Today I’d like to introduce you to filmmaker, and good friend of mine, Joe Avella. Joe’s short films have appeared on IFC and Spike TV, and in the SXSW Film Festival.
Let the fact that this is the first and only guest post in the 8-year history of kadavy.net be testament to how much his energy and passion for his craft have personally influenced me over the years. If you’re an entrepreneur, I think you’ll find inspiration in his story of making the most of his resources, however limited they may be. –Davidkeep on reading »
AJ Kandy of “West of the Expressway” has made some perceptive observations on The Economics of Urban Sprawl. Not only do the suburbs exterminate culture, they may be an economic drain all-around. It’s great to make the decision to not buy a gas guzzler, but how about designing our lives so we drive less to begin with?
The eventual realization of these economic consequences may result in the End of Suburbia, looks like an interesting documentary, analyzing “the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.” It probably won’t be coming to a theater near you, but they do encourage public screenings. Anyone up for one in Omaha?
Friday night I saw Alexander Payne‘s newest masterpiece, Sideways in which the lonely, divorced Miles (Paul Giamatti) takes his soon to be wed friend, Jack (Thomas Haden Church), on a week-long bachelor party of sorts through California’s wine country.
In preparation for dressing up as Holden Caulfield for Halloween (I actually went as Pedro from Napoleon Dyanmite), I have been re-reading JD Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, and I noticed an analogous relationship between at least a portion of Catcher and Alexander Payne’s movies (most notably, Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways). In Sideways, there is a scene where Maya (Virginia Madsen) explains to Miles that she likes wine because it is living, and is different every day. The day that you open it, it tastes different than it would be on any other day. Also, in Catcher, there is a part where Holden, while walking to the Museum of Natural History ponders:
“The best thing, though, in that museum was that everything always stayed right where it was. Nobody’d move. You could go there a hundred thousand times, and that Eskimo would still be just finished catching those two fish, the birds would still be on their way south, the deers would still be drinking out of that water hole, with their pretty antlers and their pretty, skinny legs, and that squaw with the naked bosom would still be weaving that same blanket. Nobody’d be different. The only thing that would be different would be you. Not that you’d be so much older or anything. It wouldn’t be that, exactly. You’d just be different, that’s all. You’d have an overcoat on this time. Or the kid that was your partner in line the last time had got scarlet fever and you’d have a new partner. Or you’d have a substitute taking the class, instead of Miss Aigletinger. Or you’d heard your mother and father having a terrific fight in the bathroom. Or you’d just passed by one of those puddles in the street with gasoline rainbows in them. I mean you’d be different in some way–I can’t explain what I mean.”
This alone seems like a rather weak link, but then I remembered, didn’t Mr. McAllister (Matthew Broderick) get a job at the Musuem of Natural History after he moved from Omaha? There is also a scene in About Schmidt where Warren (Jack Nicholson) visits The Great River Platte Road Archway Monument, and views exhibits similar to those described in Catcher. Perhaps even Warren’s deceased wive’s Hummel figures serve as this static artifact that contrasts with the constant change in the lives of the characters surrounding it.
I’m sure this concept of people being in a constant state of flux, contrasted by something unchanging is a literary theme that originates from before Salinger, but It made me wonder.
The other day I saw Michael Moore’sFarenheit 911. I was initially disturbed by the film, but, like in Bowling for Columbine, it was obvious that Moore was using dramatic devices to try to persuade the viewer, and I knew that the information presented couldn’t be as simple as he was making it out to be. I found myself wishing that someone would compile retorts to the movie’s issues. Then I came across Dave Kopel‘s Fifty-nine Deceits in Farenheit 911. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing, but at first blush it looks like a promising resource for hearing the other side of the story, or to just get an understanding of how Moore manages to persuade the poor people who use his movies as their sole information source.
There are very few things in this world that I know enough about to express a strong opinion on, and politics is far from being one of them. I will spare you from hearing another uninformed opinion on politics, but present this resource for you to form your own opinions.
Last night, I saw Super Size Me, a documentary in which the director eats nothing but McDonald’s three times a day for thirty days. Seeing the movie didn’t make me much more anti-McDonald’s than I already am, but I have to say watching it was an unpleasant experience. The shaky camera work added to the nauseating effect of watching this guy wolf down big macs and fries. I soon found myself covering my eyes every time he took a bite. I don’t think it’s a bad thing when a movie makes you feel something other than good, though.
Last night, I watched Swimming Pool (Amazon), a rather ambiguous movie a la Mulholland Drive (Amazon) or 8 1/2 (Amazon). I enjoy such movies because they make wonderful vehicles for discussion. Of the many interesting posts on this movie, I think the interpretation that the Julia we see for most of the movie is Sarah’s creation makes the most sense.
Tonight I am going to watch the second half of Pride and Prejudice. It is based on the book by Jane Austen, which I recently completed reading. I have been on this kick the last couple of years of trying to catch up on all of the classics I didn’t read in High School (I get most of the books for very cheap at the Public Library’sBook Sales, or at estate sales). Unlike The Grapes of Wrath, seeing this movie after reading the book is far from a disappointment. The actors they chose are absolutely perfect, and the dialogue is word-for-word from the book. The only downfall is that altogether it is five hours long (much shorter than reading the book, however). By the way, it’s a great story.
