Carry on Jack (1962)

Not intended to be one of the Carry on series (it was to be called Up the Armada but had it's name changed by the censors), Carry on Jack is a send up of  the grand sea adventures.

The plot of the film has a midshipman played by Bernard Cribbens on a naval vessel captained by Kenneth Williams. Williams will do anything other than fight, much to the annoyance of his crew who want to fight and win honor. Cribbens falls in love with a midshipman played by Juliet Mills who is pretending to be a man so that she can track down her lost love. Along the way Cribbbens, Williams and Mills get set  a drift and the remaining crew makes a run at the Spanish.

A funny little trifle this is fits perfectly in what you think of when it comes to Carry On, namely stick characters turning different situations on their heads. While you can predict how some of the jokes are going to go, some of them you can't- but in either case the result are big smiles and the occasional laugh.

Recommended to anyone in the mood for some silly fun.

Nightcap 12/20/15 Random comments, the Oscar Foreign Language omissions and a whole bunch of links from Randi

HIPPOPOLIS from Ugo Gattoni on Vimeo.
Happy Holidays

I suspect every one of you has seen Star Wars-how was it?

I have not seen it. I am not planning on seeing it until after New Years when the hype has died and the theaters have emptied. I know that’s sacrilege in some places, but I thought the last 3 films sucked so bad it killed any interest I had going forward.

While you have been watching the major year-end films, I’ve been watching films for the first two festivals of 2016- Neighboring Sounds and The New York Jewish Film Festival. Tickets for both are on sale and based on what I’ve seen so far both are worth your time. (Go to Film Linc for more information on both). I’ll go into the films closer to the festivals starting because to talk now will confuse you.

I’m should state that I am not going to Sundance this year again. I seriously considered it but financially I couldn’t do it. We will have some sort of coverage up because while the fest is best known for new films, it will be screening a whole bunch of stuff that’s been n he festival circuit the last year which we’ve seen.
----

The short list of foreign language films for this year’s Oscar has been announced. The nine films picked cut the list down from 80. I’ve seen a bunch of the films and outside of THE FENCER I’m not enthused by any of them. Yes SON OF SAUL is the front runner, but while it’s a good film its nowhere near the masterpiece some have claimed.

For me the failure to include films such a Canada’s FELIX & MEIRA, Ethiopia’s THE LAMB, Romania’s AFERIM!, or Japan’s 100 YEN LOVE are large omissions. More glaring is the failure to include Kazakhstan's THE STRANGER which is really knocked my socks off. A tragedy of the highest order is the failure to include Chile’s THE CLUB about a priests being warehoused because of their sex crimes. I’m guessing he films deeply disturbing nature and black humor didn’t sit well with voters, and while I understand why they weren’t ballsy enough to include it I also am disappointed. (A review of THE CLUB will come in early January in connection to the Neighboring Scenes series at Lincoln Center)

To be honest this is the least interesting group of films in years.

----
And now for lots of links from the one and only Randi

Bernie Sanders and Killer Mike talk shop
Was Sinatra dangerous?
Where are the female action figures?
The way to walk your dog
Everbrite
Handmade holiday cards
Pogo Christmas Countdown
Walt Kelly does The Night Before Christmas
Christmas ads
Star Wars Bit players and their convention careers
Star War in the Boston Globe
Moomin Posters
Flesh and Bone opening credits
11 hours of cats (you'll want to listen to something other than the music on the video since its the same 30 second theme for 11 hours)
50 Christmas songs
How Star Wars Awakens began with a walk
Lightsaber escape
Tina Fey-Lessons from Late Night
120 subway station is less than 120 seconds
New Yorker's Favorite Cartoons of 2015

Black Chapel (1959)

Peter van Eyck plays a writer recruited by cabal of generals plotting to over throw Hitler the days leading up to the Second World War. It seems that the generals feel that Hitler's desire to go against England and France may spell doom for Germany. van Eyck is sent to Italy on a secret mission to broker peace but the Gestapo and Himmler are aware of the plot and they are trying to untangle what  exactly is going on.

Nifty and moody little thriller is the sort of dark down beat film that you'd never see made in the US for another decade. History aside you know this is all going to go banana shaped from the start and not end happily. Still you end up hooked because you care enough about the characters and what is happening that you want to see how it all plays out.

This is another of the small European B films that Sinister Cinema regularly rescues from total obscurity and releases so that the films at least have some chance of finding a modern audience.  Track it down its worth your time and money.

