As much as I found this movie eminently watchable I'm not sure it's much more than movie of the week material. In its favour it had Martin Donovan and Edie Falco playing the mother and father roles. Donovan plays a creepy hands on father to his teenage daughter while Falco is an extremely desparate housewife resorting to a chemical hodgepodge to see her through her mundane suburban existence married to a man who has found this year's model much more to his liking.
Unlike most movies of the week much of this film is shot in dark, muted tones. This is not a happy movie and to its credit their is no cop out ending. Camilla Belle, who played opposite Daniel Day Lewis earlier this year in "The Ballad of Jack and Rose", plays the deaf teenager Dot who comes to stay with her foster family (Donovan, Falco and their daughter played by Elisha Cuthbert) after the death of her parents.
She is the best thing in this film given little to say and having to convey much with a look or abrupt action. Dot finds the transition to life with her new family difficult and needless to say she's not exactly the exalted new kid at the local high school. Quite why a deaf kid is dropped in to the local high school is left unexplained. Maybe this is standard practice these days as we see Dot attending classes with her personal sign language translator. Is this where my taxes go? But I digress.
The focus here is on Dot and her attempts to come to terms with her new life. There are a lot of about-faces in this film which ultimately lead to the demise of one of the main characters and may also try your patience. Not exactly hall of fame material but a good mid-winter, fuck all else to do, rental.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Capote
Before I get to the movie, just thought I'd say how sad it is that another year's festival has now passed us by. Media pundits are always going on, it seems to me, how summer ends after labour day Monday as if we've all been on vacation since the end of June and now we have to get back to the serious stuff. For me the true signpost of summer's demise is seeing my last film of the festival. As I hear the theme music to this year's fest before my last movie comes on, a tear comes to my eye as I realize that I'll wait another year to see so many interesting films in such a short space of time. Yes, I am a fucking wuss.
Which leads me to Capote who despite being fey in the extreme could never be construed as having been a wuss. His acerbic side took care to ensure that his emotional side would never get the better of him. I'm making some rather large suppositions based on a 2 hour biopic but the performance that Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers here most certainly leaves you feeling that for a short time you've seen the man as he really was.
For my money this is a role that Hoffman was born to play. I can't imagine Capote pulling it off with more elan than Hoffman does here. The ridiculous comment by a Now magazine scribe that Hoffman is too statuesque to play the diminutive Capote needs no comment with respect to its irrelevance here.
I checked IMDB and I've now seen Hoffman in 13 films, maybe as many as any other current actor or actress that I can think of, and weak performances are at a bare minimum. This is a guy Oscar has sadly overlooked. Both Hoffman and Jamie Foxx, last year's Oscar winner, are 38 and as I've read from the reviews of "Ray", "Capote" suffers from the same affliction in that this is really a great performance masquerading as a film.
Not that the film is bad by any stretch but the other characters played by the wonderful Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper and Brice Greenwood never get much to sink their teeth in to. It's like the scene in "Aliens" where the queen (pun intended) enters the hive and all the smaller males of the species shrink into the shadows for fear of reprisal.
The film focuses on Capote's final book. A non-fiction account of the gruesome slaying of a Kansas family, the book simultaneously catapults the writer to star status in North America while at the same time derailing his writing career. Much of the film is centred around Capote's complex relationship with one of the two accused, Perry Smith. Capote is fascinated by what motivated this multi-dimensional man to an act of extreme brutality and spends countless hours simply conversing with him in his prison cell.
As the film progresses we see that this is no hagiography. His relationship with Smith reveals much in Capote that is reprehensible. The scenes set in the big city cultural milieu in which Capote most obviously reveled show the side of the man that one cannot help but be attracted to. If you had to come up with a fantasy dinner guest list you could safely start with Capote.
The main flaw in the film for me, other than the peripheral roles played by the aforementioned actors, is that the connection to Perry Smith is never realized. Capote is fascinated by this man. I was less than enthralled. Clifton Collins Jr., who plays Perry Smith, is captivating to watch (his eyes especially) but something is missing in the writing I fear.
Still heartily recommended.
Which leads me to Capote who despite being fey in the extreme could never be construed as having been a wuss. His acerbic side took care to ensure that his emotional side would never get the better of him. I'm making some rather large suppositions based on a 2 hour biopic but the performance that Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers here most certainly leaves you feeling that for a short time you've seen the man as he really was.
For my money this is a role that Hoffman was born to play. I can't imagine Capote pulling it off with more elan than Hoffman does here. The ridiculous comment by a Now magazine scribe that Hoffman is too statuesque to play the diminutive Capote needs no comment with respect to its irrelevance here.
