Flow (Straume)

Director: Gints Zilbalodis

Writers: Matiss Kaza, Gints Zilbalodis

As a kid I loved animation. The kid who any other day of the week couldn't get out of bed before noon would be up at 8am on Saturday mornings for hours of non-stop cartoons. Animation allowed the creators to break the rules of the universe and create wonderous new worlds and situations that appealed to the young me still trying to make sense of a world that didn't.

As I got older and my tastes got more sophisticated I moved on from animation. Those Saturday morning cartoons now seemed simplistic, silly and crudely drawn. Not that there wasn't great animation out there. I just didn't seek it out unless it was truly something special like anything by Pixar or Hayao Miyazaki.

Flow (Straume) has as much in common with those Saturday morning cartoons as Spirited Away does with Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels. At the heart of it its a road movie. A cat loses its home due to a cataclysmic flood that seems to destroy the entire world. As it struggles to survive it comes across other stranded animals along it's journey. They learn. They adapt. They grow. 

The film has no spoken dialogue. The only "dialogue" comes from the sounds you expect animals to make. And that's more than enough to create a truly moving and emotional film. There are two paths the animator could have taken. One is to make animals act like people. The other is to use the behaviors animals engage in to humanize them. Translate those behaviors into emotions that resonate with us. Contrasting Flow with The Wild Robot, which was released this year and is also a very good on it's own merits, and uses the later approach, in my opinion Flow is the better film by using the former. I enjoyed The Wild Robot, but often while watching it I was reminded that I was watching a film that created an artificial world. Things happened on the screen because someone wrote them that way in a script to create a situation that would either amuse or amaze. 

While watching Flow I never got that feeling. It felt natural and real in the context of the world it created. Truly great animation makes you forget that you are watching animation. All films require a degree of suspension of disbelief, but great films make you forget that you are doing it. 

The Picking of Sides

When I was younger I had a much easier time telling right from wrong and good from bad, but as I aged those lines became blurrier and blurrier. I've been lucky to travel and live in different places for extended periods of time. I was born in Latvia and then my parents moved to Israel. When my parents divorced my mom and I moved to the United States where I've spend the lion share of my life and have been lucky to have friends of different ethnicities, races and backgrounds. I've spent months in India, Malaysia, and Hong Kong, among others, and got to know the people. In my experience, there really isn't much that separates us. We want the same things and have the same biases. We can be kind and noble, but none of us are without sin. And it has nothing to do with the color of our skin, our religions, nationalities, or tribal affiliations. No matter how much we'd like to think otherwise.

But, and there's always a but, there is something in our DNA that predisposes us to need an "other". The "other" not only defines "us" but is often handy to project our fears and biases on to. We might not want to admit it, but we all do it.

The below interview with Etgar Keret captures this much better than I ever could.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/27/books/etgar-keret-israel-interview.html?fbclid=IwAR0DFYmpyna5ohCiMe6QFwYXfiUize64cEF73Lh6tOG2UgbUWzS0FAYBJ8c

Is it me or is it the movies? Part IV

Between my teens and well into my forties I probably averaged 1-3 movie theater visits per week. It was mostly a way of self-medicating. Trading my reality for a couple of hours in one which wasn't my own. It didn't really matter what movie was playing. It could be triple bill in the Oriental of The Master of the Flying Guiliotine, The Toolbox Murders, and Cleopatra Jones, followed by a walk over to the Water Tower and Being There. Some of these theaters had their first showtime at 8am. It wasn't unusual for me to see almost everything which was released in any given month. And if I ever ran out there was always the Parkway or the Fine Arts. 

In the present it's been at least two years since I've been in a movie theater. COVID accounts for some of this, but is it also because not only the movies might have changed but also how and where we watch them? I have a 75 inch big screen HD TV with a Dolby sound bar, a couple of remotes and a subwoofer under my comfy couch. Multiple streaming services with the ability to pause, fast forward, rewind and super slow-mo. The fridge is within walking distance as is the bathroom. So why did I leave this alternate reality paradise? Bond, James Bond. 

If ever there was franchise which needs the big silver screen I can't think of one at the moment. And that's how I found myself at the Regal City North 14 IMAX & 4DX. I don't much care about the IMAX and 4DX and 14 is for the number screens. I was in screen number 9 and as an added bonus could occasionally listen to the sound track from screens 7 and 11. I don't usually have an issue with digital projection, but the ambient lighting might have been off so everything on the screen had a slight gray tinge to it. That's the price you pay for digital. The sound was good, but the same was true for screens 7 and 11. The film itself unfortunately wasn't the best send off for Daniel Craig. It had the traditional Bond elements, but it was as if the Brocollis decided to do a Merchant-Ivory version of an Ian Fleming novel. The acting was fine. Love Connery, but Craig is still the best Bond. The villains were villainous. The female characters attractive and the cars and scenery beautiful. Not sure if it was the writing or the direction, but it just didn't work. If nothing else On Her Majesty's Secret Service finally has some competition for the weakest Bond film. 

So if Bond can't save the movie theater is that the death bell tolling for the movie theater experience? 

P.S. Random observations from watching 30 minutes of trailers:

I have no desire whatsoever to watch anything in which Roland Emmerich is involved. 

Will Smith is a good actor but he is always Will Smith regardless of what he is in. 

I thought Jon Bernthal was a one note actor. He is not. 

Is Jessica Chastain following the Charlize Theron path? Fine if she is. Just asking. 

Speaking of Chastain's path. As long as Hollywood is willing to make movies like The 355, why spend all this energy arguing about whether or not the next James Bond should be a female? Leave James alone. He has suffered enough. Maybe just spinoff Miss Moneypenny. I'd pay to watch that. 

Love trailers, but 30 minutes is too much of a good thing.

The problem with GREED

"Greed is good!" Gordon Gekko, fictional character. "Greedy people, competing, make the world go round." Paul Krugman, nobel prize winning economist. “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” Jesus Christ, Savior, son of God. For the record, I am not an economist or an MBA, but I think I can grasp the basic principles of how modern economies are supposed to work. If you want to make money you provide either goods or services that people are willing to pay for. In order to provide those goods or services you need to pay other people to help you. If the demand for your goods or services rises you need to hire more people. These people use the money you pay them to buy goods and services, yours and others, which creates more demand and more jobs. As more and more people start doing this and more and more people are needed to create those goods or provide services you need to pay them more and more money to come work for you which gives them more money to spend and buy more goods or services and everyone lives happily ever after. If you decide to cheat or shortchange the goods or services, or slack off in any way, or stop improving, the people who pay you for those goods and services will stop paying you and pay someone else who does it better. This creates efficiency and self-regulates the economy. While there might be someone out there, I personally know of no one who shows up to work with the desire to make less tomorrow than they did yesterday. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who spends any time trying to figure out how to pay more for services and goods than they are worth. Bad business fail, good business succeed, everyone benefits and lives happily ever after. Greed, as Gordon Gekko and Paul Krugman say, is good. One small problem. We are all flawed beings. I think that's what the Savior guy might have been alluding to. I've always found it more than just a little ironic that, for example, usually the same people who want to unregulate GREED want to regulate LUST and those who want to unregulate LUST want to regulate GREED. Why one one and not the other? Wouldn't both wreak the same havoc with our decision making?

It's Their Fault!

The election is over. Depending on how you voted it’s either the dawn of a new era of unimagined prosperity or the beginning of the apocalypse. The people have spoken and if one thing is clear beyond any shadow of doubt, and cuts across all demographic groups, political affiliations, ideology or lack thereof, it’s that It’s Their Fault!