Unseen Repost: Grand Central Murder (1942)

As a train pulls into Grand Central Station, a convict makes good his escape and gets loose in the terminal. He manages to call his ex-girlfriend- an actress opening that night in a nearby show. She's spooked and eventually tries to make her escape in a private car. However someone kills her. The police inspector brings all of the suspects together to try and solve the crime.

Overly talky attempt at film noir is a good little mystery if you can forgive it trying too hard. The film comes together as all the suspects relate where they were and what they did when our victim was killed. They also spell out why they might have killed her if they had done the deed. It's a compact way of telling the story and allowing for the film to spin out in what is only a few hours of screen time. It also makes for a film that doesn't know when to stop talking.

Talkiness aside, this is worth seeing when you run across it on Turner Classics

Action Jackson (1988)

Cheeseball action film of the sort they don't make any more but which filled the 1980's is wonderful fun on it's own lowbrow terms.

Carl Weathers plays Jericho Jackson, a former Police lieutenant busted down to sergeant for going after he son of a rich car maker Delaplayne (Craig T Nelson). When Jackson is asked to represent he force at a dinner honoring his nemesis Jackson balks but does it anyway, putting him in with Delaplayne ’s wife played by Sharon Stone. Things quickly heat up as a friend of Jackson is killed after telling him that the evil industrialist is planning on taking over the autoworkers union. As bodies pile up and Jackson is set up the two old enemies are set on a collision course.

Making almost no sense what’s so ever ACTION JACKSON is one of those 80’s films full of witty lines, lots of action and too much testosterone. Its one of those low budget popcorn films where B level actors tried to shoot for the big time. Of course it almost never worked with the result there are a long string of one off films that almost flew.

I like ACTION JACKSON. It’s the sort of film that when I run across it on cable I’ll stop and watch it to the end. Partly out of nostalgia, but largely because the old school approach to fights and car crashes is a nice antidote to the computer enhanced unreality of today. When a car flips and flies into a building it really did.

While I would never in a million years argue that the film is a lost classic it is highly entertaining, more so once you know its full of nonsense

Unseen Repost: Time Out For Murder (1938)

Time Out for Murder is the first of three mysteries about a reporter, his photographer and the repo girl who is assigned to get his trombone back (don’t ask). They get sucked into the case of a woman supposedly killed by a bank messenger who is in love with a woman who tells the time on the phone (hey it’s from 1938).

I don’t think the plot makes a great deal of sense. You can kind of figure who is behind part of it instantly because of what he is supposed to have said about the accused alibi. But the film makes things even more complicated by adding a second villain to the mix. It allows for some interesting bits towards the end but mostly it really seems like it was thrown is so things weren’t so obvious.

Over all the film is more a distraction rather than anything of substance. I came I saw I moved on to the next thing.

It's good but I can’t believe that there are two more films in the series.

Unseen Repost: SANDOKAN FILMS

While sick with a stomach virus I finally watched the Steve Reeves Sandokan films that Sinister Cinema released a while back. I had them in the pile for ages and figured I needed something "light" to get through a tough time. The films were based on a series of novels written in the later 19th and early 20th century by Emilio Salgari about a pirate turned folk hero.

SANDOKAN THE TIGER OF MOMPRECEM (aka SANDOKAN THE GREAT) (1963) has Sandokan the son of a deposed ruler fighting the evil British who killed his family and took control of the country. Along the way he ends up falling for the niece of the commander of the British outpost. A weird mix of of genres, jungle, colonial,romance and a few others the film is a tad slow, but ends with one hell of a shootout in the British out post. As silly as it it rousing (just watch how easily people die), it's an amusing film.

SANDOKAN PIRATE OF MALAYSIA (aka PIRATES OF MALAYSIA) (1964) Sandokan finds a man floating in a life boat. He tells the story of the over throw of Raj by the British. This sets Sandokan off to restore the Raj to the throne. More action packed film is a tad less silly than the first film,but is best viewed as one where your mind is left at the door.

SANDOKAN STRIKES BACK (1964) Ray Danton takes over for Reeves in an action packed film that has Sandokan finding out he is the rightful ruler of Malaysia and taking steps to get his kingdom back. Danton is an impressive man of action, but he plays things way too seriously. Another turn your brain off film that in the right frame of mind is pretty good.

The Fencer (2015)

I love THE FENCER.

For me it’s one of the best submissions for the Foreign Language Oscar. It’s an old school style film told compellingly and technical aplomb across the board. It’s a film that was way better that I thought would ever be.

