The Dog (2013)

If you think you know what happened during the infamous DOG DAY AFTERNOON standoff of August 22,1972 because you saw the film forget it. You don’t know anything. Likewise it’s unlikely that you know what the real story is of John Wojtowicz who was portrayed by Al Pacino. The truth is something much more complex and in a way fantastic.

The Dog was Wojtowicz‘s nickname. It’s not clear where he got the name, perhaps it had something to do with his need for sex, or his looks (one person called him a troll).Wojtowicz grew up in a typical Italian family in Brooklyn. He drove his mother crazy by doing whatever it was he wanted to do. When he was about 20 he met his future first wife. The relationship was kind of doomed from the start since they were forbidden to marry until he came back from Vietnam-his future in-laws hoping he’d come home in a body bag. It only got worse when on the day of the ceremony the priest tried to get the marriage annulled because Wojtowicz and his father in law got into a fight as to who was going to pay for the wedding. From their things got stranger as Wojtowicz ended up in the village and in the middle of the gay rights movement (and gay marriage). In no way was this what I was expecting based on my having seen Dog Day. I know I didn’t have an inkling as to what happened after.

Actually the problem with the film, if you could call it a problem, is that the tale of Wojtowicz's life is not what you’d expect, even if you know it, when you watch the film a second time you still expect things to go differently than they do. The only bits that are as expected is the robbery parts, but what lead up to it and where things went after are very different. That’s both a great thing because it opens our eyes to something new and truly extraordinary, but it’s kind of bad because you’re forced to reassess our protagonist and wonder who the hell was this guy-even to the point of wondering why am I watching this.

Further strangeness is the result of the long gestation of the film. Wojtowicz died of cancer in 2006 but the film was clearly in production long before that since we watch as he goes from plump man to emaciated wreck. I kind of wished I had seen the film earlier than I did so I could have taken part in the press day since watching the film I’m left to wonder how did this film come together and why did it take so long. It might have had to do with having to wait until Terry, Wojtowicz's, mom passed since she talks openly about family secrets.

This film will haunt you. I normally write up a film as close to seeing it as I can so as not to lose the feel of it. With this one I had to step away. I watched it and went to bed. I couldn’t write it up I didn’t have the words. (And apologies to Hubert who contacted me in the middle of my seeing the film for the first time and had an odd conversation with me) The next day I sat around and thought about the film all day. Then instead of writing it up I watched it again… and contemplated it some more.

My overriding feeling after the film is how the hell do I talk about this film when it’s not so much a film as one guys life? How do I critique a life? You really can’t. It’s the sense of life, the sense of this is Wojtowicz warts and all is the films strongest point. It’s this sense of being dropped into a life that lifts the film up from the rest of the documentaries you might see. It’s the feeling that the film leaves you with, that you now know Wojtowicz that makes this film great.

A must see.

ADDENDUM:
In doing research on the robbery I ran across a Village Voice reprint of an 1972 article on what really happened and what was really behind it- The Mafia. The piece can be found here and makes for interesting reading especially as a counterpoint to this film.

The Immigrant opens Friday and you'll want to go see it.

Friday The Immigrant begins its theatrical release in the US. It’s one of the best films I saw in 2013 and is a must see.

The film is the story of a young woman (Oscar winner Marion Cotillard) who comes to the US and gets mixed up with a man of questionable morals(Joaquim Phoenix). All Cotillard wants is to be able to get her sister out of quarantine on Ellis Island and try for the American dream, but things don’t turn out the way she hoped and that’s before she meets a charming magician (Jeremy Renner) with an uneasy connection to Phoenix.

This dark, yet strangely hopeful film was one I didn’t want to see at the New York Film Festival. I didn’t want to visit the darkness, but since it was playing between two big films I decided not to give up my seat. Surprisingly I was rewarded with one of my favorite films of the festival, of 2013 and one I haven’t stopped talking about since I saw it. It truly is a masterpiece.