Pick your choice from any of the below list. Multiple selections allowed and encouraged:

• Immigrants
• White Men
• Whitelash
• Backlash
• Cultural Elites
• Political Elites
• Economic elites
• The unwashed masses
• Facebook
• The Media
• Wall Street
• Main Street
• Muslims
• Christians
• City folk
• Country yokels
• Anger
• Ignorance
• Greed
• Any of the seven deadly sins
• Polls
• Lists
• Things left off lists

The country might be divided but this is the one thing we can all agree on. The other is wrong (horribly and indisputably) and they’ve never been this wrong before. Ever. Not even close. Only one thing seems to be missing. An actual debate of the issues and policy.

Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than the immigration debate. For the record, I’m an immigrant. Not only am I an immigrant but I was an illegal, or undocumented if you prefer (for the life of me I can’t understand the debate over the semantic label which regardless of preference basically amounts to the same thing), immigrant before everything got sorted out and I got naturalized. I understand better than most the complexity, issues, pain and hardship involved. Furthermore, I voted for Clinton. I can’t think of a single candidate who was running, or might have run, in any party, who I would have voted for Trump over. I am willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but pretty sure four years from now we will be worse off. Now that that’s out of the way let me present two examples of talking at each other rather than talking.

On the left side of the political spectrum there is the issue of Trump proposing immediately deporting 2-3 million illegal immigrants who are also convicted of crimes. Rather than debating the pros and cons of the proposal this is getting swept up in the general debate of the pros and cons of immigration. Why? Can anyone really come up with valid reasons not to deport people who have been convicted of crimes? We are not talking about citizens. We are talking about illegal immigrants who have done nothing to contribute to the larger society. Why sweep them up into the greater issue and tar and feather the majority of illegal, or legal, immigrants who commit no crimes, work hard and are decent and law abiding citizens guilty of nothing but wanting a better life for themselves? I understand that not every individual in that “criminal” bucket is a criminal or guilty of any crimes, but that’s not really what the debate needs to be about. It’s a side issue. Most reasonable people can agree that illegal immigrants who committed crimes should be deported. Arguing against that merely makes reasonable people question motives and gets us further and further from a solution.

On the right side of the political spectrum there is the issue of building a wall and limiting immigration to create jobs and make America more secure. There is no evidence of either one of those working. Look around you. Do you see any illegal immigrants working in well-paying jobs? Let’s assume you have zero immigration do you think there will be an increase in well-paying jobs? Why would there be? Eliminating illegal immigration will have no impact. Those aren’t the jobs the jobs illegal immigrants are filling. Maybe you were thinking about legal immigration and H-1B visas? In 2014 there were 162,239 H-1B visas issued. Perhaps an impressive number but a tiny fraction of the total 140,000,000 jobs. There is no cause and effect. Stop pretending there is. Okay. Jobs isn’t your real issue. Security is. What makes you think that building a wall will make you more secure? I check the news pretty regularly and I don’t really see an increase of terrorist attacks? The ones I have seen can pretty much be counted on the fingers of a single hand. Contrast this with the usual crime, mass shooting, etc., statistics. Shouldn’t those be addressed first? Neither terrorists nor illegal immigrants are committing those. Do you think that a committed terrorist, or a narco-terrorist for that matter, be daunted by a wall? They’ll just turn back? It doesn’t work that way.

But enough of being divisive and talking at you. Pretty sure none of the above will change anyone’s mind. I rest easy in the knowledge that it’s not my fault. It’s yours and on that we can all agree.

Is it me or is it the movies? Part III

An article about a remake of Ocean’s 11 with an all-female cast appeared in my newsfeed recently. Skimmed through it. Skimmed through the comments. Some pros. Some cons. The usual casting arguments and the inevitable personal flame wars. However, nowhere did I see anyone mentioning the elephant in the screening room. That this is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea!

And no. It’s not because it objectifies women in film (or depending on your political leanings objectifies men). It’s not because it doesn’t address the wage gap in film (or depending on your political leanings politicizes film casting). It’s not because it casts (insert actress of choice) as (character of choice) when it should cast (actress of choice) as (character of choice)! It’s not because they should remake (insert favorite movie of all time) first. It’s not because … HEY!!! OBAMACARE SUX. VOTE TRUMP!

It’s because (SPOILER ALERT!) … it’s a gimmick. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with anything other than a marketing talking on point on some Hollywood exec’s power point presentation. Don’t know who pitched this and who greenlit this, but I am pretty sure the conversation went like this:

Pitcher: Ocean’s 11, but with women in the main roles.

Greenlighter: Go!

I don’t claim to be a Hollywood insider (in the interest of full disclosure, however, I was an extra on The Package once) or much of an expert (I did, however, see The Player), but I have watched a lot of films and over the years it seems as if the reasons to make films have now been reduced to their most simplistic basic principles.

Superheroes? Go!

3D? Go!

Tom Cruise? Has he done or said anything stupid lately? No. Go!

Remake (insert old popular TV show title)? Go!

Remake (insert old popular film title)? Go!

Hot selling novel? Go!

Spiel…? Say no more! Go!

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Cahiers du Cinema subscriber (okay, the fact that I know that there is a Cahiers du Cinema taints me a little bit, but in my defense I don’t know what Cahiers means and I left off the doohickey over the e in Cinema). I realize show business has always been a business first. It’s first and main objective, and always has been, is to put butts in seats by whatever means necessary and reap as much financial rewards as possible. Awards and critical acclaim are all nice, but they don’t pay the rent. Nor am I unaware of the fact that the rent for making films is mighty high. The risks great. Hollywood invented creative accounting so it’s hard to give a definitive answer, but most estimates put the average Hollywood budget to get a movie from alpha to omega somewhere between $100 million to $150 million. The reasons for this are complex, but mostly they are the creation of Hollywood itself. It’s mostly due to egos and about who makes more than whom. It’s about the progression from making $3 million in the box office from a $1 million budget and being satisfied with that to wanting to make $999 million and therefore now having to invest $333 million. Either way, that’s a lot of risk and if it was your money you too would want some safeguards to guarantee a return on your investment.

And yes, I realize that it was always this way. All you need to do is pick up some books about the old (old being a relative term to your own age) Hollywood moguls and stars or just Wikipedia them to see that it was so. But that’s not the elephant either.

Nor does the elephant have anything to do with the age old art v. commerce argument. I like Tarkovski as much as the other guy. I saw Stalker twice. His mastery of ambience is second to none. He is a true artist. Will I ever watch Stalker a third time? Only if you pay me. Citizen Kane? Greatest movie ever made. 400 blows? One of my favorite films. Bicycle Thief, Rules of the Game, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, Battleship Potemkin, Medium Cool, Easy Rider, Apocalypse Now? Seriously! Don’t insult me by even asking. I can appreciate when films become something larger than just mere entertainment. I relish the moments when they do. But I also happen to love comic books. If it has Marvel in the title I will see it at some point. Not a huge fan of 3D but I did go to see Hugo simply for that reason because I wanted to see what Scorsese will do with it. Tom Cruise I can take or leave, but if Jackie Chan makes a movie odds are I will see it some point. Taranti… I’ll see it! Long story short, if I have a life or death choice between a Terrence Malick film and whatever the latest entry is in the Fast and Furious franchise is I will probably go with Furious and fast. Not proud of it, but I’ve had a very long day.

