My defense: House Bunny is pretty great

I'm sorry, but is that not the most hilarious movie poster you've ever seen?

What a pleasant surprise. The reviews have been scathing, but I went with my friend on a whim because we both have a great appreciation for Anna Faris and her comic stylings. Let me say this: if you go into a film like this already having made pre-judgments, this WILL be a bad film. I chose to go with none, and I found myself constantly laughing throughout.

Ms. Faris is absolutely hilarious because she never winks at us as she plays a sweetly innocent Playboy bunny – yes, that’s right – who just wants to be loved. She is utterly likeable and honest as she befriends 7 loser sorority girls who need to find 30 pledges or they will lose their house. A standard set-up for a film of this ilk, but it did the job. What worked were Faris’s ability to constantly remain sincere and friendly, and the other girls’ extreme transformation whilst always retaining their dorky humour and humbleness.

The Playboy mansion itself is an oddly unsexual playpen for these women in bikinis, and that was fine by me because the message of this film was actually worthwhile for families. Initially it seems like the film is saying that we all need to be pretty and liked, but through the arc of the characters (yes, believe it or not, House Bunny has an arc) they learn to accept each other for who they are, if perhaps slightly more confident and sociable.

So I laughed, and learnt something, what more could I want from a film called House Bunny? Political and social commentary? Whip pans and dolly moves? I’ll be fine. 3.5/5.

Random Movie of the Week: The Chumscrubber (2006)

Hot on the heels of Thumbsucker (2005) came Chumscrubber, and until I saw it last night they both seemed like exactly the same film – alienated teen washed out on anti-depressants in American suburbia filled with repressed children and adults alike. They both even have that cute little tyke Lou Taylor Pucci, although in the latter he is a minor character (and MUCH less likeable).

After watching Chumscrubber, it is true, they ARE both that movie, but whilst Thumbsucker seemed content to be a cute little indie, Chumscrubber is going for a more absurd, profound angle on things, and to a certain degree it succeeds.

The cast is certainly game, right down to the smallest most seemingly insignificant characters, such as Glenn Close, the mother of a young man who commits suicide [off screen] coming into the film. Ralph Fiennes in particular shines as the town’s mayor who experiences an epiphany that seems entirely integral to the message of the film.

Jamie Bell plays the main character who is the first to find the dead body, but this film is largely an ensemble piece, and there are some great scenes, such as when Glenn Close visits Alison Janney (Jamie Bell’s mother in the film) to return a casserole dish that was presumably given as a gesture as her son just died, but Alison Janney admits to never coming by “I’ve just been so…busy!”

Jamie Bell is an interesting actor. His American accent is impressive, and he always demonstrates a raw, damaged energy. He was by far the best thing about Jumper (2008), which I did enjoy mind you, and I would pay to see the sequel if it ever eventuates just to see his character return.

Back to Chumscrubber, whilst the film contained countless scenes of individual interest, I really did not feel that it added up to a satisfying, even logical, whole. What is this film saying? I can only grasp an intangible, fuzzy feeling from viewing it once. Perhaps it requires a second go around, but unfortunately it did not intrigue me quite enough to do so – straight away at least. Perhaps in a few months I will return to further investigate.

It really smelt like a debut film, where the writer and director were trying to cram in as many interesting anecdotes and life influences as possible. If the script was diluted to its essence, I can’t help but feel it would have been a stronger more effecting film.

Overall though, an interesting messy film with substantial characters and an odd, Donnie Darko-like view of American suburbia. 3/5.

Benjamin Button, Balls-Ugly Brad

Sexyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

You gotta give the guy credit, Brad Pitt ain’t afraid to look like a baby in the name of art. And I mean literally. In his new film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button directed by one David Fincher, the guy is some old man-baby if that makes sense.

I tip this for dark horse Oscar contender. A new trailer is out, check it out…

RIP Paul Newman…you were and eternally will be the man.

Never going down without a fight.

