Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

GOD HELP THE GIRL, but while we wait on that help, let's help some too!

Hey folks, Harry here...  we sit around and complain a lot about the lack of originality - a desire to see more varied artists to make films for us...   and KICKSTARTER is an amazing tool to help give these filmmakers a leg up.   To give them their shot at bat.  This is the first of two projects that I'm going to write about today that need your help and participation to create films that we can hopefully one day see.

Do you know Stuart Murdoch?   Leader of the Indie band, BELLE AND SEBASTIAN?   For me, BELLE AND SEBASTIAN and THE MAGNETIC FIELDS were the two groups that Yoko introduced me to in our first few dates that made me fall magically and permanently in love with her.   In 2009, when Stuart Murdoch released the album, GOD HELP THE GIRL...  Yoko and I had it playing in our car for the better part of 2 years.  We sang all the songs - and felt like it was our secret album.    We felt that everyone should be singing these songs.   Yoko told me that Stuart Murdoch was trying to make a film musical using the songs from GOD HELP THE GIRL along with a bevy of unreleased material that will be in the film.   I'm dying.   

Did you love the indie musical ONCE?   I'm hoping that this film is even more magical.   For one, the songs are amazing.   Swooning songs that you can sing with a smile and a wistful far away look in your eyes.   

So - as you can see in the above video, Stuart has mega-producer Barry Mendel who worked with Wes Anderson beginning with RUSHMORE...  and M. Night Shymalan with THE SIXTH SENSE.   He's also worked with Spielberg on MUNICH.   Mendel tends to make and support really great filmmakers and projects.   This is not the exception.   

Personally, I'm going to see if I can budget $1000, just so I can take Yoko to Glasgow to visit the set.   There are very few projects right now that I am as singularly excited as I am for this one!

Listen to the music, watch the videos and read the bits over at GOD HELP THE GIRL's official website.   See if you get caught in the dream of this project.   If you do...  help make it a reality.   The world will be a better place with GOD HELP THE GIRL in it, on our screens and in our theaters.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 15, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST


    by crazykrug72

  • Dec. 15, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    who cares.

    by colinjbooth

    first indeed

  • Dec. 15, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    DVD Column?



  • But I'm just not cut from the cloth of liking something like this. I'm kind of a prick... I like my films to be made by filmmakers. And I like my music to be made by musicians. I don't really think the two should intertwine, because it usually just results in masturbatory exhibitions of self reverence.

  • Dec. 15, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    who probably has $20 million in the bank?

    by gotilk

    That's beyond delusional.

  • Dec. 15, 2011, 6:14 p.m. CST

    sure is a lot of bitchin about this site..

    by paul burnett

    ..maybe some of it's warrented,.. maybe it's not.. personally i haven't posted an opinion in ages, i think because theres been nothing to opine to. i imagine the aicn team are aware that a lotta tbers are kickin up a stink about how this site should evolve..i think they should address this situation, even if it's to say fuck off twat..go elsewhere if you don't like it. But, i haven't encountered another community of tbers like this on any other site nor the freedom to take the piss out of the inmates running this asylum. DISCUSS

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:11 a.m. CST

    icanthavethat (you asked for it... lol)

