Drift Reality

Shoot ‘Em Up is a highly stylized fast-paced action film starring Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, and Monica Bellucci, and directed by Hollywood’s new shining star Michael Davis, who adds another gem to his growing list of masterpieces that includes Monster Man, Girl Fever, and 100 Girls.

Did I mention that Michael Davis wrote the screenplay to Double Dragon in 1994?

No seriously, the movie was mildly shitty.

There are those that believe this film is part of a growing genre of films that are self-conscious of their own shallowness to the point that their titles blare out the fact that you will become dumber by watching them. This trend is exemplified in films like Snakes on a Plane.

Snakes on a Plane makes no pretense at depth and admits what it is a skank with fake boobs who dresses trashy, swears like a pirate, and hooks up with everybody at the party.

Unfortunately, I think Shoot ‘Em Up is more like a skank with fake boobs and a fake Prada bag, sipping on Cristal meaning it is not completely aware of its own shallowness and that is somehow worse on an objective scale of skanks.

ow else can you explain scenes like Bellucci’s tearful admission that she had lost a child in the past, or the inexplicably complex plot that involves a dirty politician, a gangster, and a gun manufacturer?

Oooh, those features are satirical you say? Did I mention that Michael Davis wrote the screenplay to Double Dragon in 1994?

At any rate, it is a real shame that Shoot ‘Em Up stunk so much because the truth of the matter is that they had the ingredients to make a great film: Their casting director obviously hit a home run - I mean, this film had three legitimate Hollywood stars!

It is almost like the executive producers went out and purchased a Ferrari engine and inserted it into a Hyundai.

I think if they had just hired a real screen writer and director they could have honestly had a blockbuster on their hands instead of a film that has made about $12.8 million since it opened September 23 with an opening weekend gross of $5.7 million, which ranks it below such classics as Hostel Part II, The Invasion, and an assortment of other films starring Bijou Phillips.

Sadly, Shoot ‘Em Up has generated less buzz than YouTube’s Leave Britney Alone and probably deserves slightly less critical acclaim.

What’s worse, the film has only made about $750K on the foreign market, which is sad considering that Bellucci and Owen should be great draws abroad.

To avoid sounding like your typical whiny film critic, I’m going to get productive and actually offer a few recommendations that could have pushed this film in the right direction:

1. Simplify the plot and sex it up The whole political conspiracy / gun-lobby plot is stupid and confusing. I actually like the way the film avoids any sort of initial plot development and simply hops into the action a young pregnant woman being pursued by an assailant runs by a man seated on a bench. It has a great noiresque beginning but it just gets too crazy, random and tacky. Speaking of tacky:

2. Make the characters classier and let the actors act Bellucci giving a blowjob behind a dumpster just isn’t doing it for me. Nor is Clive Owen dressed like a hobo eating carrots. You took one of the sexiest actresses of our time and turned her into a lactating whore and you took one of the top actors and turned him into Bozo the crime fighting bum. Shame on you.

Giamatti was the one character I sort of liked and that is mostly because of Giamatti. Their characters would have been far better had they simply been cliches: Owen’s character should have been an acerbic yet witty and kind-hearted detective and Bellucci could have been a self-serving socialite with a calm demenoar that cloaked a deep-seeded fear.

3. Pacing, pacing, pacing I know that the balls to the wall pacing was clearly intentional but they never let Owen nor Bellucci have the space to explore any possible chemistry nor express anything the slightest bit human about either of their characters. They were simply running around the entire time like idiots, making trite dialogue and engaging with one another in an excessively contrived manner. Also, when are producers going to realize that film is like pitching I don’t care if you can hurl it like Nolan Ryan in his prime, eventually people will catch up to your speed and get bored. With Shoot ‘Em Up, you simply become numb to the pace and by the middle you are just counting the minutes until the credits roll.

4. Hire a real screenwriter and director Who thought it was a good idea to get this cast together and then ask Michael Davis to write and direct? Davis must have tape of one of the executive producers planning treason against the US government. That is the only way I can possibly explain how he was asked to both write and direct this film.

Did I mention that Michael Davis wrote the screenplay to Double Dragon in 1994?

Err on a side note, Bellucci is absolutely beautiful but they really should have hired a better makeup artist for her.

5. Get rid of the baby It was just ridiculous. I don’t know if it was a joke or what, but having a baby in this movie just seemed pointless to me. I mean, you have a baby or a child in the film either to scare people silly (like the Grudge) or to create tension because of your concern for the kid. But in a caricature of a film like this, it just seems pointless to have a baby.

Well, when all is said and done the best thing I can say about the film is that it was fairly short.

Did I mention that Michael Davis wrote the screenplay to Double Dragon in 1994?

At its best Zeitgeist, the Movie explores power dynamics latent in religious, political, and economic institutions that have dominated modern Western civilization. At its worst, Zeitgeist is nearly two hours of left-leaning propaganda that borders on stoner conspiracy theory.

At the very least, Zeitgeist is a well-produced piece of cultural production that defies the theory that you need a marketing strategy, a visible producer, director, or even a traditional film production methodology to have an impact Zeitgeist has already been viewed by nearly three million people with none of the above simply by being posted on Google Video and marketed through word-of-mouth.

