eyebrowblog

thanksgiving (looking back)

2007-11-28T00:22:00.000-05:00

So I watched a bunch of movies over break. Here goes.
Theatrically,
AUGUST RUSH (dir. Kirsten Sheridan, 2007): Don't ask why I saw this. I did. It was enjoyable in its implausibility, even within it's weird little movie-world where shouting "10%!" into a phone makes you a businessman, and banging on a guitar makes you a musical prodigy. Also, his Julliard composition sounds like a bad Ennio Morricone ripoff. Which makes sense I suppose, since neither of his parents are particularly original musicians themselves. There was just too much music everywhere. Grade: C-

At home/apartment on DVD that was new (to me):
ELEPHANT (dir. Gus Van Sant, 2003): I really was interested in it formally, and kind of amazed that Harris Savides could make a high school look so good, especially with natural light. Aside from that though, I'm not sure the approach really worked. Showing everyone in the minutes before, but giving the shooters more time really undermined the effect. It wasn't as violent a reaction as I was expecting. Although once the firing started, I really was freaked out (having been in hallways similar to that, being stuck in a class once bullets were found in the building, etc. etc.). Grade: B

CACHE (dir. Michael Haneke, 2005): For some reason I can't recall a lot of this. Haneke does an interesting thing implicating the viewer and playing with point of view and perspective. Naturally, it's open ended, but not in the satisfying way. Usually there'd be at least a direction or two that you're pointed in. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention (highly likely). Grade: B

NOW, VOYAGER (dir. Irving Rapper, 1942): I wasn't really hooked, but the ideas were interesting, sort of. Grade: B-

And things I've seen before:
SPIDER MAN 2 (dir. Sam Raimi, 2004): I think out of all the Spider man movies so far, this one is definitely the best. Raimi hit's the perfect balance of comedy and action, focuses on a single villain, and gives us more time to really take in what's going on. Although the third movie beats this as far as effects, the action scenes are still really great to watch. And Alfred Molina rocks, despite the Spider Man villain mold-- brilliant scientist deformed by his creation. On that note, the villains in Spider Man 3 were a nice break, but because there were uhhh 3 of them, it really took away not only from the movie but the franchise at large (that's 2 more, wasted!) Grade: B

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (dir. Steven Spielberg, 1998): The anti-war war movie-- graphic, brutal depictions of battle and the physical costs of the effort, plus the constant questioning of the group vs. the individual (is one man really worth it?) face off against duty and national solidarity. But the entertainment value nearly undermines it. It made me want to have a war movie festival, probably not the best response, but still, really interesting. Grade: A-

BLACK BOOK (dir. Paul Verhoeven, 2006): Ok so, I over-reacted a little when I first saw it, it is a little long and a little too "what a twist!" as my brother says. Basically it just gives you too many hints. Still though, a lot more entertaining than Lust, Caution, and the last shot is still really powerful. Grade: B+

RESERVOIR DOGS (dir. Quentin Tarantino, 1992): Oh Tarantino. Fun, but it really feels like a first feature. And my attention slipped in and out. Grade: B

KNOCKED UP (dir. Judd Apatow, 2007): I don't have much to say here. I'm glad it's smarter than your average comedy, but there's no visual flair, in fact there's a sort of anti-flair that feels more like TV than the movies. Naturally, it bothers me a bit. But I still laughed. Not as much as the first time though. Grade: B-

backlogged

2007-11-19T01:44:00.000-05:00

just a few brief bits on things i've seen lately:

AMERICAN GANGSTER (dir. Ridley Scott, 2007): Something about Ridley Scott's direction is infinitely satisfying to me. Anyways, the main issue/strength is the length (about 2 1/2 hours), enough time to make you uncomfortable and guessing when it'll finally end, but also enough time to get a good sense of who most of the characters are. And if not, enough time to give each of them a small scene to do their thing in. Few (if any) of the roles are thankless. Denzel does the righteous, intelligent, Denzel-thing again, what's strange is how quickly the corrupted surface is accepted (from the first scene, actually). So aside from being a murderous drug-lord, he's a pretty respectable guy. Another minor shock, although it shouldn't be anymore, is Russell Crowe being non-annoying as the only "moral" person in the movie, of course it's only professionally speaking, personally he's as bad as the rest of them. I've decided that Ridley Scott is the only director who can get me to really like Russell. And the showdown between Crowe and Denzel is superb. It's great seeing two actors square off like that. Other perks: Chiwitel Ejiofor, Cuba Gooding (finally in a decent movie again), Josh Brolin (as always), and Harris Savides (who I realize now, shot a lot of stuff that I like), and the final shot. Grade: B+

THE HOAX (dir. Lasse Hallstrom, 2006): Bland, but not so bland as to be unwatchable. My brother and I had a talk after this one, and decided that really, the story is interesting enough (both as a story and thematically) that a whole lot more could've been done. It gets downright ridiculous when it dives into "A Beautiful Mind" territory. The most interesting moments were when the film delved into Irving's hoax-ing process, with a strange combination of flashback and conjecture. Props to Alfred Molina, cause he's awesome. Grade: B-

FIDO (dir. Andrew Currie, 2006): If you're going to do a zombie movie parody, this is the way to do it. The jokes are great, the idea is pretty ingenious (zombies meet lassie films). The performances are great, especially Dylan Baker as the dad. It's a great, enjoyable riff on the 50s. Props to Billy Connolly for most sympathetic zombie ever. Grade: B+

THUMBSUCKER (dir. Mike Mills, 2005): I saw this about a week ago and don't remember a whole lot. It reminded me of Wes Anderson. Uh... oh yeah! Keanu Reeves was ridiculous. I'm not sure I can ever take him seriously. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't amazing. Apparently not very memorable, either. Grade: C+

RATATOUILLE (dir. Brad Bird, 2007): Ah, pixar. I like the play of ideas running the whole time: anyone can cook, but that doesn't mean everyone should. Breathtaking animation, great character work. Seeing it again, the music bothered me just a tad, it's a bit--dull for the material. Grade: A-

NETWORK (dir. Sidney Lumet, 1976): Sharp. Despite current relevance (has the news/world always been so full of shit?), it still feels like a product of its period (mostly because of acting and that 70s look). But honestly, that's a good thing. There's no real equivalent to a movie like Network today, although some movies try. Grade: A

MANHATTAN (dir. Woody Allen, 1979): Special thanks to: Woody Allen, Gordon Willis, Michael Murphy, and George Gershwin for coming together to create a masterpiece. Grade: A+

FARGO (dir. Joel/Ethan Coen, 1996): I worry that every time I talk about a Coen Brothers movie, I just end up talking about the Coen Bros, and why I like their movies. They've got a weird sort of stylization, a lot of it has to do with the writing and the barely perceptible but extremely economical visual sense. They know exactly what they're doing, at all times, and you can rest assured that when they get it right (which they do here), you're in for something fantastic. Grade: A

MOULIN ROUGE! (dir. Baz Luhrmann, 2001): The first 45 minutes (exactly that long, I timed it), or as I like to call it Act I, shouldn't be there. It's too manic, too fast, too trippy, and just plain ridiculous. (On a sidenote, because it's just like a slower version of these 45 minutes, I didn't like Across the Universe). Once it moves into Act II, and III, it becomes leaps and bounds better. The arrangements are better, the recontextualizing is more interesting, and the pacing is a lot more controlled (or at least as controlled as luhrmann can get). It's refreshing to see something that's so blatantly about love. The tone and emotional shifts are handled smoothly. Ewan McGregor gets pretty infectious. John Leguizamo bothers me. Nicole Kidman stuns me (at least here). Grade: B+/A- (I'll decide next time I see it).

she's gone baby

2007-11-04T21:40:00.001-05:00

GONE BABY GONE (dir. Ben Affleck, 2007)
Avoids all the potential problems of a child-abduction story, instead turning it into a meditation on morality and parenthood. It breezes through what seems like the central story, about Casey Affleck's detective investigating the loss of a child, and from there, of course, Casey can't just let the case go. This is where things get really good. The cinematography stays mostly on the action, but every so often slips out into these extremely deep shots of Boston at large. The moments where it does seem like glimpses that while there's an extremely intense and complex situation at hand, the world at large is still pretty indifferent. What makes a difference are the people who make these situations better. Naturally, the world isn't that simple though, and the film gradually gives way to a considerably darker world view, where every situation has two sides, and choosing the "right" one is a considerable challenge, no matter how respectable and moral you are.
Grade: A-

he's lost control again.

