Gilles was absolutely incredible... a true summer set if I ever saw one. Nicola Conta played for about an hour, just a smooth little warm-up... and then Gilles took over for three straight hours!! He cycled through every single one of his signature subgenres: nu jazz, bossa, lounge—all mixed together in these wild combinations. He pulled quite a few tracks from the Future Sounds of Jazz Vol 9 compilation; I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to it, but it’s absolute Compost classics. 😎 There was that massive hit Hird f. Yukimi Nagano - "Keep You Kimi"... and he even dropped a block featuring Nina Simone and Sarah Vaughan back-to-back. The venue itself was a bit underwhelming, honestly, kind of felt like some random backyard garden... but hey, at least it was outdoors so it wasn't a total disaster... it was such a vibe when the sun started coming up while Gilles was still absolutely tearing it up 😁 😁
Herbert's "Bodily Functions" is an absolute masterpiece!!! I've had it spinning in my CD player for months on end.😁
I was doing some digging online regarding this Teledubgnosis project, and it sounds incredibly intriguing: "Reminiscent of the 80s sonic excursions of Adrian Sherwood's On-U sound stable, with the worldliness of Bill Laswell's Material, Teledubgnosis straddles the past and the future with an organic yet tech-savvy sound comparable to none"
PS. Gilles Peterson (+ Nicola Conta) was actually here about ten days ago... so naturally, I find myself listening to one of his compilations (yet again).😎
If there aren't any massive upsets in the quarterfinals, we're looking at a semifinal lineup that looks something like this: Yugoslavia vs. Russia and Canada vs. America... and honestly, after that, anything could happen. We already dropped a game to the Russians in the group stage—and let me tell you, losing on a pathetic "golden goal" from 15 meters out? It was absolutely gutting. If we have a chance to leave them in the dust, we better take it.
I’ve been digging through some data lately regarding Matthew Herbert—mostly because he’s rumored to be "dropping in" on the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival—and I stumbled upon something absolutely fascinating. While his recent project, The Big Band, was a decent enough listen, he actually posted a manifesto on his own website outlining his strict philosophy for composing music, which goes something like this: - - - - - - - - -
PERSONAL CONTRACT FOR THE COMPOSITION OF MUSIC [INCORPORATING THE MANIFESTO OF MISTAKES] THIS IS WRITTEN FOR THE PURPOSE, NECESSITY AND DESIRE TO BE ORIGINAL AT ALL TIMES. 1. The use of sounds that exist already is not allowed. Subject to article 2. In particular: A. No drum machines. B. All keyboard sounds must be edited in some way: no factory presets or pre-programmed patches are allowed. 2. Only sounds that are generated at the start of the compositional process or taken from the artist's own previously unused archive are available for sampling. The use of, ordering and manipulation of noise-sound is to be held as the highest priority in composition. 3. The sampling of other people's music is strictly forbidden. 4. With the exception of The human Voice, no replication of traditional acoustic instruments is allowed where the financial and physical possibility of using the real ones exists. 5. The inclusion, development, propagation, existence, replication, acknowledgement, rights, patterns and beauty of what are commonly known as accidents, is encouraged. Furthermore, they have equal rights within the composition as deliberate, conscious, or premeditated compositional actions or decisions. 6. The mixing desk is not to be reset before the start of a new track. This is for the specific purpose of applying a random eq and fx setting across the new sounds. Once the ordering and recording of the music has begun, the desk may be used as normal. 7. All fx settings must be edited: no factory preset or pre-programmed patches are allowed. 8. Samples themselves are not to be truncated from the rear. 9. A notation of every sound used and its source to be taken and published within one year at magicandaccident.com. 10. A full description of all technical equipment used on each track to be published within one year at matthewherbert.com. 11. All samples will be deleted upon completion of the track. 12. Remixes must be completed using only the sounds provided by the original artist including any packaging the media was provided in. - - - - - - - -
It honestly feels like a modern-day take on those old cinematic "Dogme" rules, doesn't it? Isn't it obvious that with how insanely fast music technology is moving, we're hitting this massive wall regarding copyright—where does originality end and a mere copy begin, or where does true creation stop and theft start? But if you ask me, rule number five is actually quite charming. 😁 😁
My absolute favorite melancholic, soul-crushing band is finally "back" with their new album, "Waiting for the Moon." It hits shelves on June 9th... and I've already sat through... *ahem*... nearly the entire record 😉, and honestly? I’m thrilled. After those little "experiments" they were playing around with regarding song structure and overall sound on "Simple Pleasure," "Can Our Love," and that "Trouble Every Day" soundtrack, this feels like a true return to form—it captures that raw essence of their first two albums better than anything else lately. Even the lyrics have shifted; take this line, for instance: :"My hands around your throat, if I kill you now they will never know." Plus, they’ve included this exotic duet with a singer named Lhasa de Sal (who is a total stranger to me), which seems to be becoming a bit of a tradition following their previous collaborations with: Ann Magnuson, Carla Torgerson from Walkabouts, and even Isabella Rossellini. Does anyone know if their next tour might wander our way? To my utter surprise, given how moody their music is, they've become incredibly popular in Mediterranean spots like Portugal, Spain, and Greece.
