,
Realism, Neo-Realism, Cinéma Vérité). Thematic Realism
whereas other
of “realistic” dialogue and acting sometimes unconsciously
areas such as
borrows from these two. In contrast, Functionalist Realism
3D film might exists specifically due to techno-social epochs and as a later
be harder to stage of the Realist project.
literally
destroy REALISM IS NOT ART
because this is Art has an amaranthine conviction; its purpose is to
more impersonate reality. For thousands of years, enemies of
connected to film conspired to make the masses think otherwise. The
the cretin Plato just assumed art's purpose was to mimic
hegemonic reality in On Imitation. Then, in the middle ages, the
hub of church made a mistake bigger than the Children's Crusade:
Realism.

 Banning “realistic” art because they thought artists just wanted to recreate
reality, which is God's job. Then, you had photography and cinema come along,
so 2 + 2 became 5 when many-a-piece-of-shit posited that 2D celluloid captures
3D reality!

SOCIAL-REALISM
Not akin to the farcical Realism, the work of the Social Realists: Pudovkin,
Renoir, De Sica, etc. Why? Their films try to show what the director thinks is the
“real shit on the streets.” These early pioneers may have not known any better
and thought they were capturing reality. But, go watch The Battle of Algiers, then
watch a film by one of these filmmakers. One senses a grasp of the cinematic (its
techniques, its abilities) in the early Social Realists. Hatred of the film form,
extreme and unjustifiable, is only found in The Battle of Algiers.
TECHNO-REALISM
Rudolf Arnheim did discover cinematic reality when he asserted, “Art begins
where mechanical reproduction leaves off... Engineers are not
artists... His ideal is exactly to imitate real life.” To get at a profit, theater
owners and producers employ Techno-Realisms, concocted to counter
television, home video, video games, piracy, etc, instead of just making
better films or lowering ticket prices. Still, these petit-bourgeois attempts
will get hung by the very noose 'Big Cinema' creates. For example, if 3D
televisions take off, 3D film might not keep breeding its disease. Then,
let's say 3D TV fails, Real-D 3D could just go the way of Red-Green 3D
that was the 50's answer to TV, where Real-D 3D is modern cinema's
answer to piracy.
Functionalist-Realism, the children of Social Realism and Techno-
Realism, is the later and final stage of Realism, whereas other areas such
as 3D film might be harder to literally destroy because this is more
connected to the hegemonic hub of Realism. Meaning, the further
something gets away from the core ideas of Realism, the easier it is to
destroy; while it should be said, physical destruction of Realist films,
"stereoscopic" film, etc, is always an option.

METHODOLOGIES OF THE FUNCTIONALIST-REALISTS

Functionalist-Realism's insensible modes have become employed to
advance cinema. In actuality, they are strangling the last breath out of it!
New-Age Realists have certain methods: Fictional-documentary, found
footage/American Direct-Cinema (Cloverfield) or they make films with
elements of both (handheld and auto-focus, like Mumblecore films or the
Bourne series).
A brief commentary on these Functionalist-Realist forms:
•Fictional-documentary is a method that does a disservice to cinema by
employing the documentary aesthetic to further the “realism” of the story.
Good documentarians (Flaherty to Morris) know they can never
encompass "total reality" with their films.
• Found footage/American Direct-Cinema is an insult to cinema to
suggest that people would rather see a documentation of events, for the
sake of Realism. These filmmakers cite 9/11 (Abrams), but their methods
are found in films before 1999's The Blair Witch Project. So, they are just
using a tragedy to justify a lack of talent.
• Influence from Functionalist-Realism means some films will look like
documentaries or American Direct-Cinema, but still have a cinematic element,
which just leads to convolution. District 9 had this. Parts were documentary and
others couldn't have been, which brings people out of the "realism," which is an
outcome that is actually antithetical to the Realist project.

The methodological result (trying to mimic TV, documentary, home video)

of the Functional-Realist formula is lack of technique. The act of “following the
action” via handheld means the death of film, due to an abandonment of
composition, lighting, etc. Then, Theatrical Realism leads to highlighting of the
inherent anti-Realism of cinema. Do people ever talk or act like they do in films?
The emphasis on the techno-social is the core of Functionalist-Realism.
Sure, we live in a technological era where we can all become filmmakers with
even the cheapest cell phone (one should watch a well-done film made using a
mobile phone). What should be asserted is that a filmmaker who wants to better
their story, highlight their ideas/themes, etc, will always try as much as possible
to use the cinematic to further them.

NO REMORSE
Functional-Realists probably were the type of children comfortably situated
in after-school activities and forced weekend play dates. Most likely, they were
treated as equals or never told they were wrong when they probably were most of
the time. It should be deduced, then, that they were never beaten up for being
assholes. They should have been.