Enough will be said so I don’t need to repeat it, except to note that this guy was a true screen legend. Never pretentious or above slapping his face on the front of a salad dressing jar in the name of charity, Mr. Newman rocked my world, and will continue to do so in the endless replays of The Hustler, The Hudsucker Proxy, Slap Shot, heck even Cars, and so many more…

Please refer to this excellent eulogy by the equally great Roger Ebert.

Five HUGE directors who have the balls to be themselves...but still like the taste of popcorn

Mainstream directors are often criticized for pandering to the masses, dumbing down to allow digestion for the more ADHD, red-cordialized 21st century viewer flicking through the chapters on their DVD remote. But there are still the odd auteurs hanging around who consistently deliver challenging, thought-provoking POPCORN films. So this is no time to mention David Lynch with his 3-hour opus Inland Empire (2006), or the Farrelly Brothers with their consistently silly (but usually great) slapstick comedies. Those guys generally have their thing and stick to it. No, this list is about those directors who have something unique - and maybe intellectual - to impart on us poor folks, and are able to convey that through commercially acceptable and non-experimental means.

Ridley Scott

Ever since one-time commercial director Ridley Scott made the switch to feature films with his artsy, beautifully-filmed if not a little stuffy period drama The Duellists (1977), Mr. Scott seemed to take it upon himself to tackle every single genre American cinema has to offer. Whether it be the swords and sandals epic (Gladiator), the fantasy (Legend), thriller (Alien), Sci-fi (Blade Runner) or the gangster film (last year’s American Gangster), Ridley has gained the film world’s respect, and somewhere along the way fallen in love with Russel Crowe, who seems to be in all of his films these days – not a bad team if you ask me!

Frequently criticized for valuing style over substance, it is my humble belief that Mr. Scott has eclipsed any possibility for negative evaluation by his devotion to always maintain a distinct visual style, which has worked in favour for his career, not against. Unlike fellow genre-explorers such as James Mangold (Walk the Line and 3:10 To Yuma), Ridley’s films are INSTANTLY recognizable simply based on their striking visuals, no matter where and when they are set. Not only this, but they are entirely engrossing and memorable.

"Please marry me, Russ. Please."

Martin Scorsese

We all know the man, but do enough people give him credit for not only crafting such brilliant films, but also consistently exhilarating, exciting journeys? I feel that only with The Departed (2007) did this become altogether apparent. Casino (1995) is my personal favourite Scorsese film, because despite its epic, sprawling structure, it is always intriguing me with new character insights and culturally specific anecdotes that add up to something larger and more profound by the time of its conclusion. I place a lot of this on the hands of his long-time collaborator, editor Thelma Schoonmaker, whose splicing is so quick and visually provoking that she creates a plot from mere moments. Scorsese admitted on the Casino DVD audio commentary that the initial script was so flimsy plot-wise, that it was left up to Schoonmaker to pick through the pieces, and boy does she.

Casino was their last film together.
Marty left Robbie for a younger man [Leo].

No matter what film (well, maybe not Kundun), Scorsese has always been about constructing films for a larger audience than the genre would generally allow. He is always personal, but never stuffy, oblique, wafty, or pretentious.

Christopher Nolan

The youngest member of the list, Chris Nolan must be included as ever since his debut low-budget feature film Following (1998), he has displayed an undeniable and unforgettable knack for twisting with genres and time chronology to place the viewer off balance, whilst never losing focus of the STORY and CHARACTERS. Memento (2000) is a dazzling display of screenplay construct that is gimmicky but never detracts from the plot of the film. It in facts adds to the film in many ways. The Prestige (2006) continued this trend, and both Batman films continued this trend of Nolan’s apparent obsession with repressed men unable to overcome their past to move onto the future. The Dark Knight (2008)’s Bruce Wayne is propelled by his unspoken desire to fix the past (his parent’s death, der!). Pacino’s character in Insomnia (2002) is a victim of extreme personal guilt, this efficiently portrayed through Nolan’s use of quick flashbacks. Nolan is a supreme talent, but perhaps his greatest asset is his desire to entertain an audience, and not just cram Freudian concepts down our throat via focussing on a coffee cup for four minutes (hello Ingmar Bergman).

