My first film

The Popularity of 3-D Movies and the Crisis of Classic Cinema

Movies, in the first decades of the 20^th century, were considered humble, inferior quality goods for the masses. Though cinema was packing the crowds in, upper classes, more educated people did not acknowledge film as art. Only in the beginning of the 40’s did universities take film seriously, and started to deal with the fact that film became part of the modern culture. Motion picture became the seventh art.

Film has always been a product, but in most cases the director wanted to say, express something. Cinema came full circle and returned to the first image it had in the beginning, from the upper classes point of view. Today, it is only a product. The arrival of the new 3-D technique is like adding a catalyst to the process of depreciation of cinema.

Though 3-D is the most significant turning point in cinema’s history, film esthetes and critics should separate this new phenomenon from cinematic art. Besides, they should start a new chapter for three-dimensional motion pictures. Hollywood movie studios, such as Warner Brothers, 20^th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, and Dimension, started to rearrange their schedule and budget of the new releases, because the new technique changes the custom of watching films.

3-D or S3D (stereoscopic 3-D) is not a completely new technique, though; it had been invented in the 50s. Two special motion picture cameras recorded the same scene from different perspectives, which gave the illusion of depth perception. People had to put on special glasses (with a blue and a red lens) during screening. These glasses tired people’s eyes out, some also felt dizzy and sick. The technique was rudimentary; nevertheless, in 1953, more than a hundred movies were made with this procedure. The studio owners were excited about this new form, and also trusted in it.

However, not only was the audience’s opinion negative, the directors were inexperienced and did not know how to shoot a film in this utterly different way. Though Alfred Hitchcock, Douglas Sirk, Raoul Walsh, André De Toth, and John Farrow made experiments (just to mention the greatest), they later gave up. None of the movies were good, and the technology was undeveloped.

Through the last decades of the 20th century, 3-D made a significant improvement. Aficionados call the last ten years the second golden era (the first one was back in the 50’s), or the rebirth of 3-D. Theaters, after boycotting the new technique for 50 years, invested more than $100,000,000 in 3D projectors, because the developed system was promising. The production budget of Spy Kids 3D: Game Over, directed by Robert Rodriguez, was 38 million dollars, and its total lifetime gross (domestic and foreign together) was almost 200 million dollars.

Studios claim that 3-D is not only a spectacle, but financial necessity: the last hope of the biggest Hollywood movies studios to fight against pirates and entice back the audience to the theaters. Jaffrey Katzenberg (co-founder of DreamWorks) states that 3-D is the third revolution in the history of cinema, after movies were in color, given sound. "I predict that within five to seven years, all theatrical release films are going to be done in this new 3D to bring audiences into the movie-making experience”, says Katzenberg. "It's not a secret that movie theater attendance is down as more people look to the home entertainment experience, but this 3D film process gives the moviegoer a reason to return to movie theaters."

The problem is that 3-D is an obstacle not only for the pirates, but also for the rest of the world’s filmmakers, who do not have the money to produce 3-D movies. The budget difference between a normal and a 3-D film is more than 15 million dollars. No wonder only the greatest Hollywood movie studios (DreamWorks, Fox, Universal, Disney, Warner) can afford to produce a motion picture in 3-D. Even for them, the switch to the new system is very expensive; still, they are the only ones who have enough money for it. Thus the gap between Hollywood and the rest of the film industry (worldwide) grows, and if it continues, the smaller distributors will be excluded from the movie business.

 Though in the last 10 years’ 3-D movies grossed more than any 2-D films did, yet they were not critical successes. However, all of these were popcorn movies, meaning they cannot be judged, because every film should be criticized within its own genre. 3-D motion pictures are closer to an amusement park than to a show in the theater. Reviews show that the package became more important in the present Hollywood movies than content. Most of these 3-D movies are either follow-ups (Shrek Forever After, Superman Returns, Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3, Step Up 3D, Piranha) or reinvention of older movies, fairy tales (Avatar, Polar Express, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Clash of Titans, and Beowulf). Stories are basically the same, so the film makers could concentrate on the outlook.