I checked IMDB and I've now seen Hoffman in 13 films, maybe as many as any other current actor or actress that I can think of, and weak performances are at a bare minimum. This is a guy Oscar has sadly overlooked. Both Hoffman and Jamie Foxx, last year's Oscar winner, are 38 and as I've read from the reviews of "Ray", "Capote" suffers from the same affliction in that this is really a great performance masquerading as a film.
Not that the film is bad by any stretch but the other characters played by the wonderful Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper and Brice Greenwood never get much to sink their teeth in to. It's like the scene in "Aliens" where the queen (pun intended) enters the hive and all the smaller males of the species shrink into the shadows for fear of reprisal.
The film focuses on Capote's final book. A non-fiction account of the gruesome slaying of a Kansas family, the book simultaneously catapults the writer to star status in North America while at the same time derailing his writing career. Much of the film is centred around Capote's complex relationship with one of the two accused, Perry Smith. Capote is fascinated by what motivated this multi-dimensional man to an act of extreme brutality and spends countless hours simply conversing with him in his prison cell.
As the film progresses we see that this is no hagiography. His relationship with Smith reveals much in Capote that is reprehensible. The scenes set in the big city cultural milieu in which Capote most obviously reveled show the side of the man that one cannot help but be attracted to. If you had to come up with a fantasy dinner guest list you could safely start with Capote.
The main flaw in the film for me, other than the peripheral roles played by the aforementioned actors, is that the connection to Perry Smith is never realized. Capote is fascinated by this man. I was less than enthralled. Clifton Collins Jr., who plays Perry Smith, is captivating to watch (his eyes especially) but something is missing in the writing I fear.
Still heartily recommended.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Memories In The Mist
Hmmmm. I am at a bit of a loss on what I should write about this one. I don't really have strong feelings about it at all.
It is the story of a man in his late thirties or early forties who is unhappy in his life. His job at a newspaper is unsatisfying. Because of his unwillingness to stop persuing the story of a corrupt government official, he keeps missing out on the promotions that all of his peers are getting. His wife seems to hate him. He cannot get past a conflict he had with his father as a youngster. The onlt thing that makes him happy are his dog Jill, (not a very Bangali name for a dog) son and daughter.
It was a little slow paced and had a few too many cliches in it to be satisfying. It is not a bad movie or a great movie. I am not sure that I would recommend it......maybe if there was nothing else worth renting at the video store.
It is the story of a man in his late thirties or early forties who is unhappy in his life. His job at a newspaper is unsatisfying. Because of his unwillingness to stop persuing the story of a corrupt government official, he keeps missing out on the promotions that all of his peers are getting. His wife seems to hate him. He cannot get past a conflict he had with his father as a youngster. The onlt thing that makes him happy are his dog Jill, (not a very Bangali name for a dog) son and daughter.
It was a little slow paced and had a few too many cliches in it to be satisfying. It is not a bad movie or a great movie. I am not sure that I would recommend it......maybe if there was nothing else worth renting at the video store.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
2 of my 5 movies
Kyle has written accounts of the two movies (out of my five) that I have seen so far. He has done a splendid job so I will only post a couple of lines with my two cents.
"A Travers la Foret"
After the first 10 minutes of "A Travers la Foret" I guessed that this would be a movie that Derek and Kyle would love. The main character spent these first 10 minutes dancing around the room nude. You saw her mostly shot from the waist up but you did get the occasional glimpse of thick pubic hair. She sang, danced and played with her hair, looking pretty all the while.
I changed my mind when the story became silly and dull 11 minutes into the film and continued that way until the end. The actress who sang and danced so prettily in the beginning also became dull looking. It remided me of the Sienfield episode where Jerry dates the "two face." Sometimes she looked cute and other times she looked like a hag. It was distracting.
The end of the movie made no sort of sense and reminded me of a bad movie I saw with my brother and Kyle last year called Hotel. The only difference between the ending of this movie and the ending Hotel was the absence of a scream. Both endings left me feeling cheated and sour. I do not recommend "A Traveers..." I must add that I also do not recommend "Hotel."
"Entre ses Mains"
It is true that I didn't completely buy how the main charater reacted to some of the things that happened to her in the movie. Still I would recommend it to all. I found it very suspenseful, well acted and well directed. I would also be curious to know if others could accept the choices the lead actress makes as realistic.
"A Travers la Foret"
After the first 10 minutes of "A Travers la Foret" I guessed that this would be a movie that Derek and Kyle would love. The main character spent these first 10 minutes dancing around the room nude. You saw her mostly shot from the waist up but you did get the occasional glimpse of thick pubic hair. She sang, danced and played with her hair, looking pretty all the while.
I changed my mind when the story became silly and dull 11 minutes into the film and continued that way until the end. The actress who sang and danced so prettily in the beginning also became dull looking. It remided me of the Sienfield episode where Jerry dates the "two face." Sometimes she looked cute and other times she looked like a hag. It was distracting.