What are they looking at??? It boggles my mind.

The Coen Brothers

No Country For Old Men (2007) really was a boom for modern cinema. Its success showed that audiences are intrigued by the darkness, and will jump into the deep end if properly convinced. Even their silly comedies like Raising Arizona (1987), or The Big Lebowski (1998) are so full of quirks and blink-or-you-miss-its that they demand to be re-watched multiple times. And no matter what genre they explore, whether it be 40s noir - The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001) – or the screwball comedy – Intolerable Cruelty (2003) they always remain distinctly the Coen Brothers, and distinctly entertaining.

We just have to blot The Ladykillers (2005) from our minds.

"C'mon guys, Ladykillers was FUNNY!!!"

Michael Mann

Heat (1995) is my favourite film. Period. Not only that, but it contains my favourite Robert De Niro performance. The man is so calm and collected, but there is something inside his eyes that is burning with desire. Michael Mann is perhaps the least out of this list who intentionally desires mainstream success. Unlike someone like Christopher Nolan, his films don’t have a pulpy, thriller-like feel. They simply exist in the world Mann has decided to explore. They are rarely funny, always intense.

Manhunter (1986) is a superior serial-killer film about a man drained by his instinctual knowledge of death and murderers. The underrated Miami Vice (2006) explored the life of people who can’t afford the luxury of a life, because their life is their job, which is fundamentally about lying and deception. Phew. But despite his predacity to shy away from complete mainstream or box-office hits, I simply HAD to include Mann on this list as he demonstrates that even a serious and decidedly earnest filmmaker is able to entertain his audience through the sheer brilliance and credibility of his characters.

His action scenes may lack the shock of a bus blowing up or a rocket jetting off to Mars, but they are still exciting because they seem so darn REALISTIC. And to believe that something is actually happening right in front of us is a truly thrilling sight.

I would turn gay for this man. Really. For his mind.

Mann takes his time with films, and has never attained the same degree of fame as someone like Scorsese, but if you see the pedigree of actors he attracts (his upcoming film Public Enemies has Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Channing Tatum, Billy Crudup, and that’s just the beginning!) you can see that the respect he commands is undeniable.

ONE FINAL NOTE:
There are few filmmakers who don’t fit into this category, such as Francis Ford Coppola and Steven Spielberg. The former because his most recent effort Youth Without Youth (2007) was just downright bizarre, and the latter because Indiana Jones 4 sucked balls.

Hollywood and the Anorexia Situation

A few weeks ago saw the premiere of the updated, revamped Beverly Hills 90210 TV show.

The results were mixed at best. Seventh Heaven-style family values were uncomfortable nestled with Melrose Place-like sexual antics. And please do not forget that these characters are 16, not 36.

Take note: token plack kid in middle, next to mum from Full House

But the main issue I had with this show was the ridiculously skinny actresses the producers seem intent on hiring. Tuning in for the first time to its competitor Gossip Girl as a point of comparison, the results were slightly better. The family values were pretty much zilch or at least more credible, and the sexuality was pulled down a notch. The girls were, of course, thin and pretty, but they at least looked HEALTHY.

Meet Silver from Beverly Hills.

Now that you've met her, please buy her a burger!

This then reminded of one of the worst films of this year: Wanted (2008). Directed by some Russian hack who insisted on filming everything in CGI, at slow-motion, with the background noise of a heart beat, and generally following a bullet, I felt like hurling, and the only reason I didn’t is because the filmmakers did not deserve that strong a reaction from myself. They simply have my indifference. And they will never have my money again.

Returning to the point, however, the reason I was reminded of Wanted is because Angelina Jolie was so thin, that I would not be surprised if she simply disappeared mid-may through the film [this, of course, would have been preferable]. It was therefore not a surprise to find that the editor had decided to DELETE the sex scene between her and James McAvoy that I so clearly viewed in the trailer. Surely the test screening audiences were complaining about her need for a burger or two.