Let’s get serious and dig deep here. Why do I/we watch? To be entertained. What entertains me and whether I am one of the masses or the ruling culture elites is debatable, but when all is said and done I/we all watch to be entertained. Some might be entertained by things blown up real good. Others by stupid teenagers in skimpy clothing running into seemingly deserted houses that are rumored to be haunted while an escaped convict\mental hospital escapee\the unpopular ugly kid with a sharp object fetish is on a rampage. Or perhaps you are entertained by metaphysical ruminations on the nature of the universe and what does it all mean shot in soft focus and slightly off angle?

Regardless of what that is what really entertains us? It’s not the casting. It’s not the genres. It’s not the format. It’s not the marketing. All play a role, but none of them are the elephant in this room. It’s the story and how we feel while being a part of it. To borrow AMC’s slogan: Story Matters Here! [Sidebar: While I love the tagline and think AMC’s Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, and even Hell on Wheels are excellent examples of everything that is good about that slogan, AMC itself is part of the problem due to how they choose to present their shows. Do we really need three episode mini-seasons with long gaps in between? Does it make the story matter more? Does it give the creators more time to create a more mattering story? Does it matter to the audience? No. The only reason they are doing it is so that they would have a longer period to charge advertisers higher rates. I predict it will eventually fail and 5 years from now we will be talking about how do you remember when there were really good shows on AMC. And yes. I know HBO actually started this long gap thing, but their reasons are different since they don’t care about advertisers, and at least in between gaps they take chances and release really good shows so it takes some of the sting out.]

Ask yourself this question. When you talk with your friends and peers, whether they be wine cork sniffing caviar truffle soufflé eaters or beer swilling hot dog heavy on the mustard munchers, what was the last movie you talked about or really excited about seeing in recent years? I am not talking about your occasional James Bond, Bridge of Spies, Imitation Game, Guardians of the Universe, Interstellar, Jurassic Something somethings. And please, please, please don’t anyone mention that story that began (in the middle) of a galaxy long ago and far away… These are to be expected. They’re merely statistics. No more than expected blips. Sooner or later there will be something X. Either due to scarcity or by actual merit.

Now ask yourself this question. When you talk with your friends and peers about TV shows which TV shows do you talk about or can’t wait to watch? Just off the top of my head and with no particular genre or target audience in mind here are mine: Game of Thrones, Mad Men, The Shield, Breaking Bad, Gotham, Fargo, 30 Rock, South Park, 24, Walking Dead, Rescue Me, Nip and Tuck, Downton Abbey,  Sherlock… The list can go on and on. We can argue about the relative merits of any individual show, but that’s not really the point. These are shows that people feel passionately about. What was the last movie you felt truly passionate about? I can’t think of many. Or at least not as passionately as the audiences of these shows feel about their shows. If you were to go back 20 years or so I can give you a full list of films people felt passionately about. TV shows? Not so much. Of course it’s possible it’s simply because I’ve seen so many films and I am getting older and older and ultimately you will see the same story no matter what package it comes in, but I don’t think so. I’ve seen many TV shows over that time span as well and I stopped watching TV because I didn’t find anything on it all that entertaining and have now resumed because I find it to be so. Pretty sure it’s not more entertaining because TVs now have bigger screens and HD.

Is there any real difference between films and TV shows? Media geeks can excuse themselves from answering this question. I know there are, but this isn’t about the mechanics of the relative media. It’s about the entertainment value each brings to the audience and as such they’re very close together. Is making a TV show cheaper than a movie? Not really when you boil everything down to their basic components. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Are television creative and business types any less greedy than their film counterparts? Don’t think so. Is there more creative freedom in TV? Are you nuts? So if none of these things is the elephant what is? Story, story, story.

TV started taking chances. They put the cart and horse (or elephant as the case may be to untangle my own metaphorical meanderings) back in the correct order. TV realized that, yes, story matters. Start there. Write the story you are interested in telling. If you tell it well and give it time it will find an audience. There will still be plenty of time to run focus groups and tailor for demographics and find product tie ins and talk about corporate synergies and vertical integrations and make lots and lots of money. First be good and be patient. The rewards will come. Don’t rush them. Don’t underestimate your audience. Make the story matter. Everything else is secondary.

In Hollywood this is reversed. Story shmory. Who is the star and how much did their property bring back last time out? I know this will be a story about a Holocaust camp survivor taking in Syrian refuges, but have you considered Adam Sandler? There is X% of people who will see an Adam Sandler film regardless of what it is so that means $XXX already that we can bank on. Maybe Will Smith. We will just change the Holocaust to Rwanda. Who is the writer? Never heard of him. No worries we’ll buy the screenplay sight unseen and then have Hot Writer of the Week rewrite. Did you know the last thing he rewrote brought in $XXX so that’s another chunk we can bank. You want Old Hack to rewrite? Can’t do. You see what This is a Sure Fire Moneymaker did? Box office poison! Can we get Spielberg to executive produce? He won’t do anything, but we get to put his name on the film and that’s another $XXX guaranteed. There’s this young director we have an eye on. He did this slasher film on his IPhone for $100. Grossed $12 mil. He would be perfect for this. It’s a shame we actually have to shoot the damn thing because right now on paper we are about $100 million in the black. Adrian, call our guy at Variety so that this thing makes it into the news tomorrow! Our corporate stock will jump at least 6 points. Tiffany, call my broker now! Sell if it hits 7. If they also finally bring that Infinity Vacuum cleaner to market at the same time the stock will really jump! We will do a two for one split and a 0.7 dividend. Tiffany, hold that call!

Anyway, what were you saying about the story? Something to do with an elephant?

The Lesson

Drama.
2014.
Written by Lauris Gundars, Andris Gauja, Aleksandrs Grebņevs.
Directed by Andris Gauja.
Filmed by Aleksandrs Grebņevs.
Starring: Inga Alsiņa, Mārcis Klatenbergs, Andrejs Smoļakovs, Gatis Gāga, Liena Šmukste, Marina Janaus, Edgars Siliņš, Ieva Apine, Elza Feldmane, Agirs Neminskis.

Andris Gaujas' The Lesson is a feature film which looks and feels like a documentary by design. It was originally meant as a documentary following a high school class through graduation, but fell apart during the filming once the principal of the school decided that the film was revealing too much.
The film tells the story of Zane Sirma (Inga Alsina) who is about to start her first year as a Russian language teacher in a Riga, Latvia's capital, high school. In addition to her duties as an instructor she is also to serve as the mentor for the current graduating class. She has just ended a relationship, her new coworkers seem indifferent to her for the most part, and her students resentful and rebellious. Zane grows close to one student , Inta (Ieva Apine), who is being abused by her father while one of the other students, Max (Marcis Klatenbergs), in the class seems to be developing a crush on Zane herself.
In documentary films we naturally accept that what we see on the screen is that way because that's how it happened. The filmmaker might have control over what he chooses to show us but not over what actually happens. In a narrative film our assumption is that the filmmaker has his hand everywhere and every single thing up on the screen is fraught with meaning. The documentary film approach doesn't really work for the first part of the film. As characters get introduced and the narrative arc established it all feels a little stilted and artificial. Empty spaces and extended silences seem to be just that. Characters seem to act and events unfold simply because someone wrote it that way in the script.

However, despite the documentary approach failing in the early, expository, parts of the film it really pays off towards the end. The narrative has been established, for better or worse, and now the film becomes about emotional truth. As Zane's and Max's relationship develops and races towards the inevitable cliff, the hand held camera shots, the odd angles, the extended silences and empty spaces enhance the tone and mood of the film and its story.
Overall, The Lesson despite it's early failings is a very good film that  truly captures both the tender moments between two persons as they grow closer and closer united against the world and the awkward moments as they start to drift further and further apart after being beaten down by that world at almost every turn.