I highly recommend the film but I have to add that you must, must let the film do what its going to do, all the way to the very end. I say that because the film doesn’t end, it doesn’t truly sum up and punch you in the gut until that last shot. It’s the final image that says it all.

Go see this film.

Here’s a link to my original piece.

Revisiting Manakamana (2013) Art of the Reel 2014

I originally saw this film at last years New York Film Festival and was mixed about it. (my original piece is here). I originally was distance by the sameness of  it and I walked out. I then had several conversations that made me wonder if I should have stayed to the end. With the film's appearance at this year's Art of the real I had a second chance to see it.

The second go through I was much more forgiving and I found I liked it much more.

The film is a series of  trips up and down a mountain via cable car. The camera is locked in place and we watch a series of pilgrims go up the mountain  in the first half of the film and down in the second. The film is frequently hypnotic.And enlightening though I still freaking hate the goats.

While I like the film a great deal I have to agree with several other writers who took the structure of the film to task in that why must we see everyone go up in the first half only to see everyone come down in the second? Its a weird choice and while is makes the film kind of like being with them , the frequently lack of talk in the first half makes interest wax and wane depending on who is in the car.  The second half where the returning pilgrims discuss what they've experienced is much more engaging and that will be the part I watch when I get this in Bluray down the road.

Recommended when the film plays tomorrow at Lincoln Center. For tickets and more information go to the festival website here.

Steve has a few comments on Tim's Vermeer(2013) New York FiIm Festival

Yes I know Chocko took a run by Tim’s Vermeer already but I just wanted to chime in with a couple of quick comments.

As you know Tim’s Vermeer is Teller’s film about his friend Tim’s efforts to make a Vermeer by a method he said Vermeer could have used. It’s a very good film that may shake up the art world.

While I like the film I think it either should have been shorter or just a tad longer. The argument for it being shorter is that Tim effectively proves it could have been done out of the box so that at a certain point the whole exercise is a bit over kill- even to the point where Tim says that were they not making a movie he would have hung it up (though the bit on what was discovered by painting the harpsichord would have been lost.)

For me the film leaves several questions unanswered- chief among them is how many hours a day did Tim paint? That may sound like a stupid question but lighting- the same lighting is important to painters, especially to someone like Vermeer. Change the light and you change the shade of the color ever so slightly. (Monet when he was painting some of his landscapes shifted canvases as the light changed). Another is if Tim is not a painter and never painted before this how did he learn about color and how to alter a paints shade (I have a long list of questions that I started to keep when I saw it but I think those are the biggies)

I should say that I wish they had shown the elephant that Tim started to paint when he was getting loopy on the heater fumes.

Don’t get me wrong this is a good film, actually it’s a very good film, but it’s not great film. I think the problems for me come from Teller and Penn being too close to the film to completely realize that they didn’t explain everything. (And for the record I still have not watched the press conference which Chocko posted, simply because I wanted to take the film on its own terms.

Highly recommended, more so if the DVD comes stocked with additional footage.

New York FIlm Festival coverage will continue

The festival's over, but there will be more posts. I want to saw a few words on Tim's Vermeer and Chocko has looks at American Promise, Only Lovers Left Alive, The Square, The Tangerine Dream concert film, plus things I'm too tired to remember right now! Keep reading, 'cause we'll still be posting stuff over the next couple of weeks.

Alan Partridge Alpha Papa (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

The long gestating Alan Partridge movie has finally arrived and it made it’s US debut at the New York Film Festival and in many ways we are all better for it.

Alan Partridge was birthed almost 20 years ago on the very funny short lived The Day Today. Steve Coogan’s creation made such a huge splash that he survived the demise of the series to landed to a series of TV series and specials over the intervening decades. Coogan wisely kept Partridge’s appearances to a minimum which prevented an over saturation of the market (though Coogan remarked that he can only do Partridge occasionally because doing any sort of show special or movie is the same as being locked up with the real Partridge for several months, which he says is a very unpleasant experience.)

