By some fluke of nature I'm still awake after a very long day at Ebertfest. (I said awake, not lucid, so keep that in mind.) Rather than break down the day film by film, an undertaking best left for later, I'll pinpoint some of the top moments.
Since it's too late to order a pizza, I've come to Steak 'n Shake, which, as I write this at 2:00 a.m. (posting at 3:00), is almost full with what looks to be the post-prom crowd. The two nights I've been here I haven't run into Ebert with guests in tow. There, now the environment is set.
The night was capped with Werner Herzog's most recent feature INVINCIBLE and a post-film discussion with the legendary German director. It seems a cruel trick of scheduling that the longest film of the day comes at the end, starting at 10:00 p.m. even. Somehow, though, I felt pretty good at a point in the festival when I usually need to pry open my eyelids with toothpicks. All right, so I did start to get drowsy with thirty minutes to go. But a funny thing happened when Ebert and Herzog took the stage. I was transfixed to their conversation, and the rest of the audience seemed to be as well. Virtually no one left despite the late hour. Critic and director stayed on stage for an hour and a quarter, yet no complaints would have been voiced if they continued.
Herzog, of course, had a number of fascinating anecdotes about his childhood, moviemaking career, and experiences with Klaus Kinski. Some were familiar--the Kinski stories in MY BEST FIEND, for instance. The others, well, you'll just have to trust me. It's hard enough this time of night remembering to look for the traffic lights off to the side here, let alone recalling Herzog's long stories. Suffice it to say that he did not disappoint.
Herzog the man is what you would expect from his films. The films are him. That's also the impression I had of Errol Morris, who was here with GATES OF HEAVEN. Having renowned filmmakers like this at the festival, on the same day no less, makes it a must for the film buff. Throw in Al Pacino via telephone from Los Angeles, Enzo (the dog from FRASIER and, more relevantly, fest selection MY DOG SKIP, and previous festival guests Eric Byler (CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES director, STONE READER subject Dow Mossman, and AMERICAN MOVIE'S Mark Borchardt and Mike Shank, and you know that something special is happening. And I didn't even mention the day's two other directors, noted publicist Bobby Zarem, and Sony Pictures Classics co-president Michael Barker.
OK, so the audience portion of the post-film discussions mostly range from rambling statements of appreciation/adoration to incredibly convoluted questions that no one can make sense of. One guy provided a lengthy explanation of how GATES OF HEAVEN reminded him of the novel THE LITTLE PRINCE and wondered if Morris had that in mind when making the film. Morris' amusing answer was a slyly sarcastic yes.
It's the rare opportunity, though, to see these films and their filmmakers in a great theater with a respectful and enthusiastic audience that makes Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival a highlight of my moviegoing year.
This will be my last update from the Urbana Eastland Suites' lounge. More festival info, reflections, and ephemera to come later on Sunday at the earliest.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Posting Delays
I hit the proverbial wall last night--drop dead tired and needing to sleep--so my Friday report will be delayed until late tonight or sometime on Sunday. Expect the latter. I've handwritten about much of yesterday's goings-on, but computer access and time are very limited. I blew off this morning's panel so I could get around eight hours of sleep. For another site with reports on Ebertfest, check out the local newspaper.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Leftovers
A couple items from the first two days that I haven't found room for previously...
TARNATION'S Jonathan Caouette mentioned that he intends for his next film to be a parapsychological horror film. He may shoot it with a new camera that uses Memory Sticks that mimic 35mm film.
Anne V. Coates told the story of the LAWRENCE OF ARABIA dailies showing up with fingerprints all over them. Producer Sam Spigelman had everyone on the camera crew fingerprinted but none matched. He then had everyone at the lab fingerprinted, but still none of the prints matched. Finally, he had those at the Eastman Kodak plant in Rochester, New York fingerprinted. Bingo! Apparently a new employee there, who was working in the dark, would periodically grad hold of the film to make sure that it was where it needed to be, leaving his fingerprints all over the film. Coates pointed out that she could still see one of the fingerprints in the print that showed Wednesday night.
Walking from the Illini Union to my car, I heard the noontime university bells playing..."Fly Me to the Moon". Not exactly what one would expect.
Two morning panels and TULLY, Buster Keaton's THE GENERAL with The Alloy Orchestra's live accompaniment, the Keaton homage short THE SCAPEGOAT, and EL NORTE are on tap today.
TARNATION'S Jonathan Caouette mentioned that he intends for his next film to be a parapsychological horror film. He may shoot it with a new camera that uses Memory Sticks that mimic 35mm film.
Anne V. Coates told the story of the LAWRENCE OF ARABIA dailies showing up with fingerprints all over them. Producer Sam Spigelman had everyone on the camera crew fingerprinted but none matched. He then had everyone at the lab fingerprinted, but still none of the prints matched. Finally, he had those at the Eastman Kodak plant in Rochester, New York fingerprinted. Bingo! Apparently a new employee there, who was working in the dark, would periodically grad hold of the film to make sure that it was where it needed to be, leaving his fingerprints all over the film. Coates pointed out that she could still see one of the fingerprints in the print that showed Wednesday night.
Walking from the Illini Union to my car, I heard the noontime university bells playing..."Fly Me to the Moon". Not exactly what one would expect.
Two morning panels and TULLY, Buster Keaton's THE GENERAL with The Alloy Orchestra's live accompaniment, the Keaton homage short THE SCAPEGOAT, and EL NORTE are on tap today.
Ebertfest, Day 2
Day 2, the first full day of the festival, produced a brisk and wet spring morning, establishing the kind of day that makes you glad you're spending most of it inside a movie theater. Two academic discussions were held at the Illini Union. Much to my surprise, all of the good seats in the Pine Lounge were taken by the time of my arrival (about fifteen minutes before the discussions were to start). The Elderhostel attendees were out in full force, making a campus event look like it was being held at a senior center.
I had forgotten that that this festival tends to be attended by an older crowd than one would expect, especially since it is put on in conjunction with the university. I had also forgotten--or simply not realized--that most of the audience is comprised of locals rather than out-of-towners. The C-U residents still seem surprised that people like me know of the event and travel distances to get here. This lends the festival an intimate, small town atmosphere that provides a large part of its charm.
But back to the panels, briefly. The first, entitled "How to Make a Movie for Peanuts", was generally interesting. Many of the festival guests spoke about their experiences, with Ebert moderating the discussion. Gregory Nava and Anna Thomas, here with EL NORTE, shared anecdotes about the problems they encountered making the film. Primarily, Mexican gunmen took the negative during production and held it for ransom. Nava's father smuggled thirty thousand dollars in his socks over theh Mexican border so they could get the negative back. Anson Mount, star of TULLY pointed out that he has heard that dentists rank tops among the professions that fund independent films. Passion to tell one's story was stressed--and is quickly becoming a festival theme--as a key ingredient to getting one's film made.
Passion was also evident in the second discussion. MPAA President Jack Valenti spoke about piracy in the digital age. He delivered a speech that I expect he's given many times, but give him credit for being well spoken. (As an aside, he's very short.) The audience's questions, when they weren't combative position statements opposing Valenti's views, were pointed. All in all, it made for a lively discussion.
Onto the Virginia... I met with Jarod Musgrave, whose writing you might have come across at one point or another at DVD File. On the filmmaker spotting front, Mark Moskowitz, director of last year's Overlooked selection STONE READER, is here even though he doesn't have a proverbial horse in the race. I could have sworn I saw MY ARCHITECT director Nathaniel Kahn after the showing of THE SON (LE FILS). He introduced and participated in a Q&A for his Oscar-nominated documentary just this past Sunday at the Wexner Center, so I'm aware of what he looks like. I'll have to try and confirm this on Friday.
Today featured only three films. In other years, four films played each day Thursday through Saturday. As much as I love seeing as many different films as possible, the longer break meant I could get a decent sit down meal. Eating is underrated and, yes, overlooked when it comes to the festival. A late, late lunch (8:00 p.m.) of coconut chicken really hit the spot. It was a far cry better than last night's post-blog entry publishing meal of an orange Crush and some miniature Reese's Cups.
I should point out that I snatched, at best, five hours of sleep last night after posting here. I fear reading these reports in the light of day because they're probably very disjointed and rambling. Still, I want to get the flavor and the urgency of writing "against deadline" at Ebertfest. Perhaps it won't be great or meaningful writing, but I hope I can translate the bleary-eyed experience.
OK, the films... I sat in the front row for TARNATION but moved, for the first time in my fourth year of attendance, to the balcony for THE SON. Having seen the Dardenne Brothers' film before, I knew that I would be susceptible to getting motion sickness watching the handheld camerawork being that close to the screen. My view was partially obstructed--no, it wasn't a condition Lars von Trier set for me--by a plexiglass shield, but that was par for the course during the morning discussions. (I had the Bob Uekeresque behind-the-column seat, leaving me to hear, not see, Valenti.) I moved back to the floor and a distant six rows back for ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED.
OK, the films... Since I need to be getting to bed, go to the Ebertfest site for plot summaries. You can also check out the official festival blog for more information. I'd like to get in bed by 2:15--fifteen minutes from now--so I'll use this blog as I've always intended, that is, as a notebook. Here are some of the things I've jotted down about today's films.
TARNATION
-Portrait of three generations in this dysfunctional family that is free of the anger that typically marks this kind of confessional film.
-Emotionally naked and fearless. Director, editor, and the film's protagonist Jonathan Caouette puts himself out there for all to see to a startling degree.
-This is very much a director's and editor's film. Caouette, who made this on iMovie, proves he has the chops. This is a dazzling piece of work that proves that imagination is not limited by lack of money. (The film "cost" $218, although it required several hundred thousand dollars to clear the music and film/TV clips in it. Talk about an interesting tie-in to the argument regarding fair use in Valenti's morning talk.)
-Caouette uses music quite well, particularly "Wichita Lineman".
-His bathroom monologue near the film's end is quite moving. The rhyming scenes explaining the indentation on the upper lip and showing Caouette touching this on his mother are integrated in a remarkable fashion.
THE SON (LE FILS)
-Powerful depiction of the Christian ethos in practice.
-Seeing this for the second time I realized how little dialogue there is, but the words that are spoken pack a wallop. Seven words that Olivier says to the boy send a chill through the room. This minimal dialogue also is representative of how people slowly reveal things in conversation.