The end of the movie made no sort of sense and reminded me of a bad movie I saw with my brother and Kyle last year called Hotel. The only difference between the ending of this movie and the ending Hotel was the absence of a scream. Both endings left me feeling cheated and sour. I do not recommend "A Traveers..." I must add that I also do not recommend "Hotel."
"Entre ses Mains"
It is true that I didn't completely buy how the main charater reacted to some of the things that happened to her in the movie. Still I would recommend it to all. I found it very suspenseful, well acted and well directed. I would also be curious to know if others could accept the choices the lead actress makes as realistic.
A Travers La Foret
At little over than one hour screen time, ATLF has the difficult task of having a lot to deliver in quite a little time period. That it doesn’t live up to this task is therefore unsurprising. What is surprising is that the director thought that such a thin premise would actually translate to a full feature film; if your 65 minute film is 'bloated', you've got problems!
As a short, this would have actually been alright, as a sweet albeit pretentious exercise that feels like a cross between French New Wave and an episode of Rod Sterling’s Night Gallery. The grieving, often topless Armelle believes she can make contact with her late boyfriend Renaud, and appears to have inadvertinently acquired telekinetic/telehypnotic powers after a failed suicide. Will she reunite with her lost love? Will she learn to love another? Or will she just wander off into the forest to the bemusement of the audiences everywhere?
Introducing the film, the director explained that he wrote the story specifically for the non-actress playing the lead, after seeing her on the street. Also, that he wrote it and made the movie quickly. That about sums it up. It's slight, breezy stuff that I didn't particularly like or dislike with any sort of intensity. The French convey this type of indifference with a slight shrug of the shoulders, shaking of the head, and perhaps a quietly uttered, 'Bof', meaning, 'Whatever'.
Can't really recommend.
As a short, this would have actually been alright, as a sweet albeit pretentious exercise that feels like a cross between French New Wave and an episode of Rod Sterling’s Night Gallery. The grieving, often topless Armelle believes she can make contact with her late boyfriend Renaud, and appears to have inadvertinently acquired telekinetic/telehypnotic powers after a failed suicide. Will she reunite with her lost love? Will she learn to love another? Or will she just wander off into the forest to the bemusement of the audiences everywhere?
Introducing the film, the director explained that he wrote the story specifically for the non-actress playing the lead, after seeing her on the street. Also, that he wrote it and made the movie quickly. That about sums it up. It's slight, breezy stuff that I didn't particularly like or dislike with any sort of intensity. The French convey this type of indifference with a slight shrug of the shoulders, shaking of the head, and perhaps a quietly uttered, 'Bof', meaning, 'Whatever'.
Can't really recommend.
Entre Ses Mains
I really enjoyed this one.
Suitably described in the program guide as a thriller in the tradition of Hitchcock or Chabrol, this is one of those films that relies more on the subtle but progressive revelation of the character's emotions through dialogue and facial expression to add suspense than it does on a complex narrative structure or sudden plot twists.
The story is about a young married woman who may or may not be making friends with the city’s notorious serial killer. Through her encounters with a charming client who flatters her with his quirky, off-beat compliments, we discover that she’s a little bored with her safe if happy home life, and may want to live a little more dangerously…but how much more dangerously? (cheesy italics mine).
I’d seen Anne Fontaine’s previous film “Nathalie” a few years back at the festival and found it a little too low key; here though, the simple, somewhat minimalist way in which the characters are able to slowly reveal a little more about themselves builds to conclusion that is ultimately satisfying.
Sarah doesn’t agree with me completely on this. She liked it but found parts of it unbelievable. I’ll agree that it's a film where the characters often don't make the same choices the audience would make and I’m gonna guess that this will be a sticking point for some. Your ultimate ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ will depend on whether or not you ‘buy’ some of these choices. I was ‘sold’ because I thought that there was never any inconsistency in the way the characters behaved from scene to scene and I continually found it intriguing. Recommend.
Back to Cache--realize I did not comment at all on the political subtext which you’ll probably read about in other reviews or descriptions and I think is very much worth commenting on. More than simply adding an historical reference to the treatment of Algerians by the French in the 1960s or making a statement about the way that many visible minorities are viewed with suspicion or outright hostility in western societies today, Haneke is able to powerfully drive those points home by creating a heartrending portrait of a father and son who continue to be mistreated by people like Daniel Auteuil’s character. The more I think about this film the more I like it. Of course, the more I build it up, the greater than chance of you not liking it or thinking that I've overhyped it so I'll stop here.