Interestingly enough, there is no mainstream coverage of Zeitgeist - only blog coverage - perhaps because there is no one visibly associated with the film (which is a great depiction of the relative shortcomings and advantages to the blogosphere versus traditional media). Even the omniscient Wikipedia doesn’t provide any coverage of Zeitgeist.

At any rate, I was recommended Zeitgeist by a close friend of mine with left-leanings and watched it with a bit of skepticism. I found that the film actually kept my attention for nearly two hours (despite my consistent urges to fact check dubious claims made throughout the film).

After watching the movie and noodling it a bit, I’ve drawn a few conclusions:

1. Zeitgeist the Movie was produced on a decent budget Although there was very little original video content produced for the piece and no discernible marketing or distribution costs, there were still substantial financial and time investments that must have gone into the research, planning, and editing of the video. The editing in particular was fairly impressive, stitching a hodgepodge of voice-over, music, still images, video content, animation and sometimes just a black screen together to create an engaging experience. Anyone who thinks that this was produced by a small group of friends wanting to make a subversive video needs to think again.

2. Zeitgeist’s underlying argument doesn’t make a great deal of sense So let me get this straight (note: I don’t believe in these inferences so if you are a fanatical Christian, from the CIA, or a member of the illuminati / federal reserve please do not hunt me down):

• Part 1: The Christian bible appropriated stories and myths from astrology and shares a great deal in common with other mythologies. It has largely been used to subjugate and pacify the masses.
• Part 2: There is allegedly evidence suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration, in large part to satisfy the financial goals of organizations and individuals who profit from war.
• Part 3: The Federal Reserve Bank and federal income tax are institutions controlled by ‘the elite’ and they are manipulated for personal gain (at the expense of the American people).

Am I crazy or do these three inferences have very little to do with one another apart from sharing a vague platform about power dynamics?

It is almost as if three Berkeley professors who respectively teach theology, political sciences, and economics got together, sucked on a bong for several hours, and then decided they would collaborate on a film and split up the screenwriting into three distinct parts without consulting with one another or considering the role of continuity in a film.

3. Zeitgeist is propaganda - Productions that make staunch social or political commentaries but do not contain verifiable sources are basically propaganda. I’m sorry to say it, but this is propaganda of the worst type entertaining, emotionally compelling, and ultimately manipulative. Time and time again, the film draws sweeping conclusions and points out ‘flaws’ in conventional thought with no basis in third-party authorities.

There are only a few instances when a verifiable source is connected with any of the claims made during the video and all too often, the arguments are simply categorical. Even more condemning is the method of overlaying strategically selected audio content over video footage containing a mainstream media logo, conjuring a sense of validity out of thin air.

4. Zeitgeist is worth the price of admission - Actually, the price of admission is free so I’m going to go out on a limb and say it is worth slightly more than the price of admission.  I actually found myself engaged for the majority of the film. Considering the number of Hollywood products that are so excruciatingly boring they have left me feeling as though I just had a chunk of my soul nipped out with tweezers, I would say it is pretty impressive that a film primarily distributed through Google video could captivate my interest for nearly two hours.

5. Zeigeist matters - I’m not actually saying that I think Zeitgeist is going to change the world here. What I am saying is that I’m thoroughly amazed that a feature length video production could be anonymously produced, distributed through a free online service, and be watched by millions of people (although I’m sure only a fraction of the viewers made it through the entire thing).

At its core, Zeitgeist is simply about power and that is something I can dig (after all, I did study at the LSE). It attempts to represent the dominant articulation of power in religion, politics and the economy and I think anyone would be crazy to argue that there aren’t serious imbalances in all three of these landscapes. Simply put, Zeitgeist is hyperbole and if taken as such, is a worthwhile experience.

What is not hyperbole however is the fact that in its form, Zeitgeist proves that subversion of dominant institutions is actually feasible in the mediascape. The fact that it exists and continues to rack up views is evidence that an idea can be transformed into a feature length documentary that hits people without a Hollywood budget, Madison Avenue advertising, or any mainstream media coverage.

Ultimately, it is what the video represents, not what it expresses, that is the most compelling argument in Zeitgeist.

I just wrote an amazingly well-conceived article on the whole Chris Crocker thing (he is this idiot who made a video watched by millions of people on YouTube) that was witty, intelligent, and extremely apropos. The message I wanted to convey was that all this technology was not actually making us lazier and dumber; we were already lazy and dumb to begin with - the technology was actually creating a platform for us to be less lazy and dumb.

Then I hit ‘Publish’ and it somehow disappeared into thin air.  Then I decided it was easier to simply assure you that I had written a good essay and go watch TV instead of retype my essay.

So perhaps technology is in fact making us dumber and lazier.

God, you win this round.

I met Matt Duchinsky at my friend Hooman’s bachelor party weekend several years back and we’ve been friends ever since. That weekend, we generally irritated Hooman by engaging in heated political and philosophical debates when I suppose we should have been philandering.

Matt recently had an opinion-piece published in Russia Profile, on US foreign policy and Russian-Chinese relations (requires free registration). In all honesty it is a bit over my head but I figured I’d post it to Drift Reality because I know some of this site’s visitors are interested in foreign policy.

From Left to Right: Hooman, Nick, Matt, and myself