Memory Lane (2024) aka Homeward

An older couple who don’t really travel any more decide to drive across Europe and visit friends. Along the way it becomes clear that the wife’s occasional memory issues are actually something serious and that she will soon be slipping away.

Bittersweet comedy drama left me a sobbing mess at the end because I was so invested in the characters the beauty of the ending just wrecked me. Gloriously steering away from a contrived downbeat ending the film instead, rightly, chooses to take it to a perfect ending. Things are not settled, life will go on, and love will prevail as long as possible. I am revealing this because I was watching the whole film waiting for the overly dark turn and it never happened.

That the film works as magnificently as it does is because of the performances Martin van Waardenberg and Leny Breederveld in the leads are magnificent. You feel the love between them. They also play things close to the vest in the right way with a look and gesture saying infinitely more than large scale histrionic fire works.

This was one of the great year end finds for 2024.  And while I know it’s in the Oscar mix for best International Film, I’m not certain it will make the cut. It’s not big and loud, but don’t let that fool you this is a truly great film you need to search out because it will move you deeply.

Highly Recommended

Talking FLOW with Gints Zilbalodis

I saw FLOW many weeks ago and it has haunted me ever since. The visceral punch of a cat and his friends traveling in a boat moved me somewhere past words. It is a film that had me sobbing from the sheer beauty of the images.

When I got out of the film I, and the others who were at the screening, spent the better part of the next hour talking excitedly about the film. I asked the Kaitlyn who was handling the PR if the director, Gints Zilbalodis, was doing interviews. She said that that he would be closer to the release and she would let me know.  A short time before the film began it's limited run I got a call...

What follows is my talk with director/writer/composer/editor Gints Zilbalodis, It was one of my favorite talks with a filmmaker that I've ever done. Gints just went all in on any subject I asked about and as a result I love FLOW even more.  What impressed the hell out of me is that he genuinely wants to talk about the film. Often you talk to someone about their film and you get a sense that whom ever it is tired of talking. Gints was not. More importantly Gints is genuinely interested in what people have to say about how they view the film and what they find inside it.  While I stayed away from asking him about what he thinks the film is about, we did talk about how everyone has their own view and how the discussion of those differing views interests him. I love that he is interested in seeing how the film inspires people.

What follows is more or less exactly what happened. I trimmed some of my rambling  but I have kept everything Gints said. I made only one edit which was to move the question that ends the transcription to the end because it is the best ending.

I want to thank Kaitlyn at Cinetic Media for chasing me down until we found a time that we could do this. I want to than John DiBello for giving the transcript a once over. And lastly I want to thank Gints Zilbalodis for taking the time to talk to me and more importantly giving the world one of the greatest films I've ever seen.

STEVE: I want to begin with what maybe a strange question, was this designed as a video game? Or did video games influence it? The reason I’m asking is when I got out of the film, several of us were standing in the lobby talking, and one gentleman was saying the film reminded him of a video game.

GINTS: It wasn’t a conscious decision, but I’m influenced by everything in my life, and video games are part of that. I wanted to have an immersive feeling and that you were inside this world, very close to the characters, not just observing them from a distance. I wanted to create a subjective feeling. And telling a story without dialog, you have to use everything else to fill that void and using the environment and not explaining everything with words, but having the audience piece things together with clues and participate in a more active way. I guess that is something similar to a video game, you participate in the storytelling,.,you’re not spoon-fed the story. You can draw a connection to some video games, but some of the smaller video games, where you might not have any objectives but are just exploring the spaces, and its more about the mood, the emotional impact instead of reaching a high score or shooting something. And with the visuals I wanted it to feel graphic and instead of having something hyper-real, having it feel painterly, and at the same time I wanted it to feel dimensional and immersive...which is something similar to these independent video games.

I know that sometimes when films are compared to video games it’s not meant to be a compliment, but I don’t think it should be seen as anything bad because there is a generation of people who have grown up with games and they see it as a positive.

When you think of video games you often think of something being unfocused and the audience can look around where ever they want and it creates a less guided experience. In this case we are guiding the audience and everything is art directed. I wanted every frame to feel like it’s not some random image. There are all these thoughts and work that go into making it look more like a painting and not just some digital artifice, which is what you get in video games.

STEVE: That’s one of the things I love about the film, the look is not like 99% of the films that are out there. It’s very much its own thing. It is very much a work of art.

Since you were saying that you want the audience to work out the meaning, I’m not going to ask you what you think the meaning is. I’ve had too many discussions about that. What I do want to know is, how you feel about how some people are going to state that “this” is what you meant. I know there are going to be dozens of YouTube videos and think pieces stating with absolute certainty what you meant without ever speaking to you. Do you want anyone to state the meaning or do you want everyone to work out their own?

GINTS: I find it more interesting when there is free discussion instead of a closed statement. But for me it’s kind of hard to summarize it into a neat statement. It’s about a lot of things and not a single idea. To me it’s about the journey the characters go through. For me it’s the experience that is more important than sending a message. For me the goal is to make you feel things. It’s closer to music than an essay that’s just about ideas. It’s more about invoking emotion.

When I am asked about certain things I try to describe my intention rather than what you should feel, rather than how I see things, rather than the definite way to see things. I think it’s okay if people see it different ways. I’ve had people approach me with very different views and sure it’s about certain things, and it’s not what I intended. But I won’t argue with them. I think it’s more interesting to allow people to project their own experience rather than imparting a certain view, my view.

