Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• A Beginner's Guide to Video for the IPod
• Converting Videos for iPod, Take 2
• Video Ipod

Leave Comment

Leave Comment

Leave Comment

Leave Comment

-----------------------

My TV watching has declined a lot in recent years. Part of this was due to moving in with my now wife in a condo that got bad reception and refusing to pay for the high prices of Washington DC cable. Since we moved out to the suburbs, bought a new TV, and a TiVo, we've been watching more, but still not large amounts. Part of my problem is that I want to be able to watch a series from the beginning. Coming in on the third season seems like coming into a movie in the middle.

Everwood was a show that I remember hearing about when it came out a couple of years ago, but at the time we just didn't get the WB network due to poor reception. Luckily Warner Home Video, as they and others have done with many other series, have made the first season of Everwood available on DVD. So I sat down and watched all 23 episodes in less than a week! Yes, I got hooked. And of course when you have an entire season at your disposal, it's just too easy to say "well, what the heck, let's just watch ONE more."

Everwood, for those who haven't seen it, is about a famous neurosurgeon, Dr. Andy Brown (Treat Williams), whose wife dies in the pilot. Fame had to do partly due to his dedication, but this translates into being a "workaholic" especially when it means missing almost every important event in your family's life. His 15-year-old son Ephram (Gregory Smith) despises him. He was amazingly close to his mother, but practically a stranger to his father. Delia (Vivien Cardone), Andy's 9-year-old daughter, is still too young to have garnered anything but love and admiration for her father. Soon after the death of his wife, Andy decides to move the entire family to the small mountain town of Everwood, Colorado where he opens a doctors office where he sees patients for free. So, Ephram hates him even more for taking him totally out of his element (one which he apparently had a shakey grasp on to begin with - being somewhat of a geek-loner), and even Delia struggles to make even one new friend. The main thrust of the first season revolves around Amy Abbot (Emily VanCamp), who befriends Ephram in order to get his father to operate on her boyfriend who is in a coma. Her father, Dr. Harold Abbott (Tom Amandes), also happens to be the town's only doctor before Dr. Brown and family come to town. His ornery, persnickety nature is only made more so by the freewheeling Dr. Brown who often displays the tunnel vision of an idealist. But Dr. Abbot is not the one-sided villain to Andy's Hero that you would get from a predictable show. Everwood constantly surprises you by foiling those stereotypes. No one is a villain and a hero so much as they are all humans with their own flaws as well as strengths.

I think of Everwood as kind of a mutated Northern Exposure, but with a lot more family relationship stuff thrown in. Like Northern Exposure, it's about a New Yorker (or New Yorkers as the case is) going someplace far from home where he experiences culture shock, meets lots of cute small-town characters, and becomes in integral part of the community. The family stuff, though, adds a powerful supplement to what could be seen as a formula, and the excellent writing and acting, similar to Northern Exposure, is always a valuable asset. Everwood doesn't shy away from controversial issues like porn and abortion, and I found myself cringing a few times, which I suppose is a good thing in a way. The treatment of these issues is ultimately sensitive and multidimensional, but due to their nature if they were handled with too soft a touch, you wouldn't get the impact that they really should have on many of us. Feeling a little uncomfortable sometimes I think shows that a show is really touching some buttons. And Everwood touches a lot of buttons, not so much because of contrived situations that make us sad, or music that helps it to tough on the heartstrings, but by some dialog that is honest and sometimes brutally so. It's character development is such that we really understand the impact when one person does or says something to another, we feel it ourselves much more than in cardboard cut-out clichés that make up much of what TV and Cinema has become.

The DVD set comes with 6 DVD's containing the 23 episodes. In addition to these, there is a 24-minute making of featurette that fills in some of the history of how the pilot was developed and filmed, and then subsequently how Everwood made its way through its first season. Another feature is a short clip of video that is taken first by Gregory Smith, then my Emily VanCamp - basically just candids from behind the set. Finally, there is a series of 10 or so deleted scenes both with and without a commentary track. These were helpful in giving even more insight into the characters. Apparently they often shoot more than the allotted 45 minutes for each episode and have to throw away at least a little for most episodes. So theoretically there might have been even more of these on the cutting room floor, but these give a nice enough taste of what we might have if the show were a bit longer, or without commercial breaks. Warner Brothers also provided commentary tracks for 4 of the 23 episodes - the pilot, the 5th show "Deer God", the 20th show, "Moonlight Sonata," and the finale, "Home." The constants in these were the executive producers Greg Berlanti and Mickey Liddell, but Treat Williams is in most of them as well. In addition, Tom Amandes is in a couple and Gregory Smith and Emily VanCamp are both in one respectively. Generally Berlanti and Lidell do most of the talking in these, although Treat Williams can get a little talkative as well. The others are generally much more quiet. I did enjoy the commentaries and they of course gave a lot of additional insight, but I do wish they would have included more of the actors and allowed those actors to talk more. Instead it seems like the most talkative of the groups got to drown out everyone else. The other thing that bothered me a little was that Treat Williams was constantly joking. It was obviously a very amiable environment on set and that was reflected in these commentary tracks, but especially when some pretty heavy scenes were being shown I would have rather not had Treat goofing about his beard or some other piece of silliness. Nevertheless, these are somewhat minor quibbles; in general I really enjoyed the commentary tracks as well as the other special features.