The highly anticipated directors of cinematic art (Milos Forman, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Jean Pierre Jeunet, Pedro Almodóvar, Terry Gilliam, Mike Figgis, Wim Wenders, Jim Jarmush) can hardly make their films, because none of the producers want to finance a motion picture that, although it has a lot to say about modern world, history, politics, or relationships, will not gross the production budget. Art film can only depend on the government’s help, as they do in all over Europe. Controversially, James Cameron got 400 million dollar credit for Avatar 2. He even attained a whole studio in Manhattan Beach. 

People like all the 3-D movies, because they have fun, enjoy themselves. Millions of people all around the world announced that Avatar was the best movie ever made, that it was a milestone, and started a new chapter in the history of cinema. This is where the problem starts. The unusual, stunning experience made them forget that what the movie was really about is a mixture of Matrix and Pocahontas. Without the 3-D effect, the movie would have been an average adventure movie.

2-D films are already the third dimension of life. It gives a greater understanding of an issue, a political event, or human life: it is an essence, a structured look from above. 3-D does not give more than an extra chance to make the viewer feel closer to an extremely dangerous situation. Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park or Jaws scared people in the screening room two decades ago. He did not use 3-D technology. “I don't know how much movies should entertain. To me, I'm always interested in movies that scare. The thing I love about Jaws (1975) is the fact that I've never gone swimming in the ocean again” says David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, The Game), one of the best directors of all time.

Though there is a visual difference between 2-D and 3-D, the latter does not show anything that is not part of a 2-D film. If a character in the movie reaches out towards the screen in 3-D, it gives no extra information that a viewer would need. The editing of the two kinds of motion pictures is different, because a 3-D movie is only good for totals, and quick scenes make people lose track. “When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim”, says J. J. Abraham, producer of LOST series. People who wear glasses in everyday life cannot enjoy 3-D movies, because even if it is possible to put on two pairs of glasses, it is uncomfortable, and not precise. It would not be rational to say that 3-D motion pictures are negative discrimination though, because every movie is available in 2-D. 

3-D might be only a periodical phenomenon. “Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, wide-screen, Cinerama, 3-D, stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well”, says Robert Ebert, the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times.

3-D opened a new chapter in the history of cinema, but only a short one. Three dimensional films are closer to an attraction in an amusement park, so they should not be considered as part of film as art. When people say Avatar is the best movie, the point when they are wrong, is that it is not a movie, but a 3-D movie. Though there is no such title as ‘the best film ever’, if people tried to find one, Casablanca, 8 and ½, or Some Like it Hot would have better chances than Avatar. Therefore, 3-D movies should be considered as a separate genre; not part of the classic cinema. 

Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s sequel to his early movie, Wall Street, is one of the best follow-ups in years. Stone, one of the directors who are engaged in politics, not only advanced and revived his 1987 film, but had also something new to say. Wall Street portrayed the new social strata of the 80’s: the yuppies. Wall Street – Money Never Sleeps shows how the financial world changed over the last two decades, and what happened behind the financial crisis in 2008.

Michael Douglas’ portray of Gordon Gekko, the shifty shark of Wall Street, earned him an Academy Award in 1987. Though Oliver Stone’s financial fable of cold-blooded traders became a modern classic, the director did not plan to continue the story. 20 years later though, Stanley Weiser, original writer for Wall Street, started to work on the follow-up, but after the 2008 financial crisis, 20^th Century Fox ordered the script to be rewritten to make it more current. Stanley Weiser abandoned the project due to creative differences. Allan Loeb, a licensed stock broker, joined Stephen Schiff in writing a new script. After reading the final version, Stone decided to direct it, and shot his first sequel.

However skeptical the audience is to Hollywood’s new remake, spin-off, follow-up money-making strategy, this time the second chapter is even better. The conflict is knotty, the characters are complex, and the dialogues are very well written. Stone, who is constantly dealing with the biggest political affairs of the United States, was able to show the utterly complicated moral dilemmas of the business world’s leaders (or the lack of them), in which partners and family members steal from each other.

