Xixax Film Forum

Poster here. (http://www.impawards.com/2005/last_days.html)

Quote from: themodernage02cool foriegn website with trailer for Last Days here... http://www.mk2.com/last_days/site.html

Starring: Asia Argento, Ryan Fellner, Kim Gordon, Lukas Haas, Ricky Jay, Harmony Korine, Riley G. Matthews Jr., Michael Pitt, Ari Tomais, Nicole Vicius.

Director: Gus Van Sant

Writer: Gus Van Sant

Plot Outline: Michael Pitt stars in a Seattle-set rock & roll drama as a musician whose life and career is reminiscent of Kurt Cobain's.

Quote from: MacGuffinPlot Outline: Michael Pitt stars in a Seattle-set rock & roll drama as a musician whose life and career is reminiscent of Kurt Cobain's.

translation: gus van sant couldn't get the film rights from Kobain's estate to do an ACTUAL rock and rock drama on his life, just one reminiscent of his life.

That's kind of like saying he couldn't get the rights to do an ACTUAL Columbine movie, but that's simply not the case.

To be honest, I preffer it this way.

For some reason, an out and out biopic kinda turns me off. But the idea of something heavily inspired by real-life is more interesting. It means the filmmakers aren't strait-jacketed to any actual events.

Yes, Elephant would've been weaker had it been an acording to hoyle Columbine movie.

And Boogie Nights wouldn't be the masterpiece it is, if it were a John Holmes movie. Etc. etc.

the same goes for velvet goldmine and david bowie

yeah, but this is gus van sant--he sucks now, remember?

Quote from: GhostboyThat's kind of like saying he couldn't get the rights to do an ACTUAL Columbine movie, but that's simply not the case.

i think elephant was different - it was dealing with a widespread "epidemic" of school shootings - columbine was not the only one( it may have been the most publicized however)

this is about ONE person's life and advertised as a film about " a musician whose life and career is reminiscent of Kurt Cobain's."

elephant wasn't advertised as "a film about  a school shooting reminiscent of Columbine"

boogie night wasn't advertised as " a film about a porn actor reminiscent of  john holmes"

Perhaps. I think, though, that Van Sant is not the type of director who would ever want to make an actual biopic, and that this was his plan for the project from the beginning.

Consider, too, that 'Gerry' was based on suppositions aobut actual events, and you have the makings of a fine trilogy.

Quote from: cowboykurtis
elephant wasn't advertised as "a film about  a school shooting reminiscent of Columbine"

it wasn't?

All the hope in the world for this film to be good, but directors need to stop casting Michael Pitt immediately. His imitation Leo DiCaprio looks is the only thing he's got going for him.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetHis imitation Leo DiCaprio looks is the only thing he's got going for him.

also his schlong is bigger than leo's.

prove me wrong, leo! :inlove:

HAH

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAll the hope in the world for this film to be good, but directors need to stop casting Michael Pitt immediately. His imitation Leo DiCaprio looks is the only thing he's got going for him.

i like michael pitt quite a bit actually

quuuueeeer.

i had to turn THE DREAMERS off after 20 minutes - I just couldn't take one second more of his annoying little face.

Hahah. I don't think he looks anything like Leonardo DiCaprio. He looks too.. unhealthy.

I think he's awesome. Actually, I'm the president of his fan club. Only ten bucks to join.

Quote from: GhostboyI think he's awesome. Actually, I'm the president of his fan club. Only ten bucks to join.

Did the obcession start with his masterful work in Dawson's Creek? Did it? Ah I tease, I can't sound assholish.

It did indeed. When his character attempted suicide at the school dance to win Michelle William's heart, I knew instantly: this is the future of acting. He's been on a roll ever since!

Cobain inspiration for film not based on his life

Off the red carpets and beyond the yachts crowding the harbor next to the Cannes Film Festival, the following items were seen and heard on Friday:

'INSPIRED BY' NOT 'BASED ON'

American director Gus van Sant was at pains to stress that his competition film "Last Days" was not "based on" the life of grunge rocker Kurt Cobain, who killed himself in 1994, but rather was only "inspired by" it.

Van Sant, who won the Cannes Film Festival's top "Golden Palm" award in 2003 for "Elephant" that was "inspired by" the Columbine school shooting, was asked repeatedly why the film about a character named "Blake" avoids direct links to Cobain.

He said even though he once thought about making a biopic about Cobain, he long ago scrapped the idea and wanted instead to avoid getting bogged down in the details of the rock star's tragically short life. He said fiction was more appropriate.

Cobain's band "Nirvana" was at the core of the Seattle music scene in the early 1990s.

"There were a lot of things about Kurt that inspired us," he said. "We saw the original idea about a biopic was a wrong turn. There's too much information about his life to pare down ... But as for last days go, we didn't know what really happened."

When pressed by one reporter on whether the fear of a lawsuit by Cobain's wife Courtney Love also had a role, van Sant finally admitted: "Yes, we were afraid she was going to sue us."

CAMERA-SHY DIRECTOR

Van Sant, who directed Nicole Kidman in the black comedy "To Die For" (1995) as well as Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting" (1997), said it is easier for him to be behind the camera rather than in front of it.

Van Sant told reporters that, even after two decades as a director and three appearances in front of the media frenzy at Cannes, he still feels out of place.

"I try to hide from the media," van Sant said. "I try not to think about it because it's enormous. Standing in front of all these photographers out there is enormous. There are thousands and thousands of pictures taken and you never see where they go."

FRENCH SUBTITLES AND ENGLISH MUMBLES

There's not a lot of dialogue in "Last Days" and some of the few lines delivered as intentional mumbles by actor Michael Pitt, who plays the character known as "Blake" that was inspired by Kurt Cobain, are simply unintelligible.

But French-speaking viewers were, ironically, afforded a deeper understanding of what the grunge rocker wired on drugs was actually saying during the 97-minute film -- thanks to the French subtitles.

Dialogue: Gus Van Sant
With "Last Days," a meditation on the last days of a Kurt Cobain-like rock star, Van Sant continues to develop the rigorous aesthetic he first experimented with in the Palme d'Or-winning "Elephant."

With "Last Days," a meditation on the last days of a Kurt Cobain-like rock star, Gus Van Sant continues to develop the rigorous aesthetic he first experimented with in "Gerry" and the Palme d'Or-winning "Elephant." Working once again with HBO Films, he trains his camera on actor Michael Pitt, playing a musician named Blake who is seemingly cut off from his mates in a dilapidated old house, isolated in a woodland setting that crackles with the sounds of the forest and a nearby river. Van Sant's film is intent on raising questions without imposing its own answers to the mysteries of the young man's unraveling existence. The filmmaker spoke with The Hollywood Reporter about the rules (or lack thereof) that govern his creative process and why he was interested in telling the story of an ill-fated performer.

The Hollywood Reporter: In making the film, did you begin with a set of rules that you set for yourself or did you discover those rules in the making of the movie?

Gus Van Sant: It's pretty much all discovered in the making of the films. The original idea, when we made "Gerry," was we didn't know what we were making. We just went into the desert. We had the story, but we didn't have a script or scenes. The experiment was to make it on the spot. We gave ourselves a few weeks to work up to it -- we didn't just start shooting one day. During the filming of "Gerry," we could have changed the story as we went along if that's what we collectively wanted to do, but none of us wanted to. The same with "Elephant" -- there was an outline. We pretty much followed the outline, but because we were shooting in order, we could always have changed it.

THR: The movies do seem to be following some rules, though -- there's minimal cutting within a scene, soundtracks full of heightened, natural sound. But it seems as if, unlike some of the Dogme 95 filmmakers, you do not begin by subscribing to a specific set of rules.

Van Sant: Some of the rules I think do come from Dogme 95, but they're not really rules, they are just adopted aesthetics. In Dogme, they have rules, but we're not as dogmatic. We have aesthetics that we like, but if we need a light, we'll just pull in a light -- we don't have a rule to break. But we're not using lights, which is one of the Dogme rules. One of the things Dogme does allow, which we're avoiding, is cutting. We're tying not to cut in a traditional manner. We're trying not to go over people's shoulders or show a point of view. We're trying to do tableaus, I guess you'd call them, which is our own kind of aesthetic. Where in Dogme, you use scripts, we're not using scripts. We're also trying -- but sometimes failing -- to not use well-known actors. We're trying to get away from the traditional grind, where you have the three recognizable stars and everyone is cast around that. We do have music we put in, which is against one of Dogme's rules, but when we put music in, if we start a song, we have to play a whole song. Sometimes we don't do that religiously, but we don't just use a small little music song cue that just picks up. If we play a song, we try to be committed to that song. The same with what we're looking at and whatever we're hearing. If we're looking at something, we really want to look at it. We just don't want to cut away to it for a second.

THR: The movie's sound design is very striking. How much of the sound is meant to represent Blake's point of view and how much just comes from the natural setting?

Van Sant: I don't know. It's like music. A lot of things can be from the character's point of view or it can be just the score of the film. But a lot of the time, I don't think that sound is happening unless Blake is present, so it is coming from him.

THR: You've had the idea for this film for a long time. What initially interested you in the subject of Kurt Cobain's death?

Van Sant: I had a big old house in Portland. It was the same era as Kurt and Courtney (Love)'s house. At one time, it was a party house, with different generations living there. The house had a kind of interesting vibe to it. I thought I could use my house as a location, and I could take a 16mm camera and with an actor, make a film really cheap. It was almost exactly what this film came out to be, except the character actually was 14 years old and not 23 years old. There weren't going to be any other characters, either. He was just going to be at home, doing things at home, which were sort of the things I would do at home. They were based on ideas of what somebody like Kurt really did do at home -- from stories I had heard, details, like what cereal he ate, things like that.

THR: But you yourself had only met Cobain briefly?

Van Sant: I only met him face to face once.

THR: It would seem to me an audience could watch this film without having any knowledge of the Kurt Cobain story -- though they then would have a different experience of the film. In your mind, what is the ideal audience for the film in terms of what information they bring with them?

Van Sant: I don't think you do need to have a knowledge (of Cobain's life). I've shown it to lots of different people, some who have no knowledge at all, and they respond maybe even in a better way. People who have knowledge of Kurt as a rock star, it could be an impediment to what you're watching or it could be a good thing. It sort of depends. A lot of people bring assumptions with them, but you can look at it simultaneously as just a character who is apparently returning home and sort of winding down.

THR: Bringing the film to Cannes, you inevitably will be asked to explain the character's -- and, by extension, Cobain's -- suicide. Are you likely to resist explaining the film?