Angelina's new talent: fitting through cracks in windows.

Why does Hollywood insist on sending out a message to all the young tykes that beauty is based on your ability to fit between cracks in walls? Lord hail Kim Kardashian and her sexy curves.

Am I the only one who does not get aroused by the sight of bones protruding from flesh? I like flesh on my women thank you very much. Here endeth the lesson.

Kim Kardashian. Now here is a hot woman. Plus she must like burgers.

Random Movie of the Week: Heaven's Gate (1980)

The film that saw the 70s come crashing down, and auteur director's having their power transplanted back to the studios, this was Michael Cimino's follow-up to his Best Picture Oscar-winning The Deer Hunter (1978). Largely infamous for completely bombing and sending its studio into bankruptcy, the film is worth watching even just for curiosities sake.

This was showing at a local cinema The Chauvel, and even though I own it on DVD I couldn't miss the chance to view it on the big screen. At its full-length of 225 minutes, at least I wouldn't be able to get up for multiple toilet/food breaks like I would at home.

Kris Kristopherson plays the hero, a rich man finding himself morally appalled when his rich comrades start arranging the murders of poor immigrants who have been forced to steal cattle to survive. Christopher Walken plays an assassin who happens to be in love with the same prostitute as Kris.

Gee, what a perplexing film. Beautifully if entirely foggily filmed by the master Vilmos Zsigmond (McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, countless Brian De Palma films...), scenes drift in and out with little to no purpose. There is dancing scene which must go for 15 minutes. Seriously, that's all that happens. People are dancing.

I must admit though, that despite the fact that the plot is so thread-bare, Cimino had me intrigued through a large portion of the film, as he was able to effectively evoke the time period and mood of this forgotten countryside.

My largest complaint: Jeff Bridges (who starred in Cimino's previous Thunderbolt and Lightfoot) was utterly wasted as Kris's friend. I don't believe he had one distinctive characteristic apart from being Kris's friend. He just stood around being Jeff Bridges.

Certainly not as bad as rumours claim, Heaven's Gate is an epic journey that has next to no idea what it is truly about. Only at the end did I understand what the film was ultimately stating, but I couldn't help feeling that it could have said it in half the time. Nonetheless, it has stuck with me. Either a 4/5 or 1/5 depending on your point of view. I'll stick with 4.

Website update

www.floorless-films.com has been updated with photos and more info. Feel free to check it out.

Random Movie of the Week: Good Advice (2001)

Not the classiest of choices all things considering, this rom-com went straight-to-DVD, but my friend and I were curious to see how bad this film could really be. Surprisingly, not THAT bad. Besides, sometimes we all need a little trash cinema in our lives, hehe…

The entire enterprise resembled one of those light 80’s comedies that would star Michael J. Fox, Robert Downey Jr., or even Charlie Sheen himself back in the day! Even the music was dated.

But this becomes somewhat charming in the film, and the jokes ARE relatively consistent, if on the cheesy side. It may sound like I’m giving a dud some slack, but in all honesty I have seen worse examples of the genre roll into movie theatres.

The plot is basically: Charlie is a hotshot stockbroker (Wall Street 2 anyone?) who makes a bad deal and goes broke. He is dumped by his advice-columnist girlfriend (former wife, current ex Denise Richards) and she moves to Brazil. Charlie needs cash so he secretly takes over her job, falling in love with the smart-ass but deep-down sweet Angie Harmon.

Mixed in with this are some quirky sub-characters played by Jon Lovitz, Rosanna Arquette, and especially Estelle Harris (George’s mother on Seinfeld) as Angie’s secretary Iris, who comes up with the most insanely hilarious sexual innuendo with Charlie I was laughing out loud more than a few times.

It is always nice when a film you have no expectations for turns out to be okay, and that is exactly what happened with Good Advice. 2.5/5.