-Olivier Gourmet's controlled interior performance looks a lot easier than it must be. He is so natural, and paired with the film's style, you could be forgiven thinking that it is a documentary.
-I must have already known too much about THE SON when I saw it the first time as I didn't pick up on the thriller undercurrent that runs through it, even though it isn't that type of film at all.
ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED
-This slice of life in the black community during segregation is a celebration and reflection of ordinary people doing what they must to get by. It's full of pride rather than anger, which is a far different tack than we're used to seeing in film's about this period. (Actually, the lack of vicitimization echoes through the day's other two films.)
-Strongly evokes a time and place and juggles many characters well. While it's told from one person's viewpoint, this is a community's story, not an individual's.
-Tim Reid mentioned that the Hallmark Hall of Fame turned it down for being "too soft".
That's all for tonight. More to come about 24 hours from now...
I had forgotten that that this festival tends to be attended by an older crowd than one would expect, especially since it is put on in conjunction with the university. I had also forgotten--or simply not realized--that most of the audience is comprised of locals rather than out-of-towners. The C-U residents still seem surprised that people like me know of the event and travel distances to get here. This lends the festival an intimate, small town atmosphere that provides a large part of its charm.
But back to the panels, briefly. The first, entitled "How to Make a Movie for Peanuts", was generally interesting. Many of the festival guests spoke about their experiences, with Ebert moderating the discussion. Gregory Nava and Anna Thomas, here with EL NORTE, shared anecdotes about the problems they encountered making the film. Primarily, Mexican gunmen took the negative during production and held it for ransom. Nava's father smuggled thirty thousand dollars in his socks over theh Mexican border so they could get the negative back. Anson Mount, star of TULLY pointed out that he has heard that dentists rank tops among the professions that fund independent films. Passion to tell one's story was stressed--and is quickly becoming a festival theme--as a key ingredient to getting one's film made.
Passion was also evident in the second discussion. MPAA President Jack Valenti spoke about piracy in the digital age. He delivered a speech that I expect he's given many times, but give him credit for being well spoken. (As an aside, he's very short.) The audience's questions, when they weren't combative position statements opposing Valenti's views, were pointed. All in all, it made for a lively discussion.
Onto the Virginia... I met with Jarod Musgrave, whose writing you might have come across at one point or another at DVD File. On the filmmaker spotting front, Mark Moskowitz, director of last year's Overlooked selection STONE READER, is here even though he doesn't have a proverbial horse in the race. I could have sworn I saw MY ARCHITECT director Nathaniel Kahn after the showing of THE SON (LE FILS). He introduced and participated in a Q&A for his Oscar-nominated documentary just this past Sunday at the Wexner Center, so I'm aware of what he looks like. I'll have to try and confirm this on Friday.
Today featured only three films. In other years, four films played each day Thursday through Saturday. As much as I love seeing as many different films as possible, the longer break meant I could get a decent sit down meal. Eating is underrated and, yes, overlooked when it comes to the festival. A late, late lunch (8:00 p.m.) of coconut chicken really hit the spot. It was a far cry better than last night's post-blog entry publishing meal of an orange Crush and some miniature Reese's Cups.
I should point out that I snatched, at best, five hours of sleep last night after posting here. I fear reading these reports in the light of day because they're probably very disjointed and rambling. Still, I want to get the flavor and the urgency of writing "against deadline" at Ebertfest. Perhaps it won't be great or meaningful writing, but I hope I can translate the bleary-eyed experience.
OK, the films... I sat in the front row for TARNATION but moved, for the first time in my fourth year of attendance, to the balcony for THE SON. Having seen the Dardenne Brothers' film before, I knew that I would be susceptible to getting motion sickness watching the handheld camerawork being that close to the screen. My view was partially obstructed--no, it wasn't a condition Lars von Trier set for me--by a plexiglass shield, but that was par for the course during the morning discussions. (I had the Bob Uekeresque behind-the-column seat, leaving me to hear, not see, Valenti.) I moved back to the floor and a distant six rows back for ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED.
OK, the films... Since I need to be getting to bed, go to the Ebertfest site for plot summaries. You can also check out the official festival blog for more information. I'd like to get in bed by 2:15--fifteen minutes from now--so I'll use this blog as I've always intended, that is, as a notebook. Here are some of the things I've jotted down about today's films.
TARNATION
-Portrait of three generations in this dysfunctional family that is free of the anger that typically marks this kind of confessional film.
-Emotionally naked and fearless. Director, editor, and the film's protagonist Jonathan Caouette puts himself out there for all to see to a startling degree.
-This is very much a director's and editor's film. Caouette, who made this on iMovie, proves he has the chops. This is a dazzling piece of work that proves that imagination is not limited by lack of money. (The film "cost" $218, although it required several hundred thousand dollars to clear the music and film/TV clips in it. Talk about an interesting tie-in to the argument regarding fair use in Valenti's morning talk.)
-Caouette uses music quite well, particularly "Wichita Lineman".
-His bathroom monologue near the film's end is quite moving. The rhyming scenes explaining the indentation on the upper lip and showing Caouette touching this on his mother are integrated in a remarkable fashion.
THE SON (LE FILS)
-Powerful depiction of the Christian ethos in practice.
-Seeing this for the second time I realized how little dialogue there is, but the words that are spoken pack a wallop. Seven words that Olivier says to the boy send a chill through the room. This minimal dialogue also is representative of how people slowly reveal things in conversation.
-Olivier Gourmet's controlled interior performance looks a lot easier than it must be. He is so natural, and paired with the film's style, you could be forgiven thinking that it is a documentary.
-I must have already known too much about THE SON when I saw it the first time as I didn't pick up on the thriller undercurrent that runs through it, even though it isn't that type of film at all.
ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED
-This slice of life in the black community during segregation is a celebration and reflection of ordinary people doing what they must to get by. It's full of pride rather than anger, which is a far different tack than we're used to seeing in film's about this period. (Actually, the lack of vicitimization echoes through the day's other two films.)
-Strongly evokes a time and place and juggles many characters well. While it's told from one person's viewpoint, this is a community's story, not an individual's.
-Tim Reid mentioned that the Hallmark Hall of Fame turned it down for being "too soft".
That's all for tonight. More to come about 24 hours from now...
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Opening Night at Ebertfest
I'll keep this brief as my bed beckons me. Also, I'm writing this from the hotel lounge computer, so I don't want to hog it, not that there's going to be great demand at almost 1:30 a.m.
Prior to the screening of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, Roger Ebert talked on stage with Jack Valenti, the longtime head of the Motion Picture Association of America, for ten to fifteen minutes. Valenti has come under fire for the ratings system and the MPAA crackdown on file sharing, stances which earned him a few scattered hisses from the audience. The majority politely listened and clapped at various moments. As a special guest, Valenti received the first of this year's Silver Thumbs, a trophy that appears to be modeled on a life-size reproduction of Ebert's right hand giving a thumbs up.
The two friends bandied about a few issues, familiar stuff like the ratings system, piracy, and American films as exports. Nothing all that surprising to hear, although apparently an area theater chain is offering an "R card" that would allow parents to give their approval for their underage teenagers to attend R rated movies. The teens would receive a photo ID indicating that they were permitted to see such films. Valenti and Ebert object to the idea, for what it's worth.
There's no need for me to recap LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, but I do have a few thoughts on the film. The pristine 70mm print was a sight to behold. DVD is great and all, but it simply cannot compare to the theatrical experience, especially in a case like this. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA there are several scenes in which a key person or image is the maybe six inches tall on the screen, and that's on the big screen at the Virginia Theater. Needless to say, those portions of the picture are impossible to see at home, even if you have a big screen TV.
Computer generated effects are de rigeur in contemporary Hollywood and won't be going away, but there's something to be said for seeing the real thing. David Lean used hundreds--or was it thousands--of real extras, as opposed to their modern day CG brothers. There's a palpable difference in seeing the scope of the shots and the action actually unfolding in them. The first siege that Lawrence leads, seen in long shot, is a breathtaking sequence that would lose something with a bunch of ones and zeroes scurrying around in the background.
The classical filmmaking approach of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA puts forward a strong argument against the current trend of hyper editing. Lean creates a stronger sense of space and time through long takes of master shots and extreme wide shots. There's little room for this kind of pacing in today's mainstream films, perhaps from fear of waning audience attention spans, yet the luxurious pacing of Lean's never feels slow or drudgerous. Instead it begs to be paid attention.
Joining Ebert on stage for the post-film discussion were Robert Harris, a noted film restorationist who saved LAWRENCE OF ARABIA from disappearing forever, and the film's editor, the great Anne V. Coates. Coates was something of a surprise guest and a real treat for the cineastes in attendance. Take a look at her IMDB filmography to see the many wonderful films on which she has worked.
A couple of tidbits from this discussion...LAWRENCE OF ARABIA had a shooting ratio of 9:1. The original negative and original continuity could not be located when Harris went to restore the film, so Coates' participation was extremely important in making sure it could survive.
Time for me to hit the sack. TARNATION, THE SON (LE FILS), and ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED are all on tap for Thursday, as well as a couple morning panels for which I'll drag myself out of bed early.
Prior to the screening of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, Roger Ebert talked on stage with Jack Valenti, the longtime head of the Motion Picture Association of America, for ten to fifteen minutes. Valenti has come under fire for the ratings system and the MPAA crackdown on file sharing, stances which earned him a few scattered hisses from the audience. The majority politely listened and clapped at various moments. As a special guest, Valenti received the first of this year's Silver Thumbs, a trophy that appears to be modeled on a life-size reproduction of Ebert's right hand giving a thumbs up.
The two friends bandied about a few issues, familiar stuff like the ratings system, piracy, and American films as exports. Nothing all that surprising to hear, although apparently an area theater chain is offering an "R card" that would allow parents to give their approval for their underage teenagers to attend R rated movies. The teens would receive a photo ID indicating that they were permitted to see such films. Valenti and Ebert object to the idea, for what it's worth.
There's no need for me to recap LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, but I do have a few thoughts on the film. The pristine 70mm print was a sight to behold. DVD is great and all, but it simply cannot compare to the theatrical experience, especially in a case like this. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA there are several scenes in which a key person or image is the maybe six inches tall on the screen, and that's on the big screen at the Virginia Theater. Needless to say, those portions of the picture are impossible to see at home, even if you have a big screen TV.
