Quantcast
Channel: Film Comment Blog
Viewing all 688 articles
Browse latest View live

Rep Diary: Films of John Korty

$
0
0

Carroll Ballard, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Philip Kaufman, and Michael Ritchie all are, or were, San Francisco–based filmmakers. Yet none of these people seem to be Bay Area filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Abel Ferrara, or Spike Lee are New York filmmakers. Avant-garde cinema, on the other hand, has a rich history with the West Coast in general, and San Francisco in particular. Falling somewhere in between is John Korty, a narrative filmmaker who sets his films in the Bay Area and beyond. The city never overwhelms his work, but comfortably appears in the margins. His social and domestic dramas work with small budgets and modest stories.

The Language of Faces

The Language of Faces

That characterization, however, does not untangle the Kortian knot. The 78-year-old filmmaker has made shorts and features in a range of forms: animation, commercials, documentary, telefilm, and Web short. Similar to avant-garde colleagues, especially Bruce Conner or Craig Baldwin in their collage-based work, John Korty is a montage artist, slicing and dicing his narratives, bringing out the gestures, rhythms, and textures in them. Even in his debut, The Language of Faces (61), a short about a Quaker vigil in Washington D.C. reminiscent of The Savage Eye, Korty’s rhythmic editing is already on display. The cautionary, preaching yet poetic voiceover narrates an all-American assemblage of images featuring planes, flags, advertisements, and particularly faces: large, small, young, and old faces, faces looking and faces reading.

Born in Lafayette, Indiana, Korty went to high school in Kirkwood, Missouri where an 11th-grade art teacher showed his class Norman McLaren’s films. “I had interests in music and art and writing and everything, and they were all separate things in my mind,” Korty says in a video interview on The Crazy-Quilt DVD (which he produced). “When I saw McLaren’s films, I thought, ‘Wait a minute. Film is the one thing you can do that combines all these different elements.’ From that moment on, I was hooked on the idea of becoming a filmmaker.”

Korty’s first feature-length film, and his first Bay Area film, The Crazy-Quilt (66), shares a glancing resemblance with McLaren’s Neighbours, not so much in terms of subject matter, but in formal affinities, a preoccupation with diametric oppositions and unions of social behavior. The story—really a pair of contrasting character sketches—is simple enough: a fable-like tale of an exterminator, Henry, his wife, Lorabella, and their relationship over a lifetime. He is a take-no-prisoners realist, who doesn’t suffer fools, and holds no illusions. She is a romantic believing in “timeless art,” in “elegant mirages,” as the authoritative narrator informs us. They are doodles, not flesh-and-blood characters, but figures epitomizing different worldviews and temperaments.

The Crazy Quilt

The Crazy-Quilt

With great economy, Korty takes us through the couple’s life from their tentative beginnings, the ebb and flow of their relationship in middle age, and their stability in later years, all in a matter of 70-odd minutes. Shirking analytical editing, The Crazy-Quilt is a roundelay of images narrated by Burgess Meredith’s coarse voice, moments of the couple together or apart, and fragmentary scenes in which they speak and interact. It’s a prismatic film of lives lived that inspired Terrence Malick to become a filmmaker. One of The Tree of Life’s seeds starts here.

As with his debut and his third film, Riverrun (70), Funnyman (67) was independently produced.  Peter Bonerz plays the eponymous figure—a funnyman tired of being funny. Instead of performing skits with the San Francisco improv group, The Committee, he wants to do high art. He recites Faust. He creates a performance art piece called The Actor. It tanks. For a short spell, he works in the ad industry, coming up with ideas for animated commercials (designed by Korty) on bug spray, spinning lines like “Blast kills everything that bugs you.” Acting on stage and in his everyday life, he does not know who he is amid the palimpsest of performances.

At the time of its release, writing in Film Quarterly, Ernest Callenbach opened his review with this corker of a line: “The film that Funnyman calls most to mind is Godard’s Masculin/Feminin; it is Korty’s Funny/Sad.” Korty shoots extended montage sequences mixed in with two-shots of Bonerz in conversations that have the intuitive, instinctually spot-on quality of improvisation. One point of reference for early Godard and early Korty: both use the mere skeletons of scripts. And like Godard, Korty uses color filters. From scene to scene, Korty shuffles through filters that mirror the shifting hues of Bonerz’s many performances.

Funnyman

Funnyman

After 1970, Korty went into TV, creating animation for Electric Company and Sesame Street and directing telefilms, not only to pay the rent, but also because they suit the rapid rate of his working method. With a few departures, including his Academy Award-winning documentary, Who Are the DeBolts? (And Where Did They Get 19 Kids?) (77), TV movies dominate his filmography from the Seventies to the Nineties. As with the careers of Lamont Johnson, Daniel Petrie, John Badham, William A. Graham, and others, Korty’s output as a TV filmmaker is an untapped area for exploration.

To this date, Korty’s last theatrically released film, and co-directed with Charles Swenson, was Twice Upon a Time, back in 1983. In it, Ralph “the all-purpose animal,” and “his flaky friend,” Mum, save the Rushers of Din—humans in a black-and-white world, always in a hurry, always looking at their watches—from Synonamess Botch (you know he’s bad because he has “Nixon-Agnew ’68” tattooed on his chest) who plans to drop nightmares on the Rushers with the help of vultures. Twice is Korty’s only animated feature, and he shows no interest in making another. His decision is reasonable given the film’s rocky production and distribution history.

Twice deserves recognition in the history of animation for its use of Korty’s “Lumage” technique. Lumage is a type of 2-D stop-motion animation in which characters are made out of numerous cutout plastic and felt parts. The pieces are placed over a translucent background setting, which in turn, lies on a light table, creating a warm glowing light. Although now easily simulated with computers, Lumage is an extremely tedious and intensive process. That’s one of the reasons why the film took three years to make, with Korty’s crew (which included a 19-year-old David Fincher operating a motion control camera and Henry Selick directing sequences) working in his Mill Valley home.

Twice Upon a Time

Twice Upon a Time

When it came time for Twice’s theatrical release, practically no one saw it. The Ladd Company distributed the film at a time when the company was in its death throes. After tepid test screenings in Oregon, they dumped the film in a single Westwood, California theater that played it for a mere two weeks in August 1983. The following year in June, Twice aired 12 times on HBO. In 1991, Twice appeared on VHS and laserdisc. Warner Bros., who owns the rights, has never released the film on DVD or Blu-Ray.

Regardless whether or not Korty and Swenson’s film fits the label of cult film, Twice dazzles. With its organic shapes, its watercolors, its spider web-thin lines, the film’s animation recalls Eric Carle (sans his vibrant colors), Jazz album covers like those designed by Neil Fujita and David Stone Martin, as well as The Yellow Submarine and John and Faith Hubley’s animation, both acknowledged influences.

In an early New York Times profile around the time of The Crazy-Quilt, Korty talked about the travails of making his kind of films: “To me, the problem and the real challenge is to make pictures putting people back together.” He shows the building and the wear and tear in a relationship central to his first feature. He constructs a character out of many characters in Funnyman. And in Twice Upon a Time two characters become unlikely heroes (in “a time of desperate need for heroes—any kind of heroes” an opening title card reads). In Korty’s films, identities are constructed and relationships are built. They are his building blocks.


Notebook: Oscar Week

$
0
0

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu

Alejandro G. Iñárritu (credit: Richard Harbaugh / ©A.M.P.A.S.)

Hollywood is really good at celebrating itself. Oscar week in Los Angeles, the series of shows and soirees that cap awards season, drives that point home. In fact, in recent years the kudos have increasingly seemed to be tied to the industry’s perception of its own fate. During a time of change for both industry and audiences alike, Hollywood increasingly uses its Oscar stage to honor movies about movies. Three years ago it was The Artist, two years ago Argo, and this year Best Picture winner Birdman, a film about an aging superhero-movie star with an identity crisis, took Hollywood’s top prize.

Is Hollywood itself struggling with the same grave insecurities facing Birdman’s Riggan Thomson?

“You’re scared to death, like the rest of us, that you don’t matter. And you know what, you’re right. You don’t!” Riggan Thomson’s daughter (played by Emma Stone) screams at her dad (Michael Keaton) in Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. “It’s not important, okay? You’re not important. Get used to it.”

Twin ceremonies, the Independent Spirit Awards this past Saturday and then the Academy Awards on Sunday, capped the nearly six-month-long season of prognosticating and jockeying for end-of-year attention. Strategists began positioning some films for consideration more than a year before Oscar weekend, but this year both shows celebrated the very same film as the best of 2014.

Iñárritu, the second Mexican filmmaker in as many years to win the Best Director Oscar, worried aloud on Saturday that awards are important because they reward niche movies, made outside the big Hollywood system, that are relegated mainly to film festivals and art houses.

“As many animals in nature we are threatened to become species in extinction,” Iñárritu said on stage while accepting his Spirit Award. “I think that all these films, all of us, share something. All of them are born from a need to be expressed, something to say, an individual expression. I think all these films were an act of love.”

These days, Hollywood movies seem to fall into two broad categories: movies for mass audiences and movies for awards. In remarks throughout the weekend here in Los Angeles, winners and losers warned of a particularly fragile moviemaking ecosystem and a widening gap between the movies that ticket buyers see in droves and those that are spotlighted during awards season. To many, the lengthy season of introducing and celebrating awards worthy films that begins in earnest at the late summer and early autumn film festivals is vital to the survival of the movies that are aimed at specialized audiences. It also gives the industry a chance to fluff their feathers with pride.

“I think we'd all be remiss if we didn't thank Narcissus right now,” Michael Keaton quipped as his awards season came to a close on Saturday with the presentation of his best actor prize at the Independent Spirit Awards. “And that award, the mirror thing, is just genius.”

Awards attention specifically for Indiewood films affords a level of status and prestige unattainable within mainstream Hollywood and also helps smaller movies gain a foothold in an industry that is quickly shifting in favor of tentpoles and established story brands.

Julianne Moore

Julianne Moore (credit: Matt Petit / ©A.M.P.A.S.)

“We’re hoping that we’ll be the story,” iconic indie producer Christine Vachon from boutique New York shop Killer Films said of her latest film during a conversation at the Sunset Tower Hotel in West Hollywood, a tony spot typically home to Hollywood’s heavyweights. On this day it was opened up to indie filmmakers, producers and industry, many from the East Coast. Vachon’s current contender with producing partner Pam Koffler, Still Alice, was saluted with a cocktail party to tout the best actress nominations for Julianne Moore. The actress, who made her name as a champion of independent films in the Nineties, won the best actress award from both the Oscars and Spirit Awards this weekend.

“It’s amazing,” Vachon continued, “It is our 20th anniversary, this is a typical Killer film, a small film that we’ve nurtured and loved for a long time and to see it come this far is just extraordinary.” The attention for the indie film will help them make more money for this movie and bolster Vachon and Koffler’s chances of securing talent and financing for future passion projects.

“It makes us able to say, ‘Look: we bet on the right horses,’” Vachon said of the crucial awards acknowledgement prior to her movie winning two big prizes over the weekend. “If we say this movie is going to go all the way, you know we might be right.”

Julianne Moore said on Saturday that she was fortunate to have started in independent film more than two decades ago at the beginning of a movement. “[Independent film] shaped my life and my career,” she remarked while accepting her Spirit Award this weekend. She won the same award at the Oscars on Sunday.

Today, Julianne Moore’s agreeing to star in an indie film can assure that it gets made and marketed.

In fact, for Vachon and Koffler the awards attention has become a core component of their business plan since their 1999 film Boys Don’t Cry earned Hilary Swank an Oscar. Just a few years ago, though, indie nominees would win awards on Saturday at the Spirit Awards but step aside to let top Hollywood talent take the top prizes at the Oscars. Now, as Hollywood has doubled down on comic-book projects, filmmakers see awards as a crucial cry for dwindling attention.

“Independent film and everybody here today are holdouts against a tsunami of superhero movies that have swept over this industry,” Nightcrawler writer-director Dan Gilroy reacted at the Spirit Awards in Santa Monica. Top prizes at that event, which is staged inside a cavernous beachside tent, mirrored most of the big winners at the Oscars in Hollywood the following day. “We have survived and we have thrived and I think that’s true spirit.”

There was a time that the Independent Spirit Awards, now 30 years old, were seen as a quirky, rebellious sibling to the more polished Academy Awards ceremony the next day. Now, they are quickly becoming the engine that drives the movies that Hollywood hopes will have a lasting impact, even if those films are released in a limited number of cinemas and wider audiences are forced to watch them in their home theaters or on personal screens.

Jack Black

Jack Black  (credit: Valerie Durant / ©A.M.P.A.S.)

Saturday’s Spirit Award ceremony skewered the indie industry for going mainstream while Sunday’s Oscar ceremony sent a mixed message because, like Riggan Thomson, Hollywood seems rather tortured by its own future. The Academy Awards opened with a rousing musical number aimed at reminding audiences about the magic of cinema but even for an optimistic soul, host Neil Patrick Harris’s rah-rah moment, "to celebrate and hopefully fall in love with the movies all over again," seemed blindly nostalgic next to Jack Black’s more realistic assessment of the movie business that expanded on the comments made one day earlier by Dan Gilroy.

“This industry’s in flux, it’s run by mucky-mucks pitching tents for tentpoles and chasing Chinese bucks,” Jack Black sang darkly. “Opening with lots of zeroes, all we get are superheroes!” He continued: “In a world where our brains are becoming machines, the only screens we’re watching are the screens in our jeans. Screens in our jeans!” TV ratings for the Oscars dropped rather dramatically this year apparently due to a slate of Best Picture nominees with almost entirely indie or specialty roots. Engagement on Twitter during the show, though, only fell slightly.

Richard Linklater’s Boyhood, considered a front-runner for awards this year, came up short all weekend, but the director seized the moment to call attention to the delicate nature of indie film. On Thursday night here in Los Angeles, Linklater shifted his spotlight to support the Austin Film Society. A Vanity Fair party held in his honor was recast as a benefit for the non-profit organization that he launched in Texas nearly 30 years ago to celebrate classic cinema on the big screen and support the work of emerging filmmakers. On Saturday, he decided to forgo attending the Spirit Awards where he was named Best Director, and Ethan Hawke accepted the award for his frequent collaborator. Yet it was Linklater’s Austin compatriot Rebecca Campbell, head of Austin Film Society, who spoke to the value that the attention for Linklater and Boyhood is having back in Texas.

“AFS has received more media attention from outside of Texas because of Boyhood’s success than we’ve ever experienced. The widespread coverage and social media chatter has focused on our exhibition and artist services programs,” Campbell explained, noting that the spotlight has underscored the importance of bolstering film culture and nurturing new filmmakers. However, she added: “The message of those stories is about economic impact and celebrity, whereas Boyhood has shifted the focus to the art of film and truly independent filmmaking. Because of Boyhood, AFS and organizations like ours have a new way of talking about what we do.”

Other producers and directors in Los Angeles this weekend expressed a hope that the awards attention garnered by their work would not only help them progress in their own careers but also open the door wider for many others.

“I started writing this movie some 10 years ago as an impulse because I didn’t really see my story out there in the culture,” began Justin Simien, director of Dear White People, accepting the Best First Screenplay Prize at the Spirit Awards. “I didn’t see myself reflected back at me in the films that I loved, in the stories that resonated for me . . . This means so much to me because it feels to me like I do belong in the culture.” Speaking to the filmmakers listening, he emphasized: “If you have a story and you don’t see yourself in the culture, please put yourself there, because we need you, we need to see the world from your eyes.”

After the ceremony, Simien was sipping a cocktail alongside producer Effie Brown at the post-show nominees party, held in a bungalow on the beach. He said that all of the recent attention for the film had been crucial. He’d reached a wider audience and hoped to inspire others thanks to spotlight of awards season. But with the ceremony over, he was ready to move on.

“I just want to work on my next movie,” he laughed.

THE WINNERS:

30th Independent Spirit Awards

Best Feature: Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

Best Director: Richard Linklater, Boyhood

Best Screenplay: Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler

Best First Feature: Nightcrawler, directed by Dan Gilroy

Best First Screenplay: Justin Simien, Dear White People

John Cassavetes Award: Land Ho!, directed by Aaron Katz & Martha Stephens

Best Supporting Female: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

Best Supporting Male: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

Best Female Lead: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Best Male Lead: Michael Keaton, Birdman

Robert Altman Award: Inherent Vice

Best Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki, Birdman

Best Editing: Tom Cross, Whiplash

Best International Film: Ida (Poland), directed by Pawel Pawlikowski

Best Documentary: CITIZENFOUR, directed by Laura Poitras

Special Distinction Award: Foxcatcher, directed by Bennett Miller

87th Academy Awards

Best Picture: Birdman

Best Actor: Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

Best Actress: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Best Supporting Actor: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

Best Supporting Actress: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

Best Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Birdman

Best Original Screenplay: Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr. & Armando Bo, Birdman

Best Adapted Screenplay: Graham Moore, The Imitation Game

Best Foreign Language Film: Ida, Poland

Best Animated Feature: Big Hero 6

Best Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki, Birdman

Best Film Editing: Tom Cross, Whiplash

Best Sound Editing: Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman, American Sniper

Best Sound Mixing: Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins, and Thomas Curley, Whiplash

Best Production Design: Adam Stockhausen (Production Design) and Anna Pinnock (Set Decoration), The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Design: Milena Canonero, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Original Score: Alexandre Desplat, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Original Song: "Glory" by Common and John Legend, Selma

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Visual Effects: Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter, and Scott Fisher, Interstellar

Best Documentary Short Subject: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1

Best Documentary Feature: CITIZENFOUR

Best Short Film, Live Action: The Phone Call

Best Short Film, Animated: Feast

Rep Diary: Tulsa

$
0
0

Tonight, Larry Clark’s The Smell of Us screens in Film Comment Selects, and in honor of the screening, here’s a look back at Clark’s early film Tulsa—from the late Sixties.

Tulsa

Tulsa (© Larry Clark; Courtesy of the artist, Luhring Augustine, New York, and Simon Lee Gallery, London and Hong Kong)

“A collection of photographs that assail, lacerate, devastate.” The verbs chosen in a Detroit Free Press review of Larry Clark’s 1971 debut photobook Tulsa could easily apply to his first film—also called Tulsa—from three years earlier. Rediscovered in 2010 by the artist, the long lost 64-minute artifact brings to life the young drug-infused peers who he hung out with in his birthplace. Tulsa the book, composed of work spanning 1963 to 1971, helped usher in a new era of autobiographical portraiture in which lines between photographer and subject are blurred. If the film, fragments of which appear in the photobook as contact prints, had been released at the time of its making—when Clark was still an unknown artist in his twenties—it would likely have garnered just as much interest as its harrowing counterpart. And although you can turn the page when reading the photobook, the camera keeps rolling in Tulsa the film.

Shot on a rented 16mm Bolex over three days and edited in camera, Tulsa is a silent black-and-white document that is like a last testament found in the basement of a dead addict. The photobook’s cover star, Billy Mann, and his gang are set into motion, only to show that their waking lives didn't involve much action—just endless injections of drugs. Not even a hint of euphoria is seen in their eyes as the amphetamine kicks in; the practiced precision of their shooting up confirms it’s a matter of habit more than desire. The empty stare of Billy’s girlfriend becomes all the more upsetting when she gets out of bed, revealing her pregnant features. For those familiar with the energetic teen subjects in Clark’s later films, the passivity of the Tulsa youth is all the more disturbing. The joyous chaos that Clark celebrates in Another Day in Paradise (98) and Wassup Rockers (05) is not to be seen here. Staring at the walls of their house with vacant expressions, the youngsters slouch as if their very body weight is a burden.

At times, the living ghosts become animated for a moment to break out of the documentary format and act out a scene for the camera. Billy and a few friends drive around seemingly aimlessly until they arrive at a house where a girl awaits with her baby. In the film’s most sincere series of moments—unusually, a staged sex scene—the girl and one of the boys enter a bedroom to embark in foreplay. Breaking the numbness of the preceding scenes of drug taking, the two non-actors touch each other with awkward nervousness, burying their faces in each other’s shoulders as if attempting to hide from the camera. Their clumsiness is profoundly touching in the context of a film that is so deeply filled with dreadful sights. As in many of Clark’s later films, the line between staging and unvarnished reality is playfully crossed. In a more violent scene of activity that appears to be staged, a young adolescent destroys all the furniture in his house. Reality comes crashing in when policemen appear out of nowhere and escort him outside to the street.

Tulsa

Tulsa (© Larry Clark; Courtesy of the artist, Luhring Augustine, New York, and Simon Lee Gallery, London and Hong Kong)

The potential dramatic punch of the world at large intruding on the drug haven is abandoned for a deflated affect that conveys sad routine. Moments of role-play don’t last for long; the youths tend to swiftly abandon their roles, distracted by the prospect of another hit. And for the most part, the needle hitting the arm is all we get. The film, which first screened in a 2010 retrospective at the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, was presented all too appropriately as a looped installation last summer at Amsterdam's Foam Photography Museum. The format perfectly suited the perpetual repetition of action on screen, suggesting that there was no way out for Clark's subjects. The camera just keeps staring. Its unflinching long takes could be described as direct cinema without any drive, political or otherwise.

For the most part suggesting a nightmarish home-movie, Tulsa allows us occasional glimpses behind the camera to show us its director. As their friend and a drug-user himself, Clark maintains a short but necessary distance from his subjects while keeping the messy interior of their houses always in sight. He mostly shoots from one angle, with very little movement, showing remarkable patience for each scene and taking in whatever happens in front of him in a way that only a coeval could do. Occasional breaks from the hellish vision are interspersed with close-up shots of the carpet floor, but its patterns swirl and spread like a network of poisoned veins. And after each reel change, the camera wakes up only to find the slow but sure plight of its subjects continuing, naturally accruing the primitivist feel that Clark’s future collaborator Harmony Korine would attempt to simulate in Trash Humpers.

It took another 30 years before Clark picked up a movie camera to shoot Kids (95), his official directorial debut (written by a teenaged Korine). Tulsa can be understood as its precursor, right down to the dicey depictions of teenage sex. The kids of Tulsa could have fathered the delinquents of Kids—except that a fatal overdose killed Billy Mann only two years after the film shoot. Indeed, when discussing his re-discovery of Tulsa’s reels, Clark has said that most of those who appeared in the film have died. But he’s continued to channel these early experiences in his fictional tales of street youths, with Tulsa’s youth culture evidently haunting Clark’s mind for decades.

Interview: Christian Petzold

$
0
0

This Saturday, Christian Petzold’s Phoenix has its U.S. premiere in Film Comment Selects. The acclaimed German filmmaker’s borrowings from melodrama and noir are key to his latest feature, in which a scarred concentration camp survivor returns home and is inexorably drawn into looking for her husband. But that husband firmly believes that she is dead, and their meeting leads to some bewildering demands. Petzold muse Nina Hoss plays Nelly, the fragile survivor, and Ronald Zehrfeld is her shifty spouse, Johnny, the two circling one another in a ruined Berlin.

FILM COMMENT spoke with Petzold about Phoenix last fall at the Toronto film festival, in a discussion driven by the director’s exhilarating style of storytelling and spitballing.

No Man of Her Own

No Man of Her Own

Thanks for sitting for an interview—I know you’ve had a long day already.

Film Comment! I have old Film Comments from the Sixties and the Seventies! I bought them at a flea market. Yeah, my English has been getting better, since I’ve talked all day. Three hours ago there was one German interview, and all of a sudden I can’t speak German anymore. I can’t remember things—it’s like a computer, you need links in your own language, and if you don’t have them, you don’t have a memory... like the Germans after ’45, they just lose their memory.

The way your movie works with memory is very interesting. You’ve found such a bold structure for dealing with it—it’s as if you took a Hollywood melodrama for a starting point. Do you know the one [No Man of Her Own] where Barbara Stanwyck gets in a train crash and switches identities with another passenger?