Music licensing update

I sent an email to EMI asking them to lower their asking price ($2500 per 30 seconds) and they declined. Awesome.

HOWEVER, thanks to a comment made by http://www.youlicense.com/ I was able to solve my song dilemma by completely scrapping Death Cab from my film and replacing them with a new (and much cheaper) song by an artist named Cubland. The song is great and I am happy.

Cubland. Thank you.

More info at http://www.youlicense.com/Artist/ArtistStore.aspx?ID=10365

Righteous Kill. Unrighteous Career Moves.

Opening this week in the US is the new buddy cop vehicle for Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, Righteous Kill (2008). Wow. When I first heard this news I was stunned and incredibly excited.

Michael Mann’s Heat (1995) is, in my humble opinion, the most outstanding and engrossing crime saga ever committed to celluloid, and for these two cinematic icons to team up again this time as PARTNERS it seemed too good to be true.

Sorry to be a cliché, but I am getting the feeling that it is.

Anyone who follows the film trades will know by now that Righteous Kill is NOT being screened for critics.

What other film which opened recently also was not screened for critics? Bangkok Dangerous. The mediocre Nicolas Cage vehicle which will come and go before we have even realized.

See a connection?

Well there are only two:

1) Great actor/s
2) Lame film

Let's be honest here.
They are TOO OLD to play street cops!!!

How has this happened? Often when a film with such fantastic potential turns out to be a piece of garbage, there are various factors at work:

BAD DIRECTOR, GOOD FRIEND

Jon Avnet is the director of past, ahh, prestigious films such as Fried Green Tomatoes and Al Pacino’s “hit” from last year 88 Minutes. If anyone had the misfortune of seeing the execrable waste of Al’s talent, I am sorry for your loss. That movie was BAD. So what does Al do to bounce back? He stars in ANOTHER movie with this director! Why? Isn’t it obvious? They’re friends!

He looks so nice!
Go save someone from a burning building
and leave the films to Michael Mann.

GOOD FIRST SCRIPT, BAD SECOND SCRIPT

My previous post discussed how fantastic Inside Man was. Well whadda ya know, Righteous Kill from the same guy who wrote that! What you may not know is that this script, his second, follows practically the SAME plot stricture and TWISTS as Inside Man. And UNLIKE Inside Man, the dialogue is kinda, umm, lame.

Example? Check out this clip.

Compare that this THIS. See the difference?

LOTS OF MONEY, NOT MANY SHOOTING DAYS

Enough said. Whilst Michael Mann would have required 75 takes for every shot, Jon Avnet would be fine with three.

NEITHER DE NIRO OR PACINO READ THEIR SCRIPTS ANYMORE

Well, at least not all of them. That would explain 88 Minutes AND De Niro's "companion piece" 15 Minutes. Both exemplary forms of trash cinema.

After all is said and done, Righteous Kill may be okay. But it will never be a classic, and it will barely matter in the canons of either director. Go rent out Heat or Godfather Part 2.

Please.Have you seen this? No?
Shame shame shame...

Music Copyright. WHY???? Update

So I have finally tracked down the publishers for “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)” and here is what 1 out of the 3 record labels said to me:

They are charging $1500 per 30 seconds for any use WITHIN the film.

They are charging $2500 per 30 seconds for any use in the END CREDITS.

What a joke.

Why?

- The license is for 1 year

- The license is only for festival submissions, hence the film cannot be sold, reproduced, distributed, screened on the internet or any other medium

- This record company only owns 41.6% of the song!

- My film had a $1000 budget and let’s be honest here stands to not make a dime

- After all this is paid for and sorted out, I would STILL need to get permission from (and most probably cough up more dough) to Death Cab For Cutie themselves, who don’t even bother to return my emails!

Kill me now.

Sequelittis. Why???????????????????????????? Plus Inside Man 2: The Day of Reckoning

There are good sequels out there.

Terminator 2 (1991)
X-Men 2 (2003)
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Godfather 2 (1974)
The Empure Strikes Back (1980)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 (1991) - NOT!

