Spencer is joined by Nick Ahlers (The MacGuffin, The Grapes of Rad).

Segments include: CinemaCon recap, SIFF and Crypticon previews, and take a look at some crowd funded projects with local ties.

Crowd Funded Projects:
The Glamour & The Squalor
A Method
Digital Cinema at Northwest Film Forum
MANOS – The Hands of Felt DVD

Links:
http://www.CinemaCon.com
http://www.SIFF.net
http://www.CrypticonSeattle.com
http://twitter.com/AhlersAtYourBoy
http://www.GrapesOfRad.com
http://twitter.com/ThatSpencer

This episode can be played online via the player below or it can be downloaded from here. It is also available on iTunes and Stitcher.

There are significant aesthetic and tonal differences throughout all of Paul Thomas Anderson’s films, yet there’s a thematic continuity that is striking. From even his earliest film, Hard Eight, to his most recent, The Master, Anderson’s films tend to explore the nature of family, where characters who come from broken, damaging families find a community of people willing to support each other through whatever hardships. These surrogate families are helmed by charismatic salesmen who, in the end, are revealed to be just as toxic as their biological counterparts. In Anderson’s films, whether surrogate or biological, family is a crucible through which a member must overcome their dependence and learn to rely solely on themselves.

The typical Anderson protagonist hails from a broken home and is seen at the beginning of the film fleeing their dysfunctional family, or—having already separated themselves from the family—wandering the world alone. When the biological family is shown, as in Boogie Nights, it is paternal failure that drives the children away. (While it is true that Dirk’s overbearing mother is the main dysfunction, I believe it is the inaction of Dirk’s father, who simply looks up, cowering, with apologetic eyes, to his son, that is ultimately his son’s final straw). So it would only seem right that their surrogate families begin with a surrogate father. This surrogate father is always presented as a charismatic and powerful salesman who sees a latent potential in the protagonist. Whether selling a life of professional gambling, porn, television, oil, or spiritual redemption, the father figure recruits the son via a sales pitch marketing his family as the way to a better life. Family, in a significant way, promises a social status, a status that the drifting P.T. Anderson protagonists buy in to.

In addition to social status, families largely affect an individual’s personality and identity. Family defines. What is acceptable or not acceptable to your father carves out your own idea of what is allowed in the world. In Anderson’s earlier surrogate families, there is not much that is unacceptable: Hard Eight’s Sydney ushers John into a life of gambling, girls, and materialistic excess, while Boogie Night’s Jack Horner brings Dirk into a life of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll. Anderson’s later films create a more complex framework of fathers trying to exist within the overarching hegemony. There Will be Blood presents Daniel Plainview as a man attempting to be viewed as a loving, Christian father (the guise of the honest man), and The Master displays Lancaster Dodd as assuming the role of prophet in post WWII America (the guise of the holy man). However dissimilar the father figures in both the earlier and the later films, they’re all puppeteers effecting through their family a long term plan. In these surrogate families, the role of the patriarch is nothing more than a conceit, a mask of power worn by ambitious individuals to exude influence over those they’ve surrounded themselves with. The father figure is seen as a master manipulator, or salesman, pitching attitudes and ideas to his followers that will bring about his desired results: power, fame, or fortune.

Now, it’s not all as cut and dry as this. Where does Punch-Drunk Love or Magnolia fit in all of this? Let’s take a look at Punch-Drunk Love‘s Barry Egan first. Unlike most of Anderson’s other protagonists, Barry hasn’t escaped his family, is actually still ensnared by them. All seven of his sisters are overbearing and abusive and, to what extent he can, Barry has distanced himself from them. Consequently, he is a lonely, drifting man seeking companionship in whatever family he can find—even if he has to pay a dollar a minute. The call girl he finds himself entangled with is seen less as a sexual object than as a companion, as family. So, in effect, when he denies her the money she demands and has her father figure send “the brothers” to collect, Barry is encountering her surrogate family. But the lesson is the same: in order to free himself, Barry must confront this father figure and express his dominance, his own independence.