Computer generated effects are de rigeur in contemporary Hollywood and won't be going away, but there's something to be said for seeing the real thing. David Lean used hundreds--or was it thousands--of real extras, as opposed to their modern day CG brothers. There's a palpable difference in seeing the scope of the shots and the action actually unfolding in them. The first siege that Lawrence leads, seen in long shot, is a breathtaking sequence that would lose something with a bunch of ones and zeroes scurrying around in the background.
The classical filmmaking approach of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA puts forward a strong argument against the current trend of hyper editing. Lean creates a stronger sense of space and time through long takes of master shots and extreme wide shots. There's little room for this kind of pacing in today's mainstream films, perhaps from fear of waning audience attention spans, yet the luxurious pacing of Lean's never feels slow or drudgerous. Instead it begs to be paid attention.
Joining Ebert on stage for the post-film discussion were Robert Harris, a noted film restorationist who saved LAWRENCE OF ARABIA from disappearing forever, and the film's editor, the great Anne V. Coates. Coates was something of a surprise guest and a real treat for the cineastes in attendance. Take a look at her IMDB filmography to see the many wonderful films on which she has worked.
A couple of tidbits from this discussion...LAWRENCE OF ARABIA had a shooting ratio of 9:1. The original negative and original continuity could not be located when Harris went to restore the film, so Coates' participation was extremely important in making sure it could survive.
Time for me to hit the sack. TARNATION, THE SON (LE FILS), and ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED are all on tap for Thursday, as well as a couple morning panels for which I'll drag myself out of bed early.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
The Pre-Show Countdown
No problems getting to the Champaign-Urbana area for Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival tonight, but I have encountered a couple obstacles in posting from the road. One of the three-pronged outlets in my room has a prong broken off in it, so I had to borrow a power strip from the front desk. That problem averted, my computer won't recognize my CD-ROM drive. That'll be something to work on later tonight as I most certainly won't do what I'm doing now (dialing in long distance to my ISP back home). All in all, though, I should be good to keep the updates coming over the next four days.
The News-Gazette reports that the entire festival is sold out, the first time in its history that all tickets have been sold before the opening night. The early bird does get the worm.
The News-Gazette reports that the entire festival is sold out, the first time in its history that all tickets have been sold before the opening night. The early bird does get the worm.
The United States of Vengeance
Q: Determine what the following films have in common: WALKING TALL, KILL BILL VOL. 2, THE PUNISHER, MAN ON FIRE.
A: Two things. All will have opened theatrically in April, and all are concerned with taking revenge with one's own hands.
Taken collectively, this streak of anger doesn't exactly restore one's faith in humankind, especially when a preview audience is laughing and applauding Denzel Washington's merciless avenger in MAN ON FIRE.
The premise of Tony Scott's film puts Washington's Creasy, an alcoholic former Special Ops soldier, in protection of a Mexican businessman's daughter Pita (Dakota Fanning, not as cloying here as usual, although she still comes off as some kind of alien or futuristic Hollywood genetic experiment rather than a child). Initially he rejects her desire to be friends, but eventually he warms up to her and finds a reason to keep living. Inevitably she gets abducted. Creasy vows to kill everyone involved in the plot to take her from her family.
And strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger he does. Creasy may read the Bible, but he is also one pissed off mofo. Christopher Walken plays a colleague who relates that Creasy possesses an artistry for death and that his rampage in Mexico City will be his masterpiece. Creasy certainly holds no qualms about being as brutal as possible in extracting the information he wants from the bad guys and then disposing of them. As he prepares to kill the leader of corrupt cops, Creasy remarks, "Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting." As played by the likeable and charismatic Washington, Creasy wields a dark sense of humor about exacting revenge. The audience is supposed to share Creasy's pleasure in doling out his brand of justice.
There's something very troublesome about this trend of stirring the audience's taste for vigilanteism. It's not so much the acts of gaining revenge but the pernicious satisfaction in reveling in it. Instead of understanding Creasy's actions from a distance, we're supposed to applaud him for them and callously engage in them.
Considering that I'm a big supporter of Quentin Tarantino's revenge fantasies KILL BILL VOL. 1 and VOL. 2, it might seem odd that I'd object so strongly to MAN ON FIRE. Yet Tarantino's films couldn't be more different from MAN ON FIRE and these other new vigilante pictures, not the least of which being that they occur within a movie universe as opposed to the others' real world settings. KILL BILL also has a moral code--call it the way of the samurai--whereas these other films are merely about satisfying bloodlust that the system can't. KILL BILL thrills the viewer with dazzling fight sequences. That the Bride kills her adversaries is almost secondary. (Obviously it's important to the character, but whether her opponents die is of less significance to the viewer.) In MAN ON FIRE and THE PUNISHER, the complete obliteration of the villains is to be enjoyed with the sadistic glee the heroes display. The murders--and these killings are most certainly that--are the only payoffs.
As for an overall take on MAN ON FIRE, it's thoroughly watchable even though Scott's hyper editing and deployment of subtitles like advertising text come across like desperate tactics to energize the film. In the nitpicking department, why is Creasy's name said about a million times in this movie, especially in the first hour? It's almost comical to the point of distraction. (Plus, it's pronounced in various ways: creasy, creazy, gracie. And what's up with the accent of indeterminate origin used by Radha Mitchell as the willowy American mother of Pita?) Washington is a commanding presence, and it's hard not to like him even if you object to his character and the film as a whole. I have strong reservations about the film's philosophy. Coupled with the overblown style, this isn't a film I can get behind artistically or politically.
Assuming I read one of the opening notes correctly, the film claims that in Latin America an abduction takes place every hour. It seems hard to believe, but okay, I'll go along with that. What I can't believe, though, is "a very special thanks to Mexico City, a very special place", a bone preceding the end credits that is thrown to the city. Did the filmmakers feel the need to apologize considering that the picture they paint is of a dangerous place riddled with corruption in all levels of Mexican society and government? Films don't need to be visitor's bureau pieces for their settings, but MAN ON FIRE strikes me as an unfair portrayal of the city and its people. That note tacked onto the end of the film appears that perhaps the filmmakers realized the same after the fact.
A: Two things. All will have opened theatrically in April, and all are concerned with taking revenge with one's own hands.
Taken collectively, this streak of anger doesn't exactly restore one's faith in humankind, especially when a preview audience is laughing and applauding Denzel Washington's merciless avenger in MAN ON FIRE.
The premise of Tony Scott's film puts Washington's Creasy, an alcoholic former Special Ops soldier, in protection of a Mexican businessman's daughter Pita (Dakota Fanning, not as cloying here as usual, although she still comes off as some kind of alien or futuristic Hollywood genetic experiment rather than a child). Initially he rejects her desire to be friends, but eventually he warms up to her and finds a reason to keep living. Inevitably she gets abducted. Creasy vows to kill everyone involved in the plot to take her from her family.
And strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger he does. Creasy may read the Bible, but he is also one pissed off mofo. Christopher Walken plays a colleague who relates that Creasy possesses an artistry for death and that his rampage in Mexico City will be his masterpiece. Creasy certainly holds no qualms about being as brutal as possible in extracting the information he wants from the bad guys and then disposing of them. As he prepares to kill the leader of corrupt cops, Creasy remarks, "Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting." As played by the likeable and charismatic Washington, Creasy wields a dark sense of humor about exacting revenge. The audience is supposed to share Creasy's pleasure in doling out his brand of justice.
There's something very troublesome about this trend of stirring the audience's taste for vigilanteism. It's not so much the acts of gaining revenge but the pernicious satisfaction in reveling in it. Instead of understanding Creasy's actions from a distance, we're supposed to applaud him for them and callously engage in them.
Considering that I'm a big supporter of Quentin Tarantino's revenge fantasies KILL BILL VOL. 1 and VOL. 2, it might seem odd that I'd object so strongly to MAN ON FIRE. Yet Tarantino's films couldn't be more different from MAN ON FIRE and these other new vigilante pictures, not the least of which being that they occur within a movie universe as opposed to the others' real world settings. KILL BILL also has a moral code--call it the way of the samurai--whereas these other films are merely about satisfying bloodlust that the system can't. KILL BILL thrills the viewer with dazzling fight sequences. That the Bride kills her adversaries is almost secondary. (Obviously it's important to the character, but whether her opponents die is of less significance to the viewer.) In MAN ON FIRE and THE PUNISHER, the complete obliteration of the villains is to be enjoyed with the sadistic glee the heroes display. The murders--and these killings are most certainly that--are the only payoffs.
As for an overall take on MAN ON FIRE, it's thoroughly watchable even though Scott's hyper editing and deployment of subtitles like advertising text come across like desperate tactics to energize the film. In the nitpicking department, why is Creasy's name said about a million times in this movie, especially in the first hour? It's almost comical to the point of distraction. (Plus, it's pronounced in various ways: creasy, creazy, gracie. And what's up with the accent of indeterminate origin used by Radha Mitchell as the willowy American mother of Pita?) Washington is a commanding presence, and it's hard not to like him even if you object to his character and the film as a whole. I have strong reservations about the film's philosophy. Coupled with the overblown style, this isn't a film I can get behind artistically or politically.
Assuming I read one of the opening notes correctly, the film claims that in Latin America an abduction takes place every hour. It seems hard to believe, but okay, I'll go along with that. What I can't believe, though, is "a very special thanks to Mexico City, a very special place", a bone preceding the end credits that is thrown to the city. Did the filmmakers feel the need to apologize considering that the picture they paint is of a dangerous place riddled with corruption in all levels of Mexican society and government? Films don't need to be visitor's bureau pieces for their settings, but MAN ON FIRE strikes me as an unfair portrayal of the city and its people. That note tacked onto the end of the film appears that perhaps the filmmakers realized the same after the fact.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Elephant redux
I've been racking up the films but haven't written much of late. I have some capsule reviews that I'll get around to posting eventually. I did want to revisit what I said about ELEPHANT as I "figured it out" after I wrote the preceding entry. The key is seeing that many of the other students have their own problems but choose different ways of dealing with them. The scene most crucial to the film is the gay-straight alliance student meeting. Although their topic of conversation is how or if you can tell who is gay just by looking at them, it may as well be how can you identify by appearances who might lash out in violence.