    by gotilk

    I have to agree. I have been a part of NO other community that lets the users get away with what they're allowed to say here. Ever. Sure, there have been a few odd, random bannings recently that seem pretty inexplicable considering what IS allowed, but I chalk that up to someone new. (I assume) Or a bad day. OR someone who has been saying stupid crap for WAY too long and it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Overall, this is still one of the few places on the net that lets the users get away with saying REALLY nasty, usually over-the-top things about the site (and even individuals that write for it) itself without using the banhammer on them. And some of the criticisms just don't make any sense. Like the other day people were calling AICN essentially gutless for not posting a detailed description of something... because *everyone else was*. But then I checked a few of the examples and they were JUST AS VAGUE if not more-so. And the constant requests for a an *edit button*, when it would be either abused relentlessly OR would fill pages up with time-stamps/edit notifications? Stupid. Or accusing Harry of being *SO UTTERLY BOLD* about his *PWESENTS* from the industry, when most sites that take goodies and swag for reviews do their best to hide the fact. Harry is generally open about it and HE is the one that gets shit about it. wow. And what's he supposed to do in order to be a devout media journalist with integrity? Send the stuff back? And if he did, would you believe it? Nah. Then they criticize him when he doesn't hate such films ENOUGH for people's tastes. For instance the Green Lantern review. He essentially gave it a ho-hum review, yet he was accused of being bought and paid for when it came to that film. So what's the reaction? Oh he didn't hate it as much as me so he MUST be dirty. wow. Lets face it, some people just like to bitch and spread rumors , even make shit up just to stir up things. Some of that is expected, and I imagine Harry (and CO) are secure enough and have a good enough sense of humor to let most of it just roll off them. Look, I've been here since those early days well before he was doing articles about the prequels. (back then just as ILK) I think it was 1997 when I first came here. His spelling/grammar/writing and even TASTE has improved exponentially. And even the site runs better than it used to. I remember how slow it was at times, and how often it went down completely. Not to mention talkback weirdness. If it aint broke.... DON'T FIX IT!! Simplicity sometime just works, and everything you add for design or functionality just ends up being BLOAT. It WOULD be nice to use quotation marks again without losing 99 percent of your post. But that's literally my only complaint. And it's not much of one. I just use * instead. As in *this is a quote*. No harm. Just hard to get used to. 99% of the site's charm would be lost if they did a complete overhaul. And even then, people would be claiming he'd sold out just because the site looked more modern. I've had my beefs with the site (not being allowed to get my ILK account back when my e-mail was hacked, even though I'd even been published here under the name, *POSTING here since around 1998 under the name), and my replacement account was banned for essentially saying that a certain music star that had died deserved to get more help than she did. I think the way I stated it required that the person reading it actually use their brain, and in doing so I was banned along with others because the person doing the banning didn't take the time to actually READ what I'd posted. But people make mistakes, and I don't hold any grudges. Life aint fair, and to expect it to be is pointless AND fruitless. And these flaws, as few as they are in reality, are worth it for the friends I've made here. Especially in the Lost talkbacks and the current DocBacks. Very worth it. If my vote counts, I say keep things as close to the way they are now as possible. Most people have no idea what they have until it's gone. *posting at the site and reading the site, 2 different things. I waited quite a while after visiting regularly before I started posting to talkback.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:44 a.m. CST

    and something else...

