BOYHOOD Review

Mason (Ellar Coltrane), age 6, in Richard Linklater’s BOYHOOD.  

Courtesy of Matt Lankes.  An IFC Films Release. 

BOYHOOD

2014, 164 minutes

Rated R for language including sexual references, and for teen drug and alcohol use

Review by Joshua Handler

How does one review a movie like Boyhood?  Filmed over the course of twelve years (yes, you read that right) by Richard Linklater (Before Midnight, Bernie) with the same core group of actors (Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Lorelei Linklater, and Ethan Hawke), this is a piece of filmmaking unlike any you've ever seen before.  The film tells the story of a boy named Mason (Coltrane) from the start of elementary school and through his first day of college.

Watching Mason/Coltrane grow up is extraordinary.  By the time the (extremely fast) 164 minutes have finished, it feels as if you've actually watched this boy's entire childhood.  And in a way, you have.  As the characters age, so do the actors, which gives the film an intimacy that all other coming-of-age films don't have.

But, Boyhood isn't a typical coming-of-age film, though it has all of the plot elements of one.  While it follows a familiar arc, it skips over the major life events and shows us the moments in between, capturing the human moments that we rarely see in movies but that we all experience.  This approach and Linklater and his actors' honesty keep the film from falling into cliché.

Most clichés come from life and that's what Boyhood is about.  It is about life, about growing up, and finding your place.  Because the actors actually age, they mature both in performance ability and in physical appearance, which gives the movie a sense of realism unlike any I've seen before.  This movie will have universal appeal because everyone will relate to something in it.  For those (myself included) who grew up around the same time as Mason, this movie will be like reliving their childhoods, as all of the cultural pieces of the years depicted in the film were something that they grew up with.  Parents will love Boyhood because so much of it is focused around Mason's parents and how they mature over the years.

This movie is like a bunch of mini time capsules held together by a compelling, moving narrative.  If you aren't moved by Boyhood, I question your humanity.  This story is the story of so many children's lives and to see it condensed into a completely coherent, evenly-paced drama is nothing short of remarkable.  It's like reliving childhood all over again.

Boyhood hits some dramatic bumps in its opening hour (the "I hate squash!" line is a meme/GIF-in-the-making), but they rarely affected my enjoyment of the movie.  The film really hits its stride when Mason goes into junior high and high school.  These sequences carry a lot of weight and are striking in their honesty and emotion.  They are populated with romance and mischief, two areas of drama in which Linklater excels (look at the Before films for romance and School of Rock for mischief).  He brings a child-like wonder and awe to the romance and to the more sentimental sequences of Boyhood.  Rarely does anything feel forced because Linklater's passion and care shines through.  He never milks moments for their emotion, but rather observes them.  The Before films were so brilliant because they were intimate works that were also observational pieces of cinema.  We watch and listen to Celine and Jesse's private conversations the whole time, but share every intimate moment with them.  The same can be said for the reason behind Boyhood's brilliance.

This is a movie that is as much about the small moments as it is the entire experience.  As mentioned, not every moment works (especially in the first hour), but the cumulative effect of this movie unmatched.  Viewing this epic made me feel similarly to when I first saw Blue is the Warmest Color.  After viewing Blue, I felt as if I'd lived with the characters for 5-10 years and got to know them well.  Because of this, when the film ended, I felt like I'd really been on a new journey and lived in someone else's shoes for a while.  When Boyhood is over, it is a shock because this decade-spanning journey is over.  You've actually watched a good portion of a life being lived and got to spend time with some wonderful people, yet once it's over, you are yanked out of their lives and are done with them.

The acting from just about everyone is very good, but Coltrane and Arquette stand out.  Coltrane was not a professional actor before starting this film, which likely explains his natural performance.  Never once did it feel like he was acting or simply delivering lines.  It felt as if I was a fly on the wall watching a kid really living life.  Arquette has been in some good movies, but she rarely ever impresses me.  At the beginning of Boyhood, her performance is a bit stiff, but as the film goes on, she becomes more and more natural as if she's growing into her role.  By the film's end, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie star.  The same could be said about Hawke's performance (though I usually do like him) and Linklater's direction of the film.  As the movie progresses, the filmmaking becomes more fluid and natural.

Overall, Boyhood is a masterpiece.  Yes, you are likely sick of hearing that now from every single critic and audience member, but it's true.  As a filmgoing experience, viewing Boyhood is unparalleled.  At 164 minutes, Boyhood is long, but it is never slow and never less than compelling.  And, as a piece of cinema, it is as good as it gets.  It will likely go down as one of the crowning achievements of cinema.  Disregard the outrageous R rating.  Any person whose made it to junior high should see this.  They'll get a lot out of it and so will their parents.