The plot of the film has Partridge working the midday shift at low level Norfolk radio station. The station has just been bought by a huge conglomerate called Shape. Everyone is afraid for their job, in particular Partridges friend and the overnight DJ played by Colm Meaney. Partridge tells Meaney not to worry about it and that he would talk to the powers that be and make sure he stays on, however when he finds out that either he or Meaney will get the boot he helps to push his friend out the door. Distraught, Meaney takes matters into his own hands and returns to the station during a party and takes hostages. Unaware that his friend has sold him down the river Meaney asks that Partridge be the intermediary. What follows is the movie and its damn funny.

I am not a Partridge fan. To be completely honest the only reason I went to the press screening was I wanted to see Steve Coogan in person. Coogan is a very funny man and when he loses the mannerisms and disappears into his characters (like in the recent Look of Love) he is one of the best actors working today. It was this ability to transform into a character and not lean on shtick that made the Partridge movie so much fun. Finally Partridge is a real person and not a caricature, and it’s because Coogan has softened his character that the film works so well. You don't mind being with him for 90 minutes.

I really liked this film a great deal. I liked that it took a character I never really liked and turned him into someone I would gladly hang out with for the course of a film. I also like that the film is not typically British in in its humor. This is not the sort of film that people who don't like British comedy are going to turn away, its a a film that funny because it's funny. Anything British are references to the fact it's set in England.

One of the really happy surprises of the New York Film Festival and a film I would gladly pay to see again and to get on DVD.

In Brief:Gloria (2013) New York Film Festival (revised)

Go on sing the song- they do in the film...

This is the story of a divorced woman in her late 50's and early 60's who is looking for love and a life. Along the way she meets Rodolfo, a recently divorced man with some ties to his ex-wife and daughters and she plunges head long into quasi-romance...

Frequently amusing film that manages to sail past it's short coming thanks to an award winning turn by Paulina Garcia in the title role.Garcia makes the long rambling trip through Gloria's life worth the time.

What I really like about the film, besides Garcia, is that this film is about people. It doesn't matter how old you are, I don't think there is a person alive who can't relate to Gloria's plight. I also don't think that there is a person who sees the film doesn't wish that they could handle it all with the grace under fire that our heroine shows. Its utterly engaging and truly something special.

If there is a problem with the film it's that the film is too rambling. Yea this is a slice of life sort of film, but at the same time there is too much drifting.

That said, this is two hours with good people, with a couple of truly big belly laughs. Something to search out.

TIM'S VERMEER (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

Teller, the silent member of the comedic illusionist duo, Penn and Teller, is the director of a documentary about inventor and technologist Tim Jenison and his obsession to "paint a Vermeer."  Jenison's attempt to recreate a painting by Johannes Vermeer, considered one of the finest painters of the Dutch Golden Age, began after years of admiration and research of Vermeer's photorealistic paintings.  A book by David Hockney also added fueled to the fire with his theory that Vermeer painted with the help of optics. Hockney hypothesized that the Old Master used lenses or a camera obscura to create his famous, realistic paintings.  Jenison decides to put Hockney's hypothesis to the test and obsesses over recreating Vermeer's painting "The Music Lesson" using the technology, optics and tools that Vermeer may have used to create a painting which in today's age, looks like a photograph.  The painting is pictured above and the actual painting has a tremendous amount of detail.  For a non-painter such as Jenison, who had little or no background in art, his project seemed doomed from the start but it was interesting to see if he could pull it off.

Jenison's tireless obsession takes him to Vermeer's home in Holland and to England where he examines the actual painting. Jenison takes the madness a step further by setting up shop in a warehouse in San Antonio, Texas to reconstruct the room in which Vermeer painted "The Music Lesson."  Every object in the room is replicated and made by hand including the stained-glass windows and costumes.  