The film is based on the life of Estonian fencer Endel Nelis. Forcibly conscripted by the Nazi’s during the Second World War Nelis was branded an enemy of the people for “collaborating” when the Soviets took control of the country. Wanting to be as far away from Stalin as possible he takes a teaching position in a far flung town. In order to keep a low profile he represses his desire to fence. One day the desire to fence over takes him and he is seen by one of the kids practicing. This results in his being "forced" teaching the kids to fence. However as his students gain skill and a desire to compete Nelis is forced to make a choice, take the kids to a tournament and risk discovery and arrest or remain home and remain safe.

Staying firmly on Nelis, who is almost never not in a scene, the film remains grounded in the human story. Additionally by focusing on Nelis‘s story during the period of 1952 and 1953 the story never gets too big. We remain in the small closed world that Nelis has retreated into. He is a man trying to remain hidden and safe so in most scenes we are very aware of wall and floors and ceilings as if he is caged. Only when the sequences become about fencing do things open up as if his soul opens to the world.

What I love about the film is the simplicity of the storytelling. The film is structured just to be Nelis‘s story. There isn’t any big pretense about it being about some great meaningful story. Yes the thematic elements of lost fathers, things we’ll do for our children and the insanity of power run all through the tale, but at the same time the film is just one man‘s story. It’s the story about one man trying to do the right thing and make the world a better place by sharing what he loves.

In reading on the film there were a couple of pieces which complained that the film as too old fashioned and they knew where the film was going to go. The reaction, while not too far out of place since the film is intentionally old fashioned, with the gorgeous cinematography giving much of the film a golden coloring tinge with the result that everything with is ripe with a nostalgia. On the other hand the film isn’t really clichéd. How can a true story be clichéd? Is it that the story has been sort of fashioned in to a crowd pleaser? To have refashioned it into some other story would have defeated the purpose of telling this story. Were they expecting grand tragedy? That’s not what happened.

For me this is one of those films that grabs you from the moment it starts. The simplicity of the titles explaining Stalin’s madness about conscripted soldiers give way to Nelis getting off the train. As we walk with him to the school we fall into this time and this place. Simply by observing Mart Avandi as Nelis we come to like him and we see him as a friend. We care and it’s this caring that carries over to everything that follows.

This is a great little film.

While I wouldn’t say that THE FENCER is one of the tippy top tier films I’ve seen in 2015 it is most certainly on the top tier of the Oscar hopefuls. Its so much better than the majority of the other potential Oscar films I’ve seen this year that I think it would be a damn shame if Oscar doesn’t at least give it a nomination. I think this a super film and its going on my year end list of film finds.

Go see it when it opens in theaters or if you're in New York you can see it on January 20th when it screens at the Scandinavia House on January 20 as part of their Oscar hopeful series

The Unseen Films Awards 2015

In the middle of the Tribeca Film Festival there was a moment when several writers from Unseen Films and several friends of Unseen Films were standing in the lobby of the hotel where the film screenings were happening in when Joe Bendel turned to me and said “you know there are enough people connected to Unseen that you could actually have year ends awards and have it mean something”. It was a statement that hung with me and was debated within the Unseen family off and on over the last 8 months.

Finally deciding to just do it and not debate it I sent out an email asking for picks for not only the best film of the year, but also a list of other categories. In response I got a lot of comments and questions about what I was doing and why. I said I was winging it and trying to get a format that was going to work for awards. The talks were very constructive and after a lot of discussion I realized what I did wrong and what I did right. (Biggest mistake was going for more than two or three categories).

And after more than a week of emails and discussions by phone and in person we have a winner of Best Film and it’s pretty unanimous.

The funniest thing to me was that in talking to everyone before I got lists, and even after, it was clear that there was only going to be one choice for Best Picture. It was a film that was literally mentioned by every one I talked to about the awards except one, even those who didn’t send me an official ballot . Anyone who was questioning things always said “well I haven’t really seen a lot of the films that I would include except (the winner) and (some other film no one else mentioned)”. Everyone liked the film enough to be their one choice… so without further ado the winner of the first annual UNSEEN FILMS BEST FILM OF THE YEAR AWARD as voted by the contributors and associates of Unseen Films is:

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD

It was a film that hung with everyone who saw it and one which many of the voters returned to multiple times to see in theaters. It was debated and discussed since it came out. No other film stayed with the viewer quite lite this one to the point it was always on the tip of everyone's tongue when a Best Film of the Year was discussed.