The first season of Everwood (I don't know about the 2nd or 3rd), was filmed in standard 4:3 aspect ratio, although apparently they letterboxed the premier episode and the finale. Nevertheless, none of these episodes are enhanced for widescreen. The picture is still very good, although I'm hoping that future seasons get put on HD video. The sound is also quite good, and while it is a very dialog-centric series, of course, the creations of Blake Neely add a lot to the sound of Everwood.

Now the only thing I need is Everwood Season Two. This brings me to something else I wanted to write about - TV Series on DVD. As I mentioned, I'm one of those people who like to see things from the beginning and in order. Now that I've seen the first season of this series on DVD, I have a dilemma. Do I just read the season synopses of all the episodes from Season 2 and 3 that I've missed and start watching from the middle of the 3rd season? Or do I refuse to watch anything on TV at the moment and wait until Season 2 comes out on DVD? If Season 2 were out now, I would gladly buy it, or at the very least rent it. I realize that getting a whole season of series like Everwood onto DVD is a chore, let alone two seasons. And I know some of this is marketing decisions. I guess it's figured that doling out a little of a series at a time will garner more hunger for it. But on the flipside of this is the fact that if a new viewer is created by the series making its way to DVD, wouldn't many of those would-be new viewers (for the show in its current season) be created if all the episodes were available so that these new viewers could "catch up" completely? Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, I don't know. Maybe I'm also a bit spoiled by my new TiVo, but my basic preference now is of course to be able to view the content that's been produced and not have to wait for some arbitrary decision by a marketing executive. But maybe that's just me. I had a similar dilemma with Six Feet Under. I saw the first season live, then didn't have HBO when the second season aired, and got it back when the third season started. But the availability on DVD always lagged by a couple of seasons, so I could never catch up and get current - especially since I didn't even have TiVo for most of this time. What I'd really love to see is for content companies to provide these shows to us in a much more flexible way. I know a lot of this has to do with being able to make money with these shows - on TV or via rentals or sales. But I would be perfectly willing to pay if it meant that I could get whatever episode of a series I wanted at any time, streamed or downloaded of the net from the content provider's site. Hopefully these companies will get wise and offer something akin to this soon. Currently my only choice is to go look for a copy of the show online, a prospect whose legality is questionable at the very least. Offer choices and people will bite, lack of choices often cause people to create solutions for themselves - solutions that don't make these companies any money, but only causes headaches for both the potential viewer as well as the company trying to prevent unauthorized copying of their intellectual property.

Leave Comment

Leave Comment

Let me qualify this by saying that I didn’t catch the entire show. I turned to it a little late and had to switch a way a few times to see what was going on during the ALCS game.

The Biggest Loser is different from most reality shows because it involves as its central theme improving your health. Or at least this is the motivation that people talk about as their reason to stay on the show, although I imagine there must be some monetary rewards as well. It’s also very different in that these folks, on the whole, seemed to be all about supporting each other. They all of this common problem of being overweight and they all seemed extremely nice about wanting everyone to lose as much as possible. That was nice and different, but we’ll see how long it lasts. Also the host of the show is extremely nice even when she’s telling people they must leave.

The show divides the participants into two teams, a red team and a blue team. It seems on both teams there’s a variety of participants at varying degrees of overweight as well as both male and female. The premise is that the team that loses the least amount of weight total every week has to pick a person to vote off. During the show you mainly see participants working out and occasionally eating small plates of food. I can’t imagine this being particularly entertaining week in and week out, and luckily it looks like next week they’ve at least spiced things up a little by creating a “challenge” where the teams each have to bake some large quantities of some really fattening desert so that it can then be served at some event or restaurant.

Ok, so the show is different from a lot of reality shows, and that’s nice, but its differences clash a bit with the main structure of the reality show that it upholds – two teams who are competing against each other and participants voting off one of their teammates each week. The biggest problem I saw is that most of these people seem to want to be there because this is a big chance for them, as they see it, to conquer a problem that they’ve had throughout their lives. They aren’t there just for kicks, or to try to kick-start a modeling career, or any career. They are there, as far as we know, to improve their health. You can tell that they are committed and that it is a big deal to them by the emotion that so many of them express on camera during their interviews. In that way it is the most “real” of reality shows and so the voting off seems even more mean. These are people seeking health and you are telling them yet again that they have failed because they haven’t lost enough weight.