Michael Douglas’ role was not only to play Gordon Gekko again, the symbolic figure of the loan sharks, but to develop the character and expose his humanity. He does it so elegantly, that you hardly notice it; that is the point. Though he remained the old double-crosser, he shows his human side. For a few seconds.  

Verdict

Watching a carefully put together film, with a clever script and exceptional actors (beside Douglas, Eli Wallach, Josh Brolin and Susan Sarandon have done breakout performances), is delightful nowadays, even if it is a pessimistic drama. 

Best lines

Gordon Gekko: Greed is good. Now it seems it is legal. [Greed is good was Gekko's line in the first part. He adds the second line two decades later.]

Gordon Gekko: Stop telling lies about me and I'll stop telling the truth about you. 

Gordon Gekko: Money is a bitch that never sleeps. 

Thor - The First Summer Blockbuster

Kenneth Branagh

Kenneth Branagh? The actor-director who is responsible for five Shakespeare adaptations? Directing a comic-book movie? No way.

However, he did it the best way. Comic-book adaptations slowly started to form a separate genre in the 00s. Now we have enough to compare and rank them. Ladies and Gentlemen, I can assure you that Thor is among the greatest comic-book adaptations ever.

Thor is Branagh's first superhero and sixth Shakespeare film. The story contains elements from Branagh's debut as director: Henry V (1989). It is impossible not to notice how Branagh improves a simple comic-book adaptation by applying his great knowledge of Shakespearean drama. He uses Shakespearean tone only in scenes set in the kingdom of Asgard. Later in the movie he applies this kind of attitude out of context: Thor loses primacy after he has been exiled to Earth. This becomes a source of humor throughout the film.

Branagh successfully smooths over every pitfalls. He uses irony in the most triumphant moments but cleverly slaloms back to the seriousness of the situation. Just watch the part when Thor tries to pull his hammer out from the rock. A complex scene in terms of emotional shifts.

Chris Hemsworth & Anthony Hopkins

Not only Branagh's genius makes this film outstanding, however, it is he who was able to gather these incredible artists together for the production.
First of all, Bo Welch (production designer) finally is at his best. It has been a long time since he created something unique, but Thor's stunning visuals proved that he is still one of the greatest production designers. He was responsible for The Color Purple, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns, Men in Black, Wild Wild West. 
Paul Rubell, the excellent editor, also accepted the job. He previously worked on The Insider, Collateral, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
And the cast: Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgård. Actors who need no introduction. Why would they take part in 'such' movie if not for Branagh? 


It is not reasonable to look at it from the view of the director's previous works. It is what it is: a spectacular epic - and here is the brilliant twist - through the eyes of a director who has stylistic sense. The film functions for all types of audiences. And this is something rare today. Mr. Branagh, hats off to you! It is the beginning of a beautiful summer. 


[The official American weekend box office result are not yet available, but Thor already earned $159 million worldwide. The sum is more than its production budget.]

The Creation of Vamps in Hollywood Melodramas

 Hollywood’s system of producing motion pictures using created starring luminaries is not an inadvertent and desultory process. Every idol in the last 80 years went through a well though-out plan, deeming where the actress came from, what her real personality was like, in what way could she be recreated. Though this phenomenon is only an intriguing addition to the bibliographies of the divas, in an extended observation it shows how the inclination of melodrama changed over the past century. We will monitor the classic, modern, and postmodern eras of Hollywood melodramas through Greta Garbo, Audrey Hepburn and Nicole Kidman.

Greta Garbo

In melodramas, in contrast to comedy, the body of the character is passive. This resignation is typical of Garbo, predominantly in her sound film epoch. The producers and directors visualized the Swiss actress as frigid, mysterious woman (coming from the fact that she is a foreigner), who hides her emotions behind a mask. While the paradox in Buster Keaton’s case was that his face was a piece of wood, and his body was supple, the perplexity of Garbo confines to her face: a mask made of flesh. Garbo was often referred to as the Face. When people went to the cinema back in the 30s, they said they are going to see 'the Face'. 

