Skip to content

Only two days (and one season sponsorship) left to fund Notebook on Cities and Culture — and to demand more interviews

As of this writing, the Kickstarter fund drive for Notebook on Cities and Culture‘s first season has raised $2386. The original funding goal asked for $999 to cover the production of a 24-interview season, but when the drive blew past $999 in about eight hours, I decided to add another incentive: for each $250 raised over the goal amount, I’ll produce an additional interview in the first season. We’re already up to a 29-episode season. Care to help make it an even 30? (I’d also be willing to furnish, say, an even 40, if the public so wishes.)

Two backers have snapped up sponsorships of the entire season, but one remains, so if you’d like your project or message mentioned at the top of every single episode of Notebook on Cities and Culture‘s first season, you’d better hurry! Nineteen episode sponsorships remain, so if you’d like your project or message mentioned at the top of one episode of Notebook on Cities and Culture‘s first season, don’t feel quite so rushed. But do feel a little rushed; the fund drive wraps up entirely in about 48 hours.

In any event, many thanks to all the backers who have come on board so far for their generous support, and thanks as well to all those who plan to listen to the show when it debuts. Rest assured that I’ve been hard at work these last few weeks trying to create a conversationally stimulating program for you. You can get a slight sense of it with the four brief previews I’ve released so far:

Podthoughts: Point of Inquiry

 

Vital stats:
Format: interviews with bigtime skeptics
Episode duration: 30m-1h
Frequency: weekly

“In-KWAI-ree.” That’s how the hosts of Point of Inquiry [RSS] [iTunes] pronounce, sometimes with great deliberateness, the final word of their program’s title. Does this sound strange? Not terribly. Is it even not the standard pronunciation? Admittedly, I don’t know. But at certain moments, the word as uttered on this podcast sounds saturated with the sterile moisture of pedantry. Most of the time, I feel comforted to hear the speaker taking such pains. But other times — few times, but telling ones — I feel a flood of desire to shake him down for his lunch money.

The show belongs to the genre of podcasts on skepticism, one which took off with surprising force early in the medium’s emergence. Its name, despite my complicated feelings about how announcers say it, strikes me as a paragon of dignity compared with those its swarm of brethren have taken up: Skepticality, Skeptiko, Skeptoid, Skepchick. Truth to tell, had Point of Inquiry’s sponsoring organization the Center for Inquiry called it, say, Skeptacular or Stupid SkepTricks, you probably wouldn’t be reading a Podthought about it. But by today, skepticism shows have multiplied to the extent that no pun, no matter how goofy, can set a show apart.

Point of Inquiry’s form also exhibits an uncommon poise. Many skepticism podcasts divide themselves into a distracting array of segments, compulsively gin up uncomfortable confrontations with suspiciously dopey adversaries, or loose slightly-too-large casts of panelists into a frenzy over the delusion of the week like bored jungle cats upon a limping wildebeest. This one has evolved into straightforward interviews with luminaries who have carved out careers staring down particular skeptical bugaboos: Brendan Nyhan on political spin in the media [MP3], Michael Shermer on evidence-free beliefs [MP3], Steven Pinker on traditional notions of human nature [MP3], Jonathan Kay on 9/11 “Truthers” [MP3], the late Christopher Hitchens on God [MP3]. Somebody behind these scenes wields wide-ranging connections, slick booking skills, or both; no skeptical podcast I know gets consistently heavier hitters on the phone.

Read the whole thing at Maximumfun.org.

Jonathan Gold: Counter Intelligence

Here we have a sheaf of dozen-year-old restaurant reviews. Yet here we also have what the New Yorker calls “one of the great contemporary books about Los Angeles.” Sure, the magazine distances itself from that accolade, attributing it to a nebulous group of “people,” but it does so in a profile of Jonathan Gold that reveals why you’d want to read his thoughts on dishes eaten during (and well before) the Clinton administration. Such is Gold’s presence in the zeitgeist of American urban journalism that, moving to Los Angeles, I felt no immediate need for another Baedeker.

