The best place to drink heavily at Fashion Island is...Red Robin. Unexpected, right? But a Jack-and-Diet there will run you $4.79 plus tax, and it comes in a full-size glass. Don't ask why the price is so strangely to-the-penny; just enjoy the fact that it's a cocktail cheaper than many beers. Other cocktails are similarly good value; a rather picky diner specified the ingredients he wanted in a Zombie, and ended up paying just $6, slices of fruit and all. But then he left half of it behind.
I'm not proud to admit I finished it after he left (with the bartender's encouragement, but that's no excuse). Needed the vitamin C from that orange slice and cherry (that is an excuse. Kind of a poor one, but it is, all the same).
In another liquor-related issue: it turns out that there hadn't been Absolut Vodka at the preceding parties because OCMA doesn't have a liquor license to cover anything more than wine and beer...and yet, last night's party was at American Rag, a clothing store, and vodka was being freely poured. Are we to understand that a clothing store has a liquor license that a museum can't get? Apparently.
The main movie of the night, previously much anticipated, was The ArtFusion Experiment, a film by and about tattoo artist Paul Booth, a guy who looks about 300 pounds, with an inked, mostly shaved head that has a small grouping of long dreads hanging out the very back, like a jack to plug him into the Matrix. The experiment mentioned in the title is one of collaborative, spontaneous art, where like minds get together and draw freehand, improvised images as a team. This can be done in tattoo form, or on paper – as previously mentioned here, Booth and company demonstrated their art the night before, on a willing victim.
Booth is great at what he does, and indeed he and other tattoo artists deserve to be recognized by the art world. With that said, the film isn't very good at all. It's possible to agree with every point it raises while wishing that it had more of a story arc, or had been better lit, or had maybe been made by someone other than its own subject. As a home movie, it beats "Dad grilling burgers in the backyard last summer," but as a theatrical movie, it's not worth paying for. Sorry, Kerry King of Slayer – it's cool you produced it and all, and you're playing to the choir here, but I'm just not digging the tune.
Someone still should do a documentary on tattooing – there's a huge market for it, judging by the inked crowd who turned out to a mall multiplex they'd likely never go near any other time. They deserve a good movie. Go make one.
April 25, 2007 09:04
I think the overall review that you gave this film is bogus. The film should be seen for what it is and that is the Art form of fusing several artists styles to create one lare great design. I think this movie overall was a great depiction of what Paul and Filip have started as a new movement in this industry. I think this film was great so screw this review this should be shown and exhibited all over the world.
April 26, 2007 09:04
I saw this film and the idea for Art Fusion is putting ego aside to create one amazing piece of art on canvas and skin. Credit should also be given to the clients that can endure the pain of two to six artist at a time working on them. This could be the next big movment in art, but with people like you doing the reviews, and thinking the market is in drama filled shows like INKED and MIAMI INK, shows how unfamilar you are with this industry. Judging what Paul looks like, and taking shots at him for his appearance makes me think you are some blonde metro-sexual with a wind tested hair-do, a pink shirt, and sandles! Instead of making BS reviews, insulting the most talented tattoo artist this world has ever seen, and being unable to see the big pictures you should probably just keep your opinions to yourself. Unless of course you are reviewing something you can relate to, but I don't think we will see a "My Little Pony" movie aytime soon, so I guess you're out of luck!
April 26, 2007 10:04
Sigh. You did actually read what I wrote, right? Let me repeat the key sentence you both appear to have skipped:
"Booth is great at what he does, and indeed he and other tattoo artists deserve to be recognized by the art world."
...and how is describing what he looks like "taking shots"? Is he not shaven-headed, or heavy? Does he not have hair as described? Since I can't post a photo on this blog, words have to suffice in painting the picture. How would YOU describe him, physically?
The merits of his art are a separate issue from whether this is a well-made FILM. I happen to think he deserves a better movie, made by someone other than him.
Love the speculation on my looks, though.
April 26, 2007 14:04
Well I guess I will respond again, since you seem to be asking questions. First off, I DID read what you wrote, and the key sentance is not "Booth is great at what he does, and indeed he and other tattoo artists deserve to be recognized by the art world."