STEVE: You compared the film to a piece of music and I think that is dead on. How involved were you with the score of the film?

GINTS: The score was done by me and another composer…

STEVE: Oops, sorry, my mistake for not realizing ….

GINTS: That’s okay; I’ll explain how it came to be. I’ve done the music for the two features I’ve done, so I still consider myself kind of new to this whole music thing. I didn’t study, I don’t play an instrument, I worked on my laptop basically. I can write something that’s simple. But that’s something I’m interested in, having the music be kind of minimalistic. My favorite music is quite simple, but you can build on those emotions on simple chords, simple foundation.

My process is, I write the script, but at the same time I write the music as the story is being developed. And music gives me ideas which direction the story will go, not just mood and tempo but plot points.

I also use the music to edit the film. Instead of using a temp score from other films which is how some films are made – where you ask the composer to do something that’s similar to something that’s already been done and make it different that it’s not the same – that’s not the greatest way of doing it. But because I’m using my own music it allows me to make something that is very specific to the film and doesn’t feel generic. It feels more integrated and not an afterthought.

Then after the film is edited, this is still in pre-production when there is a rough version of the film, we brought on another composer, Rihards Zalupe, who is much more experienced than me and is a more experienced performer with various instruments. He would fine-tune and polish the score and make it more cohesive and he added all the layers of emotion. And then we recorded it with a full orchestra and we recorded it with analog synthesizers and percussion instruments, because I didn’t want just traditional, with just an orchestra, but I wanted to use some random objects or objects which were not meant to be instruments, but which can create interesting sounds.

I wanted the music to have a lot of space, and be expressive. There are long sequences where the music is pretty much the only thing you hear. It’s not competing with the sound effects. The music and sound are working in tandem and not fighting each other. It was great that we had it done early so we knew when effects would be placed and could work around that and be collaborative and better the sound of the music.

STEVE: Thanks for explaining that. While the film has the characters they ride the wave of the music.

I’m curious when you started this how much of the story did you have? As you were writing the story and the music how did they shape each other?

GINTS: We had a script and all of the story is found that way, but it evolves through the process. It’s not like I knew the story in one day. It took weeks and weeks, months, to find it in many drafts and trials and errors. That’s the hardest part for me creatively. There are technical challenges, but writing is the most difficult part. That’s why I work on the music at the same time, because music is the most fun part and the most easy. So, if I get stuck writing I can do some music and that is a kind of productive procrastination.

But after I make the script, I make the animatic, which is a rough edit of the film without the animation, but you can figure out the camera angles and the way out of the scenes. And while I’m doing that, I’m not strictly following the script. It’s like another draft. Because I’m the one who wrote the script and I’m visualizing it I don’t have to follow the text. I feel I have the freedom to be organic, because sometimes you have something on the page, and when you try to visualize it on the virtual set you realize it doesn’t work, so you have to be very flexible.

After the animatic you have to stick to the plan. I know on bigger films they make changes very late and discard certain finished elements, but our budget was modest and our resources limited. We had to be precise in how we spent our time and resources.

I’m happy that we didn’t have deleted scenes of finished stuff, but there is a lot of exploration being done early on. I think it’s more fluid than most animated films.

STEVE: How close is the finished film to what you envisioned? Was this what you saw when you started working?

GINTS: It happens gradually with each draft. I add elements or take them out so the initial version is more like an emotion. I have this cat and there is water...and with each pass I add more detail and it gradually reveals itself.

I know some storytellers have a clear idea of what they want and can see everything. But for me I have to go through that process of discovery very gradually. It’s only when the film is finished do I see it myself.

STEVE: The way you visualize things… I don’t know if you know Signe Bauman who is an animator…

GINTS: Yes! Yes!

STEVE: I had interviewed her for her film MY LOVE AFFAIR WITH MARRIAGE, and she was talking about how she didn’t know what the finished film would look like until the end.

I know the film is surprising for people who don’t watch a lot of non-American animation, so I was curious what were your influences that weren’t the typical Disney, Miyazaki animators? Who are other animators you like? The film feels like a lot of old Eastern European, Soviet, animation. Was that an influence?

GINTS: I don’t think it’s like other Latvian films, it’s a different generation and a different sensibility than older traditional animated films from Latvia.

I’m more interested in live action filmmakers than animation filmmakers, in the way they would use the camera. It’s an important aspect because I’m not using standard close ups and wide shots and that kind of coverage. I want every shot to be specific to that scene, which is something that hasn’t been explored in animation.

So the work of Alfonso Cuarón, Kurosawa, Sergio Leone, Wes Anderson, are bigger influences on me than animators.

STEVE: That’s one of the things I’ve heard said in conversations — it doesn’t feel like an animated film. It feels like the work of a master, which I think you are.

I’m curious, after this film and your first film, both of which are largely silent films about journeys, I was wondering if you are going to go in a different direction for your next project.

GINTS: Yes, In some ways it’s similar and in other ways it’s quite different. I’m working on my next project — it’s an animated feature, but for the first time I’m using dialog, which is a new and exciting challenge for me. It’s still a visual film. The main characters are human so it would make sense they speak.