Partisans of other metropolises, learning that one of Los Angeles’ best-regarded living writers cranks out restaurant reviews for a free weekly paper, might write the city off then and there. But somehow, Gold’s own background stops them from writing him off. The New Yorker profile touches on his past as an experimental musician, his early notions about joining the Foreign Service, his unrepentant maintenance of an appetite straight out of the decline of Rome, and the almost active lack of ambition that characterized several of his decades before winning a Pulizter. The article mentions, with surprising unsmugness, Gold’s late-2000s move to New york to write for Gourmet, but then, a few years later, he made his most shocking choice to non-Angelenos yet: returning to Los Angeles.

Gourmet went under, true, but even I, still new to the city, immediately grasp why Gold felt his homeland beckoning for further eating. From where I stand — specifically, the line between the Korean part of Koreatown and the Central American part of Koreatown — Los Angeles looks to me like a loose confederation of immigrant communities, with culinary offerings to match. Gold puts it to the New Yorker with characteristic succinctness: “The difference is that in New York they’re cooking for us. Here they’re cooking for themselves.” This holds true for most forms of human intercourse that go on here; to understand Los Angeles’ restaurants is to understand all its other cultural institutions as well.

Unlike those who practice the more rarefied yet more standard forms of food criticism, Gold also understands that eating cannot, or at least should not, be approached in a cultural vacuum. He unhesitatingly pulls in references to, comparisons with, and terms of the full variety his artistic experience, whenever it seems necessary. “The Germans contributed the symphony,” he writes in one of the many restaurant reviews Counter Intelligence comprises. “The French, symbolist poetry; the Irish, William Butler Yeats. The Dutch chimed in with Mannerist painting; the Nigerians with the great sculptures of Benin. And the Belgians? French fries… French fries and a funny kind of beer that tastes like cherries.”

Counter Intelligence goes on to see Gold eat “a dish that suggests more subtleties of green than a Jennifer Bartlett painting.” He describes “a Louis L’Amour scene transplanted to a Little Tokyo mini-mall.” He tastes a house hot sauce that “puts a Carville-quality spin” on a dish. He knows that, “in good French toast, milk and egg invade a slice of bread the way the creatures in I Married a Monster from Outer Space took over police officers.” He frequents an Ethiopian joint with “four sharply dressed men clustered around the turntables arguing whether next to play Lakeside or Cameo.” (Sounds like my kind of place — and indeed, I go with some frequency.) He figures that “if The Honeymooners were set in Osaka instead of Brooklyn, Ralph would eat a lot of curry.” He admits that “like a bad Elmore Leonard novel, a bad scallion pancake, even the doughy ones they sell in the frozen-food aisles of Chinese supermarkets, which you heat in your toaster like a Pop-Tart, is still pretty hard to resist.”

But again, beyond the (considerable) raw entertainment value of such critical performance, why read a compilation of restaurant reviews from 2000? Surely even the most relevant of Gold’s assessments have gone cold by now, and his archive of opinions on L.A. Weekly‘s web site gets updated practically in real time. But as a perhaps too-avid reader of criticism in all its breeds, though, allow me to submit that timeliness is just what we don’t need more of. If I read a review hailing from, say, the theater pages, let me read the one that hails from the theater pages of years, decades, centuries ago,  one that describes a performance fast fading from or completely out of living memory yet somehow retains its intellectual impact. If I read a review of a meal — the one form even more ephemeral than theater — let me read a review of a meal from an eatery shuttered years ago, its small but once-devoted clientele long dispersed. But let it be a review I read over and over again, vainly attempt to explain diagram the workings of the idiosyncratic mind behind it.