2007-10-22T10:44:00.000-04:00

so my friends and i decided to go down to NYC to see a few movies yesterday. The day started with lots of driving, moved on to movies, and in between there were lots of attempts at eating that gave us just barely enough energy to move on. Because of the early morning drive, my energy was flagging for the restoration of LA CHINOISE (dir. Jean-Luc Godard, 1967) at the Film Forum. What the last sentence meant is that I was dozing off for most of the movie. And because the pattern of sleep was a really quick on-off-on-off, the entire movie got broken into little fragments and i missed the connecting patterns. so I'll just give a few little comments from the tiny bit i saw and made sense of. firstly, the restoration was fantastic. Jean-Pierre Leaud makes everything he's in more watch-able. Godard in between narratives and politics is a bit strange. I wish I had been alert through all of this. It's a shame. Once Criterion lets out the DVD I'll re-investiage, you can count on it.
After that we found some food and energy-related materials, then went back to film forum to see CONTROL (dir. Anton Corbijn, 2007, repeat viewing). Which I think would have packed a similar punch to the first viewing, but the conditions this time were different. What I ended up with was the "intellectual distance" that I was lacking the first time. So I realized that Control isn't as flawless as I thought. On the first viewing, it blows you away. But see it again and it seems a little wispier. It's really all about Ian Curtis, so much so that you really have no idea what's going on with the band at all. They're recording a lot of stuff and doing a lot of shows. Corbijn leaves the chronology out so that the fact that Curtis was only 23 really packs a wallop. Maybe what I'm getting at is that the film isn't as precise and on target as I thought the first time. The music was just as kickass. And the cinematography was even more stunning the second time. The performances, too, were fantastic. But the narrative wasn't as satisfying. Nothing wrong with that though, it was still a trip. Repeat Grade: B+
We were going to see The Assassination of Jesse James... but because of the intensity of the day up to that point we changed our mind and went to something lighter, THE DARJEELING LIMITED (dir. Wes Anderson, 2007). I had a surprisingly positive response to this. It's odd, but this might actually be my favorite Wes Anderson movie. I'll try to elaborate at a later date (my guess is it hits syracuse in the next week or two, i'll be seeing it again). Grade: B (if i could disregard everything and go with my gut, I'd give it an A-).
Attempted elaboration (several hours later): I think the reason I like this is because it feels freer than his past work. Odd, since he's cramped himself on a train for most of the movie, but I think in trying to be "wes anderson" in such a confined space, he was forced to loosen up a bit more. The world of Darjeeling isn't as constricting as his earlier stuff, and where Life Aquatic was a step forward, here he's starting to push out even further. It's funny, but he's actually started moving (literally). Rushmore and Tenenbaums were both isolated in their own worlds (school, the family's house), but Aquatic and Darjeeling, while still technically isolated (a boat/a train) are still forced to interact with a larger world. (I've disregarded Bottle Rocket here, it's been a while since I've watched it, and since it was his first film, odds are he didn't have his way on everything like he has since). Anyways, I think this interaction with the outside is good for him, maybe because it gives us glimpses of a larger force in control. Or maybe it's just that Wes is getting a little messier (faster pace, smaller locations, more movement, fewer inserts) and I think as a result things are getting more interesting.
But despite this, there are still a few issues-- the Indians are fetish objects instead of characters. The trip to the convent where the mother is really could have been left out. And it still feels like Wes playing with his toy actor people.
Last note (for now): I hate to say it, but Adrien Brody was my favorite character. I'm not generally a huge fan of his, but I really liked what he was doing here.

Hopefully I'll be getting back on track and writing more in the next week or so. But for now, ciao.

ouch.

2007-10-15T02:40:00.000-04:00

HARD CANDY (dir. David Slade, 2006): What the fuck? Deep breath. OK. This wasn't what I was expecting at all, but all I knew going in was that child molestation was part of the equation. Of course, it flips it on its head and it turns into a sadistic nightmare. Very well executed, the production design and transitions were especially nice. The whole thing works in a very theatrical-literal sort of way, from the black leader between what are essentially "chapters" to the sharply written, two characters trying to one-up each other sort of drama, a la Sleuth. Except here, it gets decidedly one sided. And for a while, the whole thing gets a bit tired, but the first two thirds are pretty engaging. I had a bit of trouble believing it all though, mostly because the way Page's character is written, her motivations aren't very clear at all, and there are some pretty insane plausibility gaps. Even if your dad is a medical professor, I doubt you could do what she did at age 14. But then, the whole thing casts a doubt on itself at the end, making you wonder if that is her real age, maybe she's 16, maybe she's 18 and looks younger. You can't really say. If you do assume that she was being honest in the first place, then there is a way to piece things together to make sense (she was friends with the missing girl, there's the motivation) but still, having that kind of precision in pretty much every regard when you're that young (anything under like 25) is hard to take. But the good thing is that you don't really notice most of the time, thanks to the performances of Patrick Wilson, and (as always) the fantastic Ellen Page. Between this, Juno, and The Tracey Fragments, you can get a pretty good grasp of the type of roles she takes-- apart from starring young, strong, smart (or deeply troubled) women, and they all have a very "writerly" feel to them. It's the sort of writing that walks the line (mostly successfully, with a few moments of exception) between aiding the story and distracting from it. Grade: B (it'd be a B+ but I just... I wanted to buy it but I couldn't).

legalize.

2007-10-14T18:18:00.000-04:00

MICHAEL CLAYTON (dir. Tony Gilroy, 2007): They're really pushing Clooney in this, and rightfully so. His performance is the film's best accomplishment. My brother and I had a talk afterwards about the star system, and celebrities who are more famous having more of a challenge when acting-- they have to lose their "star" status or play it to their advantage (see Jesse James, both leads actually). Here, Clooney gets rid of his own image and constructs the ever compelling Michael Clayton. You know it's true when you get to the last shot, Clayton sitting in a taxicab, looking around the city in a single unbroken shot while the first set of credits appear. That made the movie.
Gilroy does well to relax the pace, letting the characters and the situation move you along, instead of the flashy-fast editing (a la Bourne). And I'm not sure if this is him or his DP, but there are some really nice, almost stunning compositions (lots of lights out of focus, escalators moving horizontally across the frame, etc).
The script has a few muddy moments, it could be that I was tired but on several instances I had to re-orient myself to figure out what was going on. Also, the pseudo-flashback structure [we see a bit first, then jump back four days and lead up to it] wasn't as effective as it might have been, partly because the connections from the first scene to it's repeated version later in the film are pretty obvious. Revisiting them only underscores what we would have already assumed. Minor flaws, though.
Grade: B+ (does what it wants to, does it well.)

watch this.

2007-10-13T01:53:00.000-04:00

DISTURBIA (dir. DJ Caruso, 2007) [repeat viewing]: I haven't seen Rear Window in a while, and although that plays on the "male gaze" very consciously, I think Disturbia takes it up a notch without really knowing it. Obviously, it's Rear Window for teens. But where Jeff Jeffries gets off on watching everyone, Kale (Shia Lewhatever), gets off on watching his cute new neighbor in her swimming pool. And her bedroom. While she works out (nod to rear window), while she changes. And so on. Sure, Kale does look around the rest of the neighborhood, but the film (Kale) spends so much time on his neighbor that it puts an undeniable mark on the type of voyeurism we're dealing with. What I can't figure out is whether the Caruso was aware of this. It could be that he just likes looking at the actress (and her body) on camera. When she's introduced, we don't see her face from afar, we see her ass. Shots of her from the neck down are all over the place. Despite the repetition, the problem of deciphering whether it's a guy looking at a woman or a film-makers logic at work remains. On top of all that, the film rewards the male gaze with pleasure (not only visual, but physical. I'll explain). It's all in the scene where Ashley (the neighbor) confronts Kale about trying to wreck her party by playing Lovin' You over her gangsta-jamz. Throughout the party she's aware of his gaze. He plays the music. She appears on his roof and asks him how long he's been watching. In some kind of confession-apology Kale lets out all the details he's picked up on from watching her. You know, just creepy little details like the way she opens a door, or looks at herself in the mirror. And after this really, really creepy monologue guess what she does. She kisses him. Gotta love movie logic.
I was bugged by the music the first time, but the second time it gets even worse. As everyone knows there's a fine line between being evocative and indicative when scoring a film, and the score here is WAY WAY too indicative. I almost wish that it had played out without a score, I think the tension would have held up a lot better on repeat viewings. But, of course, it is Hollywood, so we can't expect a scoreless thriller.
OTHER THINGS: David Morse is still awesomely creepy. Shia is better when he's not pushing the accent. And the shift from kinda iffy teen movie to legitimate thriller is just as effective.
Grade: B (well done, well handled, but a few issues and ideas that are unclear--at least to me)

mesh this.

2007-10-08T13:51:00.000-04:00

MESHES OF THE AFTERNOON (dir. Maya Deren/Alex Hammid, 1943): Understandably an important part of Avant-Garde history, although it seems a little... stale (?) over 60 years later. Deren successfully evokes the bizarre subjective experience of a dream, alternating between a first and third person point of view. The logic also falls neatly into the dream world, the editing scheme goes against the reasoning of waking life. Symbolism is everywhere. Knives, keys, a mirror-faced grim reaper, flowers, all open for interpretation. Because of the explicitly stated point of view, everyone is invited to draw their own conclusions and take this as their own dream.
Lights and camera motion also mesh (ha) to keep the dream going. Everything alternates between the two ends of the cinema spectrum: steady shots to fluid motion, montage-like editing to long takes, light and shadow. It's all there.
I can't say I'm crazy about it though. I blame the music. That may be my only critique. Ito's score goes between maddening and sleep-inducing, which (in theory) is conceptually accurate. Too bad it's more noise than music. I might turn the volume down and sync it with something else. When I do, expect a warmer response.

hang up the chick habit

2007-10-07T18:20:00.000-04:00

DEATH PROOF [extended cut] (dir. Quentin Tarantino, 2007):
I know with the thinking part of my brain that this is better than Planet Terror. But I know with the fun detecting part of my brain Planet Terror is much more enjoyable, although not as interesting with its ideas. I'll be revisiting that soon, so more to come later. As far as the new (and improved?) Death Proof, I'm not sure I'm a fan. We get more of the women, more of Tarantino's foot fetish and (probably the best part) more Kurt Russell. Oh, there are also several more references to the Tarantino universe, spotting them is a fun little game on its own.
But all of this, as nice as it is, still feels long. Most of this is due to the dialogue, which is finely written (as always), and interesting if you care to listen. What draws it out (at least to me) is the delivery. It's a pattern that has faint traces going back to Pulp Fiction (If I remember...Uma's character did this). In the Kill Bills it became even more apparent. What I'm talking about is the "cool" matter-of-fact, calm-is-deadly delivery (with a dash of self-awareness-- "how cool do I sound saying this awesome line? pretty cool."). Jungle Julia is the prime culprit here. It's hard to describe, but if you watch you'll get what I'm saying.
And of course, the sexual politics are pretty interesting, and the extended cut does a nice job at giving evne more to work with. Seeing it again, a few things stuck out. Stuntman Mike's introduction with the nachos. Tarantino gives us the first impression of a slimy, sick, and pretty revolting man-monster. So despite his demeanor (for a while) subconsciously we know there's more to him than that. I also noticed just how many nods there were to the sexual interpretation. The sheriff basically tells you that's what it's about, throughout the second car chase pretty much all of the spoken word is sexual. And so on and so forth. What complicates it though is Tarantino's seemingly contradicting ideas. He sexualizes the women (lots of shots starting with an ass in front of a jukebox, say. or heavily indulging in his own well known foot fetish), while at the same time empowering them and letting them kick ass (while retaining their femininity, without letting it get too sensual, or too butch).
I'm still not sure what to think, but I do give him credit for getting me thinking.
Grade: A-