FLOW works as both a family film and an adult film. The next is less like a child, it is more for a teenager or older. I’m trying some ambitious visual techniques which I’m trying to figure out if they will work, so I won’t reveal anything yet. I want to push the techniques I explored in FLOW even further, so as I am writing the script I am doing visual tests to see if they will work.

STEVE: Was there any thinking behind the animals we see? Were the choices random or was there meaning in the choices?

GINTS: I’ll start with the cat, which was the inspiration for the story. That was because I had a cat growing up. I also had two dogs which inform the dog character. I wanted to have how the cat tries to be more trustful and work together. But I didn’t want it to be so simple so there is the dog who is on the opposite journey and he starts out almost too trustful and looks for someone to tell him what to do, and ends up being more independent. The personalities fit the animals, with the cat being grumpy and independent, and the dog being friendly. All of the others were based on the team and looking for a group to belong and they have different ways of achieving that goal. I wanted them to be distinctive visually so you can recognize them. Their voices should be different so there was a casting process to see how they interact with each other and what interactions might happen if we put them together. It became obvious quite quickly that they were best together.

STEVE: I need to ask, because I had discussions with people who left during the end credits, why did you put in the post credit sequence? Was that a late addition? I’m asking because that shot changes how some people feel about the film.

GINTS: That’s a very late addition to the film. It was not in the script. It was done a month before the premiere and all of the crew had left. It was only when I was designing the end credits that I had this idea and I used animation from another scene in a new context. It was an emotional discovery, and it felt right to add it. I know some people will watch it and some will miss it. It’s a gift to the dedicated members of the audience who stick through the credits. And the credits are short, only two and a half minutes, so it’s not that long a wait. But it changes the way you perceptive the film which I think is interesting that it makes a happier ending for some and less for others.

If people missed it, perhaps they’ll go again and see what they missed.

STEVE: Let’s end it here. I have other questions that I don’t really want answers to and I don’t want to spoil anything for other people who haven’t seen the film.

Unstoppable (2024)

This is the story of champion college wrestler Anthony Robles who managed to become an NCAA champion despite only having one leg.

This is a solid sports drama of the sort Hollywood has been churning out since the dawn f the movies. WHile the formula is cliched, it works and by the end you'll be cheering.

 That the film works is due entirely to the cast. Jharrel Jerome in the lead is spot on perfect. Don Cheadle and Michael Pena are excellent as his coaches.  Jennifer Lopez is at her best in the role of Robles mother. Perhaps she finally has a role that matches her talent.

Is it high art?

No but it is very entertaining. This is one of the best sports films of the year.

Recommended.

Obsessed With Light (2024) opens Friday at the Quad

If you ever wonder who thought of dances where the dancer manipulates long sleeves of fabric into billowing tornadoes of waves of color the name of the person was Loïe Fuller, who changed popular culture as we know it with her serpentine dances. This film is a look at the life of Fuller as well as an exploration of the influence she has on dance and performances from then until now.

This is a glorious film filled with wondrous things. There are great stories here and even more amazing images. Watching all of the performers turn simple cloth into jaw dropping images is just beyond words.

To be honest I was not going to cover this film but Unseen Films founding member Eden asked me if I saw the film because it sounded interesting. If Eden says something is interesting I instantly take notice and I pursued getting an opportunity to see it. I’m glad I did because the film really knocked my socks off.

I can’t recommended this film enough. Yes it has some great stories, mostly it has just some cool things you’ll want to see.

Recommended.

DIDI (2024)

Somehow this has fallen out of Oscar contention, and I have no idea why. Actually, I do, the film played a token theatrical run before being sent to streaming oblivion. It’s a sin because of all the Oscar contenders that I’ve seen, this is hands down one of the absolute best.

The film is the story of teen Chris Wang (aka Didi) who is struggling to fit in. His family is from Taiwan, his sister is getting ready to go to college, his mother is a stay-at-home mom, and his dad works in Taiwan and sends money home.  He feels the racism of those around him and has more than a little self-loathing. At the same time, he desperately wants to fit in, looking to connect with the girl of his dreams and the skateboarders he shoots video of.

This film is glorious.  It’s one of the best coming of age films I’ve ever seen. Any film that can make this old fart who is writing this feel like a kid and relate is something special. And that is what makes the film so magnificent- the film isn’t about the technology or the things of the moment, this is a film about growing up. It’s about how we relate to family and to our friends and the world. You could absolutely strip out the details of the internet and instant messenger and you could put this film in any time period. Writer director Sean Wang has made a film that transcends time to be about anyone anytime. This is not to discount the questions of race, which are important to the film, only to say that the foundation of the film is firmly attached to the bedrock of the human experience.

This is one of the best films of 2024 and highly recommended.

The Order (2024) opens Friday

Hoping to rebuild his life in a quieter environment, an FBI agent, played by Jude Law, moves to the wilds of the Pacific Northwest. Thanks to the work of a local sheriff he is put on the trail of a splinter group of white supremacists looking to stage an armed revolt, which they are funding through counterfeiting and robberies.

This is a tense thriller based in the case that brought down the group called The Order and which was responsible for the murder of radio host Alan Berg. It's a late in the year surprise which deserves to be in the Oscar mix.

While the film is not the gospel truth, events are compressed and moved around, the film is compelling. It's a real edge of your seat thriller that makes your knuckles go white.

