Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris"

It's quarter to midnight and I just got back from seeing "Minuit à Paris"—not at Cannes, unfortunately, but in Paris, which is never unfortunate. Not only is the movie opening at Cannes, but nearly every theater in Paris is running it, and maybe, if Edith Piaf is watching down on us from Heaven, then maybe, just for tonight, it will have been better attended than "Fast & Furious 5" or "Thor." In fact, I think it was.

Last July, as I was attempting to get a photo of a dog near a park behind Notre Dame cathedral (long story), I saw Woody Allen in that fisherman's hat he always wears, waiting for the light to be just right so he could shoot a scene that, come to think of it, probably is on the cutting room floor. In any case, it felt serendipitous to be here for the opening. Better still, I saw it in Montparnasse, our old neighborhood for a year when I was teaching in Versailles. Not a lot of tourists bother going to Montparnasse on their whirlwind tours, but in the 1920s, you could find Hemingway, Dali, Fitzgerald, Man Ray, Cole Porter, Modigliani, Gertrude Stein—you name 'em—wandering around the neighborhood ironically named after the seat of the Greek muses (long before the ugly Montparnasse tower was built, a mound of dirt and stone formed a central eyesore). Now, Woody Allen has taken the entire Pantheon of the roaring '20s, added a few Belle Epoque legends, and a just a dash of Versailles and has made a nostalgic love letter to that Paris we all hope to find.

Owen Wilson plays Gil, a screenwriter who has penned enough successful Hollywood flicks to have earned him a beautiful fiancée—a one-note caricature of a spoiled American who hopes his earnings will mitigate the fact that his politics and ambition do not meet her parents' right-wing ideals. Gil is a bewildered and befuddled dreamer with just the right amount of neuroses to make you realize that he is really an idealized version of Allen himself—a version that could believably have Rachel McAdams as a fiancée and Marion Cotillard as a love interest.

One night, Gil loses his way back to his hotel. Just after the clock chimes midnight, people in an old car invite Gil to hop in, and the next thing you know, he's partying with F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, etc. etc. He takes advantage of his new connections to get advice on his novel (which opens in "a nostalgia shop") from the likes of Gertrude Stein (played by Kathy Bates). When the first magical night ends, Gil turns around to find that the Polidor cafe is now a laundromat. He was Cinderella at the ball and now he must return to...his materialistic fiancée at the 5 star hotel. Poor little rich boy.

Never fear. Night after night, he returns, gets pointers on his work, and learns that—surprise—people in his version of the golden age were nostalgic too. Cotillard's character longs to return to the Belle Epoque—the start of a nostalgic mise-en-abyme. It all sounds trite, but the movie transcends its own lack of depth through earnestness. The cynical Parisian public was enchanted, and so was I.

As cliché-ridden and trite as the plot may sound and as one-dimensional as the characters may be, the honesty of the heart-felt nostalgia hits home. Everyone in that theater, American or French, would love to hold on to that magic. But we if we have to go back nearly 100 years to find it, then we're left with Paris as the world's largest museum. If, on the other hand, we realize that our age might become a golden age to some future generation (Lord have mercy), then we have to find the Hemingways of today. We have to go from the Polidor to that laundromat and find beauty in that transformation. But we don't. Woody Allen doesn't know how to love Paris today. Either do most Parisians.

The ending I kept expecting to see (in parallel to the opening shots of the kind of postcard perfect vacant city that only a very expensive filming permit can buy you) was a montage of Paris today, with its mixed races and cultures, its angry youth, its clever graffiti, its DJs, etc. But even when we are brought into the present we are stuck in the past (a pretty young woman who works at a flea market).

I exited the theater, camera bag on my shoulder (as it always is in Paris), ready to snap a couple of shots of what Paris actually looked like. And here is what I saw:

 and this:

and this:

It was just as enchanting as the film. The same cafés that were there in the '20s are still there tonight. The stagecoach didn't turn back into a pumpkin when I walked out of the theater. The café didn't turn into a laundromat. Neither did the Polidor, for that matter. And in some ways, that is more frightening. The Paris we like to see in films is caught in the past—a beautiful, seductive past that we might never want to leave. And if we ever do, well, it had better be to form a relationship with an equally beautiful present—preferably one with a deep appreciation for antiques.

Certified Copy: An Iranian's Case for Gay Marriage

For all those people (and I'm including most of the critics I read) who find this movie too difficult to understand, and to all the other people who want to watch a movie that will really make you think, you need to read this review.

Let me start by introducing you to the characters of the story. The movie starts out with a book signing. A British author, James Miller, has written a book titled Certified Copy in which he argues that a copy of art is just as aesthetically satisfying as the original. He is late to his book signing despite the fact that he is staying upstairs. The woman in the story, named Elle (Juliette Binoche) arrives a few minutes after James with her son who is deeply engrossed in a handheld video game. Elle and her son leave, and then there is are a few scense between the son and his mother. Later James arrives to meet Elle, and they take a trip out of the city. The rest of the movie is Elle and James meandering about this nearby city and talking about relationships, philosophy, and life.

Now the secret: The movie starts out making you think that Elle and James are meeting for the first time, but it becomes clear throughout the movie that they have known each other for 15 years, and the boy with Elle is their son. The opening sequence suggests that they had been together before the book signing. She sat in a reserved seat without any complaint. She had previously read his book and didn't like it but yet bought several copies. She is nervous when her son asks a lot of questions about all the books and she makes up excuses. When they meet at her shop, it is clear they haven't seen each other in a while because he asks a lot of questions to get more acquainted with her. There are many people who mistake them for being married, which Elle admits is not true, but doesn't correct those who make that assumption . The son does not recognize his father, either because he has never been told much about him, or because he was very young the last time his parents were together. Perhaps he is already married back in England. He does take frequent calls even in the middle of a book signing. Whether he is or not is really immaterial. Elle wants him to take responsibility for their child, and wants him to come and live with her. He is selfish, easily frustrated, and clearly smitten with Elle.

The ideas they explore are very deep: pleasure vs responsibility, male vs female, authenticity vs mimicry. The movie's strongest point is however that a copy is never as good as the original, and the illustration of this is marriage. This movie captures exactly what the gay community has been trying to tell everyone: civil unions and domestic partnerships are not marriage. Marriage is authentic. James believes that he has his life and his family (i.e. Elle and her son) have theirs. He views personal happiness to be the ultimate aim in life, but discounts that he plays a role in the happiness of others. Elle is trapped in a fantasy of her and James as a married couple. She just wants a man's shoulder to rest on; someone who she can help share her burdens. This relationship shows the detachment and struggle of a couple who have deep feelings for each other, but do not solemnize those feelings. Ultimately, there is no commitment.

These ideas alone personified would make this movie a success. But Kiarostami also gives us some amazing cinematography, and Juliette Binoche (the every woman) who is brilliant in delving into Elle's frustration, and infatuation with James. A genuine masterpiece.

The Object: On the Religious Fringe

Sometimes I ask myself, am I sane? Perhaps we ought to ask ourselves this question more often. Todd has asked himself this question after finding what he believes to be a Urim and Thummim in a Goodwill Store and comes up with the answer: yes. He peers into this object and seems to see visions of people (in side profile) when the light shines into it just right. As a matter of fact, he builds a light focusing device so that he doesn't have to rely on the unpredictable natural light.

Even he will say that this sounds crazy. However, throughout the movie he challenges all sorts of people to look into the object and see for themselves. Somehow everyone he shows it to also see something in the object, albeit sometimes diametrically opposed things. Some actually see themselves being chased by a demonic force. Todd even takes the object to what he considers the most prestigious university in the south: Vanderbilt. Here he finds a Jew, a Mormon, and an Archeologist and asks each of them to consider his story. They are very respectful. Some challenge him, "Why does this have to be the urim and thummim and not just a sacred cup?" asks the Mormon scholar. The jewish scholar seems to be the most encouraging saying, if you think it's scared and it has a positive force in your life than you go with it.

