Simply A Masterpiece

A Masterpiece!

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I have seen this film several times, and as a fellow New York City film buff find it very fascinating, especially some of the insights Jack has on the workings of the projection rooms. While I would consider it difficult to sit through more than 3 or 4 films in a week, these five people are seeing at least that many per day!!!Unfortunately, one obvious issue the film glosses over is just how these people can afford this lifestyle. Early on it is mentioned that while Jack is living off an inheritance and Bill is a freelance editor, the other three (Harvey, Roberta, and Eric) are living on disability. Now, I'm not exactly a right-wing Republican but surely it must occur to some, if not most, viewers that people receiving disability payments are supposed to be, you know, DISABLED, and not running around Manhattan attending movies all day. Maybe they are conning the system or maybe they really do have some non-obvious disability (besides O-C disorder) that prohibits them from working - the filmmakers make no attempt to find out.

The most impressive thing is that these people are real. No CGI or Stan Winston animatronics, and Frank Oz doesn't have his hand up their back, they are real people of flesh and blood just like me and you! Scary, I know.My favorite has to be Roberta. Maybe because I don't come across to many women who love movies like I do, and Roberta REALLY loves movies. And on the positive side she doesn't freak me out as much as, say Jack. Jack (better than any character Woody Allen ever created) actually eats constipating food so he doesn't have to go to the restroom as often during the day. Which I can understand since he has to get through a gazillion movies each year, so when will he ever find the time to take a dump? But that's only answering one question. Answering that other question: I guess he just pees in an empty bottle during the movie. Hey it's dark in a movie theater, so who would notice?"Cinemania" is really both sad and beautiful at the same time. And at times it even scared the hell out of me! If you call your self a movie buff, and have a wife or girlfriend who thinks you should spend less time on your hobby: take her to see this and she will realize that she could do a heck of a lot worse.

Cinemania, screened recently as a world premiere at AMMI in Queens (where it was partially shot), deals with the marginal world of true movie nuts: New Yorkers who attend anywhere from 500 to 1000 feature films in cinemas per year at the cost of leaving no time for virtually any other activities or "normal" social life.I am a "recovering cinemaniac" who attended 600 films per year throughout the '70s and '80s, but not now -I've moved on to other pursuits, mainly music. I personally know four of the five principals featured in this documentary. We used to meet on a nearly daily basis at MoMA, Film Forum, Walter Reade, the old Thalia, or many other now-defunct Gotham revival houses including the Gramercy, Regency, Theatre 80 St. Marks, Jean Renoir Cinema, Fifth Avenue Cinema, The New Yorker, Bleecker St. Cinema, Carnegie Hall Cinema, etc. Each of these true "characters" is quite serious about this avocation, collecting memorabilia (Roberta and Harvey), or making endless preparations and cross-referenced lists of upcoming showtimes so as not to miss anything important or rare that is screening (Jack). Eric has sadly succumbed to watching videos, but is still included here as sort of an "emeritus" cinemaniac.The filmmakers, who stated at the q&a post-screening that they were independently filming Jack when they joined forces on this single project, miss a great opportunity to really dig into the subject -the Golden Age of movie culture in New York, which existed back in the '50s, '60s and '70s. Pioneering figures like Anthology Archives' Jonas Mekas are still on the scene and could have been interviewed, and a study of the days of Amos Vogel, Sid Geffen, Richard Roud, Andy Warhol, et al would have made for a riveting documentary even if the "documents plus voices" approach of Ken Burns were all that could be conjured up of the past.Instead, the directors took the lazy contemporary approach, for which the audience rightly took them to task at the q&a. The five very interesting individuals are trailed around town during 2000/2001 in lame cinéma vérité style, revealing more silly foibles than insight. I felt very bad for my friends and acquaintances, who deserved a lot more than being treated as figures of fun. Ironically, what the 5 Cinemaniacs had to say at the Q&A (NOT recorded by these filmmakers) was vastly more interesting and revealing than anything shown in the film itself.The premise of this film is sadly off-target: the claim is made that cinemania flourishes in New York in this new 21st Century, when in fact anyone with any memory knows the Good Old Days are long gone. As Jack frequently points out, print quality is a serious problem. Absence of talented and dedicated projectionists is equally harmful. As imdb fans must know, everything today is driven by DVD, video and new technology. The great revival houses are gone. Sure there are dedicated restoration projects devoted to individual film titles, but the endless feast of revival films is no more, when the collected works of Bergman, Truffaut, Dreyer, Chabrol, Kurosawa, Antonioni and all the American masters were constantly on display right back through to the Silents. Heck, back in the '70s it was routine for COMMERCIAL FIRST-RUN CINEMAS to run Garbo, Keaton, Chaplin and Marx Bros. festivals. I was living in Cambridge back in the '60s when the Bogey and other revival cults really took hold.Nowhere in this flimsy documentary do we find about the Thousand Eyes film society, the history of midnight movies (begun at the old Elgin Theater, now the Joyce Dance Theater in Chelsea), Cinema 16 and the Underground Film movement (which presaged the Midnight Movies) or even a hint of the once rich ethnic cinemas (foreign language films shown without subtitles, Spanish, Indian, Polish, etc.) that were all killed off by video. Alas, I hope someone delves into the fun by-gone eras of movie fanaticism -when GOING to catch a rare film was the impetus to self-education about the cinema. Even drive-ins were a great source in "them days", right up through the '70s. Today a movie nut is likely to be building a COLLECTION (undreamed of decades ago) of adulterated VHS or revisionist (how much added footage & commentary can be tossed into the pot) DVD material. As a purist, I never counted seeing a film on tv as actually SEEING it - it had to be on a screen (Marshall McLuhan had an explanation for this but I was merely intuitive). Today's movie buffs have settled for the illusion rather than the real deal (driven by our society's ever-reliance on planned obsolescence, as exemplified by the imminent end of the VHS just as BETA disappeared and DVD will be later destroyed (how about those self-destructing inferior quality laserdiscs??).Punchline is that this documentary was SHOT ON VIDEO (and then transferred to film), a fact commented upon derogatorily by Jack & others who revere 35mm (or 70mm). The current generation is treating film and video as interchangeable; a near-future generation will not even know what film is (was) once digital technology completely takes over in cinemas. All in the pursuit of (or worse, cutting corners to save) an almighty buck.