The key sentance(s) to your whole write up is "The film isn't very good at all. It's possible to agree with every point it raises while wishing that it had more of a story arc, or had been better lit, or had maybe been made by someone other than its own subject. As a home movie, it beats "Dad grilling burgers in the backyard last summer," but as a theatrical movie, it's not worth paying for.
Now the movie is shot as a documentary, right? So that would exclude it as a "home movie" (like Dad in the backyard) and would also exclude it as a "theatrical movie" at least in your mind because it must really pale in comparasion to what? Star Wars? I'm willing to bet you loved that one!
Now for you "describing" what Paul looks like, if it was some guy in a suit and clean cut would you have bothered to write anything? Again I am willing to bet the answer is NO! If you think your "description" of him was not offending, even after your stupid Matrix comment, then you really are a horrible writter! To answer your question of how I would descibe him, something like you but without the sarcasm. I do agree with you that Paul deserves a better movie, one with a high budget, but then Paul would have made a horror film, and you would not have the honor of a negative review. This Art Fusion documentary lets you know all the ins and outs of this art form, the history of it, the thousands that were part of it, and the amazing creations that were made by the artists working together, all with different styles, to create one mind blowing piece of art! So in your eyes who better to do the movie than one of the creators of this whole movement? I think the real tattoo industry will be glad we got an inside look at this, and hope the rest of the world will start giving tattoo artist the credit they deserve. So once again I recommend you do write ups on things you can relate to, because you are a lost soul in the tattoo world!
April 26, 2007 15:04
Fine....no assumptions. How about some simple questions? If you are tattooed and attend tattoo conventions have you ever seen a collaberative tattoo being done? Now since you have already been under the needle, how can one not notice to give credit for the pain? It does not have to be imagined. Tattoos are painfull, so how can multiple machines not hurt? Without it being mentioned people know, or at least SHOULD! Now the meaning of documentary... doc·u·men·ta·ry
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
I think "Dad in the backyard" will fall short of this don't you? So describing it that way again seems like taking shots. For his desciption, you are right that offense is in the mind of the reciever, but we both know I am not the only one to take it like that. Especially since you follow it up with such a negaitive outlook on the movie. So maybe a word of caution to your "portrayal" I have my opinion, you clearly have yours. We are not going to agree, and could go on with this forever. The bottom line is the idea, vision, and message of this movie was delivered, and done very well.
April 26, 2007 15:04
Joe, your arguments might be better if you'd stop making assumptions. I'll try not to make any about you.
You write: "Credit should also be given to the clients that can endure the pain of two to six artist at a time working on them."
That is a good point -- how come the film never brings it up? Already, you yourself have thought of something the film-makers didn't. And that's why it might help to have someone other than the artists themselves to make the movie -- they would think of things that might be taken for granted by those in the field.
"Now the movie is shot as a documentary, right? So that would exclude it as a "home movie" (like Dad in the backyard) and would also exclude it as a "theatrical movie" at least in your mind because it must really pale in comparasion to what? Star Wars? I'm willing to bet you loved that one!"
I'm not sure I follow. Qualitatively, it doesn't seem to me any better than a home movie, whether it was intended as one or not, but technically all home movies ARE documentaries. It is a theatrical movie if it shows in a theater and people pay for it.
"Now for you "describing" what Paul looks like, if it was some guy in a suit and clean cut would you have bothered to write anything? Again I am willing to bet the answer is NO!"
That depends. Considering that I've never seen a tattoo artist who was "some guy in a suit and clean cut," I probably would have mentioned it, because he'd stand out in that way. If someone is unique looking, they merit description. I don't think he's looking to blend in.
"If you think your "description" of him was not offending, even after your stupid Matrix comment, then you really are a horrible writter! To answer your question of how I would descibe him, something like you but without the sarcasm."
Offense is in the mind of the receiver, so I can't speak for certain. But you're the one reading sarcasm into it. His unusual dread-ponytail reminded me of a Matrix cable. I don't see how that's intrinsically insulting; it's just one way to describe it.
"So in your eyes who better to do the movie than one of the creators of this whole movement?"
