VIDEO ESSAY: Directed by De Palma

VIDEO ESSAY: Directed by De Palma

It seems that video essayists are emerging every day—and if it
isn’t a new talent crossing our radar, it’s someone whose extraordinary
work we’ve somehow missed. The latter is the case with Joel Bocko, who’s
been making video essays since 2009. It’s remarkable whenever someone
is able to establish a kind of signature with their work in this still
nascent form of online video. In the videos made by Bocko that I’ve
seen, it’s clear to me that he is a weaving artist. 
In “Comedy Countdown,” his two part video on Modern Times, Bocko weaves together voiceover
tracks based on insights by three great writers: Otis Ferguson, Roland
Barthes, and Graham Greene. Even more impressive is his video comparing
Brian De Palma‘s Hi Mom!, Carrie and Scarface,
weaving together their respective bloody demises. The contrast between
Carrie and Scarface is especially evocative as feminine yin and
masculine yang: ejaculatory vs. menstrual rage. Bocko’s tastes are eclectic, as evidenced by his video essay on Marco Bellochio’s underseen
Fists in the Pocket.”
Taken by Bocko’s work, I interviewed him via email
to learn more about how he got interested in making video essays and his
approach to the form. 
Kevin B. Lee: Tell me about what you do professionally (to the extent you feel
comfortable doing so). specifically, what is your background in
filmmaking and editing? How did you get to be familiar with the
filmmaking tools and techniques that enabled you to make video essays?
Joel Bocko: I do not work professionally in film (aside from some
fleeting freelance experiences years ago), though I would like to. I
mostly learned about filmmaking and editing in childhood and high
school, first when my father had a Hi-8 home video camera and later when
I was able to use Final Cut Pro in my public high school’s media lab.
In the first instance, I was as fascinated with home movies (seeing my
family on TV) as I was by big-screen films in theater. And I always saw
the two as being linked. I used the Hi-8 technology to make a sort of
video mixtape when I was about 15, hooking up wires from VCR to the
camera and editing together clips of my favorite movies in chronological
order, from The Gold Rush to Schindler’s List, a sort of
cinematic panaroma. But with that technique there were a lot of hiccups.
When I discovered Final Cut and digital editing, the ability to time
something to the frame it was thrilling, a real lightning-bolt moment.


Kevin:
How did you become interested in producing video essays?

Joel: The
roots were probably there in those early clip tapes, but the first
self-conscious video essay I recall seeing is one of your own, maybe
around ’07.  I loved the idea, which seemed the logical next step after
DVD commentaries and film-clip documentaries. Nonetheless, I kept
putting off doing one of my own. “Directed by De Palma
was my first video essay, although I didn’t consider it one at the time
(since it didn’t have narration and had a more impressionistic than
analytical vibe), and then it was two years before I created online
video content again. In 2011, I launched a chronological video series
highlighting clips from many of my favorite movies, in 32 different
chapters. It was an extension of that VHS mixtape I made as a kid. It
was followed by another impressionistic video essay on 42nd Street,
but it was not until last fall that I finally made a narrated video
essay. I think it took me so long to turn my excitement into action
because I approach filmmaking and criticism with different mindsets, and
narrated video essays combine both approaches. It’s both right- and
left-brained and thus presents a real challenge, I find.

Kevin: Based on an admittedly small sample size of three works, I sense that
“Interweaving” is a quality that distinguishes at least two of your
works, the Brian De Palma and Chaplin videos. Is this a trait you’d say
is conscious, in terms of the way you think about how to explore films in a video
essay format, or in the way you think about films in general?
Joel: Both. One precedent for the video essays is an
experimental film I made at 21, which freely cut between old home
movies, found-footage (particularly a cartoon adaptation of Wind in the Willows),
and original content shot by myself. It was scored with offbeat pop
music like My Bloody Valentine and Massive Attack, and it followed an
autobiographical theme. So this is how I think not just about video
essays, but filmmaking—and film-watching—in general. It’s a way of
seeing art, and perhaps the world: I love diverse formats and
perspectives, but I’m not a postmodernist, at least in my understanding
of the word, so I try to find some way to tie these divergences
together, to discover their links. I’m fascinated by the infamous
Lumiere/Melies dichotomy and I think great movies contain both
approaches. This goes back to being a little kid, simultaneously
fascinated both by home movies and big-screen blockbusters. When you
find films with something in common, you’re also better able to
highlight what’s different. I do this in written pieces a lot too, for
example using This Sporting Life and Billy Liar to examine a split in the British New Wave around ’63, or comparing Felix Salton’s novel Bambi
to the Disney adaptation, which tells you a lot about both authors.
Bouncing objects or ideas (as in the Chaplin piece) off of one another
sparks more creaitivity and insight, in my experience.

Kevin: How did you get the idea for interweaving three
Brian De Palma films? Was it easy to find the points of intersection
between them?
Joel: The video was created for Tony Dayoub’s Brian De Palma
blogathon in 2009. I knew many people would be covering the films I was
interested in and did not want my contribution to seem redundant. So
for one thing, I wanted to cover several films instead of just one, and I
wanted to take a visual approach. Initially I thought I’d do a
screen-cap visual tribute, and then had the idea of setting screen-caps
to a music/sound collage like a sideshow. Eventually I abandoned the
idea of using only still images (except for the first minute or so), I
guess because De Palma‘s images are so kinetic and visceral they demand movement. Scarface was always my favorite De Palma, even when I wasn’t that keen on him as a director, Hi Mom! was a very recent discovery which led me to value him more as an auteur, and Carrie I
hadn’t actually seen yet when starting the project, but I sensed I’d
like it. Before I watched it, Tony mentioned that the split-screen would
have great visual potential in an image tribute, which may have led me
to the idea of incorporating the other films into the split-screen in
the climax. The points of intersection were turned up while editing the
video rather than being pre-determined—evidence that there are definitely
common themes and motifs running through these movies.