This film was a favorite at the Seattle Film Festival. I went to a screening last night with rather high expectations, some of which were met and others, which well... were not.We follow six oddballs from the big apple whose lives center around thick film festival guides and meticulous prints of "La Dolce Vita". The beginning is a clever montage in which we are introduced to each one and are allowed to laugh at their idiosyncracies. One individual's eccentric voiceover is played while he's spreading half a jar of peanut butter onto a slice of wonderbread. All are extraordinarily unattractive and the nightmare of any suburban mother who's afraid that they're kid is watching too much television. I am beginning to the think the term "film buff" should be given a new meaning. They ride on a subways crowded with anxious people catching the train to work. They sit at the sides of the train, hearts pounding at the pure thought of someone may "stealing their special seat" at the 3:00 showing at MoMA. One even collects thousands of film records. The revelation? He doesn't even own a record player.The film stays a quirky, safe experience in the first half-hour. Then it becomes repetitive, disturbing, and not necessarily in a poignant matter. We step into their apartments and it's not surprising that they're all packrats (to say the VERY least). Many live with books (mostly related to film) stacked up to the ceilings, struggling daily to find their way out the door. Their social lives are exclusive to their `film society', which consists of spitting out film titles and waiting for ten second criticisms. Only one person is employed. The rest either live off someone else or a dead relatives royalties. The film became progressively more uncomfortable for me upon realizing that this, was, indeed a documentary… and that the hypocrisy of sitting in a theatre, laughing at an extreme version of myself became too much for me. Had the filmmakers not been there, I probably might have walked out. As playwright Edward Albee said: `The best art holds a mirror in front of your face and says, THIS IS WHO YOU ARE. NOW CHANGE.' I wish it could have applied to this movie the same way. It never strayed from being a caricature-driven freak show and very much resisted giving us a thorough investigation of who the psychology of these people. What the hell they get out of saving every ticket stub and soda cup from their childhood. Tell me why? Tell me how? Give me answers before the film comes to an end…And of course, as most films do… `Cinemania' came to end and left this viewer extremely irritated. Usually, I resist walking out of the theatre commenting on the film's quality. This time, when asked the question, I answered: `Self-conscious. But I'm sure they're thrilled that they're on screen. It's just too bad they don't understand how sad they are…' Which, I will admit… is a matter of opinion… and surely mine will be battered.For me, it was a montage of social loners and obsessive-compulsives in the Big Apple. A friend of mine was touched, humored and said it reminded him of… well, himself. What I failed to tell him was that it affected me the same way too. He just has a better sense of humor.Recommended for fans of `Trekkies', `The Cruise' and `Crumb'.RATING: 6/10