A Random Walk Through Film

New Moon

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:47:00 +0000

Kids, if there's only one lesson you learn from Shakespeare, consider making it this one. Before you decide to kill yourself over the untimely demise of your one true love, take the extra time to make really, really sure they're dead. Yes, I get it - some of the spontaneity will be gone if you don't off yourself immediately. Either via the conveniently left draught of poison or handing yourself off the the council of vampires that will take care of things for you. But seriously, isn't that loss of romantic immediacy worth it given the possibility of mixed messages causing you to get it wrong. That Edward almost makes this amateur mistake is pretty surprising. All those years and he's never read Romeo and Juliet - or seen an episode of Three's Company? Maybe that's just the difference between reading and understanding.

For those living under a rock or interred at Guantanamo Bay the last several years the film New Moon is the cinematic version of the second in the Twilight series of books. In this universe main character Bella has a torrid, yet until the very end unconsummated (and seriously co-depended relationship) with a much older man. That he's a 109 year old occasionally sparkly vampire makes it interesting and not quite as creepy as it sounds. OK, still pretty creepy and I could probably fill an entire post and a half about how it seems to me a really bad role model for today's youth. But to quote my enabler on this whole Twilight thing, "the books are terrible ... you must read them!" Truer words have never been spoken.

In the latest installment of the series we join the cast of characters fairly soon after the end of the last film. Edward and his vampire "family" have saved Bella from danger, she's back at school and the two of them are an item. Did I mention he and most of the extended vampire clan are still in High School (for the 10th time)? - if that doesn't scream village of the damned I don't know what does. She's seriously stressed about aging compared to Edward and is consistently bugging him to "change her." He, ever the gentleman is worried about her virtue, errr, I mean soul and playing seriously hard to get. Bella's seems generally annoyed throughout the film - about the whole refusing to turn her into the undead thing, people giving her birthday gifts, and/or (possibly) the extremely heavy handed use of metaphor throughout the film. After a nearly life threatening paper cut at her 18th birthday party (long story - she bleeds, is almost killed by Jasper a family member with bloodlust control issues and sporting the worst hair style since William H. Macy in Bart Got a Room forcing Edward to save her - OK, not so long) Edward decides the best thing he can do is split town to ensure she's not hurt by him. Conveniently forgetting he's also supposed to stick around to protect her from the evil vamps that still want to kill her from the first film. Regardless, he jets out of town with only the lamest of explanations leaving Bella in a near suicidally depressed stupor. It's so bad that she doesn't even notice the camera crew circling around slowly for 3 months to document the change of seasons over several months out her window as she sits catatonically in a chair.

Eventually she gets herself out of the house and starts spending time with Jacob - the son of her father's friend and the other hearthrob of the film. His presence helps her deal with her grief and loneliness. Unfortunately, his sexual frustration turns him into a werewolf. But that's good, because becoming a werewolf (along with other young men of his tribe similarly shirt challenged) keeps the area relatively safe from vampires. Meanwhile Bella realizes that putting herself in dumb and dangerous situations causes her to see visions of Edward warning her through exceedingly cheesy special effects which sounded somewhat more reasonable in the book when you didn't have to actually look at them. So of course being Bella she consistently seeks out these situations in order to see him more. Until a super contrived situation causes Edward to think she's dead. At which point he goes to Italy to try to die at the hands of the vampire elite. This is all important in the book, but may be confusing to someone who hasn't read it. But that's OK - because clearly there are enough people who have to carry the movie. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the later books are quite a bit better. Hey, I said this was entertaining - not that it makes a lot of sense...

There's lots of guys running around half naked, turning into werewolves plus over the top vampire vamping. Not to mention lots of teenage moping. So basically, a little something for everyone short of zombies. I'm not going to bother getting seriously into the details as either you likely already know the entire story, don't really care, or are still planning to see the film and deserve to have some surprises.

While I seem to be physically incapable of writing seriously about this film you shouldn't mistake that for me saying it's bad. For fans I'd put it in the B range. That said, I definitely enjoyed the first movie more than the second. It's hard for me say why exactly, but I largely suspect that it's because I hadn't read any of the books before seeing the first one. So I was able to experience it without fully knowing where it was going and revel both in it's charms and equally entertaining weak points. But if you didn't enjoy the first film I can't see why you'd like New Moon. Just for contrast - If you want to experience what a truly negative review sounds like I'd encourage you to try this one - while you may agree or disagree I think you'd have to definitely put it in the not boring category.

Almost forgot - I was pleasantly surprised to see that I recognized from personal experience the theater where Bella and guy pals go to see "Face Punch" - it's actually the Ridge Theater in Vancouver, Canada. I've been there previously as it's a venue for VIFF - the lobby is pretty distinctive. Though rarely (at least in my limited experience) has werewolves in attendance.

Screening notes: In order to try and get the full communal madness effect I went to see New Moon at a midnight screening Thurs night. On the downside seeing it so late and after two films in the SIFF New Italian Cinema series left me dragging myself to through all of Friday. But I did get to see it with a packed house full of folks that screamed their heads off every time a shirtless wolf pack member appeared onscreen. As well as every time Robert Pattinson appeared onscreen to hone his presentation for upcoming auditions in mumblecore dramas. It also meant I waited on the longest line I've seen since Superman played at the Kings Plaza mall in Brooklyn. In this case though without my cousin Kenny to help out I actually waited on the line. It was actually sorta fun - the line moved quickly once they got started even though it went from the third floor in Bellevue Square Lincoln Center all the way down to the garage levels (picture to the left). They seemed to fill every one of the large theaters in the facilities entry area - which must number in the several thousand seats. I think this movie may make some money after all.

Amelia

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:14:00 +0000

Sunday night I finally decided to go see the Amelia Earhart biography starring Hilary Swank and directed by Mira Nair. The film has some pluses. Overall it's a good story, the flying footage is beautifully shot and Hilary Swank seems well suited to the role. But it's not what I would call a very engaging film - with the exception of the finale which manages to pull drama out of an ending that we all know is coming. The rest of the time it's a fairly run of the mill bio-pic with occasionally very simplistic dialog of an 'old timey film' nature. I just never felt I got a sense of connection with the characters or felt I understood their experiences any better than I would from reading a high level account of Earhart's life. Not at all bad - just uninspiring. Which given the nature of who it's about is somewhere between ironic and sad.

Pirate Radio

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:31:00 +0000

Based on true events (at least according to the film) concerning the availability of Rock & Roll on British Radio in the mid to late 60's. Public airwaves would play none of it. The only free access to it was via unlicensed transmitters playing it from floating stations anchored offshore. According to the film the people loved it and the government hated it. Today they'd probably just send in goons from the RIAA with government backing. But apparently in the 60's they'd just impotently fume about it for most of the film until they passed a law to shut it down in time for a dramatic showdown to provide some much needed excitement on the last reel.

I had real hopes for this film. I wasn't expecting high art. But with a killer soundtrack, some good actors and a claimed pedigree including Four Weddings and a Funeral's "creators" at least decent writing. The soundtrack basically is there - though played in fairly short segments - generally too short to really get into the music. The bigger problem is that I was, for lack of a fancier word, uninterested. Even bored at times. It's almost as though they spent so much licensing the great music there wasn't anything left to write the script. Or maybe it's just that heroic DJ's are a hard sell to me. Little is done in the way of character development - so maybe I could care more but I don't have the incentive to here. Good music, a few solid moments, but largely (and sadly) forgettable. 'nuff said

2012

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:28:00 +0000

First a warning. Normally I try to avoid any spoilers in my film notes. But in this case I'm going to break my own rule. So read at your own risk.

The film is about the end of the world and the funniest film about the death of billions of people you're ever likely to see. It seems the Mayans were right and the world ends in 2012 -sort of. Humanity gets a tip off ahead of the end through a government scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who has outsourced the actual research to an academically superior group in India. Based on this early knowledge the government springs into action led by Oliver Platt playing a chief of staff type role and the film's designated government ass. They have a plan - it's not a perfect one, but it's biblically themed enough for them to try and wrap a two and a half hour script around it.

In addition to those officially anointed to be saved (government types and rich people) there are the "regular guy" stories we follow along with throughout the film. Included amongst these stories is that of John Cusack who through hrough a series of coincidences that would make Dickens blush and movie star luck finds out about the apocalypse (partially from Woody Harrelson in his 2nd best role of the year) and tries to save his extended family. Which includes of course his cute kids, ex-wife and her new husband. Bet you can guess how that turns out...

The film makes a half hearted swipe at the "big questions." Such as 'How will mankind react?', 'Is there a solution to stop the disaster?', and will Oliver Platt once again play a character marginalized in the final moments of the film? All to be somewhat answered if you're willing to commit 2.5 hours of your time. Though frankly, mostly it's about watching stuff blow up / disintegrate while we're encouraged to worry about 3-4 people surviving as we watch millions die around them. The caring about all of them is a hard sell at times when one of them is
Amanda Peet.

