Change Your Image
FilmTechie
Reviews
6,000 Miles from Hollywood (2000)
A film about not quite making it
In "6,000 Miles from Hollywood", Dave Elder is an unemployed actor in LA with a lame job who's going nowhere. His mate, Spy Holden, is a wannabe movie producer in Sydney who has convinced himself that by making a Robert Rodriguez-inspired action film (with an American lead), he can "take Hollywood by storm". When Spy offers Dave the lead in his "million dollar movie", Dave sells everything he owns and moves to Australia.
Once he arrives, though, everything he was promised turns out to be a lie, and it's all part of the image of success Spy's trying to project. In truth, Spy's making a B-grade action film with outdated equipment in his garage.
But when Dave falls for Kylie, Spy's lead actress, he decides to stay and help Spy get his film made, using lies and deceit, and maintaining the illusion that he's a big movie star from Hollywood. As the lies begin to unravel, the duo is forced to face themselves, their true motives, and the nature of fame and movie-making.
"6,000 Miles from Hollywood" is a simple, self-deprecating low-budget movie about two wannabe filmmakers trying to make a low-budget movie. As more and more would-be filmmakers around the world attempt to "take Hollywood by storm", the fun of this movie is that it looks at the ones who don't. Intentionally tongue-in-cheek, and shot on a shoestring to highlight the point it was making, the film ultimately fell victim to its own lack of budget.
The film was never completed, and thus, never had any "private screenings", as one "reviewer" has implied. I know this because I know the filmmakers, and was fortunate enough to attend one of the two work-in-progress screenings they offered halfway through post-production, seeking objective feedback.
It raises an interesting question, though: Is it fair to judge a work-in-progress (e.g., a scratchy work print with missing dialog, music and effects) as if it were a polished film? Possibly. But to hide that context in a review demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the process of film-making, or a hidden personal agenda (or both).
Ironically, that is exactly the message of "6,000 Miles from Hollywood", and why I enjoyed even the work-in-progress. Because whether you make it or not, or whether "they" like it or not, if you're true to yourself, that's all that really matters.
Solaris (2002)
For those who see "meaning" in the absence of any.
Some films take a compelling concept, and create a story that is moving, poignant, meaningful and thought-provoking. Other films are unabashed entertainment to thrill the masses. And then there are films like SOLARIS. Films made for only one reason: to satisfy the egos of filmmakers who actually think they're saying something.
It has become its own genre.
This last kind of film has a small but earnest following. And you can bet their audience will find meaning in ANY tale. But you can also bet they'll never agree with each other on what that meaning IS. Oh, but that's the point, you see. It's "interpretive". It's subjective. We all see different meanings in it. That's the whole beauty of it, they say.
A similar kind of film is David Lynch's MULHOLLAND DRIVE. And it would seem that people will tend to like or dislike both. And if you come across someone who LIKES it, don't dare suggest it's awful -- or else it's assumed you're not intelligent enough to "get it". (Or perhaps just not creative enough to have imposed your own meaning upon it -- which, let's face it, if I wanted to WRITE the movie, I wouldn't have come to see YOURS!)
Personally, I prefer a story. I prefer something that makes sense and has a forward motion. Something that adds up -- ALL of it. I can go cerebral and make the challenging mental connections along with the best of them. But SOLARIS and its breed (and their followers) believe that juxtaposing images in a random or lingering fashion -- as long as you have a thread of a story -- makes for some sort of artistic masterpiece.
But it doesn't.
There are some very nice elements in SOLARIS. The concept, for one. I haven't seen the original nor read the book (which shouldn't be required when seeing a film, by the way). But the story concept is EXCELLENT. I would have LOVED a well-told version of this thing.
Jeremy Davies also gives a dynamic performance (hammy, perhaps, but at least it was fascinating to watch). Clooney was solid. McElhone was radiant. Davis was good. I enjoyed the score and the aesthetically-pleasing cinematography and the expansive set.
But when Soderbergh is at the helm of a story that DOESN'T have a clear linear drive (as BROCKOVICH and OCEAN'S both did), you get self-indulgent filmmaking, pure and simple. TRAFFIC's another example. Great to look at, excellent acting, nice scenes -- adds up to nothing we hadn't seen on a hundred television shows. Maybe it's just me, but I find Soderbergh the most consistently overrated director working today (well, alongside Lynch, perhaps).
The worst part is that I LOVED the IDEAS behind these films. I would've liked each of those mentioned here to have been great WITHOUT having ME supply their meanings. I just wish the filmmakers had done their jobs (tell a story), rather than pander to those few who find meaning where there is none.
If that's you, then this is your film.