Rocks in My Pockets

Comedy/Drama.
2014.
Written, directed and voiced by Signe Baumane.

 As someone who has struggled with depression for most of my life I can say first hand there might not be a lot of fun in depression but there is a lot of funny. Perhaps its the predisposition to seeing doom and gloom even when they are not there that allows for the reverse on rare occasions and for most of us those rare occasions can be enough to carry us through the bad times.
Rocks in My Pockets, the first feature-length animated film by New York based Latvian artist Signe Baumane, is a very funny film about depression and mental illness. Baumane uses her life experiences as well as those of her family to draw a world that is both unique and personal and at the same time universal. Tolstoy was only half right when he wrote: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." The ways might be different, but the scenery and destinations are all pretty much the same.
Starting with her grandmother the film's narrative arc follows the women in Baumane's family as they make their way through life. Their worlds and circumstances might change but certain patterns start to emerge. First there's grandmother Anna, bright and educated, who starts out as a young woman with seemingly endless possibilities and ends up as a desperate mother of 8 beaten down both by the events of history and personal circumstance who dies at 50. Cause of death undetermined, but whispers of empty bottles of pills and suicide attempts lurk in the shadows. Then there is daughter Miranda, bright and artistic, who sees beauty all around her but sinks into the deep well of despair following her marriage and the birth of her child. Then there is granddaughter Linda, bright and beautiful, who is undone by an obsession with a marriage that doesn't exist anywhere other than in her imagination, and granddaughter Irbe, quiet and musical, who eventually succumbs to the voices that only she can hear, and finally there is granddaughter Signe, the thread that ties it all together, whose search for meaning leads to an obsession with ending it all.

It would have been easy to over-dramatize the above. Especially in an animated film. Baumane's film works so well simply because it's not. The animation and art are simple and almost primitive. Her language is matter of fact and straightforward. Her voice-over at times droll and ironic and at times emphatic and melancholy. The humor emerges naturally from the narrative. She captures both the absurdity and banality of normal life as well as the highs and lows of those abnormal moments and people. Baumane is not a professional actress and gives most of the credit to her voice-over coach and co-producer Sturgis Warner. They rehearsed for 7 weeks, but having seen the film I can't see it working with anyone other than Baumane doing it. Her "unprofessionalism" adds a layer of personal honesty and intimacy that might not have been there with anyone else. It is after all her story and while it might be personal and intimate we can all see parts of ourselves and those around us in it.

The Counselor tries for cool, but ends up cold

Sometimes too much of a good thing is not a good thing. The Counselor on paper must have seemed like a cinephile's dream. Start off with an A list cast which includes Michael Fassbender, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz and Brad Pitt in the lead roles. Even the bit players read like a whos who of film. Bruno Ganz, Rosie Perez, Ruben Blades, Dean Norris, Goran Visnjic, and John Leguizamo all play parts that in other films would be given to whomever showed up at the casting call. Not enough? Let's throw in Ridley Scott to direct. Want more? We will have Cormac McCarthy write the screenplay.
Are you salivating yet? No?  Wait until you hear the story. There's an amoral lawyer (is there really any other kind?) (Fassbender), a mysterious middle man of uncertain business background but an interesting taste in clothing and hair styles (Bardem), a cool philosophizing cowboy drug dealer (Pitt), a cold hearted femme fatale (Diaz), a beautiful good girl (Cruz), a cartel boss expounding existential philosophy (Blades), and plenty of nameless and merciless killers. There are even a pair of pet cheetahs.
Have we got your attention yet? I thought so. The plot is set on the Juarez/Texas border and revolves around a drug deal gone bad. There are plenty double crosses, shootouts, car chases and crashes and at least one ingenious decapitation. The dialogue has shades of Tarantino if he had actually gone to university and ended up with a Ph. D. in philosophy. There are noir shades of pretty much every Bogart/Bacall film ever made and, well, shades of No Country for Old Men.
Sadly all of the above never really pays off. The Counselor is lesser than the sum of its parts. Its a collage of "cool" film moments that seems too self aware of how "cool" it really is and none of them ever come together. It tries too hard and never really captures a single genuine moment. Plenty of films can give us amoral characters, but the great ones also give us an inkling of a moral baseline that gives the story poignancy. We never get to care for any of the characters. The lead character doesn't even get to have name and is known simply as The Counselor.
If anyone really wants to see an interesting story dealing with the similar themes I suggest getting the first season of The Bridge. The Counselor feels mostly like an exercise in style and mannerisms. It doesn't seem to be sure if it wants to be "a who done it", "a how they done it", or "a why they done it". It never progresses beyond being "a they done it" and that's supposed to be enough. It isn't.

Further Proof of the Decline of Western Civilization

My week in bullet points.

Tuesday June 26th morning in Riga, Latvia

•  I arrive at the airport at 5am for my 6:35 am flight to Brussels. Drop off the rental car, scan the screens in the terminal, but don't see my flight listed. Take a chance, wait in line at the baggage check in. Get to the front of the line. The slightly bored but polite agent checks and informs me that my flight has been cancelled. Momentary panic, but figure I'll track down and talk to the Air Brussels agent.
• Go to the Information Desk and talk to the slightly bored but polite person there. Sorry. There is no Air Brussels agent, or office for that matter, at Riga Airport. Major panic.
• Pull out IPhone, call friend in the US and ask her to contact Orbitz (they're who I booked the flights with) and find out what's going on.
• Friend tries, twice, but long and the short of it is that Orbitz says I need to talk to Air Brussels which, if you've been paying attention, we already established has no presence at the Riga airport.
• Break out in cold sweat. Pull back out IPhone and google Orbitz website to check my itinerary to see if there is maybe something there. All flight segments to and fro (4 in total) seem to be there except from my flight from Riga to Brussels. At least my Brussels to Chicago flight is still there. The problem is that I have no way of getting to Brussels.
• Decide to call Orbitz myself. Notice that the international assistance number for Orbitz has a 312 area code which ironically is located in Chicago which is my ultimate destiny. Its pretty short conversion the gist of which is the same as before and that I need to talk to Air Brussels, which as we established earlier has no presence in the place I am at present. Hang up abruptly, but not without first thanking the person on the other side of the line with more than just a slight trace of sarcasm. Not their fault, they're just following a script from corporate, but I am more than just a little on edge at the moment.
• Walk around the airport some more and then decide to take another look at the printed copy of my itinerary and notice that Air Baltic is listed on it. Figure Air Baltic is code sharing with Air Brussels. Worth a shot. Only one I have at the moment.
• Talk to the agents at Air Baltic. They do their best, but after many side conversations, consultations and calls, the end result is not much they can do. I need to talk to Orbitz. Turns out Air Brussels cancelled the flight on June 6th. Its a mystery to all involved how or why Orbitz did not rebook a different flight or notified me.
• Pull out IPhone again. Call Orbitz. The person on the other side is exceptionally polite and attentive. I must have finally registered on their radar after my friend calling three times and me calling twice. Watch the minutes tick away on the call. All of these calls and googling are costing me the international rate. Eventually wrap up the call around the 50 minute mark. My phone bill will be something to behold. The good news is that at least now I have a flight via United to Frankfurt at 2pm and then Chicago.
• Eventually get to Chicago around 10pm. In bed by 11:30am. Asleep by 12:30am.
• So ends Tuesday.

Wednesday June 27th

• Arrive to work to the usual work chaos. We are all waiting on the Supreme Court to issue its decision on Health Care and its impact on our version of the Internal Revenue Code. Much stress, much contingency planning, much prep work and anticipating the various outcomes.
• Put in my 10 hours. Get home around 8, in bed by 10pm. Asleep by 12:30am.
• So ends Wednesday.

