In principle, I would suggest looking into the courses offered at the Alamo Drafthouse. It was an exceptional program back when I was in high school, and it truly remains a staple because they attract such a diverse crowd of people from all walks of life and various age groups 🙂 The crux of the matter is that, from a practical standpoint, most people lack any real understanding of the craft—nor do they grasp the theoretical side, which is vital since theory and practice are so deeply intertwined in filmmaking. At a place like that, you can dive into specific segments like editing, cinematography, and screenwriting; I really think you should join them. You’ll eventually be able to check out equipment, and more importantly, you'll build a network of peers Don't let the technology intimidate you, as everything has become incredibly user-friendly these days Once you wrap your head around the underlying logic of the software and the fundamental workflow of the editing process, mastering Adobe Premiere on a PC or Final Cut Pro on a Mac becomes quite straightforward—and a course like this will help you grasp those concepts very quickly 😉
It really all hinges on the underlying concept... if you are comfortable being your own cinematographer and capturing audio with a budget microphone, then it is certainly doable. At its core, this is a documentary, and the documentary format is incredibly forgiving of those kinds of choices, provided the vision is there. It all comes down to what you are trying to achieve. If you find yourself needing a dedicated camera operator, I would suggest reaching out to the local Film Academy, or I could certainly pass along a recommendation from one of my colleagues in the industry. Pricing will fluctuate based on the daily rate and whether equipment is included in the package, among other factors. Ultimately, everything depends on your specific goals and the nature of the film itself. Best of luck!
Bravo! This is truly a fantastic topic. I am honestly not sure how watchable much Giallo is by today's standards—depending on your taste, of course—but a sleek, modern reinterpretation would be absolutely brilliant! Imagine something akin to the style of Roman Coppola! On a personal note, I practically grew up surrounded by those classic "yellow-covered novels" because my father read them every single day... and even now, he finds himself revisiting the same ones for the tenth time, simply as a way to keep his Italian sharp! And really, where else could you find a better way to do that than through the lens of Giallo? Hehe. 😉
The new François Ozon film and "Let the Right One In" would be my top picks, sitting right at the summit of my list... although, if I am being honest, "Let the Right One In" is already about two years old by now. Is it possible that it hasn't even had a proper festival screening here in the States yet?
Exactly! It truly feels surreal that this won't be getting a wide theatrical release. But then again, that is just how it goes with Wes Anderson, isn't it? When you consider works like The Royal Tenenbaums or The Darjeeling Limited, we aren't exactly talking about small-scale indie projects here. The same logic seems to apply to von Trier as well; he consistently commands more publicity than many mainstream Hollywood stars, not to mention his ability to pull in talent like Willem Dafoe... it is quite peculiar, don't you think?
For those who are paying attention, I wanted to share some news regarding upcoming screenings: we have yet another wonderful opportunity to experience mainstream festival cinema, featuring some truly heavyweight auteurs. We have a new von Trier, a new Haneke, and the highly acclaimed Filipino director Brillante Mendoza (I suggest you look into his work afterward). Then there is that charming Uruguayan "Giant"—I caught it during my travels this past summer and found it quite solid... though, one has to wonder, when was the last time any of us sat down to watch a truly great Uruguayan film?
In any case, I am personally looking forward to it quite a bit!
Following the success of last week’s “Cannes at AMC” series held at the Downtown center—which was later broadcast across the United States—the program features several films that domestic distributors typically overlook: those prestigious world festival winners that simply don't command the massive box office numbers seen by Hollywood blockbusters. The most compelling title featured in “Movie Mania” is Michael Haneke's “White Ribbon”. This particular film garnered three major European Film Awards as well as the Palme d'Or at Cannes.
The lineup will showcase all the standout selections from two of the world's premier festivals. From Cannes, we have “Prophet” by Jacques Audiard, “Wild Grass” by Alain Resnais, “Antichrist (Lars von Trier)” by Lars von Trier, “Kinatay” by Brillante Mendoza, and “To Win!” by Marco Bellocchio; meanwhile, representing Berlin, there is the Peruvian winner “Milk and Sorrow” by Claudia Llosa, the German production “All the others are strange and good”, and the Uruguayan film “Giant”, which shared the Silver Bear.