Suitably described in the program guide as a thriller in the tradition of Hitchcock or Chabrol, this is one of those films that relies more on the subtle but progressive revelation of the character's emotions through dialogue and facial expression to add suspense than it does on a complex narrative structure or sudden plot twists.
The story is about a young married woman who may or may not be making friends with the city’s notorious serial killer. Through her encounters with a charming client who flatters her with his quirky, off-beat compliments, we discover that she’s a little bored with her safe if happy home life, and may want to live a little more dangerously…but how much more dangerously? (cheesy italics mine).
I’d seen Anne Fontaine’s previous film “Nathalie” a few years back at the festival and found it a little too low key; here though, the simple, somewhat minimalist way in which the characters are able to slowly reveal a little more about themselves builds to conclusion that is ultimately satisfying.
Sarah doesn’t agree with me completely on this. She liked it but found parts of it unbelievable. I’ll agree that it's a film where the characters often don't make the same choices the audience would make and I’m gonna guess that this will be a sticking point for some. Your ultimate ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ will depend on whether or not you ‘buy’ some of these choices. I was ‘sold’ because I thought that there was never any inconsistency in the way the characters behaved from scene to scene and I continually found it intriguing. Recommend.
Back to Cache--realize I did not comment at all on the political subtext which you’ll probably read about in other reviews or descriptions and I think is very much worth commenting on. More than simply adding an historical reference to the treatment of Algerians by the French in the 1960s or making a statement about the way that many visible minorities are viewed with suspicion or outright hostility in western societies today, Haneke is able to powerfully drive those points home by creating a heartrending portrait of a father and son who continue to be mistreated by people like Daniel Auteuil’s character. The more I think about this film the more I like it. Of course, the more I build it up, the greater than chance of you not liking it or thinking that I've overhyped it so I'll stop here.
Caché
Is it possible to like or recommend a film when you’re not entirely sure how it ends exactly?
Because I enjoyed Michael Haneke’s ‘Cache’ quite a bit. There’s something so much more powerful for the audience when a director lets the actors and the gravity of the situation he places them in unfold in a careful, deliberate manner. At times funny, disturbing, and tragic, the story is gripping from its extended opening title sequence, holding a single frame on a quiet street scene for several long minutes, to its similarly patient final revealing shot.
Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche are wonderful as a nearing middle-age married couple who become increasingly frustrated with one another as they try to figure how why they’ve been receiving strange postcards and videotapes from an anonymous though seemingly menacing source. They capture, in a very understated but convincing fashion, the way a loving couple can find equal parts comfort and irritation in one another in the face of threats from the outside world.
Sometimes a word like ‘understatement’ in a review can be a code word for ‘boring’ (‘visually stunning’ and ‘hypnotic’ being code words for ‘really fucking boring’) but here it's a compliment. There’s a wonderful scene (not giving anything away here) where Daneil Auteuil’s character visits his aging mother and they engage in pleasantries before she looks him in the eye and asks him to cut the crap and tell her what’s going on. The piercing, knowing look of a mother who always knows when her child is covering up and the evasive, nervous response of the grown up child is probably the most authentic and thus, for some reason, exhilarating exchange I’ve seen on film for some time.
I also don’t recall the last time I’ve been in a theatre and heard several hundred people simultaneously gasp in shock at a sudden, unexpected turn of event on the screen.
So really, the only downside was not really being sure about the story’s conclusion.
The joys of seeing a film in the beautiful Elgin theatre are sometimes overshadowed by the fact that they rarely, if ever, host post-screening Q & As. Had there been one, a simple, “so does this mean that x caused y?” and a confirmation or explanation from the director would have done wonders for me. I’ve since trekked over to IMDB and confirmed what I thought to be the case (or at least been comforted by the fact that others had similar interpretations) but would be interested in comparing notes with some of you all. Highly recommend.
Because I enjoyed Michael Haneke’s ‘Cache’ quite a bit. There’s something so much more powerful for the audience when a director lets the actors and the gravity of the situation he places them in unfold in a careful, deliberate manner. At times funny, disturbing, and tragic, the story is gripping from its extended opening title sequence, holding a single frame on a quiet street scene for several long minutes, to its similarly patient final revealing shot.
Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche are wonderful as a nearing middle-age married couple who become increasingly frustrated with one another as they try to figure how why they’ve been receiving strange postcards and videotapes from an anonymous though seemingly menacing source. They capture, in a very understated but convincing fashion, the way a loving couple can find equal parts comfort and irritation in one another in the face of threats from the outside world.
Sometimes a word like ‘understatement’ in a review can be a code word for ‘boring’ (‘visually stunning’ and ‘hypnotic’ being code words for ‘really fucking boring’) but here it's a compliment. There’s a wonderful scene (not giving anything away here) where Daneil Auteuil’s character visits his aging mother and they engage in pleasantries before she looks him in the eye and asks him to cut the crap and tell her what’s going on. The piercing, knowing look of a mother who always knows when her child is covering up and the evasive, nervous response of the grown up child is probably the most authentic and thus, for some reason, exhilarating exchange I’ve seen on film for some time.