That the film works so well is due every facet of the film, and especially the acting. Nicholas Hoult and Jude Law are at the top of their game and should be in the Oscar mix.  Yea we kind of recognize them but the performances, both physical and vocal are so good you lose sight of who they really are. In a year where Hoult is being considered for an Oscar for NOSFERATU in a role he doesn't stop being himself, this role is a revelation

How is it that this isn't actively in the Oscar mix? All I can think is that there isn't a big push behind it because there is no money to do so.  I was stunned.

This is one of the best films of 2024.

A must see. Ger popcorn and go.

The Girl With The Needle (2024) opens Friday

A young woman struggling to survive in the wake of the First World War takes job at a candy store as a wet nurse for the owners clandestine adoption agency. However things are not as they seem.

This is a bleak black nightmarish historical drama mixed with fairy tale mixed with horror film. This is not a remotely happy film and it's like being forcibly plunged into the deepest pit of hell. It's a film that dwells in the dark places of human existence. It's a film that places our heroine in a dark world of poverty before we even get to the candy store.

This is a stunningly shot film. The black and white images are amazing. The look of the film echoes the images of the original NOSFERATU, BEGOTTEN and some half remembered dream. The aspect ratio is narrow and thus claustrophobic. The some of the sequences, like the opening montage are stunning. When they are married to the score this film slices its way into the center of your being.

That said, and despite the mood getting under my skin, I find that I admire this more than I like it. The issue for me is that the film is very much a work of art under the control of the director. That normally is okay but here there is a definite wall of artifice that kept me from falling head over heels for it. 

Don't get me wrong this is one of the best looking films and creepiest films of the year, and as such you should see it, but I don't know if you'll make a return trip.

Know Your Place (2023) hits digital tomorrow

This is a repost of the review that I ran when the film played the Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

A young man is tasked by his mother to get a suitcase full of medicine and other items across Seattle so a family friend can bring it to a relative in Eritrea.

My first thought when I finished watching KNOW YOUR PLACE was I wish I had screened it in a room full of other writers at a festival. I wanted to watch the audience go silent as the end credits role before the room exploded into discussions of the gem we had just seen. I say this because there is a feeling that is unlike anything else I've experienced when a small group of people realize they have just discovered a treasure.

My second thought was that despite this film premiering last year at the Seattle Film Festival and playing at several other fests, there has been no buzz about the film. Why? I know there are too many films to stay on top of all of them, however this is the exactly the sort of film that normally breaks out of a festival and becomes a year end awards contender. That didn't happen with KNOW YOUR PLACE and I don't know why.

My third thought was I need to see this film again. I need to drop back in and really see what is going on this film. There is so much here, themes of loss, of coming to a new country, of leaving an old country, of the gentrification of American cities and how anyone without money, particularly people of color are being pushed out. I need to see the film again so I can see the various connections of plot that run through the film. There are echoes all through the film that will give you "ah ha" moments.

I don't know what else to say other than see this film, it will stay with you long after the credits have rolled.

One of the great finds of last year's Santa Barbara International Film Festival and of 2023.

12:12 The Day (2023)

South Korea's entry in the International Oscar race is the story of the coup that occurred after the assassination of the the President of the country in 1979. While the film has fictional elements and name changes the film lays out what happened when the military took over

Feeling more like a Hollywood film like ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN or one of the top historical recreations, 12:12 does not have the typical cinematic rhythms. It's a film that feels like it is marching through history. The result is a gripping film that pulls us along. I completely understand why people in Korea were monitoring their pulse rates during the film. This is a solid political thriller.

At the same time I never connected 100% with the film. The issue is that despite the fact that the film makes every effort to give background and lay out who is who, there are nuances of Korean history and society that were lost on me. Yes, I could follow along with what was happening, but at the same time I felt that I was not getting everything I should. Don't get me wrong this is a great film, it just didn't fully connect with me.

Quibble aside- this is recommended

Nightcap 12/1/24: Dances With Films New York starts this week and random notes

Dances with Films New York starts this week.

This is the third addition of the always great LA  Film Festival here in New York,

I will have some coverage, but not as much as I would have liked simply because I did not have time to really wade into the selections...which is also why this piece is so short.

If you want details or tickets go here:

--

I apologize to everyone with a film out there I haven’t seen. In the last week I have had about 70 films dropped in my lap for year end consideration- it’s physically impossible for me to see them all by the time NYFCO votes…on the other hand I’m making a go and there is a shot a bunch will end up on my personal year end lists.

And so those wanting to know what they will see at Unseen for the next five weeks the wave of films  means December is going to be largely catch up posts and some new releases.

--

And for those tired of me prattling on about films I am happy to report that Peter Gutierrez is going to be wading in on a number of the big films this season. If you didn’t see he weighed in on QUEER this week (it can be found here) and he looks to have word on NOSFERATU and THE ROOM NEXT DOOR later in the month.

--

For those playing the home game I will have done four interviews in less than four weeks. My interview with Gints Zilbalodis the director of FLOW will be up toward the end of the week. And I am supposed to be interviewing Peter Browngardt the director of THE DAY THE EARTH BLEW UP: A LOONEY TUNES MOVIE Thursday to run with the film’s awards run and Paul Williams in connection to the screening of PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE at Brooklyn Academy of Music. (The forth one for THE FALLING SKY will run when the film hits theaters in 2025)

--

I saw NOSFERATU and A COMPLETE UNKNOWN earlier in the week. I will have review for the later… and maybe the former. I have many pages of paragraphs for a NOSFERATU piece that I may or may not stitch together as counterpoint to Peter's piece.