An experienced documentarian with an interest in the subject. Would you let a film-maker with no drafting experience draw your tattoo? Why then must a tattoo artist automatically be a good film-maker? Painters and visual artists are rarely good film directors.
"So once again I recommend you do write ups on things you can relate to, because you are a lost soul in the tattoo world!"
Interesting considering I have four of them, one of which covers my back, and I go to tattoo conventions every year. Regardless of that, a successful documentary needs to play to people who don't know anything about the subject. My opinion is that this one doesn't. It could have been a short and covered the same ground.
And none of that has anything to do with Paul's skill as a tattoo artist, or development of the ArtFusion style. No-one is disputing that, and I'm certainly not dismissing his visual art.
But you can love a subject and still dislike a movie.
April 26, 2007 20:04
Mr. Luke Y Thompson, I am a little confused, I have had the privilege, of attending the last 4 Newport Beach Film Festivals being a resident here in OC and will say that the talk of the town was definitely The Art Fusion Experiment. Why you may ask, because it was not a so-called safe movie that your festival usually shows. Now with that said, I have to ask the question, were we looking at the same movie?
Because I was one of those lucky ones to be able to sit in the crowded theatre amongst the many tattooed fans that showed up not to mention the film festival staff members standing in the back of the auditorium on Monday and can tell you that everyone's jaw was glued to that screen, I am a clean cut person who doesn't have any tattoos and there were quite the number of people there like me not only that but do you realize that it was one of the few movies shown where the entire crowd stayed threw out the credit sequence just to hear what Paul Booth and Vincent V had to say. It's funny how there are people that give reviews solely based on there own perceptions of what a movie should be not what it actually is, there have been a dozen great documentaries on tattooing, I am sure the Discovery Channel and TLC would be more than happy to loan out to you, all covering the same information, but it seems like that same recycled info is what you are looking for in a tattoo doc, If you indeed watched the movie the first thing that would stand out to you is the fact that they didn't waist your time with, what is a tattoo, how much pain goes into obtaining one and how to look threw a tattoo flash magazine to select one, they covered only what the majority of people don't know and that is the process of freehand, the development of custom tattooing, and how collaborative tattooing has evolved to the canvas. In a nut shell everything that you haven't seen in a Discovery Channel Doc or a Doc on TLC, I think you were to busy drinking and being pissed off at the lack of the festival obtaining a license to sell alcohol when in fact you probably should have been sober watching this movie, and maybe your review would have been a little different, I know because the problem with this doc is not that the movie is bad because the execution of this doc, and mine you it is a doc not Star Wars as Joe said, was unbelievable. I can tell you from living as long as I have in Orange County I have absolutely no faith in anything you review again, but I guess closed minded people like you will always have a job because you will never be able to see what the masses really want, funny how when a movie has a bad review it always end up being amongst the highest grossing of movies, do you really think that we listen to you or laugh at your ignorance?
If you are looking for a tattoo doc, this is not for you, this doc is about creative people taking strides in their art form to educate others, I'm sorry but you should have done better research on this subject before watching this film, and one last thing I can bet you are not a Kerry King fan as well as a Paul Booth fan, but giving you the benefit of the doubt with acknowledging that Paul is an incredible artist is probably the only thing that you have written that actually holds fact, do your homework next time Luke, because as the saying goes you really are talking out of your own a**.
April 26, 2007 23:04
Joe - I have no problem with us not agreeing. All I've been trying to do is ensure you don't misconstrue my intent. By your definition of documentary, though, Oscar-winner "March of the Penguins" wouldn't qualify. And yes, I have seen a collaborative tattoo being done -- a couple of nights ago, in fact, by Paul and two colleagues. It was far more enthralling than seeing it in the movie.
Steve - you say I "will never be able to see what the masses really want, funny how when a movie has a bad review it always end up being amongst the highest grossing of movies, do you really think that we listen to you or laugh at your ignorance?" And then you make a crack about Star Wars? LOL.
So I'm curious -- do you think The ArtFusion Experiment will be amongst the highest grossing of movies? Not that grosses should matter to fans of genuine art for art's sake.