Van Sant: I could explain it easily. It's not that hard to explain it, but it sort of wrecks it if I explain it. What I would explain is stuff that's happening on the screen. His death is a result of the things that are happening before it. He's sort of crawling away, trying to get in a space outside of his own life. The final deal is, he's found dead. It's sort of like the end note of his trying to escape, but that's pretty obvious. You see that in the film.

THR: "Last Days" like "Elephant" is so rigorous. How do you feel about premiering it amid the sometimes carnival atmosphere of Cannes?

Van Sant: I think that the Festival de Cannes is known for rigorous films. It's got this Riviera-like, tuxedo casino thing. But I think that's what makes Cannes kind of fantastic. You have this elegant, red-carpet, dinner party-like situation, and you have the films themselves. I think the films can be any type of film, which is great. I don't think Cannes is known for one type of film.

New Van Sant Movie Reflects on Kurt Cobain

*READ AT OWN RISK*

Gus Van Sant's new movie is a fictional reflection on how Nirvana rocker Kurt Cobain might have spent the days before his 1994 suicide: Watching television, wandering through his mansion, hiding from everyone who tries to help.

The impressionistic "Last Days" is competing for the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival two years after Van Sant won the honor with "Elephant," loosely based on the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School.

In blending fact and fiction again, Van Sant offers up a character in "Last Days" who's a famous but lonely musician named Blake, played by Michael Pitt ("The Dreamers"). Pitt has Cobain's shaggy blond hair, stubble and slouch.

Like Cobain, Blake is fond of macaroni and cheese, scribbles his thoughts in a notebook and sings in a desperate wail. And like Cobain, he escapes from a detox center before his final spiral into despair.

Beyond that, most events of the movie come from Van Sant's imagination. Nobody knows how Cobain spent the days before he wrote a suicide note, injected himself with heroin and fired a 20-gauge shotgun into his mouth.

"Those particular days are kind of lost days," Van Sant said. So the movie "was all a poetic exercise."

The film has an understated feel. There are no scenes of Blake taking drugs, and the death scene is off-camera. The focus is on small moments: Blake watches a Boyz II Men video, makes pasta, has a surreal dialogue with a door-to-door salesman.

Blake spends much of the movie muttering to himself and has little interaction with others. When hangers-on party at Blake's run-down mansion, dancing to the Velvet Underground's "Venus in Furs," they all but ignore him. The only times they approach him are to ask for money or favors.

Sonic Youth singer-bassist Kim Gordon plays a record company representative who tries to persuade Blake to check into rehab. She has a car waiting, but he ignores her.

"You really can only do so much to help someone," Gordon said. Winning success and fame, "Kurt was kind of removed or alienated by what he thought he wanted, and was kind of entrapped by it."

Van Sant said he has been thinking about the project for nearly a decade. At one stage, he wanted to do a Cobain biopic.

"I sort of entertained that for just a brief moment before I thought it would just turn into a kind of regular biopic that wasn't anything special," he said. "It would have been too much information."

Van Sant isn't sure how Cobain's fans and family will react to the film. He has talked to Courtney Love, Cobain's widow, several times over the years about his project, but he did not share details on their conversations.

The volatile Love wasn't with Cobain during his final days, and Van Sant did not cast an equivalent of her.

"There is a voice on the phone that you can think of as Blake's wife if you pushed it in that direction," he said. "But yeah, we were afraid that she was going to sue us."

trailer

http://www.allocine.fr/webtv/acvision.asp?nopub=1&cvid=18385337&emission=&player=ASF&debit=T

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Ffine_line_features%2Flast_days%2Flastdays_bigposter.jpg&hash=7483c1001f4fe749c4cd49eb4f9d606502701c49)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Ffine_line_features%2Flast_days%2Fmichael_pitt%2Flastdays7.jpg&hash=1bd389eaf48178f82659c75dea07c9e40b426d4f)

Trailer here. (http://www.lastdaysmovie.com/trailer/lastdays_high.mov)
 
Release Date: July 22nd, 2005 (limited)

Cast: Michael Pitt (Blake), Asia Argento (Asia), Lukas Haas, Scott Green, Nicole Vicius, Ricky Jay, Ryan Orion, Harmony Korine, Kim Gordon, Adam Friberg, Andy Friberg, and Thadeus A. Thomas

Director: Gus Van Sant (Gerry, Good Will Hunting, Drugstore Cowboy)

Screenwriter: Gus Van Sant

Premise: "Last Days" follows Blake, an introspective artist who is buckling under the weight of fame, through a handful of hours he spends in and near his wooded home, a fugitive from his own life. It is a period of random moments and fractured consciousness, fused by spontaneous bursts of rock & roll.

Based Upon: The film is inspired by the last hours of Kurt Cobain's life, but is entirely fictionalized.

This movie is beautiful.

It does fall short of the perfection of 'Gerry,' but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. Definitely the best film of the year thus far, as far as my opinion goes.

when and how did you see it?

Quote from: lamaswhen and how did you see it?

a.) 10am this morning
b.) because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people care about my opinion.

Quote from: cowboykurtis

Quote from: GhostboyThat's kind of like saying he couldn't get the rights to do an ACTUAL Columbine movie, but that's simply not the case.

i think elephant was different - it was dealing with a widespread "epidemic" of school shootings - columbine was not the only one( it may have been the most publicized however)

this is about ONE person's life and advertised as a film about " a musician whose life and career is reminiscent of Kurt Cobain's."

elephant wasn't advertised as "a film about  a school shooting reminiscent of Columbine"

boogie night wasn't advertised as " a film about a porn actor reminiscent of  john holmes"

Having just viewed that trailer only further soldifies my opinion - labeling this "a film of musician whose life and career is reminiscent of Cobain"...is just bullshit -- it's not as if Gus took the "narrative arc" of cobain life to develop a story - he cast someone that looks exactly like Cobain/dresseed him exactly like Cobain/has him sing exactly like Cobain - this film is about Cobain - he just couldnt get the rights.

I halfway rescind my original statement that Van Sant didn't want to make a biopic of Cobain - because in interviews at Cannes, he revealed that there was a time when he did, and indeed, he couldn't get the rights. However, he also said that by the time he got around to making this film, he wasn't interested in the biopic idea at all anymore and wanted to explore the possibilities of a looser adaptation.

Pitt looks sorta like Cobain in the film, does dress exactly like him and plays similar-sounding music (it actually sounds more like Bright Eyes, when you hear the whole song). There are a few other allusions, as well, but they are exactly that: allusions. Without them, no one would have a clue who this character is - the story allows for no exposition, and the allusions provide a valuable context.

There is a title card at the end saying that it's inspired by Cobain, and the film is dedicated to him as well - but it's very clearly fictional.

i don't give a rat's ass about Kurt Cobain yet i'm very interested in seeing this film.  i have no interest in watching a step-by-step factual retelling of Kurt Cobain's life, but what's intriguing to me is the level of artistic licensing Van Sant can take because this film isn't specifically about Cobain.

this is screening up the street in queens tomorrow but i guess i'm not gonna go because if it's not quite as good as gerry i will probably not enjoy it.  i might to see the island though!

Quote from: lamaswhat's intriguing to me is the level of artistic licensing Van Sant can take because this film isn't specifically about Cobain.

Have you seen the poster?

This film is about KURT COBAIN'S "Last Days" before blowing his head off.

I don't understand why people are so hesitant to embrace that.

It's not about his last days specifically, it's about what might have happened, and Van Sant uses an avatar to give himself more freedom to explore this. The character's name isn't Kurt, and

SPOILER (kind of)

he doesn't blow his head off.

I don't see why you're so loathe to entertain the idea of artistic interpretation.

Quote from: GhostboyIt's not about his last days specifically, it's about what might have happened, and Van Sant uses an avatar to give himself more freedom to explore this. The character's name isn't Kurt, and

SPOILER (kind of)

he doesn't blow his head off.

I don't see why you're so loathe to entertain the idea of artistic interpretation.

First off, i haven't seen this, so any response i have is an assumption - - all i can do is respond to the "idea" of what this film seems to be -

With that said -

The character's name is inconsequential - Obviously every person going into this film is watching the protagonists actions as if it was Kurt Cobain.
Van Sant went out of the way to make sure of that - with the content as well as the marketing - he very deliberately planted this contextual seed -

I don't have a probelm with artistic interpretation - However to use a real person, who tragically took his own life, and trivialize it by "artistically interpreting" who he was, in what is most likely an inaccurate account; i just find boring - but above all else - irresponsible.

Whether or not his intentions are of that to trivialize (im sure they aren't, for if he made a film about kobain, he obviously respects him), the effect of making a film about a extreemly recognized persona and invent his own interpreation, has the potential of slandering, discrediting, trivializing, etc...

I just know that I woudn't want someone (gus van sant of all people) "artistically interpreting" my life, without consent.

I think embracing van Sant artistic pursuit in this case is bullshit - I think his artistic choices were made out of legal reasons rather than creative approaches. As you said GhostBoy, he wanted to do a Cobain biopic and couldn't get the rights, so he molded it into a film where he wouldn't be sued. If you can't get the rights, you don't do the film - for me, it discredits van sant's intergrity as a filmmaker.

However this whole discussion is cyclical - becuase not knowing any of this bullshit backstory, the film is probably beautiful - out of context, in and of itself --

i wish i didn't know all of this so i could walk in unaffected - i most likely will not even bother seeing it, for the those reasons...

Well, I know the whole name difference is trivial, but I referenced that more as a jumping point.

Quote from: cowboykurtis
I don't have a probelm with artistic interpretation - However to use a real person, who tragically took his own life, and trivialize it by "artistically interpreting" who he was, in what is most likely an inaccurate account; i just find boring - but above all else - irresponsible.

I guess we have to agree to disagree here, because I think that it would have been irresonsible to do anything else (re: dreck like 'Ray'). It is most certainly inaccurate to Cobain's last days and hours, because no one knows what he was going through, or even the events of what happened (unless the whole conspiracy things is true, which I don't really buy, but I digress).

But to attempt to explore on film the mindset of a person who goes through what Cobain might have gone through - to attempt to understand - that seems entirely honorable, and far less 'boring' than a standard biopic. The 'why' is something no one can know, but everone can wonder, and what this is is Van Sant wondering and trying to come to terms with what a person must be going through when they reach that breaking point.

Van Sant was interested in the biopic way before he did Gerry, Psycho, Good Will Hunting - obviously, he lost interest in telling the story directly, but did not lose interest in the underlying ideas, the psychology of the story.