I also don’t recall the last time I’ve been in a theatre and heard several hundred people simultaneously gasp in shock at a sudden, unexpected turn of event on the screen.
So really, the only downside was not really being sure about the story’s conclusion.
The joys of seeing a film in the beautiful Elgin theatre are sometimes overshadowed by the fact that they rarely, if ever, host post-screening Q & As. Had there been one, a simple, “so does this mean that x caused y?” and a confirmation or explanation from the director would have done wonders for me. I’ve since trekked over to IMDB and confirmed what I thought to be the case (or at least been comforted by the fact that others had similar interpretations) but would be interested in comparing notes with some of you all. Highly recommend.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
L'Enfer
If ever a movie had "really big production" written all over it, it was this one. Beautifully shot, a cast featuring Emmanuelle Beart, Carole Bouquet, Jean Rochefort and a director who won the Oscar for best foreign film in 2001 with "No Mans Land". Christ, even the opening credit sequence dripped with more money and post production than the average Jarmusch film. Before I decry this film in any way let me say that nobody lets you down easier than the French. OK the director is Bosnian but there's no mistaking this is a French film in every way.
It is never less than lovely to watch as the cast is bedecked as only Parisians could possibly be. It is set in either the early spring or late fall so that compelling sadness of seasonal change that Paris pulls off better than any other city also has you in its grasp. I'm setting this up to ensure you that I wanted to love this film as much as I love the pouty lips of Emmanuelle Beart. All the props were in place to guarantee a successful viewer-celluloid relationship.
Suffice to say then that it couldn't possibly live up to its lofty expectations. The story is one of three sisters who have drifted apart in their adult lives as a result of a rather traumatic family incident that shattered their childhood and changed the family dynamic forever. It is set up expertly, revealing the horrific background to their current lives in small but never stultifying steps. The three sisters are realized beautifully by the three lead actresses showing how simple it is to let 5, 10, 15 years pass in our hectic lives without connecting even with those who are realted by blood let alone by chance.
So far so good so what's missing you may ask. I think the French more than any nation have pushed the cinematic boundaries further than one could possibly hope. Perhaps it's just that we don't get the bad French movies on this side of the pond but I think at the very least when you walk in to a French film you know it will be thought provoking. But I think what is too often missing and is my flaw with this feature is the raw emotion. Every moment is just too calculated. If this film was a band it could never be Guided by Voices at the Shoe it would be Coldplay at the ACC.
Nobody in this film, other than the cheating photographer husband has a discernable occupation. The characters spend every moment wondering where they've fucked up, how they can possibly rectify this and attempting to do so. I suppose we'd all like to live our lives tending to our social selves and I suppose the French as much as anyone have a "right" to negate the workingman's existence as perhaps they feel they've covered that ad nauseaum.
Fair enough, it is a movie and it can cover any territory it damn well pleases, but if when it's all played out and I haven't felt anything the characters have conveyed then it's simply a pretentious intellectual exercise in the world of the bourgeoisie and we're simply running to stand still.
I look forward to Tanovic's 3rd film which might just strike a perfect balance.
It is never less than lovely to watch as the cast is bedecked as only Parisians could possibly be. It is set in either the early spring or late fall so that compelling sadness of seasonal change that Paris pulls off better than any other city also has you in its grasp. I'm setting this up to ensure you that I wanted to love this film as much as I love the pouty lips of Emmanuelle Beart. All the props were in place to guarantee a successful viewer-celluloid relationship.
Suffice to say then that it couldn't possibly live up to its lofty expectations. The story is one of three sisters who have drifted apart in their adult lives as a result of a rather traumatic family incident that shattered their childhood and changed the family dynamic forever. It is set up expertly, revealing the horrific background to their current lives in small but never stultifying steps. The three sisters are realized beautifully by the three lead actresses showing how simple it is to let 5, 10, 15 years pass in our hectic lives without connecting even with those who are realted by blood let alone by chance.
So far so good so what's missing you may ask. I think the French more than any nation have pushed the cinematic boundaries further than one could possibly hope. Perhaps it's just that we don't get the bad French movies on this side of the pond but I think at the very least when you walk in to a French film you know it will be thought provoking. But I think what is too often missing and is my flaw with this feature is the raw emotion. Every moment is just too calculated. If this film was a band it could never be Guided by Voices at the Shoe it would be Coldplay at the ACC.