... 12 Angry Men, The Big Sleep, Arsenic and Old Lace, Sunset Boulevard, The Lost Weekend, Witness for the Prosecution, The Maltese Falcon, The Misfits ... absolute classics.
Hands down, the absolute best sci-fi flick—even if we’re talking B-movie territory—that I’ve managed to sit through in recent years has to be the Canadian production "Terminators"!! I don't think I've ever come across this director before, Christian Duguay ... but he's working from that Philip K. Dick short story "Second Variety," and he's got the legendary B-movie icon Peter Weller starring in it. It’s a genuine piece of sci-fi noir, set on some far-off planet called Sirius 6B, where two tiny human colonies are at each other's throats because of a massive war back on Earth between the "Alliance" and the "New Economic Bloc" ... and get this, they’re using this terrifyingly perfect weapon: self-replicating AI equipped with blades ... which just keeps getting smarter and starts causing "problems," especially when these new models start appearing in human form. But then, of course, Col. Hendricksson (Peter Weller) steps up to handle things. 😁 😁
PS. I honestly haven't been able to bring myself to finish that movie from last year that was also directed by Christian Duguay: "Extreme Ops." The whole thing takes place in the American Rockies, where a crew of extreme skiers filming a commercial accidentally stumble upon a certain Mexican war criminal named Slobodan Pavle. 😁 😁 😁 I really have to drop a quote here:
Accidentally catching him on film, they become locked in a life-or-death chase through the mountains that includes skiing, snowboarding, sky diving, white water rafting, helicopters, motorcycles, and base jumping.
Sounds like quite the thrill ride, doesn't it? Mexicans in the Rockies. 😁 😁 😁
Robert Cooper41 said:I’ve come to the realization that the entire issue stemmed from a catastrophic selection process rather than anything the jury actually did. I mean, really, on what possible grounds can you conclude that someone like Meg Ryan or an Indian actress wouldn't be relevant when evaluating what they've seen? It all boils down to subjective impressions anyway, doesn't it? Or perhaps—ha!—maybe they just "don't get" cinema.