Yeah. This is interesting, because I never talk about Barbara Stanwyck, I always talk about other American actresses. But there’s another Barbara Stanwyck film, where she’s on a ship with Henry Fonda …

The Lady Eve?

Yes, Preston Sturges! It’s a film about two women, but really it’s one woman—Henry Fonda just doesn’t recognize her. I think I told Nina [Hoss] to look at this movie, I’m not sure. The first film we watched together was by Jacques Demy, Les Demoiselles de Rochefort. It’s a musical, and I said, how is this possible after 1945? In the film, we see the war in Algiers, and it’s a political film, made by a Jewish director. But the people can still sing and dance. It’s not reality, but it’s real. I said, this is what we have lost in Germany; therefore we should look at this and start writing about it, because it’s fantastic.

The second film we saw was Out of the Past by Jacques Tourneur, because the protagonists, Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer, have “double light” in their eyes. They are betrayers, they are liars, they are tired, but their eyes are soft and deep. So you see two things—a mask and a soul—in the same moment. This is something that happens in our movie. For example, Ronald Zehrfeld, he has heart, but he has lost his empathy. He’s tired like Burt Lancaster in The Killers, the opening sequence. In his eyes, there’s something—there’s the whole story of 1945.

In the beginning of the film, Nina Hoss has to act with bandages on her face, and since she’s such a recognizable actress, you have that moment of anticipation of when you’ll see and recognize her. It seems as if the whole film is built around these scenes of recognitions.

Yeah, we were thinking that this movie has to have development for each character. For the main character, Nelly, it starts in a car, with a soldier looking in [at a checkpoint]. Nowadays, there’s a pregnant woman in the car, and the soldier says, “Okay, drive on,” and the next scene is at the hospital, the birth—then my first room of my own, then I go out in the night because I want to see the world outside of my parents’ house, then my first boyfriend, my first love affair, and then I’m an adult. This was not exactly the idea, but it came to us automatically. During the fourth or fifth day of shooting, I told Nina, when you’re an adult, you have lost the innocence of youth.

Phoenix Nina Hoss

Phoenix

What’s interesting is she wants to go back to her romance with that same innocence. Is Johnny a character who’s already corrupt, or has his empathy disappeared with the war?

It’s a long story, but I can shorten it up a little bit. During the rehearsals, we read an autobiography by a German essayist, who was 20 years old in 1933, studying for the bar. Two days after Hitler won the election, he was sitting in a courtroom, working for an attorney, and the SS comes into the building and starts to beat all the Jewish attorneys. And he’s hearing all the shots and screams of the people, and he says to himself: “Now I’m in a tunnel. I have nothing to do with the things outside. I’m not guilty, because I don’t beat people, I’m just not part of the society any longer.” This is a little bit of Johnny. But one moment, the door opened, and two SS people were there with iron sticks and dogs, and they asked him, “Jewish or not Jewish?” and he said “not Jewish.” And 50 years later, he said, this is the moment where I was guilty. It’s the same choice Johnny made. He accepted the selection of the Nazis, and destroyed love, and that’s guilty, I think.

That makes me think about past German films about World War II and the Holocaust. Did you feel a burden to approach the period with a rigorous ethical standard, or did you just want to forget what people might say or talk about?

I didn’t think about the burden. I thought about Fassbinder, when he made his period pictures like The Marriage of Eva Braun—I mean Maria Braun!

He should have made that movie!

Yeah! I’ll make that movie in five years, an Eva Braun movie, but not in a Fassbinder way, not in a Downfall way. Actually, with Eva Braun, I saw a really, really good thing. This has to be our next script. We have found some material from 1958—because they didn’t find Adolf Hitler’s body right away, they started to say, he’s Elvis Presley. [Laughs]

Like conspiracy theories?

Yeah, but there were so many witnesses from the bunker who saw him dead. And they have so many interviews with the witnesses from the bunker, so they wanted to re-create the suicide of Hitler and Eva Braun, and not how it happened, because no one was inside the room, but how the witnesses found the bodies. So we want to make a movie about this scene, and the people who reenact this scene—a weekend of two policemen who reenact the deaths of Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler.

I’d watch that. Have you seen the documentary about Hitler’s secretary?

Yeah, she’s another witness. I don’t like all these witnesses from the wrong side. Something is a little bit wrong about Hitler and the bunkers. In German history, all the dictators live in caves, and there are so many tales where there’s a shepherd who goes into a little cave, and finds Barbarossa, Red Beard, with his 10,000 soldiers, waiting for a thousand years, and he asks: “Are they waiting for me? Do you need me, Germany?” And it gets tied to Adolf Hitler, like: “We need you, Hitler.” So I just hate it. In the caves, there are the German monsters. But the ghosts, and the phantoms and the survivors—they need stories, too.

Phoenix

Phoenix

Speaking of stories, that’s something else I really noticed watching this film: Nelly wants to continue her life story, but Johnny’s forcing her to follow a different story. I like those dueling stories.

A lot of it happens in a basement, like a laboratory. We always said, Frankenstein was also created right there, Pygmalion was created right there, and all the artists working on their sculptures. There’s always the same male subjectivity, and the male artists always create their own projections of women. This woman, Nelly, wants to be created, but she also wants to tell her story, of the camps. It’s like a dance—she’s dancing around the table, trying to catch his eye.

The basic conceit is fascinating in all its layers. It’s also as if Nelly’s story is being turned false for others because Johnny is turning it into a lie. It’s a waking nightmare. That’s also why it felt like a film noir to me.

It is a film noir! Fassbinder needed the Douglas Sirk films to make his period pictures, and I need film noir to make mine. Douglas Sirk was a German, of course, and the light in film noir comes from Berlin. There’s a fantastic German essay by Frieda Grafe called “The Lights from Berlin,” and this song by Kurt Weill, “Berlin im Licht,” that says, “The light from Berlin is going to Hollywood.”

You co-wrote the film with your collaborator, the late Harun Farocki. What ideas did each of you bring to the table? I could imagine that you each could bring quite different perspectives.

Well, this particular story was his idea. He wanted to do it by himself in the Eighties, but he lost his connection to feature films. He was my best friend, and we’d meet daily. He always said, it cost him 10 years to understand that the mainstream is the true home of the avant-garde. You can find more experimenting in the films of Hitchcock or Fritz Lang than in experimental films. Whereas the Surrealists were against novels, in three years they were writing sentences like, “It was six o’clock in the morning when Lady Ashford took her tea.” So I think Harun was right: feature films are grammatical. You have to fight against the grammar, but that’s just part of the story.

What was the reception of Phoenix in Germany?

I don’t know. Some reactions were positive, but you know, Germans don’t like each other.

Film of the Week: Eastern Boys

$
0
0

Eastern Boys

You may not know the name Robin Campillo, but it’s possible that he’s partly responsible for some of your favorite French films of the last 15 years. Campillo has worked regularly as an editor with director Laurent Cantet since 1997, and has co-written four of his features: Time Out (01), Heading South (05), the Palme d’Or winner The Class (08), and the hugely underrated Foxfire (12). In his own right, Campillo also wrote and directed They Came Back (Les Revenants, 04), an extraordinary feature that was way ahead of the current undead boom, and offered a radically different take on what’s since become the only too commonplace question of reanimation. Some of the film’s questions were refreshingly mundane, such as, what happens when someone returns from the grave expecting to resume their old job, only to find the place has been filled? Others were complex and poignant: how would it feel to have a lost loved one return, once you’ve already gone through the mourning process? They Came Back touched on some profound topics, and it’s only a shame that this clever, inventive film was so little seen.*

Campillo’s follow-up has taken a while, but it’s been worth the wait. Eastern Boys is very different, a smaller film in some ways and more concentrated, but every bit as confident and controlled; Campillo being his own editor may have something to do with that. The film starts in Paris at the Gare du Nord, Europe’s busiest railway station (and a miniature citadel in itself, as explored in Claire Simon’s interesting and idiosyncratic 2013 feature Gare du Nord). The camera, positioned somewhere overhead, scans the wide concourse outside the station, where a young man grabs our attention by strutting and stretching as if he owns the place. He’s joined by a group of other white youths in trainers and tracksuits, the Eastern boys of the title, from Russia, Ukraine, and other parts of the former USSR. They high-five, clap each other’s backs, then head inside the station for whatever their business is, although it’s unlikely to be anything aboveboard.

It’s hard to know quite how many of the people caught on film in this section are extras, how many are unsuspecting commuters, but Campillo’s use of the station crowd is superb: Jeanne Lapoirie’s camera, looking from above, follows the boys collectively or individually bobbing in and out of the throng or weaving slyly around nervous members of the public, before they are all chased out by a wary official—who then can’t do anything once they’re back out in the public zone of the concourse. This opening section is a master class on the deft editing of surveillance-style camerawork (which, for obvious social reasons, may end up being the quintessential camera style of early 21st-century cinema: see for example Ruben Östlund’s Play).

Eastern Boys

Campillo then pulls in closer, the camera coming down to ground level, to engage us in a cat-and-mouse pursuit involving one boy—a slender, elfin-faced teenager, played by Kirill Emelyanov—and a middle-aged man in a suit (Olivier Rabourdin) who’s been watching him, hovering ever nearer. At first we wonder whether he’s police. But when the two meet under a stairway, we understand what’s happening: the man, Daniel, wants to have sex with the boy, who calls himself Marek, and who speaks some English but no French. They decide upon a fee, and Marek agrees to visit Daniel’s apartment the next evening.

The next two of the film’s four sections (all rather grandiosely titled, in Campillo’s only false move) are set in Daniel’s austere but elegant home, on the twelfth floor of a block on the eastern edge of Paris, with a breathtaking city view. The door rings and Daniel answers, but instead of Marek, it’s a diminutive younger kid from the gang; he says he’s 14, but he could easily be younger, and has the lawless arrogance of a damaged pre-teen. He pushes his way in, insists that Daniel invited him, and points out that he’s underage, so his unwilling host is in deep trouble. That’s when the whole gang of boys—plus a female member—arrive, headed by the strutting youth we saw at the start. He’s known as Boss (Daniil Vorobyev) and that’s what he is. He engages Daniel in challenging eye contact, claims this territory as his, and gets the party started: dance music on the stereo, the fridge raided, and eventually one of his minions thrown through Daniel’s glass table.

As the film takes on the foreboding menace of the typical “home invasion” thriller, it’s hard to read the film’s political or moral stance towards Daniel. Do we read him as a predator using economically disadvantaged youth and now getting his come-uppance? Or is the film voicing the paranoia towards immigrant communities that has a long, unsavory history in French culture, and that’s now horribly prevalent in a France in which the far-right Front National is alarmingly on the rise? By the time Daniel’s luxury possessions are being carried out of his wrecked flat to a waiting van, Eastern Boys has you in its grip—but has you wondering what it’s saying and where it’s going.

Eastern Boys

That’s when things shift most intriguingly (time, then, for a Spoiler Alert). The third chapter, again played out entirely in the apartment, changes the terms of play between him and Marek—or Ruslan, as the apparently Ukrainian boy says he’s really named. He and Daniel end up having sex, as originally planned, then arrange further visits, seemingly to Ruslan’s satisfaction as well as his customer’s. Then things get more intimate between them, Daniel treating Ruslan ever more affectionately, lavishing gifts on him and offering him a monthly rate and a permanent bedroom of his own. Yes, the relationship is built on economics, and there’s an uneven match between one party’s financial power and the other’s sexual primacy—and yet this appears to be turning into a love story.

In chapter four, Eastern Boys slips into yet another register, a rescue drama in a realist mode. The action now moves to a hotel elsewhere on the city’s periphery, where Boss’s band rule one floor; immigrants here lodge in rooms bought by social services and subject to a kind of autonomy within the establishment. Given that Boss’s crew seem wholly or largely to be illegal immigrants, it’s hard to know exactly what their relationship is with the authorities, but it’s clear that they are all surviving outside official channels, by whatever means they can—with Boss at once protecting and oppressing them. The film culminates in Daniel’s attempting to free Ruslan from Boss’s clutches, but Campillo cleverly redirects the narrative in this section by focusing on a young black woman, played with steely poise by Edéa Darcque. She’s the hotel’s manager, engaged in a cautious war with Boss about who makes the house rules. It’s easy to imagine the manager being played by a white actor as one of those harassed, officious concierge types who represent one of the most dependable stereotypes of French social drama. Casting a black actress and making her effectively this section’s protagonist gives the film a completely different slant; you can almost see Campillo, or indeed Cantet, making a whole film out of this character’s struggle as a precarious authority figure, caught somewhere between Paris’s official communities and a marginal, hidden population.

The first time I saw Eastern Boys, I read the ending rather differently, as relatively straightforward and upbeat; on a second viewing, the film seems much more equivocal both about Daniel’s and Ruslan’s future, and their relationship. They may be on the verge of getting what they want only by lying to the authorities about the true nature of their bond, closeting themselves—and arguably winning only by wrecking the futures of others. What could easily have been a sensationalist drama, about a bourgeois man getting into deep water when he walks on the wild side, becomes a much more complex and delicate affair.

Eastern Boys

That’s partly because of the acting. Daniel is played by Olivier Rabourdin, who was one of the doomed monks in Xavier Beauvois’s Of Gods and Men. He’s immensely sympathetic at the start, with his shy, smiling approach to Marek/Ruslan, and then when cornered at home, with what may initially be rabbit-in-the-headlights terror becoming a steady defiant calm. The film plays Daniel cleverly, pitching him initially as a solitary figure in his cold-seeming apartment; but a single artfully placed glimpse of a dinner party shows that he isn’t the archetypal lonely man of urban drama, but someone who chooses for himself when he gets to spend time apart from others.

Emelyanov’s Ruslan, detached and vulnerable, is quietly enigmatic. We never quite know how to read his emotional or sexual responses—whether the closed-eye surrender he shows in his embraces with Daniel are erotic bliss, or just the temporary relief of having someone’s, anyone’s, arms around him. There’s just as much ambivalence in Boss, played with subtly pitched menace and charisma by Daniil Vorobyev. He has a girlfriend and a baby, but he’s very aware of his seductive power over males, and when he takes his shirt off to dance, it’s clear how much of his power is fueled by narcissism—perhaps the thing that’s most enabled him to survive.

In the end, we don’t know too much about these strays or their history—except for Ruslan. He tells Daniel his backstory, and the older man is skeptical, but a sequence in which Ruslan reacts nervily to a firework display on the night skyline speaks volumes about his past traumas. This scene is a wonderful example of the way that Jeanne Lapoirie’s widescreen photography uses our sense of the city outside, and the box-like spaces of the apartment, the hotel, and even the cavernous railway terminus, to establish an opposition between freedom and enclosure—suggesting that, for all of its characters, Eastern Boys is ultimately nothing if not a prison drama.

* In 2012, the film spawned a French TV series, also called Les Revenants (in English, The Returned), without Campillo’s involvement. For at least half its run, the show—created by Fabrice Gobert and with early episodes co-written by the heavyweight novelist, journalist, and filmmaker Emmanuel Carrère—was unmissably good, not least because of its dream cast (Anne Consigny, Clotilde Hesme, Grégory Gadebois, et al). Later episodes strayed into murky quasi-Lynch territory, but viewers eagerly await season two. As for A&E’s imminent U.S. remake, due in March with a cast including Mary Elizabeth Winstead… bofon va voir

Deep Focus: Maps to the Stars

$
0
0

Maps to the Stars

Few actors leap between feats of empathy and masterstrokes of imagination with the offhand brilliance of Julianne Moore. She’s never done it more stunningly than in her back-to-back performances in Still Alice as a linguistics professor with early-onset Alzheimer’s (it just won her the Oscar) and in Maps to the Stars as a Hollywood beauty who panics over aging because she’s an emotional adolescent (it won her the Best Actress prize last spring at Cannes). Moore’s Alice Howland is a meticulous haute-bourgeois woman who derives strength from discipline and convention, but then must struggle against mental deterioration with the same rigor and pride that led her to create an honorable life. Moore’s expressions of this woman’s escalating confusions are all the more potent because Alice is so unapologetically square. You feel that Alice is one of those attractive perfectionists you’ve met all your life in offices and classrooms. Moore renders her heartbreakingly transparent. 

In Maps to the Stars, Moore does something more original and exciting. She conjures a terminally willful, insidiously fascinating woman out of Rodeo Drive’s thin air. (In a funny Romney-like moment, she emerges from a store and says she can’t believe that she just spent $18,000.) Moore’s character in Maps to the Stars, middle-aged Hollywood siren Havana Segrand, embodies that grating phrase from a few years ago, “hot mess.” She’s a second-generation Tinseltown catastrophe-in-the-making. Her mother was a glamorous star, Clarice Taggart (Sarah Gadon), who died young, in a fire. Clarice was also a sexually abusive parent, at least according to her daughter. Havana goes public with memories of molestation and tries to purge any lingering traumas with the help of celebrity psychologist Dr. Stafford Weiss (John Cusack), who mingles self-help mumbo-jumbo and Jungian palaver with pummeling massages. Astonishingly, while she is putting herself through primal therapies and public confessions, Havana fights fang and claw for a part her mother played in a 30-year-old movie that’s now being remade as an art film. No wonder Clarice emerges from the vapors to haunt Havana in her bath, pool, and bed and to taunt her as a fantasist and a has-been.

The movie itself is more of a cold mess. Maps to the Stars presents a faux-elegant farrago of sun-kissed Los Angeles depravity. Its cast of bad boys and girls and worse men and women includes a husband and wife who share a mysterious taboo. They’ve funneled their passion into careerism after producing two doomed children, including a brutally cynical, recovering-addict child star who endangers everyone around him, notably his best friend’s sheepdog. (The film tips us to the couple’s secret too early for there to be any great surprise in the “reveal.”) The director, David Cronenberg, creates a tony cheap-thrill atmosphere for damaged people on the make. The screenwriter, Bruce Wagner, piles on profane, portentous subplots as if clicking together dirty Lego bricks. The result is more oppressive than expressive—except for the actors, especially Moore.

Maps to the Stars

You respond to Havana not because you know her—who would know her, except her agent or her publicist?—but because Moore is so magnetic and inventive as a woman who can’t help acting, and acting, on every impulse. Even if you know where Havana is going to end up at the close of a scene, you never know how she’ll get there. All of her emotions are available to her all the time, which may be good for her as an actress, but disastrous for her as a human being, especially because she accesses them with a haphazard sense of occasion. In one dazzling sequence, Havana tries to react appropriately to the announcement that a little boy she met has drowned. But for her, the news is not all bad—it means the boy’s actor mother, out of commission due to shock, will in effect hand Havana a coveted role. It isn’t long before Havana is dancing and clapping at the side of the pool with her personal assistant (or “chore whore”), Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), and cajoling the girl into joining her on the wildly inapt chant, “Na Na Na Na / Na Na Na Na / Hey Hey Hey / Goodbye.”

Moore maneuvers in and out of each emotional hairpin turn lightly, at top speed. She neither satirizes Havana nor doubles down on her pathos, while investing her with her own energy and joy in acting. Havana can play wise or smart and make it stick for a minute or a day, before inevitably giving herself away. She says that the dead boy is “water” and her career’s miraculous upswing is “fire”—doubtless a result of her study of archetypes with Dr. Weiss. Agatha, like Havana’s mother, is a fire victim, with burn scars on her face and body; she moves through the Hollywood heat with long gloves covering her hands and arms. But Havana tells her she’s so beautiful that inside she must look just like… Havana Segrand.

Havana doesn’t know that Agatha is Dr. Weiss’s daughter, estranged from her father ever since she gave her little brother Benjie (Evan Bird) sleeping pills and burned down the family house. She returns from exile in Florida to make amends. Her brother is afraid of her. Her dad and mother (Olivia Williams) will never trust her, especially since she could ignite a scandal that would raze the doctor’s psychobabble empire and stop Benjie’s burgeoning movie career in its tracks.

Maps to the Stars

In 2005, Wagner pegged his years-in-the-making script as “an operatic ghost story.” Havana isn’t the only one who sees dead people and fears death. Benjie has visions of a dying little-girl fan he visited in the hospital because he thought she had AIDS (it turned out to be non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which angers him because he doesn’t understand it). He eventually sees the drowned boy Micah, too, though Benjie never met him. Agatha is no ghost, but she does give off a cemetery aura. “I’m very sentimental at the same time as I’m very cold-hearted," Wagner told LA Weekly’s Brendan Bernhard in a 2005 profile. He left out “moralistic” and “punitive.” In this film, the sins of mothers and fathers destroy daughters and sons.

At a press conference in Cannes, Moore said Maps to the Stars was about characters seeking reasons for their unhappiness outside themselves, instead of looking within. Maybe her belief in that theme enabled her to release the tragicomic potential in what could have been just another tiresome, shallow L.A. “character.” The movie itself says something different about woman’s fate. It catches everybody up in an inherited form of bad karma. For elusive reasons, most of them recite Paul Eluard’s romantic poem, “Liberté.” It’s lovely—the verses include: “On my school notebooks / On my desk and on the trees / On the sands of snow / I write your name.” But their odd sharing of that poem, as well as their parallel conflagrations and hauntings, suggest that these people are victims of fate. The fault really is in their stars, not in their ethics or psyches.

The vitality of the ensemble gives the lie to all this morose fatalism. Cusack emits a malignant force field as Dr. Weiss, who bases his pop eminence on unmitigated confidence. Wasikowska has moments of ethereal poignancy as the daughter turned L.A. waif. Young Evan Bird embodies both the horror and the pathos of a pint-sized monster to whom nothing is sacred. Robert Pattinson is sadly vulnerable as a limo driver and would-be actor and writer. And Moore breaks through the movie’s curdled, knowing façade, having discovered a place for Havana on her own galvanizing seriocomic wavelength. She expands the possibilities of a woman with very few internal resources.

Maps to the Stars

Cronenberg’s detached, ominous style, both formalist and fungoid, allows you to laugh at some cold-blooded humor, like Benjie telling the dying fan that people don’t realize that his big hit, Bad Babysitter, grossed $780 million worldwide. But Cronenberg’s mannerist cinema suits Wagner’s chic volatility too perfectly. (Wagner’s 1993 TV miniseries, Wild Palms, a more eclectic, sweeping and amusing precursor to Maps to the Stars, frequently referenced Cronenberg’s 1983 movie Videodrome.) “I infect my work with madness, then let it settle," Wagner told Bernhard. "The story is infected by something — like in David Cronenberg’s films. My job is to be realistic and poetic at the same time, so that people have a sense of being transported somewhere else.” But Maps to the Stars is a trip to nowhere—maybe that’s where these filmmakers think nihilism meets the Buddhist tenet of letting go. For Cronenberg and Wagner, it’s a suicidal folie à deux.

Interview: David Cronenberg

$
0
0

David Cronenberg’s approach to directing Maps to the Stars, screenwriter Bruce Wagner’s latest baleful vision of contemporary Hollywood’s moral vacuum, was to treat it as an anthropologist might treat a tribe of natives who’ve become slavishly devoted to false gods. The gods (or Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) in question are the usual suspects: fame, wealth, power, and sex. Yet to suggest that the film’s take on Hollywood decadence is tired, as some critics have done, is to avoid reckoning with its underlying solemnity and sorrow.

As a Canadian outsider, Cronenberg brings a cool distance to Wagner’s vision of how Tinseltown’s celebs and exploiters are too crazed to see how their hungers are consuming them; fire is the movie’s purging force. Yet the doomed kids at the center of the film, the sweet, sick pyromaniac Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), newly released from a Florida psychiatric hospital, and her Bieber-esque movie-brat bro Benjie (Evan Bird), just out of rehab at 13, are portrayed with tenderness and compassion. Their problem was and is their guru-to-the-stars dad Stafford (John Cusack), a snake-oil salesman if ever there were one, and their avaricious mom Christina (Olivia Williams).