I'm awarding a special award to KUMIKO THE TREASURE HUNTER as being THE MOST HAUNTING FILM OF 2015. I'm doing this because had the choice for Best Film not been as clear cut as it was this film would have probably won the award. Actually had there been do overs KUMIKO it probably would have won the award since when it was mentioned to a couple of contributors as being the runner up or on their list of best films, I was greeted with "Oh crap I should have included that" or "Can I go back and change my list?".  The love and respect the film has is too high to award the film anything other than it's own unique trophy.

While everyone was razor focused on the Best Picture Award the entries for Best Documentary cast a wider net, there wasn’t just one pick. There were a couple of different titles mentioned, but again the winner was the one mentioned most and mentioned first when it was mentioned. The winner of the UNSEEN FILMS AWARD FOR BEST DOCUMENTARY is

THE LOOK OF SILENCE

The choice of this film was a bit bumpy since most of the people voting saw this in 2014 but it wasn't released in theaters until 2015 despite being playing at film festivals with a frightening regularity.  It was a film that had people unsure if they could vote for it since they didn't know where it belonged.

I was not intending to include a BEST SHORT FILM Category since most of the Unseen family doesn't regularly watch shorts, however several people put THE WITCHING HOUR into the mix. Since it it was deemed so good that people mentioned it I'm giving WITCHING HOUR an award for BEST SHORT FILM.

Since we are dedicated to championing films that are in danger of getting lost I'm going to give you our list of films that are TOO GOOD TO BE FORGOTTEN. These are the films that either appeared on multiple lists, were the top pick of a voter or  were on an entry as being a film that they felt was much too good to be forgotten or get lost.

The list is in no particular order:

DON'T THINK I'VE FORGOTTEN: CAMBODIA'S LOST ROCK AND ROLL
LOST SOUL: THE DOOMED JOURNEY OF RICHARD STANLEY'S ISLAND OF DR MOREAU
BRAVE MEN'S BLOOD
HARBINGER DOWN
HIBI ROCK
WORLD OF KANAKO
COSMODRAMA
COMING HOME
THE NIGHTMARE
SINNER IN MECCA
THE FENCER
JOURNEY TO THE SHORE
I AM SUN MU
MAN FROM RENO
ROCK IN THE RED ZONE
WHEN MARNIE WAS THERE
FAR FROM MEN
CRUMBS
MY LOVE, DON'T CROSS THAT RIVER
SHAUN THE SHEEP

Onward and upward to 2016.  Thank you to all of the voters,

And a huge thank you to John DiBello for the artwork at the top who popped it out almost before I asked him to do something.

In brief:The Surface (2015)

A young man in a tumultuous relationship buys an 8mm camera at a yard sale. The old man he bought it from tells him to come back when he shoots some film and he'd give him the projector and editing equipment. When he returns he finds the old man gone and the man's son at the house.  A friendship starts that eventually turns to romance potentially derailing his long term relationship.

Good looking romance is an enjoyable little film. Well written and well acted the film THE SURFACE was one of the better romances/coming of age films I've seen recently. It has great characters and a naturalness that is missing from most recent similar films.

If there is any downside to this otherwise very good film it's that  it really didn't hang with me once it was done. Yes I knew I had seen and an enjoyed it but beyond that it didn't really stay with me. Still I'll take an enjoyable film anyway I can get one.

If you are interested in seeing a romantic coming of age film you might want to give it a try.

Nightcap 12/13/15 - A reminder about awards and Randi's links

As we crash through Hanukkah barreling toward Christmas and Kwanza toward the cliff of the New Year I feel it’s an obligation to remind you that any and all critical organization best of the year lists are suspect and probably do not represent the actual BEST of the year.

Why is that?

Simple - the awards are chosen by a bunch of people thrown into a room and told to come up with a consensus or they can’t come out. If a film was truly the best they would get it right on the first ballot. That doesn’t happen since there are rounds of voting.

More importantly I’ve spoken to people who have been in the locked rooms and the frequently say their choice for best film wasn’t even in the running for the film and they worked from a list of films likely to actually win.

What does this mean?

You’re better off just looking at a critic or writers best of the year list since it’s much more honest. (Speaking of which my personal best/worst of the year lists will be hitting in the last days of 2015) This goes for any film awards as well.

