• At the Risky Biz blog, Steven Zeitchik accuses the Wachowskis of “insidious” product placement in Speed Racer, altering the design of Speed’s helmet and the Mach 5 to subliminally invoke corporate partner McDonalds. “It may not be brand placement. It’s something much newer and trickier: brand suggestion.”
• FILMMAKER Magazine’s website has published the essay by David Gordon Green from the liner notes of the recently-released Benten DVD of Todd Rohal’s The Guatemalan Handshake. His first impression of that film? “I had a queer anxiety in my stomach that in fact the movie was “too good,” or should I say “special,” like a retarded kid who is enchanting and liberating in his or her world view, destined for a conflict with the traditional culture.”
• Movie viral marketing or fan fic? It’s too early to tell, but two G.I. Joe characters have started Twittering. GeneralHawk’s latest update: “Having a late lunch at Bennigan’s with Snake-Eyes & Alpine. Alpine says The Roots newalbum is, quote, ‘Dope.’” [Tipped by Kevin]

Michael Tully, who interviewed Mister Lonely director Harmony Korine for the upcoming issue of FILMMAKER Magazine, points to Korine’s latest work for hire, a series of British TV commercials for Budweiser. There are four short clips, featuring two members of the Silver Jews, and they can all be watched at Bud’s UK website.

Could there be more chatter out there about Wong Kar Wai’s new film, My Blueberry Nights, which opened the Cannes Film Festival? I doubt it. It’s strange, because I’m not even convinced that people think it’s a great film, but it sure has created a lot of buzz. (Maybe it has something to do with how long people had to stand in line to get in and how many people got turned away and what color their film festival badges were…or it could have more to do with the acting debut of Norah Jones?)

Erica Abeel from the Filmmaker Magazine blog sums up what most people seem to be saying: “…it seems almost sacrilegious to report that “Blueberry,” the Hong Kong auteur’s first English-language production, and his first film set and shot in the U.S., is gorgeous to look at, but not a helluva lot more. In fact, the screening in the packed Salle Debussy was greeted with only a smattering of anemic applause.”

Similarly, from Cinematical: “My Blueberry Nights is so beautifully shot, though, that you’d be excused for thinking that the quality of the performances is almost irrelevant; each scene is a symphony of color and light, each frame exquisitely shaped by the play of pigment and shade. New York is caught in blue, wintry tones; Memphis in deep, relaxed browns; Nevada’s casinos come alive in jittery crimson. It’s too bad that we can’t quite believe in the characters within those gorgeous visions, though.”

And I found this opinion interesting, from Isabella Ho, a film scholar from Taiwan. She observes that two accomplished Asian directors–Wong Kar Wai and Hou Hsiao Hsien from Taiwan–are at Cannes with their first films not shot in their native languages. It made me think of Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men) and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritus (Babel), both Spanish-speaking filmmakers with big 2006 hits in English. (I wrote a post a few months back about all the attention being given to Mexican cinema.) Here’s what Isabella Ho has to say:

“I think it’s very sad that these directors are driven to make movies outside their home countries and in other languages,” said Ho, a representative of Taiwan film distributor cum production company CMC. “Their home audience doesn’t seem to appreciate the stories they are trying to tell.”

Is it sad? I can see sad aspects about it, but I don’t know if they outweigh the benefits of Wong Kar Wai being able to just make the film he wants to visually make. After all, it sounds like My Blueberry Nights could be a movie to watch with the sound on mute, anyway.

You can read even more about My Blueberry Nights here on indieWIRE, here on GreenCine Daily, here on the Filmmaker Magazine blog, and here on the Risky Business blog.

When is it time to demarcate a filmmaking “movement”? What if the filmmakers in this movement don’t want to be grouped into any kind of movement at all? And what if the films in this movement revolve around the crisis of self-definition? Could it get any worse for one of its members than to have to talk about feeling self-conscious about being in a movement?

An article in the Spring 2007 issue of Filmmaker Magazine begins by asking these very smart questions, which immediately intrigued me. The article, “What I Meant to Say,” looks quite thoroughly at the independent film movement known by many as “mumblecore.” There are several posts waiting to emerge from this article, so I hope Paul and some of the other guys will share their thoughts in the coming days. For now, just check out the article and take note of the collaboration aspect of this movement.

The article generalizes these mumblecore films as “severely naturalistic portraits of the life and loves of artistic twentysomethings.” Names like Joe Swanberg (LOL), Mark Duplass (The Puffy Chair) and Andrew Bujalski (Funny Ha Ha) are all names that bubble to the top of this “scene,” if you can call it that. (I’ll never forget stumbling across Funny Ha Ha with some friends. It was definitely unlike anything we had ever seen.) Here’s another description from the article:

The first aesthetic indicators–and, it must be stressed, not all friends of mumblecore make films like this–are improvised dialogue and naturalistic performances, often by non-actors. The films employ handheld, verite-style digital camerawork and long takes. Budgets are tiny. The plots hinge on everyday events. The stories are often obvious reflections of the filmmakers’ lives. Most characters are white and educated and pursue creative endeavors when not pursuing one another. They are sensitive. They are sincere.

So that’s mumblecore, and it’s been slowly emerging for a while now. But apparently something interesting started taking shape this year at SXSW, causing people to sit up and pay attention. The festival’s promotional shorts were co-created by eight so-called mumblecore filmmakers, most of whom also had feature-length films at the festival (most of which were made with, written with, or acted by some of the other filmmakers).

It may be hard to follow all that, but you get the idea–this is a tight group. Read the article and you’ll see all the names and how they’re intertwined. It’s quite remarkable. And it made me think that something exciting is happening, whether or not I love this style of film (and I’m not convinced, yet, that I do–I’ll get back to you after I see more). The exciting thing that’s happening, from my perspective, revolves around a shared filmmaking experience that organically draws in ideas and talents from anyone who has some to offer. It’s not about competition–rushing to finish your film first, get it to festivals, attract the most attention. It’s about the love of making movies like this, of finding a format for expression that works, and sharing with others through that format.

In the end, these films, as the Filmmaker articles says, are ultimately about “trying to communicate.” While all films are trying to communicate something, it’s often something that’s inside one person (the writer or director). What’s interesting (and rather poetic) about mumblecore, is that people are interacting and trying to communicate on the screen as well as through the creation process. That seems to be filmmaking collaboration at its best.