Kevin: There are quite a few inspired
moments of connection created by the montage (sexual shame and violent
sexual expression in both Carrie and Scarface, one very
vaginal/menstrual, the other very phallic/ejaculatory). Were these
connections you had already made going into the making of the video? Did
the process of making the video yield any unexpected discoveries along
the way for you both in De Palma‘s films and in the video essay medium
itself?
Joel: As noted above, the connections were discovered rather
than expected. It’s hard to re-trace the process now, but I remember
that in addition to Tony mentioning the split-screen, Glenn Kenny had a
piece in the blogathon comparing Robert De Niro’s shower monologue in Hi Mom! to what is basically a re-enactment of that scene (visual instead of verbal) in Body Double.
That may have led me back not only to that scene in the earlier film,
which I included in the video, but also the theme of sexual shame or
jealousy. The masculine/feminine aspect arose out of the material, and
the fact that at first I was preoccupied with Carrie before finding a way to bring Scarface
in. Tony arrives at the moment when the sense of insecurity and
vulnerability is at its height—his hypermasculine machismo is both a
counterpoint to Carrie’s initial shyness and also its flip-side; he is
just as insecure and sensitive as she is, but has a different way of
dealing with this—a way (violence) which eventually becomes her way as
well (with the conversation between De Niro and
Salt serving as a kind of bridge between these two gender-coded ways of
dealing with hurt and anger). Most of the specific links, the details
like the stabbing sounds and the gunshots, or the footage of the Hi, Mom home invasion matching the security TVs in Scarface
was discovered in the process of editing. I don’t think you can plan
most of this stuff out, you just keep an open mind and antenna up and
it’s amazing what you’ll find.

What did I discover? Working on this project really solidified for me that De Palma
was not just a flashy surface stylist, as I had once thought—his work
is full of deeply-felt themes and raw visual motifs, even if these
ideas and emotions are hidden by self-conscious film references or a
comic-baroque playfulness. As for the video essay format, and what I
discovered, that’s a
longer answer. I am a bit more conscious about overall structuring than
individual moments, and I had several very strong ideas informing the
video’s creation. One was that I had to build up to the climax, so I
wanted to take my time at first and include several long sequences.
There can be a tendency to want to put your own stamp on something when
“sampling” a film or song, but sometimes it’s best to allow the material
room to breathe and express itself in its own voice—take Carrie
walking down the stairs to her mother or the extraordinary “Be Black,
Baby!” sequence in Hi, Mom! However, at certain points, I really
wanted to mess with the footage, intercut it, and do new things with it,
to make the montage viscerally and kinetically my own, harnessing
De Palma‘s energy in an fresh way. Primarily with the ending, where all
the films kind of converge into one metamovie, all the pent-up sexual
energy finding its outlet in savage violence, against big groups of
people (all three films have a warlike climax). At that point I would
actually look for things to replace or swap out, like how you see Al
Pacino getting shot but hear Piper Laurie getting stabbed. There’s an
indescribable delight when you find two things that aren’t supposed to
go together and they just click. That’s the thrill of montage right
there, in a nutshell.

Kevin: How did you get the idea for interweaving the
words of three writers in exploring the works of Charlie Chaplin? What
was your process in sequencing their words, and in matching them with
footage from Chaplin?
Joel: That idea came very last-minute. I was assigned Modern Times
in the comedy countdown on Wonders in the Dark by Sam Juliano, but the
thing is it isn’t really one of my favorite Chaplins. I’m fascinated by
the themes, and I have a crush on Paulette Goddard, but I connect more
with the comedy and pathos of The Gold Rush and City Lights. Reading essays on Modern Times
(beginning with Roland Barthes’, which a commentator named Shamus
turned me on to), I was more fascinated by their voices than my own and
eventually decided I should roll with that. Jeff Pike and Greg Stevens
volunteered to send me audio clips for Barthes and Otis Ferguson, to
complement my own reading of Graham Greene, literally in the middle of
the night, when I put out a call on my blog about 12 hours before the
video was due. I edited the whole thing that night, by highlighting
certain passages (Ferguson in particular lost a lot of text), linking
them in a call-and-response form so that Barthes discusses the film’s
political outlook and Greene naysays the film’s socialism and then
Barthes makes a subtle distinction between Chaplin’s consciousness and
the film. The clips were chosen because they were interesting, without
knowing where I’d use them, and once they were imported I chose
appropriate moments from my selections. The video track was cut to fit
the soundtrack for the most part, as is often the case (even in the
visually-driven De Palma tribute, there are far more cuts in video than audio, which tends to be laid out continuously; for example, when you “hear” De Niro firing the gun at the end, that’s actually the firehose snapping in Carrie,
whose soundtrack provides the backdrop for most of the video’s climax).
That’s a very documentary approach, which I find works for video essays,
especially narrated ones.


Kevin:
When you first made me aware of your work, you
didn’t refer to the DePalma video as a “video essay” because it didn’t
feature narration. Do you feel that narration is an essential feature of
the video essay? Or more broadly speaking, how would you define what a
video essay is and is not? What does it need to accomplish?

Joel: Good point. I think of video essays as being more akin to
film criticism than filmmaking, which means—to me—that they arise more
out of an analytical, intellectual process than an imaginative, impulsive
urge, although the best will balance both. Since the De Palma
video was created more in the way I’d create an experimental film, it
didn’t seem like a video essay to me at the time. When I finally created
narrated video essays it was really tricky to find my way around the
form. I tried to edit visuals first and then add narration but it just
didn’t work. So it’s a different game. Still, I think maybe these are
just two different forms of video essay—the De Palma
piece definitely has a point to make, an analysis to apply, it just
does so through juxtaposition rather than verbal articulation. I’d like
to experiment with the balance of this in future pieces; say, a video
essay that’s 10% non-narrated/visual, 90%narrated/analytical, or vice
versa, or 40/60, 25/75, whatever. I do think even the most heavily
analytical video essays need to give the visual track space to breathe;
it can’t just be a lecture unfolding simultaneously with film footage
playing as “background.” Which seems like a trap the form could fall
into, although
I haven’t seen enough yet to know if it’s a common one.

Kevin: How has working with these video essays changed
your relationship with movies? Has it sparked new paths of exploration
and interest for you as a cinephile?

Joel: Yes and no. On
the one hand, they tend to articulate pre-existing attitudes and
interests rather than shape new ones; in fact, if anything, they’ve returned
me to a more hands-on, formally-conscious, intuitive approach to film
appreciation which too much analytical writing can distance me from. On
the other hand, they have had a big impact on myself as a filmmaker
rather than a cinephile; after creating my first narrated video essays, I
created a short film which was, in a sense, a video essay in reverse,
applying a fictional narration to nonfiction material (in this case,
real snapshots and home movies) rather than vice-versa as is the case
with most video essays. How this will impact my future films is hard to
say, but I’ve always known that making video essays would be a step
toward making my own movies – which is maybe one reason I nervously
procrastinated so long before taking the plunge. But there’s no turning
back. I think the future of movies, both in terms of cinephilia and
filmmaking, is on the internet. One way or another video essays will be
at the center of that nexus. There’s still a lot to explore—I’ve only
begun to watch the many videos that are out there—and it’s a very
exciting time; death of cinema, maybe, but also a radical rebirth.

