Crazy about Wall-E

Over a couple bottles of Cherry Lambic the other night, two friends and I had a serious discussion about WALL-E. Every since I saw the 15 second teaser for the film, I've been driving by billboards saying "Waa-AH-lee!" My friend who is a designer loved the beautiful simplicity of Eve; her elegant shape, articulated hands and Japanese inspired eye expressions. She remarked on the fact that Eve is the first woman, the character is shaped like an egg and she puts the plant, a living being, inside of her. Our male friend wondered why Eve was so focused on her directive while Wall-E abandoned his the moment she arrived and never went back to it. We wondered if it was because he had outlived all the other Wall-Es and had seen the futility of his work. Or because he was just a much older robot who realized there were more important things in life than work. Eve, on the other hand, is young and eager to please. She doesn't even know she can defy her directive until the second or third time it threatens to overtake her consciousness.


My dad, a week ago, remarked on the statement it makes about the uselessness of what we do for "work" on this planet and how what's truly meaningful in this world is our interactions with other people, and love. We chatted about the comment it makes on how we've cut ourselves off from those interactions in our roles as consumers of product and entertainment. I couldn't help thinking it probably will take us destroying the planet, 700 years and a couple of robots to finally realize how incredible and beautiful life (other than us) on this planet is. But will we really just be able to come back and start over?

I saw it as a film about a character who has a simple dream, and even in the complete absence of possibility that it will ever come true, continues to dream it. The dream, I venture to guess, is what made him live longer than all the other Wall-Es. It's what makes him special. When an opportunity arrives for him to fulfill his dream, he seizes it and he never lets go. He doesn't look back and never questions his mission. He just, with blind and enduring passion, follows that dream. Eventually, Eve decides that she wants it too and must make her own sacrifice to have it. No matter how you slice it, it's a special film, like so many of the Pixar movies.

I rented the silent film, The General, after my dad suggested that Wall-E was similar to Buster Keaton. I don't really see the resemblance in the character but the story, of a man who continues to pursue something even when the odds are stacked against him, is very like Wall-E. I like the idea, though, that the character of a robot who doesn't speak and doesn't look human, would communicate the way a silent film actor does. My friends and I said that we loved the way that through one word, said in dozens of different ways, Wall-E's emotions are brought to life. After the Lambic, we walked home saying "Eee-EEE-vah?" and "Waa-AH-lee" and giggling like little kids. Then we saw a bus stop with a poster of the movie and took pictures of it. When can you remember seeing a movie that provoked both serious discussion and childlike glee?

Five years and no pay day

The writer of my short film has just had his first feature made. He almost got screwed out of a credit and had to take the directors to arbitration, twice, but at least he got shared credit. It went to Sundance and got rave reviews and now is being released on a thousand screens in August. The trailer is really good and you can watch it here and read a bit about the film. I read this script a couple of times and made suggestions to develop the characters and story, so I was a big fan. The directors, of course, took out the good stuff and made it Hollywood bland but they got the job because they were able to cast name actors like Alan Rickman and Bill Pullman.

See, the studios still control distribution and still rely on theatrical to develop a buzz. They figure it takes $20 million to market a movie and that is the sole determinant for whether to distribute one. Is it worth $20 million? If there are no name actors, the answer is no. If the actors are recognizable but not bankable, like a movie my friend Steve is in called Plumm Summer with William Baldwin and Henry Winkler, the answer is still no. Sure, people know who they are but they won't go to the theaters to see them. It's to the point where no matter what the film or the budget, you better have at least one bankable name in the film or no one wants it, not even for cable.

What happens, then, is independent filmmakers can't make a film without a star in it, shunning their friends - fantastic actors who may have even originated the role - and other talent struggling for exposure. To attract top talent, it can't just be a fun romp, the script has to be really good or different or the characters have to be really interesting; requirements that no Hollywood film has to fulfill. And, the journey is a grueling five years for a movie made with independent financing; Little Miss Sunshine being the pinnacle of success.