It's a technically well made film, with a goofy script that the actors try to play straight - mostly to comic effect. The special effects are quite good and while I was admittedly laughing as the ex-husband with no flying experience piloted a plane out of California while dodging falling buildings I did stop to acknowledge it was realistic looking lunacy. Almost all of it is pretty darn predictable. Right down to the scientist's inevitable relationship with the President's daughter in true Love Boat "love for Isaac" episode fashion. I am impressed though that this may be the first end of the world disaster film with a hook at the end for a sequel (wherein what remains of the world super powers head off to re-exploit Africa with due to their imperialist leanings and possible technical dominance).

At times though the viewing experience was akin to putting your head in a bucket and having people kick it for two and a half hours only to have it fall off periodically so you can wonder out-loud, "is that Danny Glover playing the president?" Didn't they get the memo that sci-fi is now moving on to female presidents?

All said though I liked it more than I thought I would - though admittedly went in with sub basement expectations. One could do worse than seeing 2012 - I'm surprised to see myself write. I just wish the'd given this one to Werner Herzog - he might have turned in a true masterpiece. There's a point towards the end that I felt exhibited a dire need for random iguanas. Oh - and perhaps Jeff Goldblum and his alien fighting Mac laptop. Especially when the guys next to me punctuated an on screen speech with their own conclusion of "this will be our Independence Day." (which for the record was way better than the script's line)

Outside of the film itself - Someday I'd almost like to see Oliver Platt in a film where people actually listen to him. Though I'm not really sure if I feel bad for him or I'm channeling feelings for Bill Richardson when I say that.

Screening notes: this was a huge screening in terms of turnout. Was very skeptical about making it in once I saw the line. But thanks to TVOROnFilm who both provided the invite and good company on the queue everything worked out.

Almost forgot some other fun things in the film. Such as when Cusack reprises a line from Say Anything asking his wife if she remembered what having fun was. And the ability to get product placements in for both bed wetting aids for young kids AND Bentley motors into the same film. I could go on and on - but I'm going to force myself to stop here.

The Damned United

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:08:00 +0000

First off, I think it has to be said that it's possible you might like this movie a lot more if one's a big soccer fan. Overall I'm positive on it but it's not the sort of film that I think will leave me with a strong lasting impression. Ostensibly it's a "sports" film but there's a twist in that very little soccer is played on screen. It's really more about the personality of a famous coach, how that personality in almost his undoing and his lifelong relationship with his assistant/secret weapon without whom he seemed prone to tragic failure.

Brian Clough was initially a coach of smaller time soccer teams with a passion for the big time. With the help of his assistant coach he enjoys smashing success managing to move up to the first division and win there. Through flashback we learn about some of his formative experiences - most significantly perceiving himself as slighted by the coach of Leeds United during a cross division match. We follow along as he often lets his obsession with proving himself against this coach by beating Leeds get the better of him. Eventually he takes a job coaching them himself - a time seemingly devoted to telling them how much he despises their style of play. An interesting motivational strategy if I do say so myself. Loud, and extremely sure of himself he may have been a celebrity ahead of his time, but for a variety of reasons you can see plainly he's guaranteed to rub the Leeds United club the wrong way. Whether he'll figure it out in time and if not how he'll realize where his true strengths lie form the "drama" of the story. I found Cloughs likable even though he's clearly flawed. Not knowing the history involved I was curious where things were going to end up. I enjoyed the performances and the sense of the period the movie effectively portrayed. So overall a solid, interesting film. Just not one I feel especially inspired to write more about tonight...

Import Export (Austria)

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:41:00 +0000

A compelling film that kept my attention focused even though what was happening on screen made me consistently want to look away. Or apologize to the characters on behalf of "humanity." The film follows two people in their struggle to make a living with dignity. The first is a Ukrainian woman. A nurse by training, she's consistently shortchanged on her pay and forced to look elsewhere for money. After a painful attempt at online web cam porn she moves to Austria in search of better paid, but less skilled work than she's capable of. The second main character is a younger working class Austrian with similarly bleak job prospect. After trying a few different gigs with spectacular lack of success he eventually takes a job driving a truck across the border into the Ukraine. Even the trucking job isn't a good match, though partially that's because of his differing views of life with his partner (and stepfather). It's not an easy job when you're forced to watch your new "Dad" amuse himself by using the almighty power of the euro to humiliate the women they meet.

The camera is unflinching in what at times feels like a documentary as it captures one degradation after another. Only the characters ability to endure without seeming completely crushed makes it watchable. I've read the two leads are not professional actors - though I'd not have guessed as such.

The sexually focused scenes were some of the most unpleasant takes on the subject I've seen since "Eyes Wide Shut" (though it's clearly intentional in this film and debatable as to intent in the other). While often painful each shot of the movie appears meticulously thought out. The opening shot following the nurse as she walks to work contrasting the beautiful snow with a backdrop of smoke belching nuclear reactors is beautiful as well as evocative of some of the films themes. As presented you're free to leave with your own thoughts about the power imbalance between old and new Europe. Just not likely to conclude that the folks in this story are doing especially well by it. And there's no way it's not going to at least make you think a bit about their world.

The film is on the long side (2 hrs, 15 min) and slowly paced. But I felt more that it was unrushed than too long. Depending on your mood though you may see it differently.

Men Who Stare at Goats

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:20:00 +0000

A journalist heartbroken by the loss of his wife to another man goes looking for adventure. To him that means trying to into Iraq to do some reporting on the post war environment. In Kuwait he meets a slightly off kilter version of George Clooney. He claims to be a psychic spy, part of an army program started after Vietnam to explore paranormal means of warfare. It's based on a non-fiction books alleging to explore the subject in more detail.

Before press started appearing for this film I hadn't heard of the book from which the film is derived. Though off and on I've read stories about the government experimenting with "remote sensing" - visualizing a scene with accuracy somewhere else in the world through special mental powers. Sorta one lone gunman short of an X-Files episode stuff. Sounded interesting enough and when the film opens with the hilarious yet thought provoking title card "More of this is true than you would believe" seemed were looking good. The film is very funny at times, but lacks both the depth and a story arc that would have made it unforgettable. What we're left with is several great actors having a blast, some good laughs, and the odd conflicting sense at the end of "that seemed a bit long" and "is that it?" I do recommend the film, it's just not as terrific as it seems like it could/should be.

Ewan McGregor plays the journalist in question - and approaches the role largely straight. Some folks joked he's in the film only to at some point ask the Clooney character to clarify his description of these psychic warrior with the question, "what's a jedi warrior?" But although he comes across was way naive he does a reasonable job - though as mainly glue in the story doesn't have the best role of the bunch.

Kevin Spacey is well cast with his best role since the robot in Moon as the Yoko Ono / jerk of the "New Earth Warriors." He also gets one of the best lines in the film - congratulating a newly married couple with, "shame it doesn't work out." He's been recruited into the program having met another participant at "a spoon bending party." His skills turn out to be as dubious as those of Uri Geller. Though as in the Bush administration for folks in the the army's psychic division belief seems to be more important than facts. So of course he's upwardly mobile.

The flashbacks to the program's creation under the leadership of Jeff Bridges (seemingly reprising his character"The Dude" in uniform) are by far the best part of the movie. Especially the Gymkata style montage that tracks his immersion into new age culture after Vietnam as he defines the requirements for the paranormally inspired troops). The best part of the story is clearly in the past - and most of the humor as well. Not to mention probably the most random Angela Lansbury reference ever committed to film.

In the "present" - McGregor meets up with Clooney and traipses through the Iraqi desert in the mission driven part of the film. Clooney delivers a very funny, carefully unhinged performance. It's been a while so I may be misremembering but his presence and the weird feel reminded me of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. So what's the problem? Basically everyone individually is good, the filming is fine, and it's a damn intriguing subject. It's just that script is perhaps a little less satirically sharp than I expected. That combined with the mishmash ending and a few slow spots left it not quite being all it could be. A phrase incidentally credited to The Dude in the film. I do think it's worth catching, eventually - at least on video. Just lower your expectations a bit and you'll be fine. Though if you get a chance to see it in the theater it's not going to likely be a choice you kick yourself for.

In case you're curious the title comes from the "dark side" technique the men try when they come under Spacey's command. The goal is to stare so intently at a goat that you stop its heart. You can almost see how such a group might have been reactivated in the search for Bin Laden. Almost makes as much sense as invading the wrong country.

Screening note: saw this courtesy of SIFF. Thanks to them the screening had two very special guests in attendance. No, none of the human actors, but actual goats, who I assume were not told too much about the film's themes beforehand. They were residents of the New Moon Farm Goat Rescue Sanctuary. I believe the sanctuary wanted to get the word out about their good work for assistance/donations. Or perhaps they were just tired of only getting web traffic from lost Twihards searching for the other New Moon. Regardless, turns out a goat in a movie theater is just as cute as a goat anywhere else.