Joel Bocko is a 29-year-old writer and filmmaker living in Pasadena, CA.
He has been blogging for five years at
Lost in the Movies,
recently completed the short film “Class of 2002”, and is working on a
feature screenplay to be shot on a shoestring (or credit card) later
this year.

Kevin B. Lee is a filmmaker, critic and video essayist. Follow him on Twitter.

“The First, The Last, My Everything” : Tilda Swinton Dancing to Barry White at EbertFest 2013

Tilda Swinton Dancing to Barry White at EbertFest 2013

Ladies and gentlemen, as far as I’m concerned, this was the emotional highlight of EbertFest 2013: Tilda Swinton, at the festival to represent her movie Julia, joined Roger Ebert’s widow Chaz onstage before a screening of Blancanieves to do a dance in honor of Roger. The song was Barry White’s “The First, The Last, My Everything.” Swinton led a conga line of moviegoers throughout the historic Virginia Theater. Awesomeness redefined. — Matt Zoller Seitz

VIDEO ESSAY: Pacino: Full Roar

VIDEO ESSAY: Pacino: Full Roar

I could not stop laughing as I watched Nelson Carvajal’s “Al
Pacino: Full Roar”—not just because it’s the most entertaining
collection of over-the-top moments since Harry Hanrahan’s “Nicolas Cage
Losing His Shit,” but because Pacino is and always has been a theatrical
actor, delightfully so—a performer who manages to be big even when
he’s trying to be small. There’s an overabundance of every emotion in
every moment Pacino inhabits and in every move he makes. He sings the
body electric; sometimes he screams it. He’s a stripped electrical wire
zapping lightning bolts into the air like those transformers in the old
Universal horror films. Even when his characters are hiding or
repressing things, they seem on the verge of imploding or exploding,
transforming or mutating. When, in The Devil’s Advocate, Pacino’s Satan
launches into his “absentee landlord” monologue and his face is
momentarily lit up by pulses of volcanic red, it takes a moment to
register it as a lighting effect, so naturally does it seem to express
the lethal petulance streaming from the character’s eyes, mouth, and
jabbing fingers. 

We live for these sorts of moments. Pacino can be
wonderful when working small—see the first two Godfather films, the
quiet parts of Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon, his under-seen and perhaps
forgotten Bobby Deerfield, and the more Willy Loman-like interludes in
Donnie Brasco, in which Pacino is more likely to flinch from pain than
dish it out. But introversion and reflection didn’t make him a star;
explosiveness did, and whether he arrives at it via “slow burn” buildup,
as in the Godfather films, or launches into it full-throttle from frame
one and never takes his foot off the gas (Heat, baby), it’s invariably
as thrilling as the sight of Jack Nicholson tearing somebody a new one,
or Sean Penn contorting his face into a wet-eyed ball of anguish, or Nic
Cage being Nic Cage. You listen to the whisper while waiting for THE
SCREAM, OH YEAH! THAT’S RIGHT! ATTICA! ATTICA! I’D TAKE A FLAMETHROWER
TO THIS PLACE! THEY PULL ME BACK IN! CUZ SHE’S GOT A GREEEAAAAAT ASS! —
Matt Zoller Seitz

VIDEO ESSAY: Peter Andrews: The Soderbergh Vision

VIDEO ESSAY: Peter Andrews: The Soderbergh Vision

“My policy is to have my name on a movie only once,” says Steven Soderbergh, so quoted by video essayist Nelson Carvajal. “Having your name once increases the impact of that credit because I think every time you put your name up there, you’re actually diluting it.”

That’s why Soderbergh, who isn’t quite a one-man-band auteur but comes close, doesn’t put “Edited by Steven Soderbergh” and “Director of Photography: Steven Soderbergh” on his movies, even though most of the time it’s true. The filmmaker employs pseudonyms: respectively, “Mary Ann Bernard” for his editing credit (his mom’s maiden name) and “Peter Andrews” for his cinematography credit (his dad’s first and middle names).

Nelson’s video essay focuses on Peter Andrews, aka Soderbergh the Cinematographer. Soderbergh caused a minor stir back in 1999 when he announced that he was going to serve as director of photography on his drug drama Traffic, an ensemble story with multiple, parallel subplots. Soderbergh was DP on his mockumentary Schizopolis, and he’d had previously served as his own camera operator on other films, even ones that had separate, credited cinematographers, because he likes the intimacy that results when a director personally covers actors’ performances, adjusting framing as he goes and cutting out the middleman, so to speak. Much of the film was shot handheld, with relatively lightweight, 35mm Panavision XL cameras, often from a slight distance, but zoomed in, to give the actors a bit of space and to contribute to a documentary-like aesthetic, intimate yet respectfully distanced. Soderbergh had been moving in this creative direction for years, and arguably perfected the approach in his two previous movies, The Limey and Erin Brockovich (with cinematographer Ed Lachman). Soderbergh shot the film’s three main storylines in three strikingly different visual styles (discussed in some detail here) to help audiences instantly differentiate them. Although he seemed to bite off more than he could realistically chew—half of the first day’s footage proved unusable—he got a handle on things, and the film’s look was widely analyzed at the time and is still imitated. Breaking Bad even cribbed the brown “tobacco filter” used in Traffic’s Mexican sequences for its own south-of-the-border scenes.

“Peter Andrews” became more comfortable and offhandedly ambitious over the years, working both in film and video throughout the aughts; 2001’s Ocean’s Eleven and 2002’s Solaris were shot on 35mm film, lushly so, while the improvised 2002 Hollywood satire Full Frontal, the 2004 HBO series K Street, and the star-free 2005 neorealist crime drama Bubble were shot with rather modest video equipment. Soderbergh has increasingly gravitated toward video as image quality improved and the equipment became increasingly portable. As he explains in this video, he likes to shoot and edit quickly, the better to see the finished product and then move on to the next thing, whatever that turns out to be.

