You've Been Inception-ed

I tend to go hot and cold on "fan made posters" (aka, posters that people made out of the goodness of their empty bank accounts - they're not getting paid, they just had a nifty idea and did it). Sometimes they can be really quite fun, and other times they can look just as bad as the ones Hollywood churns out on a regular basis, having made their own style cliches. I mean, those minimalist posters that people rave about can be nice, but they're not really posters, you know?

Anyway, thanks to Jason at MNPP for directing to me this fan made Inception poster at Reelizer. Can we all get zapped into somebody's dreams and have the idea implanted that this was the actual poster for Inception, rather than the dodgy ones that we did get. Sure, many salivated over them like little lapdops, but they were hardly visionary. At the worst they were far too cluttered and messy.


As a matter of fact, that website features quite a lot of great pieces. While there are official onesheets scattered about, it's mostly concept designs and festival works like the Alamo Drafthouse. I've included some more of my favourite "concept" designs below as examples of great "fan" work. They're pretty darn cool!

Two Guys, a Girl, No Condoms and a Bicycle Seat

A while ago I joked on Twitter that if I were to ever write an essay on French New Wave cinema I'd title it "Two Guys, a Girl, No Condoms and a Bicycle Seat: An Essay on the French New Wave"; Jean-Luc Godard says all you need is a girl and a gun, well, I like my summary better. My experience with the movement is limited, but it's one I have never been able to fully latch onto. I'm not even that keen on François Truffaut's The 400 Blows to be brutally honest, so it was with trepidation that I came to Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless (or, At the End of Breath for a more literal translation of its French title À bout de souffle - a title that has intrigued me for as long as I can remember).

All it was missing was the bicycle seat!

I have been well aware that Breathless is one of those "important" movies that I am "supposed" to like, but if ever my eclectic movie tastes raise their eyebrows at a challenge it's with an important movie I am supposed to like. Having now watched it I can say it lived up entirely to my expectations. But, then again, how could my expectations have been high when I read junk like this from 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die (2nd edition with Marion Crane on the cover).

Likewise, filming indoors in close quarters led to a new form of cinematic contemplation: the "visual study," in which a sequence of just slightly different views offers a cubist mosaic of the many moods and aspects of these extraordinary star presences.

Honestly, what on Earth does any of that mean? Same can be said for the film, really. What am I missing here? To me it felt like 87 minutes of people - not particularly nice ones, either - doing stuff of no particular interest, all based around the loosest of plots as they recite dialogue as if reading out of a supermarket catalogue. Perhaps my lack of knowledge regarding France at the time plays some part in my feelings here? Perhaps many people who do watch this film see it through the eyes of what it said about France in 1960 and how the world collectively views it. I did find it amusing when the character of "Parvulesco" - an author that Jean Seberg's "Patricia" interviews - says France is a nation of prudes, which is certainly not the image one has of France, is it?

I will grant the film several considerations, however. I can accept that Godard was pushing cinema's boundaries with cinematographer Raoul Coutard and editors Cécile Decugis and Lila Herman. Through his use of continuous takes and subsequent jump cut editing there are some moments in here that are beautifully made. I particularly liked the nighttime work, the cinema escape and that final tracking shot of Jean-Paul Belmondo's "Michel" running down the Parisian street. Also, there is certainly something about Jean Seberg's face is captivating at times, with that pixie haircut and the way her voice flirts between her American and French accents so dramatically.


Still, then there's the rest of it. I had a hard time looking past the character of Michel, a vile piece of work that one is. Why am I meant to care about this guy? Am I even meant to care about him at all? Or her for that matter. Seberg's Patricia seems to come off as smart at first, a breath of fresh air as an independent woman and journalist, but gets progressively more stupid the longer the film goes. And, worse still, I can't figure out her motivation for any of her actions. She, and the film, are so vague. I felt there wasn't any context to any of what happened. Why does Patricia fall into the trap of helping Michel? No context whatsoever. Or, none that I could see. Stuff happens, that's about it. Characters flutter in and out, they say and do things that have no reason and entire scenes plod along leading the film nowhere fast. I hardly need exposition in every scene, but some sense of purpose would be good. The opening scenes with the police shooting feel so poorly staged and are given no dramatic heft whatsoever. Or is the point that they look like an amateur play? Or is the point that there's meant to be be no point? Even if it is the point, it's one I don't care for.

How about the way these characters talk? Consistently talking about everything and yet nothing at the same time. At times sounding like that book extract up there and yet being about something of no worth. The way these actors speak their lines, there was just nothing there - like reading cue-cards. It certainly doesn't help that the very distinctive post-production dialogue/sound design of the time isn't one I've ever been a fan of. So completely un-natural, especially for a film that, visually, seems to be aiming for a more natural tone.

Someone - ahem, Dame James - brought it up on Twitter that it's curious I don't like this and yet do like Terrence Malick. As I watched the film I actually kept thinking of Sofia Coppola's Somewhere, although I suppose Malick fits the equation also. I thought of how people say Somewhere (just as an example) is "about nothing" and with "boring characters" and I can't deny any of that, but I responded to Coppola's creation of mood and texture, her evocation of a feeling that hits me. Her mingling of image and sound with figures that, even if like nobody I know, I can still recognise as actual human beings that could exist. That was, I think, what Coppola was trying to achieve.

I like that this article by AO Scott, which I read after watching the film and after having written most of this blog entry, addresses my very concerns. Says Mr Scott:

A coherent plot, strong and credible emotions and motivations, convincing performances, visual continuity — all of these things are missing from “Breathless,” disregarded with a cavalier insouciance that feels like liberation. It turns out that a movie — this movie, anyway — doesn’t need any of those things, and that they might get in the way of other, more immediate pleasures. You are free, in other words, to revel in the beauty of Paris and Jean Seberg, the exquisite sangfroid of Jean-Paul Belmondo, and the restless velocity of Mr. Godard’s shooting style. And style, for those 90 minutes, is — to phrase it in the absolute, hyperbolic terms Mr. Godard has always favored — everything.