4/4

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Alex Ross Perry

Alex Ross Perry

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

ALEX ROSS PERRY
By Alex Ross Perry and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most distinctive voices in independent and world cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The response below is from Alex Ross Perry, writer/director of acclaimed films The Color Wheel and Listen Up Philip.

Do you feel that it is important for people to view independent and world cinema and why?

The question supposes that what they are seeing is inherently of valuable quality, which is quite likely not going to be the case. If the question is, do I feel it is important for aspiring filmmakers to walk over to the local 5-screen art house and see all five films every week, the answer is no but only because three of them are abject garbage most of the time. The fact is that most of what is considered ‘independent’ or ‘world cinema’ that reaches screens (theatrical or VOD) and has the press coverage to designate itself as relevant is middlebrow and would have a negative affect on any aspirant.

It is important for everybody to go deep but this isn’t necessarily analogous with present tense filmmaking. Nobody, myself included, should be going to see whatever French or Italian (or American) films are being put out in art houses today if there is still anything whatsoever from the history of cinema left to discover.

Do you believe that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and film-goers to view films of the past and why?

See above.

How has viewing indies and films from around the world helped you as a filmmaker?

It reinforces the sad reality that America is light years behind and the cinema we attempt to export is pitiful by comparison. I’m not talking about high-profile indie films that get released by corporations and vie for awards, I’m talking about the good stuff that even those of us in big cities who make it a point to find cinema every day don’t necessarily have access to. These films are inspirational and finding myself ever circumstantially aligned with them at foreign festivals inspires me to work harder and do better so that my own films do not seem so hopelessly American when screened side by side.

Did viewing indies/films from around the world/classics influence you when creating LISTEN UP PHILIP, THE COLOR WHEEL, or any of your other films?

When THE COLOR WHEEL was being made, I had never really been to an international film festival or really seen international films except for whatever gets released in America, but having at that time been to a handful of film festivals in America, I had met may great filmmakers and gotten to know them and their work and this inspired me to be bolder, both to measure up to the films I liked and to outpace the ones I didn’t.

What's one American indie and one film not in English that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is a perfect independent film, visual poetry and superlative deployment of what limited resources were available. Same goes for NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. 

International, I lean on my old stand-by, THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE. I can’t explain why. It just is.

The next response is yet to be determined.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Edgar Barens

Edgar Barens

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

EDGAR BARENS
By Edgar Barens and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most distinctive voices in independent and world cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The response below is from Edgar Barens, director of Oscar-nominated documentary short "Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall".  Edgar's work is centered around issues with the American criminal justice system.  He previously directed "Angola Prison Hospice: Opening the Door" and the highly acclaimed A SENTENCE OF THEIR OWN.

Do you feel that it is important for people to view independent and world cinema and why?

Living in the Chicago area, I was blessed to have had access to the local PBS station WTTW Channel 11 when I was growing up. Throughout my youth, WTTW had, what I thought at the time, a pretty amazing film program which I ate up every opportunity I had. Many a sunny day I would forgo the fields of corn and crayfish-filled creeks to catch a glimpse of a forlorn and impoverished old man and his dog in Rome (UMBERTO D., De Sica, 1952), a group of street hoodlums trying to survive in Mexico City (LOS OLVIDADOS, Luis Bunuel, 1950), or a band of farmers toiling in the dust bowl eking out an existence (OUR DAILY BREAD, King Vidor, 1934).

Thinking back, the three films mentioned above were probably the first films that formed me most as an filmmaker. Probably because they were the first ones I remember seeing as a young boy and the fact that I most likely watched them over and over again - as WTTW was prone to repeat the broadcasts of their films throughout the week.

UMBERTO D., the 1952 neo-realist film by director Vittorio De Sica was perhaps my first love in cinema. While the gradual descent of a retired elderly man and his dog within the harried metropolis of Rome may not seem healthy for a 12 year old to appreciate, the film was fascinating to me on many levels. Never before had I witnessed a life depicted on film with such true sadness and futility. Watching Umberto slowly losing touch with the changing times as well as with his past friendships and experiences was depressing for me to witness and yet enthralling at the same time. Thinking back, this neo-realist classic probably played more like a documentary for me - all the way to its unresolved ending; a revelation that not all stories need to be book-ended with a happy ending - or even an ending at all!

Do you believe that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and film-goers to view films of the past and why?