Discovery and Jane Doe seem much more focused on European cinema and independent films, whereas General Motors and Blitz take a different approach entirely. While General Motors is decent enough, I find that Blitz just doesn't hit the mark for me at all.
But I maintain that, in a sense, they are constrained by the specific titles that Discovery and Paramount acquired for the American market. Granted, perhaps if they exerted a bit more effort, they might manage to snatch up a few more gems, though doing so would likely prove to be quite unprofitable for them.
It was Jean Gabin, though I honestly can't recall which specific film it was! He was truly the hero of my childhood; back in the late 80s, my family used to run his movies on a constant loop! A genuine, hard-boiled movie star, wouldn't you agree? 😉
neonscout5 said:Jerry Adams71, you hit the nail on the head. I find myself wondering whether these people simply vanish once the festival concludes, or if these events are merely stages where one feels compelled to be seen, while the actual films themselves remain an afterthought.
Well, Professor, that is precisely the point; festivals have become nothing more than superficial venues for socializing and partying. Even Boris T. Matic understood this dynamic best when he was building up the ZFF on the momentum provided by Motovun. Who actually cares about the cinema here? It has all become a bit of an artsy, hipster pretension...
It is true, Europe feels more hollow than full lately. Fortunately, I suspect they have secured sufficient sponsors and government grants to prevent them from shuttering entirely. And besides, they have Birc! As for Birc, which is perfectly fine in my estimation... it functions essentially as a lounge, a wine bar, or a grapperia. Our alternative crowd doesn't mind it because, in their minds, a "wine bar" is inextricably linked to the prestige of AMC Theater, which maintains its credibility... whereas, typically, a mere "wine bar" would be viewed by our alternative crowd as a symbol of superficiality.
Ultimately, you can sell almost anything to our "Art" audience, but convincing them to actually sit down and watch movies? That is a much harder task indeed! hehe !
For the sake of comparison: Amsterdam only has about two or three theaters that actually screen "better" cinema. I learned this firsthand a few years ago during a conversation with some locals. We are talking about a city roughly the size of Washington, D.C., yet it is far more cosmopolitan, boasting a massive population of students and young people arriving from all over the globe. And we are discussing Amsterdam!
I recall there being an Art House Cinema right in the center of Strasbourg, and that is a much smaller city than Washington, D.C. In my view, the real issue is that cities like Miami, Indianapolis, and Seattle lack such venues, whereas in NYC, the situation has never been better..
Forgive me, neonscout5, but this feels a bit like one of those typical American lamentations—which are often quite justified—but I fear you might be mistaken in this particular instance here.😉 Fortunately!
AMC Theater. It is essentially a classic Western-style art house cinema. I am not entirely certain how their internal mechanics function, but in some way, they are limited by the specific selection of films that domestic distributors acquire and subsequently offer to exhibitors.
Documentary Cinema, over on Katančić. To be perfectly honest, I cannot think of any other American city of Washington, D.C.'s size that possesses a cinema dedicated exclusively to documentaries.
Central Park. In principle, this serves as the American film archive, screening endless series of exceptional titles. Last summer, they even hosted an all-night marathon of French cinema that lasted until about 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning; those with enough stamina could even grab a coffee and a croissant afterward.
There are also KIC, KKZ (though irregularly), and The Roxy (on Mondays). Joining this collective would be MoMA (a similar practice exists everywhere in the world; my mind immediately goes to the MoMA in New York), and Movieplex, which, for example, hosts a week of European titles at the beginning of February—mostly from Cannes or Berlin—all acquired by major distributors like Paramount or Discovery.