As it happens, most of the eateries Gold writes up in Counter Intelligence remain open for business. I know; I kept my iPhone beside the book at all times just to check. In the same way that an old, foreign film’s continued presence in the public consciousness signals something enduring enough at its core to blow through walls erected by age and distance, a restaurant that already boasted a strong track record in the previous century which I can still visit today is a restaurant I want to visit today. But under Gold’s mandate, “restaurant” isn’t always the right word; often, he saves his most probing, far-reaching, and celebratory investigations for stands, shacks, and, yes, counters — holes in the wall, sometimes literally.

This gets at what we can now see as Gold’s chief critical strength: the man knows how to use a filter. The New Yorker describes one example of the only-in-Los-Angeles phenomenon he calls a “triple carom”: “the Cajun food restaurant that caters to Chinese customers and is run by Vietnamese from Texas.” Seek out such an unlikely combination and you’re halfway there. But does it demand that you haul your ass out to a distant suburb filled with oil derricks and abandoned aerospace complexes? Does it do business out of a shambolic corner strip mall? Does its window proudly display a grade of “C” from the Los Angeles Board of Health? Has it nevertheless filled to bursting for lunch every single day since 1982? If yes to all, then, by Gold’s rubric, you’re at least three-quarters of the way there.

I borrowed my copy of Counter Intelligence from the Los Angeles Central Library downtown. There they shelve it not with the food books, but, correctly, in a stretch of stacks on the very bottom floor given over to Los Angeles history, culture, and geography. I have already spent good times getting lost in this section, and I plan to spend more. The book I checked out, dog-eared and pencil-marked with over a decade of use, contained the following underlinings and scribblings, which reveal “the Real Los Angeles” of its subtitle just as much as its main text does:

 

strawberry-papaya

homemade lemon agua fresca

fresh, heavy cream

too expensive

banh mi shop

sugar-cane juice

green-papaya salad

less than $2

iced coffee is

steamed-vegetable salad gado-gado is garnished with fried tofu, tempeh fritters, and half a dozen shrimp chips — silly-looking things that jut from the top of the salad like varicolored jibs

exotic sweet

malted glasses

brown-sugar drink es cendol

soups

tom kha kai

fresh pasta

bufala

panini

best vegetarian plates

called pastis

stand in line to order

fried plantain

Cafe Brasil lunch is generally an uncomplicated

$20

Mexican cactus pizza

foie gras calzone

steamed in banana leaves

yogurt drink, dough

Buenos Aires-style pasta

Argentine cooking is probably the most popular new cuisine in Los Angeles since Thai food

$21

a dense, hard-grilled brioche

onion, squeaky panela cheese

Sri Lankan iced coffee

White Russians you

banana smoothies seem to be — but aren’t — flavored with a shot of dark rum

curries

entree at Coley’s Kitchen: a subtly sweet mound of rice cooked with red beans; a small heap of steamed cabbage; a fried slice of plantain; an egg-size capsule of festival bread that will remind you of a buttermilk doughnut. Before this massive plate of food arrives, there might be a cup of thick, curried chicken soup, or spicy cow’s-foot soup — or, on Mondays, incredible, intricately spiced red-bean soup, which

“patties”

tall glass of the restaurants

Caribbean vegetable akee looks

scrambled eggs

Guelaguetza in Koreatown

cornmeal platforms

mole negro

to include half a dozen small loaves of buttered French bread instead

oyster loaf

cheese-on-a-stick

Ten dollars’ worth of shrimp dumplings and egg rolls

“Pregnant Burritos”

in Nose Knows

inera bread

Eritrean vegetable combination plate

best fried-green plantains I’ve had

baba ghanoush

Peru’s central Andean highlands

sour cream

turnovers stuffed with tart spinach

Matsuhisa’s prices are high

proper papaya salad

unripe fruit shredded

omelets

pupusas, hand-patted

vegetable loroco

samarkand is the sort of cold sauteed eggplant

plov, the godfather of all rice pilafs

pineapple rice

3:00 A.M.

