October 30, 2003

I was all set to write a column based around Wednesday’s edition of Elvis Mitchell’s The Treatment, which was about... what else?… the screener ban. What struck me as I listened was a sense of overwhelming disappointment at the complete lack of interest by these anti-ban crusaders to deal with the facts of the situation. But worse, it was one of those cases where the indie movement creates their own high-end ghetto, somehow missing the most central fact that these “draconian measures” were implemented by the very men who financed the movies that they are so concerned about having in the awards race.

Thing is, these are smart, well-intended people. And they have lost their fight. When one of them manages to get the word “democratic” out of their mouth as a desired description of a business where these men spend other people’s millions in production and marketing, my jaw dropped. When Robert Altman suggested that he couldn’t get his films made because a financier was using the ban as a false excuse for cutting his budget from $12 million to $11 million… oy! Is that the fight we’re having? Over whether some idiot can try to hold up Bob Altman for $1 million of $12 million?

Ted Hope, who was behind In The Bedroom, which was a screener beneficiary, goes on about how the film was not a priority for Harvey Weinstein before it got some other awards. And true enough. The Quiet American wouldn’t have been released at all unless someone got Harvey’s attention. Frida got Oscar nominations almost in spite of Harvey. Etc. etc. etc…

And shouldn’t they stop using as examples the movies like Monster’s Ball that are distributed by non-MPAA member companies?

But this just scratches the surface.

You want to know why the truly independent minded indies remain indie? Listen to the show. The contradictions, the stretching, the intentional ignorance… it’s truly amazing. And I’ll just leave it at that.

Dawn Hudson did have one great comment, which was to point out that this event brought the indie studios together in a way that has never before been seen. Now, if they can gather that energy to make indie movies better…

The weekly Oscar column and charts are up at MCN.

READER OF THE DAY: WELL DONE writes: “I'm very possessive of my experience of viewing Elephant. I want to protect it from attack. It got under my skin and is still living there. When I read a criticism like that contained in 10/27 THB ROD, ALL TEA, NO SYMPATHY, boils start to bubble up.

The film is an elegiac poem, one with deep felt un-maudlin sympathy. It's a film about high school, those vacuous hallways, long corridors that are revisited again and again until you remember what a weird institution and time high school is. To explain the rituals and clicks of high school is a cultural knot, one that Van Sant wants to remind us of. It charts the self absorption that marks the personality of many teens whether it be the photo geek, the self-conscious ugly duckling, or the vomiting 3. And unlike All Tea's criticism it doesn't provide the answers. I read the Hitler documentary not as an explanation of motivation but rather as a commentary of the news coverage on Columbine. The show was commenting on the Nazi party’s talent to feed an audience predetermined and biased information, just like the coverage on Columbine did. Rather, I felt Van Sant gave you a gauntlet of facts to choose from and let you the viewer decide which weight to give it. One of the killers played a Doom like video game. The other played Fur Elise. Is one to blame more than the other? The parents were absent. The mother seemed caring at breakfast. The parents gave the kid piano lessons. Which is more important and why? Were the killer's parents worse than the father in the first scene. If not, then why did this kid turn and the other not? I felt the use of Fur Elise and Moonlight Sonata quite brilliant. If you take piano lessons in the US for awhile as a youth, you usually learn these two songs. Even if you don't play again for years, you can often peck out the theme of Fur Elise. Its weird but it stays with you. So the use of these songs have multiple meanings, it gives you an identification with a killer; it makes you wonder why if a person has Beethoven in his life would he turn to violence; it shows that the parents weren't tritely neglectful; it plays off of the other killer playing the Doom video game, making you question whether the video game has any more significance than Fur Elise. I find All Tea's read that Van Sant did provide answers fascinating in that it seemed he only perceived part of the Elephant in front of him much like the blind men in the fable. I was especially appreciative of Elephant's opening scene, wherein he put you on notice not to make any assumptions. I remember wondering later if that kid's antenna for danger due to his caretaking of his father is what helped him to survive whereas the self-absorbed, being naturally teen self-absorbed, did not. And then there was Benny, who haunts, the only person to take action other than the killers. Did he represent the invincibility that teens feel, especially as he was such a physically powerful person. Did the fact that he was a minority in a white suburb high school make him feel invisible and therefore increased the invincibility factor? Why did Benny do what he did? My 17 yr old son and I have discussed the variable factors of this film for hours, the questions it forces you to ask, the lack of answers that you come up with. My son gave it the praise that the film was high school. High school is it's own place like no other and Van Sant lets you inside and makes you think. His long shot camera work was evocative and contemplative. I'll treasure this film.”

E ME: A little light on e-mail this week…