I have to ask myself, why would I want to believe that an object has special powers. If my life really sucked because I were poor and struggling, I'd want to believe that something magical would save me from my predicament. If I felt like an outcast and that nobody cared about me, I'd want to believe that God had chosen me for a special purpose, even if that purpose were to guard a goodwill cup.

In short, if we as a human race weren't such assholes to each other, we might not have to rely on notions of magic and God-ordained authority. If people had some self-esteem because they could provide for their families and live comfortably I think we'd have a lot more self-actualization replacing religious fervor. But that's just me.

The Object: All that and a bag of chips

The documentary film The Object is pretty remarkable. The film provides a first person account by Todd Walker telling his story of finding “the object” in a Nashville Goodwill store. He believes the object to be the Urim and Thummim from the Old Testament. Todd also believes he has been called by God to be the modern day protector of the object and that he is to witness to the world of its divinity and of its power to connect people to the divine if they have enough faith. At one point in the film Todd describes the object as “All that and a bag of chips” and that’s exactly what I think of this documentary.

Members of the Mormon faith will likely find Todd’s story exceptionally fascinating yet also somewhat uncomfortable. Todd’s discovery and experience with the object has striking parallels to the Joseph Smith story and translation of the Book of Mormon. Todd even has designated 3 special witnesses for his Urim and Thummim just as the Book of Mormon has its own 3 witnesses. I was fascinated with this film from beginning to end and also found it unintentionally hilarious at times. Though I laughed plenty, I can’t mock Todd’s sincerity. He truly and deeply believes in the divine authenticity of the object and that he has been called by God to protect it and to witness to the world of its power as an instrument of God to communicate to the modern world.

The Object was the feature of our monthly film group and the discussion following the film was one of the most interesting we’ve had. We all share a Mormon heritage. Our reactions to the film prompted a discussion of our personal beliefs – past and present – and of our own reconciliations and/or faith in the story of the founding of the LDS Church.

Thank you to Ed for a great night and for finding this film. Since the film is not readily available I’m grateful for his insomnia and his $5 purchase. If you’re curious but don’t want to buy a copy of the movie for yourself, check out the clip below from YouTube of Todd Walker sharing his witness and testimony.

Don Hertzfeldt and the Existential Life of a Stick Figure

I don’t know much about animation other than I grew up watching Warner Brother’s cartoons and Disney movies. And I’ve followed animation’s trend away from hand drawn animation toward computer rendered animation largely by watching the Pixar films. Like most people, at least most Americans, I have considered animation to be synonymous with “children’s films”. I hadn’t considered the idea of animation being used to tell anything other than a family-friendly story. I think my first exposure to animated filmmaking that didn’t tell a distinctly juvenile story was when I saw Princess Mononoke by Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki. Princess Mononoke and Miyazaki’s other films tell stories that can appeal to children but his audience is not so narrowly defined. His films also have some darker moments, philosophical underpinnings, and adult themes. However, unlike the rest of the world, I am not a huge Miyazaki fan. He is considered a genius by most. Maybe I lack the imagination required to truly appreciate his filmmaking. However, I am indebted to his films for giving me my first glimpse into animation being used to tell a different type of story.

In 2001 I saw the animated short Rejected by Don Hertzfeldt. At the time I really hadn’t seen anything like it before. I saw it completely by chance at the Sundance Film Festival where it was programmed as an introductory short playing before one of the films in the U.S. Dramatic Film Competition. I immediately loved it and thought it was one of the funniest films I had ever seen. This screening began my infatuation with Hertzfeldt and Bitterfilms – the name of his production company.

Hertzfeldt’s films are summed-up nicely by the title of an article that I saw on the Sundance website a couple of years ago: “The Existential Life of a Stick Figure”. Hertzfeldt’s hand drawn animation is primitive. They are stick figures. All of the artifice is stripped down to reveal nothing but pure idea. And those ideas are bleak and violent, but damnit if they aren’t also hilarious. Some critics have pointed out that there is a common thread in his films of innocent creatures suffering. His films combine dark humor with silliness and violence.

He made his first film, Ah, L’Amour, in 1995 when he was still a freshman at UC Santa Barbara.



The film takes on the battle between the sexes. It depicts the battle in terms of physical violence rather than emotional. In the film, a man is shot, stabbed, chainsawed, and even beheaded by the women that reject him. It has no audio dialog and the characters speak through voice bubbles. The film operates like a comic strip.

Lily and Jim is a 13-minute short Hertzfeldt made in 1997.



It is a film about a bad and very awkward dinner date. This film introduced audio dialog and it also displayed Hertzfeldt’s natural comic timing. The film is a restaurant dinner filled with painful small talk between a couple on a date. The awkwardness of the scene is not achieved as much through dialog as it is through the use of pauses or silence. The negative space in the conversation creates the pain and the comedy.

Hertzfeldt went to Cannes in 1998 with Billy’s Balloon. At 22, he was the youngest director in competition. There is no dialog in this film, and he focuses purely on action. This short is about a vengeful toy balloon. Some reviewers compared it to Hitchcock’s The Birds and to Kubrick’s 2001. Some responded less favorably and were grossed out by the violence that the balloon inflicts on the innocent baby. Joe Baltake for the Sacramento Bee wrote, “Some things are not funny, and child-abuse is one of them.” As for me, it reminds me of a twisted version of the French classic The Red Balloon ………..and I love it.



Hertzfeldt was making a name for himself and corporate offers started to come his way but he snubbed them all. He is fiercely independent. The idea for his next film, Rejected, grew from one of the offers for commercial work that he received and turned down.

The story goes like this: Hertzfeldt received a request from a TV network to create some animated program IDs. He joked that it would be fun to accept the work and create ridiculous spots that had nothing to do with the network and then see if they would actually run them. This idea led him to Rejected.

Rejected tells the story of an animator, also named Don Hertzfeldt, who’s approached by the fictitious Family Learning Channel to make some promotional spots only to find that none of his ideas make the cut. The film splices together one spot after another and we soon understand why the spots were rejected. As the film goes on he is asked to design more commercials and the animator begins to lose his mind under the pressures of commercialism. The spots he makes get stranger and stranger – bizarre ads for Kelp Dip and Bean Lard Mulch. The cartoons begin to literally fall apart, clouds dropping from cartoon skies. The real-life Hertzfeldt calls Rejected “a collision between art, commercial culture and madness.” Rejected went on to earn an Academy Award nomination for Best Animated Short.



If this blog has piqued your curiosity to the work of Don Hertzfeldt, then I encourage you to explore it further on your own. There is The Meaning of Life which traces the evolution of the human race. Then there is the Everything Will Be OK film cycle. This is conceived as a trilogy and tells the story of Bill and his rather dull life. The humorous story turns dark as you begin to question whether he is suffering from a possibly fatal mental disorder. The second film in the trilogy is I am so proud of you and was released in 2008. The third and final chapter in the story has not yet been released.

You can find most of his films on YouTube but his website is a great source for all things Hertzfeldt – www.bitterfilms.com . I will leave you with one more link……….this one to his most recent film Wisdom Teeth. Enjoy!



UPDATE
I'm kind of embarrassed that I didn't include his film "Genre" in my original post. It perfectly addresses the idea that animation can be used to tell literally any type of story. It's pretty hilarious.

My take on "Animal Kingdom"

I just finished watching the Oscars, but I feel absolutely now desire to write about who deserved what award or who wore what. Why? Well, because 1. virtually no one outside of my movie group is reading this anyway (so far) 2. We're not trying to be Entertainment Weekly or Access Hollywood or whatever and 3. I still haven't posted on the movie that Craig and Nick showed in February: Animal Kingdom.