Speaking of weight, this is another problem I have with the show. Weight is the factor by which everyone is judged. For a public that has been given little respect for their intelligence for a long time, this makes some sense. The creators of the show, if they even recognized that weight probably was not the best measurement to go by, nonetheless decided to choose it because it is simple and it is what most people use to judge their progress in this area. The ridiculous amounts of weight loss that people had during this first week (many over 15 lbs and a couple over 20 lbs!), just shows what a ridiculous measurement it is. Maybe it doesn’t matter for a show like this, except that you keep hearing the word “health.” Losing large amounts of weight very quickly is generally not seen as the healthiest way to lose. Plus weight in and of itself only says so much. It’s extremely doubtful that anyone lost 20 lbs of fat in that one week. And that should be what these people are trying to lose – their excess fat. The other parts of them – organs, bone, and muscle – are not things you want to lose mass from! But with a 22-lb loss, you are undoubtedly losing something besides just fat. Probably some of that is muscle, despite their doing resistance exercises to theoretically increase muscle mass. But a lot of it is probably water, which is often a big part of anyone’s weight loss at the beginning of any diet.

This brings me to another point, which is how fair is the actual winning or losing?  I realize this is a TV show and few of these shows are really fair, but still, I just think it’s really arbitrary that they are judged by the total weight of their team.  True, some of this may be in their control – how much they work out and how much they eat, but they have these personal trainers that work them to death.  One participant talked about doing five hours per day.  Working out that much I doubt having an extra 500 calories in food is going to make that much difference.  The other problem with this is that everyone is different.  Women lose fat generally at a slower pace than men.  People who start out heavier generally lose a lot more at the start, possibly because they have more water weight in them and this gets shed in the first week or so.  Metabolisms differ dramatically from person to person and especially if you consider all the different ages of the participants, which seem to range from early 20’s up to maybe early 50’s.  How could one evenly divide ANY group of people of varying weights, degree of fitness, etc.  I guess maybe that’s not the point, but it will be interesting to see how choosing someone to vote off will be decided.  For the premier, the person voted off was the person who lost the least weight.  She was seen as not having as much weight to lose as others, thus not being able to “pull her weight” so to speak.

I guess what bugs me most is the issue that they have made a game out of something that is a serious personal stuggle for millions, for whom it’s not a game at all.  Maybe that’s being overly serious, but still, the problem remains that they are judging people on one thing and one thing alone at the end of the day – how much they weigh.  We already as a culture overemphasize the power of the almighty scale and that somewhat arbitrary number.  This number, as millions have found, is incredibly hard to control.  Those who’ve been thin all their lives won’t understand this because they haven’t had to struggle with it.  They think it’s simply a matter of portion control and personal responsibility.  While I’m not denying there is a lot of responsibility involved, it’s not that simple.  Experts disagree on what the best way to lose and maintain that loss, and lots of facets of our (Western, in particular U.S.) culture get in the way, including a more automated, car-driven lifestyle, all-you-can-eat and largest portion for your buck thinking, etc.  Our society also seems to want a one-size fits all magic pill solution which is odd since we pride ourselves on individualism.  The point is, though, that you can’t just decide “I’m going to lose X lbs. this week”  Despite the vast majority of experts that still tell people they are perfectly efficient input/output systems like a chemical reaction, it’s not just a matter of calories in vs. calories expended.  It’s much more complicated and the huge differences in weight loss during the first episode of the show (3 lbs to 22 lbs) demonstrate this.  So you are judging people on something that they really don’t have a huge amount of control over. 

My fear is that this will just add to the schizophrenic attitude our culture has with food and weight.  But maybe I will be wrong.  Maybe making weight just another arbitrary thing to be judged on, like one’s voice, one’s business leadership skills, or survival skills, will actually bring it down in importance and people will just see it as any other aspect or “skill.”  Maybe those who are overweight will then perceive less of a stigma and can simply find the best way to lose weight without feeling like it is a all or nothing battle for life.  Hopefully this will be the case.  And perhaps future episodes will give the participants and the show in general a little more leeway in figuring out what matters most and what aspects are most characteristics of a participant are fair to use as fodder for throwing them “off the island.”  In all fairness even in this first episode one of the participants said that she had told people she wasn’t going to simply use the weight lost as the reason to vote against someone.  Then again, she did end up using it anyway, probably because at least for this time it was the focus of things.  With these upcoming challenges and probably individual losses becoming a lot closer as the initial water weight loss is no longer in effect, participants will find ample other things to cause them to vote someone off, like good old fashion personality clashes!

Update:  Perusing their website, I was able to fill in a few gaps as far as what I’ve said above:

First off, they do, as I expected have a monetary reward - $250,000.  That’ll by a lot of donuts, har, har.

Caroline Rhea is the host, who I thought looked familiar, but couldn’t place.  She was on Sabrina, the Teenage Witch, but apparently is also a stand-up comic, which I wasn’t aware of.  I don’t know what her stand-up routine is like, but she is not, at least on this show, the picture of Hollywood extreme thinness that is so often the prerequisite among Hollywood, so my guess is that the fact that she’s probably struggled with weight a little herself makes her a good (and compassionate) host for this.  Don’t even get me started on hosts.  The “host” for Another Joe Millionaire was seemingly mocked and despised by the participants and for good reason.  All she would do was to walk into a room and spout off her lines without showing any kind of actual report with anyone.  It was like she was there to show herself to the camera and little else.