When I sit down and actually look through the lineup of directors featured at this year's Sundance Film Festival, I find myself wondering if we are even talking about the same thing, because honestly, I wouldn't say the issue lies with the selection process itself—I mean, look at the names on that list! You have heavyweights like Sokurov, Eastwood, Greenaway, Haneke, van Sant, Makhmalbaf, and Ozon all sitting there in the program. How could a selection committee possibly go wrong with that kind of prestige? But then again, isn't that exactly where the trap lies? Because while these are undoubtedly massive cinematic icons, it seems to me that some of them have simply turned in mediocre work lately, haven't they? It’s a frustrating realization, really, because no matter how much talent a curator brings to the table, they can't magically breathe life into a lackluster script or a stale vision; if the quality just isn't there, the selectors are essentially powerless to fix it. When it comes to the jury members, doesn't it just make sense that they should at least share some kind of cohesive cinematic vision? Don't get me wrong—I have absolutely nothing against seeing someone like Meg Ryan or Aishwarya Rai sitting on a jury, really, I don't... but only if the films selected for the program actually align with their specific areas of expertise! There are plenty of actors out there who dedicate themselves to championing styles of cinema completely different from their own personal work; look at Robert Redford with Sundance, or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, or even Robert De Niro with Tribeca. That’s perfectly fine, isn't it? I doubt anyone could ever question their competence when judging films outside their usual wheelhouse. But when you start recruiting massive celebrities just for the sake of having them on the panel, aren't you essentially stripping away that "auteur/artistic" prestige that the Sundance Film Festival prides itself on representing? Perhaps this is all part of Gilles Jacob's grand design to pivot the entire profile of the festival toward a more mainstream audience... but if that's truly the goal, shouldn't we see that shift reflected in the actual selection of films first, rather than just seeing it in the names listed on the jury roster? I was being perfectly clear regarding Danis Tanovic, and frankly, I’m still scratching my head over the whole thing... how can anyone justify picking someone who has only ever helmed one single feature film—and even that includes just ten minutes of an omnibus—to sit on a jury? It makes absolutely no sense to me, regardless of whether that one film managed to snag an Oscar or not! Shouldn't there be some semblance of a requirement for a deeper, more substantial filmography when you're appointing someone to judge the life's work of other auteurs? I mean, really, where is the standard? I certainly wouldn't go so far as to link him to Meg Ryan or Aishwarya Rai, but if we're talking about baseline competence, he's at least a step above them. 😁 😁 😁 I just felt compelled to take advantage of a perfect opening when I saw one, especially given this particular crowd, since, quite frankly, his film was an absolute disappointment.
Blue Eyes said:I honestly don't get why they’re grouping Tanović in the same conversation as some Bollywood starlet or Meg Ryan. It makes zero sense to me.😕
I mean, look, Steven Soderbergh was even at Cannes... but trying to lump Meg Ryan and this Indian actress together in this context is just baffling, isn't it? If the festival's whole identity is supposed to be built on these deep, "artistic" masterpieces, how does it make any sense to let a mainstream Hollywood icon and a Bollywood superstar dictate the awards process?!? I get the need for publicity—heaven knows we all love a bit of star power—but still, shouldn't there be some level of artistic integrity involved here?...🙄>
Richard Hernandez13 said:He wasn't actually the illustrator, he was the screenwriter (Crumb was just one of the guys drawing the comics). And the film wasn't even in the official selection because it had already snagged a win at Sundance.
My mistake there... I clearly didn't read my own quote closely enough.😉 But honestly, isn't the most fascinating thing about this whole movie the way they weave those comic book illustrations directly into the narrative? They try to replicate that specific comic book "mise en scene" within the live-action shots themselves—though, heaven knows, how on earth did that actually turn out?
Richard Hernandez13 said:And maybe it wasn't even worth the effort in the end. The initial buyout offer for "Dogville" was sitting at $4 million. Then, while the festival was in full swing and all this massive buzz started building around the film, the price shot up to $6 million—only for it to eventually sell for less than that original starting point.
I actually had no idea that was the case 😁 😁 ... and when I brought up "Dogville" earlier, I was being purely ironic about whether that massive expense for the festival presentation actually "paid off" for them. Honestly, I can already see von Trier pivoting back to those gritty, low-budget Dogma 95 rules for his next project. 😁 😁
driftingowl27 said:Can we just collectively agree for a second that I absolutely loved the message behind a movie with a final third like that? Honestly, how can anyone not be completely floored by it? 😁
It is honestly such a blast watching this constant tug-of-war between two completely different ways of making a movie. On one hand, you have that approach where there's this desperate, almost heavy-handed desire to depict "inner" conflicts and deliver some sort of "deep," profound message—the kind of filmmaking where the creator actually thinks they can change the world through the screen (Charlie). But then, you have the total opposite side, where a film is just pure, unadulterated entertainment—a quick little escape from reality where the characters are driven by nothing more than basic, primal urges like violence and sex (Donald). Isn't that dynamic just incredibly fun to watch? And as for the end—or really, that entire last third of the film—it feels less like a conclusion and more like a pointed statement directed squarely at both the Hollywood industry and the audience at large. 😁 😁
Oh yeah, there’s another one that looks absolutely fascinating: the American indie flick "American Splendor," which actually made the cut for the "Un Certain Regard" program... it’s all about that underground comic legend Harvey Pekar. And get this—they actually weave in the artwork of the icon Robert Crumb throughout the movie. Here is a snippet from a review:
As a friend of Robert Crumb, sharing that same obsessive, deep-seated passion for jazz, vintage vinyl, and literature, Pekar views himself as nothing more than a casualty of the system. These "comics"—which featured his scripts alongside illustrations by Crumb and others—eventually gave rise to the ironically titled American Splendor. His life is essentially a whirlwind of financial ruin, crushing insecurity, various neuroses, and those endless, grinding daily anxieties, all channeled through the persona of a famously cranky guy with questionable hygiene.
