TIFF 07: Day 4 "I think she was actually french."
I'll get the in betweens out of the way first:
After getting back at 2:30 because of the Brad-debacle, I got a whopping 4 hours of sleep and then got up and got ready for a fun filled 4 movie day. After the usual shower-commute-coffee-seating deal, the movies started. On today's list: Lust, Caution/Starting Out in the Evening/Les Chansons D'Amour/Silent Light. Completely fatigued by the end of Chansons, I rushed back to the apartment to rest for an hour. My neck and eyes were sore. And I'm having wisdom teeth issues again (they bite me while I sleep), so I think the little sore at the back of my mouth might be ready to sprout an infection. Which means I pick up the mouthwash and saltwater routine for the next few days until it blows over.
And just as I get over that stupid cold...
But now for the movies:
LUST, CAUTION (dir. Ang Lee, 2007):
My first reaction: Eh. I liked Black Book better. Sure this was more "sophisticated" and "serious," but in this case I don't see those as compliments. I've given this a spot as a contender for the most overrated movie of the year, and we'll see how that pans out. I mean, sure it looks great, and it's got solid leading performances, oh and there's sex that's "essential" to the story, and graphic (gave me some ideas). But at the end, it was just too... commercial? predictable? It reeked of a prestige picture, and it left me pretty cold.
Grade: B- (solid, mostly engaging, but again, not for me)
STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING (dir. Andrew Wagner, 2007):
Pretty standard, all around. It's the story of an older man (this time Frank Langella, who was present) learning about himself. This older man was a writer past his prime, and his self-discovery is kickstarted by a young grad student who is doing her thesis on his work. And she's sort of got a crush on him. The dynamic between the two was the best part. The writing was... very writerly, which was a nice change, but I ended up rolling my eyes at a lot of it. I suppose it works, since the main character is a writer and everyone involved is (presumably) well educated and literate. But I don't know if I've met anyone who talks that way. Maybe once. I did really like the little debates (Langella and the literary critic, Langella and her daughter's boyfriend, etc.). Aside from the two performers, those were fascinating little bits on their own.
Oh and there's this sub-story involving his daughter and her boyfriend issues, and her own little mid-life crisis. I could have done without it. But I guess it served some kind of purpose.
And, of course, Langella was great. There are a lot of really talented older actors out there, I'm just getting a little tired of them playing guys who are rediscovering themselves. Which might be why I was interested in seeing King of California (different deal, older guy who's crazy, bonds with daughter--gah I don't know. Maybe it would be different! Maybe!). But it didn't fit in my schedule, so why complain.
It was also very cute watching Wagner tear up a little before the screening while thanking Langella for all he's done, how he's helped him find his dreams, and how happy he was that he could be there for the screening (the first showing of the film Langella has been present for). The Q&A didn't yield anything terribly interesting (to me), but I did learn that Langella is a pretty cool guy, and Wagner isn't too bad himself.
Grade: B- (again, entertaining enough, but pretty standard, nice dynamics with the leads and a performance from Langella that grows on you.)
And then...
CHANSONS D'AMOUR (dir. Christophe Honore, 2007):
Very very cool. I actually liked this a lot, despite my brain being completely fried for reasons listed above (max fatigue, low on coffee, soreness, etc.).
Basically, Honore made a musical. It's not a Moulin Rouge/Chicago-y thing, or anything with any dancing at all. No spectacle. It's more in the vein of Demy/Once/et al. An alternative musical, basically. And the songs... some of them were catchy/touching-ish. Others were annoying and redundant. Most of it wasn't very sophisticated (but why should it be? These are the common folk).
So, story follows a young guy through a few turning points. It's divided into 3 parts, each marking a change in the direction of the character/story. First part: Guy is part of a 3-some, one guy, two girls. There's fun stuff and it's nice. Then all of a sudden the guy's girlfriend (the one he really loves, the other is just "a bridge between the two" or something), has a big ol' medical accident. Which was actually a surprise, and it made things more interesting.
Then other fairly realistic stuff ensues, guy gets depressed, sleeps around (with girls and guys), etc. It's plausible enough.
Sorry this isn't sounding very enthusiastic. I did like this it's just hard for me to rationalize it at the moment. I loved the look and feel of it, the atmosphere. It was wonderfully shot and it did have that nouvelle-vague feel to it. I kept thinking of Umbrellas of Cherbourg/A woman is a woman and smiling. There were some cool little things Honore did with stills and fast motion. And I actually do want to take another look at this and give it a closer viewing. The timing was just iffy. However...
Grade: B+ (kept me involved, loved the look, and the premise/execution was admirable, I'd like to make something along these lines one day)
And lastly...