Anyone who has read the other posts will already know that we all loved the film, so let me digress and flash back to some 19th century French lit for a moment. After I watched "Animal Kingdom," I couldn't help thinking imagining how much Emile Zola would have liked it. Let me give a quick and unpolished translation of something Zola wrote in the preface of his 1867 novel, Thérèse Raquin:

"...my goal has been above all a scientific one. When my two characters, Thérèse and Laurent were created, it pleased me to ask and answer certain problems: thus, I tried to explain the strange union that can come about between two different temperaments, I showed the profound conflict of a sanguine nature put into contact with a nervous nature. If you read the novel with care, you will see that each chapter is the study of a serious physiological case. In a word, I had but one desire: [...] to look for the beast in them, to see nothing but the beast, to throw them into a violent drama, and scrupulously note the sensations of these beings. I simply did on two living beings the kind of autopsy that surgeons do on a corpse."

 Indulge me with one more quote:

"The loves of my two heroes are the satisfaction of a need; the murder they commit is a consequence of their adultery, a consequence that they accept in the same way that wolves accept the assassination of sheep; finally, what I was obligated to call their regrets, consists of a simply organic disorder, a rebellion of a nervous system on the brink. The soul is perfectly absent, I readily admit, since that was exactly what I intended."

 One of the early shots in David Michôt's "Animal Kingdom" is a clip from "Deal or No Deal" in which a gleeful contestant crosses her arms and shouts "NO DEAL!" while the crowd cheers as if a gladiator had just killed his opponent. "Deal or No Deal" is possibly to most minimalistic game show ever created in that it strips away nearly all intellect. Jeopardy has its trivia, Wheel of Fortune has you solve word puzzles, The Price is Right requires you to test your retail pricing skills, but Deal or No Deal boils it all down to two basic choices.

If "Animal Kingdom" reminds me of naturalism, it is because Michôt strips down human conflict to its core. Watching young Joshua navigate the politics of his corrupt family and the equally corrupt criminal justice system is like watching Ken Jennings trapped in the wrong game show. His choice is literally "deal or no deal" and we keep wanting poor Joshua to say "I'll take "Married with Children" for $800."  We hope there are other choices. If nothing better, then perhaps "Deal and No Deal." But the most disturbing thing is that you don't get the luxury of a deus ex machina ending in a piece of naturalist fiction. It really has to be one or the other, and the crowd cheering "no deal" doesn't necessarily have your best interest at heart. In the end, you realize that the other characters, however powerful, have no more power to change the rules than does Joshua. The only freedom in "Animal Kingdom" is the freedom to choose a side.

Another Year: A Lesson in Compassion

I have to confess a history of prejudice on my part against the work of Mike Leigh. I was in my early twenties when I watched my first Leigh film, Secrets and Lies. Watching that film was like fingernails on a chalkboard – particularly the persistent crying and whining of Brenda Blethyn’s character. I was determined to not let that particular film turn me off to the work of such a respected director. So I watched his previous film, Naked, and I had a similar negative response. But I still didn’t give up and watched his next film, Career Girls, which also left me feeling very underwhelmed. I just simply couldn’t find the value of his cinematic voice. All I could see and hear were loud, miserable and desperate people living rather hopeless lives. I skipped his next couple of films but decided to give Leigh another shot to win me over with Vera Drake – and he kind of succeeded. I liked the film quite a bit but considered it an anomaly. It wasn’t until my partner Nick wanted to discover for himself the films of Mike Leigh, and I got dragged along for the ride, that I started to appreciate Leigh’s work. His unique style of social-realist filmmaking struck a chord with me. I’m not sure why my response to his films changed but it did. Maybe I simply had been too immature and had not experienced enough of the world to be able to empathize with his characters. I see the world through different glasses now.

Another Year is Leigh’s most recent work. The film is character driven and there is an absence of any sort of traditional story. The activity centers on Tom and Gerri, a very happily married middle-aged couple. They are content with their lives and fulfilled by their careers as geologist and counselor. They enjoy working together in their community garden and have a grown son who actual loves them. As a result of the contentment they feel, they have become a magnet for lost and damaged souls. The film has four acts – Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. It ambles pleasurably through the four seasons of their joint life with a natural rhythm. These seasonal acts provide a thematic structure. In the film Tom and Gerri are seen busy planting, tending, and harvesting their garden through the course of a single year. They are also tending and nurturing the broken and lonely souls that are drawn to them. Tom and Gerri are not saints. At times their patience wears understandably thin, but they remain a constant force in the lives of their friends. They are unable to fix problems, but some problems can’t be fixed. However, Tom and Gerri are a sustainable constant for their friends just as they are for their garden. Even though not always completely warm and inviting, their friendship is steadfast. They always provide at least a minimal refuge which means everything for people who are so lonely and in such deep pain.

Leslie Manville plays Mary, a secretary in Gerri’s office, and her character is the gear that keeps the film moving. Manville’s interpretation of Mary is hands-down one of the best performances of the past year. Mary is not an easy character to watch yet I was drawn to her with fascination in every scene. She is a person who is terribly unhappy but is trying any way she can to break free – whether buying a car or looking for love by flirting with a younger man. There is a constant quiver in her voice. Even her nervous laughter seems to be a cry for help. She is filled with self-hatred and self-delusion but rather than feeling scorn for her, I actually felt some recognition. I have known people like Mary, and in fact, I recognized some of her insecurities as my own. There is a scene near the end of the film where Mary finds herself alone in Gerri and Tom’s house with Tom’s non-communicative brother. Within minutes, even within seconds, her face unravels into hope and hopelessness, despair and defeat, humility and gratitude. Manville’s performance is perfection.

Another Year is a film full of keen observations drawn from characters that are all too real. These characters are familiar to me. I could identify with them, love them and be appalled by them all at once. In their lives as in my own, I was reminded that some problems can’t be solved and that some emotional pain can’t be alleviated, but only managed. I felt genuine empathy for these people. This is a quiet, powerful, and compassionate film.

Why are there not more films like Animal Kingdom?

Big Mama "Smurf" of the crime clan about to kiss her son too long....

Right before we started our Movie Group screening of our most recent film, Craig, Nick, Marc and I were imagining what kind of film we would make if we had the chance. After about half an hour of watching Michod's Animal Kingdom, I claimed in despair: "After that last scene, why should I even try to dream of being a filmmaker?" In the face of such virtuosity, I am content to be a consumer of film and not a producer. It is just one of those films that show how complex and intertwined the whole filmmaking process is.

The scene in question was unremarkable in content, just a picture of the twisted family leaving a cheap restaurant together. But it was a little miracle in its form. The depth of field was unbelievably complex, with the focus bringing different characters to attention at different times. The movement, angle and tempo were just off-kilter enough that they capture your eye without drawing attention to themselves. You just can't help yourself, you have to keep looking and you want to see more.

I agree with Craig that Mendelsohn deserves more recognition for his monstrous role as the psychopathic kingpin of the dysfunctional crime family. But it is not only his acting that does it--it is the unbelievably subtle narrative (for such a violent film) that reveals the depth of his depravity bit by bit, with horrifying insights that almost go unnoticed sometimes (the intense way he peers at different members of the family, the loathing for his gone-straight brother that is re-directed immediately into rage and grief at having lost him).

This is not a heavy-handed, twisted story that beats you into submission, but a series of intricately-developed characters that are set into motion and allowed to crash into each other in ways that fascinate, repel and convince you. If you have had to watch Avatar or whatever overdetermined crap that your brother-in-law dragged you to see last week, get your hands on Animal Kingdom and let it wash away the cineplex mediocrity. But watch out--you will end up expecting so much more from other films, and they will come up short.