I find it interesting because I've liked many films that do just that - ignore cinematic conventions for other pleasures (condescendingly named "style over substance" films), but, I guess, as exciting as all of this was in 1960 I just don't find this particular example of it all that thrilling. Even when a film eschews traditional filmmaking and narrative tropes, it's got to have something to spark my interest and I didn't find much of it in Breathless that did so. I know many will think I'm coming at this film all wrong, but if I have to view a movie through context after context just to enjoy it then I don't think it's much of a success. And, besides, if any director would appreciate people going against the grain then I'm sure it would be Godard, no?

Review: Somewhere

Somewhere
Dir. Sofia Coppola
Year: 2010
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 97mins

What can one make of Sofia Coppola and Somewhere? Many will criticise her for yet again making a wistful movie about rich and privileged folk, just like Marie Antoinette and Lost in Translation before, filled with beautiful people who have a penchant for staring out of windows as breezy indie pop wails on the soundtrack. And while it can’t be denied that Somewhere (Coppola’s fourth film) is similar in structure to Lost in Translation; there is a striking patience within it and a modern poeticism about it that allows it to cast its own unique beguiling spell.

Read the rest at Trespass


I simply adored this movie. I need to see it again, but right now it sits just below Lost in Translation as my favourite Coppola, but could easily rise. It has an even more bittersweet quality to it than Translation. So my delicate and beautifully help moments. How about that face mask scene? Or the long pan out of Dorff and Fanning beside the pool? Or those final shots of the car? That opening sequence, too, is one of the most - and I use this word in the review - patient ones I can recall of recent films. All but daring people to decide straight away whether they're going to stick with it for not bother.

I mentioned during my Design of a Decade series of decade round-ups that Sofia's "soundtracks have become events in themselves", and Somewhere is a really interesting one. Less floaty indie pop and more mainstream flare. Where else could you ever expect to hear Gwen Stefani's lush "Cool" (with those silky smooth "coo-coo" parts) next to Phoenix's brilliant paean "Love Like the Sunset Part II" next to Bryan Ferry's "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" next to Amerie's "1 Thing"? Excellent stuff yet again, although perhaps not as far-reaching. And, really, points do get deducted for having The Police on there. For shame, Sofia! For shame... A-

Somewhere Stephen Dorff is Lounging in His Jocks Just For Me

I had the good fortune to catch Sofia Coppola's Somewhere last week and while a review will be coming some time closer to its local release date (Boxing Day if I am recalling correctly), I was definitely a fan. There are plenty of moments within the film, lensed very dreamily by Harris Savides, where Stephen Dorff, playing movie star Johnny Marco, struts around with his shirt off and they're all very nice. There is, however, one scene where, while obviously still ripped, I noticed Dorff's character shows the strain of age with a growing beer gut (it's still sexy, what can I say).

I say "Dorff's character" because it's quite obvious that Dorff himself has absolutely no such issues. In fact, if this photo shoot from VMan magazine says anything it's that he puts many of his younger acting brothers to shame. It's almost disconcerting to see these picture and realise how much work must go into it. Hopefully once Somewhere gets seen by more people Dorff will have less free time to spend at the gym? Please?

"Oh, hi there. I didn't see you there. Let me casually put some clothes on... or not."

More via

Somewhere...There's a Place for Us

Do you think that the West Side Story song "Somewhere" was a lead off point for the title of Sofia Coppola's new film, Somewhere. Since the film is about a wayward movie star and the daughter he didn't know he had who discover each other at the Chateau Marmont in Hollywood the case could definitely be made that that lyric of "Somewhere, there's a place for us" could directly relate to this movie. Their life revolves around the hotel, as if it's a place just for them.

I really shouldn't ask that sort of stuff since nobody has seen the movie and I could be going in the entirely wrong direction with it.

Nevertheless, the poster for Somewhere has just been released and I like it as I do every poster for a Sofia Coppola film. She always fills her posters with beguiling plays of light (The Virgin Suicides), interesting juxtapositions (Lost in Translation) or big bold colours (Marie Antoinette). The poster for Somewhere feels like a mash-up of all three with its bright colours, creative framing and its wonderful sunny vibe. Take a look.


You know, I am constantly banging on and on about these movie posters that have all of this big space on a canvas and can't think of anything to put on it except for white nothingness. This poster could have very easily fallen into that camp, having Stephen Dorff and Elle Fanning on their sunbathing chairs in the corner surrounded by nothing but empty white space, the title in the middle and 80% of the design would be of nothing. That's not a movie poster to me - although there are circumstances where it does work - it just strikes me as boring and a bit lazy.

This poster isn't exactly all that creative, but I appreciate that they actually used the entire space of their poster and filled it with an image that not only represents the film, but allows audiences a bit of mystery and is something that will capture the eye due to its colourful nature. It almost looks like a picture you might see in a fashion editorial, which certainly makes sense since Sofia's film is about an empty Hollywood actor who lives at the Chateau Marmont, which, from all the stories we've heard about it lately, seems to be the epicentre of brainless Hollywood hipsters.

I love that the Chateau is being treated as the third star of the film. Very much like how New York City was always the fifth star of Sex and the City. I am loving how it rises up in the background like an imposing, but disarmingly sunny, figure behind all of that beautiful plant life. There's just something so entrancing about this poster. It definitely makes me want to investigate the movie, and there's not much more I can ask for.