TromaDance: Hunk and The Hagstone Demon
I would be ungrateful if I entirely skipped a free film festival right in Salt Lake City — right on the train route, in fact — so I stopped over at the City Library for their screenings tonight.
I think I can get away with a one-sentence description of Hunk, since it was less than five minutes long: It’s a dialog-free short shot in crude, high contrast black-and-white, and it has something to do with cannibalism. As with an awful lot of student short, it presupposes recreational pharmaceuticals on the part of the audience to bring depth and meaning.
The feature for the evening was The Hagstone Demon, whose main claim to fame is a starring role for Mark Borchardt, aka “that guy from American Movie.” I would like to think that my critique is above any pettiness, but seriously — aren’t his fifteen minutes up yet? When Paris Hilton can best you in the “worthwhile accomplishments in your life” category…
Anyway. Borchardt plays Douglas, the washed-up aloholic caretaker of The Hagstone, a crumbling apartment building slated to be demolished in a couple of months. Weird stuff happens in artsy monochrome, and there are cryptic flashbacks in full color to some dark deeds in Douglas’ past which stay completely unexplained until a two-liter bottle of exposition is dumped in our laps three-quarters of the way through. And then the ending still makes no sense.
I wanted to like this one; the camera work showed a good sense of composition and tableau, and there was atmosphere and ambience up the ying-yang. Problem is, that’s ALL there was for most of the movie. It’s as if a full ninety-minute movie was made by people who had previously only been involved in three-minute student shorts, and atmosphere was all they knew how to do — not dramatic tension or suspense, not pacing, not characterization…
A big part of the problem is, yup, Borchardt. It was obviously a “pack your own warddrobe” picture, and it was hard to take the character of Douglas seriously as a person descended below his station with Borchardt’s big square glasses, white trash baseball cap, and generally shlubby stoner appearance. Douglas, we’re told, was once a big-shot reporter who’s life had hit the crapper, but Borchardt’s performance make it seem like being the super in a low-end tenement was stretching his competencies. (And you really need a strong performer if half of the dialog is going to be delivered in voiceover.) At least his acting had the positive side effect of helping everyone else look good (objectively, the other performances ranged from “bizarrely stilted” to “sooooo much better than this material).
Those are the only showing I have been or will be able to attend at TromaDance, so I miss out on David Gregory’s Plague Town, Frank Henenlotter’s Bad Biology, and the documentary Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown. Alas.
Nathan
“When Paris Hilton can best you in the “worthwhile accomplishments in your life” category…”
-It seems that you know very little about Mark Borchardt. He remains an inspiration to many independent artists and free-thinkers to this day. You obviously seem like a mainstream entertainment fan, please stick to critiques of what you understand i.e. mainstream entertainment.
“I would like to think that my critique is above any pettiness, but seriously — aren’t his fifteen minutes up yet?”
Most of your criticisms are not only petty, but uneducated. By applying your limited mainstream pop-culture awareness to subjects and individuals that it does not fit, you end up in the spotlight as the pseudo-hipster doofus with popcorn grease all over his face. A lot of people watch films that they do not understand, I suggest that you pay more attention to the film, and less to the character’s wardrobe in the future.
Because you claim to know so much about the art of film making, it may be time to make a feature film of your own smart-ass! With your vast knowledge of the creative process, and your understanding of what works and what does not work in cinema, this may be your calling. Actions speak louder than words, take action and create a film of your own! a work that simultaneously serves as a template for the less talented director, an entertaining film, and a beacon of cinema-correctness for others just like you, those who like to sit, watch, and criticize, the consumers!
I think the easiest way to refute your poorly-reasoned blather is simply to leave it up for all to see. I mean, come on — the reviewer behind Cold Fusion Video Reviews, who’s writing a book on Charles Band, is a “mainstream entertainment fan”? Your ignorance is only exceeded by your presumption.
Oh, and I was not aware that having an opinion on movies is only permissible among those who have made movies. (Or is it only negative opinions which are verboten?) Brilliant use of a tired and unsupportable argument, sir/madam! By your own standards, then, I denounce you for ever having had an opinion about a movie without having made one, or having an opinion about a musician without playing that same instrument, or having an opinion about a sports team with having been a professional athlete, or having an opinion about a fast food establishment without having ever managed a franchise, or having an opinion about a political candidate (HOW DARE YOU VOTE!) without having held office.
It may shock you to find out that, in our enlightened Western culture, expressing an opinion contrary to one’s own does not justify treating such a person with rage, insults, and general impotent flustering. However, I hear there are several jihadist organizations who actively seek intolerant individuals such as yourself who react to diversity of opinion with mouth-foaming. Your career is secure!