Agatha and Stafford meanwhile both have dealings with the rapidly fading—and therefore neurotic and vicious—movie star Havana Segrand, a walking bag of poison played with immense gusto by Julianne Moore. There’s something salutary about the new Best Actress Oscar winner (for Still Alice) metamorphosing into a grotesque from the same Hollywood imaginarium as Gloria Swanson’s Norma Desmond and Bette Davis’s Baby Jane Hudson.

Maps to the Stars

There are two pairs of siblings in Maps to the Stars—and they’re damned from the start. That obviously links them to the twins in Dead Ringers (88).

Who committed gentle suicide at the end. Yeah, that’s definitely a connection.

Was it something you were conscious of?

No. Bruce [Wagner] wrote the script about 20 years ago. The family dynamic often plays a strong role in his screenplays and his nine novels, so I think you have to say it’s a coincidence up to a certain point. But then perhaps one of the reasons that the [Maps to the Stars] script so appealed to me might be that resonance. That’s very possible.

When did you first see the script, and did it change substantially over the years?

I first read it about 10 years ago, and I made many attempts to get it made as a Canadian co-production or as an American production. It was obviously going to be an indie film in one way or another, never a studio film. The script didn’t change much, though among the things that I did was to cut it—which is what I often do as a director. Bruce could have written a thousand pages. I thought it rambled on at a certain point and just cut some characters and scenes and trimmed it down. After that, though, it retained its shape and we only did upgradings, such as introducing smartphones, which didn’t exist when he wrote it.

Also, there was the question of topical pop references. Bruce has always been very unafraid to include them in his work—the latest meme or the latest YouTube sensation or TV show or whatever. They live and die very quickly, like mayflies, of course, so for that reason we decided to omit a particular reference to the football player [Tim] Tebow, for example, because it was no longer topical. So we made changes like that, but the family dynamic and the dialogue hadn’t changed in 10 years, and really not in 20.

Over the years, obviously, your films have found corruption and moral squalor in all kinds of places, which suggests you have no particular axe to grind against Hollywood.

I don’t. When the movie premiered at Cannes, Le Monde published an article quoting me as saying: “Je ne déteste pas Hollywood”—“I don’t hate Hollywood.” It came because the French thought I must have bottled up hatred for Hollywood for years and now I’d finally released it. But I said: “Not at all.” The specifics of Hollywood come from Bruce. As you say, you can find the kind of greed and hypocrisy and power-mongering that’s in Maps to the Stars in many shapes and forms all over the world, in government and all kinds of businesses. Hollywood is a spectacular example, of course, because it’s so visible and because of the aspirations of the players to be seen on the screen and the red carpet. Those drives are equally apparent in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, or even the Detroit car industry, but those places are just not as visible.

Maps to the Stars

You had a week’s shooting in L.A. on Maps to the Stars. Did you feel the ghosts, when filming under the Hollywood sign, for example?

It was only five days. And, yes, the resonances of shooting in the heart of darkness were huge. It was incredibly satisfying and very cathartic for me to shoot there because I’ve never shot in the U.S. before—not in New York or anywhere, even though several of my films have been set in America. It was always a money problem thing. The Canadian dollar was always very cheap and the Americans who were involved from time to time—like New Line on A History of Violence [05]—wanted me to shoot in Canada. So it wasn’t that I didn’t want to shoot in America, it was that it was always cheaper to shoot in Canada. Maps to the Stars was a sort of Canadian-German coproduction, and we had a mixed crew of Americans and Canadians who got along very well. In a sort of pathetic way, they were really happy to be working on a feature film in L.A., because so few are shot there now—it’s all TV. Weird, but true.

Some reviewers said the film is dated—that it has more of a Nineties vibe than a contemporary one.

The critics who said that were positioning themselves as real insiders who really know what Hollywood’s like, but I think they were thinking: “Oh, this script was written 20 years ago, so it must be dated.” But those people do not know what they’re talking about. It’s not dated at all. In fact, what came out in [Sony’s] hacked e-mails shows you that the film is in the exact same spot in Hollywood [laughs]. Bruce and I have had so many meetings with so many executives that go right up to last year, that if there had been anything dated we would have updated it. Believe me, it’s absolutely current. Some meetings I’d had with studios were more surreal than anything that’s in the movie—more absurd, more bizarre. It’s amusing to me that I couldn’t even be offended by the ridiculous and, in fact, quite offensive things that were happening. I don’t want to get into the details, but there are some good stories there.

Was there a danger of perpetuating a myth about corrupt behavior in Hollywood, or is it a case of there’s no smoke without fire?

It’s not exactly corruption per se—not in the sense of, say, Vladimir Putin’s Russia—but it’s very destructive and corrosive to be famous, to be seen, to be current, to be a player. There’s the money as well, of course, but then beyond the money is that existential dread of no longer existing on the scene: I call it a pre-death. Your career dies before you die. For some people that’s worse than real death—it’s unbearable. What the movie doesn’t really deal with is the occasional creative brilliance of Hollywood and the people that are there. We’re dealing with the darker side of it, so we don’t, for example, see Havana Segrand on set acting in her movie—and maybe she was good. Maybe the movie was going to be good. We don’t know, but we do know the director of that film [played by Gord Rand] is a raving coward and a liar. It doesn’t mean he didn’t make a good movie ultimately. We don’t know, so we didn’t deal with that aspect of it.

I see the film as part of a continuum with the Twenties Hollywood scandals, while Havana conjures up Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard (50). But your use of star maps in the credits—not Hollywood star maps, but maps of the heavens—suggest you were aiming for a greater cosmic resonance. It’s bigger than Hollywood, isn’t it?

You can see that with [Agatha and Benjie] at the end. It’s a map of the future and it’s a matter of creativity, humanity, and having a cosmic perspective rather than the perspective that our characters have, which is so narrow, so self-referencing, and so self-obsessed. We’re suggesting that this lifestyle is one of the more desiccating and shriveling there is. You can’t escape the gravitational pull of Planet Hollywood when it’s so dense and so and powerful that you can’t see the real world and you can’t even see your life outside of that planet.

Maps to the Stars

I responded to the film as a psychological drama. Agatha’s return to Hollywood from the psychiatric hospital represents the return of the repressed for the rest of the Weiss family. Havana is still fighting an Electra Complex battle with her dead mother, which is why she covets a role in a movie that her more famous actress mother once played.

For Bruce and I, Maps to the Stars is completely psychologically realistic. That’s why we don’t think it’s a satire at all. When I think of satire, I think of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”; there’s exaggeration and deliberate fantasy and so on. For a lot of people now, satire means something that’s nasty and funny, but it means a lot more than that. Maps is more like a docudrama than a satire. Bruce said he has heard every line of dialogue in the movie actually spoken by someone at some point. It doesn’t surprise me that you should respond to it on a psychological level because that’s really where it lives. I said to my actors: “Don’t worry about any humor or exaggeration. Forget about all of that—it will take care of itself. Just play it for the human reality of the relationships.”

I think of the movie as a Greek tragedy, and certainly Bruce was aware of that. I don’t think he actually modeled it on Greek tragedy, but he fell into it. In other words, those things that motivated the Greeks to write what they did also motivated Bruce to write what he did in a modern context.

Although you’re certainly aware of it when you’re making a movie, thinking about psychology doesn’t really help when you’re on the set, say, because, as is well understood, to be universal you must be extremely specific, and we had very specific characters. You can’t really act in abstract concepts if you’re an actor—you have to act real emotions. It’s valuable to analyze why something might have worked or not worked dramatically, but that’s after the fact.

We talked about Maps to the Stars having a connection with Dead Ringers. It has ideas in common with Spider (02), too. In that film, Dennis Cleg (Ralph Fiennes) pieces together his childhood, when he killed his mother, thinking, perhaps, that she was his father’s mistress, Yvonne (Miranda Richardson plays both women). In Maps, Benjie thinks he’s strangling the ghost of the little girl whom he’d visited in hospital as a publicity stunt—only to find he’s throttled the little boy he’s been forced to act with. Dennis is schizophrenic and Agatha may be the same. Then, Havana verbalizes her inner foulness while sitting on the toilet, as does Yvonne when she talks about her blocked toilet. Again, were you conscious of those similarities, assuming you agree with them?

I do agree, but, no, I wasn’t conscious of them. Bruce has seen Spider, but I obviously hadn’t made it yet when he wrote the [Maps to the Stars] script, so to me it’s a coincidence. Bruce and I both understand—and certainly Patrick McGrath understood it when he wrote Spider—that you are not born with an identity and a personality. Spider is about the difficulty and desperation involved in creating an identity, and obviously everybody in Maps to the Stars is trying to do the same. You see Havana’s identity shift from moment to moment. When she’s with her sort-of actor-boyfriend, she’s like a little girl. When she’s with Agatha, she’s the mistress of the household, very strong and adult. Because creating an identity requires force of will and takes a lot of energy, when that energy flags, as it does with schizophrenia, the disintegration can be quite spectacular. So that’s the connection for me between Spider and Maps to the Stars—this potent element of the human condition that’s worth exploring in film.

Maps to the Stars

Like Dennis in Spider, Agatha is highly sympathetic, although she’s unstable and dangerous. I was yearning for her to escape. Obviously, a movie as anguished as this needs someone for the audience to care about.

Some people told me they hated Benjie at first but ultimately came to love him because they see how vulnerable he is, how damaged he was by his context and not out of his own inadequacies. And so you always hope. I never feel that movies need people who are sympathetic, but they need characters who are fascinating and charismatic, or you’ll have people feeling shut out of a movie and that is not something I would intend. At the same time, I don’t wanna throw in a guy who loves his nice, sweet dog so that you’ll like him.

Unlike your early films, Maps to the Stars is cold, clear, uncluttered, and mostly still—the camera moves rarely. It focuses attention on the characters, the dynamic between them, and their environment. How did that become your prevailing style?

I feel that was happening as far back as The Fly [86], which was really two people, or occasionally three people, in a room. I thought, “Oh this is interesting.” It’s almost like a Samuel Beckett situation. Without pushing that idea too much, in my mind at least I really understood that Beckettian desire for incredible stillness and more and more simplicity, which could allow for more and more complexity.

My director of photography, Peter Suschitzky, who first shot for me on Dead Ringers, said to me: “Your style has really changed a lot.” It wasn’t so much to do with camera movement, but a matter of how much coverage I used to get. That, frankly, was to do with my being a relatively young and inexperienced filmmaker and feeling that I must have a lot of stuff in the editing room to protect me in case I’d made some mistake on the set. As you get older—this is how it works for me anyway—I have more and more confidence that I’ve made the right decision on the set and I don’t need to cover setups from so many different angles or do so many takes.

Also, I have more confidence in my casting. If you cast the film correctly and you’ve got the right actors, and they know what they’re doing, you don’t need to shoot a lot. Ralph Fiennes said to me on Spider that he got the least direction from any director he has ever had, and he wasn’t saying it as a negative. I said: “Well, you know, we did a lot of directing when we were deciding what your clothes were gonna be, how your hair was gonna be, and how you would walk. And once you got on the set, you were Spider [as Dennis is known]. I didn’t need to tell you how to be him anymore. I just told you what the frame is, how big you are in it, and how to play the frame—but that was it.”

It was the same with Maps to the Stars. I did just one or two takes of each setup and I didn’t do masters, medium shots, close-ups, ultra close-ups—I didn’t do any of that. I only shot as much as I needed. So my editor, Ronald Sanders, who’s worked with me for nearly 40 years, said: “I don’t have anything to cut with.” I said: “Well, just cut what you can.” And I had the director’s cut ready in two days after he showed me the rough cut.

One can imagine Havana Segrand being incredibly needy on the set and wanting all kinds of pampering and reassurance from her directors.

Absolutely she would. That’s why she’s such an opposite of Julie [Julianne Moore], who doesn’t require any of those things.

Maps to the Stars

What were your thoughts about the ghosts in the films? Havana is haunted by her dead mother (played by Sarah Gadon), Benjie is haunted by the hospital girl, who’s died of cancer.

Well, one of the things I cut from the script was a scene in which Agatha was riding in a car and she looked out the window to see the street full of children—dead children. I said to Bruce: “I don’t believe in an afterlife, therefore I don’t believe in ghosts. I do understand being haunted by dead people in your life, but not in the literal sense of actual, physical ghosts.” I had to take that scene out because it suggested Agatha was seeing ghosts of children she hadn’t known, so they would take on a different level of physical reality. Bruce completely understood and he didn’t mind. My approach is that ghosts are like memories—you might be haunted by your dead parents, whose voices you can hear in your head, whose presence is almost physical. I know for a fact that is real. But they are not ghosts in a living-after-death kind of way.

Benjie’s being haunted indicates that, deep down, he has a conscience—he feels guilty for having exploited the dying girl.

That’s the secret he has. He shares it with his psychiatrist ultimately, but her approach is very benign and clinical. She doesn’t get deeply into the real meaning of it, which is that Benjie is quite a sensitive kid and not the crude, tough guy that he likes to pretend to be, which is the role he has created for himself and has to sell to survive. So his fear and this empathy come out in a different way.

Agatha’s leather gloves, which she’s never without, fetishize her burned forearms and create a sexual mystery about her. It’s the same with Rosanna Arquette’s thigh wounds in Crash (96).

Well, it’s lovely when Havana says to Jerome [Robert Pattinson]: “Did you make her take off her gloves when you were fucking her?” Because Havana, who zeroes in on things like that immediately, understands the fetishistic possibility of those gloves, which Agatha might genuinely be naïve about. She probably thinks she’s just covering up her scars and that nobody will somehow notice she’s wearing these gloves in the heat of the summer. That was certainly in Bruce’s script.

Maps to the Stars

There are several haunting quotations in Maps to the Stars from “Liberty,” the poem written by the French Surrealist Paul Eluard. The implication is that the only liberty to be found by these characters is death.

Yes. It’s a different interpretation of the poem, which was written during World War II and had had to do with the Nazi occupation of France, particularly Paris, though Eluard initially wrote it as a love poem for a woman. Liberty of creative freedom, liberty of financial freedom, liberty of emotional freedom—all these things are possible for most of the people in the film. But for these doomed children, none of these things are available because they’ve been screwed up and deformed, and, as Agatha is aware and sort of teaches Benjie, the only freedom is death.

Bruce and I got an interesting reaction to our use of the poem from the Eluard family, but as the film shows, a poem is an organic, living thing, as all art is. It can be reinterpreted endlessly. In fact, one of the things I did was put the poem into more scenes than Bruce originally had it in. For example, when Agatha is on her knees in front of the stars on Hollywood Boulevard, she doesn’t say anything in the script. But I thought: “No, this needs something—a prayer or a kind of incantation.” So I added the poem there and a few other places as well.

Agatha at least has agency at the end. She decides her own destiny, which is optimistic in a way.

It’s weirdly optimistic because she’s so sweet and gentle at the end, and so is Benjie. I feel personally that this strange sensual and consensual wedding ceremony is very touching. She’s trying to deal with all the madness of her life and her parents’ lives, and all the sins of the parents that were visited on her and Benjie. That ending was always there in Bruce’s script and it never failed to affect me. When the movie begins, you might think: “This is gonna be a kind of rude and jaunty critique of Hollywood.” But then it suddenly changes into something else, and I think you see the real emotional, human underpinnings of that.

Notebook: An Evening with Tom McCarthy

$
0
0

Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y

Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y

Midway through Don DeLillo’s Mao II, a neurotic writer poses a question with no easy answer: “There's the life and there’s the consumer event. Everything around us tends to channel our lives toward some final reality in print or on film. Two lovers quarrel in the back of a taxi and a question becomes implicit in the event. Who will write the book and who will play the lovers in the movie? Everything seeks its own heightened version.”

The problem of “the book,” encompassing news, entertainment, and, in the end, reality—not just who gets to write it, but how humans should live their lives knowing that it’s being written—came up repeatedly at “An Evening with Tom McCarthy” at the Film Society of Lincoln Center on Wednesday. McCarthy, the English author of Remainder, Men in Space, and C, is no stranger to themes of paranoia and mediation, and his fourth novel, Satin Island, was published by Knopf this month. For the event, he had chosen two films to screen: Antony Balch and William S. Burroughs’s 1963 short Towers Open Fire, and Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y, Johan Grimonprez’s 1997 essay film on airplane hijacking. After the discussion with McCarthy, a surprise guest—“It’s not William Burroughs,” McCarthy quipped—jumped onto the stage: Grimonprez himself, answering more questions and introducing the evening’s third and shortest selection, an outtake from Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y accompanied by a meditative voiceover excerpt from Satin Island.

McCarthy, an energetic, articulate speaker, draws on an intimidatingly large reservoir of knowledge: as the Film Society of Lincoln Center’s Director of Programming Dennis Lim put it, he “bridges the worlds of literature, thought, and cinema.” The protagonist of Satin Island, a trained anthropologist working for a nameless company, fantasizes about using his academic training to fight big business from within. “The most obvious point of contact between these films and my book is the way these movies repurpose anthropology,” McCarthy said. “Both Burroughs and Grimonprez studied anthropology, and like so many anthropologists in the second half of the 20th century, they used the classical anthropology of a ‘primitive’ culture and turned that lens onto the developed world and systems of technology underwritten by capitalism. These movies show a fascination not only with how this system of technological capitalism is maintained, but also how it might be undermined."

Towers Open Fire

Towers Open Fire

Towers Open Fire begins with a blindingly white clear frame. Almost immediately, this literal whiteness cuts to face of the “renegade son,” who’s being forced to endure the bigoted, Fascist whiteness of his father, the raspy-voiced president of “the Board”  (played by Burroughs himself). “Burroughs dramatizes the notion of a world presided over by what he calls ‘the Board Books,’ the master codices,” McCarthy said, “which the Board, by keeping them in its possession, uses for control.” The president's son engages in heroin use, aimless wandering, and vandalism—deviant behavior in the eyes of the powers that be, but creative destruction to Burroughs and Balch.

But even if fiction is a tool of subjugation in the surreal world of Towers Open Fire, Burroughs never denies his viewers the aesthetic pleasures of stylized storytelling: flashing lights, dizzying camera movements, and stunning musical juxtapositions. Above all, he uses the “cut-up” technique, “jumping around all over the place, associating one thing with another,” as an alternative to bureaucratic proceduralism. “Reality is just a script,” said McCarthy, “and Burroughs just wants to cut it, bring the whole system crashing down.” If the Board uses conventional storytelling to stay in power, then Burroughs will have to tell a different kind of story.

Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y takes place in the same media-saturated world as Towers Open Fire, but one in which the establishment has poached the revolution’s best tricks. Studying five decades of hijackers from around the world, Grimonprez is as interested in the media’s depictions of criminal behavior as he is in the hijackers themselves. As Lim noted, the film uncannily anticipates YouTube, and its use of montage, comparable to Burroughs’s cut-up techniques, finds an all-too ready analogue in the juxtapositions of daily media consumption. Grisly close-ups of a hijacker’s bullet wounds morph into McDonald’s ads; murky puddles of blood segue elegantly into mop infomercials.

Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y

Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y

The fine line between working for and against the system haunts both Grimonprez and McCarthy. “I’ve got a cousin,” McCarthy said, “he’s got a double major in philosophy and literature, and he’s feeding left-wing theory—Adorno, Deleuze, Badiou—back into clothing manufacturers and government think tanks. He doesn’t say it’s Badiou or Deleuze, but it is.” With radicalism looking more and more like the establishment, it is Grimonprez’s unsettling thesis that terrorism and hijacking have largely taken the place of avant-garde art. He shows us armed men in Korea, in Vienna, and in the United States: herding hostages in and out of planes, shouting at pilots, and, eerily but unmistakably, performing for the camera, trying to control how their own books are written.

“This is what Burroughs’s revolutionary avatar is doing,” McCarthy said, “and it’s what Grimonprez’s terrorists, and in fact what Grimonprez himself is doing: taking existing media, cutting it up, and repurposing it. The Situationists called this détournement.”

The vagaries of translation added one final twist in the protean relationship between art and life, McCarthy explained.

“By chance I found out, when I watched the film with French subtitles, that [détournement] is actually the French term for airline hijacking."


Bombast: Subterranean Hot Take Blues

$
0
0

Petitions for my attention drip down my timeline, like drops of rain on a windowpane, and I stare ahead glassy-eyed, dreading each and every one of them. This feeling—and I can’t be the only one who suffers from it—I have taken to calling “opinion fatigue.” Opinions, opinions, opinions, all the time more opinions, until they’re as devalued as the ruble, most with just as little backing them up.

Birdman

Birdman

I am writing in the aftermath of a week of Oscar takes, and the takes on those takes, a process that reminds me of that playground game where you would mash your hand down on your friend’s hand until it’s immobilized, and then he’d try to pry his hand out from under your hand and trap your hand, and so on, ad infinitum. Kids have a lot of time for this kind of thing, whereas adults aren’t meant to, and so I try to tune out the hot take sweepstakes, if only because the tenor of the discourse, in tone if not political content, reminds me more than anything of Ed Anger, the fictitious Weekly World News editorial columnist who always began his vitriolic screeds with some variation of “I’m madder than…” (“Helen Keller at a silent movie,” “a [sic] Irishman without cabbage in his pants,” etc.)

We have less time than ever—this applies to almost everyone in the work force, but I am in particular talking about the culture journalism racket, the one that I happen to know something about—because we are always meant to be at work. For the rank-and-file journo, this means more output without more consequent time for research. The world-at-a-fingertip Internet, responsible for both the uptick in demand for content and the new ease of access to a great deal of the amassed content of the ages, is meant to make up the difference by slashing the time necessary to dedicate to the research process. Which of course it does, but only up to a point—certain research can only take the amount of time that it takes, be it shoe-leather reportage or the arts journo equivalent, reading a book, listening to an album, visiting a gallery, going to a concert, or watching a movie. (This is not to speak of actually living with and close-reading these texts, or doing the supplementary research which would allow one to provide a cultural or historical context for them without falling back on received wisdom, cliché, and wiki-paraphrase.) It’s here, on the experiential end, that we can least afford to cut corners, though practically it’s where the gouging usually comes in, because everything which takes the freelancer away from their computer cuts into their income. When direct experience is scaled back, the writer has only two resources to draw upon: their search engine, and their feels.

Last week in The New Republic, Phoebe Maltz Bovy, responding to a piece by Ester Bloom in The Billfold, diagnosed “The Rise of Feelings Journalism.” In Maltz Bovy’s definition, this is a matter of “a writer making an argument based on what they imagine someone else is thinking, what they feel may be another person’s feelings.” Speaking more directly to my point, however, is the conclusion that Maltz Bovy arrives at: “This is not only about time, but money. Especially in feminist journalism, low-paid essays that take a personal or provocative stance are the norm. If a publication can get at least as strong a reaction to a piece that cost $50 as one that took hundreds of dollars to report, why wouldn’t it encourage the former?”

Knight of Cups

Knight of Cups

Mother teaches that haste makes waste, and the pipes of my social media feed are clogged with the stuff. The day after the 65th Berlin International Film Festival wrapped, an article by one Katie Kilkenny appeared on the website for The Atlantic, and was subsequently passed around for jeers—at least in my immediate circle, though I’m afraid it may have been taken seriously elsewhere. Writing on “The Rich Kids Changing Independent Film,” Kilkenny, to use her own words, was endeavoring to “crystallize a paradigm” (?) in contemporary film culture, a moment when, per the article, “moneyed Hollywood reformers” such as “heir to the Garmin GPS fortune” Ken Kao and Annapurna Pictures’ Megan Ellison, are bankrolling projects by “old masters,” evidently at the expense of Hot Young Talent Yearning to Breathe Free. Kilkenny’s account begins with startup Broad Green Films’ acquisition, at Berlin, of Terrence Malick’s Knight of Cups, a film underwritten by Kao. After cherry-picking three negative reviews of Knight of Cups which appeared during the festival, Kilkenny, who has not seen Malick’s film, asserts that “At 72 years old, the director is retreading old ground”—that this “retreading” is a pejorative and not common artistic practice is implied—before proceeding to further chestnuts such as “Malick might have had a little too much creative control.” (At least she’s remembered the qualifier here.) Though these words appear nowhere in the text, the URL for the piece includes the words “why-terrence-malick-can-afford-to-make-a-dud.”