I mean, would you honestly prefer the upcoming TV biopic 'Heavier Than Heaven' to this? Because it's coming, so you'll be able to take your pick. I'd rather see something that adds to my gently and subtly adds to perception of the figure, as opposed to something telling me that 'this is how it happened,' which is what biopics imply.

Of course, your answer might be that they shouldn't make a biopic at all, but that's sort of a moot point. Additionally, you seem to not be a Van Sant fan - so that could be the main point of contention right there.

excellent discussion. no one resorted to childish name calling (usually stemming from repressed homosexuality and self-loathing), over-defensiveness, and all admitted the extent to which their statements could be substantiated. no retards here, that's for sure.

well done  :yabbse-thumbup:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1627%2Farticle.jpg&hash=d16c1ba7a37ec4a3c6e3aa45bc0868f14db291d0)

Since Michael Pitt first made his big splash in films like Bully and Hedwig and the Angry Inch, many journalists have been calling him the next big thing in acting. With performances in The Dreamers and Wonderland he may just be proving them right.

Now he is a playing a Kurt Cobain like rock star in Gus Van Sant’s Last Days.

Daniel Robert Epstein: When did you become involved in “Last Days?” Director Gus Van Sant was saying you have been involved for years.

Michael Pitt: Maybe three years ago. Originally, Gus [Van Sant] had a couple of other people in mind. He was in between projects. He always has like five or six ideas he’s always talking about, and then he just mentioned this one day. I got really animated and was like, “You have to make this film,” and he was like, “I was actually thinking about you as the main character.” I really didn’t believe him at the time. I thought he was cool, but I thought he was a little misguided, because I was a big fan and I had lot of respect for him

DRE: Do you remember where you were when Kurt Cobain killed himself?

MP: I do, but I wasn’t a fan then. When I was younger, I really didn’t see the change, or impact, that he had. All I saw was that everyone was a fan by that point, and I naturally gravitated away from that.

DRE: What albums or songs attracted you to them?

MP: It was Bleach and Incesticide. I’m actually not that good with song names, but for me, the most impressive album is Incesticide and all the B sides. That album is amazing. For me, that album is what’s going to keep it alive, as opposed to Nevermind. Nevermind was a big success, but those other albums were when their success wasn’t as big. For me, [Incesticide] is what’s going to keep it going.

DRE: Did you study a lot of footage of Kurt Cobain for the role?

MP: I had [already] seen everything, but then I revisited things. I was able to look at some personal footage.

DRE: Did you connect to the experience of being in a band while creating the character of Blake?

MP: I think musicians are all different. We weren’t doing remakes of concerts and [explaining] how they came up with certain riffs, which is all just fucking hearsay. It was more about the last 3 days of his life. Definitely, his success and profession was a factor, but I was thinking more about his life, his wife, and his child.

DRE: Do you have mixed feelings about success?

MP: I think success is subjective. It sounds cliché, but success is your friends, your family, what you do, and if you’re happy when you wake up.

DRE: What kind of strategy, if any, do you have for choosing each role?

MP: There’s a bit of strategy that goes from one character to the next. It’s about changing perception, but I really just do things that interest me.

DRE: Being a musician, did you have any input as far as the music for “Last Days?”

MP: I didn’t really write the music for the film. Well, the last song “From Death to Birth” was a song I wrote a long time ago. Any reservation I had about doing this film was based on me being a fan [of Cobain] and dealing with that. Another big factor was my own music, and I didn’t want it to appear that I was trying to benefit [from] a song that I wrote. So, basically, the concept I came up with was that if I make music on the film, it will be improvised and it will be what happens that day. That is what I did, like in the first song. In the last scene we did about 7 or 8 takes, and each take I made up a song. It was something that said: This is a musician, he’s playing a song but there’s no confusion. And then Gus, in the last take, said, “Play that song,” and then I think Thurston [Moore the film’s music coordinator] suggested that we put that song in. I trust Gus and I trust Thurston.

DRE: Was Van Sant very rigid with the script or did he give you freedom?

MP: The whole film was improvised. The shoot was seventeen days. There was a map, no dialogue, and there are a lot of the scenes that are in the movie that weren’t written. I like working like that. Even when there is a script, I try and do that, but you can’t always do that. [For me], it’s the first time where it has been the whole thing. If you’re going to do a film like that, as a director, it can be so fucking great. You have to seriously trust the people you’re working with and make sure you can still make your vision with everyone’s input, which is amazing because he [Van Sant] just does it. Sometimes its eerie, because it doesn’t even matter what you do. Some directors have very strong egos and they say, “No, don’t put the cup there, put it here.” And Gus is like, “Put the cup wherever you want. You can put it across the room.”

DRE: How did you meet Aaron Woodley and get to do “Rhinoceros Eyes”?

MP: That film came to me. To be honest, it was the only original thing that I got. I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but I don’t care. I have issues with that film, because, at one point, they didn’t hand over total control to Aaron. You decide to do a film with someone, and that’s who you want to do a film with. It was the first feature for him, so it probably upsets him less because he got to make his movie.

DRE: What was it like working with Bernardo Bertolucci in “The Dreamers?”

MP: It was intense. It was a lot of things. Here was this director that is revered, and I’m starring in it. I was in Europe, alone for three months, and I was the only American. I feel like the relationship between actor and director is maybe different in Europe, but that’s probably not true. There was this thing where it was like: You’re the actor and I’m the director. At first, me and Bertolucci were very much going head to head. Part of it was because he wasn’t used to me trying to be so involved, and part of it was me not knowing how to present things. But once we got that figured that out, it was amazing. I would get an idea and I would scream it in the middle of the shoot. I remember thinking this was a good idea, and then Bertolucci would stand up and look around and say, “Does anyone care to have this movie directed by Michael Pitt?” It was completely humiliating and I realized that you don’t yell out on set, you talk in private and you explain what you don’t like. I think when actors give their input, it can be very ego-driven and directors are scared of that. He saw it wasn’t about my ego, and more about the film and about making him look good and doing a good job for him.

DRE: Would you have done this film if it was a strict biographical account of Kurt Cobain?

MP: I don’t know, to tell you the truth. The hard thing is that I really respect Gus. It’s just my opinion, but I think he’s the most important American director we have. He takes the most risks. He’s just pure to me. So it’s this weird thing where maybe I would have done it. But I also respect him enough that, if I didn’t feel like I could do it, I wouldn’t say, “Yea I can do it” and just reap the benefits.

DRE: What are you planning on doing next? I hear that you are going to work with Steve Buscemi?

MP: That’s not a go yet. Right now I’m just working on my music mostly. We recorded last summer, and right now we’re trying to figure out how to release it. I think we’re going to go an independent route, so it’s going to be a longer process. I play guitar and sing.

DRE: Do you have a preference between music and acting?

MP: The day someone put money in my hand for a job, I bought a guitar and figured it out. I was like 18 or 19, which is pretty late. I was always a fan of music. The acting, I don’t know really how it happened. I was the only thing I though I could do well, and I was fascinated as a kid. I would just watch movies all day long, and then I moved to New York and just went for it.

DRE: You started out in the theater. Are you ever going to go back to it?

MP: I think I should. First job was “The Trestle at Pope Lick Creek.”

DRE: Do you have good memories working with director Larry Clark in “Bully?”

MP: That was the first time I think I felt at home. I didn’t have to pretend. No one was going to judge, and no one’s going to think I’m a freak. I can just work. For “Bully,” they wouldn’t really see me, because I wasn’t on the list. So I went to Larry’s house, and I was like, “Read me, Read me.” That was the part that I could get, and I was lucky to get that.. The part was actually smaller on the page, but he just let me riff

DRE: Do you want to direct?

MP: Yes, I want to direct. I have like three projects in mind, but I think I’ve been out of it too long to direct a theater piece.

i hate this kid.

I don't like him either. He reminds me of a ghetto Ethan Hawke still trying to be a slacker 10 years later.

I do wanna see this though. I love how Van Sant can have just quiet soft moments in his movies that are never boring and always exciting.

On a side note, I see Harmony Korine in the cast list, what does he do in the film? What part does he play in reference (homage?) to Nirvana?

He's just some guy at a rave/party.

I like him  :yabbse-thumbup:

he was in dawson's creek, go figure.

Full review here (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/reviews/archives/2005/07/last_days.html) (although I may edit it when I wake up in the morning and decide its too melodramatic).

Cobain's 'Last Days' inspire Van Sant movie

Director Gus Van Sant's new film may be dedicated to and inspired by Kurt Cobain, but moviegoers hoping for a sensationalistic look at the suicide of the Nirvana rocker won't find it in "Last Days."

The film, which stars Michael Pitt ("The Dreamers") as a musician hiding out in his enormous stone house from his career, his family and his parasitic hangers-on, opened in New York and Los Angeles on Friday.

Contemplative rather than reportorial, "Last Days" eschews many of the conventions of mainstream narrative movies, although with "Good Will Hunting" to his credit, Van Sant is no stranger to more crowd-pleasing fare.

Like the director's previous two films, "Last Days" uses a real-life incident as a point of artistic departure. "Gerry" (2002) centered on two hikers stranded in the desert, and "Elephant," which won the top award at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003, followed a group of high school students in the days before a shooting rampage similar to the one at Columbine.

Like those movies, Van Sant's imagining of Cobain's final descent in 1994 is interested less in answers than in suggestion and observation.

"There isn't really one answer," the director said in a recent interview. "If there is, I tend to think that the answers become sort of like scapegoats. People want answers in the same way that they want the culprit. It doesn't matter if the guy or girl was really responsible for the crime, so long as you have somebody to hang by the tree."

But complicated questions like death, suicide and mass murder, he says, defy simple answers. "We show instances of what may be bothering our character in 'Last Days,' but we don't say, 'This is for sure the reason."'

Van Sant was drawn to the final chapter of Cobain's saga precisely because there is so little information about it.

What is known is that Cobain, battling heroin addiction, a chronic stomach ailment and creative insecurity, spent his last days in virtual solitude before retreating to the greenhouse of his Seattle home and putting a shotgun to his mouth. His body was not discovered for several days.

The film follows the Cobain-inspired character in long takes while he tries to protect his troubled solitude from a variety of colleagues, friends and strangers, including four stoned hangers-on living in his house. (Pitt contributes his own musical compositions; there are no Nirvana songs in the film).

For his ensemble, Van Sant uses both professional actors (Lukas Haas, Ricky Jay, Asia Argento) and first-timers like musician Kim Gordon of veteran indie rock band Sonic Youth.