Shumate FTW!
Is there a name for the “have YOU ever made a better movie?!” argument? Like how comparing something to the Nazis is called Godwins or whatever?
There should be a name for it. It’s ubiquitous.
“Creative chickenhawk argument,” maybe?
Of course you don’t have to have made a movie before you can have an opinion about one. Movies are made for people to have opinons about, otherwise what’s the point? For a completely different take on “The Hagstone Demon” read Quietearth’s review– http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2009/01/19/Review-of-Jon-Springers-brilliant-combo-of-noir-and-horror-THE-HAGSTONE-DEMON
Fangoria also gave HAGSTONE a fairly positive review, though not quite as glowing.
I would like to note that I have not begun to question the intelligence, good will, or general fitness to live of those who gave the movie a positive review. See, it’s not so hard to be civilized, is it, Kessler?
He he. It’s always a good move to start a movie review with an outright lie: “I wanted to like this one.” What a hack job. Talk about a “jihad” against Mark Borchardt
(BTW I’m sure the unfortunate filmmakers appreciated your little quip that you missed every other Troma screening except theirs – lucky them!). Because of your petty assault on Borchardt – who is great by the way – I will now seek this movie out.
Oh, lord… Is there no better way to express disagreement than to start by accusing me of lying?
So let’s see:
You obviously know my mind well enough to tell that I’m lying — that I sacrificed an evening and sought out a screening of a movie I expected, nay, wanted to hate. Right.
“What a hack job.” I’m sorry, but did you not admit that you haven’t seen the movie? Would not a familiarity with the subject under discussion be advisable before you simply dismiss my opinion?
Is it a “jihad” against Mark Borchardt to think that he’s famous for no particular reason? He’s the Joe the Plumber of cinema. Having only seen him before in the documentary American Movie, I had no idea before going into this movie if he could act. The answer: He can’t. (Or at best, his range is limited and he was utterly miscast in this one.)
No, I don’t have any illusions that I can change your mind about me. When you start with the conspiratorial notion that I’m lying just because I disagree with your opinion of a movie you have not to this point seen… I don’t hold much hope for a reasonable discussion.
How do you people get through the internet without burning, seething rage at people who DISAGREE WITH YOU??!1? I didn’t like the movie. Get over it, and find something else to keep your disgruntled selves up with at night.
“Is it a ‘jihad’ against Mark Borchardt to think that he’s famous for no particular reason? He’s the Joe the Plumber of cinema”
Yes Nathan, it’s readily apparent to the reader from the first paragraph that you don’t like Mark Borchardt….personally. Your poison pen seems to be laced with personal denigration toward him, both explicit and implicit. Especially odious in your personal assaults is the subtle class references (e.g. “pack your own wardrobe production” “white trash baseball cap” et al). What the hell is that? Mark may indeed be a below middle-class citizen of our wealth-obsessed nation, but for the record (available for all on the internet) Borchardt intentionally walked away from the Hollywood shit sandwich that was offered him and returned to Milwaukee a better man. A lesser person (i.e. media whore) would have opened wide, swallowed and asked for seconds. In regard to Mark’s acting, yeah everyone knows he’s not Laurence Olivier…but to make that the thesis of your review is to completely miss the point. People like Mark because he’s an interesting, outspoken dude with a magnetic personality, and because he’s the underdog. The people who don’t like Mark only see an under-class loser who, for some totally unjustified and unacceptable reason, gets more attention than they do.
Well, at least you’re no longer exulting in calling me a liar in your first sentence. That’s progress, right?
It pretty obviously WAS a “pack your own wardrobe” picture — that’s a statement of budget, not inherent denigration. Unfortunately, Mark’s clothing, which is probably very comfortable and all, doesn’t exactly establish him as a leading man, visually. The “white trash baseball cap” is a reference to some of the merchandise sold FROM TROMA at the event — an “Official White Trash Truckers Hat.” Don’t complain to me about lack of respect for headwear when the people SPONSORING THE SHOWING were promoting it.
I’ve got nothing against lower-than-middle-class people. I’m one of them, and I live among them. But as far as Borchardt’s appearance and performance went, they were BAD CHOICES for the film. Even shucking the square glasses would have been an improvement; he takes them off at some points during the movie, and he’s much more striking visually without them.
But here’s the real kicker. You say: “In regard to Mark’s acting, yeah everyone knows he’s not Laurence Olivier…but to make that the thesis of your review is to completely miss the point. People like Mark because he’s an interesting, outspoken dude with a magnetic personality, and because he’s the underdog.”