Which brings me to the announcement that tomorrow evening we will be announcing the winners of the First Annual Unseen Film Awards which were chosen by the contributors of Unseen Films as well as a few other related writers.
---
And now Randi's links:

Heaven's Gate-disaster to masterpiece
Dinosaur without a movie
Star Wars Snowflakes
Traveling through the modern world
Mark Kermodes best of the year

We Steal Secrets:The Story of WikiLeaks (2013)

Alex Gibney's film on WikiLeaks focuses on its founder Julian Assange, as well as one of his sources Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning who was caught by military authorities when they realized that he was the source of hundreds of thousands of documents passed to the website.

Acting as a biography of Assange and the organization he founded Gibney has made a film that manages present the now exiled free speech advocate as both a savior and a man with his own agenda. It's a film that leaves you feeling very troubled because you don't know what Assange's game is. Assange is shown to be a man who very much believes that all information being available to all people is a good thing, except as several of his supporters point out that it's not because it could (and did) get some people killed. We watch as Assange changes from being a fly in the ointment to a wanted rock star who may have gotten too big an ego boost from all that happens. Perhaps he thought he was too big to fail.

(Bonus points to Gibney for taking on the rape charges head on by interviewing one of the women involved. Its clear that the sex wasn't rape, however apparently Assange intentionally tore the condoms for reason no one quite knows. All of the fuss was simply because the women wanted Assange to take an AIDS test and refused to. Since if he had AIDS the intentional infection of someone would be a crime the police got involved.)

By the late stages of the film as Assange's behavior becomes more suspect, everyone begins to ask the most obvious question is he heroic? While many people applaud his releasing documents it becomes clear that he really never took any risk, while Manning, who had been feeding WikiLeaks documents ended up thrown in jail. Who is the hero and who isn't?

To be honest there is a great deal of information here-the film runs 130 minutes  which is at least 40 minutes more than most docs. Plus the DVD has 25 minutes of deleted scenes making two and a hal hours of material to take in. There's so much here that I really need to see itagain, especially since what you find out towards the end affects how you feel about the beginning.

For me this is one of Gibney's best films and a must see.

(allow me a moment of snark- if you've seen this I have to ask how could you be shocked by Snowden's revelations in CITIZEN FOUR since what he reveals there is implied or mentioned outright here)

Matt Shepard is a Friend of mine is out on home video

I just found out something I thought you’d want to be aware of- Matt Shepherd is a Friend of Mine is out on home video. This is the story of Matt Shepherd told by one of friends. It’s a portrait of Matt as a human being and not a symbol or martyr. It’s a very good film and now its on DVD and streaming.

Here’s the review which ran last year at DOC NYC:

Michele Josue's portrait of her friend Matt Shepard was made in an effort to make him more than just a person who died. It's an effort to make the tragedy more about a person than a symbol. The film also shows what happened in the wake of his death.Its the story of how the love of one young man changed the world (though as one friend says at the end in a way that no one really would have wanted).

This is a really good and deeply moving film about a young man who's life was cut short.

While the film can be a tad too loving, no one who knew Matt says anything bad, the film is honest enough to show all of the ups and downs of Matt's short life, we see the good things that happen and the bad. The film also doesn't shy away from dealing with Matt's death which is gone over in great detail, nor the hatred that some people express toward gay men and women.

Its a solid little film that will make you understand why Shepard became a symbol and is still a symbol of what can happen when hatred goes unchecked.

Houdini (1953)

The Tony Curtis lead bio of Houdini has some basis in reality, It has characters representing Houdini, Bess (his wife) and Houdini’s mother and it has him performing magic in the US and Europe. Outside of that the film is pretty much fictional. This isn’t to say the film is bad. Just that any connection to reality is purely coincidental.

Nominally the film is the life of Houdini from birth to death and it charts his rise to fame and fortune. Its entertaining in the way that only old Hollywood films can be. Tony Curtis is wonderful as Houdini and Janet Leigh is great as his wife. There is great magic tricks,humor and just enough drama to keep it interesting. Quite frankly until I really studied Houdini I thought this film was the absolute tops.

If you wanted to know where I learned that Hollywood made stuff up about real people it was this film. Inspired by the film I started to read about Houdini and I quickly found out how wrong Hollywood can get it. I mean it ends with the way many people think he died (which is the result of this film) when the Chinese Water Torture trick went wrong.  There are other burps and fabrications that make for a great movie but aren't real. I was so upset that I didn't watch this film, which was a childhood favorite, again for a decade or more.