two a-g drivebys

2007-10-06T12:17:00.000-04:00

I've been a little heavy on the avant-garde this week. The trend continues with Vincent Grenier's Armoire (2007), a short consisting of the reflection of a bird on a pool of water, bound in a column/matte. As the bird moves, the matte moves and shifts its shape, simultaneously constraining the bird and being forced around by it. Grenier's idea seems to be that technology (the frame) can impose itself onto/try to contain the natural world(subject) but will never have complete control. There's just no beating nature into submission, no matter how hard you try.
Following that I got to see Fred Worden's North Shore (2007), which I'm finding slightly more difficult, mostly because it's more abstract. What we first see is a strobing set of two bean-shaped light forms, changing forms while other abstractions of (presumably) light are piled on. The colors are all golden-amber and the editing is constantly switching pace. Thinking of it more as a film-y painting made the experience more rewarding. Eventually, the images developed an almost hypnotic quality, transporting me into this strange zone that only this type of abstraction can take you. At one point the images/editing rhythm created something almost musical in my mind. And, as is my trend, in the abstraction of light I began to think of the beginning/end of the universe. Actually I'll attribute this to a sequence where the light begins to form/destroy a series of spheres with a sun-like texture. After a brief second look, it looks like it's actually water reflecting light. After seeing what happens with this and Brakhage's ashtray, I really want to see what else you can do with this type of filmic abstraction. Up until the past few days I hadn't realized how beautiful light is. It's one of those things I took for granted. Thank god for film.

what does your soul looks like (pt. 1)

2007-10-06T03:27:00.000-04:00

THE TEXT OF LIGHT (dir. Stan Brakhage, 1974):
Probably one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. I can't even begin to describe it. Simply put, Brakhage gives us a set of images that are more or less abstractions of light and color. Apparently he shot it in or using a crystal ash tray. And he achieves amazing results.
I asked myself what I saw in the light, and I came up with a few answers: heaven. the human soul. light landscapes. the universe (formation and destruction). faces and human shapes. And that's just to name a few. It was one of the most overwhelming and amazing experiences I've had watching a film.
Brakhage showed why film is an art, and what it has to offer the world. If any other medium can come close to this, I'll change majors. Somehow, someway, these abstractions and patterns of light appealed to my deepest thoughts and instincts, changing the way I think of film and the way I look at the world. It achieves something sublime and transcendental. It's the reason film HAS to stay alive, if we lose this to video, there's no point in even trying to work with the moving image. But of course, that's just my opinion. Lately I've been having doubts about my choice to major in film, since the price factor, and the time factor, and the everything-can-and-will-go-wrong factor seem to be going against it, but this re-affirmed my faith in the medium. From now on I'll consider myself a born-again film-maker, with Brakhage's Text of Light as my new gospel. Grade: A+

D-War

2007-10-04T14:53:00.000-04:00

D-WAR [DRAGON WARS] (dir. Hyung-rae Shim, 2007): What we have here is a bad movie. If I understood properly, the story centers around this Korean myth about a giant, evil-snake and some badguys who are after this girl who... has a dragon tattoo. A master and his apprentice train and try to save her, but the apprentice and the girl end up dying. After flashing back to 1507 Korea for a crucial re-enactment of the story, we move to the present where three white folks in California are the re-incarnations of the master, the hero, and the girl. Apparently the master runs an antique store and is fully aware that he's re-incarnated. In fact at the start, the re-incarnation of the hero is like six, and the re-incarnation of the master tells him not only the story, but that he's the re-incarnation and has a destiny. Oh, he also tells him that the girl he hasn't met yet is named Sarah. And when she's 20 he'll have to save her or the world is going to end. That's a lot of pressure for a six year old.
So back in the present, the hero works for a newspaper with the guy from the warehouse in The Office. You are made aware of this by the large "PRESS PASS" that each of them proudly wears. The hero realizes that he should probably start looking for this Sarah character, since he's working full time and if he were any older, the world would probably be destroyed already. He has his partner look up all the Sarah's in the area. And then he narrows it down by age. When he sees the 2700 results, he says "This is great!" with full enthusiasm. Anyways, long story short, the monster shows up and eats elephants and cars and people and causes havoc, and chases the two leads on their way to Mexico, taking them to the Outworld set left over from Mortal Kombat, where a pendant destroys the evil warriors, the girl awakens a dragon, and the dragon and giant snake fight to the death.
I can't believe I actually saw this movie.
The style of the thing was a mash-up of the newer Star Wars movies, Lord of the Rings battle sequences, and some old episodes of Power Rangers. Occasionally scenes would be punctuated by random strangers walking into gates or doing other funny things. The main bad guy (besides the snake), very comically gets hit by a car twice in once scene. Oh, and we get scenes of the FBI (I think), in Washington (which is also a guess, we're never told), working on finding out what the snake thing could be.
The script is full of unintentional humor, and try as they might none of the performers can save it. Of course, the CGI stuff was pretty good. That's where all the budget went, methinks.
And as far as bad movies go, I'd say this was pretty good. There were some stretches of boredom, and in general the laughs were solid chuckles, with a handful of really great LOLs.
I wonder if any of the above makes sense. At any rate, it makes more sense than the movie did.
Grade: C- (as a film, more or less a failure, but enjoyable as a bad one) Bad movie Grade: B-

news from home

2007-09-27T22:01:00.000-04:00

NEWS FROM HOME (dir. Chantal Akerman, 1976):
I've got a handful of notes I took while watching. I'll try to synthesize. The visual track of the film consists of a series of shots of New York City streets and subway shots. The audio alternates between the sound of cars, the subway, the din of people talking, and a series of letters presumably from the mother. In describing that I'm realizing the peculiarity of it. We're never introduced to a main character, and yet, the letters are from her mother. I think the best way to look at this is as a sort of first-person narrative, but instead of being in the realistic-action sense it's more of an interior subjective perspective. We're not quite seeing through the main character's eyes, but we're seeing her thoughts and responses to these letters. It's difficult to get a grasp on. The narrator could be the daughter of the writer, thus making the whole film a memory. Or the narrator is actually the mother and this is an experience as it unfolds.
Back to the images: They're pretty much all very static shots from a tripod, they all last a long time. The compositions are frequently flat, usually dominated by lines (columns, poles, etc.). The only movement (save for a couple of shots) is of people and cars and the subway. Depth gradually works its way into the visuals as well, eventually shots with long diagonals. There are a couple of tracking shots at either end of things as well. Both of the tracking shots (that I can remember) reminded me of Godard's Weekend quite a bit. Except instead of a chaotic car pileup we get shots of the city in its down time.
And the audio: The sounds of the city gradually end up overpowering the letters. At times, the letters continue while the subway or cars drone them out, and once the traffic subsides they continue on. As far as the voiceover itself, it's read in a very flat, almost monotonous tone. And it speeds by, in a sharp contrast with the images. I can't exactly figure out why. My best guess is that, if this is being read by the daughter, it's a reflection of city life and its impact on her. The tone is impersonal, the pace never lets up... sounds like New York City to me.
So what do I make of all of this? Instinct says that the film is about growing up, going away, and slowly losing touch with family. The letters start out occurring pretty frequently, establishing the relationship at play and investing us in it. As they fade away, the mere snippets of banalities (who married who, who says hello) become more and more special and important. It's those moments of family connection that keep you going (through life and the film).

the bourne supremacy and... mouchette.

2007-09-25T12:53:00.001-04:00

What a pairing. This'll be quick (I'm at work and wanted to get thoughts out before they became complete blurs).
THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (dir. Paul Greengrass, 2004):
I like to think of the Bourne series as what action/thrillers should be. That's a completely personal opinion, and I can completely understand if nobody else agrees with me. Sure, it's highly edited and follows a similar pattern, but it's just nice to see a movie where the only special effect is the editing (how cinematic!). As far as Supremacy, it's another solid entry in the series. Lots of cuts, fast walking, car chases, and hand to hand combat. It was actually my first viewing of Supremacy, so my series went from movie 1 to movie 3 to movie 2, and after Ultimatum, Supremacy is almost peaceful. It took a while to get a handle on what exactly was going on (something about Russians, Bourne being framed, and so on) and I'm not sure if that's Greengrass' fault or my forgetting most of the details about The Bourne Identity. At any rate, a few things stood out this time around. Firstly, why is there even a screenplay credit? I didn't realize how little speaking was actually involved in the Bourne movies. And depending on the stance you take, that's either great or terrible. On the one hand, when do big action movies ever have really great scripts that advance the plot and character development while seeming completely plausible. Bourne gets by on exactly what it needs to give us a sense of what's going on, and then the visuals do the rest.
Aside from that, the rest of my thoughts were related to David Bordwell's set of essays on the Bourne movies, you can check them out here:
1. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1175
2. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1230
3. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1285
He's really got a point. And the last one, on the significance of the repeated scene from Supremacy in Ultimatum is a mind-boggler.
Grade: B+ (just what I wanted)

And Mouchette...this'll be really quick: it's very Bresson. The downside/upside to certain Auteurs is that their films can sort of mesh together because they're so similar and the significant variations are more personal. I'm going to be re-viewing this soon so an actual write-up will follow. Grade: B

avant-garde to the max.