Thursday June 28th

• The Supreme Court decided to uphold health care.
• Much rejoicing since nothing needs to be done to our version of the Internal Revenue Code.
• Rejoicing is short lived because out of left field the do nothing Congress has decided to do something and a transportation bill, HR 4348, somehow makes it out of conference which will have direct impact on our version of the Internal Revenue Code.
• Much stress, much contingency planning, much prep work and anticipating the various outcomes.
• Put in my twelve hours, get home ...
• So ends Thursday.

Friday June 29th

• According to news reports (ours included) Congress passes HR 4348.
• Much rejoicing. We have a ton of work to do, but at least no more contingency planning, prep work and anticipating the various outcomes. Much stress, but at least its constructive and tangible stress.
• Much hard work by myself and countless others, but we pull it off.
• Still one step left and that is the production of the two volume version of the Internal Revenue Code and we are against a hard deadline of July 3rd when it has to go to the printer. Plan is to work through the weekend and get it done.
• Put in my twelve hours, get home, make the mistake of checking AOL mail and see an e-mail from Hertz (the rental agency I used in Latvia to rent the car). The header for the e-mail reads: Hertz LV vehicle damages - Payment Request!
• Note the exclamation point. Never a good thing. 
• Brain still pretty fuzzy considering the week and lack of sleep and decompression, and then there's the jet lag. But the gist of the e-mail is that Riga Hertz wants 700 dollars from me. Or else.
• Take a look at the attached photos. Car is certainly dirty (long story as to why, but mainly having to do with having to drive down country dirt roads in a torrential downpour while lost with my mother) but nothing that would justify 700 dollars.
• Decide not to reply to e-mail just then since the ability to reply in a sane and rational manner is highly unlikely.
• Sleep does not come easy, but so ends Friday.

Saturday June 30th

• Arrive at work to start working on the Bound Volumes.
• Look for enrolled bill of HR4348 on Thomas. None to be found. Google the news to see what's going on.
• Stumble across a blog post. Looks like Congress actually passed HR6064 which is a temporary extension of transportation. HR 4348 will not actually happen until some time next week. July 6th most likely.
• I hit borderline psychotic stage at this point. Will not go into too much detail since other than a handful policy wonks or tax lawyers and the production folks at my company would care or understand, but this is a very very bad thing. Pretty much the worst possible outcome of all possible worst outcomes.
• Send off e-mails to the powers that be. Many e-mails are exchanged, different scenarios discussed and long story short now we wait for someone to make the call which way we go.
• In the meantime I type up this blog post.
• Feeling better thanks, but wondering what will go wrong next?

And how was your week?

Rant: Class warfare, tax cuts and deregulation

I'm frustrated. You're frustrated. Everyone is frustrated. Don't believe me? Just read a poll. Any poll. The Tea Party is tired of big government and waste. Occupy [insert location of choice] is tired of big business and big money. The right wants more cuts in spending. The left wants more spending. The young want jobs. The old want more security. Throw a dart and you are guaranteed to hit something that ails this country.
Gas prices are rising, incomes are shrinking and jobs are hard to find. Business isn't hiring and consumers aren't buying (might have something to do with the lack of jobs and shrinking incomes, but that's just me).
And what are the solutions our elected officials offering? Tax cuts and deregulation. If I hear one more candidate claim that tax cuts and deregulation will create jobs I just might have to Occupy something. Either that or become a raving Marxist.
Let's start with deregulation. Its inconvenient to "job creators". It stifles their ability to do the best for their business. You shouldn't tell the job creators how to create. They're the best qualified to know. It kills jobs, etc.
The criminal code is inconvenient as well. My next door neighbor has a really nice car. I would really, really like that car. I am younger, stronger and a better driver and I could use it to get to work that much more efficiently. Too bad about that anti auto theft regulation.
But what  really gets my shorts in a knot is the tax cut argument. Basically, if you cut taxes businesses would create more jobs. Huh? Ask any business person and they will tell you that if you cut their taxes that does not mean that they will hire a single new employee. They'll thank you profusely for the additional income, but no one will be rushing out to put out the help wanted signs.
Demand drives hiring and that's the crux of the problem. No matter how much you cut taxes we aren't necessarily going to consume more. We will not be buying more food. We will not be buying more cars or more clothes. You might buy better food, a nicer car or nicer clothes, but all that means is that Whole Foods, BMW and Prada will gain, Aldis, Hyundai and KMart will lose.
And the ultimate irony is that even if we were, that will not create that many additional jobs. Even if demand rises, business will look to two places. Automation or offshoring since labor costs are lower (and guess what regulation much laxer). Neither of which will make any real dent in job creation. And as to those increased profits due to tax cuts? Businesses will more than likely invest those gains in stocks or sit on the money and not put that money back in the economy.

I love America. I believe its a great country. I believe that America's emphasis on the rights of the individual is what makes it great. To put it crudely looking out for number one is what makes this place tick. But its long time past that this was a country which looks out for number 1. Its now the country which looks out for Number 1%. In many ways economies are zero sum. In order for someone to gain, someone has to lose. Its well documented that the 1% have gained, but does it always have to be at the expense of 99%?
And the solution our leaders have to offer is lower taxes and deregulation? I don't see it.