That an august publication such as The Atlantic would run something like this under their masthead isn’t particularly surprising, as The Atlantic consistently runs some of the worst film writing to be found on the Internet, which is to say in the universe. In the days since “Rich Kids,” we find Kilkenny weighing in on “The Troublesome Rebirth of the Kevin Costner Everyman” (here the p-word appears in a reference to the “paradigmatic trappings” of Costner’s McFarland, USA, a “better film” than Costner’s Black or White, though the latter work is deemed “the more well-intended effort”) and “The Oscars’ Renaissance of Political Activism,” a momentous occasion only dampened by “The Murky Gay Politics Surrounding [The Imitation Game screenwriter Graham Moore’s] ‘Stay Weird’ Oscars Speech,” reported on by Spencer Kornhaber. (Troublesome stuff, that.)

All of this problematic prose about “problematic” art aside, Kilkenny’s “Rich Kids” piece crystallizes a paradigm, as it were, in contemporary cultural commentary: it no longer seems to be considered necessary to have seen or experienced a work in order to hold an opinion on it. While it seems like a thousand years have passed since the kerfuffle over Glenn Greenwald’s sight-unseen assessment of the “torture-glorifying” Zero Dark Thirty in The Guardian, in fact it was only 2012, and Greenwald’s responding-to-the-responses model has since become ever more prevalent. At least, that is, in The Guardian, who more recently have run a piece on Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper by one Lindy West of Seattle, who didn’t let the fact that she’d only seen the film’s trailer prevent her from fretting about its public reception.* West, whose further cultural commentary in the month of January included an undoubtedly soon-to-be-anthologized work called “Benedict Cumberbatch needs to be more careful with words. But we can all learn from his apology,” speculates in her piece about “the chasm between Eastwood’s intent and his audience’s reception.” (This about a filmmaker who is more punctilious than most about crossing t’s and dotting i’s for his viewer.) The sleepless nights that West suffers worrying over the mental faculties of that chimerical construct, The Audience, is an affliction frequently found among self-identified liberal commentators whose sympathies with common punters are so complete that they wholly distrust them to be able to negotiate the vagaries of Art.

Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty

If you believe that a work’s entire significance can be found in the footprint that it leaves in public discourse, then looking at the thing itself will necessarily be an afterthought. West is trafficking in a brand of pseudo-sociology increasingly common in 21st-century eyeball-harvest journalism—per Maltz Bovy, “an argument based on… what they feel may be another person’s feelings”—though hardly a new invention. Pauline Kael, late of Petaluma, used to specialize in it. Though Kael was of the most perspicacious writers about actors and performance that America has ever had, even her best work is marred by a tendency to digress into sub–Lisa Lampanelli insult-comic mode, roasting a movie by consigning it to be the property of “The type of people who…”, favorite targets including the oft-derided “liberal friend,” strawman East Coast drips, and a variation on the “snaggletoothed hillbillies” derided by that “Brutally Honest Oscar Voter.”**

Adrian Martin, in his new book, Mise en Scène and Film Style: From Classical Hollywood to New Media Art, doesn’t once address Kael, but is critical of the “socializing tendency” in several postwar critics “who tended to rely on glorified plot synopses as their material for study.” (Among those listed is Parker Tyler, whose value is admittedly more that of a mystic than a social scientist.) It was in Martin’s book that I recently encountered an admirable phrase from Positif’s Gérard Legrand, one of the numerous critics and thinkers whom Martin consults in arriving at various definitions of mise en scène. In Legrand’s formulation, a successful film offers a “‘philosophy’ of space and its contents, a philosophy not reducible to an ideology” [emphasis mine].

The commendable undertaking of Martin’s work is to retrofit the language of classical cinephilia, particularly the phrase mise en scène, which is for many redolent of mid-century Paris and an increasingly distant past, to 21st-century moving picture art, and its critical reception. Formal analysis has always been a bit of a niche group concern, however, and it is in the interest of much arts journalism, so-called—both those publishing and those catering their work to those publishers—that films should be reducible to an ideology that one can be for or against, which is much sexier than all that endless muddling about, hemming-and-hawing, and switchback swerving. To understand the function that is being assigned to movies, it is helpful to turn again to The Guardian, this time to a November 2014 piece by Lili Loofbourow on “How recaps changed the way we think about TV—and our lives.” Discussing The Golden Age of Television and what she dubs, through a peculiar logic obscure to me, The Bronze Age of Television Criticism, Loofbourow addresses “the extent to which, these days, we’ve turned to TV as a common text that we can all analyse and use to generate social meaning,” thus meeting “a deep hunger for sustained, ethical, collective conversation.”

James Cagney Roaring Twenties

Roaring Twenties

The conversation being referred to is The Conversation, a national-if-not-global water cooler get-together to which the endlessly renewable resource of serial television is perfectly suited, but to which movies can be accommodated once must-see seasons have ended and trade deadlines have passed. The search for those who can perform the thaumaturgy of distilling films into their social meaning brings to the fray movie illiterates, dilettantes with no skin in the game and no stake in cinema as an art form, as such, who think that “realism” in movies has something to do with fact-checking—at The Atlantic, the prolific Kilkenny proposes a new Oscar for “Dramatic Research”—rather than the sort of moment singled out by Manny Farber in Raoul Walsh’s Roaring Twenties, the tonal precision of “Cagney tak[ing] a show-biz beginner home on the last train to New Rochelle.” When paired with the visual literacy that allows for the reading of a film, the ability to place a movie within a larger social/ historical/ political context is something greatly to be valued in a critic, though very often what we see instead are writers who strew the ground with a pocketful of commonplaces (“good performances,” “beautifully shot”) while rushing on their way to the more pressing issue of assigning a utilitarian sociopolitical function to the work in question. Commentary which distills movies into their significance and funnels them into ideological decanters becomes a means through which writers point like-minded viewers towards works that will, purportedly, provide reinforcement to an already-established worldview. This, along with Recommended for You curation, takes us ever further from the credo espoused by that excellent critic, C.S. Lewis: “To love and admire anything outside yourself is to take one step away from utter spiritual ruin.” (Jean Renoir put it another way: “Man is a creature of habit, and the task of the artist is to try to break these habits.”) And while I do not believe in an irreparable cleavage between what, in a recent Twitter contretemps, was called the split between appraising art for “social/ideological utility” and “pretty pictures,” if it comes down to picking teams, just call me Stepan Verkhovensky, stumping for the lofty and the beautiful.

What Lewis was advocating for, I suppose, would fall under the category of what Kael called “saphead objectivity”—one of her personal bugbears, though not precisely one that overruns the media landscape today, when quick-draw criticastering often seems to have wholly superseded circumspection. In trying to sort through the crushing deluge of hot takes that often feels like the death-by-grain-entrapment in Griffith’s A Corner in Wheat, many of us have begun to search for a means to sort the grain from the chaff, as it were. One such criterion is that of experiential investment. Is an opinion valid at the moment of conception, as the Right to Lifers would have it that a zygote is, or do these things take time? Kael, famously, was of the one-and-done clan, trusting to gut response and the pleasure principle, and waving the banner of “If art isn’t entertainment, what is it? Punishment?” (Answer: It’s art.) This position is, if not upheld, then given a twist in a 2012 piece by Stephanie Zacharek, which kicks off from the then-current debate over The Master by Paul Thomas Anderson, a filmmaker whose work is a rallying point for advocates of “slow criticism.” (See for example a recent piece on re-viewing Inherent Vice, aka Inherent Twice). On the very far end of the spectrum we find the zealous frame-counter David Bordwell, who this week has used his blog, Observations on Film Art, to offer a close visual analysis of the newly coronated Best Picture of 2014, Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Birdman. Bordwell, a consistent critic of sloppy, rush-to-judgment film journalism, responds to repeated inaccurate accounts of Iñárritu’s film as a “single-shot” exercise by going through it with a fine-toothed comb, debunking the parroted single-shot claim while offering copiously illustrated insight into the means through which Iñárritu and DP Emmanuel Lubezki achieved some of their sequence shot effects. Bordwell, whose mission is perhaps more pedagogical than critical, only avers in passing his feelings about Birdman, though is not so guarded when it comes to addressing critical culture at large, whom he admonishes to “be more accurate and comprehensive when talking about film form and style.” (Though to do so at all is a rare enough occurrence—hence positive responses to Boyhood are reduced to “self-identification,” and the film’s function as a formal game is ignored or slandered as gimmickry.)

The work that Bordwell has done here is exhaustive, yet I can’t help but feel that his assessment of Birdman, however perspicacious, neglects the important point about it—that the film is loathsome. (Just one man’s opinion!) At the risk of engaging in "feelings journalism," I suspect the withholding of value judgments in Bordwell’s piece—at least relative to what one would expect of a review—is no accident, but a quiet reproach to an opinion-glutted market in which supporting analysis (or even basic knowhow) is a scarcity. Maltz Bovy, discussing another breed of opinion-mongering run rampant, is more to the point: “Unlike outright fabrication, feelings journalism doesn’t necessarily cross an ethical line, just one of good sense—and, perhaps, of good writing.” So the Conversation builds into a deafening babble, and the best any of us can do is stake out a quiet corner in which to carry on away from those who talk the loudest, and say the least.

* If I am not bringing up in the same breath the various organizations, most of them conservative in nature, who volubly protested the film adaptation of 50 Shades of Grey, sight unseen, it is because most of us proper-thinking members of the coastal media elite have agreed that such knee-jerk reactions are beneath consideration, except when they happen to originate within our own camp.  

** Nowadays, you don’t even have to supply your own sacrificial dupes—Google does it for you! As studios have taken to using Twitter feed pull-quotes to promote their films, so journalists can locate and nominate unofficial spokespeople for works they wish to discredit. The writer trawls message boards, comments sections, and social media feed to find the most grotesque and caricatured responses, positive or negative, to a work; uses this sample to represent the whole of “the kind of people who like” such-and-such; and then handily demolishes their strawman, an unsuspecting dimwit who has been inexplicably elevated to the role of official mouthpiece. This approach benefits from the Internet’s upending of the hierarchical pecking order of opinions, in theory if not always in practice.

Film Comment Selects: Nils Malmros

$
0
0

Six films by Nils Malmros will screen—with Malmros appearing in person—February 27 through March 1 as part of Film Comment Selects at the Film Society of Lincoln Center.

1.

Pain of Love

Pain of Love

It’s surprising, given Nils Malmros’s deep, abiding interest in youthful rites of passage, that it took the Danish filmmaker until 1992 to structure a movie around an exam. “All right, Kirsten,” a high-school psychology teacher prompts his flighty, beautiful student during a pivotal examination scene in Pain of Love, the director’s sixth film: “Piaget’s theory of development. It has to do with some stages and phases.” She rattles off the stages in question, direct from her notes. “Tell us more,” he presses her, “about the second stage.” She can’t. “It’s all in the book,” she answers over-confidently. “The important thing is that we know where to find it.”

That young people often lack a vocabulary with which to talk about childhood and youth is one of the key assumptions behind Malmros’s early films, all of which deal with adolescent life in the bustling, affluent coastal city of Aarhus, Denmark. To be young, in these movies, is to be a mystery to others and a source of nearly equal bafflement to oneself. Growth spurts, tongue-tied early attempts at self-expression, random social demotions and promotions, acts of cruelty dealt out and received, unexpected surges of lust, pangs of unreciprocated romantic feeling and nervous abdications of romantic commitment: the experiences with which Malmros deals are, most often, the sorts of milestones a psychologist would assign to an early “stage or phase” in a theory of development.

Indeed, one of the most attractive—and, ultimately, deceptive—aspects of Malmros’s films is their apparent neutrality, their surgical steadiness of hand. Watching them can feel like recalling a particularly turbulent passage in your life from the lucid and serene remove of a later, mellower stage. By Malmros’s fifth feature Beauty and the Beast (83), however, a second, half-hidden voice was starting to speak up from under that paternal tone. This voice, more anxious and less assured than the one under which it’s been hiding, seethes quietly through Malmros’s films about adolescence. Cool-tempered, exquisite reminiscences of youth and its discontents, these movies are also, you start to feel, unsettlingly pained dispatches from middle age.

Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast is an atypical Malmros film: the only one of his first four mature features to take on the perspective of a grown man rather than that of one or more children. It’s a discomfiting, awkwardly revealing movie, its structure having seemingly been dictated by Malmros’s intense need to relieve himself of a psychological load. The “beauty” of the movie’s title is a 16-year-old woman living alone with her father, a writer. (Her mother, pregnant with the writer’s second child, is confined to a remote hospital bed for reasons never made clear.) There’s a strong, at times tense intimacy between Mette and her father: each comments frankly on the other’s physical appearance; he engages in casual relationship talk with her best friend; she walks around the house half-naked. When he looks at her, it’s with a mixture of fatherly protectiveness and visible, if unacknowledged, desire. Soon, she starts going out with a cocky, smooth-talking male model, and the father becomes obsessed—to the point of intruding on her rendezvous and eavesdropping on her calls—with preserving her virginity.

Much of Beauty and the Beast takes place in the father-daughter’s two-story house in suburban Aarhus, where the action plays out like a cramped, fitful dance: the two characters move up and down the stairs, sidle past each other in the hall, open doors on one another, listen in on one another’s speech through the walls. In what had already by then become one of his trademark devices, Malmros arranges his characters’ expressions of psychological unrest into compositions of impeccable order and eerie calm, like a personal essayist confessing some lurid youthful transgression in incongruously stately, measured prose.

That comparison is not accidental. Nearly all of Malmros’s films are derived from events in the director’s own life or the lives of people close to him. In many cases, including that of Beauty and the Beast, the forms of his finished films give the impression that the process of making them was something like therapy, a pretext for Malmros to confront some unacknowledged demon—in this case, his confused feelings for Line Arlien-Søborg, the young girl for whom he wrote the part of Mette after she appeared in his previous film, Tree of Knowledge (81)—or purge himself of a corrosive memory. It’s curious how Malmros’s intense confessional bent co-exists with his particular type of universalism: his way of treating Life in general as a more or less fixed series of stages and developments, each with its own attendant pleasures, dangers and fears.

2.

Aarhus at Night

Aarhus at Night

Malmros was born in Aarhus on October 5, 1944, when Denmark was under Nazi occupation. His father was a famous neurosurgeon, and Malmros grew up intending to practice the family trade. At 17, when he was still living at home in Aarhus and studying medicine, he saw François Truffaut’s Jules and Jim and decided, with sudden resolve, to take up filmmaking. His first feature, A Strange Love (68), was shot on a 16mm camera borrowed from his father’s neurosurgical ward; what reviews it received were harsh dismissals. Malmros, who never attended film school (he funded his first two features by serving as a security guard on the hospital’s night ward), taught himself movie grammar in the field, and in A Strange Love, he later confessed, he’d failed to find a tone. “I felt I had to make a film that was deep and poetical,” he suggested in a recent interview. “I was not deep and I was not poetical, so the result was fake.”

In the three great features Malmros made between 1973 and 1981, you can see the director steeling himself against reaching for any grand poetic effects or falling into any self-conscious affectations of style. These are movies in which each scene moves at its own pace and within its own custom-set limits, sometimes blossoming into an epiphany or erupting into a crisis, but more often shuffling along inconclusively right up to an arbitrary end. (The cuts in Malmros’s early movies are often jarringly curt, as if to suggest that the scene could have gone on for much longer, but had to end somewhere.) The films Malmros made at this stage in his career are marked by a steady input of humdrum details: the distinctions in size and opulence between different children’s houses; the personality of a stuffy (but essentially benign) composition teacher in contrast to that of a wizened, half-deaf exam administrator; the awkward, stop-start rhythm of an elementary-school waltz class or a middle-school dance; the way the windows of a young boy’s childhood home glow at him invitingly; the way that those of a campground social center glow threateningly at a put-upon teenage girl.

Lars Ole, 5C

Lars Ole, 5C

The title character of Lars Ole, 5C (73) recurs under an altered name in the central role of Boys (77), and under a third variation in an important corner of the magisterial Tree of Knowledge (81), in which there’s no obvious central character. The first of those three movies is a ragged, black-and-white love story with a familiar setup: Lars pines for the adorable brunette Inger; his best friend John pines for the timid, freckled Hanse; Hanse pines over Lars. What’s immediately striking about Lars Ole, 5C is the total lack of condescension with which Malmros, who was 29 at the time of the movie’s release, films the nonprofessional middle-schoolers that comprise nearly all of the cast. When Lars gets to dance for a fleeting second with Inger during a polka in the movie’s waning minutes, the film lights up with him. It’s a genuine, if pointedly foreshortened, moment of triumph.

These early Malmros’s films are so casually—one might say invisibly—structured that they can seem as if they’re being made up as they go. Boys, with its clear three-age, three-act plot, is the most schematic of the three. In a cut 30 minutes into the film, young Ole—the movie’s hero—transforms from a timid 8-year-old into a handsome, immaculately groomed teen. Thirty minutes and one dashed relationship later, we find him again, this time as a cockily confident, sexually hungry young man pursuing a forbidden liaison at a girl’s nursing school dormitory.

It’s in his slightly overzealous drawing of links between these episodes that Malmros risks letting the movie devolve into a developmental study. The youth at the center of Boys discovers sex textbook-style, stage by stage: witness the marked correspondence between how 8-year-old Ole lingers outside his family’s house on a warm summer night, how his teenage self hovers below his ex-girlfriend’s window, and how, a few years later, we see him unsteadily climb past the lit windows of a nurses’ dormitory. When it arrives, the movie’s epilogue—a scene of Ole getting foiled from engaging in some pre-pubescent erotic horseplay with a boy his age—feels a little too emphatic, a punch line that draws attention to itself.

Boys

Boys

Where Boys improves thrillingly on Lars Ole, 5C is in the presence it gives its female characters. The women Ole pursues arguably make more of an impression than he does: Marianne, his first love, with her precociously wise, reflective temper and her air of shuffling between conflicting romantic desires; then Marethe, the nurse who directs him playfully through their curtailed one-night stand. Malmros’s style is, on the whole, too decorous and modest to handle any full-blooded sex (the love in his early movies is always unrequited), but he’s an expert at staging the shifty, dancelike navigations that lead up to a sexual encounter. The question Marethe asks Ole after he’s persuaded her to lay down next to him on her bed—“what now?”—is Malmros’s cue to disrupt the couple’s privacy; it’s as if she’s beckoning the movie down a path it’s not equipped to follow.

And it’s the women who take pride of place in Malmros’s masterpiece, Tree of Knowledge: a series of exquisitely staged, expansive vignettes that accumulate with quietly shattering force. (The movie, which takes place between 1953 and 1955, was shot over two years, during which time most of its cast either entered puberty or left it.) If there’s a figure around whom the movie revolves, it’s Elin (Eva Gram Schjoldager), a shy Jewish girl whose friends reject her after she grows visibly close to, then rebuffs the advances of, the handsome Helge (Marin Lysholm Jepsen). The film, however, often re-centers around the friends themselves—the group’s pretty, secretly insecure ringleader Anne-Mette (Line Arlien-Søborg) and her quieter, more pensive best friend Elsebeth (Marian Wendelbo)—or the boys in their orbit. Niels Ole (Jan Johansen) is in this second camp, pining familiarly over an older girl who returned his affections for a short, unsatisfying spell. It’s mesmerizing to watch Malmros guide some of the boys slowly out of the character types into which he’s written them: Willy (Brian Theibel), the class clown who, over the course of the film, takes on his own sort of poignant loneliness; or Gert (Anders Ørgaard), the heavyset boy who hovers longingly at the edges of the action and evolves into one of its few sources of reliable wisdom.

Such sympathy for the ways people navigate puberty is rare. There’s a surreal tinge to the dance scenes in Tree of Knowledge, with their frequent shots of tall, physically developed young women swaying to the beat of Fifties rock ’n’ roll with diminutive, prepubescent boys. But the way the characters on the edges of the action in these scenes engage with those in the center—glancing at them longingly, evasively, timidly—isn’t far from the way, say, the lonely, stoic heroes of many John Ford films shuffle around on the thresholds of those movies’ saloons or dancehalls, or the way the disappointed, middle-aged ex-lovers in Claire Denis’s 35 Shots of Rum gaze furtively back and forth at one another across the unbridgeable space of a bar’s makeshift dance floor. Standing in the glare of an atrium during their school’s Christmas party and watching their friends and rivals drift in pairs around the darkened, curtained-off private room one door away, these kids are, the movie suggests, getting a taste of adulthood.

Tree of Knowledge

Tree of Knowledge

The film’s title suggests that they’re getting a taste of something else: the “knowledge of good and evil” that will replace—or is taking—their innocence. But the process of acquiring experience, in the movie’s final picture, is more benign than that: a stream of practical challenges, unforeseen frustrations and new social demands. What do middle-schoolers talk about? How do they register the maturing of their friends’ bodies, and adapt to the changes in their own? How do they navigate space? How do they express or repress their desires? Here, as in the rest of his best early work, Malmros isn't so much describing adolescence as channeling its particular confusions through a cooler, decidedly adult voice.

3.

Sorrow and Joy

Sorrow and Joy

Near the end of Sorrow and Joy (13), Malmros’s painfully intimate, emotionally forthcoming latest film, Signe asks her husband, middle-aged filmmaker Johannes, why he’s never made a movie about “learning to love”: “You made films about being hopelessly in love in intermediate school, and about hopeless love in high school—and a film about starting to make films and being hopelessly in love.” (She’s referring, in the last instance, to Aarhus at Night, Malmros’s 1989 comedy set during the shooting of a movie that bears a striking resemblance to Boys.) “You need to make the film about reaching adulthood,” Signe tells him. They’re just starting the day, she perched on the side of their bed in a robe, he still ensconced under the covers: a moment touched by a kind of gentle, serene eroticism rare in Malmros’s early movies. “I can’t make that film,” Johannes replies. “You know that.”

“That film” would, Johannes knows, have to tell the story of a tragedy with which, after 26 years, he’s still struggling to come to terms. Around the time of the release of Tree of Knowledge, Malmros and Marianne Tromholt, his girlfriend of several years, got married. The early months of the couple’s marriage were strained. Decades earlier, after suffering a mental breakdown in her teens, Marianne had been diagnosed as manic-depressive, and now, with a change of medication, she had started to relapse. (It must be said that a contributing factor was jealousy: at the time, Malmros was filming Beauty and the Beast, and Marianne quickly picked up on its thinly veiled suggestions of Malmros’s attraction to his beautiful teenage star.) In January 1984, Marianne was briefly hospitalized for mental illness. The next month, during an afternoon at home, she suffered a severe psychotic episode and killed the couple’s 9-month-old daughter.

After the tragedy, Malmros’s output slowed down markedly. His next film after Aarhus by Night was Pain of Love (92), a fiction inspired by his wife’s early life—specifically, the initial struggle with suicidal depression that led to her first institutionalization as a college-aged young woman. It took a full decade for Malmros to make another indirect reflection on his recent, traumatic past. Facing the Truth (02), which revolves around a character named and modeled after Malmros’s neurosurgeon father, proceeds mostly in flashback after the elderly man is embroiled in a medical ethics scandal over his choice 40 years ago to use a toxic X-ray substance on patients in life-or-death need. Both movies centrally involve male characters who fail to take care of the lives with which they’ve been entrusted, partly out of pride and partly out of sheer helplessness; their hands, in both cases, are eventually tied. (Kirsten’s partner in Pain of Love, her former high-school composition teacher, intellectually condescends to her in much the same way that Johannes condescends to Signe in Sorrow and Joy.)