Nate Hood on BONHOEFFER (2024)

 Rating: 3 stars out of 5

The average layperson has probably never heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor and theologian who was murdered by the Nazis during the waning days of World War Two. But the man had an incalculable effect on the warp and weft of twentieth century Christianity. A tireless writer and pulpit firebrand, Bonhoeffer was one of the founding members of the Confessing Church, a movement that opposed the Third Reich’s attempts to centralize German Christianity into the pro-Nazi German Evangelical Church. Many of their members, Bonhoeffer included, were arrested and executed in concentration camps for speaking out against Hitler. But even in the face of Nazi militarism, Bonhoeffer was a devout pacifist, insisting in his writings that evil could only be conquered by Christian love. Not that you’d know that from the poster of Todd Komarnicki’s new biopic Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. which features the titular pastor carrying a handgun. This handgun was one of many controversies arising from the movie, even leading to one of Bonhoeffer's descendants denouncing the ad in a major German newspaper as a gross distortion of history. But Bonhoeffer does a lot of distorting, much of it ultimately benign, and putting a pistol in Bonhoeffer’s hand would be one of the least significant changes Komarnicki and his associates made to impress the importance of the great man’s life on its audience.

Many of the film’s most unapologetic inventions revolve around Bonhoeffer’s time studying abroad at Union Theological Seminary in the United States in the 1930s. Though generally bored with the state of American academia—at one point he boasts he could teach the very classes he attends better than his teachers—Bonhoeffer nonetheless had a powerful spiritual awakening in the States thanks to his exposure to the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem where he taught Sunday School. Perhaps worried that Bonhoeffer’s transformation at the hands of the African-American church would be underappreciated or—even worse—disbelieved by audiences, Komarnicki adds a preposterous scene where Bonhoeffer crashes a Harlem nightclub and wows a black audience with an impromptu jazz rendition of a German piano ballad. Another benign sequence sees one of Bonhoeffer’s black friends introducing him to the realities of American racism during a trip to Washington D.C. where they’re assaulted by a racist white hotel owner. I use that word “benign” again deliberately because, despite their fancifulness, these sequences speak to a genuine renewal of religious feeling in Bonhoeffer that would ultimately lead him to reject the soulless and empty religiosity of German Christianity in favor of a more radical lived experience of God.

Less benign are the changes the film makes to Bonhoeffer’s life during the Third Reich in the 1940s where he served as a secret resistance agent while working for the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence office. While the film more or less accurately depicts his work delivering messages to sympathetic contacts in England and helping Jewish prisoners escape into Switzerland, the film implies Bonhoeffer had a major role in the 20 July plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer’s apparent part in the plot was a major selling point for the film whose marketing hammers home the idea that he rejected his pacifist beliefs for the sake of the greater good. But in actuality Bonhoeffer does no actual assassinating—in fact the most he’s involved with the plot is a scene where he’s depicted as merely being in the same room with other resistance fighters who actually plan and eventually execute the attempt. But this was enough, the film insists, for his eventual execution at hands of the Nazis. Perhaps, but this doesn’t change the film’s strange underselling of his involvement. Indeed, with the exception of one prisoner exchange sequence the film almost entirely overlooks Bonhoeffer’s double agent work within the Abwehr.

If I go on about the film’s changes to Bonhoeffer’s life, it’s because the film itself provides little else to comment on. It’s competently filmed and respectably acted, though the less said of the abrupt cameos by Winston Churchill and one of the least convincing Hitler impersonators I’ve seen, the better. It is, by most standards, an perfectly average historical biopic. Why, then, did it make me cry three different times? Perhaps because for all its distortions of history it competently tells the story of an extraordinary man without downplaying the centrality of his faith. The film goes into greater theological detail about Bonhoeffer’s beliefs than I expected. Consider one scene where Bonhoeffer delivers a sermon in Berlin’s national cathedral before an audience of Nazis—he centers the sermon on Jesus’ dismissal of hypocritical Pharisees and teachers of the law in Matthew 23, reminding listeners that nobody hated “religion” more than Jesus of Nazareth.

Or consider a most likely invented scene near the end where Bonhoeffer celebrates the Lord’s Supper with his fellow concentration camp prisoners and a sympathetic Nazi guard. The film treats the act of Communion with due reverence and import instead of as a passing religious observance. Perhaps I’m merely jaded from years of superficial depictions of Christianity that such religious sincerity caught me off guard. And that is the operative word to describe Bonhoeffer—sincere. It sincerely believes in Bonhoeffer’s life and faith as extraordinary. It sincerely sees in his resistance to fascism a model applicable even today for resisting institutionalized evil. It sincerely believes that in merely telling the story of this man an audience might be encouraged to speak out against tyranny in the midst of rising antisemitic violence and political divisiveness. And maybe, just maybe, they’re right. 

Two Shorts: SHOT PLAYER and ANAIS

 

SHOTPLAYER
A Pickpocket returns to the subway and discusses his thievery.

This is a good if over long look at a man and his way of life. My quibble about it being overlong is simply a reaction to the narrow focus of the film. If this film covered more of his life and moved more outside of the subway it wouldn’t feel as small. Honestly I would love a feature version of this film.