Beeswax

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:19:00 +0000

Andrew Bujalski one of the kings of mumblecore has created a simple little movie that just follows folks existing through a series of time. The "story" gives us a chance to follow along as twins, one in a wheelchair one not, deal with parents, problems and make life decisions. We're plopped directly into the middle of the story and are forced to play catchup for the first 30 minutes or so. Or at least I was. And not just because I had a hard time following some of the dialog. I'd blame that on the film - but this seems to happen so often to me at Northwest Film Forum that I'm not sure if I should really blame this on the whole Mumblecore things or not. Regardless, eventually you start to get a sense (understanding is too strong a word) for what may have gone on before the camera started. I don't actually think that's a bad thing - as it feels far more natural and provides a positive challenge to understand the characters more than a very traditional narrative would. I sort of like that there's not a need shown to explain each and every aspect of their lives to the audience.

I could talk a bit about what they're doing and what they're up to. But too much detail is going to really take away from sorting through it all and forming your own opinion. One co-owns a store and is dealing with a difficult business partner, the other seems a bit more adrift and is looking for work. Will the scenes we see playing out amount to something huge in their lives, a pivot around which they'll be successful or failures, or sound and fury signifying nothing? If you need to know the answer to that when you leave the cinema then may not be your film. It's more a chance to peek into their lives as a voyeur and draw your own conclusions. For what it was I enjoyed the experience, liked the characters and felt my brain was engaged.

Though I've got to admit, I didn't even realize they were twins (let alone sisters) for a while. If you're not accepting of a bit of confusion - really just don't go. And if you must go, avoid turning to your partner to ask about the character's relationships. They probably aren't 100% sure either.

The Road

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:42:00 +0000

I'd intended originally to see this movie at the Telluride film festival where it premiered. On the plus side there was an extended Q&A available with the film's star Viggo Mortensen. On the negative I figured there was going to be a huge crowd and I didn't want to end the festival on a downer film. So I decided to wait. On Thursday I lucked into a screening during the day courtesy of SIFF.

The film is set in a post apocalyptic America. The reason for the world dying is unclear, and the specifics aren't really all that important. Almost all animals have died and vegetation is on its way out too. Surviving humans have no electricity, no technology and only the food that has survived since the disaster. The worst instincts of human survival have set in and people are resorting to cannibalism to feed themselves. The strong are victimizing the weak and the concept of "being good" seems to be the stuff of legend. Into this universe comes "The Man" who is on the road South to warmer climates with his son in tow. Over time via flashback the birth of the son and the fate of his wife (Charlize Theron) are explained.

The trailer makes it look as if it's an action adventure sort of thing. It's really not. Much slower paste, and most of the horror (with some exceptions) comes from the ever present fear/paranoia that's haunting everyone. Part of the man's training of his son is on what to do to survive, but at the same time he's nearly constantly also encouraging him not to be afraid to kill himself if he's about to be captured (and presumably eaten). It's a desolate world they live in, and human contact is few and far between. When interaction does occur it's always colored by deep (and reasonable) mistrust of anyone who is not family. More of the film is about this tension than "action" sequences of the sort in the trailer. Come to think about it it's possible that every action sequence is in the trailer.

I haven't read the book the film is based on. Many who've both read the book and seen the film suggest the onscreen version suffers in comparison. Perhaps then it's lucky I'm coming to this material fresh. Given some of the conversations I've had with folks who had seen it I went with not highest of expectations. No avoiding the fact. This is a grim movie - but it's well made with strong performances by Mortensen and the boy who plays his son (they're in practically every scene). The father tries to maintain hope of a sort in his son that they're going to a better place. Though once you take a look at their environment you rapidly begin to reset your expectations about how positive things could possibly end up. My HS English teacher never got tired of saying something about the road being a metaphor for life (or was that the river in Huck Finn?). That seems to apply here and as such I watched not really with a focus on their destination but on what the journey consisted of. Not that the destination will leave you shocked - though it's possibly a bit more positive than I expected.

In summary I found it a reasonably interesting, well acted, well shot film - even though I'm not sure I really needed to see a movie about the end of the world. Probably far better in the storytelling/film sense then the upcoming 2012 blockbuster end of the world porn. And not as depressing as Precious.

Finally, does anyone know if Viggo has some sort of recent contract rider that demands Guy Pearce always appear in his films if only briefly?

Screening note: From what I could tell the main reason for this screening was to give Christian clergy in the Seattle area a chance to see this film ahead of the official release. The note I got mentioned that there'd be a post-film discussion facilitated by a pastor. Which made me wonder just how disturbing was this film going to be? But from a bit of eavesdropping before the film, and the fact they were giving out "sermon notes" (and the fact they said this) I eventually determined the purpose was to use the film as material for discussion with their congragations. I can see how the whole film could certainly be used as a discussion of morality, ethics and life/death (the film's environment almost seems like Purgatory too). Unfortunately, I didn't get to stick around for this discussion as I had to beat it back to the office. If by some miracle (joke intended) someone eventually gets a chance to hear one of the derived sermons (or was in the audience) I'd love to hear about it.

(Untitled)

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:14:00 +0000

Adam Goldberg (who I still haven't fully forgiven for The Hebrew Hammer - an awesome concept that just didn't rise to the occasion) stars in this film set in the NYC art scene. The film managed to bring a level of depth that I didn't expect and my opinion of it has been evolving upwards the more I reflect on it.

Goldberg plays Adrian Jacobs, a moody self-involved experimental musician. He makes a living playing the piano in restaurants and clearly hates himself for it. His passion is the creation of what to me comes across as dreadful noise. What I suspect is more accurately supposed to be referred to as atonal music. One of his best lines is a rant at a party along the lines of "harmony was invented as a conspiracy to sell pianos." This music doesn't exactly draw rock star crowds - but that's to be expected for someone whose signature move appears to be rattling a chain in a bucket. His brother is an artist as well - a painter of relatively bland, non threatening works of abstract color that are in vogue at hotels, doctor's offices etc. He's a commercial success but longs for acceptance in the art world. Yep - the grass is always greener. They could take this path - but thankfully generally don't make it the main point of the film.

It's easy to laugh at Goldberg's performances and the film seems designed to initially encourage you to do so. And laugh you will. We meet the experimental art scene in NY when the gallery owner that manages his brother's sales attends a performance and is struck by Goldberg's work. He's invited to perform at her gallery. We get a sense as to the financial underpinnings of the scene - some money comes from "collectors" occasionally purchasing work from the very experimental main gallery, though the real money is coming from more mainstream sales of the "back room" (aka Goldber's brother's paintings). The pieces in the gallery also initially come across as laughable (for example bizarrely posed taxidermy) - though every once in a while there was something that struck me as truly interesting looking. Not that I'd want it in my living room - but this is clearly a different sort of art. There's a bunch of the standard stereotypes thrown in, most notably the rich collector who buys works he doesn't like as a financial investment or for the feeling of belonging the purchases buy him with the hip scene. There are lots of what I believe are intended laughs in the beginning from the art and the lifestyles of those involved.

Goldberg starts up a relationship with the gallery owner. But while she genuinely seems to respect his music he finds the visual art just as laughable as most folks would find his music. This creates friction with her of course. At the same time the film somehow managed to twist my thinking around where I was wondering "should I really be laughing at this" - even in the face of some of the "art" becoming so minimalist it became hard to imagine purchasing. My takeaway was that in the midst of the uncomfortable, ridiculos and occasionally ugly works there probably is some true genius mixed in. Though perhaps with quite a lot of hot air and hype mixed in. The surest sign of this for me was when Goldberg attends a tribute to one of his musical heroes. That music while clearly not danceable is interesting and impressive enough that I was able to understand what Goldberg's character is shooting for - even if he's not at all able to achieve it.

So I give the film positive marks for having me leave the film with a slightly different view than I went in with. And a few jokes about blowhard art folks who have no appreciation for past masters but no tolerance for criticism of their work is always amusing. I didn't love it - but I thought it was interesting. Clearly art is in the eye of the beholder (sorry couldn't resist). And thanks to the folks at SIFF who made this free preview available I'm glad I went. Especially as I'd wanted to catch this in Palm Springs back in January.

The Invention of Lying

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:48:00 +0000

This is one of those films that struck me cute in the trailer but if figured it couldn't sustain. Then I read some reviews that called it mean. Given these two things it took me a while to get out to see it. And I mainly went because it was playing nearby. So I was pleasantly surprised when I found it pretty decent overall with an unexpected anti-religious streak to rival that of Religulous. Possibly the most bluntly logic vs. faith argument I've ever seen in a commercial Hollywood film. Not that it's mean spirited about it, just that it strongly takes a religion is the opiate of the people approach to things. More on that in a sec...