Facing the Truth

Facing the Truth

The dramatic structures of Pain of Love and Facing the Truth are less thrillingly porous and open than those of Malmros’s early films. Where Boys and Tree of Knowledge luxuriate in individual scenes well past the point of dramatic necessity, these later works are briskly paced character studies with well-defined narrative arcs. Pain of Love proceeds in chronological sequence and ends, like Beauty and the Beast, with a moment that’s both decisive and inconclusive. Facing the Truth, like Sorrow and Joy, is a kind of emotional whodunit, each flashback giving a new or further clue to the source of the aging doctor’s guilt.

In their own way, these later films of Malmros manage to generate more tension than any of his previous movies (the extended surgery setpieces in Facing the Truth, the twinned exam scenes in Pain of Love). They both lavish space on their protagonists’ childhoods, but there was clearly something liberating for Malmros about working with mostly adult performers. In Pain of Love especially, he’s enraptured by the dramatic potential of grown-up conversation, its casually dropped digs, dancelike maneuverings, and veiled affronts.

The films’ shared visual style is another matter. Malmros briefly practiced as a surgeon during the period from which these films date, and it’s at this point in his career that his formal precision and simplicity risked turning into clinical blandness. There’s an almost stuffy professionalism to Pain of Love and Facing the Truth wholly absent from the self-taught director’s earlier films—a feature of these movies that’s oddly out of step with their strain of personal urgency, even desperation. (The character meant to stand in for Malmros in Facing The Truth is almost completely unindividuated, and the scenes that have him listening to his father’s story make dramatic sense only if you take them for what they are: conversations in which the filmmaker himself takes the listening role.) It’s precisely because these movies include many of Malmros’s most acute treatments of male-female relationships (in the case of Pain of Love) and some of his most bracing straight doses of procedural detail (in Facing the Truth) that their limitations—their stodgier mise en scène, their intrusive musical scores, and their somewhat diminished sense of place—frustrate as much as they do.

Sorrow and Joy

Sorrow and Joy

Midway through Sorrow and Joy, Johannes warns his wife Signe not to take his films too literally; if they represent his own feelings, he tells her a bit condescendingly, it’s only in a “sublimated” form. But what makes Sorrow and Joy such a riveting, difficult film is precisely how little sublimation seems to have taken place in its making. The film Johannes is shooting is unambiguously Beauty and the Beast, just as the character’s previous film is clearly Tree of Knowledge. (Reviving a device he’d used decades before in Aarhus by Night, Malmros shows his alter-ego filming shot-for-shot recreations of both those movies, with look-alike actors chosen to replace the films’ original casts.)

Indeed, the events recounted in Sorrow and Joy follow the course of Malmros’s life in nearly every particular: his wife’s medical history; her mother’s absent-minded failure to keep an eye on her the day of the tragedy; her generous sentence to recuperative psychiatric care; the striking choice of the parents of her elementary-school pupils to invite her back to teach after her release; his ill-timed trip to Berlin shortly after the incident to promote Beauty and the Beast with that film’s young star. Like most savvy memoirists, Malmros takes great pains in Sorrow and Joy to turn himself into a character. And like many memoirists, he attacks that character’s weaknesses with ferocious precision: sometimes caring and sensitive, Johannes is also, at various points, tactless, proud, chiding, paternalistic, superior, domineering, and cruel. (Witness his derogatory remarks on seeing Signe’s apartment for the first time, or the way he quizzes her professorially on the book she brings to one of their first dates.)

There’s perhaps too little in Sorrow and Joy of the recklessness that enlivens many such memoirs—if only because Malmros is deeply concerned here with proving that the story he’s telling is one he has a right to tell. Marianne, as he has maintained in several interviews, sat him down in 2012 and gave him permission to film their story, but there’s something disconcerting about the way Malmros writes that speech conscientiously into the film, like a protective clause in a contract. The essential indiscretion of the memoir enterprise, one senses, doesn’t sit well with him; watching the film, you sometimes wish he wasn’t at such pains to tell his own story with such impeccable decorum and tact.

Pain of Love

Pain of Love

For all the clarity of its emotional observations and all the luminous poise with which it’s shot, Sorrow and Joy is at its most effective whenever Malmros sets forces moving inside the film that risk shattering its composure. There are moments in the movie—indiscreet confessions or chilling outbursts of grief—that seem to erupt irrepressibly out of it: Signe’s almost unbearably precise account of what took place during her psychosis; a queasy moment on the set of Beauty and the Beast during which Johannes pressures his reluctant teenage actress Iben (Maja Dybboe) to disrobe for a key scene; a heartbreaking image late in the film of Johannes watching his daughter play for the last time. The film’s decorum, in moments like these, transforms into a kind of steely, iron resolve.

To Signe, “a film about reaching adulthood” would be, almost by definition, a film “about learning to love.” As they age, the heroes of Malmros’s later movies nearly always find that they have to divest themselves of the romantic appeal of unrequited love. Johannes’s attempts to suppress his evident attraction to Iben, Kirsten’s choice in Pain of Love to keep the baby with which she has been left after a painfully unsatisfying one-night stand, Rodger Malmros’s halfhearted concession to marry the levelheaded, easygoing girlfriend he doesn’t love in Facing the Truth—it’s a fundamental assumption of these movies that growing up means lowering one’s romantic expectations, or (in the case of Sorrow and Joy) coping with the need to share someone else’s pain.

If Malmros’s later movies sometimes feel excessively careful and restrained, it’s because they match their characters’ romantic compromises with formal compromises of their own: their stately, slightly stiff compositions; their focused, single-protagonist narratives; their hand-me-down flashback structures. There’s a sense in which Malmros’s earlier movies spoke in wiser, more developed voices than his films about adulthood. Less attuned to the difficulties and rewards of cohabitation, they were more attentive to the way a single action can branch out along unexpected trajectories and into unforeseen effects, more sensitive to the psychological motives of even their most distasteful characters, and more interested, oddly, in the dynamics of sexual power between people. One of the constants in Malmros’s body of work has been his view of life as a series of stages, and taken together, his movies come off as proof that, in the movement from one stage to the next, there’s a loss for every gain. 

ND/NF Interview: Joel Potrykus

$
0
0

Buzzard opens this Friday at the Film Society of Lincoln Center. FILM COMMENT spoke with director Joel Potrykus last year during New Directors / New Films.

Buzzard, the new feature from Joel Potrykus (Coyote, 10; Ape, 12), follows Marty, a dead-eyed bank temp with a penchant for small-time scams. When he's not bilking businesses out of their cash, Marty (Joshua Burge, haunting and charismatic) subsists on a diet of pizza, heavy metal music, and retro video games. After one of his schemes backfires, he hightails it to the home of his equally maladjusted co-worker Derek (Potrykus).

Friendless and effectively invisible, he wanders around in a purgatorial state of mind somewhat between adolescent recklessness and the unfair realities of adulthood. Potrykus’s unflinching approach to the subject matter and his sincere respect for his aging slacker antihero make Buzzard an affecting character study. It’s a fearless and moving exploration of a man whose smug ambivalence masks an inner rage, a disdain for a larger system that seems content to swallow him whole.

FILM COMMENT chatted with Potrykus, whose film screens in New Directors / New Films, about geek rage, slacker rebellion, and the cathartic power of spaghetti.

Buzzard

This is one of the most sincere meditations on loserhood that I've seen in a while. On the one hand, Marty’s a glazed-over underachiever, but he's also almost admirably committed to the scams he pulls. He seems to want to be a winner, even if it’s on a very minor scale.

A lot of people put my last film, Ape, in the category of slacker life—that he was just a wandering loser—and a lot of people say the same thing about Buzzard: that he’s just this aimless drifter. But for me, I totally relate to Marty. I see him more as a petty idealist. He has his set of codes: they might not be lofty goals and he’s not out to change the world, but he’s out to change his world in any way he can. He doesn’t care if he steps on other people on the way. There’s that scene where he gets quick-changed by the cashier in the gas station, and he’s so confused and upset because he’s like: “Hey, you’re violating the code of the little guy. Don’t do that.” Marty’s got aspirations for something different. I wouldn’t say he’s a loser, he’s just totally misdirected in his anger and all of his little scams, as silly and small as they are. But I know those guys.

Buzzard isn’t a movie about self-loathing. Marty’s not a happy guy, but he doesn’t hate himself. Was it always an active decision to avoid indicting the character? Were you ever in a situation where you felt you were running the risk that people wouldn’t relate to him at all?

There are a lot of different guidelines that people follow when they’re writing a script or making a film. A lot of times it’s that they have to see the lead character as likable. You want to root for him. And for me, it’s never been about making a nice guy or a likable guy. I can understand if people don’t like Marty, and I can understand if people do like Marty. I get both sides. But I just want to make a character that people know. I want people to empathize. Why would I want to make a movie about someone that I don’t like and that I don’t understand and that I don’t empathize with? That just seems kind of cold to me. When you’re making a film, you put your heart into it. I understand Marty. I know his world.

Buzzard

You're willing to show him as he is—eating spaghetti with his mouth open and spilling it all over himself. It’s not flattering, but you're never mocking him.

For me, that’s like the opposite of mockery. That’s Marty at his only happy moment. Truly, he’s so happy. [Laughs] He’s in a clean bathrobe, he’s smiling. When we shot that, the scene in the script just says: “Marty eats the best plate of spaghetti he’s ever had.” While we were filming, Josh [Burge] started eating, and he just started shoveling it in, and I was mesmerized watching. The crew was all looking at me to say cut, and I was like: “No. What’s happening right now is amazing. You can’t script this. Look how happy Marty is! He’s loving this. This isn’t Joshua, this is Marty right here.” It’s a very polarizing scene, but for me it’s super-critical that we enjoy this spaghetti with Marty and have a laugh and see him happy for once.

There are also these moments when he’s talking to his mom where he’s almost lying for someone else’s sake—not for himself or for any idealistic goal. And you don’t hear the other end of the conversation.

I always intentionally do not put the other person’s voice on the phone because I think it’s a lot stronger just to listen. We’re seeing Marty’s world from his perspective. With him speaking on his phone to his mom, everything’s not filled in. He’s filling it in for us, giving us little clues about his childhood. That’s where the underlying sadness is. In these phone calls, you’re not sure if he’s lying just to make her proud of him, because he’s ashamed of himself, or because he doesn’t know how to tell the truth anymore. I like those scenes. I think they’re some of the more emotionally complicated stuff I’ve ever done. And Joshua did a good job speaking to himself on the phone.

There's a strong feeling of what you might call "nerd rage" flowing through the film. It's present in the heavy-metal soundtrack and in some of the particularly obscure gadgets—the Nintendo Power Glove plays a major role, for example. Are you someone who’s immersed in retro game culture? Did that inform the writing process?

None of that is really intentional. As silly as it sounds, I’m just making movies that I want to see that don’t exist out there. A lot of the time, it’s just totally subconscious. When we decorated Marty’s apartment, some of the crew came over the next day to see what we had done, and they were like: “So, you just moved your bedroom into this other bedroom.” [Laughs] I don’t profess to be some kind of retro geek, but I have all of the video-game stuff. I know that scene and I know that culture. I just assume that every teenager spent his formative years in the basement chugging Mountain Dew and eating pizzas and playing video games. In Buzzard, these guys are obviously in some kind of absurd state of arrested development that they’re still living 15-year-old lives well into adulthood. I guess that’s my world. I go to horror conventions. I’m all about that.

Buzzard

Buzzard also offers a different take on what you might call the white-collar revenge fantasy. I'm thinking of movies like Falling Down or Bobcat Goldthwait's God Bless America or even something like Brazil. Movies about drones rising up against the system. Where do you think your movie fits in with this subgenre? This and Ape both cultivate this very specific kind of doomed slacker rage.

I’m not into the faceless villain. Never in my life have I ever met a villain. No one has ever been after me with a mask on. As much as I love Friday the 13th, for me the best villain to me is “the system.” That’s what we’re all fighting—we’re all fighting AT&T, our cable bills, the power company. That’s the villain. That’s the most fascinating rebellion: fighting against this faceless system that’s always been there.

At the same time, Marty doesn’t seem to understand what the system is to a large extent.

[Laughs] He is so far gone. Especially at the end, he’s lashing out against the mom-and-pops. The hotel is owned by a family, probably this nice family. And then at the end, he says “this whole corporate system” and the other guy says “Corporate? I own this place.” He’s so far gone from his revenge ideals that he’s essentially lashing out against one of his own. His motivations and his sense of reality are completely shot by the third act.

Can you talk about working with Joshua Burge? You guys share a lot of time on screen together, and much of it is spent either bickering or shooting the shit or both. Did you guys ad-lib a lot?

One of the reasons I work with Joshua is because he has a presence about him that you can’t teach. He has a look, a persona. Actually, for the character of Derek, we auditioned several good actors, really funny actors. But they were all playing it for funny, making a comedic character. They stuck to the script. Whereas Joshua and I just know each other so well. We rehearsed for eight months on this thing, so when it came time to shoot, we could just ad-lib it. We knew the reason for every scene, what was important and what wasn’t important. We could just goof around. Basically, it was just me trying to make him laugh in every scene. So I’d change the lines every single take. Even if the line was “I’m eating a little chocolate,” I would change what I’m eating and say “It’s a little Bon-Bon Treat Treat” or “Milky Way Num-Num.” And Joshua was stone cold—he would not crack up. He’s a performer—he’s a musician by trade—so he knows how to turn it on and turn it off at the right time.

Buzzard

The Michigan locales are key. The trip to Detroit is a kind of descent into madness. What is it about this city that turns Marty’s paranoia into a reality?

Detroit represents what Marty’s lashing out against: this decay, the mortgages have crumbled, it’s just falling apart. There’s this one important shot that I think only people from Detroit will really understand. When he gets off the bus, the very first shot is him walking in front of the old Tiger Stadium that’s been torn down. It’s now just barred up. And in the background, there’s a huge high-rise casino. And for me, that’s the movie. The old is gone, and all the sentiment is torn out. The good old days are gone, and they’re being crushed by casinos and capitalism and places that are just trying to steal from blue collar folks. It’s really important that the third act took place there. That’s the story we’re telling through the eyes of Marty.

There’s a divide in the film between idle, detached moments and pretty graphic content. How do you negotiate the gap between these very quiet moments and the more extreme situations?

My whole theory of making films is that I want to lull audiences to sleep—I almost want to bore them—and then right before they fall asleep, kick them in the balls. That probably comes from, subconsciously, a lot of my influences. I love The Terminator just as much as I love Down by Law. Those kind of just work their way together. I just love mixing low art with high art. Getting out of all of these genres, mixing tones up, confusing the audience, and surprising them. A lot of people are like: “What is this? This guy’s got his face slashed, and then there’s another scene where a guy is just eating spaghetti?” It’s like Film Comment meets Fangoria.

Interview: Cristián Jiménez

$
0
0

Alongside filmmakers like Pablo Larraín, Sebastián Silva, Alicia Scherson, and Andrés Wood, Cristián Jiménez belongs to a generation who, almost two decades after Pinochet, have revitalized and diversified Chilean cinema. Jiménez’s second feature, Bonsai, screened in Un Certain Regard at Cannes, telling a wry love story about lies, literature, and small trees. His latest, Voice Over, explores the inner relationships of a four-generation family, and shows us the weight of what is left unsaid. Ingrid Isensee plays Sofia, a single mother of two who is facing the unexpected divorce of her parents. Once the divorce is final, Sofia and her sister Anna (Maria Siebald) uncover secrets in the past of their father, Manuel (Cristian Campos). Layering stories of sickness, coming-of-age, aging, and new opportunities—and shooting the film in his birthplace of Valdivia with longtime DP Inti Briones—Jiménez revitalizes the family drama with a true-to-life, shrewd portrait of a contemporary middle-class family in provincial Chile today.

Voice Over has its U.S. premiere tonight in Film Comment Selects at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, in addition to screening in the Miami International Film Festival. FILM COMMENT spoke with Jiménez, a writer turned filmmaker, last week.

Voice Over

This seems like a very personal film.

Yes, it’s a world that I know very well. I don’t know what to call it—it’s the small provincial bourgeoisie where there are certain hints of a connection to a global world or cosmopolitanism. And the neighborhood where we shot is called Isla Teja: it’s literally an island. It’s not as if Bonsai wasn’t a personal film, but that was personal in a different way.

With Bonsai you were working off Alejandro Zambra’s book, but this is an original script. Tell me about your process with your co-writer Daniel Castro.

I had some scenes, some characters, and some elements that I wanted to work with, and we started watching films and talking about them. We were writing in turns. That’s what I do when I co-write—we don’t sit down and write together. When I co-wrote with Alicia Scherson in Optical Illusions [09], I did the same thing, which was talk a lot. Daniel would send me what he had done, I wrote on that, and we kept doing that. It’s like when you are painting—you do one stroke of paint. At the end, sometimes you don’t even know who wrote what.

I also did a lot of interviews for this film. I did that with Daniel but also with a guy called Pablo Perazzo who is an anthropologist and interviewed families with sisters and families where the parents divorced after a long marriage. Some of the people I also interviewed myself. It was interesting to see certain patterns, and what happened when the reactions were different. I have a sociology background, so when you’re doing research for the sake of thoroughly answering a question, you’re looking for something you can generalize to some degree. When you are researching from a film point of view, at some point maybe you’re thinking of generalizing but your aim is to collect something that is unique and at the same time can reflect something bigger. So it’s almost as if you are looking for the little things, not necessarily big things.

There is also a bit of you in the film. Are you reflected in Sofia or Ana? Or both?

A bit of both but I think the character that I’m more directly reflecting my own experiences in is Román, the child. For example, the scene with the nail was one experience I had with my sister but it was the other way around—it was my younger sister. When we were young, she admired me very much so she would do anything that I did. Once, I stepped on a nail, and when I told her that it did not hurt, she did it herself. Also my sister is a vegetarian and her children really wanted to eat meat when they were little. So there is plenty of stuff in the film that reflects some experiences on a direct or not-so-direct level.

I’ve tried to keep it far away from certain family films where conflict that is extremely complex ends up having a resolution that works on a dramatic level but doesn’t do justice to what happens in real life. For example, if you have abuse in a family, it’s something that is not going to be worked out during one weekend. It’s going to take years and years. If it takes years for things to be spoken about, it’s going to take years and years for everyone to find a place within a new narrative, and that is something I was really conscious about. And I wanted and I understood that in a way, the search for truth that you can have within a family always has a lot of gaps and is finally very obscure. No matter how much you try, you’re never going to find a real solution. It’s not something that can just be unveiled, discussed, and that’s it. It’s something that doesn’t end. There is no real solution to be found in conventional screenplays that work around these subjects.

In Bonsai, you explored literature, love, and lying. Here, you detour towards family dynamics but the lying remains, not in a malevolent way though. Everybody seems to be lying to themselves or at least keeping the truth from others. Not everything is being said.

Maybe . . . If you look back at my shorts, there is always something about what is false and what is true as a question that is always there. But I think it’s not just a problem of hiding things and putting certain things forward. It’s also about the difficulty in dealing with certain things when we try to put them forward and language is always limited. It’s not just a problem of lying or hiding. There’s something that starts happening, something that is organic, something that is finally physical that ends up in the bodies of the people who are sharing a certain situation and that I find very intriguing.

Voice Over

Do technologies in the story such as cellphones and social media come into play in regard to that intricacy of communication?

I was more inclined toward thinking about certain concrete dimensions that words have within a family. For example, when I was researching this film, I read a paper about people who had been in concentration camps, and the researchers found out that the sons and daughters of people who had experienced concentration camps were three times more likely to have PTSD. When they did the second round of research, they found out that it was linked to the fact that it was not spoken about. You’d think you could transmit the stress if you talk about something, but it’s the other way around. When you think about psychoanalysis and the idea of transference, that is something that happens beyond a verbal level. New technologies are just part of the landscape—that’s how we do things now. We can even say that language is a technology. The omnipresence of new technologies is a contemporary setting—it changes the rules about how things work. Some people can reject it and some people can embrace it. I like the idea of the grandmother having this clever approach toward technology, because I’ve seen this: people who just understand if they want to be in touch with their grandchildren, technology is a clever move. Get yourself a Facebook account or Messenger and that’s a way you’re going to be in touch with them.

The way the film is edited, sometimes we can hear the conversations in one scene going on while we see the images of a different scene, which creates a voiceover-like effect. Can you talk about the significance of that and of voiceover in your films?

I have always used less voiceover than what I originally wanted to use. I am always super-attracted by voiceover—I find it difficult to use and sometimes it’s a bit shocking. In this case, the film is really about dialogue. It’s about what is being said and what is missing from what is being said. Some people have told me that they believed the film needed to be more explicit in showing certain things. To me, it’s really like you have one first scene where you look at things in a very specific way and from then on, it’s about dialogue. I think the idea of voiceover normally implies that a narrator that is not participating. It implies a certain distance. There’s the action and there’s the voiceover. In theory, you cannot be the protagonist and be the one doing the voiceover. But this is a slight twist on that because the two sisters who are the main characters are the ones with this dialogue and in a way the dialogue is the main action.

Especially since Bonsai, I started looking at dialogue differently from the way it’s usually thought about. Typically there’s this tendency with dialogue to try to get across as much action as possible. I started looking at dialogue in a more concrete way, almost as if the words could be looked at as matter. I think that’s also related to this issue of not saying something. It’s not just deceiving. It’s matter that is not brought into the world and that creates these sort of frictions and tensions that we don’t necessarily get to understand. There’s something material about dialogue that I tried to explore here—not just dialogue as a transmission of information.

Would you consider yourself a writer first?

I started as a writer, so I was a writer first. When I was younger, I was not really a film buff. I started writing and when I was 20, I really wanted to be a writer. I also got interested in film when I was in my early twenties so I was not that young. But I think now I’ve reached a point where, when I’m working on my own films, it’s hard to separate the writing from the directing and from the creation of a concept that is both image and sound. Normally, I’m writing but I’m making notes about how I want this scene to look. I also work as a writer for other people, which is a completely different experience from writing your own stuff. Normally, that means working to help someone who has an idea and an intention, to make that idea and that intention into a map to make a film. You’re really being like the shrink of the other person.

Your films are very dramatic, sometimes even tragic, but humor keeps breaking through in a very nice way.

Yeah, it’s something that I cannot really avoid. I tend to push things towards certain gags. I avoid the straightforward gag but often when I’m shooting television and we’re doing stuff that is very dramatic, sometimes I try to push little jokes, but often we just have to take it out. When I started writing this film, I thought it was going to be my first dramatic film, but when we began writing it scene by scene and then the dialogue, the jokes were slipping in by themselves. It’s hard for me to avoid putting little touches of lightness. I remember once when I lived in the U.K., we were discussing with someone the concept of gallows humor and someone said that gallows humor shows that even death is not so important. At the end of the day, I think when you are working on dramatic material and you joke about it a little bit, it puts a certain touch of hope in what you’re saying. It also calls things into question. Maybe you don’t take yourself so seriously and at the same time if you think in terms of depth, when something is only serious and dramatic, even though it might have a reputation of being profound, it may lack a layer that is there if you look at things more profoundly. It’s also a matter of taste. One day I would love to make a straightforward comedy.

Voice Over

In past interviews, you’ve mentioned Buster Keaton and Luis Buñuel as influences—

—and Preston Sturges.

Preston Sturges, right. Which is a kind of humor, especially in Keaton and Buñuel, that comes from how real it is and how absurd it is at the same time.

Exactly! I mean if you look at the news in Chile right now, for example, there’s a lot of debate about a very Chilean way of political corruption because we have the reputation of being the least corrupt country in Latin America. But now there are all these new things coming out because the world has become more transparent. If you put all the facts together, it may not be comic, but it is at least absurd. For example, I like Haneke’s films, and I’m always watching and thinking that this film might be a masterpiece but it would be a masterpiece for sure if it had humor. There are some things that are never so serious. There’s always a crack and that is so human. The humor is there because reality is always a bit absurd and people just do silly things. Manuel’s innocence and the fact that he may be a nice guy may mean he has not examined himself so deeply with regard to the issues he’s got with women. He’s not a slimy character, which would be the obvious approach. Things are more complicated than that. He’s a nice father and a nice guy. That makes it harder, and at the same time there is a bit of humor that comes from a character like that.