Magnolia is a bit more difficult to address in its magnitude. It deals with several broken families, the sins of several fathers visited upon several sets of children, and these children’s several desperate attempts to break the cycle. Frank Mackey, Stanley Spector, “Quiz Kid” Donnie Smith, and Claudia Wilson Gator are all fractured souls broken from the abuse and neglect of their biological fathers. Throughout the film, these characters wrestle with the demons of their past and attempt to break free from their family. To varying degree, they do (Stanley, still a child, must remain legally bound to his father, but does make a stand against him). After breaking free from the bonds of their poisonous families, to what surrogate family do these characters find themselves members? The mention of Exodus, the numbers 8 and 2 spread across the film like Easter eggs, and the deluge of frogs that climaxes the narrative all point to a theological interpretation. Whether viewed religiously or not, having joined this universal family, these characters have still made their stand, have asserted in their own small ways their right to be the masters of their own destinies.

And so we see in the films of Paul Thomas Anderson a view of family, whether surrogate or not, as the training ground for individual identities. They are flawed social structures that can provide love and acceptance and solace, but that ultimately, through a father figure, define too constrictively roles to be acted out. It is only through the refusal of such prescriptive actions that a person can assert their own dominance, their own individuality, their own meaning.

Recently, I was lucky enough to attend the opening of the Experience Music Project/Sci-Fi Museum’s (EMP/SFM) latest major exhibit, Fantasy: Worlds of Myth and Magic, showcasing materials from fantasy worlds such as Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. In honor of the opening of the exhibit, the museum put together a massive party that featured events such as swordfighting presentations, talks from noteworthy figures such as Karen Falk (the head archivist for The Jim Henson Company), and the opportunity to learn to play card games such as Magic: The Gathering.

The exhibit continued the EMP/SFM’s tradition of going beyond traditional design and creating a unique atmosphere specifically created with the theme of the exhibit in mind. Sure, there are plexiglass exhibit cases with materials in them, but they happen to be set in the middle of a small fantasy village like one you might see in one of the highlighted projects—including huts, needles on the ground, a dragon trapped in a cage, and a tree made out of metal plates. The exhibit is mainly compromised of two large rooms (with small off-shoots), so while it is looks good, it won’t take you that long to make your way through it (yet it’s still larger than most of the other exhibits at the EMP/SFM).

As cool as the environment was, that was just gravy, as everyone was there to see the objects on display. These materials are partly predictable and partly very pleasant surprises. It wasn’t necessarily a surprise to see a few costumes from Snow White and the Huntsman, given its recent success, but I was very pleasantly surprised to see a lot of materials from The Princess Bride (a movie beloved by everyone on this site). Certainly one of the most popular parts was the opportunity for attendees to get their picture taken in the Iron Throne from Game of Thrones. If this hadn’t been making its way around the US so much lately (I saw it at SXSW just two months ago), I would’ve been more excited, but it is still very cool to see in person. Other crowd-pleasers included materials from The Wizard of Oz, Labyrinth, and Xena: Warrior Princess. But, despite all the positives, I couldn’t help but walk away slightly disappointed.

The biggest problem the exhibit has nothing to do with the exhibit itself, but rather the EMP/SFM’s recent record of success. Their horror exhibit, Can’t Look Away: The Lure of Horror Film, is both a visually stunning and engaging experience. Likewise, recent exhibits highlighting Battlestar Galactica and Avatar have done excellent jobs of giving the fans what they want. Fantasy: Worlds of Myth and Magic reaches for this level, but never really hits it. For example, some of the major selling points, as I had previously mentioned, are Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter—in contrast, the percentage of the actual exhibit made up from these projects is very low…a costume, a couple pages from a book, and the Iron Throne are pretty much it. There is no question we’ve been spoiled in the past in Seattle by the EMP/SFM, and that makes us tougher critics. Anywhere else, this exhibit would be raising the bar.

I realize a portion of my frustration lies with me and my high expectations of EMP/SFM given their past successes, but I also do feel like the advertising oversold some of the projects included in the exhibit. The saving grace, though, is that even if the exhibit doesn’t live up to expectations, when you purchase a ticket to the museum you are also able to see Can’t Look Away: The Lure of Horror Film. Tickets are a bit pricey, but if you are into fantasy at all, this is one opportunity you can’t miss. It won’t be around forever.

