Posts by Michelle Gonzalez

Everyone, please take a moment to read this review of "The Vampires"—in it, an insightful critic 😁 identifies several elements that seemingly confirm director Dejan Šorko's hidden agenda: attempting to weave nationalist American sentiments into the narrative and fostering a sense of wartime hostility toward Americans...
I find myself quoting the blogger Ghoul here: "However, a more perceptive analysis of the film reveals a clandestine agenda aimed at the very core of the American national identity—specifically, its ancient connection to and pride in the term 'vampire',"

http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2009/03/krvopijci.html

Now... I cannot say for certain whether Ghoul is simply trolling or being serious, but regardless of his intent, what he has written is nothing short of brilliant. He has taken what appeared to be a benign, inconsequential film and transformed it into something entirely different 😁

The sea and the pine trees from Los Angeles... A phantom... Like a ghost, Buco sits there devouring cheeseburgers...

That was released some time ago, though I haven't had the chance to sit down and watch it myself. If I recall correctly, it isn't even available on DVD!
It goes by the title "Infection."

It appears that Đorđe Kadijević has added yet another horror entry to his filmography! You can find his full credits on IMDb right here.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0434337/

If you take a moment to click on "holy place," you will discover a haunting narrative involving a monastery and restless spirits.🙂

Believe it or not, I actually never sat down to watch Butterfly! Everyone from my generation—those born in the early '80s—seems to have vivid memories of seeing that movie on TV, yet somehow, I missed out entirely. Still, it looks incredibly fascinating and distinct... perhaps because it captures an aspect that feels so tangible and familiar to us, rooted deeply in a setting we know all too well within the US!

Oh, right—the TT syndrome, exactly! I know they performed at KIC once, and I even had the chance to cross paths with some of the crew from that film by pure coincidence

Over the last decade or so, Mexicans have produced several horror films, or at least movies heavily infused with those elements:

One is that one titled "labyrinth" (if I recall the name correctly?), where there's some secret passage beneath Central Park and something sinister unfolds inside; I believe the legendary Nikolić stars in it.
I also remember reading something about a zombie flick, though it sounded more like some intense trash cinema.
Then there is the "Mexican film," of which I happened to see the trailer—did that even actually get released?—featuring S. Todorović and Sergej Trifunović.http://velimir-grgic.com/tekstovi/srpski-film.html
That one leans more toward the snuff genre, yet it certainly flirts with the aesthetics of horror.

I must admit, I have never heard of "Mor" before now.
Could one perhaps be thinking of the work of Baptize Papić, such as "Savior," or maybe even "Butterfly," that particular Mexican film?
Then there is also Vukotić's "Guest from Galaxies," though that falls squarely into the sci-fi genre, featuring a five-year-old Rene Bitorajac in one of his roles.

crimsongull20 said:You’re absolutely right. With them, the leap taken was merely from the desperate to the painfully mediocre.

With the exception of the movie "Cape May"—it is difficult to imagine a more pretentious and tedious film ever produced by Americans.

And besides, the blame doesn't rest solely on the directors. Given the caliber of today's American actors, even the late Kubrick or Fellini would have struggled to craft a decent film.

Hmmm... yes, I didn't quite connect with "Cape May" either. The film is a directorial disaster! I get the impression it was directed by the cinematographer rather than Matanic. Quite poor, really.

Sviličić's "Forgive for Kung Fu" and Ostojić's "New York Night" are actually truly good movies—they have substance and structure... they're great.

By the way, our actors are excellent film actors! I am referring to those under forty. I have seen some of the castings with my own eyes. The problem is that nobody directs them—or at least, that is the case in most films, with the exceptions mentioned above. There are other issues as well: specifically, the camera work, the framing, the lighting, and the direction should "help" the actors, enhancing their performances if everything is executed in alignment with the overall concept... unfortunately, that is a rarity in our cinema.