As you can see in Nelson’s compilation, Soderbergh isn’t interested in forcing his media to be something they aren’t naturally inclined to be. When he worked in celluloid, he tended to work with the properties of particular film stocks rather than pushing against them; he didn’t seem to mind graininess or slight under- or over-exposure as long as the story got told, and for the most part he made the capture of performance and the rhythms of cutting more of a priority than visual gloss or compositional perfection. When he started working extensively in video in the early aughts—by which point he was serving as his own pseudonymous director of photography—he didn’t seem to lose a wink of sleep over whether laypersons could tell that something was shot electronically rather than chemically. He wasn’t afraid of blown-out windows (one of the most recognizable tells of shot-on-video movies) and when he shot handheld, he didn’t try to disguise the fact that he was working with very light, at times seemingly weightless cameras. This isn’t to say that he was an aesthetically sloppy cinematographer (the locked-down, meticulously framed images in 2005’s Bubble prove otherwise)—just that, to use a fine arts metaphor, he didn’t pretend that watercolor was oil paint, or that paper was canvas.

Video is more conducive to Soderbergh’s nimble formalist mindset than film, a medium whose images cannot be accurately judged until the movie is completely edited, color timed, and printed. True, it’s possible to check focus and framing of filmed images on set by way of a video “tap,” which shows an approximation of the image on a monitor; but video (especially high-def video from the last decade or so) removes a lot of the guesswork, because when you’re shooting electronically, what you see in the monitor on set is very close to what the movie will look like when it’s done, give or take some exposure tinkering, color correction, CGI, paint-outs and the like. Video is also much more amenable to available light, and Soderbergh has always hated having to light actors and sets; he believes it saps the momentum of performances and kills immediacy, and anyone who’s ever acted for the camera will tell you that he has a point. Prizing available light and emotional momentum over the minute details of light, shade and texture won’t win a filmmaker too many accolades as a stylist. (“He saves time by not going into all that other unnecessary ‘lighting’ stuff DP’s sometimes talk about,” one film buff said in an online forum. “He never seems to let composition, camera movement and, from what I’ve heard, proper exposure dictate story either,” another countered.) But his post-2000 output is striking, albeit in a rough, Ken Loach-like way. And there’s a hell of a lot to nitpick. If “Peter Andrews” had fussed over every frame of a Steven Soderbergh production, Soderbergh would not have directed or co-directed 16 feature films, one cable movie, one cable series, two documentaries and two shorts since 2000.

The last feature film that “Peter Andrews” shot on 35mm film was 2007’s Oceans 13. Every movie after that was shot electronically. After using the high-definition Red video camera  to shoot  2008’s Che—a two-part, four hour biopic of Che Guevara, starring Soderbergh’s Oscar-winning Traffic collaborator Benecio del Toro—the director abandoned film and never looked back. “This is the camera I’ve been waiting for my whole career,” he said at the time. “Jaw-dropping imagery, recorded on board a camera light enough to hold with one hand… Red is going to change everything.” And it did. Soderbergh shot most of his subsequent projects with versions of the Red camera, including The Girlfriend Experience and The Informant! The brand has become one of the workhorse photographic systems for cinema and television; Louis C.K. shoots his series Louie on the Red, and Peter Jackson shot all three parts of The Hobbit with the Red, after having shot the original, Oscar-winning trilogy on Super 35mm film.

“Since I act as my own cinematographer, one thing I’ve had to learn is how to make things look not so good, to be able to go into a space and recognize this is the way this looks, and it’s not always my job to make everything look pretty,” Soderbergh told The Chicago Tribune in an interview about his 2012 hit Magic Mike. “It’s supposed to look real sometimes. I’m weirdly proud of scenes where I’ve let things look the way they look. To me it’s a sign of maturity.”–Matt Zoller Seitz

Nelson Carvajal is an independent digital filmmaker, writer and content
creator based out of Chicago, Illinois. His digital short films usually
contain appropriated content and have screened at such venues as the London Underground Film Festival. Carvajal runs a blog called FREE CINEMA NOW which boasts the tagline: “Liberating Independent Film And Video From A Prehistoric Value System.” You can follow Nelson on Twitter here.

Matt Zoller Seitz is the co-founder of Press Play.

VIDEO ESSAY: Gliding Over All: The Cinematography of BREAKING BAD, Season 3

VIDEO ESSAY: Gliding Over All: The Cinematography of BREAKING BAD, Season 3

Dave Bunting Jr.’s video essay on Season 3 of Breaking Bad opens with time-lapse landscapes, which are de rigueur establishing shots in TV these days. Here, though, they are uniquely awe-inspiring, in part for their exotic nature (most of us watching the show spend our lives in urban and suburban environments nowhere near mesas, plateaus, or even cacti), and in part for how they seem to breathe life into everything—from churning clouds, to rocks whose shapely silhouettes (even in their stillness) manage to suggest personalities, to cityscapes that pop colorfully to life as darkness descends upon them. Vince Gilligan & Co.’s ground-breaking TV series is filmed so as to be as suggestive—as potentially rich with meaning—as possible.

Breaking Bad’s extended shots also fuck with our sense of scale: The vehicles popping in and out of the gas station move with the speed and directness of hummingbirds or bees. Wendy the meth whore flits into and out of the frame like a fly. Contrast this with the extreme close-up of the actual fly that opens Season 3, Episode 10 (“Fly”), a close-up held long enough to give that creature the weight and ominous presence of a significant carrier of meaning. We expect flies to carry disease, of course, not meaning. But in Breaking Bad the two have been flattened together, a la William Burroughs’ statement that language = virus.

Season 3, Episode 1 (“No Mas”) starts with a frame filled with what feel like toxic-colored clouds, then a pan down to reveal a Mexican landscape, moon-like or possibly even post-apocalyptic in its apparent desolation. Things only get weirder—more “foreign”—as we begin to see first one older man, then several men and women of various ages crawling on their elbows and knees through the dusty streets of a remote village. The crawlers are soon joined by two men (revealed later to be “the cousins”) who wear similar deep mauve shirts, gray suits and cowboy boots with silver skull tips. Both men are bald and sport a hint of facial hair—a goatee or maybe (the bottom) half of a goatee.

This dialog-less opening unfolds for a full four minutes—an eternity in television time—as the cousins crawl their way to a shack filled with burning candles and other religious and pseudo-religious detritus, leaving an offering of money and lighting a candle of their own before silently praying to Santa Muerte, the Saint of Death. One of them tacks the object of their prayers to the wall: A crudely rendered but recognizable portrait of Walter White in hat, shades and moustache (the upper half of the full goatee he’ll sport this season). As the plot plays out, the cousins cross the U.S.-Mexico border in order to find and axe-murder Walter, whom they deem responsible for the death of one of their relatives, but are redirected by Gus and wind up seriously injuring Walter’s brother-in-law Hank.