But when I read over at Cinematical that Spike Lee is in talks to make an Inside Man 2 my blood curdled. How could someone so legit and credible such as Spike sell out for a quick buck?

This is nearly as atrocious as the upcoming sequel to Donnie Darko (2001), S.Darko (2009), but at least the original's director Richard Kelly had the common sense to stay the hell away from that one.

Inside Man (2006) is one of my favourite heist movies. Even more so I feel because it took me utterly by surprise. Mr. Lee was not well-known for commercial genre fare, so I wasn't sure how he would handle it, but he really did blow it out of the ball park. The script was tight, the direction suspenseful, and the acting superb.

[side note: that thought does get me excited for Miracle at St. Anna (2008) despite the trailer looking kinda dull and my inability to get worked up over war films]

Let me set the record straight.

THE STORY IS OVER SPIKE. FINNITO. SAYONARA. THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO TELL NO MATTER WHAT YOU, THE STUDIOS, DENZEL OR CLIVE BELIEVE.

What the heck are you guys gonna crap on about this time?
How your wives are doing? The "good o' days?"
Get a life people!

All those other great sequels I mentioned were continuations. There was more story to be told. They weren't cranked out for an extra buck, or so friends could hang out on set for a few months more (hello, Ocean's films).

Cinematical states that THR says the sequel will "continue the relationship between the two man characters but in a new high-tension situation."

What the hell??? Like Tango and Cash? Mel and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon?

SPOILER ALERT! Clive was a good guy, and there was no reason for his character to perform another heist. PLUS Denzel pretty much let him get away at the end and did not seem perturbed at all because the good guys (in movie terms anyways) won and the bad guys lost.

My three requests for the day:

1) Please stop making crappy sequels.

2) Please stop WATCHING crappy sequels (hello Saw movies).

3) If you feel so compelled to make another one, please make it different. Not a different GENRE, mind you, (can you imagine Clive and Owen in a romantic screwball comedy both trying to bed Jodie Foster?) but a different story, location, REASON FOR EXISTING.

A totally necessary and refreshing sequel.
It did not repeat the themes of the first,
and created its own unique storyline and characters.

Thank you world for not listening. Can't wait for Spiderman 12 where Peter Parker is played by Zach Efron and Mary-Jane is Miley Cyrus.

And remakes, don't get me started (that's an entire post/s of its own...)

Nicolas Cage and the unjustified hate

One of the banes of my existence is defending Nicolas Cage. Despite his lackluster output lately, the man is an acting legend whether you want to admit it or not.

Why so serious, Mr Cage?

The reason I bring this up is because his new film Bangkok Dangerous (2008) is out in the States this week and the reviews have been less than great. Rotten Tomatoes reports, in fact, that it is the lowest-reviewed film of his career, which is saying something if one has witnessed the atrocity that was The Wicker Man (2006).

Bangkok looks utterly mediocre. Not bad, or good, just forgettable. But film critics will of course start spouting off predictable "what has happened to...", "career down the toilet"'s yada yada as if there is no hope for the man. I sincerely believe that this general consensus has placed a giant negative bias on the reviews for the film. I truly wish reviewers would work within their own bubble, discounting cultural views and filmic backgrounds. If they did this surely they would save their scorn for Disaster Movie 2.

My question is: should we judge an actor or any type of filmmaker based upon their most recent film/s, or on their cumulative career? And if we are that short-sighted, why do we give such people so many chances?

I mean, c'mon, everyone makes mistakes, and everyone stuffs up. Some of the greatest legends make utter crap, hence we have Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Boring Waste of a Film (2008). Steven Spielberg will live on.

And so will Nic Cage. Because for every Next (2007) he has a Knowing (2009) in the pipeline - directed by Australian Alex Proyas of Dark City and I, Robot fame.

The shadows cover his receding hairline.
Convenient?