One of the most fascinating examinations involving the mystery of human connection comes from Krzysztof Kieslowski’s Three Colors Trilogy (1993-94). The three films (Blue, White, and Red) signify the tenets of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. But that doesn’t begin to describe what these stories are like and how they seemingly relate, despite being separate from one another. Kieslowski takes these themes and molds them in a fashion different than what one may expect. These grand ideas are deeply focused toward personal and intimate stories, involving singular characters dealing with tremendous emotional adversity. In setting his films in a more grounded environment, Kieslowski enables us to connect with them in regards to love, life, and the invisible ties between strangers. Life is short, often times beautiful, and—on occasion—hilariously absurd. Kieslowski knew this, and depicted it in arguably one of the best trilogies ever made.

Three Colors would mark the peak of Kieslowski’s artistic height, and also its end. After Red was released in 1994, Kieslowski would announce his retirement, fully content to step away from the cinema. He would die two years later. But what he left was a catalogue of endlessly intriguing work that only got better as his career went on. Kieslowski was raised and taught in Poland, during the height of the Communist era. Much of his earlier work involved satires of the ruling government. But when the Cold War and Communism fell, Kieslowski turned his gaze toward characters in search of deeper meaning, of transcendence, even if they didn’t know how or where to find it. Often collaborating with his writing partner, Krzysztof Piesiewicz, Kieslowski’s later work would involve ideas hinted at, but not readily apparent. The Decalogue (1989-90) was a TV miniseries of ten one-hour films, each based on one of the Ten Commandments, although it’s difficult to decipher which commandment goes with which film. In The Double Life of Veronique (1991), the actress Irene Jacob plays two different characters somehow connected by an unseen bond.

This is what Kieslowski was so good at: creating human stories filled with an aura of the unknown. He always leaves us wondering about the subtext, but provides enough to give us our own interpretation. Three Colors is no different. The first installment, Blue, tells of a woman’s desperate struggle to move on from terrible heartbreak. Juliette Binoche gives one of the best performances of her career as Julie, the lone survivor of a car accident that took the lives of her child and musical composer husband. Flipping the idea of “Liberty,” we watch as Julie does everything she can to be free of her past. She sells her family’s home, moves into an apartment, and tries to get rid of all of her possessions, including her husband’s unfinished music. But all the while, she is nearly consumed by the tragedy, often startled awake by the memory of her husband’s compositions (the score was wonderfully created by Zbigniew Preisner). Julie is a musical person herself, and clues indicate that she may have had a hand in helping with her husband’s success.

What Julie desires most is the ability to feel again. She was so in love with her family that her loss left her numb and near emotionless. But as Kieslowski moves the story along, we sense that Julie begins to reach out again, even if it is cautiously. This comes in the most surprising of places, especially with her husband’s friend and colleague Olivier (Benoit Regent). Olivier tracks Julie down, asking her to help him finish her husband’s music. Not only does this help her focus on something other than her family, it contributes to her interacting with others again. These people include her next-door neighbor (who moonlights at a rundown sex club), a young boy who was the sole witness to Julie’s accident, and—of all people—her husband’s mistress, whom Julie has recently discovered. One can only imagine how Julie’s world is turned sideways at this new revelation—everything she once thought to be true was a façade. But how does Julie react to it? By selling her home to her husband’s mistress! Julie wants to shed her past so much that she is willing to give up her old home to the very woman her husband was secretly involved with. She so wants to feel anything that she sleeps with Olivier, not because she’s in love with him, but because she needs a physical and emotional release from her pain.

Blue is a devastating look at freeing oneself from grief. There is much sadness, but at the end there is a level of catharsis, even if we aren’t sure Julie has quite reached her own happy ending. In the second film of the trilogy, White, Kieslowski’s switches the tone to make a darkly comic story of revenge. The theme of “Equality” is defined here as “getting even.” We are introduced to a lowly Polish hairdresser, Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski), in the middle of a personal crisis. His French wife, Dominique (Julie Delpy), has filed for divorce, citing that they have never consummated their marriage. Even worse, she blocked all of his credit cards, and frames him with burning down their hair salon. At his lowest point, Karol finds himself on the street, playing music with his comb in an attempt to make enough money to get back to Poland. But in Kieslowski’s world, what goes around comes around, and Karol’s journey to self-improvement (and finally to equal footing with Dominique) is funny while also being strangely moving.

(Cont.)