Over the fourth, I met a couple - an actress/producer and a writer - who just finished making an independent film. They both spent five years on it and were involved in every detail of production and independent distribution. In the end, it sold and the investors almost broke even but they got no major distribution and didn't make a dime on it. It got rave reviews at festivals and in the press but it doesn't have any bankable talent in it. Now they're talking contingency plans and day jobs and these are two people that, to most of the struggling talent in Hollywood, are "making it." Stories like these make it very difficult to motivate oneself to make a feature.

We've all seen what's happened to film since the acceleration of visual effects. Basically it's all that films are about these days. People going to the theater expect to see something pretty spectacular. You can watch a good story on TV or get a laugh on YouTube but the cinema experience has to be eye-popping and better have one or more big stars. I expected that with On Demand and digital distribution, the field would have expanded. Instead it has contracted. Because all the Hollywood movies are soulless, empty effects extravaganzas, the name talent are starving for more substantive roles. They take the indie parts and push lesser known talent out of the running but still don't guarantee success of the film or the filmmaker. Filmmakers and investors are so worried about making their money back that they don't take risks that might make a better movie.

I know there's a huge demand for independent film. My mom will buy or rent a film from Blockbuster because she likes the cover and the title, even if she's never heard of or recognizes any of the actors. Some of them, she really likes. I read an article recently about how the record industry was digging out all these out-of-print recordings to distribute on iTunes. It said that the low cost of digitizing music made it possible to sell music that is obscure or rare and might have a small audience but they are sales they wouldn't otherwise be making. I was really excited by that; it sounded like the entertainment executives were finally realizing that there is big money in niche audiences. Just like Chris Anderson says that the way to make money on the Internet is to target a meganiche, because point one percent of Internet users is still a million, I think there is money to be made in film from the meganiche audience. So far, though, no one has tapped that potential because the greed and ego in the business has everyone stalking big game instead of catching the thousands of smaller animals running around. Too much work they say.

Imagine something like a game console with a sophisticated interface designed just for this: an On Demand platform just for independent film. Not the Sundance variety of stars in "small" 15-25 million dollar films, but real independent films. We could program our interests, rate films, browse titles, watch trailers, read synopses and get recommendations: It's like Xbox and Tivo met Netflix and Apple Trailers for a cocktail and they got crazy. These films could be $.99 instead of $3.99 On Demand charges for the Hollywood titles. If you don't like it, you could just turn it off. It's only ninety-nine cents! Or if you liked a film by a certain director, you could easily find more. The database would match talent too. If you enjoyed the guy in one film, you could watch everything he's in and rate him.

People think that the reason we don't already have this is because of some technical limitation. It's not true. 2 million people all over the world are playing massive multiplayer online roleplaying games, together, on XBox Live. On Demand is already bringing instant titles to people's TVs and Netflix to their computers. You can only watch one film at a time, so the selection does not slow down the system. The selection is limited because it is controlled by the studios. They don't want you to have more choices, they want you watch their third-rate film that bombed in the theater and they honestly don't care what you want.

If filmmakers could make movies without worrying about name talent and studio distribution, there would be many more stories to watch. They could make movies that some people will love without trying to please everyone. As it is, we're all watching the films that make the biggest box office, movies made for the slow moving masses. I hear people sigh and say that the entertainment industry is a business and that's just the way it is (and that I should stop complaining). But this business, like every other business in this country, is actually operating as a monopoly; the big guys work together to squeeze the little guys out by making it impossible for them to make a living doing it and then force feed us their mediocre product. In some countries, film is considered vital to freedom of expression and subsidized by the government. In this country, we shrug our shoulders and shell out $13 to see the latest superhero movie.

Addendums to earlier posts

This is possibly, fantastic news! I just read that the San Francisco Zoo, under pressure since the tiger attack in December, might become a rescue zoo. Apparently it means that the animals would likely get more space and bigger habitats more closely resembling their natural ones. I won't take credit for this development, ha ha ha, BUT I will say that I think blogging is a powerful tool. Public opinion matters and the easiest and most visible way to track public opinion these days is on the Internet. If hundreds of people blog that they're upset and hundreds of people (or dozens in my case) read that blog, it adds up. This is still one of my favorite videos (Nick Park is a genius).