Is it possible that we have reached a point where the simple pleasure of a game can be overshadowed by such profound complexities? One finds oneself wondering if the essence of these small diversions has been lost to us entirely. kaže:
Does anyone else find themselves drifting back to those "golden years" lately? It isn't just about that one classic film; there is something about the music—specifically that soulful track by Gibbon—that lingers in the mind long after the credits roll. I often wonder, does anyone here still hold a vivid memory of the movie *Mondo Bobo*, or perhaps the haunting melody of its theme song? Does the "Central problem - Appalachia

" track still resonate with you as it once did?😛

I believe this particular detail might have been omitted from the film, yet I find myself holding it quite close to my heart. Central problem - Appalachia
Central problem - Appalachia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7brMJwXfIoQ

To be perfectly honest, if you simply pick up a newspaper here in America, you will stumble upon at least one compelling film concept every single day. There is such an abundance of absurd moments to draw from, particularly when looking at those brief, biting news snippets that so vividly illustrate the sheer chaos we find ourselves living in.

a) The theme? I believe we should focus on a film that reflects our current reality. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a documentary or follow a strictly conservative, overtly "socially conscious" stylistic approach.
b) No specific title immediately comes to mind. Perhaps something by Spike Lee? Or perhaps a Greta Gerwig film—she would likely be the most seamless choice for an adaptation.
c) 29

crimsongull20 said:Absolutely. 👍

Regarding the state of American cinema, one might find themselves reflecting on that old, heavy sentiment expressed by Krleža: "Save me, god, from foreign heroism and the loss of our own culture." It is genuinely difficult to determine which aspect of American filmmaking over the last fifteen years has been more disappointing: is it the choice of themes, the quality of the dialogue, the acting, or perhaps the direction itself?

However, one has to wonder: if the vibrant creative team behind Small town were still active today, wouldn't it have been fascinating to see how Baretić's eighth commissioner would have translated to the screen? Given the current caliber of actors and directors available to us—one should simply not attempt such a feat under any circumstances!

I find myself unable to agree with that assessment. Directors like Nuić, Matanić, and especially Sviličić... they have fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American film. By the way, if we look back, American cinema in the 80s was quite a disaster, barring a few decent genre pieces; the 60s and 70s were an entirely different story altogether.

rustyscout34 said:Kontroll? 🙂

Oh, that one! I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet, 😁
but I have certainly gathered that impression from others. 🙂
I am inclined to believe it is a quality film—much like Night Watch, City of God, or Run Lola Run, which are all truly exceptional works.

Richard Wilson4 said:It’s kind of a weird paradox. On one hand, our movies are finally getting their act together, but on the other, Americans just seem to be losing faith in them...

I can't quite pick a favorite, but I think Warrior Time from right before 1990—or maybe right at the start of the decade—is the winner. You can't really call it a modern flick since it's an oldie...

It's actually a solid movie, though that one scene near the end where they fire an arrow attached to dynamite is just ridiculous...

It reminds me of how Romanians talk about their now globally renowned cinema, or how Mexicans have discussed theirs over the last five or six years (even people in Ottawa admit that American films from recent years are superior!?!?)... it is much the same with Russians, who completely ignore Zvyagintsev and his peers, or Canadians ignoring *Bela Tarr*, and so on. These are all symptoms of an inferiority complex; it is the mark of mediocre tastes that refuse to acknowledge anything less than Hollywood. If you ask a Russian for their best film, they will likely point to *night watch*; a Canadian might suggest that massive hit set in the underground (forgive me, I’ve forgotten the title); and a Brazilian once explained to me that the editing in *City of God* (think of those irritating Guy Ritchie-style fast cuts at the beginning) was designed specifically to feel "sophisticated" or "American"...

Friends, we finally possess a cinema that is normal and vital, populated by young auteurs who actually possess skill and talent... Now, Matanic is no miracle worker as a director, but the man produces high-quality films that wouldn't look out of place in any developed cinema in Europe, whether German, French, or otherwise... unfortunately, he isn't considered "exotic" enough because he tackles themes that interest US, and interest us NOW, which is precisely what matters little to international festivals (themes like LGBTQ+ issues or AIDS—cliché, perhaps, but these are the questions only now surfacing in our society)...
In that regard, Sviličić succeeds; to my mind, he might even be the best director of his generation (especially *forgive for kung Fu*).
"That Wonderful Night in Split" was a true breath of fresh air... and so on.