I think that, if for no other reason, people need to see the films of the past because they are perfect examples that not ALL stories have to be told in the same manner. I think with today's blockbusters and even with indie films to a great degree, the general audience has become accustomed for a storyline to hit certain points at particular times. And while this format is used to keep the action moving forward and the audience on the edge of the seat and entertained, I feel it has eventually diluted the story-telling potential of film. There are gems that seep into world cinema from time to time, breaking the rote outline followed by Hollywood and it's imitators. So the more alternative ways we can witness a story being told the better. That's why I feel even experimental films can teach the documentary as well as the fiction filmmaker news ways to tell a story.

I asked Edgar which "gems" he was referring to above and he responded with the following:

I must say that one of the first that was so refreshing and reassured me (back in the day) that there was still hope to make mainstream/experimental [films and] stretch the boundaries of filmmaking - it must be when I saw David Lynch's BLUE VELVET while I was in college, and also when I saw Nicolas Roeg's BAD TIMING: A SENSUAL OBSESSION.

Both of these films (at the time) and I think still can be seen as great examples of narrative films with an amazing experimental twist to them that I saw as being absolutely refreshing.

I should also mention a foreign film that I was obsessed with when I was in college and that would be the one (L'IMMORTELLE). I LOVED IT AND VOWED TO MAKE NARRATIVES LIKE IT WHEN I BECAME A FULL-FLEDGED FILMMAKER!

What's one American indie and one film not in English that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

THE TREE OF LIFE - Terence Malick, 2011

A BRIEF VACATION - Vittorio De Sica, 1975

The next response will be from Alex Ross Perry, writer/director of THE COLOR WHEEL and the upcoming LISTEN UP PHILIP.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Matthew Miller

A still from THE DIRTIES
Photo courtesy of Phase 4 Films

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

MATTHEW MILLER
By Matthew Miller and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked the filmmakers or distributors who I believe to be the most original voices in the industry to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how they've been influential on their careers.

The response below is Matthew Miller, producer of Slamdance Grand Prize-winner The Dirties (my review).

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why?

Of course it’s important.  You need to know the history of what came before and what the current landscape is.  Most of what we do in our films is stolen/ borrowed from stuff that came before us, whether consciously or unconsciously.  That said, it takes time to watch movies and making movies is a full-time, round-the-clock profession.  I find that during development and production, watching other films is very hard, but that’s why festivals are so great.  You get to catch up on a whole whack of films, or better yet, preview the next wave of films, all at once.  We’re also spoiled because we live in Toronto and during TIFF get to see at least 30 new movies every Fall before they’re released, so that helps us to stay on top of things.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view classics and why?

It’s the same in every field and discipline, you have to know what came before you.  It’s one of the best things about film school, they just force you to watch all these old films.  But there’s definitely a stigma.  What I love doing when working on a new film is putting together a reference list of older films that are somehow relevant.  Maybe there’s a scene or a beat or a feel or look that you are chasing and you can go back and see what others did before you.  Plus - it gives you a great shorthand on set.  We work with people who know the same references

How has viewing indies and films from around the world helped you as a filmmaker?

American indie films of the '70s and later the '90s is what made me want to make movies and even now, those are the movies we want to make.  Big studio movies are rarely what we talk about around the office. 

What's one American indie and one film not in English that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

Ang Lee’s The Ice Storm was a film that really opened my eyes when it came out in 1997.

There’s a Russian film from 2003 called THE RETURN by Andrey Zvyaginstev that is one of the best first features ever made, and he’s gone on to become one of the top filmmakers in the world.  

But really, picking just 1 or 2 is impossible.  The more films you see, the more you want to see.  It’s like an addiction.  You see a new filmmaker or actor or cinematographer and suddenly want to go back and see what else they’ve done.  Where’d they come from and better yet - where are they going?

The next response will be from Edgar Barens, director of the Oscar-nominated "Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall".

LIFE ITSELF Review

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel in LIFE ITSELF, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures. Photo credit: Kevin Horan

LIFE ITSELF

2014, 118 minutes

Rated R for brief sexual images/nudity and language

Review by Joshua Handler

Steve James’ documentaries stand out for their heart.  I haven’t seen Hoop Dreams, the film that put James on the map, but I’ve heard it’s one of the finest documentaries ever made.  I have, however, seen Life Itself and James’ previous film, The Interrupters.  These movies tell stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things.  The Interrupters told the story of a group of people in Chicago who walk into the middle of potentially violent conflicts and try to resolve them peacefully.  Life Itself tells the story of Roger Ebert, a man who became the most famous and influential film critic of all time.

Life Itself is named after Ebert’s autobiography and is a comprehensive, detailed celebration of his life.  It is also an intimate tale of a dying man’s final months.  Roger and his wife, Chaz, were extremely open to sharing Roger’s story, warts and all.  While much of Life Itself is funny and entertaining, it is also humane and raw.  During the last few months of Roger’s life, he was in and out of the hospital, struggling with cancer and the Eberts allowed James to document it all. 