(L-R) Director Teller, Tim Jenison, illusionist Penn Jillette and producer Farley Ziegler. photo by Chocko

I enjoyed the documentary immensely and found it interesting and funny to watch straight through.  The film does not disrespect Vermeer or discredit his body of work, but it is an entertaining movie that raises some questions about creating art with the help of technology.  

Penn and Teller, producer Farley Ziegler and the subject of the film Tim Jenison recently made an appearance after a press screening at the New York Film Festival. They also stayed for a Q&A which you can view below.  Click with caution...there could be spoilers. 

ALL IS LOST (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

Before I start I need to say at the start I have not seen Gravity which has a similar story but is set in space and is supposed to be one of the greatest spectacles ever put on film. I say this because some tweets coming out of the press conference for this film bemoaned how All is Lost will get lost because of Gravity. I don't think so, I'd like to hope that small human dramas will win out.

Okay- everyone who is proclaiming that Robert Redford is a shoe in for the Oscar, get off the ledge. He gives a great physical performance, you will marvel at what he does) but I will argue that it's not the best performance.

But I'm kind of getting ahead of myself.

All is Lost concerns the sinking of a sail boat in the Indian Ocean. The boat collides with a lost shipping container which puts a hole in the side of Robert Redford's boat. What follows is Redford's fight for survival as the boat takes on water which wrecks the gear which makes sailing difficult.

One of the best performances of Robert Redford's career, he pretty much is front and center in every single solitary shot. There are no cutaways, there are no other characters, there is no wide establishing shots, there is just Redford and his ordeal up close and personal. Redford is the ultimate in self reliance taking each disaster in turn. Handling each thing as it comes. This is the guy we all want to be. It is an amazing performance.

The thing is it becomes rather one note. Yes we see the desperation at times, but largely its Redford doing what he has to do. It's not until late in the game that his mask slips and we see him at wits end. Its moving when it happens, but at the same time I would have liked to have seen something earlier on.

I blame writer director JC Chandor, who, while making one hell of a good film, missteps a couple of times and makes it just miss being great.

The problems with the film come from three different places-

First Chandor never really uses any sort of establishing shot. We either have Redford in the frame or we see something he is looking at. While this makes things up close and personal it never really puts us in the middle of the ocean.  There is never one shot of Redford in the boat in the ocean that gives any sense of him being out there. We do see other things- storm clouds for example- but never the boat. I would have liked one shot- the first one would have been fine, but we never get it. The result for me was a sense he could have been on a set with a crew.

The second thing that bothered me is that how is it that a guy like Redford who is in the middle of the ocean all alone needs to read a book on celestial navigation. Here is a guy who is capable of being there- not only capable of being there but doing everything he has to do but he still needs an instruction book, not once but a couple of times? Once would have been a refresher. After that I didn't buy it (or where the sextant was).

The last thing that bothered me was that at some point I slightly disengaged and began to ponder what was the next thing that was going to go wrong. Whats the next twist. Yes it's logical and realistic but at some point, short of it being based on a true story its a tad too much-I mean everything seems to go south.

They are relatively minor annoyances for the most part since the film will grab you and hold you tight. Yes they bothered me but at the same time I wanted to see what happens next I needed to know is this the rend of Redford. Its so tense at times you could feel the audience wrapped tight as a drum. The guy next to me at the screening was bracing himself during some of the storm sequences. Honestly you will never want to be on a small boat again.

This is also the sort of thing that will inspire the next several decades of film writing with discussion of the central metaphor of man against nature- What is Redford and the the director trying to say- look for thousands of people to try and explain it.

Don't get me wrong, this is a really good movie - one of the better films at The New York Film Festival and it demands to be seen on a big screen (if you're sitting close bring sea sick pills for the storm sequences), but I wouldn't quite hand it all the awards just yet.