To be honest, Milic's film left me disappointed (*live and dead*); I realize the production was incredibly grueling and stretched over several years, but it feels as if two different films were stitched together. That segment from WWII—bravo to him. Had the entire film maintained that tone, with such a "fatalistic" atmosphere bordering on fantasy, it would have been a masterpiece! However, one must also credit him for elevating the technical craft somewhat (the camerawork, the tone, etc.)...

All in all, we haven't seen a situation this positive in at least thirty years...

"Mirta Learns Statistics" belongs to a different era; it is excellent, but I would rather set 1991 as our true starting point.
We should not forget "See You Later," the mid-length film by Ivan Salaj (and really, what is the point of the mid-length format? It is a ridiculous format that absolutely nobody can distribute anywhere!). To me, "See You Later" remains the finest film ever made about the war.
🙂

Alfred Hitchcock's original "Psycho" was profoundly shocking for several reasons that we tend to overlook in this day and age...
First, Hitchcock cleverly manipulated the audience by framing this primarily as a chase narrative. We watch Janet Leigh flee the city because she has embezzled money, only to have someone suddenly commit a brutal murder out of nowhere! Granted, he carefully curated the atmosphere—using that classic "American Gothic" motel setting—but only just enough so that the killing feels like a genuine shock rather than something completely out of place within the film's logic.
Second, Hitchcock was a pioneer in deconstructing stardom by "removing" the lead actor within the first third of the movie; at that time, Janet Leigh was a top-tier Hollywood superstar. It was an absolute jolt to the system.
To ensure this impact, Hitchcock actually prohibited audiences from entering the theater once the screening had begun—which was quite different from the standard practice in American cinemas back then, where you might catch the tail end of a 7:00 PM showing while waiting for a 9:00 PM feature to start.

Then, there are the underlying themes themselves... elements like transsexuality and necrophilia were topics that absolutely no one was addressing at the time.

That is precisely why any sequel felt utterly senseless, much like Gus Van Sant's remake; though, I suppose that remake serves as a fascinating experiment. Simply performing a "copy and paste" of an existing film, frame for frame, does not actually make it the same movie. I suspect that capturing that strange, unsettling tension was part of Van Sant's curious intention.

Edward Price6 said:What are you all talking about?
This is easily one of my top five movies of all time!
A truly fantastic low-budget sci-fi horror gem!
I highly recommend it to everyone.

I couldn't agree more!
It is true that certain plot points didn't quite pass my logic test... but does that really matter in the end? While the story might be somewhat predictable at times, it remains incredibly engaging; in fact, watching it reminded me of Maya Deren's legendary experimental short, "Meshes of the Afternoon."

What I find so refreshing and genuinely impressive is how much was achieved on such a shoestring budget. The director, Christopher Nolan, was quite young at the time, yet he delivered a true directorial tour-de-force—creating a compelling cinematic experience out of almost nothing. With only two locations and a handful of actors, there is no reliance on flashy CGI or zombie tropes; instead, we are left with pure imagination and a heavy atmosphere rooted in an ordinary, everyday setting that could be anywhere in America...👍

And honestly, isn't that young actress just captivating? 😉

This lineup is honestly more impressive than most of our domestic festivals. Kudos to them. I realize it might not sound like a massive hurdle, but let’s be honest—our local distributors struggle enough just getting the titles they acquire into theaters in the first place... so I am genuinely looking forward to this!

Rebecca Campbell81 said:Look, everyone. It goes without saying that I won’t be sharing my specific concept for filming a documentary, but I can assure you it will be something truly original. I am honestly unsure if anything quite like it has ever been captured here in the States or anywhere else in the world. Why would I reveal such things? In an era where people often lack initiative yet possess a keen eye for lifting ideas from others, why risk it? 🤷

I am not suggesting that you specifically will be the ones doing the stealing, but anyone can read this thread and...