Thanks Nick and Craig--An excellent Movie Group night. And the food (lemon-garlic pasta with fresh tomatoes and spinach, individual form-cakes with chocolate sauce) was worthy of this film.

Can I have the recipes?

Animal Kingdom: Ben Mendelsohn’s Overlooked Performance

Nick and I hosted February’s movie group and chose to show Animal Kingdom, an Australian film by David Michod in his first effort as both writer and director. He has crafted a dark and moody thriller with a pace that is deliberately slower than most films of its kind. The film really benefits from the slowed down pacing and allows the characters to fully develop and you really appreciate the amazing performances from the entire cast. Jacki Weaver is outstanding as the matriarch of this crime family and her performance has already garnered her a lot of recognition and awards during the 2010-11 award season. However, I’d like to call out an equally strong performance by Ben Mendelsohn as the eldest brother “Pope”.

Mendelsohn delivers an extremely chilling performance. His character is pure evil. He internalizes his hatred. He is quiet, calculating, and demented and his rage is barely concealed below the surface of his frighteningly blank face. He speaks with eerie quietness that is very unnerving. Physically, he is the smallest of his brothers but his appearance is deceiving as you soon realize that it is often the weak looking ones that will do anything to compensate. He is cunning and unpredictable and his actions are almost always lethal.

Mendelsohn has two standout scenes that come to my mind. The first is between Pope and the youngest brother Darren. The scene takes place in the family kitchen after Pope has re-emerged from hiding. He is interested in quickly re-establishing his place as the “king” of the clan. Pope quietly and unrelentingly accuses Darren of being gay. By questioning Darren’s sexuality Pope is making Darren feel less of a man and Pope uses this strategy to let Darren know who is in charge and that this is simply how it’s going to be in the future.

The second scene takes place late at night while Air Supply’s music video “All Out of Love” plays. The song plays long enough to establish a mood for the scene but slowly the camera pans over to Pope sitting quietly on the couch. At that point, upon seeing Pope’s blank face, the mood of the scene shifts into something menacing. Pope’s next actions are very creepy as his eyes turn to his nephew’s unconscious girlfriend.

In a film full of excellent performances, Ben Mendelsohn is as an example of the adage that less is more. His subtle and subdued performance conveys a current of troubled emotions running deep inside. It is his performance that anchors the ominous and frightening tone of the film.

The Magician: Art as Sophistry

So I have a habit of buying Criterion Blu-rays; usually without ever having seen the movie before. I feel this is a good gamble most of the time, but there have been some that I would probably never watch again. "The Magician" was definitely a welcome surprise.

You just never know what you are going to get with Bergman. This film was dark, funny, and creepy all at once. Not slow and plodding like some Bergman films, yet still philosophically compelling. Oh, and be sure to look up the essay by Oliver Assayas which appears in the October 1990 issue of Cashiers du cinema.

A Few Days of Respite

“A Few Days of Respite” follows a gay Iranian couple fleeing persecution in Iran where homosexuality is punishable by death to search for the freedom to live their lives openly. The film aspires to be a love story and also a political story and fails miserably to achieve either one of those goals.

Here’s the plot. Mohsen (the older man) and Hassan (the younger man) have fled Iran where their relationship could ultimately mean a death sentence. They have been dropped in a forested area along the Italian/French border. Their goal is to eventually make their way to Paris. While traveling on a train, Mohsen meets Yolande, a somewhat older French widow. He helps her with her luggage and accompanies her on the train ride. Unaware that he is traveling with Hassan, Yolande offers Mohsen a job painting her apartment. After arriving in the village, the men get a hotel room together and Mohsen decides to take the job to earn some cash before they move on to Paris. The painting job leads to lunch, then to a bed for the night, and then ultimately an offer of marriage.

This film feels false at every level. A very poor script and one dimensional performances by the actors, the film is simply boring and pretentious. This is a film that attempts for importance and instead achieves artificiality. The blame for this failure rests almost solely on the shoulders of Amor Hakkar, the writer, director, and lead actor.

There is nothing to indicate that these men are actually in love which should be the heart and soul of the film. After all, the catalyst for the story is that Mohsen and Hassan are so in love that they feel they can’t hide it anymore and they must flee Iran. There isn’t even a hint that the two men are romantically involved even when they are alone together in the hotel. They barely even speak to each other. Their greatest intimacy is a scene where Mohsen steps out of the shower in front of Hassan and Hassan places his hand on Mohsen’s shoulder. The film doesn’t need to be more explicit, but it does need to provide some sort of evidence that these men are in love. Even at the start of the film Hassan asks Mohsen if he would have waited for him if he had been late only to hear Mohsen’s answer that he would have left without him. Another filmmaker would have celebrated the new freedom the men were experiencing with some sort of physical interaction. Even the title of the film suggests that the men have an opportunity, even if it is brief, to be themselves. Then to confound the viewer and make the plot even more ridiculous, Mohsen actually sleeps with Yolande while Hassan is upstairs in the attic where he can hear what is taking place. I couldn’t help but wonder whether the filmmaker was interested in telling what he believed to be a politically relevant and also politically correct story while himself being unwilling to actually depict a real relationship between two men in love at the risk of appearing to be a homosexual himself. Amor Hakkar never captures what it means to be in a relationship.

The film also introduces story points that are left unresolved and ignores obvious lapses in logic. During the Q&A following the screening, Hakkar made matters worse when he deflected answering questions from the audience asking him about some of these gaps. His responses were patronizing and disclosed that he himself wasn’t quite sure where he was going with the story at times.

The superficiality of the film was underscored at the end of the film when a note tells the viewer what happens to Mohsen and Hassan. Rather than evoking emotion toward the characters, this note made me angry at the filmmaker. I felt that Hakkar was simply exploiting the characters for a political purpose. While that purpose may seem noble, this hollow film does nothing but belittle the cause.

The only compliment I have for this film is that the technical aspects of the film are adequate – though undistinguished.

In a Better World

In a Better World is an intense drama from director Susanne Bier and her co-screenwriter Anders Thomas Jensen. The film is a meditation on the choices between pacifism and violence that are faced in civilized societies as well as in extreme Third World situations.

Here’s the setup: The story follows two Danish families that are brought together as a result of a newly formed friendship between two boys, Christian and Elias. Both boys are coping with their own set of problems. Elias’ parents are teetering on the verge of divorce as a result of his father’s infidelity, and he is the target of relentless bullying at school. Christian's mother recently lost her battle with cancer and he has returned to Denmark with his father whom he blames for "giving up" on his mother. Also, Elias’ father, Anton, is a doctor who spends much of his time working at a refugee camp in Africa. While in the refugee camp much of his work involves treating the victims of a local warlord who cuts open the bellies of pregnant women for fun.

Upon this backdrop, the plot is set into motion. Christian stands up for Elias using a bike pump to pummel the boy bullying Elias and a hunting knife to threaten him. Problem solved. Don’t jump to that conclusion too quickly. The consequence of revenge gone "good" can turn into something altogether bad. Also, Anton is a pacifist and even treats the wounds of the monstrous warlord in Africa. So when he is hit in the face by a belligerent man in Denmark in front of the two boys, he does not strike back and walks away.

The film compares the brutality Anton witnesses in Africa with Christian’s escalating anti-social behavior. In a Better World contemplates this moral dilemma. Is it always best to help someone in need? Is revenge ever the proper course of action? The answers may seem obvious but they aren’t. In some instances there just might not be a "right" answer.

The acting from the entire ensemble is superb. Each actor is very human and complex and brings compelling dignity to their characters. The young actors are particularly excellent. In his film debut, Johnk Nielsen as Christian is an incredibly threatening young man unwilling to settle for anything other than revenge. He is mad at the world and has no tolerance for anyone that crosses him. Alternately is Markus Rygaard who plays Elias with sweetness and innocence. After being bullied most of this life he’s just happy to have a friend and is willing to do anything to make Christian happy.