Red Sea - 1996

Was looking for something on USENET and found this thing I wrote way back in 1996. Figured might as well add it to the blog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just got back from a three day diving safari of the Sinai with the Red Sea Sports Club/Manta.  In short, I had a great time and the money was well spent.
On our first day we took a Land Rover from Eilat to Sharm Al Sheik.  The dreaded border crossing at Taba, which I was warned can take hours, proceeds smothly.  Except for a short delay while I try to explain to the border official where Latvia is, I have an American passport but was born in Latvia and put down Latvian as my nationality, we are through in about 15 minutes.   Next time, ethnic pride be damned, I will stick to American. First rule of travel: K.I.S.S.  Keep It Simple, Stupid.
The drive from Taba to Sharm takes a little over an hour.  It is hot and raw, but the countryside is so savagely beautiful that the physical discomfort just seems to intensify the beauty of the land.  Afterall, this is the desert.  It is easy to imagine ancient trader caravans traversing the red mountains that surround us on both sides.
We arrive at our first dive site, Ras Um Sid, around 9am.  The reef itself is about a 100 feet from the shore.  We gear up and hit the water. Incredible.  The abundance of coral and marine life is fantastic.  This dive is meant as a check-out dive to test our skills and abilities, but there is so much to see that you quickly forget that this is basically a shakeout dive.
Our next dive site is at Ras Nasrani.  We have a quick lunch on the beach and then take to the water.  We descend to 80 feet.  The amount of fish and coral is mindblowing.  Lion fish seem to be everywhere.  After the dive we load up and head for Shark's Bay where we will be spending the night, having dinner, and in the morning boarding a boat for Tiran.  Our lodgings for the night are to be simple cabanas, but it is simply too hot to sleep in them.  Most of us opt for sleeping on the beach.  I highly recomend the beach option.  A gentle, cool breeze and a giant star filled sky beats a steamy four walls everytime.
In the morning we board the boat for Tiran.  Tiran has four major reefs.
We decide to dive Thomas and Jackson.  At Thomas we see a White Tip Shark and a couple of Sea Turtles, and a ton of fish and corals, but it is Jackson that takes your breath away.  The topography of the reef is amazing.  It seems to stretch into infinity and bend and twist into fantastic shapes.  By far,  the highlight of the trip.  Between dives we have lunch on the boat and snorkle in the South Lagoon.  Fish, coral and more fish and coral.   In more variety and colors that I have ever seen. After the boat ride back we load up the Land Rover and head for Sded where we will be spending the night and doing a night dive.  To kill time until night fall, I do a little snorkeling.  Lion fish, Puffers, Stingrays as far as the eye can see.  To top it off, heading back to the shore, I catch sight of a giant Manta Ray as it glides over the reef and disappears into the deep.  In contrast, the night dive is almost a dissapointment because there are not nearly as many fish.  However, the colors of the coral under the light of the torches are magnificent, and at the end of the dive - once we turn off our torches - we watch the plankton glow like a million fireflies.
We have dinner by the campfire and sleep on the beach.  There is nothing at Sded save for a flagpole marking the spot and the night sky is even more immense than before.
In the morning we head for Dahab, our final destination.  Our first dive is at the Island.  It is a shallow dive, 25 feet, but the amount of coral is incredible.  It feels like being in an underwater forest.  You are surrounded by coral on all sides.  There are also many nooks and crannies to dive through and explore.
Our final dive of the trip is at the Canyon.  Next to Jackson Reef, this is my favorite dive. However, it is more of a cerebral experience, than a visual one.  The Canyon begins at about 60 feet and descends to a depth of 163 feet.  There is a chamber at 100 feet that is used as an exit if you don't want to go all the way down.  For most of it's distance the Canyon is about 8 feet wide with a sandy bottom.  You can see the sky through the cracks overhead.  Overall, it has the effect of diving a cave.  The light is incredible.
We went all the way down to 163 feet.  Resting at the bottom you feel as if you are on the surface of the moon.  The complete stillness and silence is eerie.  The only sound is the sound of your breathing through the regulator.  The only motion is the rising of your air bubbles to the surface.  The ascent seems to take forever.  It is awhile before you can distinguish the surface from the surrounding depths.
After the dive we stop by for a swim with a dolphin at Mahmood's Dolphin Beach.  It is both exciting and sad.  There were about thirty snorkelers and one dolphin.  She didn't seem to mind, but at times the press of the swimmers to reach her seemed to resemble a wolfpack descending on a deer.
Overall, I had a fantastic time.  This was the best time I have had in many years.  I would highly recommend it to anyone.  The staff at Red Sea Sport Club/Manta was highly professional and courteous.  Our guide, Hen, and his lovely assistant Natasha, were excellent and alot of fun.  Hen allowed us to dive to our limits while also keeping a close eye that we didn't exceed them.  And all of this, while nursing a really bad cold.  (I should know because I managed to catch his bug.  It's been a week and I still can't shake it.)  He also has great taste in music.  You haven't lived until you have driven through the Sinai while listening to some trance and acid tapes.  The total cost for the trip came to around $350.  This included tanks, guides, transportation, boat ride to Tiran, border fees, food and lodging.

Finally, two pieces of advice.  If you are the type who is used to air-conditioning, indoor toilets and soft beds, this is probably not the trip for you.  It is hot and sticky and bathrooms and showers are few and far in between.  If you are the type who likes roughing it, then do it soon.  Civilization is fast approaching.  Everywhere we went you could see construction underway.  In a few years this will probably be another Cancun or Florida, so enjoy it while you can.

There's something about Cancun

The pool at Live Aqua

Those of you who know me know that my tastes usually trend towards the lower end of the creature comforts scale. Not big on linen napkins and room service and pampering. Service staff hovering over me attentively make me nervous. I guess I see myself in their shoes and all things considered you can always blame my Soviet Latvian upbringing.
Some of my best vacation memories, memories that I truly love and cherish, might sound like vacation nightmares to others. There was the time in Dahab when the room we stayed in was so dusty and hot (and then there were the fleas) that we just dragged the straw mattress off the bed and down to the beach and slept under the stars. There was the time in Guatemala (for which Hector still keeps apologizing when he really shouldn't) when after some interesting bus mix ups we found ourselves stuck in some small town in the middle of the night waiting for a ride watching the local constabulary and ladies of the night playing chicken across the main drag. Then there was the time in Cayman where we ended up doing a forced seven mile march expecting the restaurant we were going to to be right around the corner which never quite came (all ended well and we even got a ride from the owner back to our hotel when he heard our story).
Long story short I am not really about the finer things in life. You know that line about the luxuries and comforts of home? Well. If that's what you want then why leave home?
And Cancun is anything but the above. When you think of Cancun think of Las Vegas but instead of casinos you have the beach as the main attraction. Instead of slot machines you have the timeshare bandits. Instead of the strip show shills you have the tour and excursion shills. And both places have buffets and scantily dressed eye candy. Both places are designed to separate you from your spending cash as effortlessly as possible. So what is it about Cancun that attracts me? I've been around 6 or 7 times now and each time I seem to upgrade to a higher level of creature comforts.
Part of it is that its just so easy. Here in the US try any travel site and you'll see an endless list of packages for Cancun. They say that competition leads to savings for the consumer so here's your proof. Then there's the beach and the water. Its one of the few places in the world where I find that the reality of the place matches those glossy pictures in the travel magazines. And then there's the diving. While Cozumel is the place for the diving its only a short ferry ride away.

Live Aqua

This time around we stayed at the Live Aqua. There's something about Live Aqua as well, but almost in the reverse. Don't get me wrong. Its a great hotel. Elegant and beautiful. Great service and good food, etc. But there's something just a little bit off that I just can't put my finger on it. As most resorts in Cancun it has a "theme" and for some reason they selected a semi "asian" theme. It just didn't seem to work for me. Cancun to me is a "hot" place. Its a city on the make. It makes no bones about trying to hustle you, but its done with a nodge and a wink. You know you are being hustled but your in on the joke. Live Aqua is something I'd expect in Japan or Norway but feels out of place in the city of "almost free today" and Senior Frog and Carlos and Charlie's.


Ben is either counting the sharks or making sure he still has all of his fingers.

 The highlight of the trip, however, was finding Scorpio Divers. Since the local diving in Cancun isn't the greatest usually I don't spend too much time looking for a dive shop. I just go with whatever is closest to the hotel and offers at least one trip to Cozumel. According to google Scorpio Divers was the closest (turns out it really wasn't), but google's mistake was my gain. Scorpio Divers is run by Ben and Jorge and both of them just love diving and it shows. Its the nature of the beast that most people who work in the diving industry start getting a little jaded when they dive with their customers since they dive the same spots day in and day out. It becomes a job. I dove with both Ben and Jorge and each time they seemed just as excited about the diving as the paying guests. Just ask Ben about sharks and he gets as excited in anticipation as the greenest of divers prior to his first open water dive. The best sign of a good business is how much repeat business they get. When ever I get back to Cancun and plan to go diving I promise they'll get mine.

More pictures.

Cayman Brac

I've always had mixed feelings about the Caymans. I've been to Grand Cayman three times. Once for a week and twice as stop overs on cruises. Each time I've had a decent time, but there was nothing there that I couldn't get at half the price somewhere else and no particular desire to come back again. This is not a criticism by the way. Grand Cayman has a lot going for it and a lot of fans. I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of going there. Its just that for my buck I can find better value elsewhere. Cozumel gives me the same thrils and more bang for the buck.
And yet, since it keeps appearing towards the top of the diving lists I decided to give it another shot, but this time go strictly for the diving and go straight to where the diving is. This leaves you with two options. Either Cayman Brac or Little Cayman. Flip of the coin and Cayman Brac it was.

