Hoop Dreams

It's been almost 10 years since Hoop Dreams was released, but the documentary is still relevant. Hoop Dreams is about two African American teenagers, William Gates and Arthur Agee, who grow up in a depressing neighborhood, become talented young basketball players and take steps to become professional. They are recruited by a high school that has a special program for basketball players. William Gates manages to stay and Arthur Agee ends up not being able to finish high school education there, but both manage to go to college on scholarships and they both graduate. They do not become professional basketball players in the end, but the documentary gives the audience a good idea of what it is like to become a professional basketball player and what it means to have the opportunity just to go through the process for African Americans who grow up in depressing neighborhoods. I believe that not much has changed socially or economically since then and most African Americans who grow up in depressing neighborhoods go through a similar experience.

Although two African American teenagers in Hoop Dreams manage to finish college and certainly achieve more than their parents ever did, the documentary is rather depressing.

1. Their mindset is not very positive, and it seems that they acquired that mindset as they grew up, although I do not know what they are like today.

2. Whether it is true or not, they view that playing basketball is the only way to have a better life than their parents and those who live in the same neighborhood.

3. Basketball has become very much a business today, and two African American teenagers in Hoop Dreams become an integrated part of the business as they start high school. It does not seem that they enjoy being a part of the business process.

3.2. They are more or less controlled by people who take part in the business process such as high schools and colleges that have a well-organized basketball program. Because they are so young and they do not have much power intellectually or financially, much of their lives are led by others; they are not exactly leading their lives. They also seem oppressed and exploited to a certain degree.

The fact that two African American teenagers in Hoop Dreams are living a good life today is encouraging, but Hoop Dreams does not tell the happiest story in America.

Movie DVD Store (UK) update

I just updated Movie DVD Store (UK). The store has a new layout and it has the following categories:

Action & Adventure
- Action & Adventure
Art House & International
- Directors
- French
- Japanese
- Others
Box Sets
- Series
- Others
Children's DVD
- Ages 0-2
- Ages 3-4
- Ages 5-8
- Ages 9-11
- Ages 12-16
- Animation
- Characters & Series
- Disney
- Educational
- Family Favourites
- Music
Classic Films
- Classic Films
Comedy
- Comedy
Drama
- Drama
Horror & Suspense
- Horror & Suspense
Music
- Artists & Bands
- Pop & Dance
- Rock
- Others
Musical & Classical
- Classical Music
- Musicals & Stage Performances
- Opera
- Others
Science Fiction & Fantasy
- Cult Series
- Others
Television & Documentary
- Television & Documentary

The store is for UK residents only. Any product purchased at the store cannot be delivered to any place outside of UK. US residents need to make a purchase at the other store, "yetAnotherFCW Store". I plan to make a few changes in near future, and I will mention about it in this blog.

The Future of Food

Number of good documentary films have been released for the last several years, and this is one of them. The film did not do so well in the box office though. Also the film has not been widely talked about, and it is not as well-known as other documentary films released recently such as SuperSize Me and Control Room.

The Future of Food focuses on food production in US today; the film briefly touches on health issues but only briefly. More specifically, the film focuses on crops such as corns and potatoes. I presume that many people do not completely agree with the view point that the film presents, but the film makes its view point very clear and easy to understand.

If you watched SuperSize Me, Control Room or The Corporation and liked the film, then I would highly recommend The Future of Food.

Robert De Niro and his characters' disconnect to the rest of the world

Not so sure if this is what I want to write about at the end of the year, but, I don't know, maybe this is.

Robert De Niro is often considered as one of the greatest actors, though I personally feel that he has not played a great role for the last several years. The most striking thing about Robert De Niro is his characters' disconnect to the rest of the world. I was just watching Once Upon a Time in America, and I notice that David 'Noodles' Aaronson (played by Robert De Niro) represents one's disconnect to the rest of the world. The night before Deborah Gelly (played by Elizabeth McGovern) leaves New York for Los Angeles, Noodles takes Deborah out to a restaurant that Noodles reserves just for them; there is no other customer but them. They spend a very romantic night for the most part, but Noodles who really does not know how to communicate with women ends up raping Deborah. If you interpret the scene literally, it is a very violent scene and it shows Noodles's recklessness, but what the scene really represents symbolically is Noodles's disconnect to the rest of the world. He simply does not know how to communicate or how to establish a relationship. Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver is another fantastic character. When Travis takes Betsy (played by Cybill Shepherd) out on a date, he takes her to an adult movie theater; the scene represents Travis's isolation and his disconnect to the rest of the world once again. He is alone and he is unable to participate in the society.