I’m not a huge fan of 3D, and I am especially not fond of the current trend to retrofit older movies with it. But when I heard that they were releasing both Top Gun and Jurassic Park in 3D IMAX, I completely bought in to the hype. Large-scale fighter jets and sweaty 3D pilots? Check. “Multidimensional” T-Rex? Double check. My wildest dreams weren’t coming true or anything, but I was pretty darn excited about it. Both films rock my world, so I was predisposed to be happy, but which movie utilized the technology better? Read on to see which film reigned supreme!

Top Gun (1986): This movie came out when I was a senior in high school, and even though I was too punk to care about popular culture, I had a hell of a good time watching it. And why not? It transcends all cultural divides. Rebel Navy fighter pilot Maverick (Tom Cruise) and easy-going Goose (Anthony Edwards) are sent to an elite flying school called Top Gun. Maverick has a huge chip on his shoulder because his pilot father died in disgrace, and he has trouble fitting in with the other pilots, who don’t like him because he is a danger to himself and others. As he struggles to prove himself to the Top Gun brass, he falls for one of his instructors, Charlie (Kelly McGillis). As the competition heats up to see who is the best pilot, he suffers a devastating loss and is forced to examine his motivations, as well as decide who he wants to be in the future.

I have always loved this movie, and not just for the glaringly obvious homosexual subtext. Although I love that, too. (When my husband and I watch this together, we always say “In your pants” after one guy talks to another. It really makes it clear what’s going on in the movie.) I like it so much because it’s a cheesy, silly, wonderful film that is well paced and delivers something for everyone. Even though I know it is schmaltzy, it works because it does it so well. And there is tons of action. And male bonding. And interesting female characters. And unbelievable love scenes. And shirtless volleyball playing. What’s not to love here? I really enjoyed it in 3D IMAX, because everything in this movie is well served by being as huge as possible. All the emotions in this film are cranked up to 11, and it is only fitting that the images be as well. I had a really good time, and felt my resistance to 3D retrofitting slightly erode.

Jurassic Park (1993): Science doctors Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) are brought to a mysterious South American island to placate insurers of a new dinosaur theme park, Jurassic Park. Creator John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is trying to get them to sign off on the safety of everything, and treats them to a preview of the wonders that are to come. He’s not only created an amazing prehistoric experience, he’s created actual dinosaurs by extracting DNA from mosquitoes encased in amber. Along for the ride are his grandchildren and a lawyer. The tour starts out rather fun, but things turn sour after sabotage and bad weather cause the power systems to fail, letting dangerous dinosaurs like the Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor escape. Things go from bad to worse, and they must figure out how to get the power back on before they all get killed. Also, Jeff Goldblum does beefcake poses.

Here is my favorite Jurassic Park story. One day while watching it with my daughter’s-brother-who-is-not-my-child, about halfway through, he looked up at me with what seemed to be equal parts dread and hope. “Is this based on a real story?” It broke my heart to tell him no, because I want to go there, too. I love this movie. It is nearly perfect, and great for watching on a weekend night when you want to watch something thrilling but familiar. All the performances are good; I am particularly fond of Samuel L. Jackson as a chain-smoking computer programmer. There isn’t really that much to say. It’s an amazing movie and if you have not seen it yet, you are doing yourself a great disservice. And it’s got dinosaurs! The special effects in this are in no way dated, and I think the 3D IMAX enhances them quite nicely. I’ll tell you one thing, the scenes with the Tyrannosaurus Rex were so scary that I jumped in my seat, and I’ve seen the movie quite a few times.

The Winner: I’m not gonna lie. I love both of these movies equally and for different reasons. Top Gun is an awesome cheesefest of testosterone and planes. Jurassic Park is a rousing adventure with dinosaurs and Jeff Goldblum’s chest. In the real world, they live peaceably, coexisting side-by-side in my heart. However, in 3D IMAX world, there is a clear winner, and the choice is based purely on the 3D, not the IMAX. The 3D in Top Gun is kind of cool, but ultimately forgettable. It’s not particularly noticeable, and most of the increased awesomeness comes from the IMAX. It’s a whole other story for Jurassic Park though. The 3D is cool, most especially—as I’ve mentioned before—in the Tyrannosaurus scenes. It was pretty intense, and a fine example of what 3D should be used for. Really, you should watch both movies as often as you can, but if you could only watch one in 3D IMAX, then it should be Jurassic Park.