And now I know why the Caymans are always towards the top of the lists. The diving is indeed excellent and even better than Cozumel. I am not going to go into every single dive site they all have something going for them and in my five days of diving I only got to experience a small fraction. I probably enjoyed Wilderness Reef the most due to its many nooks, crannies and swim troughs, but that's purely subjective.
I dove with Reef Divers. Great group. Very professional, courteous and friendly. Just the right mix. They do what's called valet diving. You leave your gear outside of your room (virtually no crime on the island so you can safely do that) they pick it up in the morning and hook up all your gear on the boat. All you have to do is show up and jump in the water. The first dive was always deep water (110 max) and they always gave you and option of either exploring on your own (assuming you had a buddy) or you could just follow the divemaster. The dive briefings on the boat were always thorough and detailed so either would work.

I stayed at the Brac Reef Beach Resort. At first blush it might not seem like much from the outside. Has a sort of Florida motel (a nice motel) look to it, but don't let that fool you. The rooms are great and the staff and service top notch. The biggest surprise was the food. Being cheap I figured I'd get a better deal on my own so opted out of the meal plan, but eventually ended up eating all of my meals at the hotel anyway. If I have to stay here again I would definitely go with the meal plan. Not that there are many other options available anyway (more on that shortly), but that's not the point. Simply put. The food at the BRBR is that good.
The other thing that the BRBR has going for it is that they have bicycles available for the taking included in the price of the room. Its a great way of exploring the island. The island is relatively small and while you probably won't be able to cover all of it on a bike its a good option to have. Just don't do it the way I did. If you see signs that say restaurants with an arrow pointing that a way, don't believe them. I am sure eventually there will be some restaurants that a way, but I gave up after a few miles. And remember to bring along some fluids because once you've gone that a way you still have to pedal back.

The Brac itself is an ideal place for those who love the water and what's under it. There are quite a few caves and nature trails to explore, but other than that there really isn't much. No real shopping meccas to speak of. No large boisterous entertainment strips. If that's more your speed than you are better off sticking to Grand Cayman. However, if you want some peace and solitude then the Brac is the perfect place to be.

Is it me or is it the movies? Part II

Coming to you soon in glorious 3D!!!

If I see one more preview for a film in 3D I am liable to throw something at the screen. Enough already. Not that there is anything wrong with making films in 3D, but the films being made in 3D are for the most part nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Shows what Hollywood thinks of their audience. Story? Direction? Acting? That's hard and no predictor of success. Let's film it in 3D! Boffo box office! Pretty sure Sophie's Choice in 3D can't be far behind.
On the other hand, there's a part of me that is really tempted by Jackass 3D. If ever there was a gimmick that one's it.



Machete

Robert Rodriguez is a very talented and skilled filmmaker and it really shows in Machete. I saw more than my share of grindhouse films in the 70s. Machete is so good that despite watching it inside of a state of the art movie theater in Riga, Latvia (that's in Europe for the geographically challenged), from the start of the opening credits I was instantly transported to the seedy Chicago Loop of the late 70's. I could even imagine hearing the popcorn popping in the lobby and other not so fond sounds and smells came back in sense memory. Mark of a great film if it can capture the sense and feel of a time and place.
One problem. Grindhouse films were awful. Really, really bad films. The kind of films that distributors would buy the pound and were judged by how many shots of naked women they had and how many kills they contained. These were the type of films that could and would only appeal to 16 year old boys or those who no matter their age still had the emotional maturity of one. So here's the conundrum. If someone makes a great bad film does that make the film great or bad? I don't know the answer, but a part of me wishes Rodriguez would make a straight film for once. Same goes for Quentin Tarantino.

Red

There's a little desperation in my film watching of late. Its not that I haven't seen some good films lately (Social Network, The Town, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps), but sometimes you just want something mindless and less filling. I knew exactly what I would get with Red and that's exactly what I got. The only thing I can say about the film is that movie stars should never ever surround themselves with actors. Its just asking for trouble. Bruce Willis is good at what he does. Really he is. I loved Die Hard. All of them. He has even shown an occasional, no matter how brief, flash of acting ability. But in a film with John Malcovich, Helen Miren, Brian Cox and Morgan Freeman, all excellent actors, oops. Movie stars and actors should never mix. The secret of a movie star is that they attract the audience's eye. As Mel Gibson once said they know where to stand and how to look at and look great on camera. As long as they're the focal point of the scene. In an ensemble cast Willis is lost. He just simply does know what to do when the camera is not on him and he isn't the center of the action. And on the few occasions when he tries to act it just falls flat because the other actors don't have to try.

Amaya

Comedy/Drama.
2010.
Written and directed by Maris Martinsons.
Starring: Kaori Momoi, Andrius Mamontovas, Monie Tung, Kristine Nevarauska, and Lau Dan.

So when is a Latvian film a Latvian film? Does it have to be in Latvian, with Latvian actors and take place in Latvia and have something to do with being Latvian? Directly or indirectly? No matter how remote?

Amaya takes place in Hong Kong. It stars Andrius Mamontovas (Lithuanian) and Kaori Momoi (Japanese). The dialogue is mostly in English and Cantonese. Its written and directed by Maris Martinsons (a Latvian, but one who has been living in Lithuania since 1991). Then again, Martinsons did recently move back to Latvia and the film has been selected as Latvia’s entry for the 2010 Academy Awards. That’s good enough for me.

Amaya is part Lost in Translation, part travelogue, and parts other. The story follows several characters who at the onset seem to have nothing in common. There’s Paul, the seemingly lonely and lost traveler who finds himself in Hong Kong. There’s Amaya and her husband stuck in the routine rut of everyday life. There’s Amaya’s brother in-law Tao who owns a massage parlor and gives classes on the side. We don’t really know much about the characters. Martinsons keeps the back stories and exposition to a minimum and allows their stories to unfold slowly. The film lives in the present and in the now and that’s its greatest strength. Its basically a journey of self-discovery. We discover the characters as they discover themselves.

Amaya will not be everyone’s cup of tea. The pacing can be slow and the motivations of the characters unclear. Its like traveling alone to a foreign place. Confronted with unfamiliar surroundings, tastes, smells and sounds one tends to first withdraw inward. The tendency is to stick to the grounds of wherever its is you are staying or at least the immediate vicinity. But, if you can overcome that first shock and are willing to start venturing a bit further, no matter how slowly, the rewards of what can be discovered are well worth it. Not only about the location, but about yourself.

Medibas (The Hunt)

Drama.
2009.
Directed by Andis Miziss.
Written by Kaspars Odins and Elvita Ruka.
Starring: Andris Keiss, Santa Didzus, Jana Sekste and Guna Zarina.

Emir Kusturica is a world renowned Serb filmmaker who makes great surreal and absurdist films. Time of the Gypsies and Arizona Dream come to mind. Medibas tries to traverse the same terrain, but unfortunately Andis Miziss, the director of the film, is no Kusturica. The elements are there, but somehow they never really come together into a cohesive story in which we care about either the characters or the outcome of their actions.