I met a guy who works at Yelp this weekend. Actually, another 24-year old who wanted to "date" me. It's bizarre how young this town is. I guess it's the dot com thing, and actually, this is a cool place to be. Young people graduating from college want to live in San Francisco or New York. He said that the CEO and founder of Yelp is 28 and came to a meeting the other day in a "hoodie and sneaks." This guy, at 24, was flabbergasted that his millionaire boss is basically a slightly older version of himself. Imagine how I feel! Anyway, he told me that doctor recommendations are HUGE on Yelp and that some doctors have had to stop taking patients for six months or more because of the demand. It's very interesting, when recommendation works, it really works!

As it turns out, I wasn't the first person to think of a virtual concert (I know, amazing!) A friend of mine went to the 3D U2 show and said it was really cool. He heard a guy comment on the way out that it was better than a live concert for all the reasons that I specified. It was in a movie theater which is not conducive to the concert vibe though as people were self-conscious about singing along, shouting, etc. I maintain that this kind of thing should be shown at a dark, loud club just like a real concert, except better. Miley Cyrus' concert movie has already made ten times what it cost to make and parents don't have to let their teenagers drive into the city to see her in real life. A friend wrote me that now you can now see your opera in HD at the local movie theater. I love this idea that culture comes to you.

I got such a delightful number of comments on my post about starting a village. I seem to have struck a nerve! I had a little bit of anxiety after that because I thought "what if someone actually expects me to do this?" My biggest concern was how I was going to find a boyfriend. All of my friends who are up for it are already married or coupled, so it's great for them I guess, but what about me? I can't date three guys in our community of 150 at the same time (awkward!) And then it wouldn't work out with any of them and they'd all have to leave. You know? But that book about my North Node said that I have an enormous amount of love to give and that the receptacle, if it's a person, isn't big enough. I'm supposed to pour that love into a philanthropic venture, something that will make life better for other people. Once I focus on that, love will come to me and it will be easier for the other person to deal with me if I'm already in love with my "work." There's a lot of buzz right now about eco-villages: building with green materials, using renewable energy and aiming to be carbon neutral. I totally support that but my village would be communal in that "it takes a village to raise a child" way; everyone could have a role but wouldn't spend their whole life working a job they hate, and we'd all have land to grow our own food! I'm starting to wonder, however, if maybe we can make that change right where we are? There's a growing movement to plant food instead of grass in lawns (here's a fun article in the NYT Magazine about it). One step at a time, we can transform our world.

I thought this op-ed in the NYTimes today was interesting. The author criticizes the abduction of Generation 9/11 by Obama's campaign, calling them "Generation Obama." He goes on to say:
The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. But there’s not much audacity of hope there. There’s the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit — all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different.

After watching his speech today, addressing the comments of his pastor, I have to say that he is an amazingly composed and grounded orator. He speaks plainly so the masses can understand, everything he says makes sense and as I've said before, if all he does is inspire us it's more than most have done. The accusation of a politician being a politician is pretty weak. The Republicans haven't had someone this inspirational in office in years, if ever.



It's wise to be wary, perhaps especially of politicians, but instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater we should instead remind ourselves that we have to bring our revolution to Washington as much as we expect our leaders to bring it to us. Right on, right on!

Blown away by Fantasia

Last week, I went to a dinner party with a good friend of mine. The seven of us sat on the patio drinking wine after dessert and one woman said she had just returned from New York. She went, she said, to celebrate her teenage niece's birthday. The niece already had her birthday planned. They were going to see Fantasia, of American Idol fame, in the Broadway musical version of The Color Purple.

We all groaned. Ugh! What's worse, an American Idol winner on Broadway or a musical version of one of the best but depressing movies of all time? Many at the table were theater snobs, including the woman telling the story, and we all at some point had tried or succeeded to make a living as actors. But wait, she continued. Produced by Oprah Winfrey, the musical version wasn't as horrifying as it sounds, but even more surprising was Fantasia. She was a mid-run replacement and had never even been to a Broadway show. The producers felt like she was right for the part and must have hoped her notoriety would attract a younger audience.