Van Sant creates an atmosphere of seclusion and disconnection in the film, which was shot mostly in and around a 19th century castle in upstate New York.

"There is no story," Van Sant said with a laugh. "There's a direction, but there's no setup."

I saw Ebert & Roeper's review last night. Ebert appreciated it with a thumbs up and Roeper hated it with thumbs down. But Roeper also didn't like "Gerry" so I wouldn't put too much stock in his reviews on Gus Van Sant films.

how could somebody not like Gerry?  :ponder:

Quote from: themodernage02how could somebody not like Gerry?  :ponder:

hahaha...

Quote from: FinnEbert appreciated it with a thumbs up and Roeper hated it with thumbs down.

oh, so THAT's what the thumbs mean..

Quote from: MacGuffinLike those movies, Van Sant's imagining of Cobain's final descent in 1994 is interested less in answers than in suggestion and observation.

"There isn't really one answer," the director said in a recent interview. "If there is, I tend to think that the answers become sort of like scapegoats. People want answers in the same way that they want the culprit. It doesn't matter if the guy or girl was really responsible for the crime, so long as you have somebody to hang by the tree."

oh god, another ball-less waste of celluloid coming from the van sant camp, where he just assembles media cliches and insight-free speculations and pretends to not have a point of view.

Yeah, it didn't seem to have much context. Unless you already know the story of Cobain.
I think I liked it ok. better than Elefant.
I did like the music though.

yeah Gus Van Sant always uses the best music. I loved the soundtracks to "My Own Private Idaho", "Gerry", "Elephant" and "Good Will Hunting".

I haven't been so up-to-date on Xixax lately, so this has probably been mentioned before, but I was under the impression that the songs performed in some way were original.
Is there any truth to that?
I really liked that "Severin" song.

Quote from: ranemaka13I haven't been so up-to-date on Xixax lately, so this has probably been mentioned before, but I was under the impression that the songs performed in some way were original.
Is there any truth to that?
I really liked that "Severin" song.

Quote from: On Page 3's interview, MacGuffinDRE: Being a musician, did you have any input as far as the music for "Last Days?"

Michael Pitt: I didn't really write the music for the film. Well, the last song "From Death to Birth" was a song I wrote a long time ago. Any reservation I had about doing this film was based on me being a fan [of Cobain] and dealing with that. Another big factor was my own music, and I didn't want it to appear that I was trying to benefit [from] a song that I wrote. So, basically, the concept I came up with was that if I make music on the film, it will be improvised and it will be what happens that day. That is what I did, like in the first song. In the last scene we did about 7 or 8 takes, and each take I made up a song. It was something that said: This is a musician, he's playing a song but there's no confusion. And then Gus, in the last take, said, "Play that song," and then I think Thurston [Moore the film's music coordinator] suggested that we put that song in. I trust Gus and I trust Thurston.

Thanks, Mac.

I don't wanna seem like a lazyass, but the interweb's not cheap here and I'm never given alot of time, so I'd rather not spend what little time I have searching for something.

I knew you'd understand. :-D

achingly beautiful but lesser film of van sant's trio.  michael pitt's performance is fantastic, harris savides's cinematography is perfect.  the use of sound, though, is especially noteworthy--it's genius.  the attempt at transcendence at the very end is obvious but still has an affect that, while not the one van sant was going for, i'm assuming, is still memorable and riveting, though not quite transcendental.

i'll be surprised if that makes sense to anyone.  for now, it does to me.  the film's great, "one of the best of the year."

I want to see this. Looks great.

Also, have any of you see The Brown Bunny? It's been causing a lot of controversy because of it's "popular scene", but the reason I bring it up it's somewhat in the same catagory of Gus Van Sant's newest movies (Gerry, Elephant). Those slow-moving, beautifully shot type movies.

Thread on The Brown Bunny (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1549&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=brown+bunny&start=0)
The Search Engine, aka your best friend (http://www.xixax.com/search.php)
Welcome to Xixax.  Say something about yourself here (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=196172#196172).

End brief Pubrick impersonation.

Quote from: stitchmark.Those slow-moving, beautifully shot type movies.

you mean those "alternative" movies?  I dunno, I think I'll just stick to Alamo.

Quote from: stitchmark.Gus Van Sant's newest movies (Gerry, Elephant).

so THATS what he's been doing since Finding Forrester...

Saw this yesterday.  I was pretty impressed coming out of the theater, but it hasn't left my head since then.  I'm tempted to say that since the movie doesn't have a tradional story arc or anything that you really have to know about Kurt Cobain to enjoy it.  But yeah you can 86 that last sentance.

There is one scene, which also happens to be one shot, that the whole movie boils down to(at least for me).  This is when we first see Blake actually playing some music.  I'm not so sure what it is exactly but that one shot framed up on the window and the slow creeping dolly back as you witness Blake create something... it's just a powerful image for me.

As usual Savides captures some striking visuals, but as someone else noted the sound design here is awesome.  Everything you see and hear really adds to the overall tone of the film.  I find it interesting that Van Sant edited this himself, but I now see that he did the same on Gerry and Elephant.

Solid film, if you want answers about Cobains death you should go elsewhere.

that was quick...

Title: Gus Van Sant's Last Days
Released: 25th October 2005
SRP: $27.95

Further Details
Warner has officially announced Gus Van Sant's Last Days which stars Lukas Haas, Michael Pitt and Asia Argento. The film introduces us to Blake, a brilliant, but troubled musician. Success has left him in a lonely place, where livelihoods rest on his shoulders and old friends regularly tap him for money and favors. The film follows Blake through a handful of hours spent in and near his wooded home... a fugitive from his own life. The disc will be available to own from the 25th October, priced at around $27.95. The film itself will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extras will include deleted scenes, a music video, outtakes and more. We've attached the artwork at the link below: http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=7415&n=1&burl=

Great! Since I'm in the south where hardly any indie films come here, I was really anticipating the DVD release. That's pretty quick for any film but particularly one by Gus Van Sant. His other DVD's took about 7-8 months to get to stores.

Well I fucking liked this.  I think it's the best of Van Sant's death trilogy; each film has bested the previous one.  For me, "Gerry" was intolerable.  I liked "Elephant" quite a lot -- even though there were scenes that I felt were totally unnecessary.  Case in point: the shooters making out in the shower.  Van Sant seems to be obsessed with arbitrary gay make out scenes...he has one in this film, too.  

With all the strikes against it though, this film left with me something.  I think about it a lot.  The sound designs in this movie felt a little arbitrary sometimes, and at others they worked as nice companions to the images.  Glad heroin use wasnt shown.  That boyz 2 men video was fucking hilarious!  Jesus.  A friend of mine noted that the foot pedal "Blake" uses wasnt made until like 2000.  Same with the Marshall amp...

I credit the film for making the choices it did in regard to showing parallel stories.  In how it followed "Blake" around.  In barring access to him...yet at the same time, it's more than any of his friends got and I think van sant was trying to make us feel priveleged when we followed him inside his garden house to be alone with him, or watch him develop music as killafilm rightly pointed out.  It was a real good scene.

Ive decided I like the "ascension" scene at the end.  Those whove seen the film know what Im talking about...ballsy, wasn't sure what I thought of it at the time, but that was a needed release for us.  In a way it justified the film, I felt. :violin:

label your spoils please.

just saw it, i liked it but elephant is better.  love the shot near the ending, anyone whose seen it knows the one i'm talking about, super imposition.  the great location added rich atmosphere to the entire film.  i really liked the shots too.

still though, there was something slightly off about the film and i can't quite explain what it is.  i loved gerry and elephant but this one only gets a good movie status in my eyes.

-sl-

my favorite movie of the year.

is it me or is this the second time now in a movie where Ricky Jay says "coroner's report."

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1687%2Farticle.jpg&hash=f0cf0aab3d774370ccf7147b4e50609f43796c76)

Gus Van Sant has made many films which have become touchstones for generations such as Drugstore Cowboy, Good Will Hunting and Elephant. His latest one, Last Days, tackles the early 90’s by doing a fictional story of the last three days of Kurt Cobain’s life. The Cobain-like character [played by Michael Pitt] wanders around his desolate property inviting in Mormons and salesmen to say whatever they want to him while he grunts. The various supporting characters drift in and out of the film almost like dreams. Last Days chronicles the story of a man who has everything but is very depressed.

Daniel Robert Epstein: When did you think of doing Last Days?

Gus Van Sant: I thought of doing it in 1994. First I was interested in doing something biographical about Kurt Cobain. I stopped working with that idea really fast because it started to seem like The Doors. At one point in 1992, I wanted to do the same thing except with dolls, because I was into dolls at that moment. You would be distanced enough that it would be interesting. Then I wrote about two pages and stopped.

DRE: Was it similar to what director Todd Haynes did with Superstar: The Karen Carpenter story?

GUS: I actually did ask Todd if he would mind if I used dolls and he said that lots of people before him used dolls. Then I thought I should do something not about Kurt, but about this other character. It would be interesting to do something about a time that didn’t exist and an unknown last couple of days as an idea.

DRE: How did you go about writing the screenplay?

GUS: It was based on really small things. What really happened to Kurt wasn’t that interesting. He was missing and then was found dead. Those last three days were really plain. He did simple things around his house. The first person I tried to cast was Holger Thaarup, who I saw in a short film festival. He was an actor in Thomas Vinterberg’s The Boy Who Walked Backwards. I visited with him and met Vinterberg in 1995. Then a couple of years later I dropped the idea and didn’t get around to doing it. Then I met Mike Pitt when he was 17 and he looked a lot like Holger. I said I wanted to do this story about this rock star walking around his house. Mike was on board and six years went by.

DRE: Does commercial success mean much to you right now?

GUS: I’m not sure if it does now or has before. I don’t think I’ve ever calculated anything. For me, calculations end up making you do something you don’t want to do in the first place and you could lose anyway.

DRE: Would you characterize a lot of your movies as slow?

GUS: Well, slow enough so that certain things happen that don’t necessarily happen when things are faster. It’s just a way to get around a style in which we’re sort of used to looking at things really quickly. Once we see it, we know it and off to the next thing, whether it’s a steaming cup of coffee that somebody has just poured in a restaurant, or the lead character or whatever. You don’t ever really get a chance to look at what that thing is. It’s sort of like shorthand. In order to construct a story, you’re not really pondering what you’re looking at. This film is just a way to do it in a little bit of a different way, so you’re allowed to think other things.

DRE: How did you cast the minor characters of Last Days, such as the Yellow Pages salesman and the Mormons?