Everything in Season 3 seems to pivot on acts of communication—on the successful or unsuccessful transference of meaning—right up to the final two minutes of episode 13 (“Full Measure”), when Gale’s cell phone begins buzzing frantically on a haphazard pile of CDs. It’s Mike, calling to warn Gale, who can’t hear it over Zhang Fan’s 1938 shidaiqu hit “Flying over the Court.” Because Gale misses Mike’s warning, he opens the front door, allowing Jesse to shoot him in the head before the screen goes black and the season-end credits roll.

It’s probably no accident that Season 3 begins and ends with these plot-propelling examples of foreign exotica. After all, the disease that sets all of Breaking Bad’s story into motion—lung cancer—is the result of exposure to foreign substance (in Walter’s case, most likely radon or asbestos, since he was never a smoker). And it is, in fact, “the foreign”—a fly—that sets Walter off on the most philosophical monologue of the series.

In Episode 10, after becoming deeply concerned when the meth yield isn’t, in his own words, “adding up,” Walter becomes first distracted by and finally obsessed with a fly that somehow gets into the sterile environment of the lab, threatening to contaminate his 99+% pure blue meth. After many hours and countless unsuccessful attempts (including the introduction of what Walter calls “positive pressure”) to kill the allusive insect, Walter reveals to Jesse that, on the night of Jane’s death, he had randomly met her father in a bar.

“The universe is random,” Walter says. “It’s not inevitable. It’s simple chaos. It’s subatomic particles in an endless collision. That’s what science teaches us. But what is this saying? What is it telling us when, on the very night that this man’s daughter dies, it’s me who’s having a drink with him?”

What Walter fails to confess is that he was at least in part responsible for Jane’s death—which is, of course, why he’s now agonizing over it—that, and the randomness of running into her father the same night. The universe, Walter says, is trying to tell him something—but, what? And what does it mean, what horrific truth is revealed, if and when things, finally, “add up”?

Gary Sullivan’s poetry and comics have been widely published and anthologized, in everything from Poetry Magazine and The Wall Street Journal to The Norton Anthology of Postmodern Poetry (2nd Edition, forthcoming). Everyone Has a Mouth, a
selection of his translations of poetry by the Austrian schizophrenic
Ernst Herbeck, was recently published by Ugly Duckling Presse. He lives
in Astoria, Queens, where he maintains bodegapop.com, a music blog devoted to treasures found in immigrant-run bodegas in New York City.

VIDEO ESSAY: Three Reasons: Kazuo Kuroki’s THE ASSASSINATION OF RYOMA

VIDEO ESSAY: Three Reasons: Kazuo Kuroki’s THE ASSASSINATION OF RYOMA

During the early part of this year, the Museum of Modern Art in New York screened films from the Art Theatre Guild of Japan, the independent film production and exhibition house that existed from the early 1960s to the mid-1980s (although they did continue to produce and distribute a few films until the early 90s).  Nearly all of the masters of the Japanese New Wave either began their career at the ATG or found sanctuary there from the overbearing demands of the studio system. That system, which allowed very little room for auteurist expression, preferred cookie-cutter crafted genre films made by directors-for-hire. Like any assembly line, any deviation from the norm was frowned upon. Naturally, once the ATG had established itself as a powerful cinematic commodity, it proved that audiences could handle different modes of storytelling. Although it may sound innocuous by today’s standards, ATG films were the very antithesis of studio fare, releasing the unclassifiable, non-linear narratives, casting amateur actors, and focusing on taboo subject matters that the studios wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole.  With approximately 71 titles filling the bill, the event at MoMA was most significant since it is the most comprehensive retrospective of the ATG’s work that Western audiences have ever had the chance to see.  Not only could we see the classics from such pioneers as Hiroshi Teshigahara, Kaneto Shindo, Nagisa Oshima, and Koji Wakamatsu, but it also marked the first time many of these films have ever been screened for a Western audience. Fans of Japanese films will have their fill of previously unseen gems, but fans of film itself will enjoy the chance to see a group of filmmakers whose work explodes with enthusiasm and inventiveness.

One of the directors included in the retrospective is Kazuo Kuroki, who has sadly remained unnoticed for far too long. In a time when social media allow us to be constantly inundated with discoveries of unsung heroes and their unappreciated films, please allow me to harangue you with praise for one such director who belongs among the pantheon of Japanese masters. Kuroki started his career as a documentary filmmaker, making oddly contemplative industrial films for Toshiba and Fuji film. It wasn’t until he began making feature films that Kuroki found solace with the ATG, after Toho Studios had shelved his film Silence Has No Wings, which follows the life of a butterfly from one end of the country to the other. As the butterfly travels to each prefecture, the film takes on different genres with different characters (or in the case of its star Mariko Kaga, the same actor in different roles). The studio heads, who were most likely just looking for a vehicle for Mariko Kaga, were so confused by the film that they refused to release it. Once the ATG had saved the film from the reluctant studio, Kuroki was able to work independently with the ATG and make his most important work, The Assassination of Ryoma.  Filmed on 16mm with a minuscule budget, the film takes place in the last three days of the life of Ryoma Sakamoto, who may just be the most important figure in Japanese history, if only because his life has been retold countless times on stage and screen.  But Kuroki’s film portrays Ryoma in a very different light, one with which many people at the time immediately took umbrage. The equivalent American version might be Ryoma Sakamoto: Badass Mutha or Ryoma: Whoring Bastard.

It would be impossible to describe the importance of Kazuo Kuroki’s The Assassination of Ryoma without first providing the obligatory history lesson. Ryoma Sakamoto is still the most legendary figure in Japanese history, but much like his western counterparts, Ryoma’s character has evolved to suit contemporary issues.  Perhaps it would be more relevant to understand how the image of Ryoma Sakamoto has changed over the past century, and why Kazuo Kuroki’s interpretation of Ryoma’s final days are as refreshing now as it was when the film was made.  Ryoma Sakamoto is the underdog of Japanese history. Like a modernized version of the legendary samurai Musashi Miyamoto, whose idealism remained steadfast in the face of rapidly deteriorating social change, Ryoma embodies the strength and contrast of both sides; the noble existence of the last generation of samurai dedicated to the Emperor, and the revolutionary spirit of national democracy. Ryoma’s life took place at a crucial point in Japanese history when their isolated traditions were finally forced to recognize the existence of the outside world. The influence of Western idealism was immediate and overwhelming, and Ryoma was the central figure to acknowledge the importance of social change and adherence to tradition. Ryoma started out as a lower ranking samurai and although he may have had some renown as a swordsman, he was certainly no one special. He led a group of young radical samurai in Tosa, who advocated expelling all foreign occupation and abolishing the Shogunate to restore Imperial rule. After breaking ties with the group and leaving Tosa, Ryoma quickly rose from the ranks of “nobody” to the single man responsible for bringing down the Shogunate by facilitating peace talks between warring domains. He learned from both sides about the art of war, realizing that in order to overthrow the shogunate and expel the foreign barbarians, Japan would first need to utilize Western technology and political ideology. Ryoma was able to bring opposing clans together to fight for a greater good, and in doing so was able to bring Japan to the 20th Century.