Audrey Hepburn

In Audrey Hepburn’s time, the Italian neorealism had an effect on Hollywood: the actuality of melodrama amplified. They shot the movies on the streets, contingency and fortuitous replaced fate. Directors built the scenes on Hepburn’s unexpected reactions on the set. She was open, active and transitional. Hepburn’s face was "constituted by an infinite complexity of morphological functions. Whereas the face of Garbo is an Idea, Hepburn’s is an Event." (Roland Barthes) 

Nicole Kidman
(dressed up in Jean Paul Gaultier)

In the postmodern melodrama, the actress is not composed. Garbo’s image was created by William Daniels cinematographer, who lighted her face in a characteristic, conventional way. At the present time, cosmetic surgery makes it possible to generate the appearance of a diva. Nicole Kidman looks exactly the same way on screen as she does in real life. They brought the body of an actress closer to the ideal look.

While Garbo’s was a created, irradiated face, Hepburn’s was light itself. The camera wanted to entangle her look, because she was not artificial. Kidman is between the former actresses. Though she is bogus, she is natural at the same time, on the grounds that they do not put make up on her to make Kidman look a certain way, as they did in Garbo’s position. 

Good Night, and Good Luck.

George Clooney. One of those guys who always make it. Whatever they do, we love it. He needs no introduction. But little know that he directed three movies, and is making his fourth one at this very moment.

Two of the three already released movies are not bad at all. He proved as a director in 2002 with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, starring Sam Rockwell, Drew Barrymore, Julia Roberts, and Clooney himself. It has been a long time since I have seen it, but I can clearly recall that I loved this film.

In 2005 he directed Good Night, and Good Luck. Clooney chose a genre for his film that is not in fashion anymore, as a matter of fact it never really was: docudrama. Though he shot the movie in color, during the post production he changed it to black and white. He also uses film noir elements, which helps to create the atmosphere of the period: America in the 50s. What I found terrific is that every scene was shot inside, all in the CBS broadcasting studio. (There are two exceptions though, but my point is that every place is closed: the studio, the bar, Joe & Shirley Wershba's bedroom.) Pictures of faces, shades, and cigarette smoke. Robert Elswitt (cinematographer) made an excellent job.

Clooney focuses on the issue and the facts. He even utilizes original archive footage. One might claim that there are no characters, no background information about the reporters, but that is the virtue of the movie. Though it is a drama, the viewer still has the feeling that they are watching a documentary film. The line can hardly be noticed.

George Clooney and Dianne Reeves

The film features Dianne Reeves, an exceptional jazz singer. She sings a standard every 23rd minute: that was the usual length of a TV show in the 50s. The soundtrack of Good Night, and Good Luck not only serves the movie perfectly, but also stands alone as a fascinating jazz experience.

The movie is George Clooney's critique of the present media through a historical event. It will always be valid and actual... What do we call something that never goes out of style? Classic.

David Strathairn as Edward R. Murrow

Scream 4

Scream 4 is not the typical fourth installment. Wes Craven did something phenomenal here. Though he is really good at what he does (thriller, horror), Mr. Craven is-unfortunately-an underrated director due to the fact that the genre of horror is an underrated category. 

It should not be and I say this despite the fact that I cannot stand horrors. (There is one exception though: Sleepy Hollow, directed by Tim Burton.) Most horror movies for me are purely functional. By functional movies I mean films that are enjoyable once, I get what I want then move on, forget it. But for that 2 hours, they do what they have to: entertain.  

Every once in a while I buy a ticket for a horror movie. As Craven once said, "Horror films don't create fear. They release it." After the horror I see on screen, I forget about my unsolved problems in real life. The bills, love affairs, and allergy are nothing compared to those people staggering in blood, groaning in agony. We live, at least.

Wes Craven was responsible for The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Scream (1996). Classic horror movies, now all part of popular culture. He once tried to escape the ties of his genre by directing a drama, Music of the Heart, back in 1999, starring Meryl Streep. 