Was there an emphasis on the fact that the characters are separated by generation?

Yeah, the fact that there are four generations here and each generation has a different kind of agenda and a different kind of code. The title in Spanish is Voz en Off and the idea of “Off” means that something is left out; it has many interpretations. The world has changed so quickly that it’s hard to find something that we all have in common, something that can be shared. There are so many misunderstandings and there are so many ways of looking at things because the experience of each generation is different.

You took extra care in finding the chemistry between the actors, because they all had to work as a family. How did you cast them?

We shot the film in Valdivia so they were all living in the same hotel for a couple of weeks and they started acting like a family even when we were off set. When I started casting the two sisters, I had Ingrid Isensee in mind because I had worked with her before. María José Siebald is a very special actress. She does a lot of other things: she’s a dancer, she does visual arts projects, and she is a big character and has this big presence. I thought that the two together would really make these sisters not match and at the same time could be complementary and still have this competitiveness that sisters usually have. So I was really sure about this duo at the center of the film.

The parents were not so simple, especially because I wanted them to be young and to be old but at the same time to make you feel that they started this family when they were awfully young. It puts things into perspective when you look at it from the point of view from our generation. Cristian Campos, who plays Manuel, is a well-established television actor. He’s also done a lot of theater but very, very little film, so in a way that was a bit of a more unusual casting decision, whereas Paulina [García, who plays the mother] has done a lot of film. She’s a bit of a star, especially after her role in Gloria, so they were a really nice combination. I really liked how the two worked together and were able to imply so many things that were beyond the dialogue.

Shenda Román, who plays the grandmother, is a legend in Chilean cinema. She was pretty much the most important actress in the movement called New Chilean Cinema in the late Sixties and early Seventies. She was the actress in Raul Ruiz’s first film, Tres Tristes Tigres, and the actress in Miguel Littín’s first film, El Chacal de Nahueltoro [Jackal of Nahueltoro], which is a milestone in Chilean cinema.

Chile is undergoing a thriving period in cinema now. The post-Pinochet generation of young filmmakers who, in the last couple of decades, are making films have a regular presence in the international film festival circuit. Do you feel part of this generation?

Yes, we all know each other and we talk. There are certain groups that are closer together than others. I would not say that we are a movement—the New Chilean Cinema was a movement, and they had a manifesto. They were made of two groups: the Littín group that was more realistic and the Ruiz group that was more surreal and intellectual. They had a common manifesto. It was really to fix the society that was happening at that point. They were committed to the Left, and they wanted to make films that pushed things into a certain direction. We have nothing like that, we live in a different time, we are more atomized in many ways, also style-wise. I think one of the good things about what is going on in Chile now is that the films are so diverse. There is no typical Chilean film. In some countries where there was a big wave a few years ago, you can almost tell what the typical film is. We don’t have that and I think that is a good thing. There’s a lot of collaboration. I am about to co-direct a film with Alicia Scherson who has co-written with me. There are people who produce films for other people so there is a nice degree of discussion, exchange, collaboration and help, but I would most definitely say that we are not really a movement. We are like a choir where everyone is singing different songs.

Voice Over

Is there a national identity, even though some of you live in Europe and some in the U.S.? Do you think of Chile when you make films?

I think that my films are very Chilean and there is something uniquely Chilean about them. At the same time when they are exposed to international audiences, people say: “This is just like my life.” I’m starting to work on a film that deals with Chilean history and in one way or another, there’s always something going on that is local and specific. I’m open to explore things in different directions, and at the end of the day it’s cinema and cinema is in a way our country.

A film has many layers and some of these layers are just for the Chilean audiences. I think with Voice Over that is especially the case. There are little jokes that only people in Chile laugh at and that has always been the case in my films since Optical Illusions. I remember once at a screening of Bonsai in San Sebastián, at some point just the people from Chile were laughing and at some other points everyone was laughing. At least for me, it’s always more special when you confront a Chilean audience and there’s a click.

Sofia is a vegetarian and she tries to disconnect from technology and to go through this kind of cleansing process, but at the same time she cheats a bit and asks her daughter to help her with Skype. That goes back to the idea that people are not so simple and are full of contradictions—

—and it’s not so simple to be radical. It’s like those people who claim they only want to eat healthy food and they start to make a list of all the things they can’t eat. I knew someone who had this list and the list was so big that at the end there was nothing this person could eat. But at the same time we can all identify with that notion, that impulse, to that extent. I always try to be nice to my characters, and I like them even when there’s someone who is a bit unlikable to a certain degree.

What kind of films were you watching while preparing Voice Over?

It’s always a big mix. When I started to write Voice Over, I was watching Edward Yang’s films. For example, I was watching Yi Yi a lot but then I shot Bonsai and there were some elements of Yi Yi that ended in Bonsai. I was also watching Hal Ashby’s films and Terrence Malick’s films. I’m a big Ozu fan. I also love early Ang Lee films and watched them again when I was preparing this film. I’m a big Kaurismäki fan, I’m a big Fassbinder fan, but I think my previous films were closer to those aesthetics and here we took a step backward… or forward. Voice Over was going to be more realistic and maybe the colors in this case match the Kaurismäki kind of aesthetics, but here I pushed towards something that had a bit more pulse, keeping the writing dramatic but light—with moments that are almost slapstick but filtered.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever get to read Proust’s In Search of Lost Time? [The main character in Bonsai struggles to read Proust in school.]

I did but I did not finish. I started reading it when I was more or less the same age as the character in Bonsai. I read the first the first three books and I stopped—I don’t know why I stopped. I read the first three very quickly and then something happened and I never continued. When I was promoting Bonsai, everyone in France wanted to talk to me about Proust, to discuss what was and wasn’t Proustian about the film. It was funny. And many people were telling me that if I had gone to school in France, I would know that you only read the first book, the last book, and you skim the rest because the important stuff is only in the beginning and the end. You don’t read three and stop! Now, a friend of mine from France gave me In Search of Lost Time in French so I have that at home to read now.

Interview: Miguel Llansó and Yohannes Feleke

$
0
0

In 2010, the Spanish-born filmmaker Miguel Llansó made a short film in Ethiopia, titled Where Is My Dog? Now available on YouTube, it first garnered wider attention in 2011 at the International Film Festival in Rotterdam. Drawing its comedy from absurdism instead of traditional means of dramatization in Third World narratives, Where Is My Dog? and Llansó’s ensuing films (such as the documentary short The Second Best) wouldn’t meet any of the guidelines for talking about Africa defined by the 2005 essay “How to Write About Africa” by Binyavanga Wainaina. Instead, the protagonists of his films consist—in an almost Seinfeldian way—of grumpy old men nagging at children, leisurely-but-persistent second-best athletes, and (on a more fictitious note) second-generation Nazis, who are sometimes completely unaware of the historical and symbolic meaning behind their identities.

This year, Rotterdam screened Llansó's debut feature, Crumbs, a “post-apocalyptic surrealist science fiction romance,” per its description in the Bright Future premieres section. Following in the same comedic vein as his previous films, Llansó made the film with his regular collaborators: the Ethiopian producer-director Yohannes Feleke, and theater and film actor Daniel Tadesse. The latter plays Gagano, one of the survivors (or perhaps descendants of survivors) of a mysterious apocalyptic event. Tadesse’s unusual physique seems to signal a Surrealist disregard for normative bodies; Llansó previously cast him in the short Chigger Ale, as a clone of Hitler.

Llansó’s fascination with the potentially comical effect of displacing Nazi iconography to an environment as incongruous and inhospitable as the landscapes of post-apocalyptic Ethiopia continues in Crumbs. Gagano sets out on a “hero’s journey” in a world where the biggest antagonist to the orderly logic of Joseph Campbell’s narrative pattern is the filmmaker himself, defying and disrupting the narrative conventions and, by extension, the sanctified iconography of Western culture. More than anything else, Crumbs is an ironic pastiche of Western pop-culture artifacts, which come to include historical symbols of terror like swastikas. Llansó at times explicitly calls attention to their being nothing more than copies of a copy, but also recognizes their hegemonic status and their ability to survive even the apocalypse.

FILM COMMENT spoke with Miguel Llansó and Yohannes Feleke in Rotterdam about making movies in Ethiopia and the unnerving effect of Nazi iconography in cinema.

Crumbs Llansó

How did you meet each other?

Miguel Llansó: I went to Ethiopia in 2008 to work for the embassy of Spain, but at the same time, to get a chance to make films. So I started to make a movie about Ethiopian runners and I met Yohannes Feleke and Daniel Tadesse. We started doing the movies together, inspired by Werner Herzog and his kind of films. Daniel Tadesse was acting in the national theater, in a Llorca play, Blood Wedding, adapted for the Ethiopian environment. The play is quite difficult—in Spain, it’s a drama. But in Ethiopia, somehow, the play was really, really funny. They made it into something completely different. And Daniel was cast in the leading role, and when I saw him on the stage, the whole thing was so funny that I said to myself: “I should meet this guy.”

Most Europeans don’t go to Africa to make films about lost dogs or spaceships.

Miguel Llansó: You know, at the beginning, when you go to Ethiopia, you don’t know anything about the country. I was attracted by runners and things like that. But once you get to know it, there are so many interesting things to get to know. And you get tired of the typical image of Ethiopia that we have seen a million times, over and over again. So I started coming up with new ideas. They seemed a bit crazy to Daniel and Yohannes in the beginning, but they went along with it and we are a team now. I started to feel at home and also began to think in those terms. Interesting ideas, the landscapes, the people, the culture, music, and that way, it was easy to expand on the preconceived image of Ethiopia.

Yohannes Feleke: That is what we are working hard to overcome. Because the reality can be very different from its representation. I mean, there is poverty, sure, but there is also beauty. There are so many things you can talk about in Africa, so we are trying to utilize the power of film to promote them.

What is it like to be a filmmaker in Ethiopia?

Yohannes Feleke: For me, film is above all a social weapon. It is a window through which you can see the past, the present and the future. But we do almost everything ourselves, without any kind of support. There are no funds, we are not sponsored by any organizations, so getting a chance to come here, to the festival, is a big success.

Crumbs

How do you distribute your films?

Yohannes Feleke: The movie industry in Ethiopia is coming out in the past 10 years or so—you might as well say that there was no movies before that. Nowadays, there are around 10 cinemas in Addis Ababa, a few more in other small towns, and we have the option of screening the movies there. Also, we distribute them on DVDs.

Miguel Llansó: The system is similar than in Africa’s most famous movie industry, Nollywood. It all started when digital cameras became widely available and digital projections were made possible through the use of DVD technology. It was also a convenient way of promoting other stuff, such as washing machines. You bought a washing machine and you got a movie, things like that, but also in terms of product placement.

How many films get made in Ethiopia per year, for example?

Yohannes Feleke: These days, more than 150 films. In a week, you get three or four new films.

Miguel Llansó: It is more or less the same as in Spain, except that none of them are funded by the state. Everything is financed by the filmmakers themselves.

Yohannes Feleke: The problem is that most of them, especially the most successful ones, are terrible. It always has to be a comedy, people want cheap laughs—they are not very funny, even. But these are the films that are the most successful in terms of market. And that is why everyone keeps making the same kind of thing.

Crumbs

What kind of comedies are we talking about?

Miguel Llansó: Comedies about love, mainly.

Yohannes Feleke: Romantic comedies about the poor and the rich. In every movie.

Miguel Llansó: Like Cinderella.

Yohannes Feleke: It is symptomatic of the social inequality—in a way, it actually reflects reality. But it is also escapism. The poor marry the rich—happy ending.

Miguel Llansó: A happy ending like in Pretty Woman, for example. So, happy, but a little bit terrible at the same time.

So where does Crumbs fit in?

Miguel Llansó: It is a reflection, in a way—of the way globalization is changing things. In the 1960s, Addis Ababa was a really beautiful place with places for people to gather, to come and see, but now it’s a construction site, with only the worst things the West has to offer. Not the libraries, but Beyoncé, YouPorn, things like that. Useless things. It is just another kind of supremacy, cultural supremacy. But this is what is being shared by the West.

Crumbs

I was reminded of The Gods Must Be Crazy, in which a bottle of Coca-Cola is being worshipped—another case of Western pop-culture artifacts occupying a superior, almost divine position.

Miguel Llansó: My family at home keeps a relic—a bond from the virgin from the past—that is worshipped once a year. It is a celebration for the whole town, but I can say with confidence that nobody can tell you anything about this bond. Who was this lady, this saint, the virgin, what did she do? Nobody knows. Everybody comes to the party, everyone worships this bond. For me, it is the same with plastic toy figurines in the post-apocalyptic future. Of course it is ridiculous that you are going to pray to a ninja turtle, but also, why not?

So is that what fascinates you so much about displaced Nazi iconography?

Miguel Llansó: Exactly. Unfortunately, Hitler today is an icon, devoid of its historical meaning. He is merchandise. Through iconization, objects themselves lose meaning, so that is it—Hitler becomes a figurine. It is fascinating to me because it is so extreme. The Nazis are the worst thing that happened in the 20th century, they are the most powerful symbol of evil, and their iconography follows the same process. It is being reappropriated, used and reused, and not always in a subversive way—just look at the German Pegida today.

What do Superman and a Nazi have in common?

Miguel Llansó: They are both super-. It’s interesting that they were both created at roughly the same time. And they personify the essence of the 20th century, which Nietzsche announced some 20 years before, that God is dead. The people are left to themselves to produce meaning. They learn to erase boundaries, they themselves become mythical heroes—well, some of them. So, the Nazis are Supermen. It’s interesting to compare this logic to capitalism and the American dream, for example. Everyone can become anyone, which of course is not true. Though it doesn’t seem like it, only a few can be mythical, only a few can be gods. The essence of both capitalism and the American dream is to push yourself beyond (human) limits.

Crumbs

Also, both Superman and a Nazi want to save the world.

Miguel Llansó: They want to save the world, of course. When you have a mission, when you believe you’re God, that mission is far more important than anything else.

The swastika itself is also very cinematic.

Miguel Llansó: It is, it’s everywhere. It’s in Tarantino, Spielberg, popular films like that, it’s a symbol that you take and put in your film. It is convenient to have an image so powerful, so charged with meaning in a movie where you don’t have time to explain. If I tell a story about Ethiopia, about a town far away, I have to explain everything, because most of the people don’t know anything about it. But if I use a symbol of Nazism, it is easy. Everybody is going to understand because they are within the popular culture.

So, instant evil.

Miguel Llansó: Yes. Of course, ultimately everything depends on the way you use it, you can stay within the system or at least try to question it.

Deep Focus: The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

$
0
0

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

In The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Bill Nighy plays retired civil servant Douglas Ainslie to perfection. And why wouldn’t he? In its combination of diffidence, sensitivity, and a sort of bewildered dash, it’s the ultimate Bill Nighy role. It’s one of many elements that have made this unlikely franchise about an eccentric Indian golden-years hotel into a global hot ticket. Nighy puts the sex into sexagenarian, just as co-stars Judi Dench and Maggie Smith create a blessedly sharp and multifaceted depiction of octogenarian female bonding.

At the end of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (11), Douglas chose staying at the hotel over returning to England with his harsh, depressive wife Jean (Penelope Wilton); a key lure to life in India was the prospect of courting an amiable widow, Evelyn Greenslade (Dench). The movie’s matter-of-factness about aging and mortality was part of its charm. Now, amid the fructifying tumult of Jaipur, Douglas continues to embrace the comradeship of the hotel’s “elderly and beautiful” clientele, including semi-reformed lothario Norman Cousins (Ronald Pickup) and marriage-hungry Madge Hardcastle (Celia Imrie). They all bask in the affection of effusive, sesquipedalian hotelier Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel), who can’t be calmed even by comically dour Muriel Donnelly (Smith). She went to India for an outsourced hip replacement and stayed on to become Sonny’s strong right arm, the beating heart of the Marigold Hotel, and the staunchest embodiment of its tenets of staying open and letting go. After all, she transcended xenophobia and racism to become a sage and salty presence there.

Douglas’s halting evolution as a reborn man and Nighy’s engaging reenactment of his stammers, missteps, ardor, and honesty, are prime examples of what’s right in this erratic follow-up. The moviemakers design Douglas’s arc, in particular, as a series of pleasurable in-jokes and seriocomic anticlimaxes. In the first film, Douglas admitted to Evelyn that he couldn’t fix a thing. In the second, he tries to repair bikes with the aid of a practiced mechanic. In The Best, he also confessed that after reading the history of a nearby palace, he hadn’t remembered a word of it. In The Second Best, he works as a guide at local sites—helped by a boy who reads the details into Douglas’s earpiece, so memory does not appear to be a problem.

Second Best Exotic

This film starts just eight months after he and Evelyn made their first “date,” for tea. So it’s frustrating but not surprising that they haven’t yet become romantic. Everyone around them knows they’re made for each other. But part of what makes them “right” is that they share both curiosity about the wider world and personal modesty. When Evelyn agrees to scout Indian fabrics for a textile business, her far-flung job provokes some entertaining haggling. The time away from Douglas only intensifies her feelings for him. Dench and Nighy make this pair’s stop-and-go progress as piquant as it is touching.

The returning director-writer team of John Madden and Ol Parker, when they’re on their game, push their characters forward gently and rambunctiously. When they’re off, they force affable men and women into story lines that are merely mushy or silly, and sometimes both at once. Norman thinks he inadvertently put out a hit on his lover, Carol Parr (Diana Hardcastle), by complaining about monogamy to a tuk-tuk driver; then he’s consumed with jealousy when he suspects her of infidelity. And with more tedium than comedy, Madge leads on two wealthy Indian men at their swank mansions until she learns about true love at a much humbler address.

Of course it’s challenging to juggle nine or 10 returning figures with a sprinkling of fresh faces, including Sonny’s slick perceived rival, Kushal (Shazad Latif), and two new hotel guests, self-styled novelist Guy Chambers (Richard Gere) and middle-aged woman on the make, Lavinia Beech (Tamsin Greig). So to provide momentum and unity, the filmmakers build to an impending grand occasion—Sonny’s marriage to the beautiful and indispensable Sunaina (Tina Desai). The results are mixed. Gere acts agreeably breezy as Guy, but when he woos the bridegroom’s savvy mother (Lillete Dubey, who was also terrific in last year’s The Lunchbox), his come-on, as written, is so condescendingly smooth that it’s pathetic. The skillful, elegant Dubey, at age 61, is four years younger than Gere (and looks it). Guy starts out by saying she must see herself as a once-beautiful woman—a line that would have most women tossing wine in his face.

The Second Best Marigold Hotel

Even worse, Sonny himself loses all perspective in Guy’s presence. Convinced that Guy is an undercover analyst for his potential American investor, Ty Burley (David Strathairn), Sonny swoons over him as embarrassingly as Jon Stewart does whenever he interviews a conventionally handsome Anglo-American star. (In both cases, it’s shtick—incredibly awkward and unfunny shtick.) Adding to the strained, sentimental farce is Sonny’s belief that Kushal has undercut him romantically and professionally. He enters a manic mode that frays the patience of his skeptical in-laws and even his devoted friends.

Sonny does manage to rise to his great day, and Patel’s authentic exuberance as a performer reclaims Sonny’s place in the hearts of the audience. Cast members of all ages come together in a bust-out Bollywood dance, made equally engaging by Patel’s and Desai’s elating virtuosity and the way the entire party gets drawn into their magnetic field. It’s hard to resist seeing Dench, Smith, and Nighy, as well as that practiced hoofer Gere, follow imaginative moves that have been nick-named “air guitar,” “airplane,” and everybody’s favorite, “shampooing the dog.”

The climax isn’t simply gleeful. It includes Madden’s deft handling of a long goodbye from Muriel, a tough working-class woman who’s become Sonny’s most crucial supporter. Maggie Smith’s performance is unmannered and free of slop, despite its heart-tugging turns. Smith has the wit to play Muriel as a woman who keeps her sense of humor to herself. She makes it hard to tell when Muriel is simply being frank or is executing an intricate putdown, as when Evelyn tells her buddy Muriel she’s only 19 days older than herself, and Muriel observes that 19 days is “the entire lifespan of a wasp.”

Second Best

What makes you warm up to this “feel-good” movie is Madden’s unreserved affection for his entire ensemble. In an opening coup of casting and directing, the filmmaker uses that wonderful actor Strathairn, with his air of appreciative awareness, to convey what everyone should adore about dry-witted Muriel and fulsome Sonny—they’re an odd but essential coupling of experience and innocence. This director also brings unusual textures to obligatory scenes. Madden and his cinematographer, Ben Smithard, know how to shoot a street market or a wedding feast so that turbulent colors and vectors of motion blend together and the actors remain paramount.

Madden is usually underrated: it’s as if the victory he enjoyed at the 1998 Oscars, when Shakespeare in Love upset Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, doomed him to film snob hell. But Shakespeare in Love, which had the light touch and witty bravado to expand our pleasure in Shakespeare's plays by embroidering on them, holds up as a jolly, inventive piece of japery, while the supposed realistic breakthroughs of Saving Private Ryan seem increasingly outdated every time a filmmaker ups the ante on bloody combat scenes, as David Ayers recently did in Fury. Madden made one of the best Elmore Leonard adaptations, Killshot (08), with another tip-top cast (Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson, Diane Lane, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and his spy thriller, The Debt (10), about a Mossad mission to kidnap a notorious Nazi known as "The Surgeon of Birkenau," to my mind has more complexity and oomph than Spielberg’s Munich. Similarly, Madden’s Captain Corelli’s Mandolin (01), a complicated romance set on the Greek island of Cephalonia during World War II, hinging on the love affair between pert, intelligent Pelagia (Penélope Cruz), the daughter of the island doctor (John Hurt), and virile, musical Captain Corelli (Nicolas Cage), who leads a company of Italian occupiers, was more unexpected and original, more rigorous and sympathetic than Anthony Minghella’s The English Patient.

In the most unlikely circumstances, Madden has a knack for nailing the emotional center of each scene. That’s what makes these Marigold movies honest crowd-pleasers. The plot turns in The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel are sometimes artificial, but the sense of camaraderie among its aging expatriates remains palpably real. If you fall under the spell of their good company, nothing is more important than Sonny calling roll in the morning and every guest responding with a robust and individualized “Here!”

Review: The Lesson

$
0
0

The Lesson

Channeling Bulgaria’s malaise in the aftermath of Communist rule, writer-directors Kristina Grozeva and Petar Valchanov have fashioned a morality tale that gathers force gradually. The Lesson follows an elementary schoolteacher who is driven by a righteous desire to teach her students the value of honesty, only to learn firsthand what it means to resort to desperate measures when confronted with dire economic circumstances.

In the film’s opening scene, a classroom of students is confronted with a sentence written in English on a blackboard: “Somebody has just stolen my wallet.” This turns out to be more than just a language exercise: one of the students is in fact a victim of a theft, and the teacher, Nade (Margita Gosheva), asks her to read the sentence aloud. Nade has good intentions, but primarily succeeds at humiliating the girl, Katya. When no one steps forward to admit responsibility, she asks Katya to search her classmates’ book-bags. When no evidence emerges, the teacher makes each student give a coin to Katya. “So now the thief owes the entire class,” says Nade.

It's a prelude that stands as a metaphor to the deep-seated difficulties of a nation disillusioned by the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and the struggles for new prosperity that arrived with democracy. Ideals are not for the faint of heart, and Nade learns her own lesson on that score when the bank comes calling for her home. Grozeva and Valchanov proceed to spin an intimate morality tale against the backdrop of chaotic sociopolitical conditions. If the film’s story is indebted to Dostoevsky, its filmmaking imitates the Dardenne Brothers circa Lorna’s Silence, featuring handheld camerawork that focuses on Nade. She is the only character whom the directors shoot in close-up, though the roving camera captures the ambivalent reactions of her students and family members to what she does.