As for this:
"you should have done better research on this subject before watching this film"
Do you think paying audiences will do their research? If the movie is only intended to appeal to those who already know and love Paul and have done research, fair enough -- those people won't be swayed by any review one way or the other, and critics are indeed irrelevant. If it's intended to reach out beyond that inner circle, I don't think it's well constructed enough to do so.
April 27, 2007 16:04
HA...Luke, with your constant returning to this write up makes me wonder. You write "you can love a subject and still dislike a movie."
Of course that is true but, I really don't believe you have a "love" for tattoos or art! I know that will be noted as another assumption from me, but it is from your own words that it is reinforced. The most comical to me is how you emphasize "Oscar winning" for March of the Penguins! If that is what constitutes a good movie in your eyes, that is all I need to hear. Unless of course it was just another attempt to discredit the Art Fusion movie as a documentary? I truly feel that all or at least most people that really love art and tattoos will appreciate this movie. I keep coming back to this write up for it is the only one I've seen with a negative opinion. You looking for more of a story arc, wishing it was beeter lit, saying someone should make a tattoo documentary because of the market for it. These things just don't make sense to me? The movie is NOT another tattoo documentary, like Steve said, you want that... TLC, and DISCOVERY would be the place to start. Steve has brought up some good points, but of course attack the weakest part of one's armor, right? So for your question of "Do you think The ArtFusion Experiment will be amongst the highest grossing of movies?" I don't think anyone including Paul is expecting it to top Spider-Man or anything like that. Apparent you are not really interested in this scence, industry, or lifestyle. I understand you sticking up for yourself and your review, even though some of your defenses come across as back peddling. For you saying you have a love for art and tattoos, just really does not convince me. I know you stated you go to conventions, and have 4 tattoos, one even a backpiece. For the rest of us that this industry and lifestyle is held high and shown great respect, it is something I can't explain, and you having a few tattoos won't make you understand. Putting feathers in your ass does not make you a chicken, like I said before your just a little lost in this area. Sorry but that is just how it is....
April 27, 2007 17:04
with your constant returning to this write up makes me wonder.
What can I say, Joe, I have no life. Besides, I thought we were starting to come to an understanding, though I think it's breaking down again.
The most comical to me is how you emphasize "Oscar winning" for March of the Penguins! If that is what constitutes a good movie in your eyes, that is all I need to hear.
I didn't say it was good or bad. Just that it's considered a documentary, despite not fitting into your definition of one.
I don't think anyone including Paul is expecting it to top Spider-Man or anything like that.
I'm sure Paul isn't. But Steve was the one who said that "when a movie has a bad review it always end up being amongst the highest grossing of movies."
Apparent you are not really interested in this scence, industry, or lifestyle.
Wow, I must really have wasted a lot of time and money in my life then. And totally lied just a couple weeks ago in this very paper when I said The ArtFusion Experiment was one of the 12 films I most wanted to see. I imagine you might be right about the Discovery Channel having some movies I'll like more, however.
For the rest of us that this industry and lifestyle is held high and shown great respect, it is something I can't explain, and you having a few tattoos won't make you understand. Putting feathers in your ass does not make you a chicken
I'll say this one more time: I went out of my way in the very first review to state that I was not dissing the subject of the film; just that the film itself was not well-made. It's dispiriting to me that every response so far either ignores that fact or assumes I'm lying.
Apparently you dislike March of the Penguins. I'll take that to mean that you hate birds and would like the polar ice caps to melt, or maybe that you just hate the people who went to Antarctica and worked hard in subzero temperatures to make the movie. Am I wrong? Well sorry, you don't convince me. You can't possibly dislike the movie while respecting the crew and the subject matter.
That's your kind of argument, Joe. But if you or anyone else can't accept in good faith that I didn't like a movie on a subject that I was and am quite interested in, we have nothing more to talk about. Just because someone picks up a camera does not automatically make them a good film-maker. Sorry but that is just how it is...
April 28, 2007 09:04
ha...thats pretty funny, but no thats not my argument. For our understanding, yeah maybe? I think the movie was dead on and very good, you don't, thats fine. I think by your review of this that we would not see eye to eye on a lot of movies. I just can't imagine what you were expecting to see if it caused that much disapointment to you? So again I question you as well as your review...sorry thats just how it is..