Captain Phillips will get Tom Hanks another Oscar (nomination)

This is not a review of the Paul Greengrass film CAPTAIN PHILIPS. The film which opened the New York Film Festival  just under two weeks ago is going to be a huge hit and if it's not then audiences around the world don't know what good films are. John has already reviewed the film and his take can be found here.

Simply put the story of  the hijacking of a container ship by a group of Somali pirates is as tense a film as Hollywood has turned out in years. Its an amazing film since while we side with Philips (Tom Hanks's character) we also feel for the pirates. Its an amazing film where on a certain level the bad guys aren't that bad (relatively speaking).

The reason I'm writing this piece is to simply say that if you ever wanted to know how good Tom Hanks is as an actor see this film. Watch him as the film goes on and the intense performance he gives. Its amazing.

Actually watch the final sequence in the sick bay and you'll wonder if he's acting. Watch it and consider that the scenes was done on the fly and made up entirely on the spot and completed after six takes in less than an hour. Seriously Hanks and Greengrass said they just made the scene up in response to the question of "what happened when Phillips got on the ship" and the Captain of the Navy vessel simply said " He went to sick bay because he was a mess".

Talk about movie magic

... put Hanks on Oscar's short list.

CAPTAIN PHILIPS is one of the best films at NYFF and of the year. Go see it when it opens Friday.

I'm not sure what I think of Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s REAL (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Real is a poser. It’s not remotely the sort of film that one expects from a director who is best known for dark and brooding films. Its not the sort of film that one would expect after the recent run of films including the masterpiece miniseries Penance. If you know the director and his work the film presents a total and complete confounding of expectations.

I’m not going to go into the plot other than to say the set up involves a young man trying to connect with this girlfriend who is in a coma view something called sensing. Sensing allows properly attuned people to link up and enter each other’s thoughts.

I’m going to leave the plot there for any number of reasons, chief amongst them being that if you know any more than that you’ll start to pull at the various threads before you see the film. The write up for the New York Film Festival gives away too much. If you read it you’ll be able to work it all out for yourself.

My reaction to the film has been mixed and all over the place. Part of the problem is the whole expectation thing above. This film is not what I expected and so there was a bit of disappointment involved. Part of the problem is that the film intentionally or unintentionally references or riffs on any number of earlier films on the subject and in the science fiction genre. My overriding feeling was I had been here before. I’ve never had a sense of that before in a Kurasowa film.

Mostly my reaction to the film was controlled by it not being as well made or tightly plotted as any of the recent Kurasowa films. Actually I think you’d have to go all the way back to the infamous Revenge films which were very loopy and made no sense especially if you look at the second film as a true sequel to the first. This is that sort of a film- its loopy and has its own busted logic. (For the record the second Revenge film is probably the least of all of Kurasowa’s film output). I’m still trying to work out the lapses of logic and weird been there plotting and wondering if Kurasowa did it on purpose or if he thought the story was better than it is. With the Revenge films the movies were thrown together because they could make two movies if they met certain criteria, where I would think that Kurasowa carefully chose the project.

The film feels like the quickies that Kurasowa cranked out in his early career. It looks-intentionally- like some of the digital films that flood the home markets. It’s a look that looks cheap until you realize about fifteen or twenty minutes in is part of the film since the numerous looks mirror the levels of consciousness. The film does look great when it has to.

And now some 24 hours after seeing the film I have no idea what I think. I freely admit that I was one of the many in the audience groaning at some of the twists, laughing at some of the revelations and wondering if Kurasowa was serious about this film ( I mean hadn't he seen other variations on the theme). However in thinking about the film and after talking with it with Mondocurry I’m not sure it’s as “bad” as I thought. Kurasowa seems to be up to something. Certainly it’s a palate cleanse after the darkness of Penance. Certainly its a shaking of his audience to get them to do more than just be passive receptors to his work.

