Monthly Archives: July 2013

A Masterpiece for a post-Hüsker Dü World

As a disclosure, let me state that I am director of the upcoming Grant Hart documentary EVERY EVERYTHING. But that said, if I didn’t truly love this record I would write nothing at all. As even my closest friends know, if they ask for an opinion from me, I will give it to them truthfully. I’m not one to sugar coat, or ever tell people what they want to hear.

Next, so you know where I stand, I believe these to be indisputable facts:

1. Hüsker Dü and The Replacements are the two most important rock bands of the past 32 years. That every single band that picked up a guitar and rocked post 1987 owes everything to these two bands. They saved rock and roll at a time when even punk had completely lost its edge and become new wave. So that is the regard in which I hold the members of these two bands.

2. Just as the Beatles had two great singer/songwriters in Lennon and McCarthey, Hüsker Dü had Mould and Hart. There is no Hüsker Dü without Grant Hart. He is as important to the band as Mould, and just as good a songwriter. As for their post-Hüsker Dü careers, Hart might not have been as prolific, but he delivered “2541” and “The Main,” which for me are the two best post-breakup songs.

Now, onto The Argument.

The Argument
This is a vast, impressive work. Hardly a collection of pop tunes that you can play on your car’s stereo system and listen to at leisure…at least not at first. In taking on a book most of us could not even get through the Cliff Notes on, Hart has given us a true rock opera, about good vs. evil, about heaven vs. hell, about lust and the snake in the garden. This is a post-punk rock bible, a “Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars” or “Tommy” for our day. But the first half dozen times through you need to listen. To absorb. To take in the grandeur of what he’s accomplished. And only then you will find the pop songs. The rock songs. The songs to break your heart. Then you will begin to see the scope of “The Argument.” Then you will begin to see the influences Hart wears proudly on his sleeves, from an almost polished version of the noise we came to love as Hüsker Dü fans to nods towards Dylan (“For Those Too High Aspiring” is probably my favorite track, sounding like a lost track Bob Dylan contributed to “Zen Arcade”), the Doors (“Golden Chain”), the Faces (“Shine, Shine, Shine”), Buddy Holly (“Letting Me Out”), doo wop (“So Far From Heaven”), anthem rock (“Glorious,” which would make for a perfect very tongue-in-cheek Christian rock anthem), even a Rudy Vallée ukulele ditty (“Underneath the Apple Tree”), and yes, old Bowie (the brilliant title track). Hart is a walking history-of-music encyclopedia, and that knowledge shines through on every track.

The production is masterful. (The use of the beep from Sputnik on “Is the Sky the Limit” is a stroke of genius.) Hart’s voice is powerful when it needs to be. Frail, almost cracked, when he wants to rip out your heart. The instrumentation is at times a cacophony of blessed noise pop and at other times brisk, clean, clear. There are moments when a track ends and you actually wish for a breather before what will assault you next.

To take on Milton’s “Paradise Lost” might have seemed a fool’s game for most musicians. But Grant Hart isn’t like most musicians. He’s probably one of the smartest men in rock & roll. And while this might have been a glorious gamble that ended badly, he’s hit the jackpot. But no more so than the fans who get to experience this work of art.

Should you buy it? Well, I’ll answer that question with a question: would you go see Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” if it was in a gallery in your town? If the answer is yes. That you would have to see the genius in Van Gogh’s swirls in person and for yourself. Then, yes, buy “The Argument.”  Masterpieces only come around every so often.

2 Comments

Filed under Grant Hart, Husker Du, new music, punk rock, rock n roll

Filmmaking: framing & lighting

I watch a lot of independent cinema.  When my friends are talking about seeing SUPERMAN at the multiplex, I’m scouring Fandango to see where FRANCES HA might be playing.  But one issue I have with so so many indie films is the way they are shot.  Lighting flat, always too bright, and framing that makes me want to scream.

For exampled: saw a great little indie recently.  Well written, nicely acted.  But the way it was shot drove me up a wall.  For example there was one scene of a couple in their bedroom. They were each on their respective electronic devices.  And a night table lamp was turned on.  Yet despite all this wonderful ambient light, there was another lighting source (a ceiling light, perhaps), which served no purpose other than to illuminate just how little set design money they had.  And think about it, who lies in bed looking at their iPad with all these lights.  The ceiling light should have been eliminated.  And honestly if they wanted to make the scene really interesting the lamp should have also been shut off.  With today’s amazing DSLRs the light from the two electronic devices would have been more than enough, and made the scene look so wonderfully cool.   (I lit two scenes in BROKEN SIDE OF TIME with a Zippo lighter.  Just a Zippo lighter.  And in its first film fest, the film won a cinematography award.)

Indie filmmakers seem to be afraid to allow their characters to fall into darkness.  It’s as if they need to the audience to see every damn pixel of their frame.  Or that perhaps if there’s not enough light the audience will know the filmmakers had no money.  Whatever the case, it’s ridiculous.  It’s not real life.  In real life there are dark corners to every room.  Often times you only see half of someone’s face.  It’s a hell of a lot more interesting.  As with sensuality, what we can’t see is often more intriguing.  In a room at night most times we have on a lamp and a TV.  Light your scene that way.  Break the goddamn ceiling light.  No sane person watches TV with the ceiling light on.  Even in an office.  Go for a close up with just the desk lamp on.  Or just the light from a computer screen.  Kill the damn overheads.  Hitchcock said movies are life with the boring parts cut out.  I’m pretty sure he’d likewise agree, movies are life with the ceiling lights turned off.

I’ve posted a few random images here where lighting is used beautifully to that effect.  Captivate your viewers.  Make them wish they could hang a frame of your film on their wall as a still photo.  Try working with one existing light.  Or one lighting source.  You’ll be surprised what you can do with it.  Force yourself to be creative.  Isn’t that what indie filmmaking is all about.

 92a5d2909b44b3d72740f0c702646fd2

 

01658e5ec67b74d810f3ede05bf0400d

 

652cff2418093fb227faf150a0aa9d42

 

6ba7c82683be1e33422a3ebd6f0e9f00

 

e1faf30c123b706d3c3765956bcaf3ad

As for framing.  CENTER IS BORING.  When I see something framed dead center I literally want to reach into the film, past the actors and slap the cinematographer upside the head.  Really that’s all you can come up with.  Flush your characters right, flush them left.  Put just their head popping up at just the bottom of the frame.  Cut off their face.  Let us watch them out of the corner of your eye.  Don’t be afraid to let them get lost in a gorgeous wide shot.  Or an extreme close up.  Show us just their hands as they’re talking.  Or their feet as they’re sitting next to each other on a sofa.  Show them in silhouette.   It’s ok to go out of focus.  BREAK THE FUCKING RULES.  Otherwise you’re shooting a bad soap opera from the 70s.  If you want your film to look like that you have no business making films.

And if you ever have a cinematographer mention to you the “Rule of Thirds” fire them on the fucking spot.  I would. They have no right to be behind a camera.  Because despite the notion that the rule of thirds is supposed to stop people from center framing it also stops you from thinking, from feeling, from being an artist.  There should be no rules to framing other than what feels right to the scene.  What takes your breath away.  Ceiling lights, and everything perfectly even and in focus takes no ones breath away.

Look at great still photography (Pinterest is an amazing source) that could somehow lend itself to the film you are about to make.  Steal from these masters.  Otherwise, even if you have the sweetest little film in the world, people will still be saying, too bad it looks like shit.

Leave a comment

Filed under cinematography, filmmaking, lighting for film