If screenings of clips from Star Trek Into Darkness and Fast & Furious 6 weren’t cool enough, we still had two days worth of studio presentations (Disney, Sony, 20th Century Fox, and Lionsgate) at CinemaCon 2013. Generally the presentations went two ways: either the presenters would briefly mention a bunch of projects but not show anything from them and then show more extensive clips from a few select projects, OR they would show brief clips (or trailers) for many different projects.

The first presentation of day three, Disney’s, decided to go for the former strategy. While they mentioned many upcoming projects coming from Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars, they didn’t actually show any clips to go along with them. While Disney’s line-up for the next next few years sounds impressive (Star Wars, Finding Dory, Tomorrowland, Muppets 2, Malificient), it is hard to truly judge, since it is mostly on paper at this point.

What Disney did do was show about 15 minutes or so from The Lone Ranger. In support of the footage, they brought out Jerry Bruckheimer, Gore Verbinski, Armie Hammer, and Johnny Depp to do a quick intro. It’s hard to say that the footage did anything more to change the impression created by the trailer of the film being sort of like Pirates of the Caribbean in the West. The clips did show a bit of the relationship between Armie Hammer and Ruth Wilson. Say what you will about the Pirates movies, but they did have a strong female lead with Keira Knightly, and I hope that this film uses Ruth Wilson as more than just a damsel in distress. She is so good on Luther that she deserves better. Depp and Hammer didn’t feel quite as schtick-ish as the trailer makes them out to be, but this does still feel like it will be a standard CGI-driven action film.

The more remarkable thing that Disney did was screening an unfinished version of Monsters University, presented by director Don Scanlon and producer Kori Rae. While I’m not allowed to review it, I can say it was pretty close to finished, with only music/audio tweaks to go. There has been concern about Pixar starting to do prequels and sequels, and I can say that if this is the direction they are headed with that, then people have nothing to be concerned about.

The Sony Pictures presentation definitely had a good sense of humor and probably some of the best balance in terms of showcasing short peeks at some movies and more extended peeks at others. The presentation started out with a bang by bringing out Adam Sandler, Kevin James, David Spade, and Salma Hayek in support of Grown Ups 2. Whatever you think about the first movie, they were incredibly funny in person. As far as the movie, they just showed a trailer, but it looked pretty much identical to the original…so it will probably make a ton of money.

The Sony presentation was also marked with a lot of highs and lows. I’m still not particularly interested in After Earth or Smurfs 2, but they did have a lot of other strong-looking performers. There has already been one White House action movie this year (Olympus Has Fallen), so it seems like less than ideal timing to release another one, but White House Down actually looks quite fun. Sony showed an extended look at it, and it had a sort of Under Siege feel. While the footage clearly wasn’t done, it gave a pretty good feel for what to expect—maybe not one of the highlights of the summer, but certainly a solid performer. It isn’t really clear why Jamie Foxx took his role as the President, but Channing Tatum continues to look like a true action star.

A few films had just tidbits shown, but they looked great. American Hustle (David O. Russell’s next) and The Monuments Men (George Clooney’s next) both had 20-30 seconds shown, but the casts are star-studded and the art direction looks great. Additionally, the stories sound intriguing, so it is hard to imagine either of these missing, and both should be solid contenders during the run-up to the awards season. There was also a slightly extended look at the new Carrie. I have been somewhat skeptical thus far—though I don’t think the original Carrie is above being remade, I wasn’t persuaded on the new version, other than being a big fan of Chloë Moretz. Getting a chance to see more footage really made me feel more comfortable with the direction Kimberly Peirce has taken the project. Additionally, her track record shows a good history of character-driven projects, and the action looks good here, so perhaps it will surprise people with how good it is.

The real star of the Sony showcase, though, was This Is The End. This is the faux-reality comedy about the end of the world, starring the Judd Apatow crew (James Franco, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, etc.) as themselves during the apocalypse. From the previews so far it had looked like it would be funny, but after seeing an extended look I think it looks to be one of the best comedies of the year. Since 2007, Apatow has produced a lot of funny films, but nothing as noteworthy as Superbad or Knocked Up. This has the chance to put him back on the top of the heap. Additionally, there were a couple of films that had trailers shown that looked so-so (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 and The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones), but it feels like it’s too early to level judgment on those until we see more.

(Cont.)