In a Better World delves into matters of fear, revenge, forgiveness and passiveness and it will have you looking at the world around you and wondering if we're better off now than we were before. Where have our advancements in technology and medicine gotten us? To a place where we are all living in harmony or someplace much scarier? This is an emotionally ravaging film in which the lines become blurred as it explores our human instincts and our interpretation of knowing what is right and what is wrong.

The Best and The Worst of Sundance 2011

Sundance 2011 officially concluded on Sunday with three screenings in Salt Lake though for the filmmakers the festival really ended on Saturday evening with the awards ceremony. While my festival experience is still fresh and clearly visible in the rearview mirror, I want to capture the high points and the low points of this year’s film festival. The festival awards reflect the opinions of the jury members and the greater consensus of all festival goers. I’ll let those films and their awards speak for themselves. The films that I will mention in this post will include my five favorite films of the festival and also the five films of the festival that in my opinion, simply put – sucked.

With a film festival as large as Sundance, if it impossible to see all of the films. I took advantage of every opportunity I had to see a film and managed to view a total of 37 features along with a handful of shorts. I felt like there were some common themes in many of the films that I watched – particularly with the films that I enjoyed the most. Both documentary and dramatic films explored the dynamics of power and control in personal relationships and within the larger national and global political landscape. When is it okay to surrender power? When is it appropriate to fight to gain power and control? What things are worth fighting for? When do you turn the other cheek? What would you do when you feel like you are powerless? What strategies are you willing to use in your struggle? And possibly the most important question of them all: as you engage in these battles of power delivering as well as receiving cuts and bruises, who and what actions are you willing to forgive?

So with that introduction, here is my list of the best films of the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. One more thing, I will be providing full reviews of the best films during the coming week. Now queue the drum roll please………………

1. In a Better World. This was the film that I was most excited to see during the festival. I went into the screening with very high expectations and this film managed to exceed them all. Susanne Bier has crafted a deeply moving film. The characters are fully developed and I quickly felt like I knew these people intimately. Creating this intimacy between the characters and the audience is something that Susanne Bier does better than any other filmmaker. I’m not sure how she accomplishes it but the result is a cinematic experience of extreme depth. Great actors are essential to her storytelling and the acting here is some of best you’ll see in contemporary cinema – particularly the performances from the children. This film is currently nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. See this film.

2. Happy, Happy. Another great film out of Scandinavia – this time from Norway and from the 28-year old director Anne Sewitsky. This film is hilarious, heartbreaking, and finally hopeful as it tells the story of two couples and their children. The comedy comes at a cost though and it cuts deep. I felt the force of the cuts as this story about the dynamics of relationships unfolds. These are complex characters and complex relationships. The title of the film is definitely ironic, however I still left the film feeling satisfied and hopeful for all of the characters.

3. Take Shelter. This is a film that taps into the paranoia that exists in society today – something is happening or about to happen and it is not likely to be good. Worst of all, things seems to be outside of our control. Is this paranoia rational or is it the onset of some sort of collective schizophrenia? Writer/Director Jeff Nichols’ brilliant film tells the story of one family and how these forces threaten to tear them apart. This is a beautifully shot and engaging film and with performances by Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastian that are likely to be recognized at next year’s Academy Awards.

4. If a Tree Falls / How to Die in Oregon (tie). I know I’m cheating a little bit by selecting two documentaries for my number 4 ranking, but I just couldn’t separate them. “If a Tree Falls” tells the story of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) through the personal story of one of its members. “How to Die in Oregon” is about the right to die law in Oregon and while the film introduces us to many people, the heart of the film belongs to a woman named Cody who is losing her battle with liver cancer. Both films grapple with big issues and ask similar questions regarding activism, personal choice and responsibility.

5. Salvation Boulevard. This film is a hilarious satire of Christian fanaticism. It is a story about a megachurch whose charismatic minister’s plans for his “City on a Hill” are about to come unraveled. This film has a cast any director would die for. The script is smart and funny from beginning to end. I loved every minute of this film.

The worst films of the festival are:

1. The Ledge. This is a thrill-less thriller that pretends to profoundly deal with the conflict between Atheism and Faith (in this case specifically Christianity). The film is full of immature adolescent ideas and it delivers them all to the audience in a preposterous story that is poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed…………you get the idea. However, I have had a lot of fun ridiculing this film during the festival so maybe that counts for something.

2. I’ll Melt with You. Yet another poorly acted and poorly written story about four forty-something men – college friends – who meet for their annual “guys-only week” where anything goes. Each man is experiencing their own midlife crisis. During the course of the week they decide to act on a suicide pact they made 25 years earlier. The film is loud, pretentious, chaotically edited and it is a piece of crap.

3. The Son of No One. This is a mess of a cop film with a plot that doesn’t make any sense that lacks any real inherent drama. The cast suggests a much better film and includes Al Pacino, Juliette Binoche, Ray Liotta, Katie Holmes, and Channing Tatum. Katie Holmes out acts them all which isn’t saying much since all she does is yell convincingly at her husband with whom she has absolutely no chemistry.

4. Hobo with a Shotgun. When you see a film in the Park City at Midnight category of the festival you generally expect to see some campy horror film. This film was campy but it was one of the most hateful movies that I’ve seen. The extreme and relentless violence inflicted on women and children made the film simply unbearable especially when the film was supposed to be campy fun. Let’s just say that I’ve seen one school bus of children too many being torched.

5. A Few Days of Respite. I’ll write a full review of this film later but until then just know that this film actually made me angry. The film tells the story two Iranian gay men that are in exile due to their homosexuality and while traveling in France one of the men is befriended by a French woman in a small village. There is plenty about this film to criticize all of which ultimately come down to the fact that I believe that the writer/director/lead actor is probably actually a homophobe.

Overall it was a great year at the festival and in one more year I’ll be more than ready to do it all over again.

The "WTF?" Factor: Nine Muses

Do you have what it takes to go Plotless? Every year, Sundance's "New Frontier" series invites us to be boggled, puzzled, and provoked. This year, the "WTF?" factor was high.

Waves of African and Asian Immigrants to Britain, glorious shots of pristine Alaskan landscape, quotes from Shakespeare and Beckett, constantly crescendoing, ominous sub-woofer groans:

What do all of these have in common? Good question. That is the point.

During Josh Akomfrah's Nine Muses (recently picked up by New Wave Films), my mind raced between the images, trying desperately to construct some sort of coherent or even intriguing narrative. Here we are looking at these Gore-Tex-clad wanderers as they look at the landscape. This "Look at the Lookers" trick is as old as Caspar David Friedrich's "Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog" form the early 1800's. So what do we see?

The film is frustratingly opaque, which is not a bad thing. This kind of mental narrative-building exercise is fantastic for the mind. But the film is a strange combination of ambiguous and over-determined. Akomfrah also manages to lay it on pretty thick with images of burning buildings, racial riots, and kids in the dirt. So the film is a paradox--heavy-handed and opaque.

And LOUD. Holy Mother of Eardrums. Half of the audience had their hands over their ears. Every swelling opera aria was like having a tooth drilled, every ominous musical groan (every other shot or so) caused physical pain. I began to dread any new scene--tears were streaming down my face. Not because I was moved, but because I was going deaf.

This volume problem probably had to do with the staff at the Broadway Cinemas, but the filmmaker was in the room with us, watching as we covered our ears and shrank into our seats. Did he enjoy watching us writhe? Was he just being polite to his Sundance hosts, not wanting to come off like a prima donna? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, but it ruined the movie.