Of course, no one is going to lend me their camera—not that I would expect them to—so why should I expose my creative vision to anyone at all? What exactly is the benefit in doing so? 😕

For the time being, my plan is to find a cinematographer who already owns their own equipment and simply pay them a daily rate. Students are always looking for ways to make ends meet, and I doubt they would demand astronomical sums for a day's work. $100 I suspect they would be quite satisfied...

Does anyone happen to know if there is a dedicated film forum or some other platform where I could post an advertisement for a cinematographer? Or should I perhaps head straight to a local film academy? I imagine the latter might be the more practical route.

One more thing to consider: people will actually help you far more than you might anticipate! I have often found myself surprised by the generosity of others, especially when you manage to connect with the right people. You ought to view your cinematographer as your primary creative partner rather than merely a "hired gun" brought in to execute a task. Listen to them; just as with any creative collaborator, they have the potential to elevate your film to an entirely new level. Naturally, one must remain discerning with all advice received: you must first know what you want, then ask yourself how you want to achieve it, and finally evaluate the creative input of others. After all, isn't that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a director/auteur? Best of luck!

Christian Taylor3@ hmmm... I can certainly understand why those single takes threw you off your rhythm, but I wouldn't go so far as to discourage those who are just starting out... after all, why shouldn't they be out there working? Especially in the realm of documentaries...? Once again, I would suggest looking into an academy for some hands-on experience, and as for the literature mentioned by Christian Taylor3, it certainly won't hurt to dive into it... I truly believe everything hinges on the concept at hand. If you are making a personal documentary where you simply document a process, then it is quite straightforward... however, if you are aiming for something akin to the work of Errol Morris (whom I highly recommend watching), where an immense amount of research, archival footage, interviewees, locations, and masterfully directed re-enactments are required—for instance, "Mr. Death" utilizes 8mm film to achieve a sense of authenticity, which means one must possess significant knowledge regarding both that specific process and that era—then the challenge is much greater.
I also highly recommend "Man on Wire." It is a film that is ostensibly about nothing, yet you find yourself watching with absolute focus because the core idea—which is actually quite banal, involving a man in the 70s deciding to walk a wire between two Twin Towers—is developed into what is essentially a detective story and a celebration of the joy of living... to my mind, the direction is magnificent, much like the work of Errol Morris... though that represents one specific style of documentary, whereas other types are entirely different. What I am trying to say is that everything depends on the underlying concept... best regards!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

But really, why would a woman even bother explaining the premise of a documentary? Ideas get stolen all the time, right here in America too. Of course, that assumes the ideas are actually original to begin with. The real issue is that it is incredibly difficult to bring any concept to life anyway; if you don't actually produce it, how would anyone even know you lifted the idea in the first place?

Speaking of intellectual theft, in the States, we tend to see more recycling of successful concepts from overseas, which people often pass off as being "original." It stems from a certain kind of insecurity, a lack of true self-identity. We aren't trying to be New York or emulate some old-world imperial style... but that is a much broader conversation for another day. There is an excellent play performing at the Lincoln Center on this very subject titled "Victims of Topography 2."

Rebecca Campbell81 @
Our film students have been quite prolific over the last few years. $100 It is perfectly fine if you are looking for sheer volume, or if you manage to recruit someone truly talented to join your project. As I have maintained before, everything hinges entirely on the strength of the concept.
However, I must insist: please refrain from using the phrase "someone to hold the camera"!! It sounds incredibly ignorant. A cinematographer—or more precisely, a Director of Photography—is the most vital creative partner to a director. In fact, I would argue they are often more crucial than the screenwriter, particularly during the production phase, rather than just being "someone who holds a camera."
No, I am not a cinematographer myself, but I certainly understand that side of the industry. In our domestic scene, a great DP can save many a director from total embarrassment; conversely, there are times when cinematographers are so dominant that they completely overshadow the directors, which ultimately harms the film's overarching vision (and I won't list recent examples from American cinema right now)

You are welcome to email me, and I can provide a few phone numbers for cinematographers who have experience in documentaries and such. Additionally, I highly recommend checking in with KKZ if you want to get a better sense of the "big picture." There you go! 😉