It's not too late to teach them a lesson.

Wanna Join the Revolution?

To Submit to Shooting Wall contact:
shootingwallzine@gmail.com
 The Art of Kicking the
Tripod…And Admitting It
By Katy Gronsbell
Superficial subject matter does not dictate a superficial
entity. The current Mumblecore debate does not fit the manner
of established and practiced film analysis. This method of
discussion mimics the emotional accusations of popular
critique, the arch nemesis of mature cinematic debate;
Mumblecore is the martyr of these recent and convoluted
attacks on modern cinema. The negative approach and general
dismissal of the DIY film movement is based in pettiness, not
framed within a foundation of film analysis. The argument is
against the matter of the manner, when it should be the
reverse. The subject matter of the Mumblecore / Indywood /
Slackavetes film is being questioned, rather than the whole of
the movement’s contribution to the cinematic landscape –
whether it be progressive or regressive.

The genre is the bastard child of the [insert European

power here] Realist aesthetic and the devoid, consumerist
American society. The critics of Mumblecore relentlessly argue
the trivial nature of ‘hip’ subject matter – elitism, materialism
fueled by anti-consumerist mentalities, sloppily liberal agendas
and entitlement issues – and hide behind this easy route to auto-
win. No current critic, blogger or casual online comment-poster
will support any argument with the vague scent of ‘hipster’
wafting from it. The inherent claim begs to be reframed and
readdressed, making the anti-Mumblecore argument a weak one.

Asking the wrong question [What value could

Mumblecore ever hold with its trendy and obsessive subject
matter?] leads to the wrong answer [Why, by golly, no worth
could ever be found in a movement with prescribed form and
content!].
There is not a claim of intent to capture “total reality” from the mouths
of these filmmakers. The stuttering group of white males who poured
out of 2005’s South by Southwest admits their allegiances, openly
stating enrollment in upper-echelon film programs and appropriate
financial backing from family and convenient bystanders.

The reflexive “realism” of their films is the punch line. The

makers and viewers have seen Umberto D. twenty times, nobody is
trying to pull celluloid over the eyes of cinephiles by using
Pennebaker’s nauseating patterns in the fiction realm. The filmmakers
employ antiquated documentary techniques in capturing wholly
staged imagery.

Sets on the streets are still sets, and unemployed Brooklynites

are still actors in the lens. Film or digital, screenplay or improv,
Mumblecore accepts its postmodern existence because it must, at least
to exist in the saturated media world where most films are available
via vending machines in the supermarket.

With the ironic use of outdated cameras and film stock, the
boys know exactly what they are doing – and in an effort in modern
machismo, assert their commitment to their hybrid indie-Biskind
ideals. Bujalski offers, “What’s interesting about documentaries can be
applied to fiction. You just have to figure out how to apply it”.

And here the Mumblers are, trying to ‘figure’ it out.

Topically, of course.
 Bert and Smith review Synecdoche, New York
by Jonathan Seidman

SMITH: Warnings! All of these eyesores before the film even

begins! Rated R in bright blue, then an audacious red warning
about copyright and once more in French. Somewhere, there was
another one saying how much money I'd be imprisoned for if I stole
this film I was trying to watch on DVD. It is outrageous what they're
doing with warnings these days!
BERT: Which film did you watch?
S: Synecdoche, New York, ever seen it?
B: Yeah, it was one of those confusing films where you can't even
figure out what the title means.
S: Synecdoche, you know, it's like when you call something
something instead of something else. For example, referring to a
camera by saying 'the lens.' It's all contiguous.
B: I don't get it.
S: It's metonymy.
B: Oh! I understand now.
S: Let's just discuss, you silly fool.
B: Loved Philip Seymour Hoffman.
S: Wasn't bad. He played a good Caden, but since the dialogue had
my eyes rolling into my head, I could only enjoy his acting between
parts of speaking.
B: Dialogue was just bad for a Kaufman film, though his direction for
the scene of Caden having his seizure? It was truly creepy.
S: Glad you mentioned it! I was so impressed, I went back to that
seizure scene later to watch it in slow-motion. Hoffman was great.
B: Yeah, but how about the direction during the scene of Caden
busting his head open on the exploded faucet? That was very eerie.
S: Yes, the green was nice. But, my concentration was mostly on
Hoffman's performance.
B: He never fails. When he's rolling around on the ground with
Jennifer Jason
Leigh, fighting with
her and he says,
"Where is she?"
Pure Hoffman
comedic stylings.