I was intrigued buy the juxtaposition, the images of the desolate wasteland and the archival shots of immigrants coming to what they thought was the promised land. I liked the order imposed upon the pictures by the names of the muses. Mental work is good, and the photography was wonderful.

But I can't work when I am in pain. I was ready to hand in my credentials as a lover of experimental film and go watch "Laverne and Shirley." With the sound off.

Sundance Review: Take Shelter

This movie is one to watch. If it doesn't get heaps and heaps of praise then there is no God. In the US Dramatic Competition, it's in a league of its own. Michael Shannon's Oscar worthy performance is one I'll not soon forget. Jessica Chastain brings a warmth and kindness to this film that is equally as impressive. The cinematography is perfect to set the tone for this commentary on relationships and the strength of love. The director was charming and was a genuine down-to-earth kinda guy. If I were on the jury this would be my pic to win the Jury Prize. (5 out of 5)

P.S. Michael Shannon reminded me a little of Daniel Day Lewis in "There Will Be Blood" and the themes and several scenes reminded me of last year's hit "Inception".

"All Your Dead Ones" is DOA IMHO

First movie I have walked out of. Not because I found it offensive-- unless incredibly boring and pretentious qualifies as offensive. The best thing I've heard from those that made it through the whole film is "at least we all had a good snooze".

The premise is intriguing: a man discovers a heap of dead bodies in a field. He then goes on an absurd quest to report it to the authorities. The film is billed as "a disquieting allegory. A silent indictment of Columbia's ongoing civil war." What I saw was too much silence and extremely heavy handed allegory. I would rather see a documentary about it than a self-indulgent film school piece.

I know it's not fair to critique the film based on 25 minutes, but this is the only film I've walked out of, so that must be worth a post.



- Posted from iPhone

Location:Sundance

A question from the lady in the burqa

In the Q&A after last night's screening of "The Ledge," director Matthew Chapman just couldn't wait for "the lady in the burqa" to ask a question. "C'mon! You've gotta have a question!" he said. I'm sure he was expecting something commending him for his brave portrayal of Evangelical fundamentalism and its violent consequences (notably that Liv Tyler and her lover have their lives threatened. He jumps off the ledge, she lives. He doesn't, she gets shot. )

But burqa lady did not take the bait. Maybe it was because she was wearing tight jeans, high heels, and a white headscarf. Maybe she thought there was actually some other burqa-clad woman in the 495 seat auditorium. Too bad for Mr Chapman and his burqa baiting. I'm sure it would have been a treat to witness a philosophic discussion on the merits of agnostic humanism.

Oh well, we'll have to content ourselves with the profundities in "The Ledge":

1. The loss of a loved one is tragic.
2. The universe is big.
3. Gays are often discriminated against.
4. Gravity hurts.
5. Liv Tyler has nice lips.

After exiting the movie, a fellow movie-goer told me that he chose to see "The Ledge" because his girlfriend said that if he didn't see it soon, someone might spoil it for him. Little did he know that that person would be the screenwriter and director.

Here's all you need to know about the plot:
A guy is on a ledge. He is supposed to jump before noon or else someone dies. It's, like 10:30 so that gives him just enough time to tell a detective (Terrance Howard) his story in a series of flashbacks, interrupted only by cell phone calls from the detective's wife wanting to explain why she got herself knocked up by his brother. "And then what happened?"
Who cares? Lots of improbable narrative and poorly written dialog, that's what.

Plenty of people liked the movie. But then, plenty of people are stupid.


- Posted from iPhone

Location:Sundance

Sundance Review: Jess + Moss

Let me start this review by saying that this is the first film this year to make me cry. I had read other reviews of it and was like “A New Frontier film made them cry, riiiight.” Nevertheless, I was intrigued. I remained skeptical throughout the film all the while thinking how that this was one of the most beautiful films I’d ever seen (and I watch hundreds of movies a year). Still it takes a little more to make me cry. It was a rough time of day to be watching a film with pacing like this (3:00pm in the afternoon is when I’m usually the sleepiest). However with other slower-paced films like ones by Kelly Reichardt (“Wendy and Lucy”, “Old Joy”, and “Meek’s Cuttoff”) you don’t get quite as artistic cinematography as this film, which ultimately makes the pacing more bearable. In other films you are entirely reliant on the characters and their situations. Somehow, I felt this movie wasn’t as character driven as those films. It felt very near to them though (it also reminded me of “Alamar” by Pedro Gonzalez-Rubio and “Everyone Else” by Maren Ade). It wasn’t until the end when I realized how emotionally invested I became in the story, that I realized the characters were the emotional heart of this movie. I was stunned by this realization. I have to say it has been one of the few films this year that has stuck with me, and I hope to be able to experience it again sometime. (Perhaps Film Movement will snatch this one up).

These are the kinds of movies that sense the winds of change in film and move the media forward in blending more artful cinematography with simple and profound storytelling. (5 out of 5).

P.S. I recorded the Q&A and hope to post it on the blog also very soon.

Sundance Review: Another Happy Day

This movie was fantastic. I loved the witty dialogue. I loved that there were pieces of my own family that I recognized. I loved the complexity of the story. Basically, I loved it.

Ellen Burstyn will hopefully be nominated for best supporting actress for this next year. She was perfect and in many ways reminded me of my own grandma (whom I love dearly). Equally the screenplay was expertly written. It may be a bit too raw for some people’s tastes. It explores how divorce affects a family in a very real way. It explores mental disorder in a sometimes comedic but honest way, and it explores the family dynamic in ways that will make anyone rethink how they treat and are treated by those who are closest to them. (5 out of 5).

Sundance Review: Restoration

Restoration is a good film. The characters are compelling; the story is told beautifully and artfully. The director was charming at the Q&A. Somehow all of those things should end up with me loving this movie, but unfortunately I didn’t love it, I just liked it.

What makes a movie resonate with its’ audience in a way they come away loving the film? There are many factors for me. First and foremost there must be a compelling story with believable dialogue and layered characters. Next, there must be some art to it (e.g. cinematography, mise en scene, musical score). Finally, there must be some self-identification; at the very least empathy for the explicated human condition on screen. This is where I struggled with Restoration.
The story hinges on a relationship between a father and son. The father restores antique wooden furniture. The son is a businessman. Here is how I read the movie. The father is a hard-working, short fused, independent man. He loves his son, but didn’t teach his son how to restore furniture when he was growing up. The father’s partner Max has run the business end of things poorly (perhaps spending profits/loans on prostitution rather than keeping the business solvent). The son has consulted with the father’s partner Max, and Max calls him his son. The property that the furniture restoration is on is worth millions, and the son wants to develop it into apartments and make some money. The son seems to hardly respect his father at all. He tells him that he’s nothing without his partner Max. He admits his motivations are out of greed: he wants an inheritance for his own child’s sake. He nearly smashes one of the most valuable pieces of furniture in the shop out of jealousy. Through all of this he makes the plea that even though he has made mistakes he’s still the father’s son. This sense of entitlement is so off-putting to me. He had very little redeeming qualities that made me hope for a restoration of their relationship. Even the restoration that does happen seems a fleeting one. The decision to sell the piano and close his shop only seems a temporary fix to a much larger issue. Quite frankly I think the father does a disservice to his child by not teaching him to become self-reliant. I try to relate this story to myself. I have not planned my life around waiting for some inheritance from my parents. I don’t treat my parents like garbage because they don’t succumb to my every whim. At some point adult children have to realize that a parental relationship is as much give as it is take.