ELEPHANT offers no answers to the reasons for school shootings, but this assessment on Slate, arriving on the Columbine anniversary, provides potential reasons. It's an interesting read, especially in light of the fact that I just finished reading Erik Larson's THE DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY. One of the main characters in this non-fiction book about the 1893 World's Fair is a psychopath. The book illustrates the word's meaning beyond the connotations of craziness and insanity. In the Slate piece, one of the killers is also designated, ex post facto, a psychopath. In light of what the book taught me about psychopaths, this conclusion seems to be a plausible answer for the Columbine tragedy.
(I know that I have blurred THE DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY into all of that and could be giving a wrong impression of the book. It's a fascinating read about the nation aspiring to something greater and all of the innovations that came out of the fair.)
Starting tomorrow, I intend to write updates from Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival while in Champaign-Urbana. Even if my desktop computer were to fail in transit--not that there is any reason it should--the hotel has a computer available to guests. It should be a lot of fun, and hopefully writing in the midst of the festival will produce better results than past attempts to summarize the experience after returning home.
ELEPHANT offers no answers to the reasons for school shootings, but this assessment on Slate, arriving on the Columbine anniversary, provides potential reasons. It's an interesting read, especially in light of the fact that I just finished reading Erik Larson's THE DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY. One of the main characters in this non-fiction book about the 1893 World's Fair is a psychopath. The book illustrates the word's meaning beyond the connotations of craziness and insanity. In the Slate piece, one of the killers is also designated, ex post facto, a psychopath. In light of what the book taught me about psychopaths, this conclusion seems to be a plausible answer for the Columbine tragedy.
(I know that I have blurred THE DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY into all of that and could be giving a wrong impression of the book. It's a fascinating read about the nation aspiring to something greater and all of the innovations that came out of the fair.)
Starting tomorrow, I intend to write updates from Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival while in Champaign-Urbana. Even if my desktop computer were to fail in transit--not that there is any reason it should--the hotel has a computer available to guests. It should be a lot of fun, and hopefully writing in the midst of the festival will produce better results than past attempts to summarize the experience after returning home.
Friday, March 19, 2004
The Big E's
More on von Trier another time. Today belongs to ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND and ELEPHANT.
I've been chomping at the bit to see Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT for some time. I went over the moon for GERRY, and then his subsequent film won the Palm D'Or at Cannes. Cue waiting, lots of waiting, until the film finally unspooled here today, about nine months after it took the prize in France. Watching ELEPHANT is not unlike that, lots of waiting and anticipation, although you trade excitement for dread.
Van Sant explores the day in the life of a high school, with it culminating in two students executing a Columbine-like attack on their teachers and peers. ELEPHANT is little more than a series of tracking shots that follow various students. We get small insights into their lives--John has an alcoholic dad, Elias is a budding photographer--but never become deeply acquainted with them. Van Sant also introduces us to the killers and shows how they prepare for the fateful day.
Naturally, this is combustible subject matter. The threat of death hovers over the film like the time-lapse clouds Van Sant returns to time and again. Some have accused Van Sant of exploiting the tragedy, but what makes school shootings off limits when other historical atrocities are fair game? To the director's credit, he is judicious in showing the violence. The audience knows what is happening and doesn't need to be bathed in blood and guts to get the effect.
What's most shocking is that ELEPHANT isn't shocking. The idea of teenage boys bringing guns to school to kill classmates isn't out of the ordinary. I got home from the film and found a story on the internet about a Nebraska teen with twenty homemade bombs and a rifle in the high school parking lot. (Another report on the story includes an incident in which two second-graders and an eleven-year-old in Montana hid weapons in a plan to shoot and stab a third-grade girl.)
Van Sant makes no effort to explain why this violence erupts. The usuals--feeling of insecurity from bullying, hatred of the popular, violent video games, fixation on guns, the devil, and Hitler--are trotted out, but none of these things are singled out as the reasons why these two boys choose this particular path. Non-judgemental observation is a key element in Van Sant's films, and that's how he approaches the characters in ELEPHANT. It's a wise choice. Viewers don't need to be spoonfed that what the killers are doing is wrong, and there's no mistaking that Van Sant abhors their actions. Where ELEPHANT comes up short, though, is in failing to provide insight for any of this. The deep truths are probably unknowable, but ELEPHANT frustrates in not making any conjectures. Simply, what happens happens. It's an existential perspective that worked for GERRY, a film where the characters are in search of something larger. In ELEPHANT, the message seems to be that bad things happen. While that's true, it isn't exactly news to anyone.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND features another brilliant Charlie Kaufman screenplay. Oh yeah, Michel Gondry's film lives up to it. More at another time...
I've been chomping at the bit to see Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT for some time. I went over the moon for GERRY, and then his subsequent film won the Palm D'Or at Cannes. Cue waiting, lots of waiting, until the film finally unspooled here today, about nine months after it took the prize in France. Watching ELEPHANT is not unlike that, lots of waiting and anticipation, although you trade excitement for dread.
Van Sant explores the day in the life of a high school, with it culminating in two students executing a Columbine-like attack on their teachers and peers. ELEPHANT is little more than a series of tracking shots that follow various students. We get small insights into their lives--John has an alcoholic dad, Elias is a budding photographer--but never become deeply acquainted with them. Van Sant also introduces us to the killers and shows how they prepare for the fateful day.
Naturally, this is combustible subject matter. The threat of death hovers over the film like the time-lapse clouds Van Sant returns to time and again. Some have accused Van Sant of exploiting the tragedy, but what makes school shootings off limits when other historical atrocities are fair game? To the director's credit, he is judicious in showing the violence. The audience knows what is happening and doesn't need to be bathed in blood and guts to get the effect.
What's most shocking is that ELEPHANT isn't shocking. The idea of teenage boys bringing guns to school to kill classmates isn't out of the ordinary. I got home from the film and found a story on the internet about a Nebraska teen with twenty homemade bombs and a rifle in the high school parking lot. (Another report on the story includes an incident in which two second-graders and an eleven-year-old in Montana hid weapons in a plan to shoot and stab a third-grade girl.)
Van Sant makes no effort to explain why this violence erupts. The usuals--feeling of insecurity from bullying, hatred of the popular, violent video games, fixation on guns, the devil, and Hitler--are trotted out, but none of these things are singled out as the reasons why these two boys choose this particular path. Non-judgemental observation is a key element in Van Sant's films, and that's how he approaches the characters in ELEPHANT. It's a wise choice. Viewers don't need to be spoonfed that what the killers are doing is wrong, and there's no mistaking that Van Sant abhors their actions. Where ELEPHANT comes up short, though, is in failing to provide insight for any of this. The deep truths are probably unknowable, but ELEPHANT frustrates in not making any conjectures. Simply, what happens happens. It's an existential perspective that worked for GERRY, a film where the characters are in search of something larger. In ELEPHANT, the message seems to be that bad things happen. While that's true, it isn't exactly news to anyone.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND features another brilliant Charlie Kaufman screenplay. Oh yeah, Michel Gondry's film lives up to it. More at another time...
Thursday, March 18, 2004
More Danish Angst
(If time and energy permit, what follows will be revised. Just got back from these screenings, but I want to watch the UD-DePaul NCAA game that I've been taping. These are some preliminary thoughts.)
The Wexner Center's Lars von Trier retrospective wraps up next Thursday. That's good and bad. I'm now convinced that he is one of today's major filmmakers, so it's a little deflating that I've seen just about everything there is until his next project. (His miniseries THE KINGDOM hasn't been part of it, so that remains as something to track down.) On the other hand, these movies are such emotional workouts that I could use a break from these thrilling yet exhausting experiences.
Tonight's selections were MEDEA and DANCER IN THE DARK. I'd seen the latter when it was released a few years ago. I liked it more on this second viewing, although "liked" doesn't seem to be the appropriate word in connection with such a weighty film. The basics... Bjork plays the Czechoslovakian immigrant Selma. She works in a northwest US factory and is scraping together as much money as she can. Selma is going blind, but she isn't saving the money to improve her sight. She knows that her son has the same condition and wants him to have an operation to save him from suffering that fate. Since this is a von Trier film, we can expect that the heroine will be in for a rough go of it, and sure enough, she does not have it easy. But, hey, it's a musical!
Von Trier's best known films--BREAKING THE WAVES, DANCER IN THE DARK, and the upcoming DOGVILLE--are melodramas that shamelessly manipulate the audience's emotions. Each of these films have moments that will outrage viewers. The test is how one interprets von Trier's motives. One side could argue that he is a heartless bastard who revels in cruelty. On the contrary, I think that he is very much a religious filmmaker given to depicting the harsh realities of life and hinting at a greater reward that follows. DANCER IN THE DARK'S Selma talks about leaving musicals after the next to last song so that the film can go on forever. At the end of the film, von Trier places a message over the frame, something about this not having to be the last song if we don't want it to be, while the shot pedestals up. It's plainly evident to me this time that the shot indicates an ascension and the message lays out that faith in God allows us to leave after the next to last song.
The Wexner Center's Lars von Trier retrospective wraps up next Thursday. That's good and bad. I'm now convinced that he is one of today's major filmmakers, so it's a little deflating that I've seen just about everything there is until his next project. (His miniseries THE KINGDOM hasn't been part of it, so that remains as something to track down.) On the other hand, these movies are such emotional workouts that I could use a break from these thrilling yet exhausting experiences.
Tonight's selections were MEDEA and DANCER IN THE DARK. I'd seen the latter when it was released a few years ago. I liked it more on this second viewing, although "liked" doesn't seem to be the appropriate word in connection with such a weighty film. The basics... Bjork plays the Czechoslovakian immigrant Selma. She works in a northwest US factory and is scraping together as much money as she can. Selma is going blind, but she isn't saving the money to improve her sight. She knows that her son has the same condition and wants him to have an operation to save him from suffering that fate. Since this is a von Trier film, we can expect that the heroine will be in for a rough go of it, and sure enough, she does not have it easy. But, hey, it's a musical!
Von Trier's best known films--BREAKING THE WAVES, DANCER IN THE DARK, and the upcoming DOGVILLE--are melodramas that shamelessly manipulate the audience's emotions. Each of these films have moments that will outrage viewers. The test is how one interprets von Trier's motives. One side could argue that he is a heartless bastard who revels in cruelty. On the contrary, I think that he is very much a religious filmmaker given to depicting the harsh realities of life and hinting at a greater reward that follows. DANCER IN THE DARK'S Selma talks about leaving musicals after the next to last song so that the film can go on forever. At the end of the film, von Trier places a message over the frame, something about this not having to be the last song if we don't want it to be, while the shot pedestals up. It's plainly evident to me this time that the shot indicates an ascension and the message lays out that faith in God allows us to leave after the next to last song.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Stop them before they kill again!