kimchi

cabbage kimchi

a sweet squash

passion-fruit

pizzas

bananas and cinnamon

bananas and cheese

The Notebook on Cities and Culture season on Kickstarter Campaign goes live…

… right this moment. You can pledge or just keep an eye on the drive’s progress at the show’s Kickstarter project page. We’re aiming for $999 in pledges to fund the first season, i.e., the first three months, i.e. the first 24 hour-long interviews. You can pledge any amount like, starting from one dollar. But if you’d like to go beyond the Washington, I can offer the following incentives:

  • If you pledge $30 or more, I’ll thank you by name in each and every one of season one’s episodes.
  • If you pledge $80 or more, I’ll thank you by name in each and every one of season one’s episodes, and mention your own project or message at the top of one of them. (Only 24 backers can do this, for the obvious reason.)
  • If you pledge $300 or more, I’ll thank you by name in each and every one of season one’s episodes. and mention your own project or message at the top of all of them. (Only three people can do this, for reasons of not wanting to lose the audience’s attention at the top of the show.)

So, $999. If we get there by 12:05 a.m. Pacific time on Thursday, February, 2nd, the show’s first season will come out. If not… well, just yesterday I walked by a Five Guys burger joint on Wilshire that was hiring, so I’ve got options.

Introducing, audio- and video-previewing, and (on Thursday) Kickstarting Notebook on Cities and Culture

I give you The Marketplace of Ideas‘ replacement, and the next evolutionary stage of my grand project to deliver cultural conversation of the depth you demand: Notebook on Cities and Culture, debuting February 2012. Well, scheduled to debut in February 2012, anyway.

In the new show, I’ll sit down twice a week with cultural creators, internationalists, and observers of the urban scene for long-form conversations recorded all over Los Angeles and beyond. Guests scheduled so far include writers, sound artists, comedians, broadcasters, critics, bloggers, and people with careers so self-styled that labels fail me. (Locations so far include homes, offices, libraries, tar pits, and a Denny’s in the middle of the night.)

But before Notebook on Cities and Culture makes its entrance, we’ll need to do some fundraising. You know Kickstarter, right? It’s that service people have been using to fund projects like (and here I quote their own front page) “balloon mapping kits,” “earth-banked aging rooms,” and “graphic novel about a guy who views himself as a troll and is in love with his best friend’s girlfriend.” The good people at Kickstarter have approved Notebook‘s first season of three months and 24 interviews as a fundable project, and its week-long campaign for $999 in production money begins this Thursday, January 26.

One of Kickstarter’s advantages, one I would suspect has helped it grow so widely used, is that, if a campaign doesn’t reach its goal, nobody who’s pledged pays anything. (Good for those who pledge, anyway; perhaps less good for those of us who’ve, uh, had trouble with listener mobilization before.) More details on all this will come soon. In the meantime, give this brief video about Notebook on Cities and Culture a watch, listen to a couple clips from the new show, and, now more than ever, try not to get laid off:

 

The Ubuweb Experimental Video Project 50. John Baldessari’s The Meaning of Various News Photos to Ed Henderson

 

John Baldessari, The Meaning of Various News Photos to Ed Henderson, 1973

I don’t know Ed Henderson’s story, but that voice talking to him from offscreen definitely belongs to John Baldessari. In this piece, the artist doesn’t ask nor seem to expect that we know or learn much about Henderson, other than that he looks and sounds on the young side; that he wears shiny black-rimmed glasses and what some a “jewfro;” and that he retains only imperfect memories, if any at all, of recent pieces of photojournalism. Pushpinning a series of newspaper photographs onto the wall, Baldessari asks Ed to describe what he thinks they depict.

“Looks like it was in Northern California,” Ed says about one. Another moves him to finer-grained geographical specificity: “It’s Los Angeles: palm trees, trashy little houses.” In the photo Baldessari has put up, a pair of cops train their guns on a t-shirted fellow flat on the sidewalk. “Police don’t pull out firearms unless it’s absolutely necessary,” Ed assures us in the flatly optimistic tones of the True Stories-era David Byrne. “Obviously, this is a military man,” Ed says of a strapping subject in a harshly folded hat doubled over and sniffing his way along a trail; “basic jungle training,” it seems. One image, harder to make out than the rest, appears to contain a beaked creature in its corner. “This, I’m almost positive,” Ed ventures, “is some sort of rare hummingbird.”