Robert De Niro's characters are not ugly, extremely over weight, physically sick, lacking intelligence or dyslexia. The disconnect is not created by their lack of a certain ability; it is not their wish or hope, but it is their inescapable attribute. This is why Robert De Niro's characters speak to our heart, and Robert De Niro is often considered as one of the greatest actors.

What English Patient is really about and why the title is "English Patient"

English Patient is one of my favorite movies. I was just reading reviews and comments on the web, but none of reviews and comments talks about what English Patient is really about or why the title is "English Patient", so I want to comment on this. Count Laszlo de Almásy (played brilliantly by Ralph Fiennes) despises Great Britain. Great Britain was the superpower in the time period which the movie's story takes place. Great Britain creates wealth and sets up colonies all over the world. Great Britain plays the central role in world politics and economy. Great Britain is the center of the world, yet Count Laszlo de Almásy despises that like many intellectuals despise today's US. Pursuit of nothing, destruction of humanity, layers of superficialities constructed in the society, etc. Count Laszlo de Almásy moves to Africa to find his conscious. He finds life of solitude and peace there. However, he is forced to be a part of Great Britain's presence in Africa because he is after all an Englishman. He meets a woman and they fall in love, but the tragic accident and his relationship with the woman force him to provide certain documents to Germany, an enemy country. He gets injured badly shortly after. He basically loses all at this point. He has lost his love. He has lost Africa. He has lost life of solitude and peace. He becomes an English patient and he is moved to Italy. Though he despises Great Britain, he has been forced to become an "English" patient. Because he is an "English" patient and he has passed certain documents to the enemy, he has no future though he never wished to become "English Patient", nor did he want to take any part of the war between Great Britain and Germany. He was forced to do what he never wished to do, and what is even worse is that he has no future because of what he was forced to do. He is doomed; this is a real tragedy. The only thing that he wishes to do and he is left to do is to commit suicide. Since he cannot do it alone because of his injuries, he gets his nurse's assistance. The title "English Patient" symbolized the doomed existence, and the movie is really about the doomed existent and eternal suffering.

Why Kevin Smith has such a strong following

Though there are number of movie directors who directed mega blockbuster movies ($200 million+ in box office), there aren't that many movie directors who have a strong following. I briefly mentioned about Chasing Amy DVD, and
Chasing Amy's director, Kevin Smith has such a strong following; he is one of few directors who have a very strong following. The followings are some of reasons why, I think, he a very strong following.

Reason 1: Kevin Smith writes stories about middle class and lower class people, though it is kind of questionable if they are realistic or not (e.g., Jay and Silent Bob). A lot of movies are supposed to be stories about middle class and lower class people, but they are often not portrayed like that; they have perfect teeth. They have perfect clean skin. Fashionable, eat well, driving nice cars, living in a large apartment, dating a cute boyfriend or girlfriend, healthy and no recognizable mental problem. This is not exactly a true representation of middle class or lower class. (Most) Characters in Kevin Smith's movies are down-to-earth; they are domesticated. They are flawed. They work in video stores, convenient stores and they make $1.00 slice pizzas. I do not think that Kevin Smith consciously portrays true middle class and lower class, nor have I ever heard or read that he makes that conscious decision, but that's what he does, and that's one of reasons why he connects to a lot of people.

Reason 2: Though he emulates certain techniques and dialogues from other movies and move directors (and he admits this), he has his own style. His movies are dialogue-driven. Characters talk a lot, and the intense dialogues tell stories. Though dialogues are not malicious or violent, they are certainly vulgar. As a matter of fact, there are only a selected number of movies that have more vulgar dialogues than Kevin Smith's movies.