2007-09-24T22:36:00.000-04:00

Just a few thoughts on a handful of stuff we watched in my "international avant-garde cinema" class. The topic of the day was found footage. So after learning a bit of Bruce Connor's backstory we watched his spin on the JFK assassination, REPORT (dir. Bruce Connor, 1967). Unable to access the infamous footage that we can all summon from memory, Connor instead played with the before and after of the assassination by flipping them around and refusing to show the in between. Instead we get a brief series of flickers, in a way an abstract visualization of the emotions and sensations of the immediate historical moment. So what we actually do get is a set of radio broadcasts, starting out with the more immediate response to the shooting, followed by the broadcasts from JFK's arrival in Dallas. What I found the most interesting was the effect of this particular chronological form. By setting up the effect and then showing the buildup, you get this strange sense of being steered toward an inescapable destiny. There are moments in the broadcast that take on an ominous, foreboding quality ("the gunmetal limo," secret servicemen saying they'll worry when the President stops moving, etc). And Connor uses a technique (which seems fairly common with found footage) of looping particular actions, letting them slowly build up. The limo slowly plodding forward, building tension and creating this sensation of resisting destiny, at least for a moment. But up against an unbeatable force, the limo has no other option but failure.
After Report, we moved on to a slightly different take on the found-footage film, Martin Arnold's passage á l'acte (1993). I recently saw another Arnold film, pièce touchée in my film theory class. Same ideas, different footage. The way these two films work goes something like this: 1) take a clip from a classic Hollywood film, 2) Stretch it out through an extended series of slowly progressing loops, 3) marvel at the implications now evident in every gesture, thanks to this re-contextualizing. So in passage, the clip is from To Kill A Mockingbird. What ends up emerging from the new audio-visual context (both in this and pièce)is a fascinating gender dynamic, told entirely through gestures that you'd never notice unless forced to watch them for 11 minutes solid. It's a bit hard to explain, but I'll try and briefly sum it up: I never noticed the little slams on the table, or pointing gestures, or similar attitudes across generations of men. Or the silence and marginalization of women, and the perpetuation of gender roles. That's not putting it very smoothly, but those are more or less the ideas you get from these investigations of classical Hollywood (and of course, lots of sexual undertones).
Two down, four to go.
From Arnold, we went to Rafael Montanez Ortiz, who works in a similar mode, but does it digitally. Oddly enough, there are some pretty visible and strange results. Our first video was Dance Number One, a deconstruction of a scene in Citizen Kane. The conclusions I drew were pretty similar to those from Arnold's films, except here it was more about the power dynamics between men. And another slight difference here was that instead of time moving forward, it went in reverse, which gives it another layer of abstraction. But what stuck out most was what ended up happening with the movements of the actors (here mainly Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten). They ended up taking on this bizarre, almost robotic quality. I'm not quite sure what that could mean. (Sidenote: I think Matt Damon bears an ever so slight resemblance to Joseph Cotten. Maybe that's just me.)
After this strange techno-remix of Citizen Kane, we took a look at Ortiz's My Fathers Dead. We get three distinct scenes/images: an explosion which ends up becoming more of an abstract look at the yellow of a blast. There's also a loop of two zombies (I think), on top of each other. The loop implies that there's some hot zombie love happenin' this is also emphasized in the soundtrack, a set of ever so carefully placed grunts. And lastly, we get the image that ties it all together: A girl saying "my fathers dead." Someone brought up an interesting point (that really makes the video make sense to me). Ortiz leaves the apostrophe out of the title, which then gives the phrase a different set of implications. Either the father is dead, perhaps because of an explosion? Or the father is dead an is now a zombie. Or maybe the father owns the zombies, and those are her father's dead. Or maybe I missed the mark. But I think it's a pretty funny thought nonetheless.
But not as funny as what happens when you turn an episode of Full House into an art video, as Michael Robinson did in Light is Waiting (2007). What a mindfuck. And I mean that in a good way. As tends to happen, I responded positively to this video, and explaining why is going to be a bitch, but here goes: The video begins with a scene from Full House, playing out normally. These girls are taking a TV up the stairs, when oh no! They drop it and it crashes to the ground. Suddenly the video itself seems to have been destructed. TV static shows up. Suddenly we're presented with images of boats, planes, and an island, each with a slightly translucent mirror image slowly following. We've been launched into this ghostly other-world, and we hear a voice (probably from the same episode) saying "did you break something?" "what's wrong?" There's a filter on it, so it adds to the bizarre mood. It almost feels like you've been sent to the River Styx and you're on the way to the underworld. And boy do you get there. Suddenly we're seeing these mirrored images of the Full House gang on an island vacation, complete with some kind of performance and a bunch of natives adding to the insanity. Just when you think it can't get weirder, it does. A red-blue flicker starts appearing over the images, removing any sense of depth and creating a bizarre effect on the images. The whole procession takes on this demonic air. The audio goes low. The mirror images overlap and form new images, completely symmetrical but at the same time completely disturbing. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine I'd see a video like this. But strangely enough, I'm glad that I did.
As if Full House being turned into a (nearly) satanic ritual wasn't crazy enough, the next video, Scott Stark's NOEMA (1998) decided to use the found footage techniques to put a new spin on... pornography. Like the other films, we get a series of looped images and have to interpret their consequences. Here the images weren't the sexual acts of the porn world, but like Connor's Report the befores and afters (mounting/dismounting, etc). I saw two competing ideas at play: firstly, the idea of pornography as the most natural act, something of graceful and almost balletic. Many of the images followed an arc (literally, the camera motions were curves), each flowing into the next. This set of ideas was accompanied by synth strings on the soundtrack. The other set of images, oddly enough, showed porn with more natural surroundings or props (on a mountainside, by the fire, with a painting of flowers on the wall, etc). But instead of the synthesizer the sound was crowds cheering. It felt like porn had turned into this spectacle, which in contrast to the meaning we've had up to this point, didn't quite feel right. Aside from this, the discussion in class covered another way of looking at these in-between moments as a glimpse at the working life of the porn industry, a set of people hard (pun intended) at work. The lead-up to this screening was a discussion of what Noema means in relation to phenomenology. It's a mental structure that gives something a meaning (I think). So by bringing this idea upfront with the title, Stark asks us to reconsider our preconceived ideas about pornography, and oddly enough, succeeds in forcing you to re-evaluate your point of view, which is kind of what today's class was all about.

I forgot about this...

2007-09-22T13:08:00.001-04:00

This was one of the funnier things I overheard at Toronto:
Guy: If I don't have anything to talk about with someone, I'm just not going to talk to them anymore.
Girl: But she's your mother.

Coming soon (hopefully): Eastern Promises, The Brave One, In the Valley of Elah (and maybe 3:10 to Yuma, but I might catch that later.)

TIFF 07: The End (part one)

2007-09-16T16:34:00.000-04:00

In Chacun Son Cinema on Friday night, Wong Kar Wai's entry featured two characters at a movie, shot in the sensual Wong style and featuring a certain Alphaville by the man of the hour, Godard.
In the sequence (which we only heard, never saw), the characters (Anna Karina and...Lemmy Caution) were talking about a festival, and how it's the reason out of towners pass through. and how it was nearly over, there was one big gala left and then it was done with. And I got all teary inside thinking about how, in a little more/less than 24 hours, this festival would be over.

What I didn't realize was that more or less at that moment the festival ended for me. The next day was sort of a blurry sleep deprived stream of images and so-so movies, with the one exception being Herzog's newest. And don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the 4 movies that day, and I'm glad that I saw them all (since they pretty much have no hope at showing up in syracuse). But I just couldn't get as into it and excited as I was say, three days ago. I felt like I was marching on the way to a funeral (you'd understand if you were going back to...syracuse). It's been surreal, intense, challenging and inspiring, and I think it's the best thing I've ever done. I can't wait for next year.

And now, it's actually over. I'm sitting on the train heading home, getting all emotional inside, and just looking back on everything. I can't believe what I've just experienced. I started planning this back in May, really. And unlike my other big plans from back then (make 6 short films in the summer! buy a projector! go to new york for a week!) I actually pulled this one off. In July I ordered my passes and booked my train. I reserved a spot in a hostel (which I ultimately didn't need). Everything was in place a few months ahead. All I had to do was chicken out. But I didn't. I took the time off work, took the time off class, packed my bags and all of my money and 36 movies later, I'm on the way back.

It was worth it. About once a day I'd have a moment where I'd realize where I was and what I was doing, and I felt this wonderful bubbling inside.

But enough blathering about that, now for a bit of a recap:

My festival top 3 (and a brief explanation why):
1) Paranoid Park - I'm going to be thinking about this every time I pick up a camera. And every time I sit down to edit. And every time I try to write. It was striking, it caught me completely off guard. I wasn't expecting to go wild over a Gus Van Sant movie about a skater. But I did.
2) The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - It already feels like a classic. I got swept away in the myth.
3) TIED between Silent Light - Because I really should have hated it. It had everything working against it. But instead, I got some of the most fantastic images I've ever seen.
And
Control - Because I haven't ever cried in a theater before. But the performance at the center of this made me do it. Also, I think Corbijn's handling of Curtis was nuanced. There's more to this, but I have to watch some other musical biopics and "great man" movies to flesh it out. Look for that essay in a few weeks.

Honorable Mention (roughly in order of how much I liked them):
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 days - I was with it all the way through. And I loved the starting and ending.
No Country for Old Men - How can you not go wild over the Coen brothers? Especially when they're doing what they do best.
Juno - Because we need more scripted comedy in the world. And more Ellen Page. And more Michael Cera.
Water Lilies - Maybe it's the teenage boy in me, but talk about chemistry.
Encounters at the End of the World - As pessimistic as he is, Werner is still really soothing.

The Innovation Awards (aka really cool movies with flashy styles that I liked a lot):
1) The Tracey Fragments - Completely unlike anything I saw at the festival (or ever, for the most part). I'm fairly certain it was all shot on video, and I didn't mind at all. In fact I think it helped (the whole "immediacy" thing). But yeah, this definitely gets the singularity of vision prize.
2) I'm Not There - Also unlike anything I've seen before, but like everything I've ever seen before. Pretty complex stuff. And damn that Cate Blanchett for not being overrated.
3) My Winnipeg - Because how can I have this sidebar and not include Maddin's docu-fantasia madness.