ANAIS
Portrait of a 32 year old woman with stage 3 breast cancer who runs.

This is very good but it feels like this should have been expanded into to a feature.

Four Fabulous Music Doc Premieres Wendy Feinberg attended at the DOC NYC Film Festival this November:

YACHT ROCK: A DOCKUMENTARY on 11/13/24
I attended the World Premiere of this super entertaining “dock” filled with great music from the Yacht Rock genre. It featured the stories and mellow music of 70’s and 80’s bands and musicians such as Steely Dan, Toto, Michael McDonald, Christopher Cross, Kenny Loggins and more. I learned that the term “yacht rock” was coined for this “soft rock”, jazzy pop music over 20 years after the music became popular and was also reminded that classical music was not called classical music until many years after its creation. I was excited to find out that Academy Award-winning filmmaker, drummer, DJ, producer, director, New York Times best-selling author, and member of The Roots - Questlove (who appears in the film), was in the audience. I was disappointed that he wasn’t also included in the Q&A. The film debuted on HBO on Nov. 29th and I can’t wait to watch it again!

Photo: Director Garrett Price is in the center.

DISCO’S REVENGE on 11/14/24
I attended the International Premiere of DISCO’S REVENGE, which traces the evolution of disco music in the 70’s from its counterculture movement in the New York underground gay clubs to its mainstream commercial peak at clubs like Studio 54. The film weaves together firsthand vignettes and archival footage featuring such disco icons as Nile Rogers, Grandmaster Flash and Billy Porter. Watching this entertaining and revealing film brought back memories of when my late brother was invited by someone to attend Studio 54. He went with his newly married wife, my husband and myself and after waiting in line for quite a while, they let my brother’s wife, my husband and myself in, but not my brother. I had to go back and cajole them into letting the one who received the invitation into the disco.

 (From L to R): Karen McMullen, film subject DJ Nicky Siano and co-directors Omar Majeed and Pete Mishara

JANIS IAN: BREAKING SILENCE on 11/16/24

I attended the World Premier of the emotional and inspiring JANIS IAN: BREAKING SILENCE, about this American singer-songwriter who was most commercially successful in the 1960s and 1970s. Born Janis Fink, she is best known for her songs “Society’s Child” and “At Seventeen”. Her first big hit, “Society’s Child”, about an interracial relationship and released in 1966 when she was only 15 years old, led to a lot of controversy causing the record to be blackballed by many radio stations. The film follows her life from her Jewish childhood, growing up on a chicken farm in New Jersey to her early success and ultimately to the release of her 1993 album “Breaking Silence” where she publicly sings about her loving relationship with her wife. It was exciting for me to go down in the elevator at the Independent Film Center (IFC) to the theater with Ms. Ian before the start of the film. I admired her colorful shoes and she told me that she has owned them for years and that they were her favorite and so comfortable.

 

Janis Ian in the center with director Varda Bar-Kar to her right and some of the production crew.

BORN TO BE WILD: THE STORY OF STEPPENWOLF on 11/16/24

I was extremely excited to attend the North American Premiere of BORN TO BE WILD: THE STORY OF STEPPENWOLF and it did not disappoint. I can’t remember if I started following the band before or after “Born to Be Wild” was featured in the 1969 film EASY RIDER (one of the two most disturbing films for me at the time, along with DELIVERANCE), but their music definitely resonated with me from the first time I heard it. The film follows the founding members, lead singer John Kay (born Joachim Fritz Krauledat) and bass player Nick St Nicholas (born Klaus Karl Kassbaum), from their humble beginnings in Germany to their emigration to Toronto and eventually to the formation of Steppenwolf in 1967 in California. It is peppered throughout with stories surrounding the band’s tumultuous relationship, ultimately leading to its breakup, told through recent interviews with John, Nick, John’s daughter Shawn and other members of the band. We also hear from rock icon Alice Cooper, filmmaker/journalist Cameron Crowe and many more. Of course there is lots of archival footage of the band, much of which contains their magical music. During the post-screening Q&A it was wonderful to see John and Nick making peace with each other after many years of estrangement.

Photo on Left from L to R): Moderator, director Oliver Schwehm, Nick St. Nicholas, John Kay and Shawn Kay

I'm Still Here (2024)

Not to mince words I’M   STILL HERE is one of the very best films of the year. I’m talking about top five best of the year sort of film.

Based on  a true story it tells the tale of a former Brazilian legislator who was voted out around the time of a military coup. As he adjusts to civilian life the military tightens its grip and is watching those they consider enemies. When the legislator is asked to come in for a statement he disappears leaving his family to find answers and carry on.

I can’t say enough good things about this film the cast, especially Fernanda Torres, is stellar. The sense of place and construction of the tale is spot on. This is a nigh perfect film.

What I love about this film is something that other films about missing loved ones never do, and that is to have us spend time with the person the family is going to lose. In this case the third of the film is almost entirely focused in him. We get to know him and enjoy his company to the point when he disappears we feel it as much as everyone on screen. That may not sound like much but it’s a move that lifts this film into the stratosphere.

This film will rock your world.