James’ documentaries, moving as they may be, aren’t sentimental and present full portraits of the people they portray.  Though James and Ebert were friends (Ebert was one of the first to champion Hoop Dreams and named it the best film of the 1990s) and Life Itself is overall a very loving film about Ebert, it isn’t without its criticisms of Ebert. 

Roger was always open about his struggle with alcoholism, and his tempestuous relationship with Gene Siskel was something that affected both greatly.  The two men were TV giants and best friends, yet because they were so fundamentally different, they didn’t always get along. 

Ebert was always a fundamentally good person, though, as many point out in the film, he had a huge ego when on TV which would lead to arguments between him and Siskel (who also had an ego).  While James certainly does give a fair amount of screen time to Roger’s misgivings, this film is a celebration of a life well-lived, not a critical assessment of this life. 

Many may wonder why a film critic should bother reviewing a film about a film critic.  It’s no secret that the Academy and film critics love movies about movies.  Aren’t we predisposed to love Life Itself then?  The short answer is no.  Creating a film about one of the giants of the industry is an extremely tricky task, as Life Itself could’ve easily been a mushy tribute to Roger Ebert.  It isn’t, though.  A filmmaker has to walk a delicate line creating a movie like this and it easily could’ve gone wrong.  However, because James is such a skilled documentarian, he pulls it off marvelously. 

Many documentaries’ impact is blunted by their running time.  Frequently docs can’t sustain an 80-minute running time, but James manages to make Life Itself run for two hours without missing a beat.  From the minute Life Itself starts until the minute it ends, it is engrossing.  Ebert’s life was so colorful that James could’ve easily filled four hours with stories and information about him.

Overall, Life Itself is a moving tribute from a great filmmaker to his friend, a film critic.  Friends are great because they’re your biggest supporters while also unafraid to kindly criticize you.  This is why James and Ebert are the perfect director-subject match and why Life Itself is as heartwrenching, kind, and prickly as it is.  Life Itself is a movie for Ebert fans and non-fans because it is, above all, a remarkable piece of documentary filmmaking. 

A note: parents should disregard the MPAA’s atrocious R rating for this film.  If your kid is old enough to be an Ebert reader, then they are old enough to see Life Itself.  This is yet another example of the MPAA keeping people from seeing a good, educational, life-affirming movie.

4/4

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Rodney Ascher

Rodney Ascher
Courtesy of IFC Films

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

RODNEY ASCHER

By Rodney Ascher and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked the filmmakers or distributors who I believe to be the most original voices in the industry to submit responses to four questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how they've been influential on their careers.

The response below is Rodney Ascher, director/editor of the highly acclaimed Room 237 that explores bizarre interpretations of The Shining.  Rodney's upcoming films include a documentary, The Nightmare, and a chapter of The ABCs of Death 2.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why?

No, not ALL aspiring filmmakers anyway. Everyone building from the same influences would be kind of boring, wouldn't it? 

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view classics and why?

Again, not EVERY one. There's the Scorsese/Tarantino model of film-scholar as filmmaker but I'm pretty open to people coming from different places. I'd be especially interested in seeing a movie made by someone who'd never seen one. 

How has viewing indies and films from around the world helped you as a filmmaker?

Hard to say, clearly my sensibility was influenced by hundreds (thousands?) of films and filmmakers from a pretty wide spectrum (and I LITERALLY drew from a lot of them in 237), but I think there's also a danger in thinking you need to see the right number of the right films before you can contribute something new. It's easy to spend time watching and re-watching that might have been better spent by working on your own projects. I've probably wasted half my life that way.

What's one American indie and one film not in English that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

Um....Alphaville and "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story"

The next responses will start on Monday.  You won't want to miss them.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Sumyi Khong Antonson

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

SUMYI KHONG ANTONSON

By Sumyi Khong Antonson and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked the filmmakers or distributors who I believe to be the most original voices in the industry to submit responses to four questions about if/why they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view and how they've been influential on their careers.

The response below is Sumyi Khong Antonson, Vice President of Marketing and Distribution for Drafthouse Films.  During her time at Drafthouse, the company has released Joshua Oppenheimer's Oscar-nominated THE ACT OF KILLING, Michel Gondry's MOOD INDIGO, and Alex van Varmerdam's BORGMAN.  Prior to working at Drafthouse, she was the Executive Director of Marketing for Anchor Bay Films. 

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why?