The film is set in a world where humans have not evolved the ability to lie. Or more accurately to utter anything untrue. Not to spare someone's feelings, not to commit fraud, not even to write an entertaining story. Apparently there's truth in the joke "it's not lying, it's a gift for fiction." The people of this world are just like us, but their movies involve watching someone read an account of historical moments. Admittedly, that may be better than some films I've seen in recent years - but overall it seems their world is is suffering. There are some flaws with the way the setup is presented in the movie- for example just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to blurt out every feeling and embarrassing action. But having the characters do so must make the humor writing easier (and the first meeting of the film's obligatory romantic interests so much funnier).

As you'd expect, while such candor has some upsides it can also make things incredibly painful, especially if there's anything at all imperfect about you. The main character is a middle aged man (Ricky Gervais) without the body of a movie star and a job he's not exactly rising in. So his prospects are pretty grim, especially in the female companionship department. After losing his job in a moment of desperation he suddenly evolves the ability to lie. Fame and fortune quickly follow. How exactly are some of the more amusing aspects of the film.

Later in the film he accidentally creates the concept of religion (I'll leave the details to the film). At which point one of the core messages of the movie starts up - that religions were created by (possibly) well meaning people to explain the randomness of the universe and the inevitability of death. In doing so they make their point similarly to Bill Maher's earlier film but significantly change the tone of the film.

Oh, yeah - the more directly on the surface main story is his attempt to get Jennifer Garner who sort of likes him but can't get past his visual appearance. That's one of those mystifying things where she does "grow" over the course of the film. But at the same time she's so unpleasant it's hard to understand why he wants her after a while.

Overall it made me laugh, though the second half's turn while appreciating the effort (and the ability to get the film made) turned it into a lesser comedy. It's no Liar Liar companion piece is all I'm saying. Lot's of well known actors showing up in small roles gives you something to do ("hey, is that Ed Norton") if you get bored. Overall in the B- range to me. No reason to avoid it on video - that's for sure.

Act of God

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:28:00 +0000

A documentary about lightening. Or maybe about the randomness of the universe. Or perhaps about how the human mind feels a need to put a reason everything. So come to think of it the film has a lot in common with 'The Invention of Lying.' Except that it's rarely funny.

In the positive column the film has some great footage of lightening. Both video and dramatic still photography. There are some affecting personal remembrances from folks who've witnessed its random devastation - either to themselves or to those around them. There's a lot of talk about how lightening changes things - though besides the obvious bolt from the heavensness aspect of it, not a lot of explanation on how it might be different than something than say, being diagnosed with cancer. The filmmakers travel the world to hear these stories, even including an African religion which seems centered around thunder and lightening.

During the film there's plenty of time to think about the ramifications of all this - in part because there's really not a lot of information being conveyed. That is beyond the opportunity to witness the terror and beauty of the natural phenomena itself. That alone may be worth seeing it - and if you're going to go you should shoot for the theater experience. It's just not going to be the same at home.

There are unfortunately some negatives too. Mainly - I felt even more underwhelmed than I was watching the earlier film Manufactured Landscapes. In that case I appreciated that I was seeing new and interesting photographs of startling environments. Here I didn't feel I really learned anything significant about lightening - and it seemed as though a little more explanation about the phenomena is owed. Some of the personal stories were interesting (all were tragic)- but only one or two felt deep enough to have a memorable impact. There's a parallel piece about a group of neuro-scientists which exists mainly to show that lightning (as electricity) is a larger version of what takes place in our brains. They're monitoring the brainwave activity of an improvising guitar player off and on through the film. This part never really did anything for me - except at the end where he plays an improvised experimental pieces. Which included rattling chains in a bucket - and made me laugh thinking about (Untitled).

2010 Foreign Language Oscars Race

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:34:00 +0000

I've been meaning to do a post on the 2010 Foreign Language Film category for some time. Having a few minutes tonight I thought perhaps I'd finally get it done. Pulling in the full list from Indiewire.com below I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at what films I'd already seen this year. At some point (I believe in Jan) the academy will narrow this list down to a shorter list and then to the final nominees. There's a fantastic continuing discussion on Movie-on around the merits of the various films contributed by an international group of festival attendees.

65 countries have submitted films - and if history is any guide a significant number of these will screen at the Palm Springs International Film Festival in January. That festival is a great way to catch up on your viewing in this category. At least if you don't skip the first week where it seems (at least last year) the most significant of the contenders tended to be shown.

The entire list is below - with the ones I've seen already coded in blue. The current list of things I've seen is 10 - which at 15% doesn't seem too terrible. I thought it was going to be 11 - but it seems Uruguay opted not to put forward Gigante - which I was a little surprised about. From the ones I've seen I'll be shocked if A Prophet and The White Ribbon don't make the final five. It's probably way too early to call, but if I had to be now I'd put my money on A Prophet to take the whole thing. But frankly, given the new 10 films in the "Best Picture" category thing it'd be simply wrong for A Prophet to not show up as a nominee in that section as well. Though I suspect that's exactly what'll happen.

Update: For those of you not reading the comments wanted to add that another great resource to learn more about these films is the log kept by Ken Rudolph here. Ken's a regular at SIFF and other festivals and clearly sees way too many movies. ;-) Member of the Academy as well.

Update 2: Ken's continuing to make good progress - he just posted he's roughly at the halfway mark having seen 32 with 33 to go!

Anyway - here's the list...

Albania - Alive, directed by Artan Minarolli
Argentina - The Secret in Their Eyes, directed by Juan José Campanella
Armenia - Autumn of the Magician, directed by Ruben & Vahe Gevorkyants
Australia - Samson and Delilah, directed by Warwick Thornton
Austria - Ein Augenblick Freiheit (For a Moment, Freedom), directed by Arash T. Riahi
Bangladesh - Beyond the Circle, directed by Golam Rabbani Biplob
Belgium - The Misfortunates, directed by Felix Van Groeningen
Bolivia - Southern Zone, directed by Juan Carlos Valdivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina - Night Guards, directed by Namik Kabil
Brazil - Salve Geral, directed by Sergio Rezende
Bulgaria - The World is Big and Salvation Lurks Around the Corner, directed by Stephan Komandarev
Canada - I Killed My Mother, directed by Xavier Dolan
Chile - Dawson, Isla 10, directed by Miguel Littín
China - Forever Enthralled, directed by Chen Kaige
Colombia - The Wind Journeys, directed by Ciro Guerra
Cuba - Fallen Gods, directed by Ernesto Daranas
Czech Republic - Protector, directed by Marek Najbrt
Croatia - Donkey, directed by Antonio Nui
Denmark - Terribly Happy, directed by Henrik Rubin Genz
Estonia - December Heat, directed by Asko Kase
Finland - Postia Pappi Jaakobille (Letters to Father Jacob), directed by Klaus Haro
France - A Prophet, directed by Jacques Audiard
Georgia - The Other Bank, directed by Giorgi Ovashvili
Germany - The White Ribbon, directed by Michael Haneke
Greece - Slaves In Their Bonds, directed by Adonis Lykouresis
Hong Kong - Prince of Tears, directed by Yonfan
Hungary - Kaméleon (Chameleon), directed by Kristzina Goda
Iceland - Reykjavik-Rotterdam, directed by Oskar Jonasson
India - Harishchandrachi Factory, directed by Paresh Mokashi
Indonesia - Jamila and the President, directed by Ratna Sarumpaet
Iran - About Elly, directed by Asghar Farhadi
Israel - Ajami, directed by Yaron Shani and Scandar Copti
Italy - Baaria, directed by Giuseppe Tornatore
Japan - Dare Mo Mamotte Kurenai (Nobody To Watch Over Me), directed by Ryôichi Kimizuka
Kazakhstan - Kelin, directed by Ermek Tursunov
Lithuania - Duburys (Waterhole), directed by Gytis Luksas
Luxembourg - Réfractaire, directed by Nicolas Steil
Macdeonia - Wingless, directed by Ivo Trajkov
Mexico - Backyard, directed by Carlos Carrera
Mongolia - By the Will of Genghis Khan, directed by Andrei Borissov
Morocco - Casanegra, directed by Nour Eddine Lakhmari
The Netherlands - Winter in Wartime, directed by Martin Koolhoven
Norway - Max Manus, directed by Espen Sandberg and Joachim Roenning
Peru - The Milk of Sorrow, directed by Claudia Llosa
Philippines - Ded Na Si Lolo (Grandfather is Dead), directed by Soxie Topacio
Poland - Rewers (The Reverse), directed by Borys Lankosz
Portugal - Um Amor de Perdição (Doomed Love), directed by Mário Barroso
Puerto Rico - Kabo and Platon, directed by Edmundo H. Rodriguez
Romania - Police, Adjective, directed by Corneliu Prumboiu
Russia - Ward No. 6, directed by Aleksandr Gornovsky and Karen Shakhnazarov
Serbia - St. George Shoots the Dragon, directed by Srdjan Dragojevic
Slovakia - Broken Promise, directed by Jirí Chlumsk
Slovenia - Pokrajina St. 2 (Landscape No 2), directed by Vinko Moderndorfer
South Africa - White Wedding, directed by Jann Turner
South Korea - Mother, directed by Bong Jong-ho
Spain - The Dancer In The Thief, directed by Fernando Trueba
Sri Lanka - Akasa Kusum (Flowers in the Sky), directed by Prasanna Vithanage
Sweden - De Ofrivilliga (Involuntary), directed by Ruben Ostlunds
Switzerland - Home, directed by Ursula Meier
Taiwan - No Puedo Vivir Sin Ti (I Can’t Live Without You), directed by Leon Dai
Thailand - Best In Time, directed by Youngyooth Thongkonthun
Turkey - I Saw the Sun, directed by Mahsun Kirmizigül
United Kingdom - Afghan Star, directed by Havana Marking
Uruguay - Bad Day To Go Fishing, directed by Alvaro Brechner
Venezula - Libertador Morales, El Justiciero, directed by Efterpi Charalambidis
Vietnam - Don’t Burn, directed by Nhat Minh Dang

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:28:00 +0000

Precious - based on a super depressing story that's well done enough to not be sheer misery but still isn't the reason I want to go to the movies. Oh, that's not the title? Well the real one "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire" seems only marginally less awkward but infinitely less making with the full disclosure.