Reason 3: People are the center of his movies. Culture is undoubtedly a very important aspect of the movie. Consequently, music is a very important aspect of the movie. So is cinematography and commerce has a certain importance. However, commerce cannot be the center of the movie. The movie cannot be like a big advertisement. Though music is important, it cannot be the center of the movie, either. Culture, though it is extremely important, cannot dictate people. If anything but people becomes the center, there wouldn't be any balance. You'd feel emptiness, no matter how elegantly other aspects of the movie are done. People are the center in Kevin Smith's movies (even if they are smoking out or cursing), and that captures the audience. That creates the strong following.

Chasing Amy

Note on DVD:

Most DVD commentaries today were done after DVD became the standard format to watch movies at home, but Chasing Amy's commentary was done when there was also laserdisc; in fact, laserdisc was believed to become the standard then. Therefore, the commentary is a bit old. Though DVD includes an intro by Kevin Smith, all other materials were recorded and compiled a while ago.

Comment on Commentary:

If you are a Kevin Smith fan (like me), you'd enjoy the commentary. He is actually one of several commentators and they all make one commentary, but he talks a lot about the movie; in fact, he is the one who talks most (which is appropriate give the fact that he is the writer and the director of the movie).

Kissing Jessica Stein and New York

I don't know if those who watched Kissing Jessica Stein agree with me, but when I watched Kissing Jessica Stein, I found that the movie is Woody Allen-ish. Though Kissing Jessica Stein focuses on love and romance, questions that the movie asks are important questions about life in general. The movie is also a romantic comedy. Many elements of the movie are quite serious, but it is a funny movie and most scenes are funny while they are able to deliver important and serious messages. And the movie is, of course, filmed in New York, and the movie shows many great things about New York. Cool restaurants, streets, buildings, architecture, intellectual conversations, art, great food, great diversity of people, music, and other gazillion wonderful things about the city. I find it Woody Allen-ish though I don't mean to say that Kissing Jessica Stein is unoriginal or it lacks its own unique style. Among many Woody Allen-ish elements of the movie is one thing in particular that I find the movie really captures New York. I already listed many great things about the city, but there aren't a whole lot of movies that really capture New York. There are things that those who actually live there notice and can capture (Ok, some tourists may notice, but most people in Hollywood apparently cannot; maybe there is really something bad in water in Hollywood). Skyscrapers certainly have attractive looks, there are number of fancy schmancy restaurants and big museums (like Metropolitan Museums of Art), but what's great about the city are small things; they are about things on streets. They are about ordinary people in New York. Conversations that you hear have life, energy, entertainment and philosophy (Am I exaggerating?). To make a long story, most major Hollywood movies fail to capture what's so great about New York (and other real cities (so of course, Los Angeles does not count because Los Angeles is not a city)). Kissing Jessica Stein is one movie that really captures New York.

(And the movie reminds me that I need to go back there ...)

Kissing Jessica Stein, another wonderful love story

I wrote about Heavenly Creatures several days ago and wrote that it is a great love story, though the movie has many dimensions and love story is only one of dimensions. Kissing Jessica Stein is another wonderful love story; I personally like Kissing Jessica Stein better than Heavenly Creatures (though both are great movies). As I read some reviews on the web, Kissing Jessica Stein is often described as a lesbian love story, but it is not. Two main characters in the movie Jessica Stein (played by Jennifer Westfeldt) and Helen Cooper (played by Heather Juergensen) are straight women; this is one of components of the movie that enables to tell a wonderful love story. Like Heavenly Creatures does Kissing Jessica Stein challenge conventional view of love and romance. The movie is certainly not a love story about a man and a woman; the movie is not about a homosexual couple's love story, either. By taking two straight women and making them a couple who venture into a sexual, sensual and romantic relationship, the movie attempts to rediscover the meaning of love and asks fundamental questions about love. Do lovers need to be a man and a woman? Do lovers need to be homosexual men or women? Does there need to be biological compatibility (assuming that homosexuality is biological)? Given the ending of the movie, we could say that romantic relationship between two straight people who have the same sex won't work out, but could we really say that? When I wrote about Heavenly Creatures, I raised questions about love; we cannot honestly say that there is a definitive and clear definition of love or romance. Half of couples of getting divorced. Many couples remain so simply because they can get economical and social advantages. It's true that there is no concrete evidence that homosexuality is biological, but as we observe the whole eco system, heterosexuality is not guaranteed to create a heaven on earth. Kissing Jessica Stein is a wonderful movie and there are many things that I praise about, but its challenge on the conventional view of love and romance alone make the move worth watching.