Put more simply, in a time when samurai desperately clung to their swords, Ryoma was the badass with a revolver. What makes Kuroki’s film even more engaging is Yoshio Harada’s titular performance, which is unique to say the least. His guttural delivery and (then) contemporary cadence turns what should be a historic drama into a modern yakuza action film. The collaboration plays beautifully onscreen, commanding our attention like any contemporary action star heavyweight, riveting any viewer from start to finish. Although Kazuo Kuroki may not be that well known, I’m thankful that the folks at MoMA were able to finally bring The Assassination of Ryoma to the US. Let’s hope that the attention this film has recently received will encourage Criterion to release more ATG films. And while we wait for that to happen, perhaps Criterion can fill the void with Kazuo Kuroki, and allow Western audiences to find a new Japanese director to fall in love with.

Robert Nishimura is a Japan-based filmmaker, artist, and freelance
designer. Born and raised in Panamá, he then moved to the US, working at
the University of Pittsburgh and co-directing
Life During Wartime,
a short-lived video collective for local television. After fleeing to
Japan, he co-founded the Capi Gallery in Western Honshu before becoming a
permanent resident. He currently is designing for DVD distributors in
Japan and the US, making short and feature films independently, and is a
contributing artist for the H.P. France Group and their affiliate
companies. All of his designs can be found at Primolandia Productions and his non-commercial video work is at For Criterion Consideration.

VIDEO ESSAY: The End of Violence: The Conclusions of Clint Eastwood

VIDEO ESSAY: The End of Violence: The Conclusions of Clint Eastwood

It took me years to learn how to watch a Clint Eastwood movie. For one thing, I tended to watch them far apart and to rely on memory of earlier films to prepare myself for current ones. But given the gaps in time between viewings, I should have been more suspicious of how I remembered them. I saw Unforgiven when it first came out on videotape, but I was in my late teens then. It seemed plodding and clunky, and, to my jaded young eyes, old. That original impression solidified in my mind, tarnishing my general impression of Eastwood as a director. (Plodding, clunky, old.) I skipped the Eastwood movies that seemed skippable, the ones that didn’t get much attention. Eastwood was a creature from another era, and I was sure he was just a dumb cowboy at heart. Sure, he’d won Oscars, but that just cemented the idea of Eastwood as the embodiment of middlebrow mediocrity. “Most of the good directors,” I’d say to anyone who would listen, “don’t win that award.”

It’s easy to underestimate Eastwood, even if you’re not relying on vague memories and snobbery. His image as the embodiment of vigilante conservatism slithers through the collective cultural consciousness. He’s Dirty Harry, he’s the Man with No Name. Our assumptions deliver him to us as what we expect him to be. The tough guy, the grizzled guy, the man’s man, the white savior, the relic.

nullThus, it wasn’t until Gran Torino that I could say I really watched an Eastwood movie. The ones I’d seen before were films I looked at as the films I’d expected them to be. But Gran Torino shocked me into seeing it. I’d seen reviews belittling the movie, and I expected it to be a not-quite-vaguely racist heap of claptrap. I don’t remember even when I decided to watch it, or why. But I did.

I didn’t know what to make of Gran Torino on that first viewing, because it sneaked into my amygdala and splattered feelings in all directions. The overwrought Christ imagery at the end was a bit much, but still … the images after that, of Thao driving off into his own, inherited America, pulled true tears from my eyes. This was not claptrap. Eastwood was up to something. And the film was, in its own way, and on its own terms, more subversive than most Hollywood films ever dare to be. (I’ve explored my response to Gran Torino more fully in a previous video essay.)

I watched Gran Torino again and again, seeking the meaning that lodged in the bit of free space between my assumptions, the meaning that had come from being so unexpectedly moved by a movie I’d expected to detest.

With the fervor of a convert, I binged my way through Eastwood’s oeuvre. Again and again I saw what had so fascinated me in Gran Torino: the way Eastwood used his own iconicity against itself, the way he presented masculinity and violence as intoxicating elixirs of destruction, the way he danced (sometimes awkwardly) on a tightrope between exploiting our basest desires and blowing them all to hell.

Drucilla Cornell’s Clint Eastwood and Issues of American Masculinity provided me with ways of working through what Eastwood’s films can mean. I think Cornell sometimes gives the films a bit too much credit, because sometimes these movies are as symptomatic of the world into which they were released as they are critical of it. (But we need to see symptoms. Or, rather, we need symptoms to be made visible. How do you diagnose a disease without them?) Nonetheless, her central point convinced me: if we want to think about the force of American masculinity, the films of Clint Eastwood are a rich and vivid source.

Consider violence, a feature common to most of Eastwood’s films. These are not pacifist manifestos—violence is shown to be sometimes necessary, sometimes useful. But usually it is also destructive and corrupting. It gets people what they want in the short term, or it saves their lives, but the cost is great, and their lives are shrunken and shattered. This is true even in the Dirty Harry films, where we may join the fantasy of wearing the wisecracking, bureaucracy-hating vigilante’s mask of bravado, but would we want to live as Harry lives, to become what he became? As Faust could tell you, fantasies come with a hefty price.

nullWe need to pay close attention to the conclusions of Eastwood’s movies, particularly the ones he directs and stars in, because these films allow him to configure and reconfigure his iconicity. From Play Misty for Me to Gran Torino, he has played jazz riffs on the idea of “Clint Eastwood,” repeating and revising the figure he embodies. Nowhere are the riffs more poignantly played than in The Outlaw Josey Wales (the subject of a previous video essay of mine), one of Eastwood’s most complex and subtle studies of the avenging male hero. The ending is where the meanings swirl old gestures together into something new—the violent hero, ruined by war, exhausted by anger, turns away from killing and rides off into a sunset. He’s quietly wounded, likely bleeding to death. Like so many Eastwood characters, he has saved a ragtag community that now has no space for him. He is the demon that must be expelled. In that, he is less Faust than Mephisto.

