One worker sparks a revolution when he attempts to break free of his dystopian underworld.

One worker sparks a revolution when he attempts to break free of his dystopian underworld.

Los Angeles is depicted in 35 stationary shots, each 2 1/2 minutes long, in this non-narrative film. 　　Nearing the completion of El Valley Centro, I began planning an urban companion piece, Los, that was to be a portrait of Los Angeles. It seemed logical, for the politics of water certainly run from the Valley to the City. Los would have the same structure as El Valley Centro and would look and listen with the same intensity. The two films would be connected with the last shot of El Valley Centro pumping water out of the Valley over Wheeler Ridge while the first shot of Los would show Mulholland’s first spillway (still in use) bringing water into LA. 　　James Benning, December 2001 　　Conceptual-art portrait of Los Angeles County, comprising 35 two-minute shots of streams, hills, buildings, factories, gardens, highways, rivers, cattle, trains, people, the ocean, a cemetery, the skyline, policemen, back streets, a jail, soccer players… Bennings’ camera remains static, and in the absence of commentary the only sounds we hear are whatever’s audible in each of these places: snatches of dialogue, distant background music, the rumble of cars and trains. 　　Benning has been one of American leading avant-garde film-makers for over 20 years, but remains barely known by the wider cinemagoing public, especially abroad – partly because he doesn’t allow his works to be available on video. And while Los is no-one’s idea of ‘commercial’ film-making, Benning’s low profile is an indictment of the timid policies of our supposedly adventurous arthouses: this is much too fascinating a use of film for it to be relegated to art galleries. 　　Los can be taken as 35 short movies, each of them saying something about the county, each of them posing some question about Benning’s technique, providing Viewing becomes an active, enthralling experience – even when there’s apparently ‘nothing happening’ on screen. It soon becomes clear that the timing, order and contents of each image has been very precisely calculated, and in many cases it’s what we can’t see that’s the ‘subject’ of the shot. The penultimate shot is of ‘homeless people’, and at one point an unseen passerby exclaims “What the f*ck are you lookin’ at, stupid motherf*cker?” But there are no answers – everything about the film is a matter of subjective interpretation, and every response is equally valid. Benning’s gaze transforms the whole of ‘greater’ Los Angeles into a vast work of art, in the process making it even ‘greater’ still – and this is only the central part of a projected ‘Southern California’ trilogy. 　　The film is full of engrossing incidental details, cross-references, tantalising clues that might mean everything or nothing. Early one we see a DKNY advertising billboard owned by a company named ‘Outdoor Systems’, and this phrase sums up Benning’s real subject – the human and natural processes that combine to form the bizarre anomaly we know as LA: a huge cloud of dust rising from a brush fire; the evening lights of cars zooming along a six-lane highway; the flight path of a landing jet-plane. This is a game with specific rules of form (the length and horizon-lines of each shot are similar) and content (each shot must contain some aspect of human activity; each shot must be outdoors) and, finally, memory test. We’re exposed to each of the images for so long, that by the end, when Benning brings up a series of captions identifying the locations of each, we can run through the whole movie again, in our mind. 　　Needless to say, Los won’t be to all tastes – in today’s market-oriented climate, such a project necessarily runs the risk of ‘pretentiousness’ accusations – but it’s surprising how quickly you adjust to the film’s unique rhythms, and this is a very straightforward, accessible kind of experimentalism. In terms of an artist using cinema to express himself, it dwarfs almost all this year’s ‘conventional’ releases: if any film of 2001 can possibly change the way its audiences think about and view their world, it’s James Benning’s mysterious, majestic, magical Los.