So let's get one thing out of the way. If you think battling your way out of a life where you're sexually molested by both parents (one of which results in two children), physically and emotionally abused by at least one of them and generally left for dead (or at least the economic scrap heap) by the school system system, to then achieve a measure of success only to be diagnosed HIV positive (in the late 80's) is an uplifting story then you and the film's marketing team are on the same page. Personally, I slightly beg to differ with the uplifting characterization.

My griping about leaving the theater feeling I'd be depressed for a week aside this is a very well done film. It deserves credit for adding enough levity and insight into the fantasies that drive Precious forward to give depth to the character in interesting ways - without at all making light of her situation. Precious is played by Gabourey 'Gabby' Sidibe and is instrumental to the film working at all. Her performance and the visual treatment of her world make it a better than an average film about working through adversity and are I'm sure are the reason for the accolades it's been enjoying. That and Oprah's name on the producer list. Let's face it - no one wants to fuck with Oprah (cattle/beef industry nuts excluded).

When we meet Precious she's fantasizing about her math teacher while class is in session. It's unclear whether she's not paying attention or is just the only non disruptive student in the room. In short order we learn while she may be the best student in that class she's pregnant with her 2nd child, 16 and in Junior High. Following scenes begin the slow reveal about the depth of pain inherent in her home life as her mom abuses her while telling her she won't amount to anything (for starters). The school's principal tries to interest Precious in an alternative program while she's pregnant. Precious seems to grasp the make or break nature of this chance and enrolls counter to her mother's wishes. The rest is learning about how she got where she is and being taken along as Precious tries to find the strength and support to break out of the world she's been stuck in.

As I alluded to earlier, it's not a trip without rewards for the viewer. I can see why some folks would love it. For me, it only suffers for being the sort of thing I don't seek out when I head to the theater. Specifically for it being squarely in the category of "not why I go to the movies." Not that sad experiences/pain turn me off entirely. It's just that the bar for me for this sort of film is set at a wholly different level than say, Superbad or Old School. Hopefully you know don't view me so shallow that you never check the blog again. I remind you that several of my top films from last year were not Superbad or Twighlight.

BTW - if you're curious about the book the film is based on you can get it here.

Screening Notes: If you're wondering why I saw this film in the first place - it had something to do with the miraculous power of "Free." SIFF screened this film as part of their annual member's meeting. Before the film there were some general remarks from the heads of the organization, a plug for the upcoming (we've got extra rum from a sponsor) Carribean Night Event and the movie. Given the buzz the film has been generating it was a nice get for the evening and I figured it was worth sticking around even though I was on a plane in the morning. I know not everyone felt exactly as I did. For example, my friend Scott sent me some positive thoughts about it the next day. I'm sure if this was a more influential blog he could be talked into posting them here. ;-)

A Serious Man

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:25:00 +0000

Of the recent Coen brothers flicks I believe A Serious Man is the one I liked the best. It's black comedy that does a fine job being both dark and truly funny - a very hard line to walk in my experience. While the New Yorker review compared the experience to something fairly painful I actually quite enjoyed it. Admittedly, some of the reasons may not translate to the broader readership. OK - given the limited scope of my readership that might not be true.

While I do disagree with the New Yorker on this one they're still on my positive side for perfectly nailing the description of the monsters in Where the Wild Things Are as all sounding like "peevish adults elbowing one another out of the way at the smoked-fish counter at Zabar's." That's exactly the phrase I wish I was good enough to have written in my notes on the film.

I'll try to do my best to recount the story of the film and what I liked about it. But truth be told I'm catching up from Japan fighting a bit of jet lag and memory degraded by having seen it a week ago. Not to mention my movie senses being degraded seriously by "inflight entertainment." Is The Taking of Pelham 123 better on the big screen? More importantly does one not notice that Denzel and Travolta are rehashing roles they've done a dozen times before (and probably better in Broken Arrow)? Seriously - I'm curious about that. Sorry - back to the film at hand.

It's been written that A Serious Man is the Coen brother's retelling of the Book of Job - wherein a man's faith is constantly challenged so the ones pulling the strings can see how far is too far. Sort of a biblical version of the Saw franchise now that I think about it. Or maybe it has nothing to do with that tale and it's simply that the main character's family is cursed to suffer through the generations based on the film's prologue filmed (I believe) entirely in Yiddish. Though in this case it's not entirely clear to me whether Larry Gopnick (the main character played by Michael Stuhlbarg) has a literal faith in Hashem to lose or just believes going in that the universe should be a trifle more fair than what he's been experiencing lately. But like a lot of descriptions of films by the Coens it's probably not a great idea to read too much into the "based on ____" descriptions thrown around by them.

Either way - when we meet Larry it's clear that he's a man beset by adversity from all directions. Living in the midwest in 1967 he's a physics professor up for tenure. In the course of a very short span we learn that his wife is leaving him for another member of their congregation (who's viewed by many as a Tzadik but is really quite the schmuck), he may not get tenure, his brother seems to have permanently moved in and is suffering from either schizophrenia or homosexuality, or both. Oh yeah, and his stoner son who's about to celebrate his bar mitzah won't stop hounding him to fix the antenna on their roof so he can watch F-Troop. It'd be enough to drive a man to drink (even without his Columbia Record Club stalker) - but Larry tries to do the right thing and persevere. First through sheer effort and then by seeking the help of the rabbis who lead his temple. Of course no one really has answers for him - but much of the "fun" is watching the learned among him attempt to offer guidance or make sense out of his dilemmas. I particularly enjoyed each of his (and other characters) interactions with the rabbis. With a beautiful close on that theme towards the end that seems to suggest that true knowledge comes with accepting the futility of thinking you've got the universe figured out - or listening to more Jefferson Airplane.

I enjoyed watching the visual aspects of this film which are mostly done in the hyper-sharp style that the Coen brothers are generally known for. My Hebrew school experience took place somewhat later than the era depicted in the film - but what's onscreen here is so similar to mine experientially that it gave me flashbacks. Particularly the droning presentation and the room full of kids that clearly didn't give a (expletive deleted). And the first person perspective of his son in front of the congregation was eerily similar to how I perceived that event in my life. Without the chemical support he was using in the film.

Even as Larry is hit with one obstacle and setback after another he remains a generally likable character. Not raging against the situations but more seeming dumbfounded and wanting to understand why. You (or at least I) want him to get those answers, even though watching it's clear that's not meant to be. There's a theme throughout that the universe is uncertain and any belief that we have any control is a farce. It's not exactly subtle (supported by both the religious and the physics based world views of the film) - but for me it didn't take away from my pleasure in watching the characters try to understand the circumstances they found themselves in and the dialog that resulted. Some of it found where you'd least expect it. By far the best line in the film comes in the middle of a rapid fire argument between Larry and the father of a Korean student who tried to bribe him. Unclear by the end as to whether he's still being offered the bribe or is now being extorted by them for their having offered the bribe in the first place the father cuts off all further discussion with the line "just accept the mystery...." I encourage you to go, see the film and do just that.

Or maybe I missed the point entirely - either way I found the film interesting to watch, funny at times and at least mildly thought provoking. For me that's worth the price of admission anyway. :-)

Lastly, if you've got a Jew handy be sure to bring 'em with you. You may need a few explanations afterwards. I'm not saying goyim won't get this film - but there's perhaps another dimension of humor to it that members of the tribe (even strictly cultural ones such as myself) will enjoy differently. If you don't have your own just chat one up after the show. We'll be the ones laughing when no one else is (especially every time there's a reference to his wife wanting a "get" - for some reason that cracked me up every time).