Two stories in Startup.com

I watched Startup.com, but I never had chance to listen to the directors' commentary up until a couple of days ago. I had some idea of what was happening behind the making of the film, but there was much more happening than I imagined, and what took place during the making of the film is pretty fascinating. Especially if I follow two stories, the story of govWorks.com which is what the film is about and the story of film making, the contract tells an ironic yet educational and intriguing story.

govWorks.com raised roughly $60 million by the end, and those who started the company dreamed of creating an empire like Microsoft and Oracle and they dreamed of becoming billionaires before they turn 30. However, all $60 million were basically wasted ("waste" is definitely not too strong a word), and no one really made any money (except one guy involved in the making of the company at a very early stage, but he never left his day job; subsequently, he spent least amount of time among founding members of the company and he left earlier than anyone else). Chris Hegedus
and Jehane Noujaim, directors of the film Startup.com tried to raise money to make the film, but they were unable to get any funding; consequently, they self-funded the making of the film. They did not spend so much money making the film, either (certainly compared to all other films including documentary films and independent films). Nonetheless, the film was nominated for Best Documentary in Directors Guild of America, and the film made half a million dollars in the box office; video and DVD are also being sold. The film was a recognizable success in short. One of directors Jehane Noujaim filmed Control Room later as the sole director of the film, and the film was a much bigger success; the film made over $2 million in the box office. She is also recognized as one of the prominent documentary film makers today as well. She is not a billionaire or celebrity like Paris Hilton, (nor does she want to be probably), but she is the one who has achieve financial success and fame.

Traffik is better than Traffic

I had chance to watch this 5 hours+ mini series over Christmas (not that I care much about Christmas, but it just inspired me to watch a very long film). In short is Traffik better than Traffic. Here are a couple of reasons why.

Reason 1: A good part of Traffik is filmed in Pakistan to tell a story in Pakistan. The story in Pakistan is a story of the production side. Traffik focuses on heroin, and the heroin in Traffik is produced in Pakistan. It is certainly debatable how accurate the film really, but the production side of the story is a very big part of Traffik, and it enables Traffik to tell a big picture of the drug trafficking. Traffic simply does not cover the production side of the story at all. Traffic tells a story about cocaine, but the film does not tell how it is produced or where it is produced. Consequently, the film fails to tell a big picture of the drug trafficking.

Reason 1.2: Traffik highlights three problems in the use of drugs today; individual's problem (inability to copy with the society at large), the society's inability to create such an environment that everyone wants to live in and participate in and economical problem, in particular, economical problem in developing countries where drugs are produced and economical problem is created in relation to developed countries. Traffic primarily focused on individual's problem. It is certainly a very serious problem, but it is not the only problem. Consequently, the story of Traffic lacks depth.

Reason 1.3: Traffik tells three stories and they are all connected. One story takes place in England, one story takes place in Germany and one story takes place in Pakistan. Drug trafficking is a global activity, and Traffik does a good job portraying how it works. Traffic tells stories in U.S. and Mexico; two countries are not only geographically connected but also they are closely connected politically and economically. Consequently, the story in Traffic becomes almost domestic. The film fails to tell that the drug trafficking is a global activity.

Reason 2: Traffik is 5 hours+ long, so the film covers many stories and many details. Traffic is too short; it does not cover many stories or many details. Rather obvious, but it is what it is.

Reason 3: Traffic is actually more stylistic and its cinematography is much cleaner and polished. Though Traffik includes good pictures, Traffic is better filmed in terms of cinematography. However, Traffik clearly focuses more on its story and the story is well written. Traffik not only covers a lot of materials but also the film organizes all information so well; it has good tempo and rhythm so that it captures the audience the whole time. Traffic also has good tempo and rhythm, but the story itself lacks details. It lacks emotions and depth. The film also looks like that the film is made to make it look good rather than to tell a good story. Once the film loses its story, the film becomes not worth much, and that is what happens in Traffic unfortunately.