Unaccompanied photographs, even muddy ones seen through Portapak footage like these, combine a surprising richness of information with a total lack of context. Of course, Baldessari has done some of the decontexualizing himself, snipping away the articles they illustrate. I can’t write anything more incisive about this phenomenon, and certainly won’t write anything more voluminous, than documentarian Errol Morris has in his New York Times blog and his blog-based book, Believing is Seeing. Suffice it to say that we get in trouble when we examine photographs and our minds wander beyond the frame. Ed doesn’t say anything too patently ridiculous in the video — I did chuckle when he initially mistakes a beach full of crabs for a beach full of “bugs,” though I felt I was laughing with him — but we have know way of knowing how close he comes to the target. More to the point, we have know way of knowing what the “target” even is.

Abbas Kiarostami: Certified Copy

 

Having slouched around screenings of midcentury Godard, Truffaut, and Antonioni, all of whom have enjoyed a recent surge of popularity at Los Angeles revival houses, I can’t stifle my standard lament about why They Don’t Make Movies Like These Anymore. But a more accurate lament would ask why They Never Really Made Movies That Built on These. We’d surely have tired of 45 years of Blowup clones by now, but I suspect the medium never bothered to learn the lessons of the original. Whatever its motivation, the muse of cinematic exhilaration has drifted on from continental Europe. Few young filmmakers seem to draw inspiration from anything coming out of France today, and Italy’s silence has grown sufficiently eerie to inspire at least one investigative documentary. For a while there, it was looking like we cinephiles would have to turn for sustenance the Middle East; though the region isn’t known, artistically or otherwise, for its joie de vivre, at least it produced Abbas Kiarostami.

You might object to my unrealistically empty image of foreign cinema, one as barren as the waterless brown landscapes across which Kiarostami drives his players. (Though more often, he has them drive themselves.) The notion that we once had Europe, we now have this potential savior from Iran, and we’ll soon have nothing sounds a little hasty when you consider what’s gone on on in East Asia for the last twenty years. Korea’s Hong Sangsoo, Taiwan’s Tsai Ming-liang and Hou Hsiao-hsien, Hong Hong’s Wong Kar-wai; these filmmakers and many of their compatriots besides have heartily assumed the aesthetic and intellectual mandate left by those iconoclastic filmmakers who thrilled American urbanites half a century ago.

In the past decade, many of them have gone so far as to set up camp in Europe itself. In Night and Day, Hong filled a Paris boarding house with his countrymen, each more disoriented than the last, all less disoriented than his characteristically hapless painter protagonist. Hou took it to the same city in Flight of the Red Balloon, dropping but a single Chinese player into an insular French family drama. Tsai’s Face entered the world as a French film in all but directorial heritage. Wong — well, Wong made My Blueberry Nights in America, but the film itself seems to take place in a distinctly Europeanized version thereof. And Kiarostami, whether out of desire or necessity, conceived Certified Copy, a project necessitating a move from Tehran to Tuscany.

Watchers of Iranian cinema — and indeed of Iran — note that Kiarostami could barely have have dreamt of producing such a scandalous picture in the old country. He pushed the envelope far enough a decade ago with Ten, where he took his standard road-weary middle-aged man out from behind the wheel, replacing him with, of all things, a woman. In Certified Copy, not only do we find a woman still in a driver’s seat, but a woman shamelessly dressed to Western Europe’s standard of exposure (and with what Madelaine called a “single-mother visible bra strap” at that). Relegated to the passenger’s seat? A man. If these two weren’t Juliette Binoche, returning to a second tour of Kiarostami duty after portraying the final watching head in Shirin, and opera singer William Shimell, those censors back home would surely have felt their heads explode.