Honestly, the description feels quite similar to Terry Zwigoff's "Ghost World" from last year... and if it holds up even half as well as that one did, it's definitely worth a watch.
driftingowl27 said:It’s almost embarrassing how obvious it has become that this guy’s entire approach to filmmaking is fundamentally hollow... though, granted, it did take them a little while to realize it 🙄
Honestly, this whole Cannes affair has turned into quite the spectacle, hasn't it? You have the jury president, Patrice Chereau—who gave us that absolute disaster "Intimacy"—alongside a panel of supposed film "theorists" like Meg Ryan and the former Miss USA, Aishwarya Rai 😁 😁 (and goodness knows I could easily throw Danis Tanovica into that mix if I felt like it 😁 😁 ) And then comes the sheer pretension of it all: awarding a film that—yet again!—obsesses over gun culture in the US and the shooting at Columbine High School (Gus van Sant)... plus we have that one Turkish "art house" flick. From what I can gather, the only things actually worth watching are the Canadian "The Barbarian Invasion" ... and, naturally, Clint Eastwood. If there is any silver lining to be found here, it might just be the fact that they snubbed Lars von Trier... my most loathed director, following "Dancer in the Dark" 😠 😠 . And don't even get me started on "Dogville"—I mean, really, a three-hour epic about the Great Depression set entirely on a theater stage!? On top of that, the entire production crew seems to have lived in total luxury, racking up a bill of about $500,000 for this festival alone because they insisted on staying in the finest hotels, and of course, special treatment was reserved for Nicole Kidman... but I suppose it was all worth it in the end.😁 😁
Susan Wright12 said:I honestly feel like the core issue with this movie is that every single character is set up to be such an easy target for mockery from the very jump, which means the whole thing isn't even cynical or critical—it’s just cheap parody and needlessly cruel. Plus, that one line about "I'd just wank" is totally out of line. That said, I do agree the casting was solid and the direction felt quite elegant, but my final takeaway is just pure superficiality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here claiming "Happiness" is some kind of masterpiece; it's just that watching "Ken Park" actually made me feel a bit better about it by comparison.😁
Have you ever sat through Todd Solondz's "Storytelling"? It’s a mess... just completely incoherent. Honestly, even the "Belle and Sebastian" soundtrack used in that one didn't do much for me.
Susan Wright12 said:... and the absolute worst part was Sex and Lucia.