Two days into CinemaCon—the convention formerly known as ShoWest—the studio presentations have been full of action and surprises. CinemaCon is the yearly convention for the National Association of Theater Owners, but it has also become a platform for the major studios to showcase their upcoming lineups. I’m going to give a taste of the sights and sounds, but try to keep as much of the mystery box intact as possible.

The convention got off to a spectacular start with the star-studded presentation from Paramount, which featured 18 minutes of footage from Star Trek Into Darkness and a mashup of footage from World War Z, as well as a screening of Pain & Gain.

It is hard to say anything about Star Trek that hasn’t already been said. The footage looked beautiful (though JJ will still probably be tagged for the lens flares), the use of 3D was decent but more subtle, and Benedict Cumberbatch was as delightful as you would imagine him to be. In support of the film, Paramount sent out Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Alice Eve, John Cho, and Damon Lindelof, who were all as charming and funny as you would hope. It looks bigger and more intense than the original, and looks like it takes advantage of not having to retread the origin story again. The scenes already shown look to dwarf the original in terms of scale.

On the flipside, World War Z was a bit more of a surprise. I’ve had modest expectations up until now, and I’m not much of a zombie fan. The buzz coming out of the production was of trouble in the last third…but after seeing the footage, I was blown away. The violence looks intense, the scale looks immense, and it looks to be quite fun. The story wasn’t particularly heavily showcased, so that is yet to be determined. This presentation was highlighted by a quick one-minute intro by Brad Pitt in person, and the film looks to be heavily carried by him.

I won’t say much about Pain & Gain, since it comes out in a couple of weeks, but it is remarkable that while having only a 25 million dollar budget, it retains the look and feel of Michael Bay’s past work. And the fact that it’s based on a true story is just flabbergasting and terrifying.

Day two brought the Universal and Warner Bros presentations, and both of them were stockpiled with potential gems. Universal decided to focus their time on five films and show more extensive footage, while Warner Bros ran through their whole slate and showed shorter clips.

Universal’s first film was RIPD, an afterlife buddy cop comedy starring Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges. The best way to describe it is as a mashup of Men in Black and True Grit on steroids. It looks action-packed, and the Bridges/Reynolds combo has some interesting chemistry. It appears to have a good amount of comedy in it, with some solid supporting cast work done by Mary-Louise Parker. Universal followed that up by showing 2 Guns, which is essentially Lethal Weapon, but this time starring Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington. Of these two buddy cop movies, I enjoyed the look and feel of 2 Guns more, but they both look like solid contenders that should perform well.

Next up was a slightly extended look at Kick Ass 2. I wasn’t the biggest fan of the original, but it did grow on me over time, and I think the sequel looks fun. Jim Carrey is a little quirky, but Chloë Moretz looks awesome again, and that is all that’s needed to sell me…more Hitgirl is a no-brainer.

Finally, Universal wrapped up with extensive looks at two of their major blockbusters coming this summer: Despicable Me 2 and Fast and Furious 6. Despicable Me was one of the most pleasant surprises in the world of animation the last few years, and it looks like this time Steve Carell’s Gru gets some real character development, as he becomes a hero and learns to be a father. It looks to be incredibly sweet, and I can’t wait to see it in its entirety. They even showcased the Frankenstein-esque purple Minion…who appears to perhaps be a villain. This probably sets up nicely for the Minion spinoff coming in 2014.

The big showcase of the event, though, was for Fast & Furious 6. This was made abundantly clear, as they flew out almost the entire cast (minus Ludacris and Dwayne Johnson). They showed a huge chunk of action footage that was awesome, and the life of this franchise continues to amaze. If you were a fan of Fast Five, this footage is sure to please, along with the announcement that the next chapter will come out next year on 7/11/2014.

(Cont.)

Spencer is joined by Nick Ahlers (The MacGuffin, The Grapes of Rad) and Rich Wasserman (A Random Walk Through Film).

Segments include: SXSW recap, Roger Ebert reflections, and summer movie season memories.

Upcoming events:
-Secret Movie Night V – 5/13 at 8:30pm at Grand Illusion Cinema.
-Untitled MacGuffin Event – 6/19 at 7pm.

Links:
http://www.SXSW.com
http://twitter.com/AhlersAtYourBoy
http://www.GrapesOfRad.com
http://twitter.com/SeattleFilmBlog
http://www.RandomWalkThroughFilm.com
http://twitter.com/ThatSpencer

This episode can be played online via the flash player below or it can be downloaded from here. It is also available on iTunes and Stitcher.