But as my friend was telling the story, you start to get the feeling this performance was something special. The daughter of a movie star and Tony-award winning actor, she's no stranger to the theater. She told us how she used to work backstage in New York theaters, just to have access to the shows. Twice in her life, she'd seen genuine show-stoppers. It's when, in the middle of a show after a performance, the audience stands up and claps and claps and claps for so long that the performers have no choice but to stop and wait.

One of them was watching Audra McDonald in Carousel. Practically her onstage debut, she was cast against type and blew audiences away taking home an armful of awards. Fantasia's performance, she said, was like that. "It was like seeing a star be born right in front of your eyes." She's not beautiful in the Hollywood way and she has a huge mouth that takes up her whole face, but when she opens it... This from a brilliant actress in her own right, one of the best comedy writers I know and a woman who's been bored watching her own father in a West End show.

What a waste of a trip, she thought, when she found out her niece was dragging her to this. Less than an hour later she was shouting "Amen!" at the stage surrounded by middle-aged African-American women in their Sunday best. It was like a church service. With the porcelain skin and red hair of a true Irish gal, she asked her niece "Why can't white people's church be this fun?" "I KNOW" the teen replies. By the end of the show, tears streaming down her face, she stood and clapped and whistled as loud as she could. Fantasia had blown her away.

But the story wasn't over yet. So moved by this performance, so surprised by this girl, my friend read everything she could find on her and proceeded to tell us about Fantasia. She was touched by her humility in working with stage professionals, her gratitude for all of her success, and her strength and her resilience to overcome difficulties in her life. It was inspiring to see someone so moved by a performance, weeks after the show.

My friend didn't even mention that Fantasia, who is only 22 now, wrote a book about her life then played herself in the TV version making it the second most watched show in Lifetime's history. The reviews of her performance in The Color Purple have been across the board amazing. A star, indeed!

Who wants a second life?

Isn't one life more than a handful? I'm trying to figure out the Second Life phenomenon. I read a while back that it was the most played video game ever. Of course, call it a video game and immediately announce that you are not one of the residents of Second Life. And, a video game it is not. It's more like a cyber lounge. Visit an alternate universe, change your image, take a class, go to a nightclub, meet another player to share some (ahem) indiscretion.

I have to ask, why walk around on a computer when I can walk in real life along the coast and actually get exercise? Why watch a woman play the guitar in a virtual club with virtual people when I can just go to a club? Are the people playing too unsightly to go outside? They live somewhere with no live music available? Are they paranoid schizophrenics who have a hard time dealing with strangers? Or are the streets where they live too dangerous for walking? Is it possible that there are over seven million people in this predicament? If not, it means that someone I know must be playing Second Life.

With 7,573,799 residents and growing at 36% per month (although only 1,739,352 have logged in during the past 60 days) the popularity of Second Life is difficult to ignore. Do you know that the average user spends FORTY HOURS PER MONTH on Second Life?! Holy crap, that's like a whole work week. Is it just like the rest of the Internet, people connecting via blogs and online dating? Or is it something more, the only way we'll connect in the future? I'd love to meet someone who can tell me what's cool about it.

At the risk of sounding like someone's grandmother, are people living a second life instead of a RL? (In SL, an RL means real life.) I used to work with a guy who was very sweet but seemed a little lonely. He had a four year old daughter and lit up whenever I asked about her. One day I said something about Second Life and he said he wife "was on there all the time." They have a four year old, he's working and she's living life online? It's a good thing it isn't that expensive or people would be losing their RL homes to buy land in SL.

This is what I have been able to ascertain so far:

1) The worlds are created by users so it either looks like our world or looks like someone's sci-fi version. In other words, most of it is hideously ugly. I expected it to be much weirder and "out there". This is just like the real world except badly drawn.


2) The activities, while fantastic (like flying) are only happening on a computer screen. What happened to the REAL futuristic technology of simulated reality? Let's just plug into The Matrix already! Honestly, I think I'd rather go to Disneyland.