The September Issue

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:19:00 +0000

If you wanted to see more about the happenings depicted in The Devil Wears Prada but less of Meryl Streep then The September Issue may just be your movie. A documentary that follows the team led by Anna Wintour as they put together the September issue of Vogue magazine. Or perhaps more accurately put together many different things to show Anna Wintour who then decides what actually goes in the magazine.

If you like I are not privy to the key role played by Vogue in the universe then the films intro is important. Towards the beginning we learn that Vogue is critical to the fashion world and the September issue is the make or break "bible" as to what's hot or not in the months ahead. And we're also treated to Anna Wintour explaining her feeling that people who make fun of the fashion industry are intimidated by it. Or are ugly. OK, she doesn't actually say that - but I sort of suspect she's thinking it.

The filmmakers had plenty of access to the Vogue staff - that's very clear. If you're looking to watch the real life version of Streep's character lay into people on camera then get ready for disappointment. Either the filmmaker's kept any such fireworks out of the film or the crew at Vogue are a lot better at PR than others that have proceeded them in the "seemed like a good idea at the time" train wreck of letting a documentary film maker into their midst. The film is a bit short of aggressive drama, though it's pretty easy to read a lot into the disapproving looks from Anna when she's not impressed with something. That's fairly often in case you're wondering. She does come across as smart and in control and considerably more human than the caricature in The Devil Wears Prada. If you're a fan of the fashion industry then I'm sure this is a can't miss film (even if I suspect you won't learn much that you don't already know). It's well organized, professionally shot and does give a peek into the personalities behind Vogue (if not their motivations).

I'm not sure it pulls punches purposefully. At the same time it doesn't get deep enough into most of the supporting staff. More significantly, at least for me is that it only really skims the surface of the process that goes into creating Vogue. By the end I was somewhat convinced that there's more to the magazine than just throwing together a bunch of photos of underfed women in often ridiculous clothing. But I didn't feel as though I learned about what that "more" looks like in practice.

The most impressive part of the film for me was Vogue creative director Grace Coddington. On staff of Vogue for the last 20 years (and then British Vogue before that) I'm sure there's a ton to glean from the push/pull working relationship she has with Anna. But what truly impressed me was how visually beautiful and striking her work tended to be. Looking at the photos she was producing, for the first time I could actually understand why picking up and reading that magazine might interest me. There seems to be a consistent underlying tension between what she produces and what Anna wants driving positive tension throughout the film. Even if Anna's main objection tends to fall into one of two camps. Either - too much black, or not enough fur. Well I suppose the woman knows what she likes.

So interesting enough of a documentary. It could have been truly great - but for me it achieved just "good." If you're a fashion person definitely must see viewing. I learned some things and even changed my mind about a few. But I still likely won't be picking up the September issue.

Where the Wild Things Are

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:33:00 +0000

Spike Jonze does it again. His latest film is about gullible, prozac deprived monsters taken advantage of by an underaged con artist with a mother biting fetish. Turns out if has nothing to do with the original Wild Things film and neither Denise Richards nor Neve Campbell appear in it.

Oh, it's based on a children's book that I probably loved as a kid but can't remember at all now? Ah, that makes somewhat more sense. Otherwise the target demographic of monsters outraged by their mistreatment at the hands of a human boy seems to give the film little shot at commercial success.

A boy starts off the film playing by himself building a snow fort. After a few ups and downs with neighbors and siblings he gets in a fight with his mom by being disruptive as she's entertaining a gentleman caller. Dressed in wolf like pajamas he runs away after biting her during his tantrum. Somehow he finds a boat, sails away to an island inhabited by a variety of monsters. There he's crowned King, manages to avoid being eaten and eventually grows enough to want to go back home. Or just figures the jig is up with the wild crowd. Hard for me to tell which.

The film brings to the table absolutely brilliant costuming and art direction. The ability of the non-human characters to convey emotion visually is impressive. You can add to that some entertaining performances by the often very sad monsters that occasionally seem like they could populate a Woody Allen film (the standout line for me was the one who sullenly mutters "oh, that's OK - I guess no one ever listens to me" in the corner of the frame). Though the lead "wild thing" being played by Tony Soprano was a bit distracting (kept trying to place to voice). A character who's both a moody and depressed yet prone to occasional fits of extreme violence doesn't seem like as large a stretch for James Gandolfini now that I think about it.

While the dialog kept me interested and I couldn't help but occasionally marvel at the visual presentation of the film I was never really pulled into the story. Not that there's really a very involved story - and given that it's based on a 20 page children's book that likely shouldn't be a surprise. I suspect that the film stays with the book's presentation more than one would expect for a 90 minute film. Guess I'll have to take a look next time I'm in a bookstore or library to confirm.

Throughout the movie I was laughing and curious about what would happen next, but I can't say it really struck a chord for me. About halfway through I stupidly realized "hey - this is a movie for kids." Whether younger cinephiles would enjoy it I truly cannot say. My strongest objection is to the running around through the woods/chase sequences which I felt where too quickly cut to visually follow and occasionally were a little too Blair Witch for my eyeballs.

Screening note: I got a chance to see an early screening of this film by attending a fundraiser at Cinerama to benefit 826 Seattle who both the writer of the film and the director are involved with. Got myself a burger king like crown for my trouble and a chance to see it on that nice Cinerama screen. If you do decide to check this out - do try to see it in a place with nice projection. It'd be a crime to at least not enjoy the costumes.

The rest of my past Sunday @ VIFF

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:50:00 +0000

Not sure when/if I'll get back to doing "full" write ups on everything I saw at VIFF last weekend. But I wanted to at least write some mini-reviews for everything I saw.

Will Not Stop There (Croatia) was definitely my favorite film of Sunday. It's not entirely easy to explain without giving away some of the best parts. It opens with the Djuro, the narrator (pictured to the left) setting up the story. As he plays his nose (yes - as an instrument) the voice over introduces us to the world he lives in. Through that - and the subsequent proceedings we learn that he's a man in love with his wife and needing to put bread on the table for his family he's been forced to use his "anomaly" for financial benefit. As a star of the local adult film industry I'll let you guess at exactly what that means. Though I will say that as opposed to a recent Lars von Trier film you only have to imagine that body part (excepting artistic representations late in the film) vs. having it greet you onscreen for shock value. Anyway... early on a man shows up looking for one of Djuro's co-stars, a Serbian woman. What the Croatian man wants with her is slowly revealed over the coarse of the film. It's both sad and sweet and often funny. All the parts together worked for me. I know some folks didn't think it ended super well - but I enjoyed the ride and how the pieces fit together. Don't think it'd be entirely fair to say much more about where the story goes, except that afterwards there's a similarity between other VIFF films Gigante and Castaway on the Moon that makes me wonder where this connecting theme is coming from.

Like You Know It All (S. Korea) is about a film director who has a preternatural ability to upset those around him without intending to. Self absorbed, he's a hard guy to like as he wanders from situation to situation. Whether it's upsetting the director of a film festival he's attending by promising to drink with some volunteers without any real intent, sleeping with his friends wife when they briefly think he's dead (I'm not joking), or sleeping with a faculty member's wife when he knows the guy is very much alive - problems seem to follow him around. As in some other recent films from Korea there's a lot of scenes of folks drinking too much while sitting around and talking. None as interesting as those from the recent film entirely about that aptly named Daytime Drinking that screened at SIFF this past year. The entire time I was watching this film I kept thinking it seemed very familiar. Afterwards I realized it's from the same director as Woman on the Beach. There are some structural similarities (both follow jerky directors who stir up problems without fully intending) and definite similar style and pacing. Though I believe I liked the earlier film better. This one felt a bit long, and while funny at parts didn't leave a very strong positive impression.

Air Doll (Japan) breaks what appears to be a basic rule of films about life sized sex dolls. Whether the dolls in question come to life or not, I thought these works were supposed to be light romantic romps. Not existential treatments of what it means to be alive and the loneliness of humanity. But I suppose I shouldn't have expected Lars and The Real Girl go to Tokyo from the director of Still Walking one of my favorite films from 2008 (which screened at VIFF 2008). When we first meet Nozomi (the air doll of the title) she's a companion for a middle aged salaryman who lives alone and comes home to dress her up, share his day with her, and yes use her for her intended purpose. After we have some time to understand the rythyms of the household Nozomi magically comes to life. This is handled pretty well visually - and the doll starting to take in her surroundings with a degree of control/ability to move, etc. is convincingly acted by the film's lead Du-na Bae. When her owner is away, Nozomi begins to get out on her own, exploring the neighborhood, getting a job at the local video store, etc. The film is clearly allegorical. Though about what I haven't quite settled on. There seems to be bit of an argument on IMDB about whether it is presenting Nozomi as a prostitute escaping sexual slavery or is instead about urban alienation and loneliness. Personally, I'm leaning more towards the latter. Nozomi has a series of encounters (some deeper than others) with fellow urban residents dealing with personal issues as she learns what being alive can entail. Though I can understand where one could see something of men using women as sexual objects/prostitution out of all this. Of all the films on Sunday this is the one most likely to lead to after film conversation among your friends. It is not a fun, light film but is well acted and at least visually interesting. Didn't love it - sort of felt neutral while watching. Though now that I'm sitting here trying to figure out what it was all about I'm starting to feel somewhat more positive. It's possible the urban loneliness and the destiny Nozomi seems to fight of being created for a specific purpose may have resonance with modern Japanese city dwellers that I don't fully have the background to understand.