30 Rock ending hit me harder than I ever imagined. It took until the second-to-last episode to really have it sink in that we were near the end of one of the most improbable shows to air on TV for seven seasons. Its ratings were never that strong. During its middle seasons, several critics who originally championed the show thought its characters were becoming too cartoonish, and many people didn’t get the humor. Despite all this, the show went on, even getting the critics back on its side. It ended in the way Tina Fey wanted it to creatively.

How did this show work so well despite its setbacks? It was smart; it knew its subject matter—the world of television—and satirized it and its own network relentlessly. The show made you feel like you knew their world, that it was never talking down to the audience. It expanded to other topics: politics, fame, race, gender roles, and even itself, with self-references to things the show had done before, and all with that same level of intelligence. This also came through in the dialogue. The show made it a mission to have as many quick one-liners and non sequiturs as possible, and it was done with such precision that they had you laughing before you could even figure out what was happening.

What really kept everything going was the characters: Jenna’s diva nature keeping everyone on edge about what lengths she would go to; Tracy’s general insanity; Kenneth’s unquestioning love of TV, mixed with his bizarre homespun values. The crowning achievement, however, was the relationship and characters of Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy. These two characters were the show, and Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin played them with such gusto. There was Liz with her stress about trying to keep her show running despite her drama queen/incompetent crew, while still trying to have a personal life. Then there was Jack, a conservative, business-loving alpha male who could be smug, but also more emotional than he wanted to let on. These two together were surprising, considering their differences, but that was why they worked so well; their personalities made them great foils for each other, creating the best comedic moments of the show.

As cynical as the satirical world 30 Rock created was, Jack’s and Liz’s friendship was always genuine and could ground the action. We rooted for these two, and not in a romantic way, which made them even more interesting—something the show itself made pains to get across to those fans who wanted them to hook up. Having them be just friends was more of a challenge and was more respectful to who they were as characters. We enjoyed seeing how they helped each other, but also how they challenged each other, with each having moments of triumph over the other. And since I can’t resist at least one quote from the show, the quintessential moment for these characters, for me, was Liz telling Jack someone broke the candy machine and him admitting to doing it, knowing that was the quickest way to get her to his office—to which she screams (very goofy-like), “You monster, I trusted you!” They could disagree and annoy each other, but they knew one another so well that we felt we knew them, too.

During its sixth season, when I heard 30 Rock was coming to an end, I was glad. At times it seemed like they were reaching more to make a joke…which they did well, but the focus was less on the Jack and Liz dynamic that had me so invested in the first place. While the show was still very funny, I wanted it to go out on a high note. Yet now that it is over, the very reason I wanted it to leave is what is making it so hard. The show was still funny. I did still care about the characters and what happened to them. Every sitcom I’d watched before was already done by the time I started watching it (Seinfeld, Arrested Development) or, if I had watched it from the start, I’d given up on it by the time it ended (3rd Rock from the Sun, Home Improvement). 30 Rock was different.

The rarity of a sitcom doing so well in its final episode is an accomplishment. That alone makes 30 Rock one of the best. In its wake came two other great but also low-rated shows: Parks and Recreation and Community. These shows make their own satirical commentary, about government and education, respectively, while also expanding their scopes to other aspects of life with the same gusto as 30 Rock. 30 Rock may have ended, but what it started is still with us, and Tina Fey is a person who will not just disappear. Rumors of a new show idea are already being talked about. For now, thank you, 30 Rock, for all the laughs and the memories. You will be missed.

Paris, Texas (1984). Let’s examine that title for a moment. When you hear the name of the town, chances are you immediately think of the city in France. Strange that the place referenced in this film is located in the vast desert of the second largest state in the U.S. I believe that is what director Wim Wenders was going for. Here is one of the prominent filmmakers of the German New Wave, telling a story steeped in the American culture. There’s a melding of two opposite voices—one of the outside observer, and the other of the characters he is observing—both trying to find common ground. It’s no surprise these characters are constantly adrift, trying to find truth and peace in their lives. By contributing these different cultural influences, Wenders makes this less about a certain place and time, and more of an overarching human experience.