3) Video games are created by artists and writers - they have details, a history, they have an objective, they make sense. This just seems haphazard to me. Here's a question. Does a man living in SL as a woman have the same experience as a man cross-dressing in RL? Otherwise, what's the point right?

4) It has rapidly been taken over by what else, sex. I guess most people want their second life to have more/weirder sex. Except again, let me remind you that there's no actual sex. At best you're watching your badly animated avatar humping another one. (Realistic body parts cost extra) Yuck!

5) Every business on the planet has jumped on board and as usual has no idea why. They don't even know what it is they just hear the numbers of how many people (i.e. consumers) are online and want a piece of the action.

Wired published a traveler's guide because, of course, they have an office there.

They list three minor "hazards and annoyances":
1) It's confusing and can be difficult to master even the simplest of actions.
2) Crowded places slow your frame rate to a slow crawl, apparently just a fact of life in SL.
3) It's ugly and overwhelming (already noted).

Gee, maybe I was being too harsh before. It sounds fun. I wonder if people are spending 40 hours a month on it because that's how long it takes to learn things and refresh the screen. Ha ha ha. Here's something potentially interesting. Virtual Hallucinations was created by UC Davis medical staff to simulate the audiovisual hallucinations associated with schizophrenia. Wander through and voices tell you to kill yourself. If you look in the mirror, a death mask stares back. (Educational!) This is at least on the right track, experiencing how other people see the world, but not nearly as impressive as the virtual reality chambers being used to treat soldiers suffering from PSTD.

Browsing photos on Flickr of residents' Second Lives, I get a sense of the appeal. It's a creative outlet for the average person. Without any special technical abilities, anyone can create a character, a world, or a product and see it move and interact with other people's creations. I can dig that. I still don't think it's for me but if anyone has done it and liked it, I want to hear about it!

“The Biggest Hat That Has Ever Been Made in the History of the World."

Last year I was the secretary for my local college alumni organization and put my experience to work organizing their first film festival. It featured several shorts (including my own) and one full-length film, Balloonhat in which balloon-twister Addi Somekh traveled around the world and demonstrated his unique ability to transcend cultural divides and make people smile with his creations. It was an inspiring and uplifting film. Afterwards the audience flocked around Addi to watch him make balloon art for us.


Addi just sent me an email that he has launched his own channel on YouTube. He writes:
It's been 16 years since I twisted my first balloon, and I decided to celebrate by starting a channel on YouTube called Addi’s Inflatable Minute. Every week will be completely different yet always anchored in the fascinating power of All Things Inflatable: Wild experiments with giant balloons clobbering little kids, the time I made 200 hats on the Martha Stewart Show, instructions on how to make the balloon ring (and impress the ladies) and “The Biggest Hat That Has Ever Been Made in the History of the World." Upcoming episodes include a guy in Berkeley that invented a balloon organ(?!), a balloon bikini photo shoot, a balloon hat/wheelchair parade in a nursing home and much more.

It's fantastic, watch them all!

Sharing leads to purchasing

Last night in my networking group, we got into a discussion of content rights and how companies are trying to protect themselves from unauthorized sharing (ala YouTube). Several people, including myself, made the argument that with the staggering amount of content available these days (online, radio, TV, cable, theater, video, mobile, etc) it's impossible for people to find content the old-fashioned way. We're often told about it by a friend. Given the right push, we can become serious consumers of this content but it sometimes takes a little bit of free content.

Today, I had lunch with an old friend and we were chuckling about how, sometimes, a whiff of something at a restaurant will take us back to our food service days (sometimes grossing us out). He sent me this hilariously relevant video, "Waiters Who Are Nauseated By Food."

I was almost in tears it's so funny, and at the end, I read some of the comments and found my proof of how a bit of free content can spawn a purchase.

Problem is, people aren't necessarily purchasing the content companies might want them to. The content actually has to be good and desirable. Maybe that's why many companies don't mind getting a little "free" publicity on YouTube. They know their users will spread the word, get hooked, and purchase. It's the ones with crappy content that should be worried.