Recently I caught the whole film again at  on the MOVIES!TV network and discovered that if you forgive all the fabrication this is a solid little entertainment. Its just something put on and smile to for two hours. Its a popcorn film of the highest order which in this day and age is enough.

Triple Threat Chat: A Talk With the Directors of the Documentary LUCHA MEXICO

A few weeks ago, as DOC NYC, the annual festival of documentary films, drew to a close, I managed to get to an encore screening of the wonderfully insightful film on the world of lucha libre pro wrestling in Mexico, LUCHA MEXICO. Although disappointed to miss the chance to talk with subjects of the documentary and bona fide pro wrestling stars Shocker and John Strongman, who appeared at the documentary’s US premiere, it was still a thrill to see the movie on a big screen and have a spirited talk with co-directors Alex Hammond and Ian Markiewicz about the making of the film (with Chocko providing some much appreciated outside interference and camera work to be shared down the line).

Below is an approximation of our chat...

mondocurry: You mentioned that you’ve been a long time wrestling fan. Did your viewing always veer toward lucha libre?

IAN MARKIEWICZ: Lucha libre has always been interesting to me, and whenever I can watch it, I do. I think it’s harder to find on TV in the US. You’ll see it there for many months and then all of a sudden it’s gone. So it's not consistent. I always had this idea that I was going to do something more about wrestlers in the US, but loved the idea of one of them going down to Mexico, because that happens a lot: guys go down to rehab themselves, or maybe work there early in their career. It's a side of wrestling we aren't as exposed to. That’s kind of where the Jon Strongman angle comes in.

MC: Can you talk about the period of time over which the documentary was made?

ALEX HAMMOND: We started shooting 4 years ago, around 2011, 2012. Every few months we would fly down to Mexico and shoot as much as we could, getting to know the different companies and finding stories.  We would be working on freelance stuff at the same time, and even finished another feature documentary while shooting Lucha (Better Than Something: Jay Reatard). 

IAN: There was maybe a year in there, give or take, of research.

ALEX: The beginning was all research, finding the characters we were going to use, and some of that never even made it into the film.

IAN: Earning their trust took a long time, and that was before we could even turn the camera on. You’re asking somebody to let you into their lives, which is rarely easy.

MC: Were there wrestlers who were difficult to speak with because they were guarded about their non-wrestling identities?

IAN: I’ll be honest with you, most of the masked guys don’t want to give you too much. Only some of them will. Blue Demon was really there for us and we spent a lot of time with him. And there were others who were very nice and loved the idea of what we were doing, but knew it wasn’t something they could be fully involved with. In those cases it wasn’t like there was a real barrier - they were very honest and said that while they didn't mind appearing in the film, they couldn’t show what’s behind their character.

The only person who totally refused to participate was El Hijo del Santo… because he wanted the movie to just be about himself. If it included other wrestlers, he didn’t want to have any part of it. Of course, he’s not the original Santo… But it still would’ve been nice.  

MC: Was there any one individual, or individuals, who helped you to gain access to others you ended up following in the movie?

ALEX: Well, the first company we worked with was with Triple A (AAA, one of Mexico’s major pro wrestling promotions) and we got quite a bit of access early on, but ultimately they were the company we ended up following the least. It was on one of our later "research" trips that we finally connected with CMLL, which was not easy, and started meeting and interviewing more wrestlers. We have to thank Sandra Granados, the head of PR at CMLL; she kind of runs the show, and was one of the first people to really get what we were trying to do. I'd also add that at the first CMLL press conference we went to, we met Jon Strongman, and he introduced us to Shocker. And Shocker introduced us to a lot of the other guys, like Fabian El Gitano, and this whole world opened up.

Having filmed with two of the major wrestling companies, we knew we also had to meet with Perros Del Mal, the hardcore/extreme promotion in Mexico. Perro was a different thing. We met El Hijo del Perro Aguayo at the major Lucha Expo, where everyone goes once a year to meet their favorite superheroes. From there we started hanging out and going to shows with him, he was very generous with us. 

MC: The music in the film is fantastic. Sometimes it was like traditional and modern sounds meeting one another. Can you talk about your ideas for it and how it came together?

IAN: That blend of modern and traditional was exactly the idea.

ALEX: We worked really hard on that. The music was always going to be a long process because we wanted original music as much as possible, but we also knew there would be famous songs like (wrestlers’) entrance songs, and we wanted to have some authentic Mexican music in there, stuff that’s popular, and music that was cinematic.  Two composers that created original tracks for the film were Jonathan Snipes, a film composer in LA, and Tucson-based musician/composer Sergio Mendoza. They both brought a modern and Mexican mix to the soundtrack. 