The Lesson

Nade is shackled by her sense of fairness and a tendency toward passive-aggressiveness. Her personality is put to the test when she arrives home one day to find that the bank has sent a bill collector with a police escort to her family’s house. The bank plans to put their house on the market because her husband Mladen (Ivan Barnev), a drunk, has failed to pay the mortgage. She is caught in a bind because her boss at her second job as a translator is delaying payment, and her pride prevents her from asking her wealthy father for money. Faced with the prospect that she, her husband, and their 4-year-old daughter may be put out on the street, she resorts to borrowing from a loan shark.

During one key scene, Nade’s poor decision-making ends up feeling more like a plot contrivance than part of a plausible character portrait. A particularly tense sequence of scenarios concerning a few coins begins after she leaves her purse on her school desk as bait for the class thief. If only she would have checked her purse before she left the building to pay the transaction fee the band has suddenly reminded her about! There is also a self-sabotaging confrontation with her widowed father’s young new girlfriend that seems overplayed, until the revelation of some extenuating information later in the film.

The Lesson is a decent feature debut for Grozeva and Valchanov that could have benefited from less heavy-handed plotting and more placement of the burden of story development on Nade’s actions. The film’s low-key, earnest performances and tonally consistent style do hold the attention. When Nade’s desperation results in a shocking final act, it is as underplayed as the rest of the movie’s developments. The film then comes full circle with an outcome that evokes not so much crime and punishment as crime and disillusionment.


Films of the Week: Two from Rendez-Vous

$
0
0

My Friend Victoria

Beauty is not something that English-language film critics tend to talk about that often, at least not with any seriousness. We might note in passing the splendor of a film’s cinematography or design, but beauty—as an integral part of a film’s makeup—doesn’t always concern us that deeply. French criticism, on the other hand, will constantly refer to un beau film or un bel article, and I remember once snorting impatiently at a Cahiers du Cinéma review that ended by lauding its subject as “a film which teaches us what beauty is in cinema,” or words to that effect.

It’s easy to caricature a certain type of French criticism as the preserve of exquisites who swoon at the elegance of a camera move, latterday Mallarmés venerating a rarefied cult of the Beautiful. In fact, to say in French that a film is beau is simply a common form of praise, meaning nothing more specific than that it’s a fine film, nicely executed. But French film culture does also entertain a genuine regard for beauty, for a sort of aesthetic transcendence, that might seem alien to us. (This preoccupation isn’t uniquely French. Think of Paolo Sorrentino’s title The Great BeautyLa Grande Bellezza—in which, to my ears at least, bellezza suggests a dynamic, earthy radiance, whereas the French beauté is more stately and abstract.) 

This week’s Rendez-Vous with French Cinema at Lincoln Center features two films that have at their core a serious regard for beauty as both a spiritual quality and a specifically filmic one. One is My Friend Victoria by Jean Paul Civeyrac, one of French cinema’s best-kept secrets (here’s a recommended box set of his earlier work, and a recent book of his elegant, thought-provoking writings on film and music, plus his fiction). Civeyrac’s languorous films have an intriguing undertone of fin de siècle Decadent sensibility, with their frequent equal focus on love and death—as in his two films prior to Victoria. Through the Trees (05)—starring Savages singer Jehnny Beth, then named Camille Berthomier—is an eerie, graceful contemplation of grief and the survival of love beyond the grave, while Young Girls in Black (10) depicts a morbidly passionate folie à deux friendship between two teenage Goth girls. 

My Friend Victoria

If Young Girls represented a tentative shift towards a familiar everyday realism, Civeyrac takes that move further in My Friend Victoria, but without losing his very distinctive tone. The film is based on a story by Doris Lessing, “Victoria and the Staveneys,” here relocated from London to Paris, and it’s about two young black women growing up in that city. That in itself is striking, since it’s remarkable how rarely we see black characters center-screen in French cinema, female especially; that’s why Céline Sciamma’s Girlhood made such an impact in Cannes last year. Impressive as it is, Girlhood, with its classic socio-documentary drive, shows us certain things we might expect to see in a realistic fiction about teenage African-French girls in the banlieue—gang culture, dancing to Rihanna… Civeyrac, however, goes somewhere quite unexpected—taking his heroine to the very heartland of white French bourgeois drama.

My Friend Victoria begins with two young women, Fanny (Nadia Moussa) and Victoria (Guslagie Malanga), taking their children for a walk in one of those stately, orderly parks dotted around inner Paris, to the lush, melancholy sweep of Copland’s Clarinet Concerto. In voiceover, Fanny, who narrates throughout, muses on her friendship with Victoria and the question of why the latter’s life never quite turned out as it might have.

Flashback two decades to Victoria’s childhood. Because of the illness of the elderly aunt she lives with, young Victoria (Keylia Achie Beguie) is to be picked up from school by a white schoolfriend’s older brother and taken to stay the night with his family. The boy, Édouard, initially doesn’t realise that he’s looking for Victoria, because she’s black—and Fanny tells us that the boy is kicking himself for this gaffe because he’s from a socialist family that prides itself on its anti-racist values. Édouard’s home turns out to be the quintessential elegant apartment of so many Parisian bourgeois dramas. On meeting his mother, actress Elena Savinet (Catherine Mouchet), and seeing the apartment’s vastness, Victoria falls in love both with teenage Édouard and with a lifestyle that’s quite unknown to her. It’s from this moment on, the film suggests, that her life is fatefully skewed.

My Friend Victoria

When her aunt dies, Victoria is taken in by single mother Diouma (Elise Akaba)—and Victoria becomes best friend and adoptive sister to Diouma’s daughter Fanny. The two girls grow up very differently. Fanny, a book-loving intellectual, embraces the Western literary tradition and ends up working for an upmarket publisher; her enduring identity, however, is never in doubt, as betokened by her preference for African hair- and dress styles. Victoria, meanwhile, seems unambitious as well as undecided in her identity, taking a series of unpromising jobs, the best of which is working in a jazz and soul record store. It’s there that she meets her old schoolmate, Édouard’s now college-age brother Thomas (Pierre Andrau); he and Victoria spend a summer together, after which he leaves to study in the U.S., and she gives birth to a daughter, Marie. After later having a son with musician Sam (Tony Harrisson), Victoria eventually—part of the film’s dreamlike quality lies in its temporal leaps—makes contact with Thomas. And at this point the Savinet family’s contradictory attitudes to Victoria, and to their own political principles, comes under quietly biting scrutiny.

Presented from the viewpoint of Victoria, who’s almost invariably on screen, and filtered through Fanny’s voiceover, Civeyrac’s film unusually posits the white family’s lifestyle—the more or less unproblematic starting point of so much French cinema—as the unfamiliar Other. Desperately self-conscious about their liberal values and their cultural heritage—both Elena and her ex, Lionel (Pascal Greggory), are actors—the Savinets unwittingly but complacently appropriate their granddaughter Marie (Maylina Diagne) as a lifestyle accessory that confirms their self-esteem as liberals, at the expense of Victoria and her other child. As played by mainstream stalwarts Mouchet and Greggory, the Savinet parents are likeable, but sometimes make you squirm; Greggory hams it up to deliciously excruciating effect, notably when Lionel acts in the sort of preciously facetious stage show that reminds me why I’ve so rarely enjoyed watching French theater.

Civeyrac, a white filmmaker, doesn’t presume to speak for his black heroines, but presents Victoria’s experience through her encounter with a specific, somewhat exclusive white Parisian milieu, which is precisely the milieu we still most commonly associate with French film. My Friend Victoria thus offers a ruefully witty auto-critique of the limitations of bourgeois French cinema, which either cannot see other races, or absorbs them till they disappear—as the Savinets consume Marie, leaving her mother stranded on the outside. 

The film ends with Victoria and her son in the pouring rain, with that Copland theme again, to heartbreaking effect. One reason that My Friend Victoria is so poignant and (say it again) so beautiful is the way that Civeyrac mixes poetic grace with detachment—a detachment that finds its echo in the seeming impassivity of the beautiful, mesmerizingly opaque Guslagie Malanga as Victoria. Civreyrac’s use of music and his trademark slow camera drifts (the DP here is David Chambille) give the film a measured formality teasingly at odds with its otherwise everyday inner-Paris realism—all of this filtered through Fanny’s seemingly omniscient narration. But since Fanny isn’t present during most of the action, this is a very unreliable narrative: what we learn about Victoria’s experience is tinged by Fanny’s ideas about the friend/sister who holds up a deforming mirror to her own cultural and racial identity. If this all makes My Friend Victoria sound theoretical or polemical, it’s not: this is an intensely beguiling film, and an altogether surprising one, from a director whose signature is entirely his own. 

Metamorphoses

A very different efflorescence of beauty comes from the prolific Christophe Honoré, one of France’s more unpredictable auteurs. Some of his films I like enormously (the Bataille adaptation Ma Mère, the bustling Nouvelle Vague homage Dans Paris), others fairly set my teeth on edge. In Metamorphoses, however, he’s come up with something audacious, faintly preposterous, and utterly entrancing. It’s a modern-day setting (somehow “setting,” with its musical connotations, seems a more appropriate term than “adaptation”) of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the anthology of classical myths in which mortals are changed into animal and vegetable forms by cruel, capricious, or merciful gods.

Comprising a selection of transmutation tales, the film takes as its central figure Europa, seduced by the father of the gods, Jupiter. Honoré’s Europa is initiated into the divine world by her encounters with assorted deities, who tell her stories that slip into other stories, and stories within stories, Saragossa Manuscript style. The founding conceit is to set these tales in a version of the present day—a device fashionable in French 20th-century modernism, as practiced in cinema and theater by artists such as Jean Cocteau, Jean Anouilh, and Jean Giraudoux.     

What’s fresh about Honoré’s approach is its no-nonsense degree of polysexual raunchiness. The film begins with the myth of Actaeon, transformed into a stag by the goddess Diana after he witnesses her bathing; Actaeon is a lunkish young hunter who encounters a naked transsexual, showering from a plastic jerry can. Europa is a sulky, stocky teenager (Amira Akili) intrigued by a huge articulated truck that looms menacingly past her school; the truck itself is Jupiter, in a guise apparently inspired by Spielberg’s Duel, and so is the human form he later takes, a bearded and often naked young man (Sébastien Hirel). This drifts into the story of Jupiter’s seduction of Io, transformed into a heifer by a jealous Juno, which then shades into the story of Mercury’s encounter with the all-seeing Argus (the film’s only overt piece of CGI illusionism, and a knowingly silly one: Argus’s body is covered in blinking eyes). 

Metamorphoses

So we drift on: Tirésias is a medical specialist on comparative sexual response who later predicts the fate of Narcissus, a sullenly self-adoring hero of the school basketball court. The latter, appropriately, is the only figure who directly addresses the camera, his “mirror”; he tells us there is no mystery behind his beauty, but “just me.” Indeed most of these characters, played by an almost entirely unknown cast, are “just themselves”: modern everyday figures, sometimes naked (or wearing only trainers), sometimes in jeans like the medieval knight in Eugène Green’s comparably anachronistic fantasia The Living World.* Honoré’s living world is not a million miles from Green’s, with its suggestion of animism, of divinity present in all things.

Typically of Honoré, Metamorphoses is hypercharged with sexuality: not least in the story of Atalante and her lover Hippomène who, cursed by Venus, can’t get enough of each other, and end up as lions. It’s polysexual, too, as that trans Diana suggests: Mercury kills Argos after what appears to be a gay postcoital reverie. It’s multiethnic, with an Asian actor as Hippomène, and a plethora of North African faces; it displays a gamut of body types, from the classically willowy and athletic to the very fleshy water nymph Salmacis; and it embraces old age in the moving treatment of lifelong partners Baucis and Philemon. Honoré’s film aspires to be inclusive, even encyclopedic—through myth, to speak about the whole of the human condition today as Ovid spoke about it in his time.

Bringing these myths’ eroticism, cruelty, and violence startlingly to life, Metamorphoses is also a remarkably beautiful film for many reasons: one being, again, Honoré’s use of music to underpin a sense of unearthly dread and rapture, from Mozart, through Webern and Schönberg (Transfigured Night, what else?) to Baxter Dury’s pop. Honoré chooses Southern French settings that, with their reeds, poplars, and pools luminously photographed by DP André Chemetoff, are richly evocative of the Hellenic world. But he also goes for urban settings, like the housing project where Orpheus and his followers are pursued by riot police. The most telling shot shows a vast field of grass that could easily be classical Arcadia, if not for the warehouse in the background, bearing the logo of the supermarket chain Carrefour (carrefour means “crossroads,” and there’s no more archetypal a mythic spot). The wonder of Metamorphoses lies in its vivid evocation of an eternal mythical sphere coexisting with ours, lying on the very edge of the everyday world we know. That, if you like, is not a bad working description of magic.

* Green’s latest film, La Sapienza, is also in the Rendez-Vous selection; I highly recommend it, and its own idiosyncratic, Greenian concern with beauty.

The New Issue: March/April 2015

$
0
0

Saint Laurent Bertrand Bonello

Saint Laurent

Our March/April 2015 issue arrives nattily dressed in the very height of fashion: Bertrand Bonello’s Saint Laurent is our cover story. Nathan Lee explicates the textures and ideas of the film and its fashions, calling it “one of those biopics engaged with creative genius, like Peter Watkins’s Edvard Munch or Maurice Pialat’s Van Gogh, whose integrity is wholly independent of its biographical dimensions.”

Inside, Howard Hampton scales the rarefied heights of Olivier Assayas’s beguiling Clouds of Sils Maria, and Kent Jones confronts film criticism’s ongoing struggle to do justice to acting. Our latest Hot Set takes you inside the making of Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s bold new film. Beverly Walker writes about actor, director, producer, and festival founder Robert Redford, the Film Society of Lincoln Center’s 2015 Chaplin Award honoree. And Paul Schrader’s technological history of film continues with the ups and downs of camera movement.

March also means that it’s time for our annual Grosses Gloss: who made what, and how on earth did they do it? In the 40th edition of our industry wrap-up, Donald Wilson evaluates new VOD/theatrical models and Roger Smith shakes his head over Hollywood’s sluggishness in changing times. Meanwhile, audiences picked the cream of the crop in our annual Readers’ Poll.

Plus: Peter Strickland’s Guilty Pleasures; reviews of White God, While We’re Young, Merchants of Doubt, and True Story; Graham Fuller on John Boorman and his final film Queen and Country; Nicolas Rapold on John Waters’s Kiddie Flamingos; Scott Eyman on Dalton Trumbo; J. Hoberman on a book about North Korea’s film “industry”; Marc Walkow on Japan’s Roman Pornos; and festival coverage of Sundance and Rotterdam by Amy Taubin, Laura Kern, and Gavin Smith.

View the full Table of Contents for March/April 2015, with links to articles. To subscribe to FILM COMMENT, click here.

Kaiju Shakedown: Story of Sorrow and Sadness

$
0
0

The biggest development in cinema this week? An advertisement for a movie that itself is an advertisement for Samsung, Harley-Davidson, Audi, and its own $150 million line of merchandise. We live in a world where communication is faster than at any point in human history, whether it’s television, radio, telephones, or the Internet, the omnipresent Cthuloid Elder God before which all other forms of communication tremble as they’re assimilated. But as communication becomes easier, faster, bigger, and more, what is it that we’re communicating? 

Story of Sorrow and Sadness

Mostly advertising. 

Commercial cinema has predictably chosen not to bite the hand that feeds it, so it’s simultaneously inspiring and also kind of embarrassing to see a movie like Seijun Suzuki’s Story of Sorrow and Sadness. Rarely has a mainstream commercial release been as rabid in its attack, and as thoughtful in its critique, of our dystopian mediascape. And it should embarrass current commercial filmmakers that one of the few movies to have something intelligent to say about today’s mediascape was made almost 40 years ago. By a 54 year old director. About golf. 

By 1977, Seijun Suzuki, the wild man of Japanese cinema, was on the ropes. After delivering almost 40 increasingly idiosyncratic movies for Nikkatsu Studios, he terminally alienated them with Branded To Kill (67), which they assumed was going to be a serious hit-man movie but Suzuki treated as a playful absurdist flick to fill a sudden hole in their release schedule. The studio president hated the movie and had Suzuki fired. The director sued and eventually won his case in 1971. But the damage was already done, and he was blacklisted. The only place he could get work was in television.

Story of Sorrow and Sadness

In 1977, Shochiku decided to give him another shot at directing movies with Story of Sorrow and Sadness, figuring that Suzuki couldn’t possibly get in any trouble with the story of a female golfer’s rise to fame. Wrong. The only movie the great director made in the Seventies (bracketed by Branded to Kill in 1967 and Zigeunerweisen in 1980) Story of Sorrow and Sadness contains an entire decade’s worth of rage, absurdity, perversion, and wiggy fight-the-power surrealism as it examines the way advertising corrodes women’s souls like acid, turning them into blank-eyed zombies.

Written by sports manga icon Ikki Kajiwara, creator of Ashita no Joe, Story of Sorrow and Sadness begins where all movies about underdog athletes must: in the offices of a corporate sponsor. In this case, it’s the editors of a big sports magazine who are sick and tired of Eastern European gymnast Chiporose dominating their covers. Can’t they find a Japanese athlete to partner with swimsuit manufacturer Bonne Chance to win some competitions and boost their advertising sales? The editor calls a manager, Mr. Miyabe, on his shower phone but Mr. Miyabe doesn’t know anyone who fits the bill. But when told it’s for a $30 million contract (of which Mr. Miyabe stands to make $3 million) the shagadelic agent suddenly remembers that he might . . . just . . . know . . . someone

Enter model/amateur golfer, Reiko (Yoko Shiraki). She’s got a bit of talent, but mostly she looks good swinging a nine iron in her bikini. Miyabe molds Reiko into a golf machine in an “Eye of the Tiger” montage that sees her making 1600 shots a day, golfing in wind, rain, and total darkness, golfing until her hands bleed. The day of the big tournament comes and, jacked up on self-actualization mantras (“I can make the ball go anywhere I want it to go!” “Hit the ball with your mind!”), Reiko not only wins the game but captures the hearts of Japanese housewives everywhere with two “fainting spells” carefully calculated to occur at moments of peak drama. 

Story of Sorrow and Sadness

After some sweaty post-game sex with the rumpled Miyabe, Reiko is presented with a contract. “From now on you can earn billions for the company,” Miyabe warns her. “At the expense of your freedom.” Reiko flashes a toothpaste commercial smile and signs on the dotted line. Rarely has a Faustian bargain required so little thought. 

Management is pleased. “The woman is very competent,” they purr. “She can appear on TV.” Reiko lands a talk show, and soon she’s installed in a posh house in a silent suburb, entombed like a pharaoh with a full complement of fabulous Seventies furniture, wall-to-wall carpets, and an indoor putting green. And then she dies inside. We are now 29 minutes into the movie, and Suzuki’s interest has just kicked into gear.

To keep himself afloat during his lawsuit with Nikkatsu, Suzuki worked in television, making short narratives and commercials. Judging by Story of Sorrow and Sadness, he found the latter line of work to be appalling. Reiko has traded her humanity for cash. She owns a TV she doesn’t watch, a kitchen she doesn’t cook in, and expensive bottles of imported liquor she doesn’t drink. Her life consists of robotically driving herself from her empty house to the sterile TV studio, rotating through pre-programmed subroutines with names like “Sexually Attractive” and “Welcoming Smile.” Every man wants to want to screw her, but Reiko’s target audience is women, mostly housewives who are also trapped in their own isolated housing units in uninhabited suburbs. 

Story of Sorrow and Sadness

Women are sent the contradictory message that they should envy but also worship Reiko by male executives who spend the movie lounging on sofas, seated around boardroom tables, or lying in bed. Dialogue has been replaced by marketing slogans (“Let’s learn how to express charm in your eyes tomorrow,” an acting coach tells Reiko), and the only human contact on display is through advertising. When Reiko meets her neighbors it’s over the phone, or signing autographs for them in her studio audience.

Up until this point, the film is a Danielle Steel rags-to-riches story set in the world of pro golf filtered through a Thorazine haze, but then someone screws up. Advertising harnesses the human need for fantasy to the empty engine of capitalism, with companies creating dreams that promise consumers less loneliness and more fulfillment, while actually offering nothing more nurturing than a blender. It’s an empty, one-sided relationship, and crisis comes when someone mistakes the one-way monologue of celebrity for the two-way offer of contact.

Mrs. Senboh is Reiko’s neighbor, a housewife whose face is lit Kryptonite green like a demon from hell. After introducing herself as Reiko’s fan and getting rebuffed, she waits until Reiko is driving drunk one night and throws herself in front of her luxury sedan, breaking her leg. Then comes the blackmail: if Reiko doesn’t want Mrs. Senboh to go to the police, she’ll do whatever she wants. And what does Mrs. Senboh want?

Story of Sorrow and Sadness

“I’m lonely,” she sobs. “I want friends, Reiko.”

Mrs. Senboh’s crime isn’t that she’s a sadist. It’s that she doesn’t understand the transaction of celebrity, and that frustration drives her to chop off Reiko’s hair, to invite herself onto Reiko’s talk show and destroy it, to turn Reiko into a prostitute and, in a queasy-making climax, to hold a book-club meeting in Reiko’s sterile luxury home that degenerates into a drunken orgy that sees Reiko stripped naked and beaten by middle-class housewives who hate her for her beautiful appliances.

Full of mismatched shots, off-kilter editing, staging right out of a Robert Wilson opera, sudden zooms that race from wide shots to leering close-ups, Suzuki’s film feels like a wildlife documentary charting the slow degradation of the human soul isolated in suburbia and fed a steady diet of advertising. More accurately, it charts the slow degradation of women’s souls. This is a women’s picture in the classic Hollywood mold, showing how females are pacified, neutered, corralled like cattle, and fed television like a drug. 

Story of Sorrow and Sadness

As viewers get ready to worship at the altar of the new season of Mad Men, it’s interesting to note that its creator, Matthew Weiner, cannily focuses on the manufacturers of advertising but not its consumers. And when Mad Men does venture out into the suburbs to show the housewives, like Betty Draper, penned up like veal cattle in their perfect homes and tranquilized by TV, fans scream like stuck pigs, outraged at how tacky and gross and boring the people are who consume Don Draper and Peggy Olson’s plastic dreams. In a way, they sound a lot like the men in Story of Sorrow and Sadness, for whom women might as well be another species. They can’t talk to them, they can’t control them; all they can do is despise and destroy them. As the sports magazine editor shrugs later in the film, “Women are abnormal.”

And for him, it doesn’t go any deeper than that.

LINKS! LINKS! LINKS!

Seijun Suzuki

... Tony Rayns writes about Seijun Suzuki’s career falling apart at Nikkatsu and the court case with Branded to Kill that validated Suzuki’s outrage, but sunk his career prospects.

... Midnight Eye has a great interview with Seijun Suzuki from back in 2001. Amazingly enough, the man is still alive and, despite being in poor health, the last I heard he was still planning to direct one more movie. 

... Seijun Suzuki’s brand of underground, avant-pop cinema is alive and kicking in Japan, which seems to have an unstoppable underground movie scene that puts independent cinema in places like Hong Kong and Korea to shame. One of its latest eruptions is The End of the World and the Cat’s Disappearance, a low budget sci-fi film by Daisuke Nishijima, the manga artist responsible for Dien Bien Phu. Taking place in a post-plague near future, Mark Schilling raves about this dissection of Internet celebrity in the Japan Times (which also has a trailer).