GUS: Well the Yellow Pages salesman was a real Yellow Pages salesman and the two Mormon guys were from Aberdeen, Washington. They looked like Mormons. We didn’t know that they would be Mormons right off the bat but as we rehearsed, we thought that would be good.

DRE: Did writing the severe depression of Blake’s character affect you at all while you were writing the script?

GUS: I think it does work on you in different ways. You do sort of feel the film, but it wasn’t too terrible. I thought of him as someone who may have been frustrated and angry, but he was trying to carve out some space for himself. I don’t think it was anything he hadn’t dealt with before, but he was maybe making assumptions. At one second in his life he decided to pull the trigger, but once he did that he couldn’t get back.

DRE: How did you structure the story?

GUS: Originally there were three different stories, sort of like Elephant. One of the stories was the detective, another story was the character Asia [Argento] played and the third story was Blake’s character. The other characters, even in the writing stages, weren’t holding up, so I kind of abbreviated those guys. We shot more footage than what was in the film and even further abbreviated those guys. We tended to want to be more with the central character in Blake. In Elephant, the kids had equal footing. In this film, it is more about this one guy, so it started to morph into something it wasn’t originally designed to be.

DRE: Do you feel Last Days dispels any of the rock star clichés?

GUS: I think it sort of supports it. It’s saying that the cliché is real. The cliché being, if you give someone what they want, they’ll go off the deep end. I guess that’s part of cliché. A cliché could also be Arnold Schwarzenegger running for public office. That’s a positive cliché.

DRE: Has the rest of Nirvana or Courtney Love responded to Last Days?

GUS: They haven’t seen it, but I offered it to Krist Novoselic and Courtney Love because I know them. I explained it to them. For me, I want them to see it because I like the film. I understand that this is a huge, traumatic thing in their life and they had their own relationship to Kurt. They really don’t need to see a movie by somebody else that’s outside of that. You also don’t want to dwell on it because it’s such a tragedy.

DRE: Do your films relate to any of your own past experiences?

GUS: In Elephant, I could very much relate to my past high school experiences. I went to a pretty big high school. It wasn’t so much Columbine itself; it was just the whole idea of the things that made up Columbine, which I think everyone experienced even if you went to a small high school. In Last Days, I think it’s about someone who is trying to get away from his own life or responsibility. Things are overtaking him in his last days, and I think I can relate to that and others can as well. Maybe it’s a long and overdrawn version of going home in a bad mood, but it’s sort of an epic version of that. You sort of wake up the next morning and everything’s okay, but when you first get home it’s not okay at all. It’s that sort of thing that’s going on in Gerry. I very much related to that, just because I’ve been lost a couple of times in the desert.

DRE: Are you happy with the Criterion Collection release of My Own Private Idaho?

GUS: I helped work on it. It’s really good, I’m really impressed.

DRE: Criterion implements a lot of extra footage in their DVD releases. Do you usually have a lot of extra material in your films?

GUS: We don’t really shoot a lot of other material. I know that’s what they like to do. Elephant didn’t really have much. In Last Days there are other people doing similar things to what Blake is doing. Asia takes a bath; Nicole wakes up. The Mormon boys go on for like a ten minutes.

DRE: Is there a reason you make so many films about young people?

GUS: I don’t really know how to answer that, except the movies that weren’t about young people didn’t get financed and the ones that were, did. It’s a pretty graceful time in person’s life so I’m attracted to that side of it. It’s also an unknown time, everyone’s most volatile time and most important time of growing. If we were asked what our favorite music was, it would be something we were listening to at 18. There’s something about that time that we just don’t grow out of.

DRE: You have made music videos in the past. Do you plan on directing them again?

GUS: I’ve tried to avoid music videos. I started to feel I didn’t have the freedom to do what I wanted to do. I was under the impression that they were easier to make than commercials, but commercials might, in some ways, be easier. In music videos, the band’s the product and the product talks and thinks. If you’re selling something like Ivory liquid, at least the product itself doesn’t talk to you. The people around it do, but with the band it’s really difficult.

DRE: So do you plan on directing commercials again?

GUS: No, I haven’t really done those either. I’ve been offered them, but I avoid them. It’s easier to work on stuff I really want to get done.

DRE: What are you doing next?

GUS: I’m adapting The Time Traveler’s Wife [written by Audrey Niffenegger]. It’s a good book.

DRE: What drew you to The Time Traveler’s Wife?

GUS: Well I’ve just started so I don’t know what I can say, except that I’m attempting it. It’s just an interesting point of view of a classic love story. The time travel is interesting compared to the literal time I’ve used in my films.

Just watched it. I thought it was great.

Least visually appealing of the 3 'young and dead' trilogy, but i cared about Blake much more than i cared about Gerry and Gerry or any of the high school kids. It's probably because i associate Blake with Cobain and Elliott Smith, but ah well. The characters in Elephant bugged me, they were way too stereotypical, but i suppose that's what Van Sant was going for.

I think it has more replay value than Gerry, 'cause of shorter shots and more dialogue etc.

The music was great, I was fucking delighted to hear 'Venus in Furs' by the Velvet Underground in there. Pitt's Nirvana-esque music was great too.

Ending was a little anti-climactic, but i guess that was the point. I expected Blake to be on his knees and shoot himself with his gun. (I expected him to be on his knees as the Boyz II Men song was called 'Bended Knees' and the last line sung by Lou Reed on 'Venus in Furs' was 'Severin, down on your bended knee'. Maybe Van Sant did it just to trick us.)

Anyhoo, I thought it was grand.

Just watched it.  Loved it.  Favorite film of 2005 so far.

I love how Van Sant shoots everything from a clinically detached distance, letting shots linger on.  There is a fly-on-the-wall quality, of a camera recording found behavior, rather than staged behavior.  

Beautifully composed shots, with subtle eye-catching details.  

I was never bored.  There was a sense of narrative drive, very low key of course, but with slow and subtle mounting tension.

This film reminded me of Performance, with Mick Jagger playing a reclusive rock star who lives a hermetically sealed existence.

Just showing the everyday details of Blake's life tells us more than all the speeches and obvious dialogue in Almost Famous.

A less confident director than Van Sant would cut away to Geffen Records, where worried executives would fret over the delivery of the next album.  "I don't need to remind you, gentlemen, what's at stake -- if Blake's new album doesn't move five milliion units, our record label is going out of business."  

I love the Boys II Men video -- it gives us some specific context.  I had forgotten all about that band.  The preppy Lionel Richie clones provide a startling contrast to Blake's grungy music and lifestyle.  It also shows what Blake/Cobain was rebelling against -- the blandness of mainstream culture.

i was so close to blind buying this today but just staring at the cover and knowing that  its loosely based on cobain made me sick again.  and then i remebered michael pitts awful hey jope shit from the dreamers dvd...and i couldnt buy it.  but i liked gerry and elephunt alot...so, i feel that i need to finish the trilogy.  but i cant stand cobian..seriously, anyone who would actaully want tyo fuck[i.e. have sex] with courtney love and marry her.  thast doesn tsay much about yourself.  i keepi thinkign that thsi film is goign to be very cliched and reek of the missunderstood intro-verted songwriter..........am i right.or is thsi acatully worth buying/seeing?

if you own the other two i say buy it because i say it's just as good.  i wouldn't personally buy it, but definitley see it.  i'd say it's one of the best movies of the year but i haven't seen any movies this year.  i still gotta see a bunch of these fall movies that excite me.  

on an unrelated note, i had a dream last night where gus van sant was the vice president and was assasinated.  i wonder what the freudian interpretation of that would be.

Quote from: JimmyGatoron an unrelated note, i had a dream last night where gus van sant was the vice president and was assasinated.  i wonder what the freudian interpretation of that would be.

It means you hate gays.  I bet you didn't know that about yourself!

EDIT stupid question

Quote from: JimmyGatoron an unrelated note, i had a dream last night where gus van sant was the vice president and was assasinated.  i wonder what the freudian interpretation of that would be.

I thought Freud analyzed behavior, not dreams?

well whoever analyzes dreams.

Jung

Freud dabbled in dreams.

In his dreams.

He wrote a book about it. for real.

Oh okay then.

This film is rolling around in my head right now.  All I know right now is that I really liked it and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Spoilers?

Kim Gordon is listed as "record executive", but I wonder if she was playing herself as she represented what might have been going through his head at the time.

I wonder a lot of things.. I'm gonig to need to buy this.

I watched this movie last Tuesday. Terrific. Not up there with Gerry but better than Elephant. Michael Pitt was awesome. It's the kind of performance that sticks with you but doesn't get the awards it deserves.

One of my faves of the year for sure. Best enjoyed in a half-awake, totally relaxed state. Cause if you watch this on a caffeine high or feelin' ansty, you'll be TORTURED.
And that bit where Kurt-oops, I mean Blake....belts out that mean guitar/drum solo in that long shot was one of the coolest things ever.
Oh and that shot at the end...that shot...scares me.

Once again Van Sant goes for fake artistry. I didn't believe in the worth of Elephant, I am once again unconvinced by Last Days. His worth for me only descends. Last Days stands as one of the worst films of the year.

*spoilers*
First, the easy summation of the film: It's an orgy. It is the reminents of a film where the character got to a point and descended into an abyss. Last Days focuses on that long abyss that starts nowhere and exactly ends there. His vision is for purity in cinema. He tries to keep himself from perscribing to usual film language.

Thing is, he doesn't succeed. The beginning of the film is to articulate how lost Blake is. Wandering through the woods, he meanders and swims in a river only to get out and piss in the water. The telling part is that as he begins to piss, the film cuts away. That cut says the director wanted to get across what the meaning of his pissing in the lake means. To cut away right then is to leave the audience knowing that as the final action of the scene. It is superficial film language and worst, a superficial way of showing a man who has lost all self respect. Then there is when he walks into his house. Dishes are everywhere in the bathroom and naked bodies upstairs too strung out to get up. The clutter around his house is suppose to mean, again, his loss of reality and such. It presents character introspection almostly as crudely as an orgy does for deviation. Stanley Kauffmann and Dwight Mcdonald both scoffed at the idea of orgies for dramatic development by saying it sheds all insight to thought and speculation into the scene or character and allowed the most obvious and overblown idea of presenting the theme, usually deviation, to drip in. For Kurt Cobain, a notorious drug addict, presenting strung out nude bodies and a nearly destroyed house is the worst way to present him because its the most obvious way. It is so overblown it is a hammer to the skull just for what it means.