They might console themselves with the film’s lack of sex, but depending on their perceptual choices, they might have to deal with a lack of marriage. I felt the whoosh of a thousand not-quite-appropriate invocations of quantum physics in post-screening coffee discussions, for whether Binoche and Shimell’s characters are married, aren’t married, were married or — might as well consider it — will be married depends on when and where you take your observation. At first, we simply see an art theorist with a few ideas about the value of copied artworks versus that of originals — which, for thematic reasons, you may want to jot down now — being driven through scenes of rustic idyll by an admiring fan; at the end, we see two people fifteen years married with a teenage son, their rapport clouded by a haze of reflection and pitted by bitter potshots at several different subspecies, real and imagined, of emotional unavailability.

Kiarostami orchestrates the transition in a manner somehow neither sudden nor gradual. Several of Binoche and Shimell’s exchanges in the movie’s first half could, stripped of context (not that Kiarostami provides a great deal in the first place), go on between a genuine married couple. In certain moments in the second half, you’d swear they’d fallen back into the distance of acquaintances. A rigorously realist explanation of Certified Copy’s events has a lot of explaining to do around the midpoint, when the two stop into a café, Shimell steps out to take a phone call, and the proprietress strikes up a conversation with Binoche about that man she assumes is her husband.

The matron insists, in her thoroughly old-world fashion, that she senses in him the kind of basic goodness within that — to hell with his obvious distraction, to hell with his customary mistress or three — makes solid husband material. “Well, why not?” we seem to see Binoche think to herself as she begins playing along. But when Shimell returns, he too slides into his assumed role with little prompting, going as far as to speak in Binoche’s native French. Trying to explain his lack of Italian, he claims to have studied French in school, but I imagine you’d pick up a great deal of functionality in fifteen domestic years, even made-up ones.

You can all too easily envision viewers desperately attempting to square it: “So were they married, or weren’t they?” But, doomed by design to futility, these attempts to stack up evidence in the “For” and “Against” columns can only make yet more heads explode. (For a deeply nonviolent filmmaker, Kiarostami displays serious body-count potential this time out.) Michael Haneke’s Caché, if we’re sticking to ultimately ambiguous Juliette Binoche showcases, previously provoked the same kind of consternation. Viewers who obsessed over figuring out who sent all those creepy tapes, or those who called betrayal on Haneke’s own apparent lack of concern over same, missed out on the picture’s richness.

This mindset, liable to reduce a Caché or a Certified Copy to nothing but a cheap trick, ignores the filmmakers’ considerable skill in creating, manipulating, and — a word that means something decidedly different to Kiarostami than to Haneke — aestheticizing a reality around propositions so simple but so excitingly at odds with our storytelling habits. Part of me wishes that audiences had fully digested this sort of thing back when those sixties Euro-auteurs were were doing it, forcing today’s cinema to explore creative frontiers much farther out. But surely the chance to watch Kiarostami try his hand at it counts for something.

Podthoughts: Roderick on the Line

I haven’t posted much here about Podthoughts, the podcast-review column I’ve written for the past three years at MaximumFun.org. (You’ll know them for their own podcasts like Bullseye, a.k.a. the former Sound of Young America, and Jordan, Jesse, Go!) Perhaps I should. This week’s column examines (two-time Marketplace of Ideas) guest Merlin Mann’s latest podcasting project, Roderick on the Line:


Vital stats:
Format: Skype conversations between Merlin Mann and John Roderick
Episode duration: 50m-1h30m
Frequency: weekly

Time was, Merlin Mann’s followers — a square-framed group in which I count myself — suffered a perpetual drought. You’d get your luminary’s guest appearances on podcasts now and again or, on extra-special days, recordings of his speeches at tech industry conferences and company retreats. Though half of these would slice off into the rough of open-source application minutia or techniques for executing semi-documented five-keystroke Mac OS commands, Mann would still work in incisive and eerily useful observations about life, work, and the overlap between them. These came propelled by his rocket-fueled Gen-X wit, guided by cultural landmarks on maps printed by independent record labels of the early nineties. Out its back blew a noxious vapor trail meant to cloud and choke the forces of internet-enabled hucksterism and complacency. To what scraps we received, we paid the attention of Talmudic scholars.