In 2005 he made an extremely exciting thriller: Red Eye, starring Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy, and Brian Cox. He could create thrilling atmosphere by making two actors sit next to each other for 60 minutes on an airplane (closed, claustrophobic place). Simple as that. This is something Hitchcock could do, not many others. What I found interesting is that despite the fact that it is a rather short film (less that one and a half hour), it could jolt me. While Hitchcock would have probably built up the story in three hours, Craven cut the film in real time. He thought people cannot sit in the screening room for such long time, so he scrammed excitement in a relatively short time. And it works perfectly.

Now, you might start to question the validity of my writing's title. I wanted to point out that Craven is a self-conscious director. He always minds the context: his previous films, the trend, present history and culture. Craven knew exactly that people are not going to accept a new scary movie. This film is not scary because of the murders. What proves this is that it does not even try to scare anyone. There is no slow moving of the camera through the dark hall, the orchestra does not play suspenseful melodies anymore. These kinds of one-minute inserts where you are supposed to get ready to be scared are missing. Craven is realistic. Murders happen the way they do, he does not want to trick you. He does not want to play with you heart-rate. This time he plays with your mind. 

Scream 4's key word is self-reflection. The movie is more like an essay on the the new trends in horror movies, the clichés and the new forms of clichés, and the series itself. I laughed more than screamed. I mean it in a positive way. It is rather a satire of horror. Almost every scene of the movie is about itself. 

The opening scene is creditably clever. It goes further than movie within a movie. Craven creates practically three opening scenes withing a fourth. He recalls the clichés that occurred in the previous Scream movies, and parodies them. Cervantes, at the beginning of the 17th century when chivalric romance was not in fashion anymore, wrote Don Quixote in which he satirized the tired genre. Craven did the same, but went even further. Raymond Chandler, after writing six of Philip Marlowe's detective stories, in 'The Long Goodbye' develops the genre of hard-boiled fiction by including social criticism. Craven in the finale of Scream 4 broadens the conflict of film and puts it on a higher level: the new American society. He brings in people's relation with the modern era of internet: video hosting services, the social network, publicity. Two horror fanatics in Scream 4 summarize: "Well, if you wanna be the new, new version, the killer should be filming the murders. It's like the natural next step in the psycho-slasher innovation. I mean you film them all real-time and before you get caught, you upload them into cyberspace. Making your art as immortal as you."

As I mentioned before, every scene includes elements of self-reflection. Therefore it would be painfully long to highlight all of them, and scrutinize the smart script written by Kevin Williamson, the original writer of the now classic Scream. Wes Craven not only points out the limits of horror, but offers new ways for the seemingly tired genre. It cannot be stated that Scream 4 reformed horror but it certainly is an improvement. 

Mr Craven, congratulations! 

Wes Craven

Every Thursday nouvelle vague!

Godard et Truffaut

For 3 weeks I have been visiting the Tabán art cinema, not far from where I live in Budapest. A pleasant walk in the evening with a friend of mine, Zsófi, a Martini Dry for me, a hot chocolate for her at Déryné, an old-fashioned restaurant near Tabán. Every Thursday, at 8 o'clock they show a film by Francois Truffaut or Jean-Luc Godard. So far we have seen Jules et Jim (FT), Vivre sa vie (JLG), and La peau douce (FT). Next week: Une femme mariée (JLG); the week after: Masculin féminin (JLG). 


Jules et Jim 
"When humor can be made to alternate with melancholy, one has a success, but when the same things are funny and melancholic at the same time, it's just wonderful." Truffaut