Nobody in this film, other than the cheating photographer husband has a discernable occupation. The characters spend every moment wondering where they've fucked up, how they can possibly rectify this and attempting to do so. I suppose we'd all like to live our lives tending to our social selves and I suppose the French as much as anyone have a "right" to negate the workingman's existence as perhaps they feel they've covered that ad nauseaum.
Fair enough, it is a movie and it can cover any territory it damn well pleases, but if when it's all played out and I haven't felt anything the characters have conveyed then it's simply a pretentious intellectual exercise in the world of the bourgeoisie and we're simply running to stand still.
I look forward to Tanovic's 3rd film which might just strike a perfect balance.
A Travers la Foret
Please see Kylie's comments re this film. As he is seeing considerably fewer than I am and we saw this one together I'll leave this baby up to him. C'mon Kyle whatcha waiting for? Maybe you can blog Sufjan while you're at it. Just leave the Ti-Cats out of it if you please.
Battle in Heaven
Halfway through the fest and it's debatable whether I will see a more unusual or interesting film than this Mexican effort. I didn't love it, I wouldn't rush out to recommend it to any of you and at times decidedly off kilter but man did it keep my attention for the entire 98 minute running time.
If you've done any reading of the program book, either on-line or hard copy, you'll know that this is the film that begins and ends with a blow job. Not just any blow job. The young woman performing said fellatio is quite stunning. The lucky recipient on the other hand is a middle-aged everyman with a much more than slightly tumescent belly, with breasts to rival those of Anna Nicole Smith. Not a pretty picture.
The story progresses slowly from this extended opening shot to reveal that our man Marcos is a chauffeur for the aformentioned Ana the daughter of a rich Mexican general. This immediately raises the question of why the apparent role reversal in the opening scene. Rich, young, beautiful woman subservient to the rather unappealing hired help. I'm not sure this is ever answered to our satisfaction or that it needs to be as we're all looking for something to hold on to and sometimes those that are closest and know us best, Marcos having practically raised Ana since she was a baby qualifies here, are those to whom our bonds are tightest.
As the story unveils we come to see that Marcos is someone merely putting in his time. Life holds very little hope of emotional payoff for him. His best years are already behind him and even sex, whether with his similarly large girthed wife or the buxom Ana, seems to hold little in the way of pleasure. Much of the first hour of the movie is scored with a myriad of everyday sounds noting the relentless passage of time. As this inexorable forward movement takes place many everyday occurrences are shown in an entirely unexpected and stark new light.
That this movie takes the commonplace and presents it in a unique perspective is its major strength. Its many beautiful while brutal images of Mexico City also imbue it with much of its power. I'm fairly certain there is much in this movie that went over my head where the politics of Mexico are concerned. Divisions along sexual, religious and class lines play a huge part here and despite their proximity our southern neighbor plus one is one that I am shamefully unequipped to discuss with any semblance of knowledge.
"Y tu Mama Tambien" may have titillated you, I would say let this film take you deeper into the complex world that is modern day Mexico.
If you've done any reading of the program book, either on-line or hard copy, you'll know that this is the film that begins and ends with a blow job. Not just any blow job. The young woman performing said fellatio is quite stunning. The lucky recipient on the other hand is a middle-aged everyman with a much more than slightly tumescent belly, with breasts to rival those of Anna Nicole Smith. Not a pretty picture.
The story progresses slowly from this extended opening shot to reveal that our man Marcos is a chauffeur for the aformentioned Ana the daughter of a rich Mexican general. This immediately raises the question of why the apparent role reversal in the opening scene. Rich, young, beautiful woman subservient to the rather unappealing hired help. I'm not sure this is ever answered to our satisfaction or that it needs to be as we're all looking for something to hold on to and sometimes those that are closest and know us best, Marcos having practically raised Ana since she was a baby qualifies here, are those to whom our bonds are tightest.
As the story unveils we come to see that Marcos is someone merely putting in his time. Life holds very little hope of emotional payoff for him. His best years are already behind him and even sex, whether with his similarly large girthed wife or the buxom Ana, seems to hold little in the way of pleasure. Much of the first hour of the movie is scored with a myriad of everyday sounds noting the relentless passage of time. As this inexorable forward movement takes place many everyday occurrences are shown in an entirely unexpected and stark new light.
That this movie takes the commonplace and presents it in a unique perspective is its major strength. Its many beautiful while brutal images of Mexico City also imbue it with much of its power. I'm fairly certain there is much in this movie that went over my head where the politics of Mexico are concerned. Divisions along sexual, religious and class lines play a huge part here and despite their proximity our southern neighbor plus one is one that I am shamefully unequipped to discuss with any semblance of knowledge.
"Y tu Mama Tambien" may have titillated you, I would say let this film take you deeper into the complex world that is modern day Mexico.