Again and again, Eastwood’s characters end up going off into ambiguity. What are we to make, for instance, of the conclusion of Million Dollar Baby? It ends with a sort of triumph and grace, yes, but what are we, the observers, left with at this moment? The film’s story positions us to sympathize with Frankie, to feel the dilemma he feels, but should we conclude from our sympathy that Frankie did the right thing? That death is better than handicapped life? I can fully believe a character like Maggie would, in those circumstances and at that point in her treatment, want what Frankie gave her—that she did, indeed, see it as triumph. But I don’t know if we’re required to agree. The film wraps us in its emotions, but then steps back and at the end leaves us with images of a lost man, a lonely man, an exiled angel of death. Here, Eastwood’s violent character isn’t exiled or exorcised from a community he saved and that will, presumably, prosper without him. Here, he is simply exiled. What meaning we make of that is our own.

Matthew Cheney’s work has been published by English Journal, One Story, Web Conjunctions, Strange Horizons, Failbetter.com, Ideomancer, Pindeldyboz, Rain Taxi, Locus, The Internet Review of Science Fiction and SF Site, among other places, and he is the former series editor for Best American Fantasy. He teaches English, Women’s Studies, and Communications & Media Studies at Plymouth State University.

VIDEO ESSAY: Breaking the Fourth Wall

VIDEO ESSAY: Breaking the Fourth Wall

Oh, hello there, reader.

I know why you’ve come. You’re here at Press Play to watch Leigh Singer’s awesome supercut of fourth-wall-breaking moments in cinema, aren’t you?

Yes, of course you are! Fess up. Don’t be shy. So saucy! Just look at you, with your bashful, “Oh, dearie me, I just popped over to see if anybody had a new piece up, and oh, look, eye candy, I guess I’ll stick around and watch a minute or two.” Very convincing! Are you a professional actor? A model, perhaps?

Adorable!

Come clean, now. Tell me what clips you expect to see. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Listmaking. Seeing if the filmmaker chose the moments you would have picked, and perhaps a few you didn’t know existed. You expect to see Anthony Perkins staring into the camera at the end of Psycho, his face a near-catatonic mask, yet oddly joyous. Or that moment in Annie Hall, maybe—Woody Allen producing Marshall McLuhan to silence a pretentious nimrod in line at the movies. Or the moment in Amelie when the heroine stops being enthralled by a movie just long enough to tell us, “I like turning round and looking at people’s faces the dark.” Or Ferris Bueller or Alfie smarting off. Or Groucho telling us that the obligatory musical number would be a great time to hit the concession stand.

What, too obvious? Too on-the-nose? Well, what about Malcolm McDowell doing his Alex the Droog death-stare in A Clockwork Orange, intercut with an homage to that same moment in the McDowell-starred crime thriller Gangster #1? Or Tyler Durden talking straight into the camera in Fight Club, cut together with Ingmar Bergman’s personality-merging psychodrama Persona? A bit more impressed, then, eh? I was, too. A clever one, this Singer. Very clever. You’ll like his work, I promise.

Don’t skip around, though. Watch the whole thing. There’s rhyme and reason to it, and poetry, and mad inspiration, and internal logic, dream logic… I’m rambling here, distracted, thinking about the music cue he lays down around the 6:00 mark, and smiling.

Oh, and be sure to stick around and watch the credits. They’re quite lengthy but filled with suggestions for further viewing. And there’s a little joke at the end.

Well, that’s it. What are you still reading this for? Press play and start watching!

–Matt Zoller Seitz 

VIDEO ESSAY: From the Panel to the Frame: Style and Scott Pilgrim

VIDEO ESSAY: From the Panel to the Frame: Style and Scott Pilgrim

Why do the same concepts get recycled and reinterpreted in so many different media, and what does that do to storytelling? Filmmaker Drew Morton poses that question in his video essay “From the Panel to the Frame: Style and Scott Pilgrim.” The piece, which was originally produced as a part of a doctoral dissertation, uses the 2010 Edgar Wright film Scott Pilgrim vs. the World as a springboard to talk about how videogames, movies and comic books influence each other—and how you can often see the aesthetic roots of one medium represented in another, in a way that feels increasingly relaxed and organic. (Press Play contributor Matthias Stork has also dealt with this issue in this piece.)

Morton isn’t talking about adaptation here—turning a book into a movie, for instance, or a movie into a TV series. This is something else. As he puts it in his video essay, it’s more about reproducing or reimagining one medium’s aesthetic within the context of another medium: not just adapting Bryan Lee O’Malley’s original Scott Pilgrim comics, but making the film look and move and somehow feel like those books, to the point of quoting specific panels.

There’s a specific academic term for this phenomenon: “transmediation.” Morton explores that, too. He uses examples from Scott Pilgrim, the Matrix universe, Sin City, and other stories, or “properties,” that unfold across different media to prove that the boundaries that supposedly separate those media are more porous than we may have thought. The “bullet time” scene in the original Matrix movie, for instance, was a great cinematic moment, but it wouldn’t have existed without the aesthetic of mid-‘90s videogames that tried, in their ostentatious yet primitive way, to look three-dimensional. And when Time-Warner, the company that released The Matrix, decided it had another Star Wars on its hands, it commissioned videogames that fans found disappointing because they wanted something that felt like the movies, only game-like, and the games didn’t deliver.

These are slippery subjects to analyze, but Morton never loses his grip here, and the final section—a detailed analysis of the style of Wright’s film—is dazzling. He talks about how Wright folds representations of comics, videogames and music into a movie based on a comic book that was itself strongly inspired by videogames, and in so doing, creates a “re-remediation.” If you tried to represent that on a page, it might look like a bunch of parentheses inside one big parenthetical, or maybe a line drawing of a Russian nesting doll, animated, with each layer’s shell cracking to reveal the layer beneath, each pop commemorated by a point value materializing in space and hanging there. Fifty points! A hundred! Next level!

Click and watch.

Matt Zoller Seitz

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at UCLA. He has written about film and television for such publications as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, UWM Post, and Flow. He is currently researching the aesthetic convergence between comics and film.

Matt Zoller Seitz is the co-founder of Press Play.

VIDEO ESSAY: Beautiful Nightmares: David Lynch’s Collective Dream

VIDEO ESSAY: Beautiful Nightmares: David Lynch’s Collective Dream

David Lynch could be a wonderful stage director.