Then, correlation to what this film represents. It is really a tour through this man's last hours in the grimmest way. His walk to death is our only true vantage point. We witness the coming death as we were witness to someone painstakingly drawing a chalk out line for a dead body. As much as the film mostly succeeds for this task, I have to beg the question: what worth is there in it? As much as the film is a recreation of Cobain's death, there is little imagination or sense of creation in this film. Like I said before, it brings to the table the very obvious traits one would expect of such an ordeal. Then much of the film is the character walking from here to there. Michael Pitt has little to contribute besides no showers for a week. It seems to me that when a filmmaker dares to show as little as possible, we reward him with artistic mastery for throwing caution into the wind with a film that will definitely not make money.

Not done, more is to be said. One defense of this film is that a scene comes late that brings context to everything we see. I think it's impactful in the slimmest way, but if the road for Van Sant is purity in vision, that scene should be a warning flag. Compare to Michelangelo Antonioni's La Notte, a film that is the detail of one night for a couple, its been best described as watching a "personal experience". It details relentlessly this couple's happenings and goings without any nudge to dramatic convention. Blake's talk with this lady is very much a nudge to convention. It tries to shed light on a person who is beyond gone or even saving. More importantly, it satisfies many who are uncomfortable with a total experience film.

Then, well, that fucking end. Blake's death and gravitational walk up into heaven, so you can say. I thought of Von Trier's Breaking the Waves during that scene. A rough gritty film, it deals with the horrors of a newlywed wife going the limits for her husband when she doesn't know any better. But, it ends on a message from God through bells in the sky? Did the ending really have any semblance of tone or style with the rest of the film? I'll say Last Days feels better with its wink to God, but again, wrong. For a film that tries to to detail this life through his happenings, the detail of the story should be the core matter. Yet we get this ending that is supposebly grand thought but when all it really is a planted scene that has little to do with the rest of the film and offers even less thought. At best, it can be said to be a great looking shot. Its still film trickery. And for those bored with the film, a redemption because it looks cool and makes someone look back and wonder about the rest of the film even if there is very little to wonder about.

I'm not surprised Last Days is the beauty prize winner for the representative art house crowd on the board. This film is proof that structure and formal daring can win over many for just existing. The tragedy is that Van Sant is overly praised while The Dardenne Brothers continue to be under valued. They prove large realism in films can be made for purpose.

I had mixed feelings about Last Days.

But I must cringe at the comparison to the Dardennes. Having recently seen The Child...if they intend to continue making films like that they must simply cease making films. Amateurish and trite, it was like nails on a blackboard.

Quote from: mutinyco on November 09, 2005, 01:53:31 PM
I had mixed feelings about Last Days.

But I must cringe at the comparison to the Dardennes. Having recently seen The Child...if they intend to continue making films like that they must simply cease making films. Amateurish and trite, it was like nails on a blackboard.

I was almost let down by that responce. Surely Mutinyco would be the perfect person to rip into what I said. Makes me enthusiastic for a Dardenne's debate though.

why?   mutinyco loved Gerry and Elephant and said they were some of the best of that year.

What worked in Elephant, I felt didn't here with the running back the timelines. I wanted more time with Blake and less with his hanger-ons (although more Asia in her sexy glasses would have been nice). Like Gerry and Elephant, just watching the most mundane activities were fascinating and more so here since one couldn't help but wonder how Blake functioned daily being in the constant state he was in, as in just witnessing him make cereal. Unless you know the similarities to Kobain, you really have no idea what leads to Blake's death, in fact you see him come most alive in making and performing music that why would he leave that? Didn't hate it, just wanted... more.

Quote from: mercury on October 27, 2005, 07:56:05 PMand then i remebered michael pitts awful hey jope shit from the dreamers dvd...

Pitt's singing works in character, but there's another "awful" song included on the DVD for his band, Pagoda.

But the DVD does have a nice Behind The Scenes on how that long dolly shot was done. Guess they couldn't afford more dolly track so once the make-shift dolly rolled past one stretch, grips had to run it back and attach it to the end.

Quote from: Weak2ndAct on November 08, 2005, 09:22:38 PM
This makes no sense to me.  I'm unable to post my hatred for Last Days in the Van Sant forum, but able to post here?  Is this my computer or the new format?

If you're able to now, I'd like to read your take.

I loved Last Days as well as Van Sant's previous two films.  I would also agree with Gold Trumpet on many of his points. I personally believe it succeeds and fails in many ways.

I'm still not sure why when a piece of art is to our tastes, we claim it succeeded and when it's not, it failed.  I'm guilty of this as well.  Is it the fault of the piece or the viewer?  In reality, it's always a combination of both.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 08, 2005, 04:21:22 AM
Once again Van Sant goes for fake artistry.

I don't know what you mean by 'fake artistry'.  Are you telling me that some methods are artistic and others are not? 

The Dardenne Brothers' have certainly had their fair share of hits and misses.  Gold Trumpet:Which films do you believe have succeeded using the same aesthetic?

Quote from: Pastor Parsley on November 18, 2005, 10:39:36 AM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 08, 2005, 04:21:22 AM
Once again Van Sant goes for fake artistry.

I don't know what you mean by 'fake artistry'.  Are you telling me that some methods are artistic and others are not?

What I mean is that when people assume artistry in this film because of its refusal to plot and the usual film convention, it isn't always art.  There are too many films that try and just come off as imitative or lacking in any interesting purpose.

Quote from: Pastor Parsley on November 18, 2005, 10:39:36 AM[The Dardenne Brothers' have certainly had their fair share of hits and misses.  Gold Trumpet:Which films do you believe have succeeded using the same aesthetic?

With L'Enfant still yet to be released in America, they have only made 3 films total. Hard to really say they've had many that were of both a success and not. But, I think they are the best embodiement of making films that evoke the personal experience and then have something to say. Rosetta is the one film of theirs I'd say isn't perfect. It's tonal dedication to following this character becomes stressful to watch, but the Dardennes achieved magnificence with their next film, "The Son"

i found this film really borign and tedius.  i loved gerry thought elephant was good [but dorky] and this is a overall weak film...i hate michael pitt.  i think it had somethign to do w/ the dreamers.  i got mad b/c that hey joe song he did was laughably bad and annoying.  and i hate the fact that his penis is biiger thasn mine.  how could someone like m. pitt have a bigger [and fatter] penis than me?  that shit is fucked up.  but all the caracters were stupid.  blake is an annoyins mumblign bitch.  his freinds are losers.  i had no empathy for him.  the only thing i thought that was cool was when he



killed himself than his soul climbed up.  that was neat.

the part that was the stupidest was the two douche bags kissing.  its no fucking point to that.  i dotn mind gay shit but have  a point.  in idaho that shit was good.  but in this and elephant its fuckign stupid.   


sorry van sant, i am too smart to let this weak film grab me...

Quote from: mercury on November 18, 2005, 07:40:15 PM
sorry van sant, i am too smart to let this weak film grab me...

haha... you're so goddamn homophobic that it's hilarious.  I think you're probably kinda gay.

I dont' understand, Neon... it's like there's two Neons... one cool and one that gives really bad reviews and says dumb shit about war.

Bring cool Neon back.

Quote from: RegularKarate on November 18, 2005, 11:42:04 PM

Quote from: mercury on November 18, 2005, 07:40:15 PM
sorry van sant, i am too smart to let this weak film grab me...

haha... you're so goddamn homophobic that it's hilarious.  I think you're probably kinda gay.

I dont' understand, Neon... it's like there's two Neons... one cool and one that gives really bad reviews and says dumb shit about war.

Bring cool Neon back.

:yabbse-sad:



hmm, well, despite my repeated use of the word "gay" meaning lame i dont see how one can think i am homophobic.  but i am kind of gay....[i was curious and once saw my best friends penis while we were swimming]]. but i am just saying that i thought is was piontless.  just like in elephant when those two kids kissed-it served no point but just to creep people out an dmake them feel uneasy for no reason.  REMEMBER: i think the gay shit in my own private idaho was perfect.  but in last days and elephant it was pointless and stupid...and i hop ethe same poeple that liked bunny liked this also...its the same meandering "wow! this is art" type of film...and its nothing against van sant: i like good will, mopi, and gerry a whole hell of a lot.  i can relate or i liked the idea of gerry about teh teo guys lost together...and the shot in scene where ther gerry's are walkign like zombies in the early dawn was fuckign awesome...but in last days i didnt give a shit about blake  he's was a fucking loser..the film didnt affect me and i dotn see ho wit coudl "touch" others also.  gt is right about this one...its fucking fake man

I understand your not liking it, I was taking issue with your idea that the kissing scene here and in elephant were "pointless"... I think that's a ridiculous statement to make and even more ridiculous is saying that it's there to make people feel uncomfortable. 

Obviously if it hadn't been a same sex kiss in either films, you wouldn't have said one thing about it.

Quote from: pyramid machine on November 20, 2005, 08:45:39 PM
but in last days i didnt give a shit about blake  he's was a fucking loser..the film didnt affect me and i dotn see ho wit coudl "touch" others also.

right. blake sucks. he is boring. to me, kurt cobain's suicide was so romantic. like, man, what a tortured artist he was. he must've had some strong principles in life to feel that bad and do that to himself. this movie paints a picture of a rock star who's life is just so boring and shitty and he's just a dumb, loser heroin addict who can play good music and that's all there is to him. the only reason his friends hang out with him is to feel like they're rock stars, fuck each other in his house, complain about the heat when they're getting a free place to live, and just act like total douchebags to this dumb, depressed asshole. i hated michael pitt b/c of the dreamers also. i still dislike him, but i was so glad to find out that he hardly says anything in this movie. van sant just saw his dick and was like, "cast this boy so i can have an erection all day!" halfway through, i forgot it was michael pitt. it's not like the role of a practically mute lazy drug addict who is supposed to have no expression or emotion at all is a hard one to play. this movie had its faults (i didn't think the humor was that funny - cobain in a dress with the telephone book ad-salesman was amusing at best), but it definitely offered a unique perspective on things. and it was pretty. and i like painfully slow movies with pretty cinematography when i'm high.

also, the homosexuality. while i agree it didn't have much of a place in this movie, it worked in elephant. in elephant, he just gives every reason possible for WHY they would have done what they did, just never comes out and explicitly states this is the reason. i thought in last days it was just an excuse to shock the audience out of the catatonic state they were slowly slipping into. as in, "i'm fucking bored, i'm fucking bored, i'm fucking bored, TWO DUDES KISSING?! now i have no idea what the fuck this movie is about, but at least i'm awake."

the fact that this movie was unscripted shows that van sant is just being lazy, and then marking it off as "art."  when i first saw it, i wanted to like.   just cause it's boring doesn't mean it's artsy. 

anyone could have made this movie.  pretty amateur.  nothing stimulating. 

the cinemetography was decent and a couple things were funny, but nothing was thought provoking. 