The two trainers seem very different based on what they show on the website:

Bob Harper, who is working with the “Blue” team, seems to be a trainer to the stars who spends his summers in the Hamptons and teaches aerobics to the masses.  Bob seems to be all about aerobic exercise as his preferred type.  His preferred diet is called the “Eat More Diet.”  Here is what the site says about it: “Members of this team will eat four to six planned meals a day to boost their metabolism.  The high volume, lower fat and lower carbs will give them energy for their workouts and help them burn fat.”  Hmmm.  Well, lower carbs doesn’t really give one energy for aerobic exercise.  Of course eventually, after a couple of weeks on a low-carb regime people often find they have more energy in general, but it’s more of an prolonged energy good for endurance, not necessarily for doing lots of highly aerobic stuff.  Not that I mind that he is saying “lower carbs” but I just wonder what exactly his view of “lower carbs” is, since this seems to be very subjective for some people.  Maybe it just means 150 grams per day, which IS lower than the average American diet filled with starches, but certainly is not even at the maintenance level of most self-labeled low-carb diets.  Anyway, the issue of low fat also makes his approach a bit confused.  Is it low-fat or low-carb?  Of course you can have lower amounts of both of these macronutrients, but that only leaves the third, protein.  So is it then mostly lean protein?  It doesn’t really say.  Let’s hope so, because with his emphasis on lots of cardio, and seemingly not as much on resistance (weight-training) exercise, there’s a lot more of a possibility for muscle loss.

Jillian Michaels is a fitness trainer who seems to have a different set of qualifications as Bob.  She’s certified by various entities and has some recognition in “Advanced Exercise Nutrition.”  She was a martial arts expert for many years and she has specialized in many areas of fitness including lots of weight-training related areas.  And in fact I did see her participants doing lots of exercise with weights, plus push-ups, sit-ups, etc.  Her diet is termed the “Eat Less Diet” and this is what the site says about it:  “Diet Philosophy: Burn more calories than you take in.  Members of this team will calculate their basal metabolic rate (BMR) to see how many calories they burn without exercise.  Then we will factor in the calories burned with the exercise on top of their BMR and deduct the appropriate amount of calories for desired weight loss.  Team members will eat a high fiber, high protein, low carb diet with emphasis on portion control.  Consuming less calories than they are burning will lead to… WEIGHT LOSS!!”  Well… maybe.  I do like the fact that she emphasized bother lower carb and higher protein and doesn’t get hung up on fat.  Lowering your carb intake can have beneficial effects on insulin levels which in turn has lots and lots of positive physiological effects.  Read Protein Power and you will learn a lot about the science behind this, not just as a weight-loss tool, but as something that improves health.  Protein is frawned upon by many of the extreme low-fat (because protein usually comes with a good deal of fat in the bargain) and also veg*n (because there are few non-animal sources that are particularly high in protein – soy being the only notable exception) advocates.  But protein is what makes up much of our body – muscle is pure protein, but so are much of our organs.  Maintaining good muscle mass can help increase metabolism and strengthen bones, despite the constant unfounded myths that increased protein consumption actually depletes bone mass and causes cancer.  While I don’t think fiber is as big of health boon as some make it out, foods that are high in fiber are often low in carbs as well – lots of greens and other veggies.  Portion control is important for everyone and even though most low-carb plan don’t put specific limits on protein and fat, neither do they encourage people to pig out, at least not explicitly.  Indeed often those on low-carb plans find themselves less hungry.  The increased amount of fat tends to make them fuller.  This is used somehow by critics to “prove” that low carb diets are low-calorie diets in disguise.  Why this is a bad thing, I’m not really sure, but then again, much of the criticism low carb has received turns out to be idiotic and unfounded.  Now, I do remember hearing a part of Jillian’s speil about her diet and kind of deemphasizing carbs, and what I think she was doing there could be construed either way.  I think on the one hand it could be construed as being a bit defensive, and not wanting to be criticized as many are for their support of a low carb regime, but on the positive side I think it might be a good thing that she is suggesting that it isn’t all about the carbs, but as much about getting adequate protein and not pigging out on, say, processed foods that just have a label saying they are “low carb”.  The one problem I have with Jillian’s overall approach is that it gives too much credence to the aforementioned calories in vs. calories out, incredibly dumbed-down way of looking at how the human body works.  In the end, though, I think she still has more sense backing up her approach than does Bob, and so I guess if I’m going to have to root for one team over another, it’ll have to be red.  As it turns out, red did win the first week, albeit from an admittedly pretty insignificant less than 1lb per participant.

Leave Comment

• In a New York Minute
• Pride
• Da Ali G Show: The Complete First Season
• From Homeless to Harvard
  

Leave Comment

I was watching some of the coverage of the men’s gymnastics last night.  They seem to have two experts who do a pretty good job of convincing you that they know what they are talking about.  But for some reason NBC has chosen to throw in a third wheel.  A general commentator that seems to have little background in the sport.  He will say the obvious or worse – things that are completely unsubstantiated, just so that he can say something, since obviously he can’t really add anything useful.