Here is a list of all his fantastic films of the past:

Raising Arizona (1987), Moonstruck( 1987), Wild at Heart (1990), Red Rock West (1993), Guarding Tess (1994), Leaving Las Vegas (1995), The Rock (1996), Face/Off (1997), 8MM (1998), Bringing Out the Dead (1999), Adaptation (2002), Matchstick Men (2003), Weather Man (2005), Lord of War (2005), and World Trade Center(2006).

That is a consistent list of hits. Now, mind you, mixed in between all these there IS a Zandalee (1991) and whatnot, but to discredit the man entirely is insanity.

Give the guy a break. For him to make serious films he needs a Ghost Rider (2006) to boost his marketability. Because yes, that utter piece of poo did make a large dime...and so did Bangkok, although an admittedly low debut at 7.8 mill according to imdb.com.

He has to make generic tripe to allow funding for the more risky pictures. Isn't that a saying in Hollywood "one for me, one for them"??? So yay for us, we're due about "3 for him"s in the near future.

Bottom line? Even though his hair is falling off, his talent is still there. It's just the material that lets him down sometimes.

Although I must admit that the waft of The Wicker Man may never leave my nose...

Do not watch this.
That is not a dare.

Music Copyright: kill me now

Why on earth create a process where it becomes near impossible for a Joe Shmo filmmaker such as myself to gain the necessary permission to use signed bands’ songs within their film?

Let me explain.

I have been desperately seeking permission to use a song by American indie band Death Cab for Cutie. The song is “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)”.

Being the naïve sort that I am, I neglected to realize that a cover is OWNED by the writers’ representation, not the band performing the cover. But being the stubborn sort that I am, I continued my investigation nonetheless.

In April I sent Death Cab an email, I sent their Manager an email, I sent their publisher an email.

No reply.

In May I sent Death Cab an email, I sent their Manager an email, I sent their publisher an email.

No reply.

In July I sent all those people plus their record label Atlantic an email.

No reply.

You guys looks so friendly and amiable.

Please return my emails! :-(

I sent more futile emails, and in August as luck may have it Death Cab themselves came by my ways via a tour. I, of course, being a loyal and dutiful fan had bought a ticket months ago.

And I had a plan. I wrote a lovely, glowering, and professional letter to the band and management, outlining the background of my film and my licence request.

I then contact the venue management and they agreed to pass it onto the band’s management on the night of the concert. On that night I also passed on a copy of the letter to a merchandize guy who claimed to know the band (this was after spending $140 on merch, of course).

But, alas, it is three weeks later and no response.

Am I still a loyal, dutiful fan? I may have to reassess my position.

BUT (drum roll…)

An email reply in August! From their record label Atlantic, no less!

I was referred to ANOTHER company called Rhino Records (why them I have no idea), where the lovely Diane went about lifting my hopes to the Heavens, researching how I could obtain a festival licence (which was, luckily, ridiculously cheaper than a general music licence).

In was on air, contemplating the peaceful prospect of a life with a Death Cab for Cutie festival clearance licence.

It would not last.

My fifth email with Diane resulted in her telling me that I also needed permission from the PUBLISHER of the song (those who represent the original writers) and the ARTISTS themselves (who I still had not heard from despite my lovely letter to them) plus whoever owns the MASTER (the actual rights to the recorded version of the song)

Also, as it turned out in the seventh email the song was even owned and had nothing to do with Atlantic so my conversations with Diane were over.

I then researched as to who the heck was responsible for the original writers of the song, and my search resulted in FOUR COMPANIES!!! And two of those companies seem to be represented by OTHER COMPANIES.

I am confused.

I am trying to reject the distinct possibility that if any of those companies actually bother to reply to my emails, they all may start asking me for money way beyond my budget (I didn’t even actually have a budget), plus I’d then have to pay whoever owns the MASTER and DEATH CAB themselves perhaps.

Do you know who else would like to be floating on a cloud?

ME! When I have the music license for the song...

Why cannot this be simpler? Why cannot there just be one company in charge of these matters?

Why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why??????????

Does anybody know why?