Now, even the most compulsive admirers surely struggle to keep up with more Merlin Mann media than they can handle. Those who always approached his output buffet-style, paying attention to his indictments of certain things and ignoring his indictments of others, must see this as a boon. Those who desire only his thoughts about using your mind to create things that actually matter in a less twitchy, fearful manner can stick to Back to Work with Dan Benjamin. Those who prefer Mann’s rapid-fire cracks — not fully orchestrated jokes, exactly, but something subtler, more tonal, and further askew — about German sex tourism, fruit cocktails, John Wayne Gacy, and insistently ragtag but highly educated guitar bands hailing from the first Bush administration — now have something to download as well.

Read the whole thing here.

Pedro Almodóvar: The Flower of My Secret

Freshly up on 3QuarksDaily, my latest Humanists film column on Pedro Almodóvar’s’s The Flower of My Secret:

Pedro Almodóvar’s overarching project, spanning three decades and counting, makes the most sense to me as the redemption of the soap-operatic. I see it in his films’ bright colors; in their plots driven by the sturm und drang of love, death, and betrayal; and in their besieged women who balance a certain noble endurance with a hint of trashiness. (Over time, the noble endurance has taken the edge over the trashiness.) Watching the entire Almodóvar canon, my brain files each movie as one episode of a single, melodramatic story, albeit a complicated, ever-shifting one which begins in extremity and will surely end in relative mildness. While the filmmaker doesn’t encourage this way of thinking — characters from one film don’t seem acquainted with characters from the others, though my, what notes they’d have to compare — neither does he discourage it. Formal, thematic, visual, and even verbal echoes resonate across his pictures, and in The Flower of My Secret, a few of them crash right up against each other.

Almodóvar builds the film around Leocadia Macias, known to her public — and to her public, only — as romance novelist Amanda Gris. Frustrated by a emerging dissatisfaction with her literarily unchallenging racket, a military-strategist husband who’s grown both emotionally and geographically distant, and the unquenchable aphrodisiac side-effects of one of her medications, Leo lets Amanda Gris’ novels go bleak. Bleak in a way, in fact, that meets the standards of Pedro Almodóvar pictures, although Leo’s sensibility, as reflected in an article she anonymously publishes against Amanda Gris’ latest opus, may have permanently taken this turn toward the Almodóvarian. Her life then takes its own swerve in the same direction.

Man thievery, drug addiction, crime, attempted suicide, family squabbles, a retreat to the village, difficulties with the maid, sudden revelations of artistic potential: Almodóvar’s followers, among whom I count myself, have come to expect all these developments from him and more. This film delivers them without doubt or hesitation, but some smell in it a whiff of the bitterness of an auteur chafing against his reputation. “We have the materials here for a comedy, but not the willingness,” Roger Ebert writes, “and gradually the awful suspicion dawns that Almodóvar himself, like Leo, is tired of his success and despairs that his producers will ever let him do something ‘serious.’”

Read the whole thing here.

Watch Observer, my previous short

 

I give you Observer, the short film I shot in the summer of 2010, now unlocked for your viewing pleasure. It stayed under password-protected wraps for a while there due to the rules of the various film festivals I submitted it to. Now that I’ve fallen into absolute confusion about the very purpose of the short-film festival circuit, I figured I might as well make the thing available to everyone. Seems like a more efficient way to attract informative feedback and interesting collaborators.

For months now, I’ve been working on my next short, a Borges-inspired story called א about, yes, a point that contains all points. It’s taking so long because I’m shooting it all on Super 8 — don’t ask me why, but I like the look, and the limitations of the format make me work in a psychologically different way — and mostly in Santa Barbara, so each shooting day means a mini-road trip.