Crazy to say, perhaps, but perhaps not. Despite his relentless visual craftsmanship and tests of the limits of that craftsmanship, parading images in front of us that are luscious even when you can barely tell what’s being filmed, there is always an aspect of the staged to every film he makes. Part of it is his privileging of the naked, screaming utterance, from Lula’s “Sailor Ripley, you get me some music on that radio this instant, I mean it!” in Wild at Heart to Frank’s “I’ll fuck anything that MOOOOOOOOOOVES!” in Blue Velvet. These statements always have an ersatz quality to them, as if they were plucked out of another conversation and dropped into the movie at hand. It’s hard to link them, directly, to their contexts—and that incongruity is what makes them memorable. But, ultimately, they come to express truths about the people saying them, as if he, she, or it simply couldn’t wait any longer, just had to burst out with a plume of vulgar, unrestrained self-expression. We laugh, a little, when Sailor Ripley asks, “Did I ever tell ya this here jacket represents a symbol of my individuality, and my belief in personal freedoms?”—but we also don’t. Though Lynch is, in a sense, a truly joyous filmmaker–in that he’s able to transcend scenes of tremendous violence and energy that would pretty much eat up any other filmmaker’s intentions from the inside out, instead making them part of a grand and coldly perfect scheme–he is also, to state the wholly obvious, someone who thrills in catching us off guard, a crucial trick of theater. Why does Robert Blake’s white-faced, ghoulish menace laugh like that in Lost Highway? What’s he laughing at? What could possibly be that funny? Where’s the laugh coming from? No one knows. What’s important, though, is that he’s laughing. The laugh itself has significance beyond what precedes or follows it, and it doesn’t leave you.

And then there’s the matter of the act of performance in his films. In how many of his movies does someone perform, in some sense, so that we watch them doing something they would not normally do, often in a virtuosic fashion? Well, let’s see. There’s Isabella Rossellini's Dorothy Vallens, singing the title song in Blue Velvet (not to mention Dean Stockwell’s brilliant Roy Orbison lip-synching, by now a milestone in the cinematic education of anyone my age, though the scene itself has no purpose within the film’s storyline), there’s Agent Cooper’s talk-show-esque conference, in a room lined with red curtains, with Laura Palmer and the Man from Another Place in Twin Peaks; there’s Betty Elms' (Naomi Watts) orgasmic and career-making audition in Mulholland Drive, and, later in the same film, Rebekah Del Rio’s performance of “Llorando” in an old theater, to name but a few examples. These scenes occupy an inherently elevated position, as if Lynch were saying: This is what the film can really do for you—all the rest of this stuff is just work. This film will never be any better, or these characters any more exalted, than at this moment. And the scenes always have a hypnotic effect; as we watch, we suspend whatever we might be feeling—horror, revulsion, elbow-deep irony—and simply observe, excited at the thought of what Lynch might be about to offer us. Once the moment has passed, we don’t analyze it or question it. We know the scene is indispensable, but we have no idea why.

And what about Lynch’s characters themselves? There are very few of his major figures that can be said to be simply “getting through the story” in a utilitarian fashion—almost all of them have exaggerated traits that make the arcs they move through larger than life. Think of Willem Dafoe’s hit man Bobby Peru in Wild at Heart, whose rotting, dilapidated teeth alone describe an entire life story; or Kyle MacLachlan's Jeffrey Beaumont, his untouched face ravaged by the end of Blue Velvet. Nicolas Cage’s Sailor Ripley is, himself, a walking metaphor for the redeeming power of performance. On the point of being beaten up by a group of thugs at the end of Wild at Heart, Sailor’s last recourse is, like a good performer, to put a good face on things, maintain his Elvis-esque persona, and take his beating. And the moment when Jeffrey Beaumont does the duck walk while courting Sandy Williams in Blue Velvet has the vaguely rhapsodic, pastoral quality of a scene from Eugene O’Neill, something from Ah, Wilderness, say. It’s not a real moment, since the gesture is neither a declaration of love or a shoving away of reality—and yet we have the sense it’s as real as these characters ever get.

A writing teacher, a poet and sometime playwright, once told me and the other students in his poetry class, after he’d asked us to write plays and we responded that we signed up to write poems: Close your eyes, imagine an empty stage, and then think of something you’d like to happen there. That’s your play. Oversimple as this advice might have been, as Lynch’s career has progressed, one might easily imagine he’s making a similar leap into creative desire to fashion films, as his seemingly random, aggressively disorienting and confusing work increasingly resembles the happenings staged by Allan Kaprow or the Fluxus artists who followed him, more than the more traditional "art films" his earlier works resembled. Even in his life outside his work, Lynch has a flair for the theatrical, as when, prior to the release of Inland Empire, he sat with a billboard at the corner of Hollywood and LaBrea Boulevards, his only companion at the time a large cow. Whether this was a publicity stunt, a satire of Hollywood film marketing, or both, its performative aspect was practically its entire content. The events that take place in Inland Empire, Mulholland Drive, or Lost Highway are not necessarily parse-able—who could explain the figures with rabbits’ heads wandering through Inland Empire? Who would want to try? You could, though, depending on your degree of sympathy with Lynch, say they made visual sense within the director’s larger body of work. And they are, beyond that, figures that hold your attention on screen while also encouraging a prilferation of interpretations. Can we say that of a majority of big-budget films? When was the last time you felt mystified at a multiplex?

It is, as suggested earlier, silly to say, of a filmmaker or an artist in another medium, He could have been X, as if X were the ultimate destination, the artist’s current accomplishment only a way station. However, in Lynch’s case, what I want to suggest is that the source of his power is less the ability to shock than the ability to shout. It is through this ability that Lynch’s characters gain their great gravitas, his movies their substance. It seems entirely conceivable that, thousands of years ago, when actors were screaming into the depths of Greek amphitheaters, their statements, far from being the golden-tongued outcries of rage we’ve come to expect, might have been, in the context of their time, closer to this:

“Heineken? Fuck that shit! Paaaaaabst Bluuuuuuue Riiiiiiibbon!”

–Max Winter

Nelson Carvajal is an independent digital filmmaker, writer and content creator based out of Chicago, Illinois. His digital short films usually contain appropriated content and have screened at such venues as the London Underground Film Festival. Carvajal runs a blog called FREE CINEMA NOW which boasts the tagline: "Liberating Independent Film And Video From A Prehistoric Value System."
You can follow Nelson on Twitter here.

Max Winter is the Managing Editor of Press Play.