No, his acting IS THE POINT. The success of the movie as an effective narrative IS THE POINT. He’s the performer who’s on-screen for at least 98% of the movie; he has to carry it. The fact that, in my assessment, he’s not up to the task is PRECISELY THE POINT.
Look, Mark Borchardt may be a nice guy, but the one thing he’s famous for, the documentary American Movie, goes to great lengths to portray him as a loser — long on talk, short on accomplishment. If the documentary is wrongly skewed, fine, but I don’t see why his inexplicable mascot status for underdog cinema makes me dutybound to tonguebathe his acting when it’s a large part of what’s wrong with the movie. As I said, I would have been content if his performance had been up to snuff (go ahead, call me a liar again if it will give you that warm glow of accomplishment). As it wasn’t, the only thing Borchardt brings to the movie is his name value of “fame for fame’s sake,” the same as if they had cast William Hung or Joe the Plumber or Lisa Marie Pressley.
“Unfortunately, Mark’s clothing, which is probably very comfortable and all, doesn’t exactly establish him as a leading man, visually.”
Oh really? Just what kind of clothing should a “leading man” wear, Nathan? Armani? Day Wear by Leonard? Gimme a break, man. This guy’s supposed to be an apartment caretaker, right? Looking at the picture you pasted in the article I would say that’s a fairly realistic portrayal.
“Even shucking the square glasses would have been an improvement; he takes them off at some points during the movie, and he’s much more striking visually without them.”
Borchardt WITHOUT his glasses?!?!? Are you kidding? There again you’re missing the whole point. Mark Borchardt without his massive googles would be like Charlie Chaplin without his bowler, or Humphrey Bogart without his trenchcoat! For goodness sake.
“As I said, I would have been content if his performance had been up to snuff.”
Oops… I just read your piece on the inexplicable rave reviews of Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight.” I don’t think any further commentary by me is necessary. Signing off for now….
Right. You only know about the movie what I’ve told you, yet you conclude I’m wrong about everything. The shot of Borchardt in my little summary? That comes right at the end of the movie in which he’s shucked half of his clothing to sealcrawl into the crawlspace. It’s not representative of how he looks for the other eleven-twelfths of the movie. (You missed a bet by not calling me to task on the missing ballcap! After all, I criticized his hat, but it’s not in the picture! I MUST HAVE LIED AGAIN!)
I know you’ve moved on, content in your having bested another idiot with the nerve to disagree with your uninformed dicta, but for the benefit of the innocent bystanders:
“Borchardt WITHOUT his glasses?!?!? Are you kidding? There again you’re missing the whole point. Mark Borchardt without his massive googles would be like Charlie Chaplin without his bowler, or Humphrey Bogart without his trenchcoat! For goodness sake.”
Thank you for proving my point. His casting was not about who could carry the role; it was about OMG WE GOT BORCHARDT!!!, a non-celebrity celebrity. As for as you’re concerned, it’s all about Maximum Borchardt Exposure, not about what makes the movie a better movie. I tend not to assess movies solely on a scale of stunt casting; you, obviously, have the wisdom to base your opinion entirely on it, sight unseen.
And gee, do you mean Charlie Chaplin when he played the Great Dictator? And do you mean Humphrey Bogart when he won an Oscar for The African Queen?
As the primary screenwriter and co-producer of “The Hagstone Demon,” I feel compelled to say a few words. First of all, Mr. Shumate, I want to thank you for your honesty and candor. It is fresh air compared to most of the don’t-want-to-offend-nobody online reviews that I read. Stick to your guns, young man! If you don’t like “The Hagstone Demon,” then say so! I don’t particularly like it either, and I wote it!
However, I feel the urge to say something about my friend, Mark Borchardt. Yes, we cast him in “Hagstone” because he was Mark Borchardt. We cast him because he had been the subject of a documentary called “American Movie,” which went on to win an Oscar, and Mark had gained some notoriety due to this and had developed a certain following, and we looked to capitalize on this. So there you have it. We used Mark Borchardt.
That being said, I found Mark to be very professional. He showed up early everyday of the shoot. He was prepared and focused. I began to like this guy, his sense of humor, and I learned much from his own sense of innate curiosity and ingenuousness. Sure, we adapted the script to fit Mark, Mark adapted himself to fit the script, and we made “The Hagstone Demon.” Personally, I want to get on to the next project.
Thank you, Harrison.