I don’t know why it’s gotten to me so much, but it kind of ruins the whole experience to have some buffoon who has no idea what he’s talking about spout all kinds of nonsense just so there’s no “dead air” or because people need a more “human” angle rather than the actual technical details of the sport at hand.  Ugh.

Leave Comment

The story covers a pathetic real estate office, Premiere Properties, which is struggling to make sales. Kevin Spacey plays the young office manager, John Williamson, who is estranged from his salesmen because he does not sell and because he is responsible for giving (or as the case may be NOT giving) the all-important leads, or contacts for the salesmen to call. These leads play a central roll in the story to the point where they become either the holy grail (when they are the premier, high-quality ones they are red and wrapped like a present) or the garbage the men are forced to shovel in a seemingly futile attempt to make a sale. A brief appearance by the headquarters’ top salesman, Blake, played by Alec Baldwin, leaves the salesmen and the viewer with an impression that lasts us the rest of the movie. He berates and belittles the men in a pissing contest that threatens their jobs if they don’t perform. A contest will determine who in the office will win a new car and who will be fired. If things were not desperate enough, this pushes the mood over the edge. Whereas the salesman have already made a bargain with the devil and sold their souls by lying to their potential customers, this new turn of events have made the men contemplate much more morally repugnant actions.

The other salesmen include Roma, played by Al Pacino, the most successful salesmen and the one who seems to have the most respect for his fellows – although one can’t fail to wonder whether this respect is due to the additional confidence of being successful rather than genuine respect. Ed Harris plays Dave Moss, a younger salesman who talks a great game but is just as lacking as the others in confidence and morals. Alan Arkin is George Aaronow, probably the epitome of low self-confidence. He blames himself for not being able to close anything, whereas the others only blame the poor leads. And finally, the central figure, and premier performance, belongs to Jack Lemmon as Shelley Levene, an old-dog salesman who’s on a “bad streak” and whose desperation is added to by a sick daughter. Because of this, we feel for him even as we despise how he tries to bilk innocent people out of their money with deception. Lemmon exquisitely portrays to us how someone in such a position could stoop to whatever level necessary, and still have us commiserate.

Artisan Home Entertainment has really put some great attention into this 2-disc special edition. For one thing, it contains both a widescreen (2.35:1) anamorphic version with as well as a full-frame version. The transfer is, to my eyes, quite good, even if on a standard 27” TV monitor. Everything looks extremely sharp, with excellent black levels, and good colors. As far as audio is concerned, the movie have been remastered into Dolby Digital 5.1. It also contains an additional Dolby Surround 2.0 track and a French DD 2.0. The widescreen version also has a DTS version. As mentioned, the film is dialogue-driven, so most of this added capacity is not used for the most part. However, there is the relentless subway and rain that provide a bleak urban sound texture, and of course there is the soundtrack that provides an extra jazz-infused melancholy. English and Spanish subtitles are also included as well as English Closed Captioning.

The DVD has quite an array of bonus features, although apparently some important ones that were on the laserdisc edition are missing. First there is a commentary by James Foley, but it is not a true commentary track per se, only one that covers certain scenes that are of interest to him. They total to all of about 25 minutes, and the transition from scene to scene is somewhat sudden and the commentary not all that illuminating, more just rambling. The laserdisc contained a full-length commentary track by Foley, but perhaps Artisan could not get the rights from Pioneer or did not want to pay for it. Another “commentary track” includes Cinematographer Juan Ruiz Anchia, actors Alec Baldwin and Alan Arkin, and production designer Jane Mursky. This one is much longer than the second, but again is not the standard full-length that covers the entire movie, but rather one that jumps from scene to scene. These tracks are on Disc 2, which contains the full-frame version of the movie. Each of the commentators have something to contribute, but felt Baldwin’s and Mursky’s to be the most informative and entertaining. The other track of great interest that was on the laserdisc but missing here as well is one by Jack Lemmon, which is one of only two that he did before his death a couple of years ago. There is actually a featurette called “Magic Time: A Tribute to Jack Lemmon” which includes snippets of interviews of Lemmon's son, Peter Gallagher, Foley, and a number of others who worked with Lemmon. They recount stories and feelings about Lemmon, but it sometimes comes off as sucking up and the harsh lighting on some of the interviewees is distracting. Another featurette, “ABC - Always Be Closing” which is a bit more interesting, as it gives interviews with real salesmen in addition to cast and crew showing how they used such information for giving an accurate picture of the profession. “J. Roy: New and Used Furniture” is an old student film documentary which depicts salesmen training for a flea market in a run-down town. It’s a somewhat depressing look at the salesman’s life. There’s also a clip from The Charlie Rose Show with Jack Lemmon talking about this movie and finally a clip from Inside the Actors Studio with Kevin Spacey. Oh yes, and there’s also the cast & crew bios and production notes.