Shameless (Czech Republic) follows the lives of a husband and wife as their marriage unravels. Pretty directly due to the husband's shameless chasing of their au pair due to a serious case of seven year itch (and perhaps an unmet need for engaging in an act with a woman that he tells his friend about with perhaps more relish than seems believable). Plus as he suddenly realizes his wife does have a prominent nose - seems as good a reason as any. Directed by the filmmaker who helmed Divided We Fall and Beauty in Trouble I went in with high expectations. It's a pleasant enough film (with at least one or two serious laughs) - though not as good as the latter (which I believe I saw on my first trip to VIFF several years back). Enjoyable while I watched it, but probably not going to stick with me that seriously. Still, nice to see not only Hollywood can make ephemeral films.

Bare Essence of Life (Japan) - An unusual film. I suspect it'll work for some, but for me it wasn't a great experience. The main character is a young man in rural Japan who seems to have some sort of developmental disability. He's easily excited and is behaves in a way I'd have to call disruptive in most social settings. Perhaps not super disruptive in America but clearly he's standout in that regard in the community he lives in. His only visible family member is a grandmother who runs a local organic farm and is concerned with his ability to cope without her. He's working on a vegetable patch of his own when we meet him, but even with tapes on how to farm from his grandfather and a system to keep him on a rigorous schedule he's having trouble getting things to work out. Enter a new kindergarten teacher who's moved to the area from Tokyo (to escape a bad relationship). In between causing trouble for her and the various community members he comes across the teacher and the man develop a sort of friendship. She even seems to like him a bit when he's able to stay calm. Unfortunately he comes to the belief that calming down so she'll like him is best achieved by being covered in pesticide (which he's not supposed to have in the first place). The disastrous result of this plan is occasionally almost as hard to watch as him trying to court her in the first place. For whatever reason I never fully was interested in the characters and the sort of wacky turns the film takes into the absurd towards the end didn't make up for the beginning. So cannot really recommend.

Taqwacore--The Birth of Punk Islam (Canada)

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:26:00 +0000

The start of this film with a bunch of kids screaming into a mike in an area even smaller than CBGB's reminded me of the standard punk band response on college radio or in Maximum Rock & Roll magazine interviews to the question "what did you guys do this summer?" or "what's different about this album?" - to which the reply I remember always seemed to be - "We learned to play our instruments."

This film is a documentary covering various groups of Muslim youth around the US and Canada who inspired by a book about fictional Islamic punk rockers in Buffalo, NY started creating their own bands. A real life example of life imitating art. Though the quality of the "art" varies wildly between the bands showcased. As a fan of hardcore punk I personally think talent and not just enthusiasm do matter. The preponderance of the latter and a slight deficit of the former somewhat makes this doc a little less fun than it could be. Though I'm sure that's way besides the point of the filmmaker. In a punk doc I want to rock a bit - sue me. :-)

The doc definitely does some things right. Including

Gives the basic info that out the book The Taqwacores a real life music movement has sprung up.
Provides a little flavor for the music itself and the personalities of those involved.
Throws some occasionally very funny humor from the kids into the mix. A personal favorite - when faced with some mechanical concerns about the bus one of the assembled band members jokes "we don't want it to blow up until we actually want it to."
Manages to actually get through an entire film covering a music scene without anyone uttering "we're not about labels" on the screen. For that last one especially I'm more than willing to forgive the constant refrain from everyone on the tour bus (joking I believe) "... Now that's punk rock."
Shows them showing up at a national conference religious conference, signing up for open mike night, having (dare I say it) women actually perform (Setara from Afghan Star would be so proud) and leaving some of the little kids in attendance clapping for more as they thrown out. Which along with their fuck off attitude is admittedly fairly "punk rock."

What the film does less well for me is provide a deeper sense of the participants. That and a somewhat rambling third act made put it in the category of interesting documentaries which aren't quite as great as they could be.

Some knowledge of punk/hardcore definitely adds to the experience. It helps one appreciate some of the song names such as 'Muhammad is a Punk Rocker and "Sharia Law in the USA" (featuring the lyric "I am an Islamist, I am The Antichrist") and the reference to The Taqwacore writer Michael Muhammad Knight looking like Ian MacKaye. But I don't know that's really vital to get something out of the film - but it did help in my case. Even if you're not that familiar with the music I suspect the spread in talent between the bands is pretty clear. I love the heart of all of 'em, though there were a few that were pretty good and I wish they were a bit more prevalent throughout the soundtrack. One of the joys of a punk doc (especially in the theater) should be getting caught up in the music.

The first 2/3 or so documents a bunch of these Taqwacore bands along with Knight setting off on a bus tour of the US. We learn some about the book, some about the inspiration of the kids and see a little of the music, accompanied by a lot of footage of them joking and talking amongst themselves. I didn't find this riveting, but interesting enough most of the time. The last third follows Knight back to Pakistan (where he spent time as a teenager after his initial conversion to Islam). One of the Taqwacore bands had gone back there to try to break into the local music scene and he checks in on their progress. While that's likely the most personal part of the film it seemed somewhat out of place with the beginning and pulled me in far less. I suspect the filmmakers felt they needed a narrative arc, but I'm not quite sure that's what they ended up with. If they had spent that time giving a deeper sense about the kids forming the front wave of the Taqwacore movement - how much of it was about religion to them vs. rebellion within their cultural upbringing, etc. I think it might have been better spent.

So all in all, interesting topic (at least for me) - though I didn't quite feel the doc gave me more insight than previous articles I'd read about the Taqwacore book. At the end of the day felt it wasn't that different than any youth rebellion through music. And perhaps that may well be the point.

Screening Note: I saw this film at the Vancouver International Film Festival last week. One of the nice things about a festival screening is that sometimes the folks involved in the film show up. The director (and apparently some of his buddies) came along. During the intro one of them was taping the director addressing the crowd. So far so good. Then this same entourage member sat down two rows in front of me with his camera. Filming the screen with the BRIGHT glowing viewfinder sticking out prominently. I figured maybe he wanted to tape the great VIFF trailers. So I said nothing. Then as the film started and the bright lights continued I thought perhaps he wanted to tape the intro title of the film at its world premiere. But when the lights stayed on after that I got up to say something. After asking him (I thought relatively nicely) to turn it off he flatly refused saying "it's at the request of the filmmaker." I suggested I didn't really much care as it was disturbing the screening and perhaps he should film from the back. I managed to control the growing need to point out it was a pretty dick move to irritate the folks who'd paid good money (and it wasn't as though they were turning folks away at the door) to support the film. When he still refused I went looking for an official - by the time they came back in it seems he finally thought the better of it. Relating the story to a friend with SIFF the next morning she suggested perhaps smashing the camera could have been an option. Now that would truly be "punk rock."

VIFF's Incredible Trailers

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:55:00 +0000

I'd been poking around the web without success after returning from my weekend of VIFF looking for the amazing promo trailers they've been running before the movies. Last year's were also fantastic. This year they took a different approach - in line with the year's theme, "An Open Mind is Advised" and they really made me laugh every time I saw them. Thankfully the great Row Three website has them up. I've re-embedded them below. I do highly recommend checking out Row Three on a regular basis, their coverage is by far the best I've seen for VIFF. Thanks Marina!

Cinematic themes @ VIFF

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:31:00 +0000

For whatever reason, planning, random coincidence, the odd workings of the human mind I've observed that attendees at film festivals tend to notice themes that cross multiple films. For example a couple of years ago at SIFF there was a lot of talk about their being more suicide mentions than your average High School literature "journal." Including the mention of a cat's probable suicide in My Effortless Brilliance.

As we've learned from Rear Window nothing but good can come from observing strangers from a distance and making assumptions about what sort of people they are, how we would feel about them should we meet them in real life, etc. Well in keeping with that a theme at VIFF 2009 seems to be falling at love from a distance. And apparently it must be easier than you'd think to make a great film from this topic as the three films that I've seen (or saw before VIFF that will be appearing there this year) are pretty darn great. The three I've noticed for your consideration are below. See one - see all - each is very good in its own right.