Breathtaking. Fascinating. Funny thing. Film as art should be separated from the other abstractions because of its age. It went on a different, though parallel road. However, the process and philosophy of art at that time urged the seventh art to catch up. 
Truffaut's film is an excellent proof that film has langue (grammar?) and style, just like a text can have. The humor in this cinema not only comes from the dialogue and the situation, but also from the way it was edited, how the camera moves, how it frames. We feel the auteur behind the movie as he plays with the material, the 35 mm film. We feel that he does not even know where he is going with the story. We feel that is just happening in front of our eyes. 
There is a scene where Catherine is photograped and the film stops for a few moments as if we see a picture. The interesting thing about this is that a film is able to highlight and emphasise moments that are more important than others. We would not remember them if they were not framed. 
The creativity, playfulness of the film, however, does not shadow the somehow bitter circularity of the love triangle. Most often motion pictures cannot give rise to controversial, seemingly not entailing emotions at the very same time. Jules et Jim could. Usually one feeling follows another, and in the end you get an overall impression of the movie. In the case of J&J, emotions were parallell which means it could create the illusion of life. 


Vivre sa vie 
"All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl." Godard
It was probably the ars poetica of Godard's early films. Just think about À bout de souffle, Pierrot le fou, and Vivre la vie, his early films. Nana philosophizes about herself, her life, life itself as she becomes a prostitute. Just when she realized the meaning of life, what the words mean or do not mean, what truth is, she dies. Fin. 


La peau douce
"Originally two images had struck François' imagination. A woman and a man kissing in a taxi and the sound of their teeth clinking. And female legs in silk stockings, crossing and uncrossing, and the sound of stockings rubbing against one another. The kiss in the taxi of course in an adulterous kiss. I don't think there are many husbands who kiss their wives making their teeth clink." Jean-Louis Richard, screenplay writer of Le peau douce
It is interesting how humor eludes the film from the middle. The falling in love of husband and lover is playful at the beginning, then slowly everything gets serious, tense. Every scene starts according to the pattern, the way people expected it. They all end in the most unusual way. The film reaches the peak at the end: the wife walks in to the restaurant where his husband eats, after learning his man has a lover. She shoots him. Fin. 
-
I think these films still work eventhough 50 years have passed. The American movies we are surrounded with are all built up like houses. Though they look different, they are the same. Luckily we have these rare islands (arts cinemas) like Tabán where you can still find a piece of art that stucks with you for a long time. In these films story is more important than plot. Plot is simply plain. Story is the description of how something has happened. What was the atmosphere like? Something that is lacking from the new mainstream films. Plain patterns. The time when the French new wave appeared, the situation was the same. Is it possible that a new wave is on its way? I see no signs. Then, again. It is only today. 

"My generation was socialized with movies"

I sat down with Jakab Márk (also known as Maci among his friends) for a coffee to talk about how his life was influenced by movies. Márk (20) dubs films nowadays, but wants to be an actor, just like his father.
"My dad is not delighted that I follow his way," he added.

He started to giggle, and said that he has a great stroy apart from our topic.
"You know, there are those phone-in programs on TV. 'Tell us the answer and you can win 100.000 HUF! Just one question and the money is guarantied!' I have just gave my voice to one of those shows... Believe it or not, I did not have to 'say' anything like this: Yes, you won! Wait till our assistant takes down your articulars! Congratulations! Nothing like that! The option of winning simply does not exist!"

After a few stories in showbiz, we started to talk about motion pictures. He said almost every period in his life was governed by a movie. When he saw Truman Show, he believed and visioned for years, that actually his life is filmed and followed by millions. That he is part of a reality show. The show of his life. Though these years are over he still thinks of this four times a week: what if they filmed it? When he was down and out, he told himself: okey, it is only a twist written by the director to entertain others... better days will come. It is all arranged. He has an image in his head of an arena (Papp László Budapest Sportarena) where every character of his show gather together and reveal the secret. There is a VIP sector of this gathering, where he finally meets and get to know better his closest friends in the show.

As he speaks an unusual, amusing feeling hits me. He means every word he says, still, he speaks seriously because he knows you are not taking it seriously. It is like he is living in a parallel personality at the very same moment. An avarage guy, who does his business, but inside, he created a world he projects outside.

"Lately, I dubbed a horribly bad series. It is about young folks in high school. An avarage, poorly written show, but it made me think about my education. After watching an episode, I decided to retake baccalaureate this year. I want to get a degree, now that I have seen that episode. It made me realize that I must have one," he told me.