It has taken way too long for Glengarry Glen Ross to come out on DVD and Artisan has done a pretty good job of bringing it to us. The performances are wonderful; the story is transfixing. The transfer is very nice and Artisan has provided many different viewing and listening options. As far as the bonus features are concerned, they are a mixed bag. There are quite a few, which is nice, but too many of them lack quality and seem to have been thrown in just to add to the list of supplemental features. Although some people will like all of them, I for one would rather have seen resources go to making fewer supplemental features with better quality. Despite this, I would still recommend the disc wholeheartedly.

Leave Comment

Leave Comment

Startup.com will be familiar to anyone who worked at or knew someone who worked at an internet startup in the crazy days of the late 90’s, early 00’s.  The film is a documentary which follows a pair of childhood friends, Kaleil Isaza Tuzman and Tom Herman, who start a company called GovWorks that seeks to become a serving house for municipal governments – handling traffic tickets, providing discussion forums, etc.  As the story plays out, it becomes more of a human drama of how relationships can change under the extreme pressure of running a company in the internet age.

We learn about what was a very typical story.  A bunch of 20-somethings think of  an idea for an internet site, travel around the country to various venture capital firms, most of which are more than happy to throw money there way without much in the way of a business plan. They get many millions of dollars of funding and their company grows from eight partners to a high of over 200 employees.  But the site of course has not been built, that is what the funding is for.  While the site is being built, the competition launches which puts even more pressure on them and their funders start demanding enhancements that were not initially in the scope of their site so that they might offer something value added.  This results inevitably in working their programmers to extremes, producing a product that was buggy and not within the time constraints for all the features wanted.  During this time the crash occurs and funding starts to dry up and… well, the rest of the story goes down hill from there.

That is the story of the company, but there is an equally interesting one around the relationship between the two main partners of the business, Kaliel, the CEO, and Tom, the CTO.  They have been friends from childhood, but being the head of a company together, and one in the wild world of internet startups changes their relationship, putting incredible stress on it.  These two are really the stars of Startup.com.  They are the ones the camera follows and few others are given much dialogue, but this is completely appropriate given the story.

The film was made by Jehane Noujaim and Chris Hegedis and D.A. Pennebaker helped produce it.  Noujaim was actually a friend of Kaliel’s.  They went to Harvard and several years later when both living in New York found each other again when Kaleil was looking for housing so actually moved in with her.  Noujaim, who had recently filmed another project in Egypt where she grew up decided to trash plans to go back their on to film another movie and instead started filming Kaleil when he quit his Goldman Sachs job to start GovWorks.  Seeking funding, a friend of Noujaim introduced her to Chris Hegedis, a filmmaker with some impressive work under her bealt (such as War Room).  Hegedis, it turned out, was actually looking for an internet startup story but hadn’t found one, so fate brought them together and the collaboration became an amazing one in which they followed Kaleil and Tom’s adventure.  They traveled around the country with them, followed their every (18-hour) waking day as they struggled to bring their dreams to fruition.  They ended up with 800 hours of video which they had to distill down to a mere 90 minutes!

Noujaim used a mindv digital camera to film, so the video is not spectacular, but not bad either.  It is, after all, a documentary.  The video is in standard TV 3:4 aspect ratio, but thanks to Hegedis’s more sophisticated audio equipment, the soundtrack is in Dolby Digital 5.1.  The DVD comes with cast and crew bios and production notes which help one to get a better understanding of what isn’t said outright in the documentary – there is no narration, so they rely on the “actors” to tell the story, so inevitably answers to obvious questions the viewer might have aren’t always volunteered.  But even more than these, the directors’ commentary track does an excellent job of filling in all the gaps.  We learn more background about the personal lives of Kaleil and Tom, as well as some of the other more “minor” characters like their parents, girlfriends, partners, etc.  I think it’s the only commentary track that I listened to from beginning to end right after watching the film itself, and this was at 2am on a weekday morning.

Although the film might not be as fascinating to those who haven’t worked in a startup or have some other fairly direct experience with them through friends or family, I think most people will be entrigued by the story, the human element, and the subcoulture that produced this type of situation which repeated itself in many varieties throughout the late 90’s and early 00’s in New York, Silicon Valley, Washington DC, Boston, Austin, and many other towns that were havens for new startups.

Leave Comment

Last night we went to see The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly at the new AFI Theater in Silver Spring, MD.  This was only the second time I’ve been to this place, but I have a feeling (or at least a hope) that I will be coming here a lot more often in the future.  It is just to great a resource to have in one’s backyard.  The first time we were in one of the smaller theaters, but this time it was what I’m guessing to be their main one and it was quite large.  Of course the fact that they brew real espresso for you and have beer on tap doesn’t hurt, but the selection of movies, the print quality and their bringing in people involved in the making of the movie to field questions from the audience makes it a unique resource.

Eli Wallach (no relation, unfortunately) was actually at this screening.  He talked and answered questions from the audience before the movie.  For a man of 88, he sure was amazing!  He could rattle off details about the making of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, in addition to many other movies.  A couple of interesting notes – he said one of his favorite movies he was in was his first, Baby Doll.  He also mentioned a bunch of movies that he loves which he wasn’t in, but I can’t recall them unfortunately.  He is a big fan of French cinema, and used to watch it when he was a young, struggling actor.  He is actually writing an autobiography, so hopefully we will see that out next year some time – he has a lot of ground to cover and it sounded like he was only half or a little more through it!