Thrillers don't get much more incompetent than TAKING LIVES. The first indication that the filmmakers aren't paying attention to details comes with the sounds of U2's "Bad" over the opening sequence set in 1983. The song comes from the 1984 album THE UNFORGETTABLE FIRE, which is a nitpicky sort of thing that the average viewer probably won't notice. Admittedly, this isn't a big deal, but it shows a carelessness with which the rest of the film is assembled. (That the song is about heroin, has no application to the scene or the film, and is reprised at the end makes the choice more curious. Was it picked merely because the character being introduced is bad, making a song by that name seem like a good fit?)
Angelina Jolie, as FBI profiler Illeana Scott, plays up her tabloid publicized weirdness from the outset, being introduced laying in a grave to get a sense of the crime scene. Montreal construction workers find a body with the face smashed in and the hands cut off. Despite the protestations of two Quebecois investigators, Illeana is brought onto the case. TAKING LIVES never explains why an FBI agent would be called to Canada to help with an apparently routine murder case or how she would be permitted to stay on it. The film's nonsense logic continues.
Illeana finds a pattern in some unsolved killings and deduces that the suspect's methods permit him to assume the lives of his victim. Whenever he needs a new identity, he kills another person and makes the body unidentifiable.
A break in the case appears to come when the serial killer strikes again. This time there's a witness, a local artist named Costa (Ethan Hawke) who provides a sketch of the suspect. It soon becomes apparent, though, that with the police hot on his trail, the killer wants to shed his skin for another's, Costa's in fact.
TAKING LIVES is incredibly silly, building to a final scene that inspires laughter and incredulity. Granted, Illeana proves to be something of an oddball, but the ending is too much to accept even for her. Illeana is established as one of those agents who identifies with the victims to the extreme. She physically puts herself in their place, including a scene at the home at the killer's mother that makes absolutely no sense at all. (This film either endured extensive cuts that left the gaping holes or just never added up in the first place.) This conceit is eventually dropped in favor of standard policier twists.
The killer's identity is no mystery to anyone who has seen more than a couple of whodunits, particularly those in Ashley Judd's filmography. (Jolie, like Judd, is a capable actress with a knack for picking some really bad projects.) The misdirects are either very transparent or so befuddling that they fail to send us off course. Director D.J. Caruso may have inadvertently revealed the killer earlier than intended in a geography slip-up in dialogue. Considering the error-prone nature of the film, it's probably just one more mistake than a tip-off.
Although riddled with storytelling errors and other mistakes, TAKING LIVES gets it right in one place: truth in advertising. Audiences will have their lives taken, or at least the 90-odd minutes set aside for suffering through this mess.
Angelina Jolie, as FBI profiler Illeana Scott, plays up her tabloid publicized weirdness from the outset, being introduced laying in a grave to get a sense of the crime scene. Montreal construction workers find a body with the face smashed in and the hands cut off. Despite the protestations of two Quebecois investigators, Illeana is brought onto the case. TAKING LIVES never explains why an FBI agent would be called to Canada to help with an apparently routine murder case or how she would be permitted to stay on it. The film's nonsense logic continues.
Illeana finds a pattern in some unsolved killings and deduces that the suspect's methods permit him to assume the lives of his victim. Whenever he needs a new identity, he kills another person and makes the body unidentifiable.
A break in the case appears to come when the serial killer strikes again. This time there's a witness, a local artist named Costa (Ethan Hawke) who provides a sketch of the suspect. It soon becomes apparent, though, that with the police hot on his trail, the killer wants to shed his skin for another's, Costa's in fact.
TAKING LIVES is incredibly silly, building to a final scene that inspires laughter and incredulity. Granted, Illeana proves to be something of an oddball, but the ending is too much to accept even for her. Illeana is established as one of those agents who identifies with the victims to the extreme. She physically puts herself in their place, including a scene at the home at the killer's mother that makes absolutely no sense at all. (This film either endured extensive cuts that left the gaping holes or just never added up in the first place.) This conceit is eventually dropped in favor of standard policier twists.
The killer's identity is no mystery to anyone who has seen more than a couple of whodunits, particularly those in Ashley Judd's filmography. (Jolie, like Judd, is a capable actress with a knack for picking some really bad projects.) The misdirects are either very transparent or so befuddling that they fail to send us off course. Director D.J. Caruso may have inadvertently revealed the killer earlier than intended in a geography slip-up in dialogue. Considering the error-prone nature of the film, it's probably just one more mistake than a tip-off.
Although riddled with storytelling errors and other mistakes, TAKING LIVES gets it right in one place: truth in advertising. Audiences will have their lives taken, or at least the 90-odd minutes set aside for suffering through this mess.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Something's in the Air
Driving east on Interstate 70 on the way back from the Atlantic 10 tournament semifinals, I tried to find a sports talk station on the radio. My friend Scott wanted to hear the NBA scores since the Cavs are contending for the playoffs. I picked up such far flung stations as WBEZ in Boston, what I believe was KMOX out of St. Louis, WBBM in Chicago, WCBS and another station (WFAN?) from New York City, WSM out of Nashville, and WHO in Des Moines, Iowa. Oddly, I had trouble tuning in local stations, like 980 out of Dayton. Columbus' 1460 didn't come in very well either, yet there was this Des Moines station clear as could be. So very strange.
Dayton won tonight, although they nearly blew it. Go Flyers versus the dreaded Xavier Musketeers and their furry, blobby blue mascot.
Dayton won tonight, although they nearly blew it. Go Flyers versus the dreaded Xavier Musketeers and their furry, blobby blue mascot.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
More von Trier
In my eruption of comments on DOGVILLE I left out some things that I'd meant to say regarding Kidman's acting and a scene in the back of a truck. I'll save those for another time since I caught tonight's two entries in the Lars von Trier retrospective.
First up was THE IDIOTS, the controversial 1998 Dogme 95 film in which a group of people go around acting like they're mentally retarded, "spassing" as they call it. Von Trier so loves to pull the rug out from under his audience, and he does it again here.
My initial impression is that THE IDIOTS is an allegory for the death of communism. The apparent group leader Stoffer decries bourgeois things, pillories fellow Idiots who hang onto aspects of middle class life, and screams "fascist" at a councilman who wants the group's communal home to be considered part of a different district. The Idiot ideals are shown to work within their bubble of existence, but outside of their sphere, the philosophy looks foolish and offensive.
Von Trier has gone out of his way to rub our noses in the Idiots' behavior while also subverting it. We may laugh along with their refusal to conform to what society deems proper, but von Trier is slowly hoisting the Idiots and the complicit audience by its own petard. He aims to shock too. Had the film been released with a rating, it most assuredly would have received the NC-17, although the nudity is not here for titillation.
Made in accordance with Dogme 95, THE IDIOTS effectively uses the rules that demand naturalism in cinema. It's a crudely made film, with herky jerky handheld camerawork that often goes out of focus and an intentional sloppiness that, on a couple occasions, catches the boom microphone in the shot. I wouldn't call it pleasant to watch, but after von Trier puts all his cards on the table, I realized I had a certain admiration for his persistence of vision. THE IDIOTS isn't on the level of his best work--it's too slapdash and inconsistent--but in transforming the film from a piece of empty provocation into a political critique, von Trier demonstrates his command of the medium.
ZENTROPA was the second half of the bill. This dream-like film sends its American protagonist of German heritage to post-World War II Germany to take a job as a sleeping car conductor. Leopold refrains from taking sides but finds himself caught between them. Jesus' statement in Revelation about preferring that one be hot or cold rather than lukewarm informs the film, as Leopold proves himself worthy of being spewed out.
A paranoid mix of noir, Hitchcock, and the occasional surrealist flourish, ZENTROPA is like a nightmare from which one cannot awake. Max von Sydow's hypnotic narration implores Leopold to go deeper. Even though he refuses, he cannot avoid being dragged down.
ZENTROPA is mostly in black and white, an appropriate visual theme considering its demand for commitment to an ideology. Von Trier uses color sparingly and strongly, dabbing it into the frame to highlight blood in the water or pallid skin tones.
First up was THE IDIOTS, the controversial 1998 Dogme 95 film in which a group of people go around acting like they're mentally retarded, "spassing" as they call it. Von Trier so loves to pull the rug out from under his audience, and he does it again here.
My initial impression is that THE IDIOTS is an allegory for the death of communism. The apparent group leader Stoffer decries bourgeois things, pillories fellow Idiots who hang onto aspects of middle class life, and screams "fascist" at a councilman who wants the group's communal home to be considered part of a different district. The Idiot ideals are shown to work within their bubble of existence, but outside of their sphere, the philosophy looks foolish and offensive.
Von Trier has gone out of his way to rub our noses in the Idiots' behavior while also subverting it. We may laugh along with their refusal to conform to what society deems proper, but von Trier is slowly hoisting the Idiots and the complicit audience by its own petard. He aims to shock too. Had the film been released with a rating, it most assuredly would have received the NC-17, although the nudity is not here for titillation.
Made in accordance with Dogme 95, THE IDIOTS effectively uses the rules that demand naturalism in cinema. It's a crudely made film, with herky jerky handheld camerawork that often goes out of focus and an intentional sloppiness that, on a couple occasions, catches the boom microphone in the shot. I wouldn't call it pleasant to watch, but after von Trier puts all his cards on the table, I realized I had a certain admiration for his persistence of vision. THE IDIOTS isn't on the level of his best work--it's too slapdash and inconsistent--but in transforming the film from a piece of empty provocation into a political critique, von Trier demonstrates his command of the medium.
ZENTROPA was the second half of the bill. This dream-like film sends its American protagonist of German heritage to post-World War II Germany to take a job as a sleeping car conductor. Leopold refrains from taking sides but finds himself caught between them. Jesus' statement in Revelation about preferring that one be hot or cold rather than lukewarm informs the film, as Leopold proves himself worthy of being spewed out.