By the way, remember what people said about cable back in the day? That people would never pay for television when they could get it for free. But they did pay. Then they said people wouldn't pay if there weren't any commercials. But they kept paying. People pay because cable has the best content. Ultimately, quality is all that matters.

Horrific horrifying horror

I was at the video store with my dad, looking for a film to rent. Every third film, it seemed, was a horror flick. And I don't have to tell you that most of them are about pretty young women being victimized. I picked up one called Rest Stop and made the mistake of reading the back. It's, as I guessed, about a woman tortured by a sicko after stopping at a rest stop...something about a box of tools and a saw (!)

I guess what makes it so SCARY and, I shudder to say, APPEALING, is that it actually happens and women are really afraid of that. Hmmm, I wonder how often it happens. Or are women disproportionately afraid because of movies like this? Why is a woman's fear so appealing?

A few minutes later, my dad picks up the movie The Virgins of Juarez. "This is a good movie," he says, "YOU should see this." I figure that he's making reference to the fact that I'm a feminist, something he hasn't always been too supportive of. He explains that it's a true story of women (young, I imagine, since they're VIRGINS) who are abducted in Juarez, Mexico, raped repeatedly and then KILLED. Disposable sex toys?! I feel myself getting physical ill in the video store as he goes on. "Minnie Driver plays a reporter who goes down there to get the story and this girl," he says, pointing to someone on the cover, "was buried alive but manages to escape."

I'm so horrified, I don't even know what to say. Why should I see this movie? God, how sick. How awful! My brain is spinning. Who are these people? WHO abducts little girls and rapes and kills them? WHO?! Normal men just walking around decide to do this? How can a society have such a low value on the life of a woman? How can a society care so little about women living in fear?

My mom had mentioned an article in the paper that morning (it was a weekend with the parents) about a 15 year old girl who met a guy online. She agreed to meet him somewhere and was kidnapped. He and HIS FATHER kept her in their apartment for a week and raped her. FOR A WEEK! She managed to escape, apparently, and they got caught.

That night, I had a nightmare about a serial killer, a duffel bag full of warm bloody body parts in Ziploc bags, and a series of films the killer had made while killing each victim. This was a nightmare because I was in charge of solving these crimes and had to watch the movies. I couldn't sleep for two nights afterwards.

So, the other day I was at the beach, on the walking path. Every time I heard someone behind me I jumped a little, startled. I notice that other women do it too, when they're approached. I saw a couple of guys laughing at a woman who was startled by them. Does a man even know what it's like to feel like a potential victim walking around? Sure, sure, it's a state of mind. BULLSHIT. With so much real violence against women, why do we need fictional violence?

Let me ask a question. Why is it that fictional terror is entertainment while the real terror is a challenging think piece? For example, Blood Diamond featured little boys getting body parts hacked off. COOL! Last King of Scotland is about a dictator who was a mass murderer...way better than Zodiac. That guy wasn't even REALLY a serial killer. Or what about The Virgins of Juarez? I mean, isn't that right up horror alley? Can someone explain this to me?

Billboards of naked women

I moved recently and my new work commute is mostly freeway. It's a much nicer commute, even when there's traffic because everyone on the freeway is doing the same thing, more or less, going straight ahead. But one thing I just realized that I don't encounter anymore are the billboards of naked women (and bad TV shows). There was a period of time when I was outraged, every morning, by a barrage of skin and bones Mischa Barton, giant breasts in a guys face for Two and a Half Men (they're raising a kid, get it? it's HILARIOUS!), an extreme closeup on a models pouting lips (selling a car of course) - well, you get the picture.

But then today I saw this billboard:

Whose genius idea is this movie? I don't even know where to start. We've got two actors known for choosing bizarre/bad/downright tacky roles, a white girl on a chain held by a much older black man, the follow-up film from the white director of "Hustle & Flow" (also a depressing movie with degrading female roles) and the name "Black Snake Moan." I presume that is supposed to sound as sexual as possible with the black snake of course being his penis and the moan is what happens when he uses it? Am I the only disturbed by this? I don't know, I guess I'm one of those people who wants a film to be uplifting, liberating or jeez, at least a meaningful commentary on something. Maybe this is but I will probably never see it.