Is it a good film? While it certainly doesn’t belong at the New York Film Festival in that being here forced it to face impossible expectations, it’s not a bad film, not by any stretch of the imagination. My thinking is that they should have flopped this with Penance which played at Film Comment Selects since while this film can stand to be highlighted it doesn’t need the spotlight of a main selection of the New York Film Festival.

Should you see the film? If you go in with an open mind and no expectations, yes. If you’re a fan of the director give it a shot. I can’t say if you’ll like it, I will however say that its worh at least trying.

As for whether or not I like the film I’ll get back to you on that- actually I'm waiting for Mondocurry to finish writing it up so our discussions can continue. .

Bastards (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

A great looking film with great performances Claire Denis's Bastards is a film best described as a dramatic mess. Told in a disjointed manner that seems to jump around in time, Denis has fashioned a film that looks as though some one took a perfectly good story and then cut it up, rearranged it, and then added in a couple of extra bits that had nothing to do with the story.

This is nominally the story of a tanker captain named Marco who goes AWOL to help his sister and niece. It seems his brother in law has killed himself in the wake of business deals that have gone bad. On top of it all his niece has been sexually savaged. Taking an apartment in the building of mistress of the man thought to be responsible for all the devastation, Marco plots revenge.

Maybe.

I say maybe because it's never really clear what exactly Marco is doing. He's banging the mistress, but beyond that I'm not really sure. He drives, around talks to his sister sees his niece's doctor and spends money. Well he does run down a couple of leads only one of which ends up meaning  anything...kind of.

Truth be told this movie makes no sense. No, it really makes no sense despite what the director thinks. Many of my fellow film writers have gone into fits of rapture about this film calling it a dense puzzle to solve. Rarely have I ever wanted to bang so many people's heads together for letting the reputation of the filmmaker blind you to the fact that she's feeding you a shit sandwich and calling it roast beef. This movie is a shit sandwich and shame on you if you think otherwise.

There are plot holes. Plot holes? Actually chasms. There are huge gasps of logic that prevent this film from ever generating any tension or any sort of sense.

You want lack of tension- hero and villain meet about 2/3s of the way in for coffee in the least tense scene in a thriller I've seen all year.

Explain to me, if you can, what exactly Marco is doing. No, really what is he doing? He's not really watching the bad guy. He's kind of helping his sister. You would think there is a revenge plot afoot, but can you really find it?

Can you tell me how Justine, after being violated can walk out of a farm house in the country, to the city, in high heels and nothing else all the while heavily bleeding from her vagina? On top of that the first people she runs into are a couple of cops sitting in their car with their lights on?

How about the night time search scene where the police turn up the mistresses son's bicycle in the forest-with the implication that something has gone wrong, when he's always perfectly fine? Where does this fit in the scheme of things?*

I've got questions about the pair having sex on the stairs and falling asleep buck naked but I'll leave those and many others for you to unlock.

Taking it completely on it's own terms, this film is good looking but other wise a complete and utter mess and should be avoided.(For the record Denis says the film makes perfect sense. I would expect that, I mean she made the accursed thing so she knows all the stuff we don't see)

I would love to say that perhaps it's less a thriller than a character study, but we never get to know anyone enough to call it a study (Marco is too tight lipped to really know anything about him). Perhaps maybe it's a rough sketch of the mistress, but if that were the case why is this film 100 minutes?

Not to put too fine a point on it this is one of the worst films of the year.

*- Addendum-

I'm told by Alec Kubas Meyer who interviewed Denis that:the bike sequence is a dream -I can't work out how that is within the context of the narrative, but that's what the director told him.

I will post a link to Alec's interview as soon as its posted.

A non-review of Stranger by the Lake (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

I'm not sure I have much of any idea as to what I think of this film. The film about a man who becomes attracted to another man he how knows is a murderer. It's okay.  I mean nothing in the film really struck me as much of anything. In a weird way the selling point is the sex which was not my cup of tea.