A paranoid mix of noir, Hitchcock, and the occasional surrealist flourish, ZENTROPA is like a nightmare from which one cannot awake. Max von Sydow's hypnotic narration implores Leopold to go deeper. Even though he refuses, he cannot avoid being dragged down.
ZENTROPA is mostly in black and white, an appropriate visual theme considering its demand for commitment to an ideology. Von Trier uses color sparingly and strongly, dabbing it into the frame to highlight blood in the water or pallid skin tones.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
The Dogville Post, in which I try to get as many comments out of my head as possible
Films are intended to be seen with audiences, and I think that viewing DOGVILLE with a full house was instructive. That said, what I learned thoroughly appalled me. The laughter and applause at a crucial juncture in the film struck me as being nothing short of contrary to the point von Trier was making. Or maybe they made it for him. I haven't decided. This reaction is the kind of thing that makes you lose some faith in people.
I'm speaking in vagaries for now because I realize most haven't had the opportunity to see it--it opens in New York and Los Angeles on March 26--and to spoil the film would be malicious on my part. I think it's a masterpiece. You may well come out thinking that von Trier is a bastard, but the point he makes is undeniable. If you don't know anymore about the film, tread carefully because you're likely to come across something you don't want to know. This is the kind of film that rattles around your brain, and I feel like I have to get this all out now. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Von Trier breaks the film into a prologue and nine chapters. The Depression-era story revolves around the porcelain-skinned beauty Grace (Nicole Kidman). She is running from gangsters and arrives in the small town of Dogville, which is nestled in the Rocky Mountains and removed from other localities. It's a safe place off the beaten path if the residents will permit her to stay.
The first person she encounters is Tom (Paul Bettany), the doctor's son who fancies himself a philosopher and writer. He takes her in and assures her that the fifteen adults living in DOGVILLE will be happy to let her stay. Maybe, maybe not. The townsfolk gather at the mission hall to decide, but despite Tom's attempts to persuade them, they remain unconvinced and are ready to send Grace on her way. Tom firmly believes that how the people of Dogville treat Grace will illustrate their decency. He asks that they give her two weeks to prove herself to them and they to her. The compromise is agreed upon, so Grace goes about trying to ingratiate herself to the citizenry.
At first no one has any work for Grace to do, but gradually everyone finds things they don't need to have done but will appreciate as her contribution to the community. This goes along well enough for a period of time. One day a policeman comes by looking for Grace. He even tacks up a "missing" poster with her photograph. The locals feel like they should tell the authorities that Grace is in Dogville, but they like having her there. Their quiet comes at a price. She must do double the amount of work, although no one wants to own up to believing she owes them anything.
After a long, productive stay in Dogville, it would seem that Grace should be an accepted member of the community. Instead, the greed and jealousy of these poor people intensifies, and Grace suffers at their hands because they feel this outsider is taking advantage of them. The situation worsens so much that Grace feels she has no choice but to leave.
DOGVILLE at first appears to be about the desire to despoil beauty and goodness, how by its very nature beauty can cause some to feel worse and thus want to destroy it. The film can also be read as an allegory for the exploitation of immigrants. Even the most enlightened people are out for themselves, as Tom shows in due time.
This is all very interesting stuff, but then comes DOGVILLE'S ninth chapter. The true subject von Trier is addressing is finally unmasked. We come to learn that Grace is the mob boss's daughter. She finds his belief of wiping the world clean of society's dregs to be arrogant. Yet her idealism has been questioned by the treatment given her in Dogville. She showed the townsfolk nothing but mercy and love and was increasingly punished for it. Grace finds that she must agree with her father and wants vengeance wreaked upon her tormentors. (It was at this point where some of the audience laughed and applauded, a totally unconscionable reaction and, in my view, not the director's intention.)
Grace transforms from a forgiving God figure to an avenging Old Testament deity who makes the sinners suffer for their misdeeds. It's a shocking turn that is true to von Trier's vision. Grace's father, played by James Caan, says that these people are like dogs, and you mustn't reinforce a dog's horrible nature. To forgive is wrong. Taken at face value, one could assume that the film is endorsing this view, but von Trier quite deliberately points out how it's one big circle, that the violence and injustice heaped upon the downtrodden is revisited upon the oppressors, not because these are wicked people but because the action begets the reaction. DOGVILLE doesn't leave one with a positive conception of humanity, but it is with a purpose. Von Trier demonstrates to powerful effect what happens in a world where mercy and forgiveness are unknown and unvalued qualities.
When DOGVILLE premiered at the Cannes Film Festival last year, some American critics found the picture to be virulently anti-American. DOGVILLE is certainly a very potent critique of the United States. The scenario could be applied elsewhere--look at the controversy regarding Muslim women in France wearing scarves on their heads--but it carries a particular sting in examining an America that likes to believe it is the great melting pot where everyone is free and has an equal opportunity to succeed. Von Trier doesn't pull any punches in challenging that image, and he further punctures it by having photos of America's underclass in history and present-day run underneath the end credits.
Issues of thematics and politics aside, DOGVILLE is a stunning technical work. The austere production, a set on a stage with minimal props, emphasizes the relative poverty of the town. The difference between public and private behavior is eliminated in the eyes of the audience for walls are merely lines drawn on the floor. Yet in this open environment, the town feels more stifling. Von Trier lays out Dogville's geography with masterfully composed overhead shots, high angles that also hint at a God looking down upon a world resistant to his message of love.
Von Trier's artistic genius makes DOGVILLE'S 177 minutes fly by. He aims to provoke so he can shake people out of their torpor. As his other melodramas show, at this von Trier is well practiced and successful. DOGVILLE may enrage viewers, both those who find it brilliant and those who consider it deplorable. I think getting angry is the point. The difference is how you direct it.
I'm speaking in vagaries for now because I realize most haven't had the opportunity to see it--it opens in New York and Los Angeles on March 26--and to spoil the film would be malicious on my part. I think it's a masterpiece. You may well come out thinking that von Trier is a bastard, but the point he makes is undeniable. If you don't know anymore about the film, tread carefully because you're likely to come across something you don't want to know. This is the kind of film that rattles around your brain, and I feel like I have to get this all out now. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Von Trier breaks the film into a prologue and nine chapters. The Depression-era story revolves around the porcelain-skinned beauty Grace (Nicole Kidman). She is running from gangsters and arrives in the small town of Dogville, which is nestled in the Rocky Mountains and removed from other localities. It's a safe place off the beaten path if the residents will permit her to stay.
The first person she encounters is Tom (Paul Bettany), the doctor's son who fancies himself a philosopher and writer. He takes her in and assures her that the fifteen adults living in DOGVILLE will be happy to let her stay. Maybe, maybe not. The townsfolk gather at the mission hall to decide, but despite Tom's attempts to persuade them, they remain unconvinced and are ready to send Grace on her way. Tom firmly believes that how the people of Dogville treat Grace will illustrate their decency. He asks that they give her two weeks to prove herself to them and they to her. The compromise is agreed upon, so Grace goes about trying to ingratiate herself to the citizenry.
At first no one has any work for Grace to do, but gradually everyone finds things they don't need to have done but will appreciate as her contribution to the community. This goes along well enough for a period of time. One day a policeman comes by looking for Grace. He even tacks up a "missing" poster with her photograph. The locals feel like they should tell the authorities that Grace is in Dogville, but they like having her there. Their quiet comes at a price. She must do double the amount of work, although no one wants to own up to believing she owes them anything.
After a long, productive stay in Dogville, it would seem that Grace should be an accepted member of the community. Instead, the greed and jealousy of these poor people intensifies, and Grace suffers at their hands because they feel this outsider is taking advantage of them. The situation worsens so much that Grace feels she has no choice but to leave.
DOGVILLE at first appears to be about the desire to despoil beauty and goodness, how by its very nature beauty can cause some to feel worse and thus want to destroy it. The film can also be read as an allegory for the exploitation of immigrants. Even the most enlightened people are out for themselves, as Tom shows in due time.
This is all very interesting stuff, but then comes DOGVILLE'S ninth chapter. The true subject von Trier is addressing is finally unmasked. We come to learn that Grace is the mob boss's daughter. She finds his belief of wiping the world clean of society's dregs to be arrogant. Yet her idealism has been questioned by the treatment given her in Dogville. She showed the townsfolk nothing but mercy and love and was increasingly punished for it. Grace finds that she must agree with her father and wants vengeance wreaked upon her tormentors. (It was at this point where some of the audience laughed and applauded, a totally unconscionable reaction and, in my view, not the director's intention.)
Grace transforms from a forgiving God figure to an avenging Old Testament deity who makes the sinners suffer for their misdeeds. It's a shocking turn that is true to von Trier's vision. Grace's father, played by James Caan, says that these people are like dogs, and you mustn't reinforce a dog's horrible nature. To forgive is wrong. Taken at face value, one could assume that the film is endorsing this view, but von Trier quite deliberately points out how it's one big circle, that the violence and injustice heaped upon the downtrodden is revisited upon the oppressors, not because these are wicked people but because the action begets the reaction. DOGVILLE doesn't leave one with a positive conception of humanity, but it is with a purpose. Von Trier demonstrates to powerful effect what happens in a world where mercy and forgiveness are unknown and unvalued qualities.
When DOGVILLE premiered at the Cannes Film Festival last year, some American critics found the picture to be virulently anti-American. DOGVILLE is certainly a very potent critique of the United States. The scenario could be applied elsewhere--look at the controversy regarding Muslim women in France wearing scarves on their heads--but it carries a particular sting in examining an America that likes to believe it is the great melting pot where everyone is free and has an equal opportunity to succeed. Von Trier doesn't pull any punches in challenging that image, and he further punctures it by having photos of America's underclass in history and present-day run underneath the end credits.
Issues of thematics and politics aside, DOGVILLE is a stunning technical work. The austere production, a set on a stage with minimal props, emphasizes the relative poverty of the town. The difference between public and private behavior is eliminated in the eyes of the audience for walls are merely lines drawn on the floor. Yet in this open environment, the town feels more stifling. Von Trier lays out Dogville's geography with masterfully composed overhead shots, high angles that also hint at a God looking down upon a world resistant to his message of love.
Von Trier's artistic genius makes DOGVILLE'S 177 minutes fly by. He aims to provoke so he can shake people out of their torpor. As his other melodramas show, at this von Trier is well practiced and successful. DOGVILLE may enrage viewers, both those who find it brilliant and those who consider it deplorable. I think getting angry is the point. The difference is how you direct it.