Honorable Mention:
You, the Living - Oh so bleak, but oh so funny. And meticulous.
Les Chansons D'Amour - A french musical indebted to Demy, Godard, and Truffaut? Who could refuse? I actually liked this more than I thought I did. The music gets a little poppy and redundant at times, but overall what a trip.
Dr. Plonk - Because who makes silent comedy these days? Aside from Maddin, nobody else really uses the silent techniques. And although he missed the mark a bit, Plonk still has its moments.
The Man From London - The Bela Tarr movie is a genre all its own.

My festival bottom 3:
1) The Banishment - I've already forgotten this. It was a completely unpleasant experience. Bleak, boring, and bothersome.
2) Across the Universe - Because it disappointed me a lot. It was just a bunch of loosely connected trippy music videos set to new arrangements of great songs. I'm going to try to forget this so I can enjoy the Beatles again. And as different as the arrangements were, I've found myself thinking of them when the Beatles show up on the ipod. At least Hey Jude made it through, I'll always think of The Royal Tenenbaums when I hear that one.
3) Run, Fat Boy, Run - Just too corny. Who knew Michael Ian Black would be so mainstream?

Other contenders:
Cassandra's Dream - Damnit Woody, why Colin Farrell? Why? And don't let Wilkinson drink on set again.
Chacun Son Cinema - Because with this much talent, the results should have been much better.
Lust, Caution - Because it's been overrated. It's really a prestige picture that's getting heat and attention because it's Ang Lee (he made that gay cowboy movie) and this time he's got lots of graphic sex. You see Tony Leung's balls. How are they necessary to any story?

And now for some performances:

By an Actor:
- Sam Riley as Ian Curtis in Control
- Brad Pitt as Jesse James - Because he actually uses his celebrity and public image to his advantage here.
- Casey Affleck as Robert Ford - Because he holds his own against Brad Pitt.
- Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men - incredibly badass.

By an Actress:
- Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan - she walked away with the movie. Completely.
- Ellen Page as Tracey
- Ellen Page as Juno
- Anamaria Marinca as Otilia in 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days

Props for overall cast excellence:
- No Country for Old Men
- Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
- Margot at the Wedding

Note: These are picked for being more "actorly." I'm not really considering the movies where the performances were based on the whole "non-acting" idea. But y'know, why not:

Best "non-acting" performance:
- Gabe Nevins in Paranoid Park
- the cast of silent light
- Xavier Latiffe in Dans la Ville De Sylvia

So those are the highlights. More musings to come soon.

TIFF 07: Day 10 "straddle a goat and ride off into the sunset."

2007-09-16T00:03:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I guess after I'm Not There yesterday, my mind said "festival's over." Today was a big, sad blur.
Woke up, went to the Cumberland and saw:
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD (dir. Werner Herzog, 2007):
Herzog's back in documentary mode, and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect. Some beautiful shots, some interesting stories from people, profound comments on nature and mankind, and there's a sense of humor in this one. Also, he didn't use any terribly annoying music.
Grade: B+ (nice and Herzog-y, but not a major change or revolution)

And then, blew some time trying to stay warm and saw...

ME (dir. Rafa Cortes, 2007)
I feel guilty saying this, but I zoned out about ten minutes in. It wasn't doing anything for me. I stayed up the whole time, giving it chance after chance, but it just didn't have it together. The pacing was too slow, the idea wasn't clear enough, the motivations were fuzzy. Maybe I was fuzzy. I don't know. The one credit is that for Digital, it looked pretty good.
Grade: C- (excessive, boring)

Burned some more time, then headed to:
PLOY (dir. Pen-ek Ratanaruang, 2007):
Well. It was better than the last thing of his that I saw (Last life in the Universe, I had to turn it off it was bothering me so much). However, it still wasn't too great. It felt like a generic art movie. Everyone was sort of hanging around being moody, then an argument, some dream sequences (or are they?), a twist that almost makes you think there's a story, then more moody. Just didn't do it for me.
Grade: C+ (misguided, but mildly interesting)

Then I ran an errand or two, and went to the final film:

GLORY TO THE FILMMAKER (dir. Takeshi Kitano, 2007):
The first 45 minutes or so were fantastic. It's basically the director making mini-movies in different genres that he hasn't done before. But once it settles onto what's going to be the rest of the movie, it turns into this absurd, not very funny, overly long crazy-fest. So close, but so far.
Grade: B- (it'd be worse, but the first hour was actually funny, and interesting)

So that's that. Long wrap-up essay coming tomorrow (It's my project for the 8 hour train ride).

TIFF 07: Day 9 "mutant mosquitoes"

2007-09-14T21:06:00.000-04:00

Today was bumpy. I got up about 15 minutes late, prepped and rushed out to the Cumberland (my first movie there), where I was set to see...The Moquito Problem and Other Stories. But there was one problem. My fatigue finally caught up with me and wanted to face off, and I lost. I think it was a combination of exhaustion and the air conditioning being way too powerful for the theater that early in the morning. Usually I'm good about staying up through my 9ams, but today, I just couldn't. When I get too cold I generally start to nod off, and despite wrapping myself up in my hoodie and trying to hold my eyes open, I just couldn't make it. The little bits and pieces I did see were funny and they felt almost fictional. It was about this small town with a mosquito problem. It reminded me of an Errol Morris-Christopher Guest hybrid. People were there for a Q&A, but I had to rush out (because of guilt, naturally, and hunger).
I got another huge slice of pizza and went to wait in line for the highly anticipated...
I'M NOT THERE (dir. Todd Haynes, 2007):
I'm going to need another viewing to really flesh out my thoughts on this. It's a crazy experience, Haynes uses 6 actors to play Dylan though a bunch of different life phases, the idea being (according to Haynes) that Dylan was always changing. People would meet him, see him a few months later, and he's look and sound different and have a whole new set of influences. The working definition of Dylan is that he's undefined. That sort of ambiguity manifests itself in a few ways throughout the movie, one of which is the cast. Each of the phases has a different style, from documentary to Fellini, straight to the camera confessional to a western. And the other is the narrative. Haynes weaves things together in this fluid, ever shifting way. Chronology is loosely followed, but it often jumps forward and backwards, adding more layers and pieces to the puzzle. It reminded me of The Tracey Fragments, in this regard (although that was broken up for different reasons, and in different ways, same sort of ideas though).
As far as the performers go... Blanchett wins. I didn't want her too, after seeing that scene that leaked on the internet a few months ago, I wasn't crazy about her and I came in expecting not to be. But I was wrong. She rocked. I think it would be pretty funny if on Oscar night she was nominated, along with one of her co-stars. I doubt that two people have been nominated for the same role in Best Actor and Best Actress. But hey, maybe it'll happen. Although which actor to nominate would be a lot tougher. I think Blanchett might be on her own with this (she'll probably be up against herself anyway... there was that new Elizabeth movie here too, and we know what happened last time she had that part...). But back to I'm Not There.
It was a complex, admirable film. And I look forward to seeing it again.
Grade: A-

Haynes was there to introduce the film, he couldn't stay after for a Q&A, but he did a short one before the screening. He talked about the choice to use all the actors, how the film was made with Dylan's blessing, casting Cate Blanchett, etc.

As soon as the credits started, I had to RUN to the scotiabank (well more like to a streetcar, then to the theater) where I missed the opening credits for...

LA FILLE COUPEE EN DEUX (dir. Claude Chabrol, 2007):
It reminded me of another French movie by a master that I wasn't crazy about, but respected a lot (Comedy of Power). It was solid, well put together and interesting to watch. Props on an unexpected twist that starts the third act (I should have expected it though. They say if there's a _ _ _ introduced in act one, it'll be used by act three). But yeah, I don't feel terribily blown away (it's no Paranoid Park), but it was a satisfying experience. Smarter than your average film.
Grade: B

And again, I had to get a pizza and RUN to the Elgin (I was on time, thankfully). I got a late place in line, so I ended up in the front row. But I just found my favorite seat in the theater. Why the front row at the Elgin is probably the best place (at least for me):
- The screen isn't right up in your face, and if you lean back a bit and rest your head on the seat, you can see everything just fine.
- Because it's the front row you don't have to constantly shift your position because of the person's head in front of you.
- Infinite legroom. My knees have started to hurt from being pressed against seatbacks.
- But there is one drawback. You can turn around and see that this movie is being projected...
digitally. We basically watched a DVD of...

CHACUN SON CINEMA (dir. Various, 2007):
Hah so this was weird. And uneven (as many of these movies are). Essentially, 34 directors each have to make a 3 minute film about going to the movies. I'm not even going to bother with the 30 of them that I didn't like/don't remember anymore. But the ones I enjoyed/still recall were...

WORLD CINEMA (Joel/Ethan Coen): With Josh Brolin as a simple country-fella who stepped into an arthouse showing Climates or Rules of the Game. He (comically) interrogates the man at the counter about the movies "so they talk in Turkish?" "is there nudity?" and comes out afterwards, to find the guy he talked to at the counter off duty, so he asks that someone tells him that he it was really "true." Funny stuff. I remembered it.

OCCUPATIONS (Lars Von Trier): Man starts talking to another man during a movie. Things get crazy.

FIRST KISS (Gus Van Sant): It was just strange, it stood out because of that. I don't know if I liked it much though. But it stood out.

Michael Cimino's segment was lame.

I TRAVELLED 9000 KM TO GIVE IT TO YOU (Wong Kar-Wai): It's like a Wong Kar-Wai candy bar or something. Delicious.

AT THE SUICIDE OF THE LAST JEW IN THE WORLD AT THE LAST CINEMA IN THE WORLD (David Cronenberg): The title says it all.