(Heh. “Young man.” Something you don’t hear every day directed at a thirty-seven-year-old with four children…)
Nathan, see, this is why I love your site.
“Oops… I just read your piece on the inexplicable rave reviews of Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight.” I don’t think any further commentary by me is necessary.”
Yes, because you see the whole point of being a cult movie fan isn’t to seek out new experiences in cinema, or to try and to revitalize to long-stagnant American studios by bringing the obscure to the forefront. It’s to eschew well-made, quirky films that are “mainstream”, and gobble up whatever offal isn’t filmed by a corporation. Cripes, who’d of thought the movie geek subculture would ever be popular enough to attract pseudo-sophisticate posers. Now I know how Goths feel about cheerleaders who shop at Hot Topic.
Actually, my bad, I thought Pig was mocking Dark Knight, re-reading I thing he was just mocking you for analyzing it on something higher than a “OMG B3st Ev3r!!!” level. That’s what I get for reading poorly-stated petulance while drinking decaf.
I simply wrote a response -a response that you did not tolerate, to your negative opinion of a film starring someone whom I admire. I did not imply, not for one lousy second, that your opinion of the film was forbidden in any way. You were able to make it seem as though my intention was to take away your freedom of speech, but in reality I believe that in our so-called enlightened Western culture, we are all entitled to our negative opinions, negative thoughts, positive thoughts, greasy popcorn, etc…
When I said “You obviously seem like a mainstream entertainment fan”. I used the word SEEM intentionally. The reason why you strike me as a mainstream entertainment fan, is revealed by the way that you used the “15 minutes of fame” statement. It’s as if you agree with the impatient pop-culture notion that celebrities should become obsolete, no matter who they are, as soon as their expiration date is up -an expiration date determined by an elusive popularity contest featuring the trendiest of highly-polished turds of the minute. Apply this measure of worth and judgment to the computer-generated, airbrushed, Hollywood-scumbag elite if you must, but think twice before you apply it to someone like Mark Borchardt. According to that criteria, a guy like Ed Wood is just a bad b-movie director, and Chester N. Turner only made unwatchable VHS garbage -a handful of oddball artists to be left in the dust, because their vision is just not common enough for the average dude to wrap his mind around, to identify with, or even be interested in. Your text also reads as though you are pushing your fans to agree with you, as in “C’mon gang, aren’t Borchardt’s fifteen minutes up yet?” Just because Mark Borchardt does not conform to popular opinion of what a celebrity should be, does not mean that his “15 minutes” are up. Practice your tolerance here, and stop encouraging your fans to engage in mob-mentality behavior.
I only suggested that you personally make a movie because you criticize film with an air of knowledge and precision. Imagine a restaurant where the specialized hosts only describe what is wrong with inferior cheap food, and then expect their patrons to leave satisfied. You are creating a void that you refuse to fill. I only suggested that you make your own movie because you Nathan, deep down inside, may want to make a film. Maybe you want to, maybe not. If so, just imagine making a flick WHILE you criticize the work of others. Criticize the work of others WITH your example of cinematic perfection.
When I see a movie, listen to music, eat at a restaurant, etc… I form an opinion based on a first-hand experience. I make up my own mind. When you criticize something and post it for others to read, you become the middle man. You experience the event for your readers, and for your information, what you report is not earth-shattering news, it’s no walk on the moon. You provide a service that your readers are very capable of providing for themselves. I, like many others, don’t really need your help in deciding what I want to watch. The filmmaker has a direct relationship with the viewer. As a critic, you squeeze your way in between director and audience, to impose your taste on the viewer, and potentially influence the director. It is a sorry state of affairs when critics affect art. Nature and individual imagination are much more profound influences on creativity. Your job is not as important as the directors job, nor the job of the viewer. That’s reality. Film making and movie-going is not as important as who is elected president -that’s a little bit more important than what movie I am planning to watch next, so don’t equate our right to vote with your right to slam Mark Borchardt.
Alas, I must apologize for calling you bad names, and suggesting that you make a movie. Please DON’T take my advice and make a movie, and I won’t take your advice and join a jihadist organization. Is it a deal?
The Bog Man said »
“Actually, my bad, I thought Pig was mocking Dark Knight, re-reading I thing he was just mocking you for analyzing it on something higher than a “OMG B3st Ev3r!!!” level.”
I suggest you get some new glasses, preferably ones with big huge plastic frames: http://images.salon.com/ent/movies/int/1999/11/02/borchardt/story.jpg
Borchardt. Rules.
Can anyone lend me fifty cents for the city bus?