MC: There is incredible close-up footages of matches that to me looks better than broadcasts of lucha libre that I’ve seen in the past. How did you approach filming?

IAN: I think that was very purposeful. We wanted to show a different perspective. You can see this stuff on TV and now you can see it all online, so what’s the point of just showing the match as it's already available? Wherever possible, we wanted this to be our own version.

MC: Did you bring in experiences with other types of filming to your project? Did filming the wrestling matches force you to adjust in any ways?

IAN:  We've shot a lot of live music stuff, like concerts. Performance and dance movement - wrestlers are no less performers than any dancer. The biggest challenge was dealing with the standard six man tag team matches. You may have one guy you’re following, but you can't capture his match if he's the only one you shoot, and there are usually at least three different points of action. And we’re only a two-person crew. So you have to find a way to navigate the chaos. 

ALEX: There are times you miss things in the ring. It’s awful. We shot so many shows, and after the years we put in we got better at working around the ring. You become more in tune with different wrestler's styles. So our shooting got better along the way, but I have to say it's never easy running around and making sure you follow the action while also trying to compose something beautiful without getting in their way. 

IAN: Wrestling is just hard thing to shoot.

ALEX: You have to predict and then be very quick on your feet.

MC: It was just the two of you filming?

ALEX: Yes, Ian and I took turns shooting the verite scenes, and then we both shot the shows whenever possible. The only time we had three cameras was for one of the big CMLL Anniversary shows. 

IAN: An old friend and colleague of mine, Sean Williams, came down to shoot for a few days. I love working with him, and we had a ridiculous amount of fun in Mexico. 

MC: Were there any moments while filming where you felt like you were in a dangerous situation?

IAN: We were never in danger, really.

ALEX: Ultimo Guerrero almost fell on you…

IAN: He ended up breaking a photographer's camera right next to me. You do see some collateral damage. And there were times guys got me in a lock up just to mess with me while we were in the match. That was for fun, though. I think the worst was when the crowd started throwing stuff. I had a guy throw a full Gatorade bottle at my head.

MC: That brings to mind a wild scene in the movie when Ultimo Guerrero is riling up a fan sitting at ringside. He responds by throwing a drink. Can you talk about that kind of scenario? Was it typical?

IAN: That night was chaos. In that arena in particular, Arena Coliseo Guadalajara, you can see crazy shows. They have discount beer, a lot of interaction with the wrestlers, and the people don't hold back. Arena Mexico is a little bit more calm. There’s a lot of security. It’s a rowdy but controlled crowd. It all depends where you are.

MC: Have either of you experienced a change in your perception of lucha libre, or professional wrestling in general, since working on the movie?

ALEX: I think I’m going to be a fan for life. Making this film is definitely the reason for this, because I honestly didn't follow Lucha Libre or pro wrestling before. I have to say I think Lucha Libre really brought me closer to Mexico and to my culture. I'm half-Mexican but grew up in the U.S.  Every time we're in Mexico, I seek out a lucha show and of course go to the Arena Mexico. I have a new respect for wrestlers now.  I do believe they are athletes, hard workers who risk their lives for our enjoyment. It really is a fascinating world. 

MC: How did you reach a conclusion to filming? Was there a certain point where you felt like there was enough footage?

ALEX: There are so many little details of lucha libre that we could have included another hour of scenes and details of the sport… We didn't want to make a movie that was going to hold your hand and tell you the rules of everything. 

Honestly, we found it hard to stop shooting, because we really enjoyed shooting this movie and kept finding new things to shoot. But there came a moment where we knew we had the film. We actually finished a cut, and two months later, Perro (Aguayo Jr) died… and that was really hard. It was a total shock for us. This made us go back to the edit, and we basically spent the rest of the year re-cutting the movie.

IAN: We had the movie before that but… You can’t have something like Perro Aguayo's death and not address it. We were as shocked as everyone else - there are only a handful of wrestling deaths as tragic as his. We felt like it would be dishonoring his memory to sweep it under the carpet in any way. And not only that, but he was a really big supporter of us and the project. He really loved what we were doing and always made the effort to help us. We had to pay that back on some level.

MC: Are there any relationships that formed while making the film, and has the experience informed your next projects?