If anything this movie makes me angry. It should make me feel a sense of peace. I should feel a sense of restoration, but true restoration can only be reached when both sides make an effort (and NOT smashing a piano is not an effort, that’s just being an adult). (3 out of 5)

Old Cats: Lethargic Descent into Senility

If you’ve seen “The Maid” by the same director (which is a great film), then you understand the mood you are getting yourself into. The main character is Isadora, who is getting old and forgetful. Played perfectly by Belgica Castro, Isadora’s daughter is trying to get her mother to agree to sign over her apartment to her in exchange for help finding one that will fit help her bad hips, and fleeting mind. To be honest, I fell asleep and apparently missed the visit of her son and grandchild. I’m not old enough to fully appreciate this intimate a view of old age. I appreciate the filmmaker’s vision and craft and the acting, and the chance for a quick nap during a demanding Sundance schedule. (3 out of 5).

Martha Marcy May Marlene: Deep Cuts Don’t Heal Quickly

Elizabeth Olsen’ brave first performance alone makes this movie an important film to see. She effortlessly navigates the complex emotional/psychological milieu in which her character is placed. Her participation in a “cult” community leaves her deeply scarred, paranoid, confused and unstable. The movie plays much like a traditional thriller, however doesn’t quite have the twists and turns you expect from that genre. The cinematography of upstate New York is beautifully shot, and edited into an intriguing film. Not everyone will like the understated performances, or maybe frustrated at the lack of progress Martha makes in the film; I say to them: such is life. (4 out of 5).

The Bengali Detective: A Case for Scope-Creep

I wanted to like this documentary. There were many funny quirky moments, but there were several serious ones too as the main detective’s wife struggled with several health problems, and the detectives worked to solve a triple murder case. The filmmaker said his intention was to give you a feel for life in Kolkata, India. However I think it ended up being too much for one documentary, and the conflicting tones make it difficult to get a clear message. (3 out of 5)

If a Tree Falls: The Story of the Earth Liberation Front

There have been few documentaries that have made me as introspective as this one. Perhaps it was because I feared this movie would be an extreme environmental activist documentary, which it turned out not to be. It followed the story of Daniel McGowen, a key player in several ELF operations. More than an examination of the ELF, this documentary examines activism itself and questions whether peaceful protest is the most effective means. It also examines how government responses to activism can add fuel to the fire through their torturous treatment of non-violent protesters. With activism (which in this case was branded terrorism), sometimes violent protest is a double-edged sword. (5 out of 5).

Incendies

Currently on the shortlist for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film, this film is definitely one of the top movies to play at Sundance. I started out skeptical of the large red chapter headings that seem so pervasive in French cinema (French Canadian in this case). Films like “Un Prophete”, and “Enter the Void” (both of which I loved), also use this strategic story-telling device, but the film has to be epic to pull it off. (It was). You don’t understand how masterful this movie really is until you start to see the fragments come together and you ultimately realize the depth of the tragedy. This is definitely a classic film that will standup as one of the great films of the new decade. (5 out of 5).

These Amazing Shadows: Sundance via Comcast

My partner and I watched this film Sunday morning before we headed down to the festival. A lovely documentary about the origins and selection process of the National Film Registry. If you love movies, then this is essential viewing (available on Comcast On-Demand) Insightful, and very well done; this would be perfect PBS Special. P.S. I was a little miffed that they explored the influence of women, native Americans and racial dynamics, but not sexual orientation. (4 out of 5).

Like Crazy: A Dazzling Love Poem

This film had me mesmerized from the very start. The first half was one of the most beautifully shot and executed telling of two young college students falling in love I’ve ever seen. This movie immediately evoked feelings I had in both “500 Days of Summer” and “Blue Valentine” . After the first act I was bracing myself for the filmmaker to completely destroy the beauty that he had just built, which would have been devastating. Fortunately for me he did not take this approach. The second half was equally as honest, with wonderful dialogue and a sublime musical score. This movie will definitely make an impact when it’s released. (4.5 out of 5).

The Guard: Cynical, Hysterical Cop Comedy

If Sundance teaches you anything, it teaches that you sometimes have to go with your gut in selecting a film. I nearly skipped this gem because of IndieWire’s lukewarm review, and I’m glad I didn’t. This movie was like Simon Pegg’s “Hot Fuzz” with a little more edge, and funnier gags. Brendon Gleeson was the perfect cast member, and Don Cheadle was an excellent supporting player. The story is about a somewhat unconventional cop played by Gleeson who gets involved in an international drug trafficking case when one of the suspects turns up dead in his jurisdiction. The movie clearly stays on the side of comedy without any searching depth of emotion like a similar film “In Bruges” made by the director’s brother a few years ago. Overall, a great addition to Sundance and the witty comedy genre. (4.5 out of 5).

Incendies: Not just another "Brave Broads in Burkas" Movie

I know what you are thinking...you cannot abide another "Brave Broads in Burkahs" movie. But do not let the saturation of Mid-East Melodramas keep you away from Incindies, Denis Villenueve's well-crafted and delicate film based on Wadji Mouawad's play.

The story follows two Canadian siblings who follow their late mother's wishes as they go to Lebanon to find their father and lost brother. This is not just your usual "re-connect with my cultural roots" trip, but a complex, dangerous navigation through a historically treacherous landscape.

The film reminds me in many ways of Wolfgang Staudte's 1946 German film "The Murderers are Among Us," as a woman tries to delve into the past traumas that lead to the present neuroses in everyone she meets. Everyday people--janitors, bus cleaners, family members--turn out to have been torturers, snipers, assassins, collaborators, and warlords. This is not only in Lebanon--even a harmless trip to a swimming pool in Canada brings people into collision with their past.

The brilliant thing about this film is the exposition in the narrative. We flash back and forth between three stories, three lives and three points of view, gradually understanding the horrifying way that the three worlds connect. Yes, there are flashes of the horrors of war and terrorism, but this film is really a mystery when all is said and done. And, like the greatest mystery stories, the detective is viscerally, humanly obsessed and involved in the process of solution.

Kudos for the brilliant warmth that the main character brings to her character--not just a wide-eyed victim, but a woman so determined that she cannot bother to hide her self doubt. The nicest thing about the film, though, is that it does not fall into the role of political vindication. The whole thing is shot in Jordan, and the film places the particularities of the Lebanese political situation into the background. This makes the story intensely personal and universal--not just a story of a particular family in a particularly horrible conflict, but a picture of family in conflict.

Sundance: Incendies

Just a quick note on "Incendies".
It is epic. I wanted to hate it but I couldn't. I'll let someone else post on it.


- Posted from iPhone

Location:SLC

Shorts Program 1: Fight for your right to be crass

A man in drag births a dummy, a cartoon boy gets beheaded by a frisbee, a lactose intolerant woman stuck in a girdle connects with her post- suicidal doctor, six A-listers get into a pissing match (literally)--these are just a few of the scenes in Shorts Program 1.

"That was disgusting!" said a woman behind me as the final credits rolled. She was right, but that didn't stop her from laughing through half the shorts.

The gem, in my opinion, is Lake Bell's "Worst Enemy"--a quirky sweet tale of a socially awkward woman looking to connect with the world.

In contrast, "The Terrys" "The external world" and "Fight for your right revisited" are crass proof that you still can shock an audience (even if they laugh the whole time).

"Fight... " has 39 stars. I have no idea how they managed to coordinate their schedules. They poke fun at the Beastie Boys classic, but the joke wears thin. It's hard not to overindulge so much talent.

"The External World" makes Bunuel's "Un Chien Andaloux" look quaint. Pure schizo animated madness.

Not all shorts are meant to be launching pads for feature length films, but of the 6 in this program , Lake Bell's work gets my vote. The others would just be pure punishment.


- Posted from iPhone

Location:SLC

Happy, Happy: Best of the Festival

This one is a MUST see especially for all you Danish/Norwegian/Swedish Film Lovers. Perfectly constructed, this film is funny but has a deep dark side that will shake you to the core. Also, a good closeted gay "hunter" thrown in for good measure. This film could compete at any festival, and will hopefully be submitted by that country for the Foreign Language Film Oscar next year.