He mentioned Neo, from Matrix, with whom he identified himself for a long time. It reminded me of Truman. Both characters are oursiders, though in different ways. Neither of them live in reality, but finally get to it. He feels he has to make his way.

He believes that films blows-up real life, deeds. It exgagerates everything in order to find it appealing, interesting. "People do not want to see reality. Why would they? Where yould they escape then?"
"My generation was socialized with movies," he said. "We follow the steps of the hero. We have to, because we believe he is right. He knows what to do. So we act like him."

"Imagine. We are sitting here, I am smoking, having a cup of coffee. This is idyll. Happy people do this in the movies. This is the right thing to do, because the screen suggests this is idyll," ha added.

Are those happy whose life is not influenced by movies?
"Yes. They are. There is no example they have to follow. They set their own rules. They have their own aims in life. Like my brother. He does not overdramatize his life. He keeps it simple."

Márk said that the characters he is closest to are the ones that appeal to him. These caharcters make him realize his own personality.

"Life = film. Film = life." He came to this conclusion. His ex girlfriend's favourite movie is P. S. I Love You, so he had to watch it a million times. The film kicks off with a quarrel-scene. The lovers shout at each other then there is a point when they jump on the bed, kiss and make up.
"While we were quarreling, I realized that the angle I see is the same as in the movie. I remembered that both the characters stood in such position. So, after she finished her sentence, I said what the guy said in the movie. She did not recognized the line, but unswered exactly the same way the girl did in the movie. I concentrated to do everything the way he did, and she followed. Even when she was yelling, I was calm, smiling inside because I  knew that in 5 minutes it will all be over and we will make love on the bed, just like the lovers in the film. And it happened. I knew the situation, I knew how to influence it."

Once when Márk was sitting despondently in a bar late at night, after a break-up, everything went black before his eyes. It was absurd how he enjoyed the situation. He found melancholy genial. "It was like a scene form a movie." Despite of this feeling, he was down and out. He called his brother, and told him what happened. Márk's delivery was depressing. The brother's answer was short and strict. "Life is not a soap opera." Then hung up. The moment the voice cut off he pulled himself together. Self-pity has never solved problem.

We had to leave, but continued talking as we walked to the tram station. He told me that 'one' of his favourite films was the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It taught him basic moralities.
"The trilogy is a codex of ethics."

Every word that left his mouth was filled with serious enthusiasm... He is the protagonist of his own life, inspired by films. But there was a moment, when the two personalities (the one that lives life, the other that lives movies) met. He was lying on bed next to his girlfriend, turned his head to her and said: You are my favourite movie. In this moment of happiness life was exactly like in a movie. Perfect.

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

The question in the title is a repeated line from Jack Napier (a.k.a. the Joker) in Tim Burton's classic, Batman. It became a common saying during the 90s. Joker never waits for the answer. "I always ask that of all my prey. I just... like the sound of it." (By the way: this gets interesting when he spiels the same line using the word 'prey' to Bruce Wayne, who - as we all know - is a bird, if you regard his nighttime alterego. The villain at that point of the movie has no clue who Bruce Wayne is.) But this is not the question I'd like to ask. Mine goes like this: can 24 x 60 x 120 frames frame 16 long years? The question is way too absurd to even bother thinking about it; however, the answer is yes.

And the expanded answer goes... A few days after my 4th birthday, in December '94 - would sound too hollywoodish to say 'it happened one night, on my birthday, by the way', so I stick with the truth - my mom was looking for a TV show, some kind of fable that I can watch before I go to sleep. She came across the movie title 'A denevérember' - Batman is the original appellation.

"Oh, sounds like a family movie. A fairy tale or something... It finishes when he ought to go to bed. Perfect choice," my mom called dad.

So we sat down. The three of us, facing patiently the little, ex-modern black box, wating for the film to begin.

Batman begins. Dark labyrinth, slowly growing, triumphant but threatening music (Danny Elfman's slogan on his webpage: music for a darkened people), grimy atmosphere. Certainly not the opening titles for a 4 years old boy. They thought it was only the opening title. It might live up to their expectations. Wrong they were.