IAN: Shocker is a great friend, and John (Strongman) is wonderful. They've both given us the shirt off their backs more times than I can count. And that's just the beginning of a long list. We were very fortunate to have been able to work with people we could actually be close with. On top of that there were a lot of incredible people we spent time with but couldn't fit in the film… 

ALEX: Yes, there were many wrestlers we got close to but only so many you can explore in an hour and half movie. We made quite a few friends, some we'll have to return to in future projects. Of course, we have many other films we'd like to make before continuing work on this one!

IAN: At some point you have to say "the film is done," but every project is different. We probably will try to bring out a little more of this stuff in whatever way makes sense. We're not planning to make a longer or different cut of this film, but we're open to exploring and sharing some of the other tangents if people are interested. 

Look for LUCHA MEXICO to make its mark on the West Coast of the US in the near future, with sights set on a theater release some time after.

Unseen Repost: BANG BANG CLUB (2011)

This is the story of four photojournalists who band together for safety and end up taking some of the most memorable pictures coming out of South Africa during the final days of Apartheid. The film follows the quartet from 1990 to 1994 when the first truly universal elections took place in the country. It’s the story of the unseen war where the people In power chose to create divisions in the black population so that they could hold on a little longer.

I probably should do a longer full review of this film, but to be perfectly honest as much as I can recommend the film, I found that the day after seeing the film, much of it had begun to fade from memory. What you need to know is that the cast is great. Even the big name Ryan Phillipe disappears into his role to the point you forget who he is. The set pieces where the guys go off to take pictures will amaze you and make you want to join them.(It’s some of the best stuff I’ve seen all year). It’s counterpointed by their home and office life which isn’t quite as amazing (and often down right cliché- you can see the romance between two characters from frame one).

Weaknesses aside the film is definitely worth seeing.

Secret Stories of Walt Disney World by Jim Korkis

In the introduction to Jim Korkis’s latest book he writes that the book was written to set the story of various Disney World attractions straight. Five years ago he had been working as a writer for Disney putting together the material for tour groups and compiling  facts and stories for the employees to pull from when he was let go and all of the material he had compiled went missing overnight. The result of this was that the stories of Disney attractions was in danger of being lost. This was especially the case since without the real history employees were making things up. Korkis relates talking to one employee recently who told him a completely wrong story of Walt Disney staying in a certain room overlooking main street and watching the crowds in the park, something impossible since Disney died 5 years before the park opened. The employee treated him like a loon when he corrected them. In order to prevent the loss of the real history and prevent lies from taking hold  Korkis put SECRET STORIES... together.

The book is a breezy look at various attractions, existing, long gone and never were via lots of stories stories you probably didn’t know. Each location profile has their story told briefly and to the point, with each piece is no more than 2 pages long. Its the kind of thing that would be perfect to take a long to the park as a kind of deep background guide for the attractions. The reality is that you’ll take the book to the hotel and refer back between trips to the park, its just a bit too big to carry along.

What I love about the book is that you get little tidbits that no may not have known or thought to consider for example the garden train in Epcot had to be magnetized to stay on the tracks because of squirrel attacks. Every morning the tunnels have to be cleared of rabbits who crawl into to them most nights. Some of the “hidden” Mickey’s aren’t real hidden Mickeys, they are simply employees deciding to create them on their own, much to the annoyance of management. I never realized all of the references to THE ROCKETEER, or that the dragon Figment was stole from another ride. I also love the talk of the attractions that never were such as the Muppet restaurant that was going to be run by Gonzo and Pepe, but the deal fell through and the location became something else. Story after story grabs you and they all are just really cool.

If you are a fan of Korkis’s writing, which I am, then you may have read versions of some of these stories before, albeit in longer form in some of his other books. I recently read his VAULT OF WALT 4 and found there is some cross over. Usually a story that ran over a chapter in on of the VAULT books here is told in a few sentences as part of a another story. For me it was a treat since you realize how much everything is interconnected.

If there is any real problem with the book, it’s that unless you’re at or have been to the park odds are some of the information is going to go over your head. I have never been to any Disney theme park so discussions of locations meant nothing to me. I also was lost as to the changes to some of some rides over the decades since I never experienced them. It’s far from a fatal flaw, I mean this is a Jim Korkis book, he’s incapable of producing anything truly flawed, but it keeps the book from being something that a casual reader such as myself will get as much out of as someone who has been to the park. This is a book for people who love Disney, so much so that I've bought copies for friends for Christmas.

Ultimately this is a great read and another must have from Jim Korkis and Theme Park Press.