2.5/4

but everybody's under the pretense that he's deliberately TRYING to be artsy. this movie is just so minimalist, it doesn't feel like it's trying to be anything, it just is. i find it much better than certain acclaimed artsy movies that just try to cram SO MUCH weridness and artsiness into their running time that it just ends up too cluttered. this movie is more of an exercise in telling a story and directing actors rather than being a full, fleshed out movie, and it works. we all know van sant is capable of making a really good, solid movie and of course, coming from that, he knows his audience is going to be frustrated. he doesn't care. it was an excuse to shoot film with a talented young group of actors and do things differently, and you really don't see a move like that coming from a director over the age of 50 these days. these movies were huge risks and could have (in fact, very well may have) killed his career. i like this and elephant (i haven't seen gerry) b/c you just sit back and watch and you don't really get overwhelmed or even underwhelmed. it's just kind of there and he's presenting it to you without the fancy packaging. love it or hate it, it's a different way of presenting ideas and i thought it worked.

to enjoy the movie, you kinda just have to let it be.  you're right, it's very minimalist, and the only way to enjoy it is to just let yourself be absorbed by it.  i liked it while watching it.  it's only with time that i have decided that it really wasn't that great, but while watching it i let it work and it did.

it's not good or bad, van sant can just do so much more it's frustrating.  yeah, frustrating.

If you're willing to experiment, you should be willing to fail.  With film, there is too little experimentation due to the high expense.  I would rather directors take risks trying to do something new, or at least out of the ordinary, than keep putting out more of the same.

Besides, plot and dialogue have been used as a crutch for too long.  Like the old saying in writing goes: show don't tell.  These days they use contrived plots force the characters into interaction so that they can tell the whole story in dialogue.

That's deep yo.

Last Days is not devoid of a plot.  Van Sant lingers over details that other directors would skip or cut out.

Using the classification system developed by Robert McKee, Last Days is an example of the "disillusionment plot."  Van Sant eschews the usual biopic approach of showing Blake's rise and fall (Act I -- struggling for recognition; Act II -- hitting the big time; Act III -- realizing that success isn't all it's cracked up to be).  He focuses on Blake at the tail end of his career and life.  His back-story is revealed by the people from his past who try (and fail) to make contact or save him.  At any time, Blake could choose to get out of his downward spiral.  But he chooses death instead.  His character arc goes from burned out to dead.

A more obvious filmmaker (like Cameron Crowe) would have Blake says stuff like, "I used to love music, now I'm burned out, and I don't care anymore.  Life's not worth living anymore."  Van Sant lets Blake's silence speak for itself.

Quote from: soixante on December 08, 2005, 01:18:46 PM
Last Days is not devoid of a plot. Van Sant lingers over details that other directors would skip or cut out.

Yeah, he cuts out act I, Act II and the first part of act III.  Yes, there is a plot but it's all back-story.  I don't know if that counts though.  I think it's fine though.

Ozu did a lot with character driven pieces without or with very little plot.  It seems to me that the most interesting thing about any story is the characters.  Even with plot heavy films, the plot is just used to show the character development.

Quote from: Pastor Parsley on December 08, 2005, 04:12:52 PM

Quote from: soixante on December 08, 2005, 01:18:46 PM
Last Days is not devoid of a plot. Van Sant lingers over details that other directors would skip or cut out.

Yeah, he cuts out act I, Act II and the first part of act III.  Yes, there is a plot but it's all back-story.  I don't know if that counts though.  I think it's fine though.

Ozu did a lot with character driven pieces without or with very little plot.  It seems to me that the most interesting thing about any story is the characters.  Even with plot heavy films, the plot is just used to show the character development.

Ozu wasn't adverse to plot or character development the way Last Days is. Tokyo Story has as much detail as most American films. The focus is a meditation that aligns the drama to a common thread which may appear as nothing happening.

I understand the appreciation for Last Days, but I can't correlate the appreciation to the finished film I saw. At best, Last Days is an attempt for structural innovation. Its amateur hour for me as I can't see a higher purpose to the film.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 08, 2005, 05:49:31 PM
Ozu wasn't adverse to plot or character development the way Last Days is. Tokyo Story has as much detail as most American films. The focus is a meditation that aligns the drama to a common thread which may appear as nothing happening.

I know very little film theory, and I know you well enough from your posts that you are way ahead of me in that regard.  I always thought that plot had more to do with a causal relationship, and a unifying thread really was considerd a narrative but not a plot.  I honestly don't know enough to say for sure.

I was just listening to the Floating Weeds commentary not long ago and according to the Japanese film historian, Donald Richie who said "Most Ozu films are devoid of plot.  Ozu thought that plot uses people and to use them is to misuse them.  He believed characters create story and not the other way around."

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 08, 2005, 05:49:31 PM
At best, Last Days is an attempt for structural innovation.

I agree completely.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 08, 2005, 05:49:31 PM
Its amateur hour for me as I can't see a higher purpose to the film.

I guess for me it doesn't need to have a higher purpose other than an attempt at structural innovation.  Anytime a filmmaker makes any attempt, at any innovation I applaud their efforts.  Most don't attempt anything innovative, in my opinion.

It's a matter of semantics -- one man's plot is another man's character study. 

One thing to consider is whether Van Sant's approach suited the subject matter.  I think it did, because Blake is pretty much running on fumes.  He sits around, eats cereal, walks around, upon a rare occasion he attempts to cut a song or two.  Van Sant focuses on the minute details of such an existence, which I think is just as illuminating as doing a traditional biopic in which lots of information is stuffed into a two-hour film.  Less is more.

Quote from: Pastor Parsley on December 09, 2005, 02:54:39 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 08, 2005, 05:49:31 PM
Ozu wasn't adverse to plot or character development the way Last Days is. Tokyo Story has as much detail as most American films. The focus is a meditation that aligns the drama to a common thread which may appear as nothing happening.

I was just listening to the Floating Weeds commentary not long ago and according to the Japanese film historian, Donald Richie who said "Most Ozu films are devoid of plot.  Ozu thought that plot uses people and to use them is to misuse them.  He believed characters create story and not the other way around."

That is true. Ozu never utilized formal plots. The progress of his story is character development. Character development does require detail in which to show it. Last Days has none.

There is character development in Last Days.  At many points, Blake could choose to come out of his fog and reconnect with his life and career.  But he chooses to drift further away, and in the end chooses to kill himself.  Blake is disillusioned and burned out at the beginning of the film, and in the end he dies -- he also ascends a ladder in a ghostly way, which implies that he has found peace or transcendence after struggling with drug addiction and mental illness.

Quote from: soixante on December 10, 2005, 03:04:07 AM
There is character development in Last Days.  At many points, Blake could choose to come out of his fog and reconnect with his life and career.  But he chooses to drift further away, and in the end chooses to kill himself.  Blake is disillusioned and burned out at the beginning of the film, and in the end he dies -- he also ascends a ladder in a ghostly way, which implies that he has found peace or transcendence after struggling with drug addiction and mental illness.

I'll need examples to debate that. I feel the idea of him finding peace when walking up the ladder is over-interpretation. The film never makes it clear what that means besides his death.

If Van Sant just wanted to show him dead, he would show a corpse, not a ghostly figure ascending a ladder (which has great spiritual symbolism). 

Compare that to the end of Bob Fosse's last three films -- Lenny, All That Jazz and Star 80, all of them biopics of self-destructive artists, all of which end with shots of dead bodies.

A truly minimal film would show a character who doesn't make any choices, who does nothing to change his fate or alter his character, who faces no obstacles.  Blake has obstacles (his own self-destructiveness, drug addiction, etc.) that he can't overcome. 

OK, but what about character development?

What character arc can there really be for Junkie in his uhh hmm LAST DAYS?

Going from life to death is quite a character arc.

It worked in All That Jazz -- Joe Gideon, a tortured genius and substance abuser like Blake, refuses all entreaties from friends, family, co-workers and everyone else to to pull himself out of his downward spiral.

i thought a character arc had to be internal?  dying is something that happens to him, not something that happens inside him.

Quote from: modage on December 11, 2005, 01:18:57 PM
i thought a character arc had to be internal?  dying is something that happens to him, not something that happens inside him.

I think what he's saying is that his death is apart of his internal change.  Normally death would not be apart of one's character arc, but this is not the case with Blake.  It is liberating, as indicated by him ascending into heaven. 

Quote from: soixante on December 11, 2005, 12:54:41 PM
Going from life to death is quite a character arc.

It worked in All That Jazz -- Joe Gideon, a tortured genius and substance abuser like Blake, refuses all entreaties from friends, family, co-workers and everyone else to to pull himself out of his downward spiral.

Here's the thing:

1.) Blake was already near death. He does nothing in the film that radically speeds up his process to death. The film is a morgue for his living corpse that just dies in the end.

2.) There were developments in All That Jazz. At the beginning, he is an abuser but still fully functioning as a capable theater director. By the end he's had the heart attack and made a complete transformation to an human being who can't function anymore except with his imagination.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 11, 2005, 01:56:32 PM

Quote from: soixante on December 11, 2005, 12:54:41 PM
Going from life to death is quite a character arc.

It worked in All That Jazz -- Joe Gideon, a tortured genius and substance abuser like Blake, refuses all entreaties from friends, family, co-workers and everyone else to to pull himself out of his downward spiral.

Here's the thing:

1.) Blake was already near death. He does nothing in the film that radically speeds up his process to death. The film is a morgue for his living corpse that just dies in the end.

2.) There were developments in All That Jazz. At the beginning, he is an abuser but still fully functioning as a capable theater director. By the end he's had the heart attack and made a complete transformation to an human being who can't function anymore except with his imagination.

Doesn't Blake blow his own brains out?  That speeds up the process to death considerably.

The Ancient Greek tragedians employed the concept of unity of place and unity of time.  They compressed all the dramatic issues into a short time frame, preferably less than 24 hours.  Last Days takes place in a very short time frame, in one location.  All of the important issues that Blake must deal with are present in a small time frame -- how will he continue his musical career?  Will he get back together with his wife?  Will he go to rehab?

You could claim that Blake's death was inevitable, hence there is no conflict.  But I think the conflict is with himself -- will he succumb to his inner demons, or snap out of it? 

In dramatic terms, what is Blake's problem that he must overcome?  His own self-destructiveness.  He doesn't overcome this problem, until he dies and ascends that ladder.