Douches Froides
Halfway through my 16 movies at this year's festival and it's about time I got off my ass and put some words down on those that I've seen so far. Seeing 8 films in little over 48 hours makes it difficult to recall with great clarity the first few screenings but I'll give it my utmost.
My first day at the festival encompassed 3 films with copious nudity both male and female with varying degrees of success at creating an interesting story around the naughty bits as Monty Python might say.
Given the wobbly bits on display needless to say my first film was a French effort, god bless them, with this particular film focusing on a trio of high school age teens doing what high schoolers everywhere do best: attempting figure out what the fuck am I doing here. Can't say I felt particularly despondent at their plight given the uniformly beautiful faces and physiques shared by the two young male and one female lead. Their shared shower experience in the high school gym also didn't evoke too many knowing nods. And has anyone else noticed how easy it is to run around naked after hours in the curves and crevices of the local high school?
Essentially this film's focus is the young judoka black belt Mickael who after pulling a prank in the shower knocks one of his slighter teammates out of the upcoming "European championship" decides that the noble thing to do would be lose 7 kilos to drop down a weight class and take his forsaken teammates place. As this backdrop to the film proceeds apace Mickael does his best to deal with his working class family's day to day existence and the arrival on the scene of a decidedly more upwardly mobile teammate who becomes both a friend and a rival for his girlfriend's affections.
The problem for me with most feature films that have the sporting life as a central focus is that there seem to be only two resolutions. a) the central character is a hero with all the glory that implies (think most American films of this ilk) or b) catastrophe at the most crucial moment (guess which category this one falls into). Having participated in organized sport for most of my educational life the truth is much more mundane and I suppose that's why we have no stories of characters or teams finishing in 5th place. Where's the drama in that? Unfortunately then with this type of film it's telegraphed fairly early which side of the dramatic fence our story will fall.
The best moments in this film for me were those that focused on Mickael's family. His dad is a heavy drinking taxi driver and his mum a night shift cleaning lady in her son's school. Both characters are incredibly real, as any in a Mike Leigh film, and have a melancholy sense of humour that strikes home most fully near the end of the film when the French hydro "auditor" informs them that they have come in under their annual kwh quota of 6000 by registering 5999 and the family promptly goes apeshit revelling in their new found freedom to abuse the state's energy supply. Anyone living this past summer in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario cannot help but join in their glee.
My first day at the festival encompassed 3 films with copious nudity both male and female with varying degrees of success at creating an interesting story around the naughty bits as Monty Python might say.
Given the wobbly bits on display needless to say my first film was a French effort, god bless them, with this particular film focusing on a trio of high school age teens doing what high schoolers everywhere do best: attempting figure out what the fuck am I doing here. Can't say I felt particularly despondent at their plight given the uniformly beautiful faces and physiques shared by the two young male and one female lead. Their shared shower experience in the high school gym also didn't evoke too many knowing nods. And has anyone else noticed how easy it is to run around naked after hours in the curves and crevices of the local high school?
Essentially this film's focus is the young judoka black belt Mickael who after pulling a prank in the shower knocks one of his slighter teammates out of the upcoming "European championship" decides that the noble thing to do would be lose 7 kilos to drop down a weight class and take his forsaken teammates place. As this backdrop to the film proceeds apace Mickael does his best to deal with his working class family's day to day existence and the arrival on the scene of a decidedly more upwardly mobile teammate who becomes both a friend and a rival for his girlfriend's affections.
The problem for me with most feature films that have the sporting life as a central focus is that there seem to be only two resolutions. a) the central character is a hero with all the glory that implies (think most American films of this ilk) or b) catastrophe at the most crucial moment (guess which category this one falls into). Having participated in organized sport for most of my educational life the truth is much more mundane and I suppose that's why we have no stories of characters or teams finishing in 5th place. Where's the drama in that? Unfortunately then with this type of film it's telegraphed fairly early which side of the dramatic fence our story will fall.
The best moments in this film for me were those that focused on Mickael's family. His dad is a heavy drinking taxi driver and his mum a night shift cleaning lady in her son's school. Both characters are incredibly real, as any in a Mike Leigh film, and have a melancholy sense of humour that strikes home most fully near the end of the film when the French hydro "auditor" informs them that they have come in under their annual kwh quota of 6000 by registering 5999 and the family promptly goes apeshit revelling in their new found freedom to abuse the state's energy supply. Anyone living this past summer in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario cannot help but join in their glee.
Friday, September 09, 2005
The President's Last Bang
Who says assassination can’t be fun? Or at least funny?
In what could have been a sombre, brooding series of set pieces chronicling the last days and violent demise of South Korea’s President/Dictator, or a measured study of conflicted men grappling with the issue of employing sinister means to a noble end, director Im Sang-Soo instead opts for a fast-paced comic portrait of men in power behaving badly.