Oh, and before the thing even started we got to see David Lynch's short. Which looked like an awful student art video. But that's just my opinion.

Also, there were a few general trends: Godard was incredibly influential. So was Bresson, and Truffaut, and french cinema in general. Oh and a handful of the shorts featured blind people at the movies.

So overall, the GRADE is C+ (base grade of D+, add the memorable shorts/occasional laugh, et voila)

And now, about 3 hours earlier than usual, I can sleep. I see Werner Herzog's new movie in the morning (sadly he won't be around for a Q&A), followed by "me" (I have no idea what to expect), and wrapping up with Ploy (not sure where that's going either). I'm going to try and do a rush line or same day ticket, probably for Glory to the Filmmaker! since word on the street is that Sukiyaki Western Django pretty much sucked. And then, I pack up.

TIFF 07: Day 8 "lars-centric"

2007-09-13T17:49:00.000-04:00

So part one of this is coming to you early, since I've got a big break between screenings 3 and 4. The new place I'm staying at is awesome. There's a cat here that woke me up this morning with like, forced petting. It was so weird. I open my eyes and here's this cat like putting it's paw on me and all and being all "pet me!" But I like cats so that was cool. This one seems to like me a lot.

So after getting up and getting ready I went down to the Scotiabank (of course) to see...

NAISSANCE DES PIEUVRES (dir. Celine Sciamma, 2007):
Very very good. It's about this girl who gets obsessed with the captain of the synchronized swim team (also a girl). Girl A is probably 15, girl B is like 18. Both of them were great performers. The atmosphere reminded me a lot of The Virgin Suicides, and not just because the subject matter was teenage girls. It had the same feelings of isolation, of self discovery and so on. It was nicely shot, lots of rich blues with the occasional red. And the best part, for me, was the interactions of the two leads. They created the most romantic tension I've experienced in a long time. It got to the point where when the younger girl saw the older girl, my heart would start beating faster too.
Grade: A- (wonderfully done, a unique experience)

And then I went to the Elgin for:

MARGOT AT THE WEDDING (dir. Noah Baumbach, 2007)
Which I wasn't too crazy about. The emphasis (as far as cinematic elements go) was on the characters and story, which I'm ok with. Visuals were solid but standard handheld-y stuff with Baumbach's familiar slightly desaturated images. The performances from Kidman and Leigh were good. I was so happy to see Ciaran Hinds in this. He's great and never used enough. I had some issues taking Jack Black seriously though (and I never did. Maybe that was the point though. He was the loser-ish "why is she marrying this guy?" character). But in this especially (and looking back at Squid and the Whale), I see what people's issues are with Baumbach's typical character-- the intellectual asshole who's a crappy parent. I had trouble identifying with a single character. Either they were too mean, too silly, or I didn't know enough about them to make a choice.
Grade: B

And I just came from...
LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (dir. Craig Gillespie, 2007):
Another crowd pleaser, except this one had more heart than Run, Fat boy, Run, and it was better directed. It's sort of a 2007, indie update on Harvey. It went like this: Ryan Gosling's character (who probably has some kind of mental disorder), orders a life size sex doll, but instead of using it for the obvious purpose, he dresses it up, calls it his girlfriend, and lives with it. Eventually the community he lives in comes together and pretends the doll is alive with him, and he grows as a person and the community grows stronger. It was sweet and well made. I fell asleep for a little bit though (oh the fatigue). And I woke up and didn't miss anything. Although everyone was laughing, I think it was at the same joke, the whole movie. Which is the one thing that bothered me about this. Everything was funny because it was a doll. And he thought it was real.
Grade: B- (nice, but redundant)

And then I came back here, and on the way picked up a crepe with strawberries and nutella. It cost more than I expected, so I was mad about that. But whatever, I thought. I went outside and got on the streetcar with it, and headed back. The car was overcrowded and I realized about 1/4 of the way through the trip that... my crepe was leaking. It was dripping nutella everywhere. I realized this when I looked down at my hoodie, and saw it covered in Nutella. Oh it was maddening.
So I got back, tossed the crepe in anger, and washed my hoodie. The End.

And then I came back here, and had the best shave of my life. Seriously. I haven't shaved in a little over a week, and between the scruffy face and the poof of hair, I looked a terrible mess. But now I feel light years better, and ready for more movies.

Off to see...

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD (dir. Sidney Lumet, 2007):
I just fell in love with Network, so I was excited to see that Lumet was still making movies. I need to see more of him though, since I'm unfamiliar with everything he's done besides... Network.

OK, so before I get to the movie itself, first a note about... "festival fatigue." Today was the first day that it really hit me. I think it was two late nights in a row that did it (3am and 2am, with wake ups at 6:30). So today, for everything but Naissance, I was fighting the urge to nod off.

And now for the movie:
It was everything Cassandra's Dream should have been. The writing and the acting were a lot sharper than Allen's film (it pains me to say). And of course, the plot was a little bit different. But same sort of idea: a murder complicates the lives of two brothers. In Allen's film, it's intentional. In Lumet's it's accidental. And of course, the crowd still found some things to laugh at (sort of the opposite end of the whole audience's being great), even though, if it weren't at a festival/a group of people looking for entertainment (and by that i mean entertainment=comedy), it would have played as a tense, serious drama. Hah the Cassandra's Dream thought was probably the only major thing I've got on this. The performances were fantastic (as you'd expect with a Lumet film). He was there to introduce, along with Marisa Tomei and Ethan Hawke. Phil Hoffman was shooting in Australia and couldn't make it.
So, the second place price goes to this one.
Grade: B+ (well written, well performed, well directed, not amazing, but just pretty good.)

Now there's only two days left. It's almost terribly depressing.
Tomorrow I have my first documentary. And I'm Not There (so excited). And La Fille Coupee En Deux (also exciting). And Chacun Son Cinema (again, very exciting. an omnibus film about the movies!).

Until then.

TIFF 07: Day 7 "if it wasn't, he would have fired them on the spot"

2007-09-13T00:31:00.000-04:00

So I've relocated, I'm now staying with another random stranger courtesy of EVD. After taking care of that this morning, I made my way downtown for...

CASSANDRA'S DREAM (dir. Woody Allen, 2007):
Oh boy. He's done it again.
He's made another not so great Woody Allen movie.
OH MY GOD.
Ok, so basically, it's this story about these two guys who end up getting super paranoid and doing crazy things over money. And a bit of the way through the crowd at the Elgin found a few lines to laugh at. And then they found a few more. And a few more. It got to the point where at the end, everyone was incredibly confused. Why? Because nobody could tell if it was a really bad drama or a really funny comedy.
And I just looked it up, and...
WOODY ALLEN MADE A "BAD" MOVIE!
And of course, I mean the good bad. He wanted it to be a drama, exploring the depth of man or something through murder. And on the IMDB page it lists it under "crime" and "drama."
And yet, the audience was howling with laughter. The whole time. So, now that I know what the original plan was, I can do this...
GRADE: C+ (sorry Woody, looks like you got a bit too lazy with this one--I did watching it [I fell asleep for like ten minutes, so did the guy down the row from me])
BAD MOVIE GRADE: B+ (the moment of realization was priceless. thank you.)

Man, I still can't believe it. I'm overjoyed and saddened at the same time.

So after that, I got some breakfast and headed over to the Scotiabank (cause I don't spend enough time there), for the day's other 3 movies. First up was:

RUN, FAT BOY, RUN (dir. David Schwimmer, 2007)
Which I was prepared for, to a point. Michael Ian Black wrote the script, Simon Pegg was starring, it looked like it might actually have a bit of potential. But it fell short (I should have gone to Redacted).
I mean, it wasn't awful. It was just a standard comedy. It'll probably come out in theaters and break even. It wasn't amazing, it wasn't awful. It was just ok.
Grade: C+

A pizza and beverage later, I saw:

DANS LA VILLE DE SYLVIA (dir. Jose Luis Guerin, 2007):
Which was probably the number 2 movie of the day. It was a more of artistic film (enough so that the people next to me were complaining afterwards about how it wasn't "entertaining, it had no plot!"). Basically, there's one scene with dialogue. The rest of the movie is about this poet-illustrator guy who follows this girl around. We get lots of ambient noise. Lots of long tracking shots. And then a few sequences with some spiffy editing. I wasn't surprised to see, yet again, the influence of a certain set of filmmakers who used... non-acting, detheatrical plots, deliberate pacing, etc. It's funny that all the best things I've seen have been strongly influenced by older directors that I'm not fond of at all. But I'm glad that people are taking the lessons and making them more interesting and watchable. So yeah, I'm getting a soft spot for this sort of movie so...
GRADE: B+ (well executed, interesting {once I started taking notes and actively viewing}, and it pissed some people off, which gets points)

And lastly, today's Movie of the Day...

THE TRACEY FRAGMENTS (dir. Bruce McDonald, 2007):
Which I need more time to think about to fully comment on.
It was a crazy experience. Just crazy. Ellen Page starred. She was awesome, as usual.
But the most fascinating thing about this was what they did with the screen. It's a movie where, as the title may imply, the screen is fragmented pretty much the whole way through. and it's not fixed at all. The fragments change and move and the editing is superfast. What's great though is that I was with it all the way through. I didn't get lost (as it could be easy to do).
Grade: B+/A- (I'm on the cusp right now, when I write more tomorrow I'll update).

So that was the day. Sorry things are getting less and less... eventful? verbose? I don't know. Fatigue was heavy today (only 4 hours of sleep), so it's tough to think about everything at 1 am.
Also, today was the first day where I broughy my ipod around, and used it. I've realized that part of why I don't like hearing the waiting in line talk, and the waiting in the theater talk, is because I don't want to know more than I already do about the movie. I mean, it doesn't matter, I guess, but I'm bringing enough baggage into it already, and I don't want to be thinking about why that jerk in the line yesterday said it was godawful and so on. I want to form my own thoughts.