If you liked this film, you'd love "Terribly Happy" too which was just released last year and is one of the best foreign language films of last year.

Lost Kisses: Student film that lacks clear direction

Started out like an Almodovar film, but it was not thematically coherant, and the ending was too predictable. If Sundance is church, this movie was a not my choice of religion.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Sundance screening: Lost Kisses

Just saw the Italian film Lost Kisses. The consensus is not great. The lead (a new discovery) is charismatic and manages to carry a film that doesn't know whether it wants to channel Almodovar or social realism. I gave it two stars. The opening scene, done from the point of view of a rather tacky Virgin Mary statue at her unveiling, is truly wonderful. After that, we get a disjointed mess.

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

There is a Christmas song that I remember listening to frequently as a child. It was from an Andy Williams Christmas album that my family played over and over on an old big console stereo. In one of the songs from the album Andy sang out (backed by an overly jubilant choir) the lyrics “It’s the most wonderful time of the year!” As a child Christmas was the most wonderful time of the year. I still enjoy Christmas but I no longer feel the same child-like intense anticipation that I used to feel. Now I feel that anticipation for the third week of January each year when the Sundance Film Festival begins. For 10 days my world is filled with wonder and excitement. I look forward to each film just as I would look forward to my Christmas presents – sometimes I get just what I want, sometimes I get something much better than I had expected, and sometimes I am dazzled by the flashy promotion a film is wrapped in only to be disappointed when it doesn’t live up to its promise.

I am a longtime Festival attendee. I hate to date myself because that forces me to acknowledge the fact that I really am getting old, but I first started attending the Sundance Film Festival during my college days. That was just over 20 years ago! Since then I have attended the festival every year missing only once – the result of a poor decision to move to California. During those early years I’d see a couple of films during each festival but it didn’t take long for the addiction to sink its hooks deep into me. Before long I was buying festival ticket packages and passes and seeing an average of 30 feature films and a dozen or so shorts during the festival. I’ve seen as many as 44 feature films during a single festival. The adrenaline rush of the festival experience gets me through it all but I always end it exhausted. But for me it is all worth it.

The 2011 Sundance Film Festival begins today. Based on the current plan I’ve laid out for myself I will be seeing 40 films. I’m sure I’ll see some great films, but the film that I’m most excited to see this year is one that is screening outside of competition as part of a recently added festival category called “Spotlight”. Sundance added this category last year to feature films that have been popular at other film festivals during the last year. Susanne Bier is a Danish filmmaker that I absolutely love and her new film “In a Better World” will be screening in this category and I can’t wait to see it. I’ve got a “thing” for Scandinavian cinema – particularly Danish films. I’m not sure why they speak to me the way they do. Maybe I was Dane in a previous life because something about the Danish culture and worldview resonates with me. And of the contemporary Danish directors, Susanne Bier is my favorite. She came to Sundance in 2003 with her film “Open Hearts” and again in 2005 with “Brothers” which won the World Cinema Audience award that year. Ms. Bier is also a member of the World Cinema Jury at this year’s festival.

For any of you out there that enjoy international cinema and can’t make it to the festival but still want to have a Sundance experience, I highly recommend that you take the next 10 days to watch the films of Susanne Bier on video. My personal favorite is “Brothers”. Don’t confuse the recent American remake with the much superior Danish film which she both wrote and directed. Her film is immensely better in every respect. So whether you liked or disliked the remake, see the original Danish film and I promise that you will not be disappointed. And if you didn’t see the remake, then you didn’t miss a thing and jump right into the 2005 film.

Susanne Bier’s films currently available on video are:

• Open Hearts
• Brothers (Brodre)
• After the Wedding (Academy Award nominated)
• Things We Lost in the Fire (her only U.S. made film)

With my demanding viewing schedule, it will be too overwhelming for me to post reviews or commentary during the festival. However after the festival, I will post my overall impressions of this year’s event and a list of what I consider to be the best and worst of this year’s festival program.

Sundance: A Gay Old Time

The fact that the Westboro Baptist Church has announced it will be protesting at Sundance says something about how homocentric the festival is. The Festival Director, John Cooper, is gay. Several gay directors have premiered their gay movies there: Lisa Cholendenko ("The Kids are Alright"), Lee Daniels ("Precious"), Greg Araki ("The Living End", "Mysterious Skin", "Kaboom"), Gasper Noe ("Irreversile","Enter the Void" ) and this year’s Dee Rees (“Pariah”), Jess Peretz (“My Idiot Brother”), Maryam Keshavarz (“Circumstance”), and Amor Hakkar (“A Few Days of Respite”). One movie title is even a lesbian personal add "Codependent Lesbian Space Alien Seeks Same". Those who’ve attended the festival know that a large percentage of the audiences are gay. I say this every year, but if it weren’t for the gays, the Sundance Film Festival would hardly exist.

Realize that being gay isn’t the only reason I go to Sundance (even though really I view it as “Gay General Conference”). I go because I am obsessed with movies. I’m not exactly sure why but it has something to do with my love of art, beauty, poetry, music, and witty dialogue (oh, and sex, and violence). Isn’t that why people go to church?

Why Sundance Hates Provo

When a European friend recently told a Park City retailer that she was teaching in Provo for a semester, the man recoiled in horror and said "Oh, God, not Provo! I do anything I can never to go to Provo! It is so homogeneous, so damned Mormon, stay away! How can you visit America and live in Provo?"

Can any good come out of Provo? OK: on most days I hate Provo, too. But I will save my usual cheap rants on Red-State staples such as sprawl, Escalades and Florida Entryways. I live here, and I am proud of our quirky-in-spite-of-it-all local personalities, our (barely functioning but still existing) downtown, the fact that we have(well, we had) a gothic(esque) church (burned-out shell of a tabernacle) in the center of our city.

Provo has surprising oasis-spots of funk hidden in the stretches of suburban wasteland. Communal Restaurant would still draw rave reviews if it were in the Haight. Even--gasp--BYU has a thriving International Cinema, tons of film students, some of whom will actually beat out U of U students and get into great grad programs.

Provo should not be written off. I am trying to bloom where I am planted, dammit.

Every January, we film enthusiasts from Utah's third city have a choice: we can either sit here with our thumbs in our butts or we can make the harrowing drive to the Broadway or the Rose Wagner every night and so that we can use our "Locals" pass.

The UTA Bus "Express" is every bit as beholden to the whims of traffic as any car on the road. So I get in my super-sexy brown mini van and I drive. I drive and watch and drive and watch and drive. My carbon footprint is Sasquatch-esque.

Ogden, home of Weber State U (that internationally acclaimed intellectual and educational Mecca) gets their Peery Theater included on the locals pass. Even Laytonites can get to a Sundance film in 20 minutes.

The Problem: SLC, Park City and even Ogden residents are "localer-than-thou."

The Solution: Make Sundance Resort a local venue!

I'm not asking for screenings in the Gozongaplexes of Provo's Malls, but why is the screening room at Sundance resort not counted on the locals pass? Why do we have to buy extra tickets to go to our local venue as locals? Sundance is just a jaunt up the canyon from us, and still in Utah County (I think).

Open up more screening rooms up there. We promise to take UTA up the canyon, and not to mock the fur mukluks that wander down from the Park City crowd. And we will leave our guns, our multiple wives, our eight kids, and our Ford Exploitations and Chevy Subdivisions back in our 12-car garages.

If Sundance & Co really want to change the way that Americans experience the cinema, it needs to stop preaching to the Patagonia-clad choir and open a cultural mission to Provo. Homogeneous Provo, so damned Mormon in so many ways, but every bit as local as Ogdenites, Salt Lakers, and those oh-so-glamorous bleach-blond retailers who sell turquoise-encrusted sunglasses to Paris Hilton.