Los Angeles is depicted in 35 stationary shots, each 2 1/2 minutes long, in this non-narrative film. 　　Nearing the completion of El Valley Centro, I began planning an urban companion piece, Los, that was to be a portrait of Los Angeles. It seemed logical, for the politics of water certainly run from the Valley to the City. Los would have the same structure as El Valley Centro and would look and listen with the same intensity. The two films would be connected with the last shot of El Valley Centro pumping water out of the Valley over Wheeler Ridge while the first shot of Los would show Mulholland’s first spillway (still in use) bringing water into LA. 　　James Benning, December 2001 　　Conceptual-art portrait of Los Angeles County, comprising 35 two-minute shots of streams, hills, buildings, factories, gardens, highways, rivers, cattle, trains, people, the ocean, a cemetery, the skyline, policemen, back streets, a jail, soccer players… Bennings’ camera remains static, and in the absence of commentary the only sounds we hear are whatever’s audible in each of these places: snatches of dialogue, distant background music, the rumble of cars and trains. 　　Benning has been one of American leading avant-garde film-makers for over 20 years, but remains barely known by the wider cinemagoing public, especially abroad – partly because he doesn’t allow his works to be available on video. And while Los is no-one’s idea of ‘commercial’ film-making, Benning’s low profile is an indictment of the timid policies of our supposedly adventurous arthouses: this is much too fascinating a use of film for it to be relegated to art galleries. 　　Los can be taken as 35 short movies, each of them saying something about the county, each of them posing some question about Benning’s technique, providing Viewing becomes an active, enthralling experience – even when there’s apparently ‘nothing happening’ on screen. It soon becomes clear that the timing, order and contents of each image has been very precisely calculated, and in many cases it’s what we can’t see that’s the ‘subject’ of the shot. The penultimate shot is of ‘homeless people’, and at one point an unseen passerby exclaims “What the f*ck are you lookin’ at, stupid motherf*cker?” But there are no answers – everything about the film is a matter of subjective interpretation, and every response is equally valid. Benning’s gaze transforms the whole of ‘greater’ Los Angeles into a vast work of art, in the process making it even ‘greater’ still – and this is only the central part of a projected ‘Southern California’ trilogy. 　　The film is full of engrossing incidental details, cross-references, tantalising clues that might mean everything or nothing. Early one we see a DKNY advertising billboard owned by a company named ‘Outdoor Systems’, and this phrase sums up Benning’s real subject – the human and natural processes that combine to form the bizarre anomaly we know as LA: a huge cloud of dust rising from a brush fire; the evening lights of cars zooming along a six-lane highway; the flight path of a landing jet-plane. This is a game with specific rules of form (the length and horizon-lines of each shot are similar) and content (each shot must contain some aspect of human activity; each shot must be outdoors) and, finally, memory test. We’re exposed to each of the images for so long, that by the end, when Benning brings up a series of captions identifying the locations of each, we can run through the whole movie again, in our mind. 　　Needless to say, Los won’t be to all tastes – in today’s market-oriented climate, such a project necessarily runs the risk of ‘pretentiousness’ accusations – but it’s surprising how quickly you adjust to the film’s unique rhythms, and this is a very straightforward, accessible kind of experimentalism. In terms of an artist using cinema to express himself, it dwarfs almost all this year’s ‘conventional’ releases: if any film of 2001 can possibly change the way its audiences think about and view their world, it’s James Benning’s mysterious, majestic, magical Los.

本剧改编自真人真事，取材于大导演罗曼·波兰斯基妻子被杀害的真实事件。1969年8月的洛杉矶，在曼森的领导下，他的信徒于两天内连环屠杀了7人，并于案发现场发生的写上恐布的信息……60年代末期，美国开始有了重大改变。越战败战、经济危机、人权运动兴起…在这价值崩溃错乱的社会中，许许多多的人们寻求着解脱之道，于是有一群人投入了提倡“做爱不要作战”的嬉皮文化，自许为“花的孩子”，以毒品和性滥交来自我麻痺；有一群人则深信查尔斯曼森是基督化身，奉他为精神领袖，并加入了他的大家庭一同生活，并且为了打造他心目中的理想国而执行他的杀人计划。本片就以美国史上最著名的杀人魔查尔斯曼森以及他家族成员的观点，述说着他们的生活方式以及犯下一宗宗残忍血案的过程。

本剧改编自真人真事，取材于大导演罗曼·波兰斯基妻子被杀害的真实事件。1969年8月的洛杉矶，在曼森的领导下，他的信徒于两天内连环屠杀了7人，并于案发现场发生的写上恐布的信息…… 　　60年代末期，美国开始有了重大改变。越战败战、经济危机、人权运动兴起…在这价值崩溃错乱的社会中，许许多多的人们寻求着解脱之道，于是有一群人投入了提倡“做爱不要作战”的嬉皮文化，自许为“花的孩子”，以毒品和性滥交来自我麻痺；有一群人则深信查尔斯曼森是基督化身，奉他为精神领袖，并加入了他的大家庭一同生活，并且为了打造他心目中的理想国而执行他的杀人计划。 　　本片就以美国史上最著名的杀人魔查尔斯曼森以及他家族成员的观点，述说着他们的生活方式以及犯下一宗宗残忍血案的过程。

Chilling story of the investigation and trial of Charles Manson, leader of a strange cult which under his direction and 'control' committed numerous murders.

Chilling story of the investigation and trial of Charles Manson, leader of a strange cult which under his direction and 'control' committed numerous murders.

约翰（大卫•阿奎特 David Arquette 饰）是一位出卖自己的肉体来换取金钱的男妓。圣诞节快要到了，约翰拼了命的工作，外加借债，总算凑足了一笔钱。他决定要用这一笔钱来入住一间豪华的高级酒店，在每年一度的佳节里享受一下崇高的待遇。然而，让约翰感到无语的是，他藏着全部财产的鞋竟然不见了，所有和圣诞节有关的幻想都化为了泡影，在洋溢着节日气氛的大街上，约翰只能继续在寒冷中揽客。 　　唐纳（卢卡斯•哈斯 Lukas Haas 饰）是街上新来的男妓，初来乍到的他有着一股罕见的天真和乐观。唐纳喜欢上了桀骜不驯的约翰，而约翰却将他视为一个让他头疼的问题。