Why on earth would anyone say that? Honestly, I found the movie to be relatively decent enough... especially once I finally decided to stop taking the whole thing so incredibly seriously. It’s pretty obvious the director was just cherry-picking bits and pieces from elsewhere: you can see the influence of *Amores Perros*, maybe a touch of David Lynch... all wrapped up in a heavy dose of gratuitous sex scenes. 😁 😁 And let's not forget that it's at least half an hour shorter than it probably should have been. PS. I actually thought it was kind of charming when I saw the lead actress later in that Almodóvar flick, *Talk to Her*... though, of course, she only shows up for those few minutes during the black-and-white sequence. 😁 😁
Alright, just doing a quick copy-paste here for everyone to see who actually walked away with the hardware this year (though we all know von Trier + Nicole = 0) 😁 😁
Palme d'Or Elephant by Gus van Sant (USA)
Best Director award Elephant by Gus van Sant (USA)
Best Actress award Maria José Cordeiro - Invasions by Denys Arcand (Quebec)
Best Actor award Muzaffer Ozdemir and Mehmet Emin Toprak in distant by Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Turkey)
Best Screenplay Invasions by Denys Arcand (Quebec)
Jury Prize Five in the Afternoon by Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran)
Grand Jury Prize distant by Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Turkey)
Caméra d'Or Reconstruction by Christoffer Boe (Denmark)
Special Mention Caméra d'Or The Wasp by Sedigh Barmak (Afghanistan)
Short Film Awards First Prize Cinéfondation Award Run Rabbit Run by Pavle Vuckov (Mexico)
Second Prize Cinéfondation Award Story of the Desert by Celia Galan Julve (Spain)
Third Prize Cinéfondation Award TV City by Alberto Couceiro and Alejandra Tomei (Argentina) and jointly At That Point... Rebecca by Luciana Gorostiza (Argentina)
Is this really him? Is this actually that guy we were talking about? So, we’re really just going to sit here and talk about "film" in such a broad, sweeping sense without any context at all? Are we truly expected to dive into the vast, sprawling ocean of cinema based on a single word? How can one even begin to unpack the sheer magnitude of what defines a movie when you haven't even given me a genre, a director, or a decade to work with? Is this some kind of test of my patience, or are we simply staring into the void together? I mean, honestly, where does one even start when the prompt is this hollow? Should we discuss the technical mastery of a classic like *The Godfather*, or are we looking for something more modern, perhaps something that captures the kinetic energy of an action masterpiece? It's maddening, really! To throw out a term as heavy as "film" and expect a meaningful dialogue is almost an insult to the medium itself, don't you think? Give me something to chew on! Give me a name, a studio, a specific era, or even just a mood, and then—and only then—can we actually have a conversation worth having! He hasn't shown up here yet... so I suppose you'll just have to wait around for some fellow American to turn up so you can actually hear a decent opinion shared... Honestly, you could have just leaned into it and said that Zhang Ziyi is the one delivering that powerhouse performance in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon! 😁 😁
damien said:I honestly don't think this is just a critique of American society—it applies to us here too. The exact same issues are playing out right here on our doorstep.
... I have to agree, some of the things depicted in this movie aren't exclusive "achievements" of American culture, they just happen to be most visible there. What really rubbed me the wrong way was this desperate, almost frantic need to shock the audience, as if the director thought the more depraved, the better: a teenager sleeping with his mother and daughter, a father creeping into his son's bed at night, a kid masturbating while watching tennis players sighing on a TV screen, and so on. It feels like Larry Clark reached a certain level with 🙄 Kids... and now he's just desperately trying to "push the boundaries" again. The film actually fared quite well with the critics... though where it was released, it lacks a massive distribution footprint for very obvious reasons, appearing mostly at festivals, and even then, you get different versions depending on how many minutes were hacked out by censors. I've seen Happiness twice now; the first time I wasn't exactly blown away, but later on, certain details started to grow on me: those phenomenal cameos from Ben Gazzara and Jon Lovitz are standout moments, and the whole film carries such a bitter, cynical tone right from the title... it’s exactly that kind of heavy feeling that permeates the entire viewing experience.
If you’re someone who sat through Todd Solondz’s "Happiness" or maybe found something to appreciate in Ang Liya's "Ice Storm," then sure, you might find this one worth your time... though personally, I thought the whole thing was a complete disaster. Unlike those other two, this particular attempt at a "critique of American society" felt incredibly forced and exhausting to me; I just can't stand films where the director refuses to give the audience any breathing room to actually form their own conclusions. Instead, we're subjected to scenes of the protagonists relieving themselves or masturbating—and apparently, they aren't even "acting" during these moments—along with a relentless barrage of other sequences designed solely to "shock" the viewer under the guise of being "authentic." 🤮 In fact, I honestly think if you stripped away all those cheap, provocative provocations, the movie might actually function better? It has this strange, small-town atmosphere and the characters are undeniably broken... but even so, it’s a 2/5 from me.