And also, today. I had a more positive thought about the festival at large:
I've realized why you go to the theater to see a movie. It's something that in general is missing in Syracuse. The experience. People turning a "drama" into a comedy about Colin Farrell's bad acting, or applause at the end of a musical number, people sticking around and taking a serious interest in what the filmmaker has to say. It's all wonderful and delightful, and it's what movie-going is really all about.

Anyhow
On tomorrow's agenda: Naissance Des Pieuvres, Margot at the Wedding, Lars & the Real Girl, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

TIFF 07: Day 6 "youtube."

2007-09-12T00:06:00.000-04:00

I'm proud of myself. I kept myself well fed and wide awake all day. And each of my movie's was at a different venue, but I made my way around on time. It was a delight.

Also, for a couple minutes I got really annoyed with everyone talking about what they've seen and voicing opinions. Which probably doesn't say a lot about me. Except, OK, I'm glad they're discussing and all, but it's the loudness of it all that bothers me. I just need to bring my ipod for those times when I'm waiting in line/in a theater for a movie to start. Or maybe next year... I'll bring an entourage, and we can be those loud opinionated people who everyone needs to hear.

Anyways, that's out of the way, so now for the movies. Today was pretty damn interesting, all around.
Firstly...the one you've all been waiting for:
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (dir. Julie Taymor, 2007):
Certain people will love this movie. Actually, most people will. I didn't. And I won't.
As far as expectations going in... it sort of rested on the trailer. Oh, and the Beatles songs. I wasn't going crazy about the trailer, but as it went on I liked it. I was hoping the same would happen during the movie, but it was the opposite. I considered walking out a few times. But I stuck it out, trying to pinpoint what my issues were.
And I think they're something along these lines:
- It was set in the 60s, but all of the political crazyness of the times seemed forced in. Taymor was trying too hard to put in that "spirit of revolution."
- I didn't like one of the leads. Her singing just hurt my ears.
- I know, as a musical, it has a license to go into choreographed fantasy dance numbers and grand spectacles and all of that. However, I think the stronger musicals either take it in one direction or the other, or somehow manage to strike that perfect balance (see Bob Fosse on how to do that, Luhrmann on the spectacular, and Once or more recently... Chansons D'Amour on the realistic). What bothered me about this was that, it was trying to stay firmly rooted in reality, but at the same time it really wanted to be a big flashy spectacle. And the struggle between those two took away from the experience.
- Also, there was some needlessly trippy stuff.
- And she wasted Bono. Wasted. She gave him "I am the Walrus" which was OK enough. But his strength is in the high soaring upper range, and he hardly went there at all. I was saddened.
- I laughed at the dialogue/delivery a few times. I was the only one. Of note "this is a revolution mom!" Oh, so funny.
So that's most of my reasoning on that one. Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure you will once it opens like next weekend.
Grade: C+ (boring, sometimes preposterous, overwrought, disappointing, grade would have been lower if Taymor hadn't done the Q&A, but her talk gave her a bit more credibility)
Also, Taymor was there for a Q&A, which softened me up a bit. She talked a lot and was really nice about everything. (more to follow maybe soon)

Now on the other side of the universe, I grabbed lunch and.... a festival hoodie. Finally, I have a hoodie to call my own. And then I saw...

SLEUTH (dir. Kenneth Branagh, 2007):
Which was pretty freakin sweet. Watching Caine work is always incredible, and Jude Law held up against him very very well. Pinter's screenplay was sharp as a tack. I love his writing, so this was a treat. Oh, and there were only two characters. It felt like an incredibly satisfying night at the theater (which works, since it was based on a play). There was some sort of thing going on at the start, where we don't see the faces of either of the characters. Maybe the play is starting out level or something like that. But yeah, it was short, sweet, and solid.
Grade: B+ (satisfying and fun, not incredibly stand-outish though)

So, a subway ride and a milkshake later I saw...

DR. PLONK (dir. Rolf De Heer, 2007):
Which was a silent comedy! It was great. De Heer nailed the look and humor. And we got to see 2007 in silent movie mode. I had a blast, for the most part. There were a few moments where the jokes were stretched a little thin. But snap this was cool. I'm glad that he was actually able to make this in 2007.
Grade: B (great idea, funny throughout, enjoyable, but with some issues)
He was there for a Q&A, which yielded two interesting bits of info:
- He came up with the idea of making a silent film when he found a ton of old film stock in a fridge one day.
- The dog in the movie was obsessed with balls. You couldn't even say "ball" around the dog or it would go crazy, so you'd have to say "spherical object." The balls were used to get the dog to do what they wanted (like run across the frame or look at a box).

And lastly...

PARANOID PARK (dir. Gus Van Sant, 2007):
Beautiful. I feel like if I say more it might take away from it.
Grade: A (visually stunning, perfect Bresson-ian performances, wonderfully edited)

Also, I asked Van Sant if he had any advice for the aspiring filmmaker. He basically said to use youtube. It's your own distribution company.

And lastly, I've calmed down about Control, it's now an A-. It's tough grading everything when you think about stuff in relation to each other. Is No Country for Old Men really as good as Paranoid Park or Jesse James? What about Control? (which isn't, I've decided). I might end up switching systems.

Oh, to be a blogger.

I finally have a hoodie.

TIFF 07: Day 5 "i've never been a 16 year old girl before"

2007-09-10T21:56:00.000-04:00

The fatigue is starting to set in. Also, I realized something that may or may not be an issue: I might just be slightly overrating things because I'm getting caught up in the whole festival frenzy. So take things as an approximation for now, and maybe when I get to re-view some of these things I can be a little more level headed.

I had pizza for breakfast and lunch today. I almost did dinner, but a bag of popcorn covered that.

Talking about today's movies is going to be very difficult. I skipped coffee this morning, and I'm starting to get very worn down. But tonight ended early, and tomorrow starts late, so hopefully I can pull things together again by then.

And so today went like this:

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (dir. Joel/Ethan Coen, 2007):
They finally pulled it together again, and man is it good. I want to say it's their best since Fargo, but I'm not certain. Mostly though, I think it is. The story is pretty similar to The Man From London, but the plot actually moves. A man finds a case of money amidst a lot of dead bodies. The police are interested, so are the owners of the money. So we've got these three leads (all of which are incredible, especially Javier Bardem), each sort of a step behind each other. It's complex, enthralling, funny, and spot on.
Grade: A (as good as Fargo, which I love, sharp all around)

Also, today was my first day with screenings at the Ryerson. Not a particularly amazing venue, but the crowd really comes alive. Everyone laughs and applauds and loves it all. No wonder they have the midnight madness screenings here. I mean here I am at 9 in the morning, hungry and still tired, and yet still completely absorbed with the movie. And so are the 1499 other people in the place.

And one last sidenote to No Country: Julian Schnabel was sitting behind me for the movie. (oh, to be a film nerd).

So after that I rushed to the Scotiabank, got pizza, and saw:

CHRYSALIS (dir. Julien Leclercq, 2007):
Which was a french sci-fi movie. Shot in the typical sci-fi fashion (lots of blues and metal, dark). It looked like it might have been good. But unfortunately I may never find out. I fell asleep for probably over half of the movie. I tried so hard. And still, despite being in the front section during a bunch of super-loud action scenes, I still managed to pass out for a while.
But from what I did see, it seemed like I may have been disappointed. I inferred that the plot was something about this machine that steals memories, and some people were fighting over it.
Leclerq was there to present and do a Q&A, but I left before it began. I was feeling guilty having to see him in standing right in front of me when I accidentally slept through his movie.
I think if I were awake I would have given it a B-/C+ though. While I credit him for using mostly hand to hand fight scenes, the choreography got a little redundant.

And so, I got food this time and managed to make my way back to the Ryerson for the spectacular:

JUNO (dir. Jason Reitman, 2007):
Did I mention that this was spectacular? It was another Control-esque surprise, since I didn't like Reitman's earlier Thank You For Smoking very much. But this. Man.
It definitely falls into the quirky-indie-type of movie, although it's on the good side of the spectrum.
Ellen Page (who was there), played Juno, a girl who accidentally gets pregnant (thanks to Michael Cera). She decides to keep the baby and put it up for open adoption (the parents are going to be Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). And of course, Juno is your "weird" girl, she's got more in common with the girls in Ghost World than American Pie. She also has a best friend who's into teachers. Her dad fixes air conditioning and heating, her step-mom is stiff, but hilarious.
I suppose you can go either way on this one. I think most people will enjoy it though. The writing was almost too sharp, but in today's age of "make it up as you go mr. vaughn and mr. ferrell" it's a VERY nice change. Reitman doesn't let this one go crazy (even though he admitted that he let a whole two of Cera's ad-libs into the final cut). The strength of this is in that writing and the performances. Page is fantastic as Juno. I've read/overheard (from older types) that she's playing it too mannered, she's going too quirky with it. But alas, I disagree completely. Probably because I've met people like Page's Juno. I know I have, and the whole time I was wondering who it was that she reminded me of. Cera actually tones down a lot of his super-hilariousness, and he's got some really great moments. I'm so glad Jason Bateman is still working. He's just as good as ever. I was surprised by Garner. I didn't realize she could actually act.
I think one of the bigger surprises (or at least the actress who came up most in the Q&A, besides Page/Cera) was Allison Janney, who played Juno's step mother. So funny.

I feel like I'm gushing again. But I was really looking forward to this and it didn't let me down.
Grade: A- (great great great, but I concede to some of the points made by the detractors)

So there was a Q&A after this one too, with Reitman, Page, and Diablo Cody (the writer). Interesting points:
- the relationships in the film were autobiographical (for Diablo)
- Cera wasn't there (damn!) because he had to fly out to Berlin or something last night on a private jet. Which is funny to picture.
- We found out about those two ad-libs that Cera slipped by. Aside from that and one or two other small things, they stuck to the script the whole way through.
- And part of why they could do this is because Diablo was kept a part of the process the whole way through. If they needed more material, she'd write it and 20 minutes later they'd be filming.
- It took Diablo 2 months to write the script. She was "discovered" by one of the film's producers, who read her blog and suggested that she write a script. Reitman happened to be friends with this producer (or a friend of his), and got his hands on the script early. He dropped the script he was working on because he felt that if he didn't direct this he'd regret it forever.
- Ellen Page is super cool. I want to be friends.
- Reitman doesn't really see the film as about the open abortion thing. He looks at it as a take on the struggles of growing up. In the film, it happens either too fast (Page) or too slow (Bateman)
- Jason Reitman has never been a 16 year old girl.