Blake killing himself is the action of causing death. The turning point for him to decide has to have come much earlier in correlation with his abuse. The film doesn't chronicle where that turning point was. It is his meanderings through the haze of a life already gone and never to be found again. The greeks have no place with this story. Of all things, they believed in plot. A different form of drama compared to this film. It necessitates points and detail; elements lost here.

It seems to me that Blake was a dead man walking from the beginning of the film, he just hadn't accepted that yet.  He's much more of a non-presence than a living entity.  Nobody connects with him, and nobody cares to, beyond those that he wants to avoid.  The flashes of music and perhaps whatever inspiration he writes into his notebook are from his soul, the part that lives on after the body is wasted.  In a way, the suicide was a mercy killing, and the film is spent with Blake reconciling himself to this, and reconciling the audience to what is necessary.  It's no less tragic for it.

Once again I arrive at a thead after seeing a movie only to find that everything important and profound has already been said. I'll just say that I agree with soxiante, and that this is definitely one of Van Sant's best, and that I completely bought everything he was trying to do.

I liked it but after 45 min, I began to do other things. Periodicaly stopping at the TV and watch for a few a little bit.

after watching gerry and re-watching elephant, i can safely say that this was a big step back for van sant. he just reuses themes from those aforementioned films and throws in a few stale jokes. i stick by my earlier statements saying the movie was good (in a sense), but comparatively, it seemed like a big waste of time and money for van sant. maybe he just needed to get it out of his system and he wanted to do that trilogy type deal, but that's stupid. say what you have to say and move on.

It's really too bad that Gus Van Sant's work is misunderstood for being self indulgent.  Van Sant, like very few directors, has a real knack of capturing real life as it happens.  The long dolly shots in both Last Days and Elephant, while they may test ones patience, are really quite hypnotic.  It is not necessarily what is happening right in front of you that captures your attention but the things that are occuring naturally in the background that bring depth and substance to the story.  This is everyday life as it unfolds in real time; there is nothing contrived or phony about it. 

The scene with Blake sitting in front of the bonfire (when he sings Home on the Range) is absolutely mesmerizing; nothing really happens but the crackling sound of the fire and the flames themselves draw you into the scene and make you appreciate the simplest sights and sounds for what they are.  Van Sant doesn't include unnecessary dialogue to tell his story but rather uses the surroundings of the mundane everyday to incorporate his characters thoughts and emotions. 

Like a fine piece of art, with each viewing something new is gained or a new appreciation found in the simplest of frames that unfold before you on screen.  Perhaps the reason so many people dislike this film is because they are lead to believe it is a biopic about Kurt Cobain but it is far from that and has a much deeper meaning than the story of the guy from Nirvana who committed suicide.  It is really about one mans final and desperate attempt to find peace in a world that is too far gone from his control. 

In the Hollywood of today, too much attention is spent on star power and box office take than real artistic value.  Sure, these sorts of experiments are not for everyone and there is plenty of drivel for the masses to enjoy but Van Sant should be applaued  :bravo:  for standing true to his art and not giving into Hollywood conventions or cliches.  Film is so much more than that.

Quote from: gopher69 on March 12, 2006, 02:59:48 PM
It's really too bad that Gus Van Sant's work is misunderstood for being self indulgent.  Van Sant, like very few directors, has a real knack of capturing real life as it happens.  The long dolly shots in both Last Days and Elephant, while they may test ones patience, are really quite hypnotic.  It is not necessarily what is happening right in front of you that captures your attention but the things that are occuring naturally in the background that bring depth and substance to the story.  This is everyday life as it unfolds in real time; there is nothing contrived or phony about it. 

The scene with Blake sitting in front of the bonfire (when he sings Home on the Range) is absolutely mesmerizing; nothing really happens but the crackling sound of the fire and the flames themselves draw you into the scene and make you appreciate the simplest sights and sounds for what they are.  Van Sant doesn't include unnecessary dialogue to tell his story but rather uses the surroundings of the mundane everyday to incorporate his characters thoughts and emotions. 

Like a fine piece of art, with each viewing something new is gained or a new appreciation found in the simplest of frames that unfold before you on screen.  Perhaps the reason so many people dislike this film is because they are lead to believe it is a biopic about Kurt Cobain but it is far from that and has a much deeper meaning than the story of the guy from Nirvana who committed suicide.  It is really about one mans final and desperate attempt to find peace in a world that is too far gone from his control. 

In the Hollywood of today, too much attention is spent on star power and box office take than real artistic value.  Sure, these sorts of experiments are not for everyone and there is plenty of drivel for the masses to enjoy but Van Sant should be applaued  :bravo:  for standing true to his art and not giving into Hollywood conventions or cliches.  Film is so much more than that.

I just watched this, I really am not sure why I didn't get to it a little earlier than I did however, I agree with everything you're saying here. A lot of people warned me about it, saying it's Van Sant's worst and what not. However, I'm glad that I did watch it, it was a rewarding experience indeed.

Quote from: Lucid on March 23, 2006, 09:16:25 PM
Having loved both 'Gerry' and 'Elephant,' I tried desperately to watch 'Last Days' a couple weeks ago.  I started it once, and got five minutes in; the second time around, I got to the part with the Yellow Page ad salesman.  It sat sadly on my desk for a week before I sent it back to Netflix.  I really don't think it had anything to do with the movie, really - I guess I wasn't "in the mood"?  Anyway, it's back on my queue for yet another try...   

dont bother it does suck

If you weren't hooked by the salesman scene, it probably won't do much for you.

Quote from: bonanzataz on February 22, 2006, 05:43:19 PM
after watching gerry and re-watching elephant, i can safely say that this was a big step back for van sant. he just reuses themes from those aforementioned films and throws in a few stale jokes. i stick by my earlier statements saying the movie was good (in a sense), but comparatively, it seemed like a big waste of time and money for van sant. maybe he just needed to get it out of his system and he wanted to do that trilogy type deal, but that's stupid. say what you have to say and move on.

I mostly agree with this.  I don't think it was a step back from Gerry and Elephant but definitely not a step forward; it's my least favorite of the three.  It's a fine film but the "gags" in it (the phone book guy and the Mormons, etc.) just didn't work.  It was compelling and in the company of Gerry and Elephant becomes even more so, but it did feel somewhat repetitive in light of the other two films.

Quote from: gopher69 on March 12, 2006, 02:59:48 PM
The long dolly shots in both Last Days and Elephant, while they may test ones patience, are really quite hypnotic.

word! i watched them both late at night and i wasn't bored for one second, other than that i was almost hypnotized by those amazing shots and i think i preferred "last days". the part where they play "venus in furs" is fucking ace. i really need to see "gerry".

Quote from: Heinsbergen on September 27, 2007, 05:37:19 AMword! i watched them both late at night and i wasn't bored for one second, other than that i was almost hypnotized by those amazing shots and i think i preferred "last days". the part where they play "venus in furs" is fucking ace. i really need to see "gerry".

Despite some amazing shots (courtesy of le desert), I don't think Gerry is as good as the other two. But, yeah, you should watch it, but not that late at night...

Quote from: ElPandaRoyal on September 27, 2007, 06:01:10 AM

Quote from: Heinsbergen on September 27, 2007, 05:37:19 AMword! i watched them both late at night and i wasn't bored for one second, other than that i was almost hypnotized by those amazing shots and i think i preferred "last days". the part where they play "venus in furs" is fucking ace. i really need to see "gerry".

Despite some amazing shots (courtesy of le desert), I don't think Gerry is as good as the other two. But, yeah, you should watch it, but not that late at night...

come on, Gerry is hilarious! the parts where they talk anyway. although i did try watching it again last year and fell asleep. *shrug*

elephant is more emotionally engaging (to some), despite its sort of distant approach, but Last Days fails in both these criteria. it's not spectacular except in trying your patience.

Quote from: Pubrick on September 27, 2007, 07:15:33 AM
come on, Gerry is hilarious! the parts where they talk anyway. although i did try watching it again last year and fell asleep. *shrug*

sweet sweet validation.  i hope paranoid park doesnt suck.

I watched Last Days again recently, and I didn't like it as much as I did the first time.  I still like it, but the film left me a little cold.  It did have some excellent moments -- such as how it staged Blake's death.  It also didn't force the tensions between characters into melodrama, it just presented things in a casual way.  Blake never confronts his freeloading friends, but the dramatic point is made by what Blake chooses not to do.  Basically, he avoids confrontation at all costs, but conflict and drama somehow find him.

On the other hand, Elephant is getting better and better, and might well be my favorite film of the decade.  I've noticed a lot of recent dramatic films are just too serious and earnest, but Elephant has the restraint to present tragedy in a detached way, which actually makes the tragedy more intense.  There is also a "daymare" quality to the film, in which acts of barbarism are carried out in sterile, everyday conditions, and not heightened by melodramatic symphonic music or dramatic lighting.  Rather than dramatic build-up and heightening, Van Sant presents mayhem in a matter of fact way.  I remember one time I was driving in LA, and in the intersection up ahead of me one car broadsided another, and the broadsided car went sailing into a light pole.  It all happened in a second.  One minute, you're just driving, the next second, you're witnessing tragedy -- that's the sort of feeling I get from Elephant.  Things happen so quickly and casually that you can't really believe your eyes, you can't digest what is happening, but you also know in a split-second that entire destinies, decades worth of potential life, are extinguished.

There is also the fact that war, terrorism and murder are daily occurrences, like the rising and setting of the sun.  Van Sant shows this profound truth, but he also shows us a few glimmers of hope -- he focuses on the beauty of nature, and he shows the alcoholic father realizing how valuable (and fragile) his son is.

Quote from: soixante on September 28, 2007, 02:51:34 PM"daymare"

Nice touch. And I'm not being ironic, it's actually an excellent way to put it, since despite the tragic ending, the movie doesn't even try and pretend to be dark or anything. That's, to me, the greatest thing about this (as opposed to "Good Will Hunting" for instance) Gus van Sant. It all seems so natural, yet so cinematic.

Sometimes the scariest nightmares I experience have rather banal and unsinister mise-en-scenes.  No dramatic lighting, no Gothic atmosphere.

One of the most nightmarish aspects of 9/11 was that it occurred on a beautiful, sunny morning.  It was disturbing to see a gigantic fireball blooming over a modern American metropolis.

This was probably what it was like to experience the Columbine incident -- nobody expects a school to become a war zone (at least, not back in 1999 -- sadly, today we are painfully aware that havoc can be wrought anytime, anywhere).