I’m not familiar with the history of this event and I’m sure that far more comprehensive and reverent interpretations exist. But I can’t imagine a version as compelling or, oddly enough, realistic, given the way he captures what in all probability is the driving force behind most political and historical events: supreme self-interest.
Are the assassins acting out of a desire to see democracy flourish? Do they have designs on absolute power of their own? Or are they simply tired of kowtowing to their overbearing, boorish superiors? The implication is that political-military power structures are doomed to self-destruction because their inherent reliance on conformity breeds resentment and hostility. I think it's a pretty germane statement for our times; in the post-screening Q&A, Sang-Soo was keen to point out a possible link between the ignoble cretins in his film to the ahem, less than stellar administration to our south.
Credit to the film’s success, though, goes to the cast, whose alternate takes on macho bravado, craven sycophancy, and exasperated confusion communicate the absurdity of their situation without or resorting to broad farce or slapstick. That the pacing is standard potboiler thriller and the plot's resolution is a foregone conclusion fairly early on in no way detracts from the film as a whole. Very good and recommend.
Though I’ve been mocked in the past for my ostensible fixation on Asian films at recent fests, I’ve gotta say, they offer the most bang for the buck. Three of the most daring and thought-provoking films I saw last year—3 Iron, Spider Forest, and Old Boy--were all from South Korea and if TPLB is any indication, this trend will continue. I’m looking forward to Sympathy for Lady Vengeance (and may rush for Duelist, one of my original picks that fell victim to Box 33).
BTW...on the heels of my breakout performance on Global TV last night, all future correspondence will be handled by my coterie of handlers. Anyone wanting to get in on the ground floor of an entourage-ship are encouraged to apply.
In what could have been a sombre, brooding series of set pieces chronicling the last days and violent demise of South Korea’s President/Dictator, or a measured study of conflicted men grappling with the issue of employing sinister means to a noble end, director Im Sang-Soo instead opts for a fast-paced comic portrait of men in power behaving badly.
I’m not familiar with the history of this event and I’m sure that far more comprehensive and reverent interpretations exist. But I can’t imagine a version as compelling or, oddly enough, realistic, given the way he captures what in all probability is the driving force behind most political and historical events: supreme self-interest.
Are the assassins acting out of a desire to see democracy flourish? Do they have designs on absolute power of their own? Or are they simply tired of kowtowing to their overbearing, boorish superiors? The implication is that political-military power structures are doomed to self-destruction because their inherent reliance on conformity breeds resentment and hostility. I think it's a pretty germane statement for our times; in the post-screening Q&A, Sang-Soo was keen to point out a possible link between the ignoble cretins in his film to the ahem, less than stellar administration to our south.
Credit to the film’s success, though, goes to the cast, whose alternate takes on macho bravado, craven sycophancy, and exasperated confusion communicate the absurdity of their situation without or resorting to broad farce or slapstick. That the pacing is standard potboiler thriller and the plot's resolution is a foregone conclusion fairly early on in no way detracts from the film as a whole. Very good and recommend.
Though I’ve been mocked in the past for my ostensible fixation on Asian films at recent fests, I’ve gotta say, they offer the most bang for the buck. Three of the most daring and thought-provoking films I saw last year—3 Iron, Spider Forest, and Old Boy--were all from South Korea and if TPLB is any indication, this trend will continue. I’m looking forward to Sympathy for Lady Vengeance (and may rush for Duelist, one of my original picks that fell victim to Box 33).
BTW...on the heels of my breakout performance on Global TV last night, all future correspondence will be handled by my coterie of handlers. Anyone wanting to get in on the ground floor of an entourage-ship are encouraged to apply.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
My Stripped Down Itinerary
Here's what I'm seeing this year:
A rather pared down list from last year's 16 tickets and I'm seriously jonesing for more films. I looked at the online ordering page today and was going to pick up a ticket for A Little Trip to Heaven , which Sarah is seeing on the final Saturday. The problem, beyond the somewhat pricy $19.50 per ticket price, is the $5.59 handling fee they want to tack onto the cost of the ticket. Who's handling the ticket? For $5.59 it had better be someone like Natalie Portman.
Incidentally, Natalie is supposed to be here next week and I may rush for that film, which I had selected but didn't get because I was in a bad box this year. I could offer lame excuses about Amos Gitai being an important director but you'd see right through me. You may begin slagging me at any time.
First film is tonight and I look forward to posting my brilliant analysis here this morning. I'm sure you are all equally looking forward to reading it. Would love to read about what you all saw, particularly if you hated what you saw; those always tend to be the most fun to read.
Above all, happy festival!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)