This screening of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, was actually the premier screening of the new extended English language version.  As Wallach told us, Sergio Leoni, in addition to many Italian directors at the time, would film the entire movie with a certain time of soundtrack (can’t recall what he called it now) which recorded sounds, but probably not all that well, and would catch all kinds of background noise as well.  Then in the editing phase all the actors would come in and lip-synch their parts.  This is what Wallach and Clint Eastwood did.  He said he spent 7 months doing this after the movie was filmed!  Anyway, apparently some of the scenes they shot were tossed aside and never recorded in post-production.  I guess eventually these shots were reincorporated into an extended version that was made available in a language or languages other than English – or maybe even these were kept in the original non-English version of the film.  But for whatever reason, a longer English version was not made until now.  The makers of this version actually got Eli Wallach and Clint Eastwood back in the recording studio to dub in their voices again for the new scenes.  It was fairly obvious which scenes they were, partly because I’ve seen the movie a few times and so didn’t recognize the new scenes as ones I’d seen before.  But also, you could tell a difference in the characters’ voices over the 36 years since it was initially filmed!  Eli Wallach’s voice had become a bit higher in tone and Clint Eastwood’s a bit lower.  The lip-synching seemed more noticeable in these scenes as well, although some of them were seamless enough that they could have been recorded 36 years ago and I wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference if I was seeing the movie for the first time.  Actually, for anyone seeing the film for the first time, I wonder whether they will be able to distinguish these new scenes from the old at all!

Leave Comment

As you might have detected from the title of my blog, I am a big fan of the movie 12 Monkeys.  Well, when I first heard about 28 Days Later I just got the feeling that I needed to see it.  It was about a future (or present?) where there was a cataclysmic virus outbreak that involved monkeys.  Of course it had a number in the title which was another similarity, but that’s basically where the similarities to 12 Monkeys ends.  It also was directed by Danny Boyle of Trainspotting fame, another favorite of mine.

Reactions to this movie that I’ve seen have been all over the board.  I liked it.  I thought it was well done, well-acted, and keeps you entertained throughout.  It is essentially a slightly different take on your standard zombie movie, but with more modern twist involving a virus and a morality play about rage and violence.  It is that morality play that some people may find a bit preachy and simplistic, but luckily we are not banged over the head by it.  Lots of good action and nail-biting suspense pervade the flick but at the same time what appears to be a somewhat hopeless situation really weighs you down.  In this way I found myself pretty well immersed into the movie.

One other odd item in the movie is the alternate ending, which is no secret – it’s advertised along with the rest of the film.  Although I like alternate endings on DVD’s, somehow seeing one in a movie theater was unsettling.  I wanted to see the vision the director had.  When the alternate ending was shown, it kind of muddled the whole story.  Did X happen or did Y?  I’m now of the opinion that one should have a chance to at least have a decent amount of time to reflect on one ending, not get presented with a bunch of different possibilities at the same time.  Maybe this was done with an effect in mind – give one the impression that we as viewers and members of the human race have a choice in how we want things to come out.  But that may be just silly overreaching on my own part…

Leave Comment

It seems appropriate that the first movie I've seen in about three months was a movie about cinephiles, or cinepheliacs, or cinamaniacs.  People who are obsessive-compulsive about seeing movies to the extent that it becomes their life!

Cinemania is actually a documentary.  It centers on five individuals in New York City who travel from cinema house to cinema house in order to catch the as many of the best movies (in terms of the actual print, rarity, and artistic quality) as possible.  And it is a challenge in such a place as New York, with its many museums, retrospective film houses, art houses, etc.  The movie is really a fascinating look at a subculture that most of us never see at least from the inside.  We get to look at the odd lifestyles and filthy apartments of these folks, watch their extremely eccentric behavior but also their encyclopedic knowledge about film.  And really their passion (obsession) for the cinema shines through.  At the same time you want to take these people away to a tropical island where there are no theaters and hope that they can resurrect lives in our reality, you also can't help admire the amount of experience they've acquired at something they love, despite their odd quirks. 

I think part of what was so intriguing to me personally about this movie was that I could definitely see a hint of myself in some of the qualities of these guys.  Not that I have anywhere near their knowledge of film, or that I would watch movies all day every day if given a chance.  But I often lament the fact that I don't have time (or honestly motivation sometimes) to see even a tiny fraction of the movies I know are out there that I'm really interested in seeing.  But this goes for books and restaurants as well.  It's like I'm an experience junky, but only in certain areas, and one that doesn't really endulge his habit very often.  As many people are apt to do, I sometimes daydream about what I might do if I suddenly had a million dollars.  Aside from traveling, going back to school, paying off debts and the usual stuff like this, one thing that has always come to mind is simply not working and having loads of free time to do what I want and one of those things being just going to see movies, museum exhibits, etc.  I think one of the things that appeals to people about Netflix is how you get to create lists of movies you want to see and then check them off your list as you go through them.  I think this gives one a sense of accomplishment, but of course for some it's much more important than others.  Just heard a word for it that I'd never heard before - a "completist."