I find it interesting that when the fil originally played the New York Film Festival people were quietly talking about the film and how good it was, but now as the film is in theaters for the awards push and more people are seeing it the quiet talk has turned into a loud din and people are talking about it with an excitement that is rare. I was recently at a couple of press screenings where the pre- screening talk became animated  when this film was mentioned.

This is one of the very best films you will see all year and a must see for anyone who loves good films.

Modern Problems (1981) Thanksgiving Turkey bonus

This is just a turd of a film. When it came out in 1981 it actually made some money, but no one talks of it any more.

MODERN PROBLEMS killed Ken Shapiro's Hollywood career. A promising writer and director, he had previously movie the TV spoof THE GROOVE TUBE which had Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer in it. (Which makes you wonder why Chase said MODERN PROBLEMS was Shapiro's first film and that Shapiro was not not a good director when he worked with him before)

The plot of the film has Chevy Chase's air traffic controller get the ability to move things with his mind. This causes him no end of trouble and his relationship with his girlfriend break.

Unfunny and incredibly mean spirited film was one of the many ruts on Chase's career. This is a film that makes you wonder why Chase took the role. He is a hateful character who uses his terrible new found power to do terrible things.  Yea he's an angry character but the things he does are just cruel and full of bad bathroom humor.

I don't know anyone who ever really liked it. Yes, I know people who watched it because it was on cable, but no one ever rented it when I was at the video store. and in the 40 years since it came out I've never heard of anyone saying they watched it or that they liked it. Hell I've never seen it ever play any revival theater. I know part of it is that Chase is not as well liked in many corners, his reputation as a cantankerous soul has over taken any feeling for any film of his that isn't Vacation or Fletch or Caddyshack.

I hate this film. I hate the ugliness of it. I disliked it so much that it lessened my feelings for Chase as an actor. I had fallen in love with him in the films he made with Goldie Hawn. After this film I stepped back because the glee he seemed to feel doing the cruel comedy.

I know this isn't much of a review but I just have no use for this film 

HOME KILLS (2023) is now streaming

If you want a kickass thriller that you can see with completely fresh eyes hunt down HOME KILLS on your favorite streaming service. This modern film noir from New Zealand is going to delight the crime lover in you and get bonus points because odds are you haven’t seen any of the actors before nor have you seen anything from the wonderful filmmakers.

The plot  has two down on their luck brothers offering butchering services to the surrounding farms. The trouble is with a name called Home Kills things just might be going to get out of control.

All hail the filmmakers headed by director Haydn Butler for they have fashioned a stunning little thriller. From the first frame to the last you are gripped tight in their clutches as the things from desperate to bad to worse. And since the film wasn’t made in Hollywood all bets are off about the survival of everyone on screen.

I had a blast and then some.

What I agreed to review as a break in the crazy wave of DOC NYC coverage, I mean I was figuring it was going to be a quick palate cleanse, ended up being a haunting film that I recommended to several of my noir loving friends  You need to see this.

Recommended.

The Penzance Movie(s) (1982/83)Thanksgiving Turkeys

In an effort to cash in the film version of the hit Broadway show of the PIRATES OF PENZANCE which had Linda Ronstadt, Kevin Kline (in his star making role), Angela Landsbury, George Rose and Rex Smith, the producers of THE PIRATE MOVIE threw boatloads of money into a similar project that starred Kristy McNichol and Christopher Atkins. Despite pretty much making it's money back (it cost 5.6 million and made 9 million at the box office)  it is considered a disaster and is a punch line to many jokes. While on the other hand, the Kline/Ronstadt version died at the box office (it was released on pay per view the same day it went into theaters and tweaked the show and made less than a million dollars because theaters were strong enough to tell Hollywood to F-off) but is now considered something special.

I saw both films/versions in the theater and I really haven't seen either since then. The reason I haven't seen the PIRATE MOVIE is that it never really was on cable and it wasn't something I ever felt the need to rent. PENZANCE was on cable and elsewhere but other than background music I never sat down and really watched it again.

THE PIRATE MOVIE is a kitschy attempt at madcap teen musical using the PENZANCE story as a frame work and new songs that mimic Gilbert and Sullivan and aren't as bad as you might think. It has lots of one liners, lots of groaners, and actually a reasonable amount of entertainment that on seeing it again I was kind of wondering why this doesn't have a dedicated fan base that has made it into something. I'm not saying it's great, but I do think the film is better than it's reputation suggests and I understand why I gave it 3 out of 4 stars when I saw it.

The plot has McNichol as an exchange student in Australia who goes to a pirate festival, and is left behind by the host family. Giving chase in  sailboat she get thrown overboard, is knocked unconscious and dreams a PENZANCE style adventure. 

It's not high art, but the clunkiness has its charm with a couple of the musical numbers actually being pretty good. You may not love it, but it wouldn't kill you to see it.

THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE died at the box office, which before it was released would have been a thing that wouldn't seem possible. Starting life as a free show in Central Park it proved so popular they moved it to Broadway where it wowed them and had pundits promising all sorts of good things to be spawned from it.

Moving the cast from theater stage to soundstage they made a film of the original cast using theatrical style backgrounds, removing a couple of songs and tweaking a few others. The result is a film that captures the stage play.

It was by, some accounts going to be a big deal when it was released. Riding high on the love of the Broadway show and the spiking popularity of the cast, I remember reading how people were saying that this was going to be the next big thing. 