The film opens with a scene of two men making and bottling juice in a rundown former train station. A train pulls up. Its the owner of the bottling operation stopping by to check on the progress. The train also serves as a home for unwed mothers and the bottling operation owner seems to be their matron. The men hadn't been paid in a while and ask as to their wages. The owner gives them the runaround and instead presses them to finish the latest shipment. The train pulls away, one of the bottlers goes back in and out of spite adds some poison to a few of the bottles. The entire shipment is then delivered to a small country bar.
Elsewhere a trio of Orienteering competitors get lost in the woods, a hunting party, also on rails, sets out for their annual hunting party, a famous architect and his highly strung lover are working out some issues, and a local policeman is trying to keep his young partner awake at a railroad crossing.
Keeping track? All of these characters and stories of course will be intertwined and then stuff will happen or as a friend of my commented "and then it gets weird."
Medibas is not all bad. There are some good performances (Guna Zarina's Renate the best among them) and the stories have potential but its just that it never really comes together. Its just a lot of exposition about really strange situations and the sometimes strange people who get trapped in them.
The title itself seems to be an allusion to the personal and emotional hunts we all engage in our daily lives. But there's just too much of the strange here that is never really explained. Its a strangeness overload and we are far too busy making up our own back stories for the characters to have any time to actually relate to them. Just starting with the train, is it really that easy and simple to operate your own train, maintain your own track? Doesn't it cost money to operate a train and why put a home for unwed mothers on it and who would ever send or willingly find themselves on this one?

Is it me or is it the movies?

I love the movies. I've seen quite a few of them. At a rough count lets say 5000 or so. Started having disposable income around the age of 14 and like most at that age had plenty of motivation to escape reality. Hey, at least it kept me away from drugs.

I used to cut school often and take the L into the Loop and get off at Washington. The Loop of those days was quite different. Not quite the shiny tourist mecca that it is today, but it didn't lack for movie theaters. Within minutes walking distance you had the Chicago, State and Lake, Woods, Oriental, United Artists and McVickers.

These were the days of double, and sometimes triple, bills. The first showtime often started at 8am. The fare certainly wasn't highbrow. We're talking The Master of the Flying Guillotine, Bruce Li and the Tool Box Murders. But there were also plenty of middlebrow choices. Whatever Hollywood decided to release for better or worse could be found in one densely packed movie mecca.

For the highbrow you could walk a few blocks and you had the Water Tower and Fine Arts. For the truly obscure you had the Parkway on Clark which had a different slate of films each day. Then the VCR came along, HBO, Blockbuster. Long story short, my film tastes were omnivorous and I certainly didn't lack for choices. I'd watch almost anything. When the AFI releases those lists of Top 100 this or that I've often seen between 60 to 90 of the films on any given list. This is not meant to be me bragging about how much I've seen. Just that I used to go to a lot of movies and the movies I would sit through cut across a pretty broad scape of genres and styles.

Until recently. Now weeks could go by without me seeing a single film. Might not seem like a big deal to most, but remember that I am someone who has probably averaged about 3 films per week for the past 35 years or so. Something changed. Is it me?

I am not a fan of nostalgia. Always been distrustful of the longing for the past. As they say the only thing certain in life is change. Sorry, but things were not always better when you were a kid. Popular and creative tastes go through cycles just like everything else.

Nor am I one to bash Hollywood for releasing commercial films for the lowest common denominator. Might come as a shock to some, but film making was always about finding the broadest possible audience. Films are far too expensive. They require far too many people to make. The average Hollywood film costs around $100,000,000 to make. Quite a bit of that is creative accounting, but that's still an awful lot of zeros. If you were putting up that much money you'd want some guarantee on your investment as well.

But something has changed. I first noticed it a few years ago when I started watching films on my PC. I'd start watching a film and then at some point, usually around the same time into the film, I'd start playing Freecell or Minesweeper. One eye on the film and one on the game. Okay. So some of that might be middle age ADD and some part of it is just simply that most films follow a fairly common structure. They even teach it in Film School. By page such and such, such and such thing must happen to advance the plot, etc. You watch enough films and that pattern gets kind of burned into your psyche and at some subconscious level you know when you can get up and go to the bathroom without missing some important plot point. Its not necessarily a bad thing. Its like meatloaf. No matter what you do to meatloaf it usually comes out the same usually. Its predictable and comfortable and I still like it.

The other thing I noticed is film previews. If you go see an animated film the film previews will almost all be for animated films. Romantic comedy, action, drama, the same. And even within that they'll be almost all the same.

Films are no longer just films. They're product. To some degree they've always been product, but now it seems like they're product first. Like a can of Coke. They're slotted for a specific audience with specific tastes and tug on specific emotional wavelengths. Nothing wrong with that in a way. I like Coke, but the films themselves seem to have become secondary. You don't start out with a film and then find an audience. You start with an audience and then create a film for that audience. Its like if you were making Coke now, you'd start with the can. Not with what's in it. Its about the packaging. Not about the content.

Then again, maybe I've just seen too many packages.

Banana Shpeel

Growing up, while other kids wanted to be cosmonauts, firemen and policemen, my ambition in life was to be a clown. Hold off on the snickering for a moment (yes, I know some would say I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams). I am not talking clown as in Bozo. If I grew up watching Bozo I too might be scared of clowns. I am talking clown as in Oleg Popov. There was just something about him that spoke to me as a child. The world he lived in was wondrous and a little bit scary and his routines were full of whimsy and wonder. There was very little of the mean spirited in him. My mom even made me a Purim costume once with his trade mark floppy hat and bow tie. Its a fond memory.

The love of the clown led to a love of the Circus. Riga had a permanent Circus building and all of the greats of the time would sooner or later pass through it. Here too there is a world of difference between the circus of Ringling Brothers, for example, and the Circuses of Europe. American circuses seem to be more about spectacle and grandeur. Europe's circuses were more about artistry and performance. I never could get into the three ring circus. Too much information. Too many distractions. Not that the US lacks for alternatives. Big Apple Circus and even Chicago's very own Midnight Circus come to mind. But there is a distinct difference. Until Cirque Du Soleil come along. Still vividly remember the first show I saw by them (Allegria). I just couldn't stop enthusing. Haven't missed seeing too many opportunities to see a new show every time they come through town.

Not that everything they touch is perfect. Hated Zumanity. Burlesque is burlesque, but this wasn't even the burlesque of Cabaret. This to me was the burlesque of Cafe Flesh. Rather than sensual it was raunchy. And not in a good way. Cafe Flesh works in its own fashion (just don't ever watch it in a crowded theater with people expecting something completely different, but that's a blog for a different day). So when a friend pointed out that Cirque had a new show that they were previewing in Chicago in which they take on Vaudeville I was a little apprehensive. Will this be another Zumanity? Will they treat Vaudeville with some affection and reverence or will this be a broad farce? A dark satire of something which at its very core is already a parody of itself?

Banana Shpeel works. It works very, very well. I had the same thrill that I did the first time I saw a Cirque show. It treats the subject matter as it should be treated. It doesn't try to out do vaudeville, but retains its feel while updating it for the modern age. Whether its the shtick of the clowns, the dance numbers, the jugglers, the comedy bits, or the acrobatics, they all work. Well, okay. Not everything works. The bigger comedy bits fall flat. They probably sounded really good on paper and they might work on the screen where you have the luxury of editing and close ups, but live on stage they just become a bunch of people running around in chaos. Hopefully as the show moves to New York they'll work out the kinks. Either way, there's still a lot of Shpeel to like.

Dima Shine's balance act is just incredible to watch. Remember the China Olympics openning ceremony and the bit where that older man ran around the stadium walls while suspended by wires? Dima does the same thing while holding on to a spinning pole perfectly perpendecular to the floor without a single muscle quivering. No wires. Vanessa Alvarez puts a new spin (literally) on a traditional foot juggling act and Tuan Le does some very interesting things with hats.

The circus and the cirque are not for everyone, but for those of you who enjoy either one or the other I highly recommend the show. The Chicago run has unfortunately ended, but sooner or later its bound to come back around. Either that or show up as part of the ever expanding Cirque Vegas empire.