Though there was a little kid in the beginning (good sign), he turned into a caped crusader (what comes?). So the story goes, till one moment, when Jack Napier's damaged grotesque hands rise from the green, smoking acid.

"That's it! We finished!," said dad in a strick tone as he sprung up from his chair. "You go to bed, little fellow!"

I did not even turn my head away from the little television: I did not make a single move, they could not force me to go to sleep. I insisted that I finish this movie. No appellate. They installed themselves at the bad for two hours, shocked. Some kind of joy sat on my face after the show, they told me years later. Mom was flabbergasted. People were shot, punched, burned to death and one laughed like hell at it, filled with joy... and I did not make a single move. Instead, I enjoyed it.

However horrible it was, they loved it too, but this confession was made only years later. The whole family was into Tim Burton. My mom said he was the American Federico Fellini (after Big Fish).

A week later we bought a VHS player and a copy of Batman. A few days passed, and Batman returned (on the TV screens). Mom consulted with my best kindergarten-friend's mother. She said she will let her boy to watch it... so we watched it too.

The way folks went to church, I went to the cinema every week. It was a ritual. The 90s were heavenly years. No duties, two hours stolen from grey life. I remember as dad and I stayed up to watch James Bond every Saturday.

In 2001 mom (she had left for NYC 3 days after 9/11) brought a James Bond soundtrack and a Nino Rota collection, scores written for Fellini movies. I got hooked on scores. Instrumental music, played by an orhestra. These records influenced highly my musical taste. I started to listen classical music, operas were amongst my favourites. Because of Rota, I dug up every Fellini picture. I don't want to claim that I understood all his movies in-depth at that age, but I was fascinated. That music, those pictures, the clowns... Here he is, Zampano! What a character. So Italian films... Pasolini came in line.

I explored more and more, one movie opened the door to an other. To the world. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which one might call a non-sense film, made me read 7 books. The movie collected classic novel heroes to save the world, such as Dorain Gray, Allan Quatermain, Captain Nemo, the Invisible Man, Tom Sawyer, Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde, etc. So I sat down and read through the books. Oscar Wilde's Doran Gray became my favourite. Therefore I read other Wilde novels, poems, short stories. A friend of mine and I wanted to put The Importance of Being Ernest on stage in high school. (It did not work out...)

The Thomas Crown Affair soundtrack featured a Nina Simone song (Sinnerman) which had a minute long piano solo part. The sound of it was so captivating, that I started to learn to play the piano. Thanks to the same track, I got addicted to jazz music.

Taste in music, dressing style, view of life... all influenced by films I saw. I even smoked a cigarette because of Humphrey Bogart (Casablanca) and Mickey Rourke (Angle Heart).

I want to make movies. When I was young, I said I want to direct movies. I friend of ours, who is a cameraman, asked me, what if I became a producer. I said I had no money. He said: producers ain't got no money either...

Making movies here, in Hungary is not a piece of cake. (I don't think it is easy anywhere in the world nowadays.) It is not likely that I will ever be able to make a film. If I can't make them, I'll write about them.

Good night, and good luck.

"Life isn't like in the movies. Life... is much harder."

...said Alfredo, the projectionist in Giuseppe Tornatore's Cinema Paradiso (1988). Though movies are not like life, they have immense influence on each other. Motion pictures shape our point of view, culture, thinking, habits, taste. Even if we do not notice it. This is what the blog's title wants to express: I took the thread of life [spun, measured, cut by the Parcae (Fates) from the Roman mythology] and repleaced it by a '35 mm film'.

You will read stories of various people whose life has been changed by a particular movie. The stories will not only be about ordinary people of the street, but Hungarian directors, actors, or other folks who were once part of the cast & crew list of a film.

Professionals will also talk about the current situation in Hungarian movie industry, its economcs, how it works. However, this is an oximoron, since it does not work. I am after the answers: why not, what the solutions might be.