The main character is a man named Travis (Harry Dean Stanton). Travis is a lost, sad, and aimless soul. We first find him wandering the desert, clothes ragged, sporting a heavy beard and a red baseball cap. There is something wrong with him. He travels on foot, with no sense of direction or purpose, and eats and drinks wherever he can. He stops by a gas station, and in a desperate act for water, chews ice from a freezer just before passing out. How did he end up here? Where is he going? In a way, we are put into his shoes. Travis has lost his memory, and as the film unfolds, he slowly begins to remember. We learn of Travis’s past just as he does. This rewards multiple viewings. As we come to understand who this person is, we can fully grasp how he found himself to be so alone. This opening act—of a man emerging from a long journey in the desert—is full of religious connotations, which are only strengthened as we continue further.

Turns out that Travis was once a family man, who (four years earlier) had a beautiful wife and son, and somehow left them for this world of isolation. Whatever caused this must have been traumatic, as Travis remains mostly mute throughout the first half of the film. When examined by the German doctor who finds him (Bernhard Wicki), he doesn’t say a word. Why doesn’t he speak? It’s clear early on that he is not mentally ill, but there is something that is bearing down on him. Perhaps his guilt (whatever it may be) is so heavy that it got to the point of him being afraid to talk and relieve his memories. All that is left is a face worn from time, eyes sunk from some hidden pain. The casting of Harry Dean Stanton was an act of brilliance. He has to emote with his facial features so often, but he does it effortlessly. Each wrinkle seems to have something behind it, a story wanting to be told. Stanton may not speak much here, but there is plenty that he says.

Travis’s return to civilization is a tough one. His brother Walt (Dean Stockwell), realizing that Travis is alive after all these years, travels from Los Angeles to Texas to fetch him. But as Walt tries to bring Travis back home, he must also help him start to remember who he once was. When they first reunite, Travis walks right past Walt as if he were a stranger. And when Walt leaves Travis in their hotel room to run an errand, he returns to find it abandoned and must search for him again. The only thing that gets Travis to talk once more is the mention of Paris, Texas. He once bought land there, and carries an old picture of it with him at all times. Travis confesses to Walt that their mother told him that was where he was conceived, and one day he wanted to return to live there. The place is more than just a stretch of dirt and grass; it stands as the main allegory for the whole film. Here is a character that wanted to escape to a place that he associates not only with his mother, but also as a form of lost happiness. It seems like Travis was willing to walk forever until he found it, or it found him.

The narrative is broken into three major sections, strung together fairly linearly. The first involves Walt discovering Travis in the desert and bringing him home, the second deals with Travis meeting his son Hunter (Hunter Henderson), and attempting to rebuild their relationship. We discover that after Travis left his family, his wife Jane (Nastassja Kinski), unable to provide for their son, left him with Walt and his wife Anne (Aurore Clement). After four years of living with them, Hunter has assimilated Walt and Anne as his own parents, even calling them “Mom” and “Dad.” This is a unique family dynamic, because just as Hunter has accepted Walt and Anne into his life, they have accepted him into theirs. They treat him as their own child, and when Travis returns, it’s understandable that they would have trouble adjusting. There is a risk of this dilemma falling into over-the-top melodrama, but Wenders (along with writers L.M. Kit Carson and Sam Shepard) never allows it to delve in that direction. In fact, the beauty is in how we can attach to every character as they face these major questions.

Travis’s and Hunter’s relationship grows steadily. It doesn’t happen right away, though—when we see Hunter decide to go home from school with his friend instead of with Travis, we sense how much it hurts him. But as Hunter begins to open up, we come to find that he always hoped his real father would return. Even though he calls Walt “Dad,” the thought of Travis being alive always lingered in his head. And although Travis has trouble remembering his past (he doesn’t even recall Hunter’s age), we feel that Travis regrets not being a part of his life. This culminates with Walt showing Travis an old home video depicting both of their families having a vacation getaway at the beach. Accompanied by slow, melodic guitar music, we see the rush of memories come flooding back to Travis as he watches. Just as Paris, Texas, represents a happy place for him, so does this video, showing a time in his life that now seems so far away. It’s one of the emotional high points of the film, because we finally get to see what it was that Travis lost, and what it is that he hopes to bring back, especially for his son. From there, we see the two connect, with Hunter walking with Travis home, and Travis showing Hunter pictures of his younger self.

(Cont.)