SILENT LIGHT (dir. Carlos Reygadas, 2007):
Which I actually liked a whole lot. Which is incredibly bizarre. Normally this Ozu-Dreyer-Bresson influenced stuff really bothers me, but this time it didn't. I'll try and attribute that to a few things: Reygadas was a lot more fluid than the abovementioned masters. And I like his eye for things a lot more. He does stick to long takes, and he does use nonactors, and he does have a pretty loose plot. But the way he uses it just worked for me. The images, all of them, were gorgeous. It was a beautiful, beautiful film. My eyes were able to relax and take it in. It didn't force anything on me, it just was there, happening, calmly. I could look around and interpret things.
The Q&A with Reygadas also helped me appreciate it more:
- He thinks of acting with the Kuleshov effect in mind. He gives his actors the lines, when to say them, and the feeling he wants. Then they say them. The cinema does the rest. Some guy behind me was like "well Kuleshov cut to something, there was no cutting." But I don't think he was implying that the performance was created in the editing (a la the Bourne movies, for example). He was letting the film take care of it. The words themselves and the layering that slowly builds implies the performance. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't, but it works in my head (something Reygadas also said repeatedly).
- Along those lines, when he talked about the feeling he wanted, he didn't encourage the non-actors to read the script and look for psychological subtext and all that super actor-ly stuff. He did more of a method thing, having them recall personal experiences and let them bring the feelings forward.
- He wasn't looking for a fixed meaning. His main rule was to "let things happen, as they happen in life" which reminded me a lot of Mungiu's idea for 4 months, although here it's taken in a slightly different direction of realism. And that's because...
- The story is about a mennonite who gets stuck in a love triangle. Reygadas said that he started with the triangle, and stumbled on the mennonites in his travels. He decided that it was the perfect setting for the story (which it was) because it was it's own self contained world, free of distractions (like money, social classes, etc.) it allows you to focus on the characters and the atmosphere (and stay involved, because it's foreign but not alienating), and it really really worked to his advantage.
- He also thought about time's place in the movie. As someone in the crowd pointed out, the clock stops while the main character is having his personal dilemma over his triangle. Reygadas gave this two reasons: firstly, the mennonites sort of exist outside of time, they've got their own universe that's not very similar to our own. and secondly, it's the feeling that you're stuck in limbo when you're having this kind of a personal dilemma, that you're stuck, time's frozen and it's not going to move on until you make up your mind. but you will make up your mind, and time will go on, as it always does. He kept referring back to cosmos and chaos, and life being a cycle.
- Also, he was influenced by Ordet, Sleeping Beauty, and Ozu.
- Jacques Brel is one of his heroes.
Grade: A (beautiful, interesting, superbly made)
And there you have it, a two so-sos, one pretty fly and one awesome movie. Another great day at TIFF.
After getting back at 2:30 because of the Brad-debacle, I got a whopping 4 hours of sleep and then got up and got ready for a fun filled 4 movie day. After the usual shower-commute-coffee-seating deal, the movies started. On today's list: Lust, Caution/Starting Out in the Evening/Les Chansons D'Amour/Silent Light. Completely fatigued by the end of Chansons, I rushed back to the apartment to rest for an hour. My neck and eyes were sore. And I'm having wisdom teeth issues again (they bite me while I sleep), so I think the little sore at the back of my mouth might be ready to sprout an infection. Which means I pick up the mouthwash and saltwater routine for the next few days until it blows over.
And just as I get over that stupid cold...
But now for the movies:
LUST, CAUTION (dir. Ang Lee, 2007):
My first reaction: Eh. I liked Black Book better. Sure this was more "sophisticated" and "serious," but in this case I don't see those as compliments. I've given this a spot as a contender for the most overrated movie of the year, and we'll see how that pans out. I mean, sure it looks great, and it's got solid leading performances, oh and there's sex that's "essential" to the story, and graphic (gave me some ideas). But at the end, it was just too... commercial? predictable? It reeked of a prestige picture, and it left me pretty cold.
Grade: B- (solid, mostly engaging, but again, not for me)
STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING (dir. Andrew Wagner, 2007):
Pretty standard, all around. It's the story of an older man (this time Frank Langella, who was present) learning about himself. This older man was a writer past his prime, and his self-discovery is kickstarted by a young grad student who is doing her thesis on his work. And she's sort of got a crush on him. The dynamic between the two was the best part. The writing was... very writerly, which was a nice change, but I ended up rolling my eyes at a lot of it. I suppose it works, since the main character is a writer and everyone involved is (presumably) well educated and literate. But I don't know if I've met anyone who talks that way. Maybe once. I did really like the little debates (Langella and the literary critic, Langella and her daughter's boyfriend, etc.). Aside from the two performers, those were fascinating little bits on their own.
Oh and there's this sub-story involving his daughter and her boyfriend issues, and her own little mid-life crisis. I could have done without it. But I guess it served some kind of purpose.
And, of course, Langella was great. There are a lot of really talented older actors out there, I'm just getting a little tired of them playing guys who are rediscovering themselves. Which might be why I was interested in seeing King of California (different deal, older guy who's crazy, bonds with daughter--gah I don't know. Maybe it would be different! Maybe!). But it didn't fit in my schedule, so why complain.