Takeshi Kitano

... Also raving is Takeshi Kitano, probably Japan’s best-known living director, actor, and television personality. After claiming that the Japanese Academy Awards are fixed, with the major studios (Shochiku, Nikkatsu, Toho, and Toei) passing awards around to each other like finger food at a cocktail party, a film scholar decided to crunch the numbers. Since the Japanese Academy is stuffed with voting members who also happen to be employees of the big studios, it’s not surprising that he discovered a 36 percent discrepancy between the movies that receive Best Picture nominations and the movies that are chosen as the top five of the year by Kinema Junpo, the country’s most well-respected and prestigious independently-published film magazine. Is this a problem? It is if you don’t work for one of the big studios.

... Speaking of big movies, animated Japanese film, Stand by Me Doraemon, has become the top-grossing Japanese movie ever released in Hong Kong, taking only seven days to beat The Ring’s two-month box office gross. One of the reasons for its popularity is that the prints screened were the Cantonese dub featuring the final voice performance by beloved voice actor, Lam Pou-chuen, aka Uncle Chuen, who passed away in January of this year at 63 years old.

... Uncle Chuen was a well-known voice actor for television station, TVB, and as he goes, so too does TVB’s biggest (and kind of only) competitor, ATV. After a management battle between two top shareholders of the broadcast television station, the head of Want Want China Holdings, and Wong Ching, a Mainland real estate mogul, Wong seized the advantage and tried to transform ATV into “the CNN of Asia.” This effort was slightly undermined by bungles such as ATV falsely reporting the death of China’s president, Jiang Zemin, in 2011, which led to fines for the station, and the canceling of Newsline this January, ATV’s debate show that ran for 30 years, making it Hong Kong’s longest-running television program. Unable to pay salaries, with 10 percent of its staff quitting, ATV’s prime-time viewership currently hovers around one percent of the market (TVB is around 20%) and when its license comes up for renewal this November, all internal government indications are that it will not be granted. The wild card? Chief Executive CY Leung who some think fears that ATV failing on his watch will leave egg on his face after he refused to grant a television broadcast license to new competitor, the cash-flush Hong Kong TV last year. Since CY Leung seems to specialize in bad decisions, there’s no guarantee he’s going to let ATV go dark.

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

... One thing that’s also not going dark is Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (or, as fans call it, DDLJ) the 1995 Bollywood romance starring Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol that’s been running in a Mumbai cinema non-stop for 20 years. The management recently announced that they would be ending the film’s run, only to meet with massive protests from fans. So, after stopping screenings for two days, DDLJ is back on the big screen, singing and dancing without a pause, like it’s been doing for 1,009 weeks so far.

... Over in China, officials are meeting this week to see about relaxing censorship laws, or at least better defining them so that they’re based more on clear regulations and less on the whims of individual censors. But Chinese filmmakers are resilient, and they always find ways to get movies about even the touchiest of topics to viewers. In the wake of data showing that 90 percent of Chinese cities fail to meet government air quality standards, a CCTV reporter has gone rogue and, this month, released her own 104-minute movie, Under the Dome, about air pollution in China. Available free on streaming platforms, the movie names names and points fingers, and it’s proving wildly popular, garnering 200 million views and counting. While censors have pulled some articles talking about the film, they have yet to target the film itself. On a smaller scale, there are directors like Sam Voutas, whose Red Light Revolution (10), was about an unemployed cab driver who took advantage of legal gray areas to open a sex toyshop. The director himself took advantage of the fact that film censorship didn’t apply to movies released online only and his independent flick, which never could have gotten a theatrical release, garnered millions of online views and played film festivals around the world. He’s currently raising money on Kickstarter for a new movie, The King of Peking, about another touchy subject: piracy. This time, it’s a movie projectionist who has fallen on hard times and who realizes that the only way to make his child support payments is to start pirating films. The Kickstarter page has some sweet info on it about film piracy in China, which is something of a mini-industry.

Festivals: Sundance

$
0
0

The documentaries at Sundance this year were typically varied but righteously and rightly political. This was most pointedly reflected in the awards bestowed on films in competition, and in the fact that new, very specific categories were created among the “special jury” honors.

3 1/2 Minutes

3½ Minutes

Awards for “social impact”—U.S. and World, respectively—were given to 3½ Minutes, the tragically sad narrative of another stand-your-ground murder, that of African American teenager Jordan Davis, underlining again the urgency of the #blacklivesmatter protest, and to Pervert Park, an impressively nonjudgmental look at a community in Florida where men and women who have served sentences for sexual crimes can live and work toward some sort of reconciliation. Other new special jury prizes were awarded for “verité,” won by Western, which portrays two unusually friendly towns on the U.S.–Mexican border that nevertheless live with the unavoidable tension of the modern frontier; and for the even more specific distinction of “unparalleled access,” given to The Chinese Mayor, a rare look at the day-to-day working life of a government official on a boosterist crusade to upgrade his town—a fascinating glimpse at the often still unfathomable workings of Chinese politics writ small.

(T)ERROR

(T)ERROR

Many more of the prizes reflected a strong desire to reward engagement: the World Cinema Documentary Grand Jury Prize for The Russian Woodpecker, a film that places itself at the center of the current Ukrainian sovereignty crisis whilst trying to uncover Russian complicity in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster; the directing award to the effortlessly feminist filmmaker Kim Longinotto for Dreamcatcher, which extends her interest in human trafficking to focus on women caught in the downward spiral of street prostitution in Chicago; “break-out first feature” award for (T)ERROR, about the FBI's counterterrorism overreach; and a prize given to Cartel Land for its war-zone cinematography and directing. The prevalence of socially engaged documentary made the U.S. Documentary Grand Jury Prize for The Wolfpack stick out as an exception.

Films that required the cinematographers to wear bulletproof vests, buzz-worthy films tackling the hard-hitting big issues, films bent on changing policy or sounding a loud call to arms—such as Kirby Dick's The Hunting Ground, Alex Gibney’s Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, Louie Psihoyos's Racing Extinction—competed for hearts and minds with those featuring AIDS activist Larry Kramer, the Black Panthers, Greenpeace, and the Six-Day War. But in addition there were a few compelling “feel-good” documentaries which, although determinedly uplifting, could be seen as equally political.

Dark Horse: The Incredible True Story of Dream Alliance

Dark Horse: The Incredible True Story of Dream Alliance

Dark Horse: The Incredible True Story of Dream Alliance is as much about class as it is about horseracing. Inevitably so: here is a story about an informal syndicate from Cefn Fforest, a poor mining town in Wales (where there has been no mining since the pits closed in the Eighties) gate-crashing the sport of kings. The social divide in this sport, in which typically the aristocracy own the prize horses and the rest of us bet on them in squalid off-turf sites, is huge. In this Cinderella story, Jan Vokes, a barmaid in a workingman's club and a cleaner at Asda (one of the cheaper supermarket chains in Britain), managed to get 23 people in the village to pay £10 a week to breed, groom, and train a racehorse that they name Dream Alliance. Dream Alliance is a beautiful horse, and perhaps because his early years were spent on a slag heap of an allotment, he turns out to have a lot of heart and a huge competitive spirit. He wins over a skeptical horseracing world and brings a huge amount of pride to the townspeople crowded around the TV in the pub watching the races, and to the owners who find themselves with the right to enter a rarified world previously closed to them.

There is a natural drama built into any horse race, and watching the rather brutal Grand National is pretty nerve-wracking even without any interest in the outcome. Dark Horse is a beautifully shot documentary with a lot of love and good-natured stick-it-to-the-status-quo energy. Additionally there are some heart-stopping moments and some groundbreaking science in this film (animal-rights supporters, fear not). Already described as “The Equine RockyDream Alliance proves yet again that (in the words of John Lennon) a working-class hero is indeed something to be.

Chuck Norris vs Communism

Chuck Norris vs Communism

Another unlikely hero walks into the frame of another unlikely story in Chuck Norris vs Communism. In the final years of Nicolae Ceaușescu’s Romania, life was grim, censorship was rigorous, and entertainment (much less any news of the outside world) was hard if not impossible to come by. Yet there was a black market in VHS tapes smuggled from the West via the Hungarian border. Irina Nistor was a translator who by day worked for the national censorship committee (where even cartoons were censored for showing overly abundant supermarkets and the like), but by night she dubbed into Romanian almost every word of seemingly every other film made by Hollywood in the Eighties. People would congregate in the apartments of those lucky enough to own a VCR (which cost as much as a car or a small apartment). The repeatedly duped and hence noisy tapes featured not only the likes of Rocky, Back to the Future, and Chuck Norris, but higher-brow fare such as Last Tango in Paris, Once Upon a Time in America, and The Deerhunter—with all performers dubbed in Nistor’s high-pitched voice.

These film-watching sessions became a social phenomenon. Nistor became famous doing something that on the face of it was not an especially political act, and yet it was an extremely brave thing to do. It surely contributed to the precipitous downfall of the regime in 1989, and she is cherished for the part she played during the crucial endgame in Romania’s communist history. Apparently she cannot even call for a cab in Bucharest without people on the other end of the line thrilled at the sound of her voice. Chuck Norris vs Communism is a tremendously fun film. The reminiscences are amusing, and the retro re-creations are very evocative. It’s a salutary slice of history for us in the pampered, over-entertained West (or at least those of us who are pampered and over-entertained in the West) to learn about.

City of Gold

City of Gold

Food criticism is not advocacy, one might suppose, but what a nice surprise the film City of Gold was. Here is a gentle, unassuming film, five years in the making: the filmmakers drove with Los Angeles Times food critic Jonathan Gold around the streets of Greater Los Angeles, from mini-malls in the San Gabriel Valley to downtown street vendors, providing a delicious portrait of a thriving city of immigrants. One comes away with a sense of a place with such a breadth of cultural diversity that the city’s reputation for vapidity is quickly buried. Call it Day of the Stir-Fried Locust. Gold is the first person to have won a Pulitzer Prize for his food criticism (in 2007). He is a great American and a small-D democrat, and his backyard is a great American city. He glories in the small and the specific, elevating a restaurant serving Isaan Thai, for example, over the usual Bangkok fare. He champions a start-up Ethiopian eatery and digs deep to find the best curbside taco. A natural explorer, Gold famously ate his way along Pico Boulevard in the Eighties. It’s a pleasure to ride shotgun on this journey.

There were many more exemplary films that I hope we will be talking about over the course of this year. In a festival whose oft-repeated mantra is all about “telling your stories,” the documentaries remain committed to the simple task of telling other people's stories—movingly so. Thus I cried at the bigheartedness of Dreamcatcher when protagonist Brenda Myers-Powell says "I've got your back" to the vulnerable, already abused girls on her watch, some of them already in prison, some of them already on the street, you believe her. But more importantly they believe her. And I was infuriated by the aggressively insidious white supremacists in Welcome to Leith, a film filled with more menace than I’ve felt in a while. I traveled back down the canyon to Salt Lake City unable to get the creepy voice of Warren Jeffs, the subject of Prophets Prey, out of my head. And I thrilled at the dangerous beauty of Meru, a film that is decidedly humanist rather that adventurist. Finally and powerfully, I fell in love with Nina Simone in frame of one of the must-see What Happened, Miss Simone?—and grieved for her the rest of the week.

Interview: Jean Paul Civeyrac

$
0
0

In My Friend Victoria, French writer-director Jean Paul Civeyrac shifts the action of Doris Lessing’s short story “Victoria and the Staveneys” from London to contemporary Paris, but otherwise remains faithful to Lessing’s tale of a young black woman and her relationship with a wealthy white family. Victoria (Guslagie Malanda) becomes fascinated with the family as a little girl, then later has a daughter out of wedlock with one of the sons. As she struggles both with a sense that she is losing her daughter to this bourgeois family and the growing resentment of her own son, who has a black father and does not enjoy the family’s attention, Victoria provides an unusual and welcome insight into the situation of foreigners in France today. In Victoria and the subtle work of Guslagie Malanda, Civeyrac has found a character who escapes the clichés of socially conscious films, drawing instead on the mysterious tone of his previous features to create a person whose silences open a world of questions.

FILM COMMENT talked to Jean Paul Civeyrac about the riddles of his title character, the climate in France after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and an inspiring Richard Brooks film.

My Friend Victoria

What was the starting point for My Friend Victoria?

A proposal from my producer, who had read Doris Lessing’s story “Victoria and the Staveneys.” When I read it, I told myself I could make a movie of it, first for narrative reasons, because I found the narrative very surprising in the way it unfolded from very simple initial elements, as if its subject were revealed little by little. The beginning of the story remains quite mysterious for a while, you don’t really know where it’s going. So I was sensitive to the story’s charms. And this story would also allow me to create a kind of photograph of what I see around me in Paris and France regarding the situation of foreigners. Let’s say I was interested in its political dimension. That’s really the starting point. After that, I got to work and naturally things changed. My general interest in all this allowed me to construct a character whom I found fascinating.

Initially I saw the film’s social dimension as a turning point in your work. But actually your films have featured other characters who did not quite fit into society. Do you view My Friend Victoria as a change in your body of work?

My first film Neither Eve nor Adam [97] was inspired by real events, and I remember that I had a political intention to show people who were excluded from society. That aspect may have gotten a little lost in my subsequent films. The feature before My Friend Victoria, Young Girls in Black [10] did have a political dimension, but My Friend Victoria is different in that this time both the narrative and the characters talk about politics. The subject is in the film, explicitly, though the film also has other layers. People in the film talk about socialism, racism, or schools. That didn’t happen in my other films, where the political aspect was implicit.

In more formal terms, my films can be divided into two categories. One tends toward more dreamlike, poetic, fantasy forms. There’s a series of films with ghosts. Then since my third feature Man’s Gentle Love [02], there’s also been a more novelistic, romantic trend. Man’s Gentle Love, All the Fine Promises [03], and Victoria belong to this somewhat melodramatic trend in my work, inspired by the American filmmakers of the Fifties I like. Victoria mixes the political aspect of some of my films, making it explicit, and this novelistic or melodramatic dimension. In a minor way, it also includes some fantastic elements, which I explored in some other films, like the return of the dead or sleepwalking. So I can’t really say the film is a turning point. I have a feeling it’s a continuation of what I’ve done before but perhaps in a way that appears clearer and simpler and less hidden than in my other films.

I was struck by Victoria’s presence. She is a character that communicates far more than she says. She has a kind of opacity behind which the viewer can imagine a lot of things. How did you cast Guslagie Malanda, the actress who plays Victoria, and how did you work with her?

Thank you for saying that. I’m always very happy when people see the movie that way because sometimes that escapes some viewers. The choice of the lead actress was decisive. The first version of the script, which was the version that allowed us to find financing and start the casting process, had a lead character closer to the one in Lessing’s story. She was less mysterious and more immediately touching. More of a “lost girl,” if you like, but one who was not particularly difficult to understand. I had a lot of trouble finding an actress. I found someone to play Victoria based on the first version, but ultimately the film led me to rewrite the script, and in rewriting I accentuated what you’ve just described about the character. I also accentuated the film’s intimate, less documentary side—a more novelistic aspect. In the initial version, there were quite a few events drawn from contemporary French history.

Part of why I rewrote the film was that the script was too long for the amount of money we had raised. Rather than cut it, I chose to rewrite. But the problem was that the actress I had chosen no longer fit the part. The initial actress was really Victoria in the social sense, she came from the same class as the character. The casting was accurate sociologically, but it no longer fit from a narrative perspective. My intuition told me that actress couldn’t be a heroine in a melodrama. In fact, she didn’t feel very comfortable with the new script. So we started casting again. I found Guslagie Malanda, who has a very different life from Victoria, but she seemed to me to be a real melodrama heroine. And on top of that she was something of a floating, drifting character, an aspect which became accentuated. The actress reinforced something already present but which was still germinating and wasn’t yet clear to me. By filming her as she was, I noticed that we needed to accentuate this very opaque, somewhat floating aspect. I started to organize the mise en scène around her. I designed all these constantly moving, gentle shots to be centered on her and that ultimately created this character who for me became the representation of the stranger, meaning a stranger to the world, in a social, racial sense of course, but also in a more metaphysical sense. She is nearly a stranger to herself, she doesn’t really know what she is in the universe. That comes from a combination of a version of the script that moved away from Lessing and became more melodramatic, and Guslagie herself, who created this character and allowed me to conceive the mise en scène.  

My Friend Victoria

Victoria’s silence and foreignness feel like drama, while the silence and foreignness of the young black males in the film feel more like social commentary. I was struck by the silence of Victoria’s adoptive brother and especially of her son. How did you conceive of these characters?

Another thing that interested me about Victoria, which relates to her opacity or silence, is that she is caught in a narrative told through a voiceover: a lot of things are said out loud but the essential is not. Some people complain that the voiceover tells you everything but actually I think there is a great deal of silence around the character, things that are not told. That creates an implicitly novelistic character. I was interested in how the heroine hangs back, in how she is quite mysterious while a lot of events take place around her. This really becomes visible with her son, who is constantly in the observer’s position. It’s as if Victoria’s silence was passed on to him. But the film also does something that I don’t remember finding in the book, which is that quite early on that little boy knows a lot. He understand things by watching what goes on around him. In the last part of the film the viewer’s gaze slips from Victoria to the little boy so that by the end the viewer is watching what goes on from the boy’s point of view. His point of view is like the last domino to fall. Every social or narrative process at work in the film ends with the little boy, who will not live in the Savinet family or have a father. He will live with Victoria. It’s as if they were pushed aside, which seemed right to me in relation to the rest of the film and also to what Doris Lessing was talking about. It’s a process of non-integration, by which the foreigner remains a foreigner. In France, it’s clear that though we say an individual with black skin is French, there is a general subconscious that holds that the individual is not French. Meaning that we still do not accept that a black person is French. It’s theoretically accepted but not truly. The final part of the film bears witness to this. It’s actually a paradoxical film, because it tells the story of an adoption. It’s the story of the integration of a mixed-race little girl into a white French family. The film is also about an exclusion and the status of the foreigner, told through the narrative of an adoption. That’s what I thought was great about Doris Lessing’s story, that paradoxical, contradictory way of showing things.

The end of the film caught me off guard. Because the film is told in flashback through Victoria’s adoptive sister’s concerned voiceover, one expects a particular event to drive her to start Victoria’s story. But the film ends on a state of being rather than an event. Is that how Lessing’s story ends? Did you intend to surprise the viewer?

Lessing’s story doesn’t end that way. In the story—which takes place in London—Victoria regularly goes to temple a [Protestant] church and by the end she has entered a relationship with the pastor, which suggests she will find a father for her son. That ending is a little more positive but also more ironic because Victoria does not love the pastor. I chose to cut it because while there are evangelical churches attended by people of African background in and around Paris, I don’t think it’s very significant here.

I thought it was good to end on a sustained note, which would be the film’s real note, a melancholy note, which allows one to gather one’s thoughts and feelings over that image of rain on the bus shelter. It’s interesting that you brought this up because yesterday I saw a rare Richard Brooks film, The Happy Ending [from 1969], which stars his wife Jean Simmons. It’s an astonishingly modern film about the couple, probably one of his best. Formally, it ends exactly like what you described: on a state of being. The film is about a woman who leaves her husband after 15 years. At the end she comes back and we see the couple talking. The film ends very abruptly after one of the characters asks a question. You’re expecting a dramatic event or a reconciliation, some kind of decision, but it ends on that state. I myself was surprised by the end of Brooks’s film, that’s why I’m telling you about it. I was expecting something more, but immediately after the ending, I realized that it was great.

My Friend Victoria

Did it remind you of the end of My Friend Victoria?

Yes, a little. But what’s really surprising is that while the film is a harsh, disenchanted critique of American society, it is very charming to watch. It’s aesthetically very beautiful, with photography by Conrad Hall and songs by Michel Legrand. There’s an extraordinary shot, one of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen, of Jean Simmons, who has become an alcoholic. The camera slowly moves in to a close-up of her, not unlike some of the shots in My Friend Victoria. She describes what it is to drink, saying that it makes time float, that you need to drink just the right amount so you won’t notice time has passed. Since the shot is quite long, you see what she’s describing in the shot. It’s a magnificent shot about melancholy and what it means to be in the world. Though I’m a long way from Brooks’s brilliance, I think his film and My Friend Victoria share an ambition to show suffering and to include a critical dimension with a great deal of charm, nearly without seeming to, through beautiful sequences or amusing moments. I like that way of working.  

Speaking of your own film’s charm, I was seduced by the way the camera seems to glide over what is filmed. Could you tell me more about your choices regarding camera movements?

This is the most difficult thing for me to talk about, because it’s very intuitive. So describing it after the fact is a little like hearing the sound of my own voice. But what I’ve noticed when I’m at work is that I’m looking for a kind of fluidity, a gentleness in the way of filming things, and also economy. Meaning that the fewer shots there are, the happier I am. I like things to be done as simply as possible, even if it requires a lot of work and ultimately that work isn’t visible. But there’s also a need to make shots that allow actors to flourish, both in their acting and as people. In other words, we need to see them well, to see what I like about them when I film them, both their faces and their bodies, their way of moving and walking. So I’m trying to compose shots that tell what the sequence needs to convey while retaining a fluidity, clarity, and gentleness and allowing the actors to appear the best they can as the characters in the film. That’s a difficult combination. I have a taste for relatively close shots—there are quite a few close-ups in the film—but my use of the close-up is not so much an attempt to capture the actors in certain emotions or push them to do something by being very close to them but a type of contemplation, which is achieved at a distance through the use of long lenses. Naturally all of that is organized around a narrative and characters that need to be constructed and especially the character of Victoria. I tried to film Guslagie’s way of moving and walking, her delivery, as best I could, while remaining at the right distance for it to be visible.

The film was released on December 30 in France. How was it received?

The critical reception was very good, with a couple of exceptions. And the public’s reception was also good, at least in comparison to my other films. Many more people have seen this one. I think we’re at 50,000 seats sold, which is huge for me given that my previous film Young Girls in Black sold 13,000 tickets. In terms of production and distribution, everything is going well, but for a French auteur film to be considered a success at the box office you have to sell at least 100,000 tickets. I’m not at that level, but in terms of my films, My Friend Victoria has been seen by many more people than usual. So I’m very pleased. Naturally, as you probably know, the attack on Charlie Hebdo on January 7 led to a precipitous drop in box office.

The one thing that’s a little disappointing is that the film was not selected by the major festivals, with the exception of London. I think it’s a film that would really have benefited from a festival like Cannes, Locarno, or Venice. That didn’t work out—I think it went a little unnoticed. It’s the kind of film you have to keep an eye out for. It can escape people who look too fast. I’m not judging, I know that it’s always a roll of the dice when you go before selection committees, commissions, and juries. But I’m very happy with its commercial release.

My Friend Victoria

Though your characters have no direct relation to the issues surrounding the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the events that followed, I have the impression there’s currently an eagerness to hear more about the figure of the Other in France. Did that come up in audience responses to the film after the attacks?

Yes. People brought it up in post-screening Q&As. Look, things are tense in France regarding these issues. Granted, the film doesn’t talk about Islam or Islamic fundamentalism, but I think the problem is more general than that. The real question is not a religious one. In France, there are people who are totally against Islam, who say it’s incompatible with the French and Western ways of life. There’s another group of people who say the problem isn’t Islam, but rather that there are a lot of people who live in really poor ghettos and that at a certain point Islam is offered up as an ideology, but that’s not actually what Islam is. That’s not what the Koran conveys. In the Seventies, these young people who carried out the attacks could have done the same thing in the name of extreme-left or extreme-right ideologies. The debate is a little bogged down in this kind of dichotomy. But I think it actually goes beyond that. I think it has something to do with foreigners. This discussion is important and there are fights to be fought, but there’s something very powerful in France regarding foreigners, that goes beyond religion. That’s why I didn’t want to talk about religion in the film. I think religion is fundamental, but it’s not decisive, meaning that at a certain point things play out on a more general level. What does it mean to be a foreigner? What is a foreigner and how is he welcomed? What is hospitality? What is it like to be born and live in a place with a foreign background? These are unresolved questions, which we never talk about because we always get swept up in an activist discourse about religious questions.

Translated by Nicholas Elliott

Viewing all 688 articles
Browse latest View live