Yes, some of the most interesting and innovative films are coming from the independent space and through foreign films. At Drafthouse Films, an independent distribution company, we seek out films that touch and move us and many of the films we gravitate towards happen to be foreign language titles. We don't seek them out specifically, but there is a lot of exciting and boundary-pushing cinema coming from different parts of the world, and taking in fresh sensibilities and viewpoints only further enriches an aspiring filmmaker or general film-goers' overall movie watching experience.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view classics and why?

Again yes, like above [question], experiencing older films also enriches a filmgoer's experience for contemporary titles too. In addition to catching more references, influences, and groundbreaking techniques of previous films as it relates to current filmmakers, there are just a ton of fantastic, older but timeless films out there! Also, movies are often shaped by the era's ideology, trendsm and circumstance they were created in and can serve to be an interesting window into the sociological importances of that time.

How has viewing indies and films from around the world helped you as a distributor?

Our boutique distribution company specializes in indies, so for us, it's a treat to find movies we love and get them out into the world and not worry as much about focusing on elements such as star casting or a title that may be more mainstream but more bland, because we can focus on the story and performances. On a personal level, it was also helped broaden my worldview on both cultural nuances and universal themes relatable across all languages through cinema.

What's one American indie and one film not in English that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

Hm, there are so many so I'm going to cheat and choose two films that I've worked on recently to narrow down the selection, but to be fair, young/aspiring filmmakers will get a lot of out both movies. And they are both on Netflix so easy to access! 

For the indie title, Cheap Thrills is a dark comic thriller that pushes the limit based on a simple, relatable premise of how far you would go for money. The film escalates wildly but thoroughly and realistically balances both the humor and the darker moments wonderfully without causing whiplash to the audience. E.L. Katz, the first-time director did an amazing job nailing strong performances across the board, working the script so that only the essential dialogue is left on the page, tightly editing the film with no extraneous dialogue or scenes so that every moment is necessary to the story and also giving the film a larger sense of scope given the limited set locations. The film was also shot in 12 days so not only is the film a really fun movie to watch, it's also a display of everything coming together despite limited resources and time to create a film that feels much larger in scope. 

For a foreign title, I'm recommending our Oscar-nominated documentary feature, The Act of Killing by Joshua Oppenheimer and executive produced and supported by documentary titans Werner Herzog and Errol Morris. Not only is it fascinating...to see former genocide leaders act out their memories in fantastical scenes via musical numbers, film noir and action scenes and cowboy Western sets, the film also tackles much more layered moral and social conundrums such as what it would be like for these murderers to be living in a culture where they are celebrated for their evil actions--and, since they are not being challenged to confront or admit those actions as wrongdoings--how they internalize or display their varying levels of guilt. On a technical level, the film also turns the documentary form on its head. Never have subjects participated in the reenactment process in the manner that they do in this film, which in turn, their very involvement helps unfold yet another layer to the story about these men.

The next response will be from Rodney Ascher, director of ROOM 237.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Marshall Curry

Director Marshall Curry Photo Credit: Bill Gallagher 

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

MARSHALL CURRY

By Marshall Curry and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked the filmmakers or distributors who I believe to be the most original voices in the industry to submit responses to four questions about if/why they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view and how they've been influential on their careers.

The response below is from Marshall Curry, director/producer/editor of POINT AND SHOOT, a superb documentary that won the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival.  I said the following about POINT AND SHOOT when I reviewed it out of Tribeca: "It is a multi-dimensional portrait of a unique man, it is a powerful story of war, and it is an important historical document.  How many movies can one say that about?"  Marshall's first documentary, STREET FIGHT, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary, his second film, RACING DREAMS, won the Tribeca Film Festival, and his third film, IF A TREE FALLS: A STORY OF THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary.  

Matthew VanDyke sitting in the prison cell in POINT AND SHOOT. Photographer: Nouri Fonas

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why?/Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view classics and why?

There's a great interview I once heard where the scientist Oliver Sacks is being asked why he thinks it's important for kids to study science.  And he says, "We'll I don't study science because I think it's important.  I just study it because I think it's so interesting." 

I sort of feel the same way about foreign and independent film.  I just watch them because they are interesting-- they challenge and stretch and also entertain me.

How has viewing indies and films from around the world helped you as a filmmaker?

My filmmaking has definitely been influenced by the films I have seen-- docs, independent film, foreign films and also Hollywood drivel.  I see things that I like and try to incorporate them into my work, and the things I don't like I try to avoid.

What's one American indie and one film not in English that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

I think Memento is an amazing indie film.  And Run Lola Run is another of my favorites (which also qualifies as a foreign language film).

The next response will be from Sumyi Khong Antonson, Vice President of Marketing and Distribution for Drafthouse Films.