Then the bottom dropped out. The producers made a deal to open the film on the same day it hit theaters on pay per view on cable. The hundreds of screens dropped to well under a hundred. The next big thing was detoured into the parking lot of the next big disappointment as the potential audience was decimated. While the film made a tiny bit of money, the experiment of same day release had gone horribly and essentially killed it.

The film itself isn't bad, It, like THE PIRATE MOVIE, has it's own issues, namely the fact that it isn't a film but a filmed stage play.  I'm not sure who thought the film would work like this but it was a bad idea since the film doesn't feel like anything but dress up. That can almost always work on stage, but if done as a film that is trying to be more than a film staged play, it's deadly.

To be honest I like the performances but the refusal to commit to either real or unreal really bothers me and creates a texture I don't want to revisit.  It even makes George Rose's Modern Major General song a bit less thrilling because we get the sense it could have been done in pieces.

It's not a bad film, but it's not a great one, which is why I never revisit it.

(Interesting aside- I had a discussion a few years back with someone who said that the pay per view debacle was intentional.  The producers realized that despite the popularity of the show and the hype they knew they were going to have a film that didn't play well with theatrical movie audiences. To that end they would roll the dice- perhaps get extra money from the curious - and then be able to write off the film as a noble failure to the backers by saying they tried. It was a way of saving face and getting a tax right off. I have no idea if it's true, but it was something I heard in a Broadway theater during an intermission discussion.)

ARMAND (2024) opens for Oscar qualifying tomorrow before it's regular run February 7

A mother is called for a conference at her young son's school. Something has happened and Armand is alleged to be behind it. As she meets with the teachers, and the parents of the other boy, who happen to be her in-laws, things are not quite as straight forward as they seem.

Renate Reinsve gives one of the best performances of the year as Armand's mother. It's a performance that is completely unexpected and very human. What do I mean by this? There is a moment where in the middle of discussing the difficult events at the center of the story and she begins to laugh uncontrollably. At first it seems funny, then it seems out of place and then you realize it's something that makes you take a step back because the reaction, especially with the emotional collapse at the end is on target. Too many filmmakers and writers think that serious subjects mean serious and histrionic reactions. That isn't always the case. Reinsve should be in the Oscar mix because this is a glorious performance that is more real than almost any other you'll see this year. 

The film over all is very good. It's a gripping thriller that pulls you along. It's more interesting than most of the recent problem with children at school films that have hit the local multiplexes (say TEACHERS LOUNGE). I say this because the film is looking to throw its net wider and forcing us to look at the parents and administration and not just the kids. This is a look at parents and parenting and the things they do.

The problem with the film is that as the film makes a few choices that don't always work. Moving away from Reinsve's character gets us away from the the center of the film. She is the character we know best so there are moments of catch up when she isn't on screen.The other problem is the film adds in some subjective surrealism. While it helps explain the characters' head space it makes the film less real.

But I am quibbling. This is a really good film. It will both entertain you and give you something to think about.

Recommended.

Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981) Thanksgiving Turkey

From it’s release THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN has divided audiences. Some people loved the satire of consumerism and Science fiction and some people didn’t. I know the films reception kind of short circuited Lily Tomlin’s attempt at being a leading actress.

The film has housewife Tomlin beginning to shrink as a result of being exposed to everyday chemicals.  As she shrinks she becomes a celebrity. Some mad scientists kidnap her hoping to find away to shrink humanity.

While the film made money, the film was a critical disaster. Critics hated it.  While the critical opinion has changed over the years the film has remained a footnote in everyone’s career.

I saw it in a packed theater the opening weekend and I thought it was just okay. I thought, and still do, it was trying to do too much. I think it sacrifices laughs for making a point. I’m also not a fan of the look of the film. It has muted images with pastel colors, and it just feels wrong. I mean really wrong. It feels like an odd dream or as if we are watching a film that was damaged.

While the film made money I don’t think it really helped anyone’s career, though director Joel Schumacher skated on to a great career afterward (BATMAN AND ROBIN among others).

The question you are probably asking is why is this in this series of Turkeys if it made money. The reason is it’s a lost film of sorts. Time and tide pushed it aside.  It’s a film no one really talks about, or even really likes, I mean it’s okay, but that’s as far as it goes. In its way it’s a cinematic misfire. It was loaded into theaters, made a noise when the trigger was pulled and then went nowhere.

Is it worth seeing? As a footnote for everyone involved, but I would be hard pressed to give you a reason beyond that, it isn’t really funny, and its points were obvious even 40 years ago.

Placebo: This Search For Meaning (2024)

This is a look at the the group Placebo. Told in a combination of musical performances, archival footage, talking heads and "surveillance" footage of talking heads this is a one of a kind documentary.

I really like this film a great deal. It's a killer doc on a group that has always danced around my musical fringes. It's a music doc that does what the best ones do, and that is make me want to go out and buy their music.  I just enjoyed having the film connect  songs I knew  but wasn't certain of who they were by get connected up with the group name.

I really like how the film pulls us into the history of the group and lets us journey with them. Its a film that let's us know why the group mattered.  I really got a sense of them in the history of popular music.

If there is anything that is wrong with the film it's the conceit of having everyone not in the group who is being interviewed being done by hidden camera. It's amusing for a little while but it kind of becomes tiresome.  It's a quibble but it bothered me because there really is no reason for it.

This is a great film and is recommended.