Heh Heh
Last night I ran across BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD reruns on MTV2. I should probably be ashamed that I get a kick out of the show as much as I do, but man, that's funny stuff. It's hard to believe how long ago the show was on, but it makes sense that they would start showing it again about ten years after its debut. Check it out from midnight to one a.m. eastern time.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
The Overlooked 12
The films scheduled for this year's Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival have finally been announced. The slate has been reduced from fourteen to twelve, although I think that was the case at this point last year. (Come to think of it, there's no mention of the Brown vs. Board of Education documentary which is supposed to be playing, so one more film may yet be added to the schedule.) While I'm always up to see more films, cutting it back by one or two should give more time for post-film discussions or taking a break in between to get something to eat and see the sunlight. I'd hope it also would mean more time to get from the two morning discussions to the theater than what has typically been a case of making a mad rush from the University of Illinois to the Virginia Theatre.
I've only seen four of the twelve films, three of which I haven't seen for at least four years and two that I've never seen theatrically. Here's the list with my thoughts:
-LOUIE BLUIE (Terry Zwigoff, 1986) and SWEET OLD SONG (Leah Malan, 2002)
These two documentaries about the blues artist Howard Armstrong are standing in for this year's festival closing musical. Don't know much about these films or Armstrong, but I'm curious to see Zwigoff's first film. As was done in 2002 after SAY AMEN SOMEBODY, a post-film concert will feature some of those seen in SWEET OLD SONG. Apparently the organizers hoped to have Armstrong at the festival, but he died last summer. I had been hoping that the musical might be THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG since a re-release print is circulating, but these docs should be interesting.
-EL NORTE (Gregory Nava, 1984)
It's the film's twentieth anniversary. I know the title and know the director, but that's about it.
-GATES OF HEAVEN (Errol Morris, 1978)
Since Morris is supposed to attend, maybe he'll kick off the post-screening discussion with a statement that it's about time one of his films was recognized at the Overlooked Film Festival. OK, maybe we don't need a replay of his Oscar acceptance speech. I'm not at all surprised that Ebert picked GATES OF HEAVEN. He's been one of this film's biggest supporters--he has called it one of the ten greatest films ever--which led me to track it down on videotape at the Westerville Public Library six or seven years ago. Morris is one of the top documentarians working today, and this film about a pet cemetary is something else.
-THE GENERAL (Clyde Bruckman, 1927)
I've never seen this undisputed Buster Keaton classic, and it should be all the better with live accompaniment from The Alloy Orchestra. Darren Ng's THE SCAPEGOAT precedes this year's silent feature film.
-LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (David Lean, 1962)
Festival tradition has been to open with a 70mm epic, and this should be a special treat. It may be fifteen years since I've seen this--and even then on two panned-and-scanned videotapes most likely--so this should be awesome. I missed seeing this a few years ago when it played the Ohio Theater as part of the CAPA Summer Film Series, but this will more than make up for that.
-MY DOG SKIP (Jay Rusell, 2000)
It's unusual for me to see films far in advance of release, but Columbus was a test market for MY DOG SKIP. I saw it in November 1999, I think, but the film didn't open until January 2000. I liked it and don't mind seeing it again. My NOW PLAYING co-host Paul was over the moon for it and will probably tell me it's time to reevaluate the B- I gave this kids' film.
-ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED (Tim Reid, 1995)
A few years back I had the opportunity to interview Tim Reid when he was going to be in town to present his latest film. I planned on talking to him on the basis of the reputation of ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED, but then I saw ASUNDER. The African-American potboiler ended up making my worst of the year list. It was one of those generic FATAL ATTRACTION-type films that was so awful I passed on the interview. I had no desire to talk about the film or tell the former Venus Flytrap I thought his film was crap when he would inevitably ask what I thought.
-PEOPLE I KNOW (Daniel Algrant, 2002)
Here's one of those films that certainly fits the overlooked definition. Is it any good? Beats me. It had a lot of trouble getting distribution. (I seem to recall some issues with shots of the World Trade Center towers in it, but I don't think that was why it was minimally released in this country.) Ebert thinks highly of it, so hopefully that's a good sign. Al Pacino is usually interesting to watch even when the films aren't.
-THE SON (LE FILS) (Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne, 2002)
This film just missed making my Honorable Mentions for 2003 list, and I have the sneaking suspicion if I'd had the chance to see it again, it might have moved up. Although not explicity Christian in the sense that I don't recall God or Jesus being mentioned, it is one of the most powerful depictions of the Christian ethos in practice that you'll find in a film. Looks like it's finally coming to DVD at the end of May, but it'll be good to see this on a big screen again.
-TARNATION (Jonathan Caouette, 2003)
Gus Van Sant lent his name as executive producer for this film, and I asked him about it when I interviewed him a couple weeks ago. He was very enthusiastic about it, natch. Made on iMovie for supposedly $187, this will be the most experimental film of the festival and perhaps the must see. I'm guessing it will also be the most divisive. Ebert has done a good job each year of programming at least one new film that is making the rounds but not widely distributed. I saw STONE READER and CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES last year, neither of which reached Columbus. 2002 had KWIK STOP, which is still undistributed as far as I know. 2001 featured MARYAM, which came here a year later.
-TULLY (Hilary Birmingham, 2000)
My familiarity with this film begins and ends with the poster that was displayed at the Drexel for months. It'll be nice to see the film.
Overall, I'm pleased with Ebert's selections. I haven't seen too many of the films, and of those that I have, I'm eager to see them again. It should be a good five days in Champaign-Urbana.
I've only seen four of the twelve films, three of which I haven't seen for at least four years and two that I've never seen theatrically. Here's the list with my thoughts:
-LOUIE BLUIE (Terry Zwigoff, 1986) and SWEET OLD SONG (Leah Malan, 2002)
These two documentaries about the blues artist Howard Armstrong are standing in for this year's festival closing musical. Don't know much about these films or Armstrong, but I'm curious to see Zwigoff's first film. As was done in 2002 after SAY AMEN SOMEBODY, a post-film concert will feature some of those seen in SWEET OLD SONG. Apparently the organizers hoped to have Armstrong at the festival, but he died last summer. I had been hoping that the musical might be THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG since a re-release print is circulating, but these docs should be interesting.
-EL NORTE (Gregory Nava, 1984)
It's the film's twentieth anniversary. I know the title and know the director, but that's about it.
-GATES OF HEAVEN (Errol Morris, 1978)
Since Morris is supposed to attend, maybe he'll kick off the post-screening discussion with a statement that it's about time one of his films was recognized at the Overlooked Film Festival. OK, maybe we don't need a replay of his Oscar acceptance speech. I'm not at all surprised that Ebert picked GATES OF HEAVEN. He's been one of this film's biggest supporters--he has called it one of the ten greatest films ever--which led me to track it down on videotape at the Westerville Public Library six or seven years ago. Morris is one of the top documentarians working today, and this film about a pet cemetary is something else.
-THE GENERAL (Clyde Bruckman, 1927)
I've never seen this undisputed Buster Keaton classic, and it should be all the better with live accompaniment from The Alloy Orchestra. Darren Ng's THE SCAPEGOAT precedes this year's silent feature film.
-LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (David Lean, 1962)
Festival tradition has been to open with a 70mm epic, and this should be a special treat. It may be fifteen years since I've seen this--and even then on two panned-and-scanned videotapes most likely--so this should be awesome. I missed seeing this a few years ago when it played the Ohio Theater as part of the CAPA Summer Film Series, but this will more than make up for that.
-MY DOG SKIP (Jay Rusell, 2000)
It's unusual for me to see films far in advance of release, but Columbus was a test market for MY DOG SKIP. I saw it in November 1999, I think, but the film didn't open until January 2000. I liked it and don't mind seeing it again. My NOW PLAYING co-host Paul was over the moon for it and will probably tell me it's time to reevaluate the B- I gave this kids' film.
-ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED (Tim Reid, 1995)
A few years back I had the opportunity to interview Tim Reid when he was going to be in town to present his latest film. I planned on talking to him on the basis of the reputation of ONCE UPON A TIME...WHEN WE WERE COLORED, but then I saw ASUNDER. The African-American potboiler ended up making my worst of the year list. It was one of those generic FATAL ATTRACTION-type films that was so awful I passed on the interview. I had no desire to talk about the film or tell the former Venus Flytrap I thought his film was crap when he would inevitably ask what I thought.
-PEOPLE I KNOW (Daniel Algrant, 2002)
Here's one of those films that certainly fits the overlooked definition. Is it any good? Beats me. It had a lot of trouble getting distribution. (I seem to recall some issues with shots of the World Trade Center towers in it, but I don't think that was why it was minimally released in this country.) Ebert thinks highly of it, so hopefully that's a good sign. Al Pacino is usually interesting to watch even when the films aren't.
-THE SON (LE FILS) (Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne, 2002)
This film just missed making my Honorable Mentions for 2003 list, and I have the sneaking suspicion if I'd had the chance to see it again, it might have moved up. Although not explicity Christian in the sense that I don't recall God or Jesus being mentioned, it is one of the most powerful depictions of the Christian ethos in practice that you'll find in a film. Looks like it's finally coming to DVD at the end of May, but it'll be good to see this on a big screen again.
-TARNATION (Jonathan Caouette, 2003)
Gus Van Sant lent his name as executive producer for this film, and I asked him about it when I interviewed him a couple weeks ago. He was very enthusiastic about it, natch. Made on iMovie for supposedly $187, this will be the most experimental film of the festival and perhaps the must see. I'm guessing it will also be the most divisive. Ebert has done a good job each year of programming at least one new film that is making the rounds but not widely distributed. I saw STONE READER and CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES last year, neither of which reached Columbus. 2002 had KWIK STOP, which is still undistributed as far as I know. 2001 featured MARYAM, which came here a year later.
-TULLY (Hilary Birmingham, 2000)
My familiarity with this film begins and ends with the poster that was displayed at the Drexel for months. It'll be nice to see the film.