    by gotilk

    Yes, I know. It was a long enough post as it was. But. I have been a part of many communities. And I've watched them fall apart. This is one of the few Ive watched thrive in spite of its not changing much in almost 17 years. It all starts with good intentions. A new little rule here, a new *function* there. And it's all fine for a while. There's a certain balance needed to have a community that keeps its users happy and returning. A balance between a healthy respect for persona (nicknames) and some very simple rules that anyone could understand. Something like a new function (edit button let's say as an example) is added before the site gives itself time to really weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. In the case of an edit button (without time stamps), it can lead to chaos, tons of butt-hurt users and even serious abuse. Some people will post things that they know in advance they will change later ONLY in order to make the person they're writing to (or AT) seem either insane or shitty. OR the whole thing gets cluttered and bogged down by hundreds of time stamps, destroying the simplicity that made the site easy on the eyes (and fast on a slow connection). And isn't the current chaos enough chaos? Often, a rule that makes perfect sense to almost everyone will be misinterpreted by a mod , or certain members of the community, and the rule will end up being abused in order to save the *feewings* of just a few (or one) users. Often they will use the term *safe place* or *safe environment* to make things the way they want them. But one person's *safe place* can easily become another's *place they never come back to*. Many times, in great numbers. And these users usually don't tell you why they left. They just go. Or they say why they're going, and they get banned. But with every pissed-off user getting banned for explaining why said community isn't fun to be a part of anymore, there are several who never say a word and just leave. Then you have the re-design. People become accustomed to a way of using a site, and often when that way of using the site is altered in a big way, they'll simply leave rather than get banned for explaining why it's not working out for them. I think DIGG is a good example of a site made BETTER by an update, but which in the process alienated so many of its users, practically destroyed itself. One man's improvement can be another's hell. I think in that case, they tried to make the site *fair* for users who had complained that a small group of users were controlling the site. But the sad part is, there was a good reason why those users were getting more stories posted. First and foremost, they were posting the most interesting stories, consistently. Secondly, they were doing it in a predictable manner, spending huge amounts of time and energy dedicated to the site... for free. And optimizing the methods they used to get attention.The users who were complaining were in most cases users not willing or able to dedicate the time and effort needed to truly compete with these more successful users. But on the outside, it looked like a clique or an *insiders club*. This attempt at *fairness* actually did damage to the quality of the site. But what really sucks is that by the time the site itself realizes it isn't working out, its too late. OR they blame it on something else. The latter being all too frequent. Another example is MySpace. They spent all this time and effort making improvements that the site *needed*, when in actuality most of its users were okay with the site as it was. What they needed, with so many users, was service. Not site re-designs. Service. By ignoring this problem for too long, and automating decision-making that REQUIRED human interaction and reasoning skills, they slowly but surely alienated so many users, they gradually fell apart. But I'm sure the people running the site were convinced they just *fell out of fashion*, couldn't compete with Facebook, or had a bad site design that they just couldn't seem to fix, no matter how much money and man-hours they threw at the problem. Even as you read this, you probably disagree with me and think that the site self-destructed because it just *looked like shit*. At one point, it was ugly but functional. Slowly, the site stopped being as functional. But it remained ugly. They took away essential features that made the site truly social, while adding bloat without any functionality beyond making more ad dollars. (livejournal did some of these things as well, and fell out of favor) Much like what google+ is doing right now, they placed too many barriers between users, and too many odd limitations, all while actual spam flourished. I mean, do you wonder why people like Lady Gaga can use her name, but the rest of us must use our REAL names in order to have an account there? Oh, it's celebrity, right? Celebrities are allowed a persona on a network like that because they're famous. Right? But what they forget is that Lady Gaga wasn't always Lady Gaga. She was Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta first, and not THAT long ago. What they do not realize is that they are only damaging themselves by not being a part of the NEXT Gaga. They make it impossible. All while using the excuse that eliminating persona will *elevate the discourse*. It certainly has. It has elevated current celebrity, certainly. But it has also made their job much easier. Accountability is a lovely word, but it is often just another word for lazy. Rather than deal with bad users, they would rather make sure said bad users self-censor so their work-load is reduced. This way, rather than demanding that users elevate the discourse, they chill the speech of everyone by making ALL words by ALL people, accountable. This accountability should never apply to all speech, ever. The thing that made the net so amazing was that your name didn't have to be a burden TO your ideas... and your ideas didn't have to be burdened by the watchful eyes of the enforcers of rules. Rules that change and fluctuate. Good ideas are recognized, if truly good, when presented and are self-evident. Bad ideas, examined and found to be so, are also recognized as such. Or examined and debated. But a bad idea withheld is NEVER exposed as such by the individual expressing it, and if he is punished expressing it the only real outcome is a persecution complex. Let's be honest with ourselves.... google is just passing the buck. They want you to do the work for them by self-censoring. And by eliminating persona (why should it not apply to a celebrity?? I want good examples. I'm not asking that it be *fair*... I'm asking that it make sense) for all but the most famous, they actually sterilize the discourse rather than elevate it. And the idea that we should be accountable IN ADVANCE is kind of silly anyway. If we DO something, then it's decided whether or not anyone was hurt by our words (hmmm...) or whether or not any specific rules were broken. In the case of Google, they know EXACTLY who I am and where I am. And if needed, they could share that information with police if I did something illegal (with my words). But instead of waiting for me to do so, they would rather I make my real name available to every maladjusted malcontent on google+. And most of us know that sometimes all it takes for someone to attempt to do something nasty to you in the real world is for you to have the wrong opinion and refuse to back down. Or in some cases simply refuse to respond to them. (side note: Just so you know, in case you didn't already, one of the best deterrents for online bullying is persona.) So I choose not to use Google+ until they change policy. An I wish them the best with their experiment. Same goes for Facebook. What we have on AICN is an oasis, one of many but this is changing. Ideas should never be burdened by constant accountability. Words can hurt, but words held back for fear always hurt more. And they don't just hurt the one writing the words, they hurt everyone robbed of an idea that could lead to change, change that could improve the world in some small way. Really small way, usually. Or improve a simple argument. Or just inspire. When sites grow, they always have certain growing pains. How they deal with those pains, by not over-reacting and by listening to users without SIMPLY CATERING to them... as well as truly understanding the difference between the two... will decide if they survive said pains or let the pain spread and transform into damage. I think AICN has survived quite a lot. And if they change, so be it. I hope the changes do not destroy it. But sometimes what the users want isn't what's best for the community itself. There's a reason why people come here and set down roots for a decade or more. Remember that. You're welcome.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8:43 a.m. CST

    I don't know Stuart Murdoch...

    by ToshiroShimura

    ...but I do love Belle and Sebastian, been listening to them for years. Could be interesting, if you're feeling sinister...

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 9:53 a.m. CST


    by paul burnett, a reasonable response was the last thing i expected!. To re-balance this occurence i am, by talkbalk law bound to type the following phrases.. This site sucks Studio shill Fuckwad fattyboomboom Do you even watch these DVDs Harry? Banes to short Reboot spiderman?? NOOO George Lucas raped my childhood.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:17 p.m. CST

    This is cool and all, but what I really need to know...

    by The Goat

    is whether B&S will be playing Coachella next year. Its been 6 or 7 years since they last guys? Give Stuart a call and get back to me on that. Thanks