S: Every time I see

Leigh, I'm wowed.
Her look is timeless.
I would bed her no
matter what age she
turns out to be!
B: Samantha Morton
playing Hazel,
however, was the
best actress in the
film, and regardless
of a weak script, her
exchanges with
Caden were not
terrible.
S: You're right.
Morton has a face
that is so
concentrated with
emotion every scene she's in, but it was very hard for me to
concentrate on the acting of her concentrated face, with the
distraction that was her grapefruit-sized breasts!
B: Which reminds me, this film gets 5 points for including a scene of
a lady courting her leg to a man.
S: But, that's where the turn-ons stop. Didn't it bother you how
Caden was this age-old Hollywood prototype of a leading male, who
has to make love with every woman in the film, but Kaufman had no
decency to add some sexiness and style? Unless, of course,
compositions of Hoffman's giant head are ranking high in the sexy
polls these days.

B: I just hate that Hazel started wearing old lady clothes by the
middle.
S: On a lighter note, was that old lady at the end the actress who
played Mrs. Finkle in Ace Ventura? My God, doesn't that woman
ever age? Well, unlike Leigh, I don't desire bringing to bed this elder
woman!
B: You have to give Kaufman kudos for rounding up some of the
best actresses working today, at the very least.
S: He has a good eye for female faces, but I found it hard grasping
them to blend.
B: Of course! All the human connections were trite. It felt like some
sort of 1st grade connect-the-dot puzzle.
S: It felt very silly and was hard to watch. I reached the moment
when my viewpoint turned into Mystery Science Theatre 3000;
that's when a film has officially made me realize that I'm watching a
film. Not good! Not good by any standards!
B: There was no good flow in its style, too many things ajar, just
jokes and then death, on repeat. It was sleep-inducing. Remember
the part when Caden discovers his father died, he says it aloud to
whomever it is he's sitting with and they have an elongated talk
about the father being dead? Forget dead, somebody needs to
bring this film to life!
S: Yes, Kaufman's directing was a fairly good lesson in monotony.
That's why the flow isn't right.
B: That simply makes sense. If the direction is not right, the flow is
fucked.
S: I fancied comparing this directorial debut to some bad math,
because I kept seeing these mind-shattering equations. For
instance, horrible shot composition plus horrible acting. Really,
could there be anything more vile?
B: Yeah, the scenes where Catherine Keener does a voiceover.
Those are some of the most shrill moments in cinematic history. I
can't believe she coughed the whole film through; wonder where
that will lead to in the end, by the way?
S: My God, if you divide all these annoyances by how melodramatic
the whole film is, it would probably equal whatever was creating this
unsettled feeling I had in me while watching, one the director
doesn't intend; it's there because I'm left unsure what's supposed to
be intended. See, it was Kaufman's first time wearing a director's
hat, so he must've been thinking about that more than the script.
For the script, all I think he did was pick up a pen, go to the store,
and yell, 'Melodrama, yoohoo!' Well, I'm at the store, too, but guess
what, honey? I ain't buying it!
B: I just need someone to offer an explanation as to why jokes are
thrown into everything. It's hard to take the drama seriously.
S: Don't get me started. All attempts at humor left me feeling
shriveled. Never have I cringed more in my life.
B: The jokes are about on the 2nd grade level, or maybe 3rd grade
special ed.
S: It was nothing but hackney jokes. Hackney joke! Hackney joke!
Hack! Hack! This felt like a slasher film.
B: Please tell me you've been thinking about the character of
Caden's 7-year-old daughter, Olive, when you say this.
S: Yes, that character is very guilty of it. Her dialogue seemed like it
was going for charming, really though, it was just too actual and
cutesy.
B: Which is disgusting. I hate to hear such straight-from-reality
things in children's dialogue; all you get is the kid asking a bunch of
stupid questions.
S: Exactly. An overlooked problem in so many films is the degrading
character development of any small children roles. Does the writer
think that it's just a kid, no need to give them any real importance in
the film?
What grade are we in? It was such relief, though, that Keener's
voiceovers stopped. Thankfully, she died.
S: Her character, Adele, was humorous. She was a painter
whose paintings were so bad, she decided to just make them
extremely tiny so that no one could tell. It's like how this film
would work, the shorter it could've been, the less I could see
how bad it was.
B: Of course, since Adele coughed the whole film through, she
died of lung cancer. I'd say spoiler alert, but something already
old cannot be spoiled.
S: So many phony devices to set-up so many deaths. To make
this film feel like a truly emotional experience must've been a
desire in Kaufman that ran deep, so deep that it's the desire
itself that's felt from beginning to end and I never once felt
what that desire was intending. It's simply maddening!
B: You're right. His heart was not in this one.
SHOOTING WALL ©2010