Overall, I'm pleased with Ebert's selections. I haven't seen too many of the films, and of those that I have, I'm eager to see them again. It should be a good five days in Champaign-Urbana.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Two Great Danes
Director Lars von Trier challenges his mentor, filmmaker Jorgen Leth, to remake his short film THE PERFECT HUMAN according to rules of the apprentice's choosing in THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS. For example, among the first obstructions are that Leth must shoot the film in Cuba and cannot let any shot last more than twelve frames. Von Trier, who has built a reputation as cinema's enfant terrible with BREAKING THE WAVES and DANCER IN THE DARK, provokes Leth as he does the heroines in his melodramas. Like a tough teacher, he pushes his student to stretch himself farther than he ordinarily would. Von Trier compares this experiment in their relationship to the therapist-client dyad. Leth finds that the more he lets von Trier know what he thinks about the obstructions, the less he wants to share. Von Trier, though, explains that Leth cannot work through the issues if he will not give something of himself.
THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS is a brilliant film that demonstrates how individuals cannot help but reveal information about themselves but still questions if one can truly know another person. What Leth chooses not to do or say often reveals as much about him as his actions and words, and the same is true of von Trier. Yet through all of this, is von Trier any closer to being able to perceive how Leth does? In watching films, can we view through the eyes of the director?
THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS also has much to say about artistic expression and its refinement through the process, be it collaboration, editing, or external interference. It is likely that the five obstructed films, seen in part here, and this feature are all greater than they would have been without the imposed limitations. The obstructions force Leth to flex creative muscles that have been long dormant or which he may not have known he possessed. (The fourth obstruction seems so extreme and unlikely--von Trier expects and hopes the film will be bad--but produces what may be the most stunning of the films.) He may not enjoy the pains von Trier forces him to feel, but in the end he can elate in coming through and achieving something beyond his expectations.
Although THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS is about filmmaking, it is ostensibly a commentary on life. All manner of things obstruct us from doing what we desire, but we must go on and work around and through these things. The third obstruction features one of the film's most telling exchanges. Von Trier gives Leth the ultimate existential choice, total freedom to make the film he wants versus a strict set of rules to do something he finds uncomfortable at best. It comes as no surprise that having no limitations is a scarier prospect.
The five obstructed films are vastly different from Leth's original version of THE PERFECT HUMAN and each other but are, in their own ways, genius. (SPOILER regarding the fourth obstruction--do not read past this point if you do not want to know one of the film's bigger surprises) THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS shows von Trier and Leth at the peaks of their creative powers, but there's one more filmmaker in the midst doing tremendous work. Bob Sabiston, the director of animation for Richard Linklater's WAKING LIFE, comes to Leth's aid for the fourth obstruction. The animation is nothing short of stunning. What seemed like a terrible burden--make a cartoon--turns out to be a gift. How true that is in life too.
THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS is a brilliant film that demonstrates how individuals cannot help but reveal information about themselves but still questions if one can truly know another person. What Leth chooses not to do or say often reveals as much about him as his actions and words, and the same is true of von Trier. Yet through all of this, is von Trier any closer to being able to perceive how Leth does? In watching films, can we view through the eyes of the director?
THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS also has much to say about artistic expression and its refinement through the process, be it collaboration, editing, or external interference. It is likely that the five obstructed films, seen in part here, and this feature are all greater than they would have been without the imposed limitations. The obstructions force Leth to flex creative muscles that have been long dormant or which he may not have known he possessed. (The fourth obstruction seems so extreme and unlikely--von Trier expects and hopes the film will be bad--but produces what may be the most stunning of the films.) He may not enjoy the pains von Trier forces him to feel, but in the end he can elate in coming through and achieving something beyond his expectations.
Although THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS is about filmmaking, it is ostensibly a commentary on life. All manner of things obstruct us from doing what we desire, but we must go on and work around and through these things. The third obstruction features one of the film's most telling exchanges. Von Trier gives Leth the ultimate existential choice, total freedom to make the film he wants versus a strict set of rules to do something he finds uncomfortable at best. It comes as no surprise that having no limitations is a scarier prospect.
The five obstructed films are vastly different from Leth's original version of THE PERFECT HUMAN and each other but are, in their own ways, genius. (SPOILER regarding the fourth obstruction--do not read past this point if you do not want to know one of the film's bigger surprises) THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS shows von Trier and Leth at the peaks of their creative powers, but there's one more filmmaker in the midst doing tremendous work. Bob Sabiston, the director of animation for Richard Linklater's WAKING LIFE, comes to Leth's aid for the fourth obstruction. The animation is nothing short of stunning. What seemed like a terrible burden--make a cartoon--turns out to be a gift. How true that is in life too.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Very Funny, Jerks
For the last month or so I've been dutifully checking the website for Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival in hopes that the film schedule has been posted. I bought my festival pass in December and have been chomping at the bit in anticipation of what films will be playing this year. I just went to the site and became excited to see a Films link. Oh happy day, they've finally been announced! Click..."We will announce our 12 films any day now--please check back!" Very funny.
Monday, March 01, 2004
The Big Sleep
Zzzzzzzzzzz... Oh, the Academy Awards are over? Did I miss anything?
If only I'd slept through them. Not a single surprise in any category. No, I didn't predict them all correctly, but I was counting on a couple surprises. I suppose one could consider THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING winning Adapted Screenplay a surprise, but how much of a shock is it when the film wins everything for which it is nominated? (And let's be honest, it was being rewarded for all three films as much as it was for this concluding chapter.) As the night wore on, the only intrigue was whether the person operating the five second delay would need to hit it in the event of Jamie Lee Curtis' breasts popping out of her dress while she introduced the performance of the song from A MIGHTY WIND.
There were some nice moments. Sean Penn recognizing fellow actors who weren't nominated, Sofia Coppola's mention of directors who influenced her, Jack Black and Will Ferrell's song... Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson's bit was amusing, although it smacked a little too much of the kind of shilling you see on the MTV Movie Awards but not on the Oscars.
This year's awards season was more bearable, in large part because of the decision to move the Oscars ceremony up a month. Hopefully it stays that way. THE LORD OF THE RINGS won't be around to hog awards anymore, so that should add a little more spice to the mix.
Now the studios can return to releasing good films instead of the shelf-clearing dreck that has been taking up space while the prestige pictures try to make gains off of their nominations.
If only I'd slept through them. Not a single surprise in any category. No, I didn't predict them all correctly, but I was counting on a couple surprises. I suppose one could consider THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING winning Adapted Screenplay a surprise, but how much of a shock is it when the film wins everything for which it is nominated? (And let's be honest, it was being rewarded for all three films as much as it was for this concluding chapter.) As the night wore on, the only intrigue was whether the person operating the five second delay would need to hit it in the event of Jamie Lee Curtis' breasts popping out of her dress while she introduced the performance of the song from A MIGHTY WIND.
There were some nice moments. Sean Penn recognizing fellow actors who weren't nominated, Sofia Coppola's mention of directors who influenced her, Jack Black and Will Ferrell's song... Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson's bit was amusing, although it smacked a little too much of the kind of shilling you see on the MTV Movie Awards but not on the Oscars.
This year's awards season was more bearable, in large part because of the decision to move the Oscars ceremony up a month. Hopefully it stays that way. THE LORD OF THE RINGS won't be around to hog awards anymore, so that should add a little more spice to the mix.
Now the studios can return to releasing good films instead of the shelf-clearing dreck that has been taking up space while the prestige pictures try to make gains off of their nominations.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
And the Oscar goes to...
Time again to make myself look like a prognosticating genius. The Academy Awards take place in a couple hours, and while I haven't finalized all my picks for the pool--really--I'll slap some quick guess up here and report back on how I do later.
Locks: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING wins Picture. Peter Jackson wins Director. Charlize Theron is named Best Actress for MONSTER. Tim Robbins nabs Best Supporting Actor for MYSTIC RIVER. FINDING NEMO wins Animated Feature.
Not locks but awfully certain: LOST IN TRANSLATION and MYSTIC RIVER win in the Screenplay categories.
Take your pick: Actor looks like a three horse race rather than a two. I'm probably going to pick Johnny Depp, mainly on the basis that he won the Screen Actors Guild Award. If I chicken out, I'm taking Bill Murray over Sean Penn. Supporting Actress was once thought to be Renee Zellweger's official coronation. As it gets closer, I'm not so sure. If I'm still feeling gutsy, which I am right now, let's go with Shohreh Aghdashloo for HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG.
Who knows: I don't even have all the Foreign Language Film nominees in front of me, but I have a hard time believing that the overrated THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS is going to muster a lot of support. So something other than that, which goes against the conventional wisdom, even if it means I'm essentially picking eighty percent of the nominees. I still don't know what everyone saw in GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING'S cinematography, so it's obviously the one that will win. The Documentary Feature category is really interesting this year, and the films are pretty good too. My preference (and pick) is CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, but I won't quibble with THE FOG OF WAR, unless it costs me the pool. C'mon, though, Errol Morris is probably happy to get that nomination he's deserved for some time, so he can't win, right?
OK, time to head over to the shindig and keep tabs on the red carpet fashions.
Mark
Locks: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING wins Picture. Peter Jackson wins Director. Charlize Theron is named Best Actress for MONSTER. Tim Robbins nabs Best Supporting Actor for MYSTIC RIVER. FINDING NEMO wins Animated Feature.
Not locks but awfully certain: LOST IN TRANSLATION and MYSTIC RIVER win in the Screenplay categories.
Take your pick: Actor looks like a three horse race rather than a two. I'm probably going to pick Johnny Depp, mainly on the basis that he won the Screen Actors Guild Award. If I chicken out, I'm taking Bill Murray over Sean Penn. Supporting Actress was once thought to be Renee Zellweger's official coronation. As it gets closer, I'm not so sure. If I'm still feeling gutsy, which I am right now, let's go with Shohreh Aghdashloo for HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG.
Who knows: I don't even have all the Foreign Language Film nominees in front of me, but I have a hard time believing that the overrated THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS is going to muster a lot of support. So something other than that, which goes against the conventional wisdom, even if it means I'm essentially picking eighty percent of the nominees. I still don't know what everyone saw in GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING'S cinematography, so it's obviously the one that will win. The Documentary Feature category is really interesting this year, and the films are pretty good too. My preference (and pick) is CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, but I won't quibble with THE FOG OF WAR, unless it costs me the pool. C'mon, though, Errol Morris is probably happy to get that nomination he's deserved for some time, so he can't win, right?
OK, time to head over to the shindig and keep tabs on the red carpet fashions.
Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)