We saw this movie (which is a very limited release) at the new AFI Silverdocs Theater in Silver Spring, Maryland.  This is a great place for any movie buff.  They have film festivals there (currently there's an anime one), they play lots of great older movies as well, and a lot that are just not wide release.  The theaters themselves are not huge (or at least the one we saw Cinemania wasn't), but they are not tiny either.  Stadium seating and beautiful, huge chairs make for a very comfortable viewing experience.  They have a cafe in the theater, although it's probably not as nice as the one in your local art house, if they have one.  The other great thing about this place is that they often have the directors or others involved in a given film give a talk at the end.  This often happens in film festivals, but Cinemania was not part of one.  The director, or rather one of the co-directors, Stephen Kijak, just happened to be nice enough to come give a talk at the end.  This is in many ways better even than a commentary track on a dvd because you actually get to ask the director your own burning questions, or even argue with him, or give him insight into an interpretation that he might not have thought of before!  We got to find out more up-to-date news about what was going on in the lives of the different cinephiles he profiled - since the movie was shot over a three-year period ending at least a year ago, maybe more.

Because this is such a limited release, the chance that you will get to see it  any time soon would not be that great, except that we heard from Stephen Kijak that a DVD will be coming out in October with an additional 45 minutes of footage!  The movie was 80 minutes but apparently they shot over 80 hours of video for it - yes, video, not film, sorry all you cinephiles out there who refuse to see anything shot with video!

It seems appropriate that the first movie I've seen in about three months was a movie about cinephiles, or cinepheliacs, or cinamaniacs.  People who are obsessive-compulsive about seeing movies to the extent that it becomes their life!

Cinemania is actually a documentary.  It centers on five individuals in New York City who travel from cinema house to cinema house in order to catch the as many of the best movies (in terms of the actual print, rarity, and artistic quality) as possible.  And it is a challenge in such a place as New York, with its many museums, retrospective film houses, art houses, etc.  The movie is really a fascinating look at a subculture that most of us never see at least from the inside.  We get to look at the odd lifestyles and filthy apartments of these folks, watch their extremely accentric behavior but also their encyclopedic knowledge about film.  And really their passion (obsession) for the cinema shines through.  At the same time you want to take these people away to a tropical island where there are no theaters and hope that they can resurrect lives in our reality, you also can't help admire the amount of experience they've acquired at something they love, despite their odd quirks. 

I think part of what was so entriguing to me personally about this movie was that I could definitely see a hint of myself in some of the qualities of these guys.  Not that I have anywhere near their knowledge of film, or that I would watch movies all day every day if given a chance.  But I often lament the fact that I don't have time (or honestly motivation sometimes) to see even a tiny fraction of the movies I know are out there that I'm really interested in seeing.  But this goes for books and restaurants as well.  It's like I'm an experience junky, but only in certain areas, and one that doesn't really endulge his habit very often.  As many people are apt to do, I sometimes daydream about what I might do if I suddenly had a million dollars.  Aside from travelling, going back to school, paying off debts and the usual stuff like this, one thing that has always come to mind is simply not working and having loads of free time to do what I want and one of those things being just going to see movies, museum exhibits, etc.  I think one of the things that appeals to people about Netflix is how you get to create lists of movies you want to see and then check them off your list as you go through them.  I think this gives one a sense of accomplishment, but of course for some it's much more important than others.  Just heard a word for it that I'd never heard before - a "completist."

We saw this movie (which is a very limited release) at the new AFI Silverdocs Theather in Silver Spring, Maryand.  This is a great place for any movie buff.  They have film festivals there (currently there's an anime one), they play lots of great older movies as well, and a lot that are just not wide release.  The theaters themselves are not huge (or at least the one we saw Cinemania wasn't), but they are not tiny either.  Stadium seeting and beautiful, huge chairs make for a very comfortable viewing experience.  They have a cafe in the theater, although it's probably not as nice as the one in your local art house, if they have one.  The other great thing about this place is that they often have the directors or others involved in a given film give a talk at the end.  This often happens in film festivals, but Cinemania was not part of one.  The director, or rather one of the co-directors, Stephen Kijak, just happened to be nice enough to come give a talk at the end.  This is in many ways better even than a commentary track on a dvd because you actually get to ask the director your own burninig questions, or even argue with him, or give him insight into an interpretation that he might not have thought of before!  We got to find out more up-to-date news about what was going on in the lives of the different cinephiles he profiled - since the movie was shot over a three-year period ending at least a year ago, maybe more.

Because this is such a limited release, the chance that you will get to see it  any time soon would not be that great, except that we heard from Stephen Kijak that a DVD will be coming out in October with an additional 45 minutes of footage!  The movie was 80 minutes but apparently they shot over 80 hours of video for it - yes, video, not film, sorry all you cinephiles out there who refuse to see anything shot with video!

Leave Comment

Leave Comment