It was also very cute watching Wagner tear up a little before the screening while thanking Langella for all he's done, how he's helped him find his dreams, and how happy he was that he could be there for the screening (the first showing of the film Langella has been present for). The Q&A didn't yield anything terribly interesting (to me), but I did learn that Langella is a pretty cool guy, and Wagner isn't too bad himself.
Grade: B- (again, entertaining enough, but pretty standard, nice dynamics with the leads and a performance from Langella that grows on you.)
And then...
CHANSONS D'AMOUR (dir. Christophe Honore, 2007):
Very very cool. I actually liked this a lot, despite my brain being completely fried for reasons listed above (max fatigue, low on coffee, soreness, etc.).
Basically, Honore made a musical. It's not a Moulin Rouge/Chicago-y thing, or anything with any dancing at all. No spectacle. It's more in the vein of Demy/Once/et al. An alternative musical, basically. And the songs... some of them were catchy/touching-ish. Others were annoying and redundant. Most of it wasn't very sophisticated (but why should it be? These are the common folk).
So, story follows a young guy through a few turning points. It's divided into 3 parts, each marking a change in the direction of the character/story. First part: Guy is part of a 3-some, one guy, two girls. There's fun stuff and it's nice. Then all of a sudden the guy's girlfriend (the one he really loves, the other is just "a bridge between the two" or something), has a big ol' medical accident. Which was actually a surprise, and it made things more interesting.
Then other fairly realistic stuff ensues, guy gets depressed, sleeps around (with girls and guys), etc. It's plausible enough.
Sorry this isn't sounding very enthusiastic. I did like this it's just hard for me to rationalize it at the moment. I loved the look and feel of it, the atmosphere. It was wonderfully shot and it did have that nouvelle-vague feel to it. I kept thinking of Umbrellas of Cherbourg/A woman is a woman and smiling. There were some cool little things Honore did with stills and fast motion. And I actually do want to take another look at this and give it a closer viewing. The timing was just iffy. However...
Grade: B+ (kept me involved, loved the look, and the premise/execution was admirable, I'd like to make something along these lines one day)
And lastly...
SILENT LIGHT (dir. Carlos Reygadas, 2007):
Which I actually liked a whole lot. Which is incredibly bizarre. Normally this Ozu-Dreyer-Bresson influenced stuff really bothers me, but this time it didn't. I'll try and attribute that to a few things: Reygadas was a lot more fluid than the abovementioned masters. And I like his eye for things a lot more. He does stick to long takes, and he does use nonactors, and he does have a pretty loose plot. But the way he uses it just worked for me. The images, all of them, were gorgeous. It was a beautiful, beautiful film. My eyes were able to relax and take it in. It didn't force anything on me, it just was there, happening, calmly. I could look around and interpret things.
The Q&A with Reygadas also helped me appreciate it more:
- He thinks of acting with the Kuleshov effect in mind. He gives his actors the lines, when to say them, and the feeling he wants. Then they say them. The cinema does the rest. Some guy behind me was like "well Kuleshov cut to something, there was no cutting." But I don't think he was implying that the performance was created in the editing (a la the Bourne movies, for example). He was letting the film take care of it. The words themselves and the layering that slowly builds implies the performance. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't, but it works in my head (something Reygadas also said repeatedly).
- Along those lines, when he talked about the feeling he wanted, he didn't encourage the non-actors to read the script and look for psychological subtext and all that super actor-ly stuff. He did more of a method thing, having them recall personal experiences and let them bring the feelings forward.
- He wasn't looking for a fixed meaning. His main rule was to "let things happen, as they happen in life" which reminded me a lot of Mungiu's idea for 4 months, although here it's taken in a slightly different direction of realism. And that's because...
- The story is about a mennonite who gets stuck in a love triangle. Reygadas said that he started with the triangle, and stumbled on the mennonites in his travels. He decided that it was the perfect setting for the story (which it was) because it was it's own self contained world, free of distractions (like money, social classes, etc.) it allows you to focus on the characters and the atmosphere (and stay involved, because it's foreign but not alienating), and it really really worked to his advantage.
- He also thought about time's place in the movie. As someone in the crowd pointed out, the clock stops while the main character is having his personal dilemma over his triangle. Reygadas gave this two reasons: firstly, the mennonites sort of exist outside of time, they've got their own universe that's not very similar to our own. and secondly, it's the feeling that you're stuck in limbo when you're having this kind of a personal dilemma, that you're stuck, time's frozen and it's not going to move on until you make up your mind. but you will make up your mind, and time will go on, as it always does. He kept referring back to cosmos and chaos, and life being a cycle.
- Also, he was influenced by Ordet, Sleeping Beauty, and Ozu.
- Jacques Brel is one of his heroes.
Grade: A (beautiful, interesting, superbly made)
And there you have it, a two so-sos, one pretty fly and one awesome movie. Another great day at TIFF.
posted by js munoz at
12:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home