Festivals. Film festivals across the globe have, in a sense, acted as a compensation for the decline or shrinking of art house cinemas. In Washington, D.C., we have the Sundance Film Festival, the Human Rights Film Festival, Film Mutation, the Jewish Film Festival, 24FPS, and IDFA... these are serious institutions, even if the Human Rights one functions more as a series, its programming remains deeply significant. I would also include the Motovun Film Festival at Movieplex, which usually takes place in early September. When you factor in various smaller festivals (DHF, RAF, Subversive, Queer, and various screenings sponsored by embassies), it results in nearly three months of film festivals and series annually. It is rare for any city to boast a documentary festival as robust as the one provided by IDFA here in Washington, D.C.
Of course, nothing is perfect. It pains me, for instance, that in NYC, films such as von Trier's Antichrist are still not being screened, though it is likely someone simply bought the rights for the American market. Ultimately, you are left with torrents and a difficult economic climate, both of which are responsible worldwide for the dwindling number of art houses, yet torrents also provide a level of accessibility that was previously impossible. If you prefer to pay, you have "The Auteurs" and their website.
What I am trying to say is that the situation in Washington, D.C. has never been better. Before the war, you had nothing but a single film archive. During the 90s, that archive wasn't even screening anything because the collection remained in Belgrade, a matter that wasn't resolved until the late 90s. KIC was the only entity showing anything, alongside the occasional KKZ, and only much later (around 1999/2000) did the film Mondays at The Roxy begin. To even speak of a dedicated documentary cinema used to be a joke.
For those who seem to think these individuals have fallen on hard times, please allow me to offer some perspective: they are still very much active and quite prosperous. If you take a moment to consult IMDb, you will see that many have simply pivoted to entirely different industries. Show business is, by its very nature, a fickle business; there are moments when you are no longer considered a viable commercial product, and one must naturally seek out other avenues. For instance, isn't it true that Chris O'Donnell reportedly returned to Boston to finish his degree and has since established himself in an entirely different field? Believe me when I say, he certainly isn't struggling to make ends meet. The same logic applies to directors as well. Take Marco Brambilla, for example; he directed two Hollywood productions, both of which were rather lackluster commercial ventures—one being Demolition Man and another featuring Alicia Silverstone. However, if one looks closer, it becomes clear that he has transitioned into the realm of new media and conceptual art, where he earns a substantial living creating cutting-edge installations for high-profile clients.
Yes, I must admit I was quite surprised myself when I happened to catch him on Z1! It was truly impressive. If he isn't going to be a mainstay in the industry, then what else could one hope for?
Wenders' "Texas, Paris" is such a masterclass in atmosphere; he makes such brilliant use of those massive Houston overpasses and sprawling underpasses...
And then there is Wenders' "Wings of Desire" once again, which feels absolutely essential whenever one wishes to discuss the concept of a city serving as its own cinematic stage.
This is a fantastic starting point for a discussion.
Rio de Janeiro in "City of God" Medellin, Colombia in "Salvation" San Francisco in "Bullitt"
New York in Welles' "trial," capturing that Kafkaesque atmosphere of the 1950s and the modern architecture of that era. One could argue that the role of modernism in urban architecture is vastly underrated!
Los Angeles in Soderbergh's "The Limey"
Toronto in Cronenberg's "Crash"
Richmond, Virginia in "The Crow"!
And of course, New York—it’s almost synonymous with Woody Allen films... just off the top of my head.
If I were an instructor teaching film studies, for instance, I would certainly put my students through their paces by assigning the entire filmography of PT Anderson. I’d start with "Boogie Nights," simply because the direction there is nothing short of extraordinary. He managed to craft a true masterpiece while staying firmly within the mainstream studio system. Furthermore, the way he weaves multiple narrative threads together using parallel editing is absolutely masterful. There is also his unique method of introducing characters; I can say with certainty that I have rarely encountered such effective character introductions in American cinema—certainly not within the last thirty years. It is a subtle skill that many directors, not just here in the States but even in Hollywood itself, could stand to study more closely.
One cannot overlook how he utilizes sound design to define and redefine his characters; it serves as a vital pillar of his cinematic language. There is so much more to unpack regarding his brilliance, but he is truly a master of the craft.
Perhaps we should save the deeper analysis of his work for later, once we have moved into the 1940s era. 🙂))