Gigante - Absolutely the best heavy metal themed stalking = love story I've ever seen. All kidding aside this was a very sweet (as long as you don't think about the likely outcome in real life) romantic film. A security guard falls for a member of his supermarket's cleaning crew. He starts to learn about her mainly through observation. First via the video surveillance system it's his job to monitor, and then by following her. A huge guy that also works as a bouncer and listens to metal he looks as though he could be a goon but of course turns out to be a sweet honorable guy. Again, except for the stalking.
Castaway on the Moon Korean man is having a very bad day/life. Jumps off a bridge intending to end it all. Instead ends up stranded on a small island that's on the Han river. As he struggles to remake his life through self sufficiency he's observed by a young woman who's a shut in, living with her parents but not setting foot outside for three years. Together they overcome their fears only loosely connected across a distance (or at least a body of water). Well shot, sweet, interesting and quirky - but in a good way.
Will Not Stop There - well calibrated romance/comedy/tragedy. Set in the modern continuing aftermath of the wars in the Balkans we're introduced to the story by the semi neutral narrator. As someone of Gypsy heritage he puts himself somewhat outside the conflict between Croats and Serbs. He's found a certain measure of financial security in the porn business due to his "anomaly." A seriously devoted family man except for the career his wife doesn't know he's asked to help find a former female co-worker by a man who appears from the blue. Why this Croatian man is looking for the wife of a former Serbian officer slowly unravels itself. As does the an involving, sweet and often funny story. Which in this case involves falling in love through the scope of a sniper rifle.

There's also a possible theme at VIFF I've observed around clueless men driving their women to surgical extremes (on others) through their obliviousness (ranging from Antichrist to Air Doll). But for now I'd rather focus on the more romantic (though possibly restraining order producing in the real world) theme for now.

The Baader-Meinhof Complex (Germany)

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:27:00 +0000

We now interrupt the Vancouver 2009 reporting to bring you this out of nowhere review. I'd been interested in seeing this film in Palm Springs this past January but made some other choices at the last minute. So it took a while for it to make its way to Seattle (especially given that it was nominated for the foreign film academy award) but it got here eventually. And then it took me another week or two to write/post these notes. :-)

The Baader-Meinhof Complex is film about an interesting piece of history that managed to evoke some pretty strange responses in me. Most notably the ability to find it utterly fascinating and a bit boring almost but not quite at the same time.

The film is a docu-drama about the formation and rise of the RAF German terrorist group in the 1970's to the death in prison of the founders. I suspect the more you know about the group the more you'll get out of the film as characters come and go in a blur. And not really the semi-enjoyable blur of il Divo. I kept thinking things like - 'I wish I knew which character that one is...' Don't get me wrong - I definitely left knowing more about this period of history than I went in with. That and the some of the cinematic high points (one of which I mention below) made me glad I did go - if not quite as thrilled with the experience as I'd hoped for (and admittedly hope for every time I go into the dark of a theater).

First the very good. Near the start of the film German students are protesting the visit of the Shah of Iran. Pro-shah demonstrators start a attacking the protesters only to be joined by the police who savagely beat everyone in sight. Those moments are probably the strongest capturing of the fear and chaos that must accompany such a riot that I've seen on film. In those moments you get the "aha" moment of understanding how this truly could radicalize someone against such a state. And the film further fills in the gaps as some of the to-be members of the terrorist group talk about how they can never again allow fascists to come to power in Germany without resisting. As the generation whose parents were the literal Nazi's I could only imagine that urge to resist a repressive state would have been very very strong. So by way of explaining but not excusing the film does do a reasonable job setting things up.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film didn't capture my interest in the same way as a lot of ground is covered over a fairly short time (that said this is not a short film). Given the number of characters I never felt I got a chance to go deep enough into any of them. And the one character who's the most interesting - Horst Herold ( played well by Bruno Ganz), the top law enforcement officer in West Germany who seems way ahead of his time in seeking to understand the terrorists motivations as a tool to stopping them is almost criminally under explored. Not to mention their approach of using data mining to narrow down where the terrorists are hiding.

There's some humor mixed in (especially when you see the clash of the more liberal Germans attending the middle eastern (and clearly more conservative) terrorist training camps) which at times is illuminating and others just makes the 2.5 hour film more palatable. I've seen some reviews that criticize the film due to a belief that some of the action pacing of the RAF exploits glamorizes what they did. I didn't feel as negative on that point - to me some of the people doing it likely could have been influenced by that aspect of it - so to show it that way made sense. Given the surprising level of sympathy in the German public for the group as depicted in the film, that aspect of derring-do as a public relations plus likely existed at the time anyway. By the end I felt any level of sympathy for their initial urge to resist had long warn out its welcome with me. Just leaving people with objections to their society who were so sure that they were right that they were willing to kill for it. Which historically almost never works out well in the end. Regardless of the cause.

All in all - an interesting topic but a film that left me approaching boredom by its end. As a film I'd have to say a bit flawed - but far from horrible. Somewhere in the B- to C+ category for me.

Capitalism: A Love Story

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:23:00 +0000

Well - what to think? Certainly no one these days does comedic agit-prop like Michael Moore (though I've never seen those 'Yes Men' films so I may be wrong about that from the get go. In his 2 hour knock on Capitalism he trots out a lot of his familiar tricks, though with more of an angry streak than I remember from his earlier work.

First, on the material. The trailers gave me the impression the film was going to focus on the causes of the housing crisis. But that's mainly used as an example of the thesis that money has so corrupted politics that the entire system is rotten to the core. There's plenty of data to suggest that, much of it far more damning than what he puts up on screen. Though if you're unfamiliar with income inequality growth, the bizarre salary structure of pilots (which I tried to forget all the way to Telluride on a tiny plane earlier this month) and the changing dynamics of American capitalism in the last 20 years there are probably worse primers. For Moore who is unabashedly pushing his agenda it didn't generally seem to stretch the truth too much, with the possible exception of the complexities around the banking bailout. Putting aside how ridiculously it was handled there are smart people on the left who didn't quite think telling the banking industry to pound sand was a great solution. Though why a year later there's no meaningful regulatory change is pretty surprising.

If you're a semi-regular reader of any left wing rag like the NY Times most of what he brings up won't be news to you. Though I'll admit some things were new - for example companies buying life insurance on their non-key employees with the corporation as the beneficiary. Which I don't really understand as a pure mathematical exercise - if you knew enough about your employees longevity to make that pay off as a net positive (not counting the PR nightmare of course) you'd think it would be a loser for the insurance companies who'd then refuse to write you new policies.

So do I recommend or not? If you like Michael Moore then I guess this won't disappoint. If you're on the fence I wouldn't push you off towards going to see it. Either way it likely will (and should) leave you feeling a bit depressed. If you're just looking for a good time - perhaps consider Whip It or Zombieland instead.

That said, I think I may drive into Telluride from Denver next year after this reminder of what they're paying the pilots on those small planes ...

My non-VIFF tourism stop in Vancouver

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:41:00 +0000

With only two days to watch films in Vancouver this weekend I didn't have a lot of spare time to eat, let alone tourism. Since I had to eat anyway figured I may at least try at least one new place. Given the convenient proximity decided to make that one place Japadog with their hot dog offerings fused with Japanese toppings. It was an interesting experience. For me shredded daikon with soy sauce didn't go so wonderfully with bratwurst. But I liked the plain beef alternative I also tried. Will probably give one of the other variants a chance next time.

BTW - if you click onto the picture you can see it at a higher resolution and actually read the menu. The blackberry camera isn't perfect - but occasionally surprises me with it's results.

Sunday's Film of the Day - Will Not Stop There (Croatia)

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:18:00 +0000

Headed back home late Sunday night after seeing my 10th film of the weekend. Met a lot of great people and had a fantastic time overall. I'll be working (when not "working") on catching up on reviews for these films and some others over the next week. I'm planning to get an early look Wed at 'Where the Wild Things Are" so hopefully that will help with my withdrawal.

Two quick things I wanted to mention coming out of Sunday. First is a strong recommend for 'Will Not Stop There' which was a well calibrated romance/comedy/tragedy. Set in the modern continuing aftermath of the wars in the Balkans we're introduced to the story by the semi neutral narrator. As someone of Gypsy heritage he puts himself somewhat outside the conflict between Croats and Serbs. He's found a certain measure of financial security in the porn business due to his "anomaly.". A seriously devoted family man except for the career his wife doesn't know he's asked to help find a former female co-worker by a man who appears from the blue. Why this Croatian man is looking for the wife of a former Serbian officer slowly unravels itself. As does the an involving, sweet and often funny story. Saying a lot more would probably take something away from it. Just add it to your list of things to see at VIFF. :-)

Second, wanted to compliment the folks at VIFF for another year of fantastic pre film trailers. I've seen three and they're all very good with two of them getting me to laugh out loud even on repeat viewings. I'm trying to hunt them down to link online but no success so far. Each is a riff on the theme "An Open Mind is Advised" playing on the similar sounding MPAA warnings. I can't decide if I like the one that starts with "warning, this film contains sexual situations ... that may cause you to question your sexuality ... or the sexuality of the friend who recommended the film ... or sexuality in general" as increasingly ridiculous aspects of the scene are revealed as the camera pulls back - or the one with a very funny set of warnings about subtitles that's too hard to recount well in writing.

Ok - gotta stop for now. Reality beckons.