So I went back to the Scotiabank to see:

THE OLD MISTRESS (dir. Catherine Breillat, 2007):
And my brain was pretty fried for this too. Breillat was there to introduce and Q&A, although I had a hard time understanding most of what she was saying (combination of accent and slow speech).
I'm not sure exactly what to make of this (probably because I'm young). It's the story of a guy who's about to get married, but (for the first half of the film) tells the story of this affair he's been having for 10 years to his future grandmother (who is concerned about the affair getting in the way of his new marriage). Of course, we get the flashback and see everything unfold. And then it picks up from the wedding, and the affair ends up starting up again. There's also some explicit sex in this, but unlike Lust, Caution, it actually did help the plot along significantly. And it wasn't just "ok here's explicit sex for a while" it actually progressed as the affair went on. We slowly see more and more of the sex and we learn more and more about the characters. It didn't really do a lot for me. It was good all around, and I stayed involved.
Grade: B (solid, some nice things, not tremendous at all, but still pretty good)

and that let out early. so now I can clean up and sleep. Tomorrow (or maybe Wednesday) I swap my lodging. Woohoo.
Tomorrow should be exciting though. I start out with Across the Universe, go to the re-make of Sleuth, head over to the silent-comedy Dr. Plonk, and close the day with Van Sant's Paranoid Park (I have no idea what to expect on this one, besides skaters). It's all so exciting. And hopefully I can rest, too.

TIFF 07: Day 4 "I think she was actually french."

2007-09-10T00:33:00.000-04:00

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.

TIFF 07: Day 3 "I felt like a gumball in a machine"

2007-09-09T01:29:00.000-04:00

I thought I could relate to the above quote after my rush line experience at Young People Fucking, but I had no idea how true it was. I'm going to start at the end and work my way to the start for this entry. So here goes:
I just got back, after a longer than usual streetcar ride (some traffic jam), the biggest slice of pizza I've ever had (it was bigger than my head...which says a lot), and...

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (dir. Andrew Dominik, 2007):
Well. Things were off to a rough start here, and it may take a second viewing to confirm whether it was situational, or the movie itself. I think it was the movie (although being hungry and swept away in "ohmygoshisthatbenaffleckmattdamonanddoncheadle" mode might have something to do with why I had a hard time following the first two reels). Basically, the title tells you exactly what the movie is about. It follows Robert Ford (Casey Affleck), a young fella who's in awe of Jesse James (Brad Pitt), the notorious outlaw. Ford becomes a double agent, and things get tense.
After hearing that it was long, and slow (from the director nonetheless), I ended up expecting something different. But I'm completely satisfied with what I got. Two things stood out (for me): The performances by the two leads, and the incredibly tight command Dominik has on the tension that's steadily maintained throughout the film.
To elaborate: I didn't know Brad had this much depth. All of the traits that make Brad Pitt the star that he is are used (and twisted) to his advantage as Jesse James. The sly charisma, the "piercing blue eyes," and his bad boy nature (which gets taken to the next level, and then some). James alternates between a genuinely nice guy, family man, celebrity, friend, and a nervous, cruel, and suspicious outlaw. Casey Affleck holds his own as Ford, the man destined to takes James out. He's the perfect choice for the part. He's got the innocence, but intelligence. You can sympathize with his conflicted feelings over James (civic duty vs. hero worship).
And now for the tension. Dominik really gets points for this one. First off, the title. It tells us exactly where things are going, and Dominik does a few things to keep you on the edge until you get there.
He said it was slow, but of course, when you slow things down it ups the ante. The pacing (which you may call elegant), did wonders for the movie. It reminds me of Leone in a way (especially the... assassination scene--which does reference The Good the Bad and the Ugly).
Dominik also makes use of opposing forces to heighten the response. Or so I thought. You've got James and Ford, two different types playing against each other. Visually, scenes alternate between very warm, candlelit interiors and cool, unforgiving exteriors (it could also be read as an expression of James' character).
The other great thing about The Assassination... is that it's an epic. And nobody makes those anymore. It's very classic, mythic, etc. I like it.
Also, the music rocks. I was happy to find out it was done by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. Mad props.
Grade: A- (entertaining, fascinating characters, nice spin on a familiar plot (the double agent meets the western), and there are some experience points, for the star-studdedness of it all)
REVISED GRADE: A (the more I think about this the more I like it. And it keeps coming back to my mind. Which is odd. I've been getting more and more fascinated by the how different it is. All the genre bending. The way it fits in with older offbeat westerns, but doesn't actually involve the typical "wild west." It was just so good.)

But to get to this movie, I had to wait in line...for 3 hours. And I already had a ticket. Basically, TIFF does this stupid thing at the Elgin, where VISA gold/platinum cardholders get in before regular ticketholders. Being VISA platinum-less, I was stuck in the regular line. And being in line for a movie starring...Brad Pitt, the wait for everyone to arrive and the crowd to settle took longer than expected. A lot longer. But I did get to see Brad and Angelina (close-ish, enough to get a semi-decent picture on my ever so crappy cell phone camera). It was insane. My heartrate went up, I was straining on my tip toes to catch a glimpse and snap the shot. Unlike anything I've been through before in poor, celebrity-free Syracuse.
So that's where the application of the quote comes in. After waiting FOREVER, we got squeezed out (like gumballs) in little groups, so as to avoid the already enormous havoc caused my so much starpower in one theater.

While in line, I devoured my third cup of coffee for the day (man did it help). I just went against my coffee-ban of the past... 6 months or so? Maybe longer. But now I really appreciate it. And I REALLY need to stock up on some snacks for future screenings, since the whole "oh I'll just pick something up quick between shows" will never work. I don't want to starve myself here. I noticed during Assassination that the whole hunger thing kind of impairs your ability to... follow a story. Although I think the celebrity thing was part of the distraction as well.

Anyhow, before the Brangelina insanity, I was at...
4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, AND 2 DAYS (dir. Cristian Mungiu, 2007):
Also known as "that romanian abortion drama"
Which is as good as they're saying it is.
It's one of those movies that in theory, isn't inherently cinematic, but at the same time couldn't work any other way. It follows a woman whose friend is getting an abortion (the title is how far into the pregnancy she is). And it's in the new... Romanian Realism style (a la Lazarescu, but I liked this more). It puts you right there, and as many people said after the screening, that's how it was. Most shots are long, everything is dark. I found myself completely engaged throughout.

Grade: A (Wonderful, and affecting [at one or two choice moments], grade will probably get bumped up from A- to A when I've slept and can think about it.[after sleep: yes, it does get an A.])
Also, Mungiu was there for a Q&A afterwards. He basically said that he wanted to present things as they were (which many agreed that he did). He refused to give an explanation or interpretation of events, saying that it's really up to the viewer (which it is). He also said that he just writes. He doesn't sit down and say "ok, this character is going to be naive and needy, while this one is that other thing" life's not that simple, according to Mungiu. It's chaotic, and frenzied and imperfect, and that was what he was going for with the film.

And before that...

THE MAN FROM LONDON (dir. Bela Tarr, 2007):
I'm not crazy about Bela, I guess. I mean, I respect what he does and I appreciate that he's doing it. But it's boring to me. As much as I love camera movement, I don't want to have to sit and think about it for over 2 hours. Everything was well choreographed and beautifully shot. But, it was just boring. It should have been interesting, but no. However, if you go by Tarr's Q&A afterwards, he did exactly what he wanted. He said that he was most interested in the atmosphere of the place, and he captured that incredibly well. You get that it's a monotonous, dead town. You get that this man's life is less than interesting. And you get that Tarr had something specific in mind and achieved it.
And lastly, I devised a little game going into this that I call "count the walkouts." After hearing about lots of walkouts at Cannes I wanted to see what would happen here in Toronto. Total count: about 40. It was fantastic.

Final Grade: B- (I respect it, even though I didn't enoy it.)
Tarr did a Q&A afterwards, more to follow soon.

Oh and there was also a minor flash of film nerd celebrity awareness... Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum was at this screening, and Tarr was present as well. After the screening the two of them were planning a dinner or something... like two steps behind me on the escalator. I really wanted to talk to them, but being the shy movie-nerd that I am, I didn't say anything. Maybe next TIFF.

And before that... the biggest surprise of the day...
CONTROL (dir. Anton Corbijn, 2007)
Which I was planning to hate and find over-rated. But boy was I wrong. It was devastating, in the best possible way. The reason I wanted to hate this was because I've only seen a handful of Corbijn's music videos, and I hated them all (I turned them off before the chorus, in most cases). But wow. Maybe it's that he knew the parties involved, maybe he just got lucky. I think a lot of it was thanks to Sam Riley's work as Ian Curtis. It was so gut-wrenchingly-tear-jerkingly perfect. Basically, I got misty a lot and cried a few times, and when it was over for a while. Maybe it was fatigue, maybe it was the early morning, or maybe I just saw something amazing. I think it's the last one.

Final Grade: A (devastating, in the best possible way. an experience I can safely say I've never had in a theater before.) [note: I'll follow up with a repeat view once it either gets to Syracuse or DVD, so I can actually comment instead of enthusiastically gushing about how amazing it was.]

Naturally, the morning was a commute in to the Scotiabank, so nothing terribly exciting there.
But man, was a crazy day. I've seen more famous people (both actually famous and film-geek famous) in one day than I have in my lifetime. Only at TIFF...