Of interest to me has been the talk the film generated. I've been hearing all sorts of chatter about the film starting from the point where several minutes were screened between two other films during the early press screenings.  A bunch of us were standing in the theater talking between films.  As they normally do they were checking prints and such of films that were screening later in the day or the next day, when the opening of Stranger came on and we began trying to guess what the film was before the credits came up. As we saw a couple of guys in mid-act there was a noticeable reaction as most of us turned away at the unexpected sight (How do you react to stumbling upon two people getting it on when you're with polite company?).

A couple of days later, while waiting for entry into that days films I was talking to one of my fellow writers who asked if I had seen the film. I said I hadn't, and asked how it was.

"Very close to porno", She replied

"But was it any good?" I asked

"I'm not sure." she thought for a moment and replied "Lots of cute guys. But that's it."

"Is it worth seeing?"

She shrugged.

Later in the day I listened to a couple of other writers hashing the film out. Did the film add up to much? They didn't seem to think so, finding it it kind of the film noirish story of being in love with the wrong person but with male nudity and not much else.

Over the next week or so I caught several other conversations where people were trying to figure out what there was to the film other than the sex.

Its a question that I'm battling with myself. Is there anything to this that we've not seen before? I don't know. To be honest I have to be suspicious of any film where the one thing you talk about is the sex.  If you walk out of a film talking about the sex (something I've heard about the Cannes winner Blue is the Warmest Color which screens Friday) then something is really wrong with the drama. Are you making a drama or are you making porno for people who won't rent/go to pornos?

For me films should be about the drama and the characters first and foremost. I should be able to walk out the film and not talk about the special effects, or the music or in this case the sex, I should just talk about the film as a whole. At the same time a really good film should have you walking out of it going this is a good film, full stop, and not a good action film or a good thriller or a good whatever.

In the case of Strangers I know you can argue that the sex is part of the obsessional nature of the characters, and you would be right, but at the same time it shouldn't be the first  or only thing thing you mention, especially in a film that goes to great lengths to try and be an examination of what an obsessed person will do to get their hearts desire.

I need to mention that What Now? Remind Me, also screening at the festival, has graphic sex in it but where the sex in Strangers was mentioned in the Festival material, the sex in What Now wasn't. I'm guessing because that film isn't just about the sex.

Is Stranger by the Lake a good film? Possibly, but at the same time without the sex it's probably not  something you'd ever notice.

Not The New York Film Festival Half Time Report- The Nightcap for October 6,2013

This was supposed to be a piece about the New York Film Festival at roughly the half-way point. I had written a very long piece on the state of the festival eight days in. However looking back at the piece I realize that it’s more a summation than a looking back where we are. More importantly what I wrote may be influenced by the fact that starting tomorrow I’m at the festival every day until the end. To that end I’ve pulled the piece and will run it sometime after the festival ends.

While I won’t review the state of the festival I would like two say two things-

First, having so far seen some 25 of the films being screened I’m really disappointed in the selections. While maybe five or six are worth paying to see (Captain Philips, Alan Partridge, The Wind Rises,Le Week-End, Costa de Morte, The Immigrant) most of the films are bland, and not worthy of being shown at the festival. The choice of films this year feels more like a show case for the fall releases then a festival highlighting the best in world cinema.

And even allowing for the fact that most of the films aren’t bad rather unremarkable, I have to ask what are most of the films doing here? I don’t know. The same films that are worth paying to see are the only ones I've seen that belong at the festival. I say this since even in years past, even when I didn't like a film, I always knew why a film was at the festival.

Most troubling is the fact that even if you think they belong in the festival do you really think we’ll be remembering most of them by the end of the year? In most other years we would still be talking about most of the films not this year. Half way in and I'm having difficulty trying to remember what some of the films are as opposed to previous years where I was actively trying to track down copies of films for months afterward.

The other thing I’d like to say is that the festival has got to stop using the fact that a director had film previously at the film festival as an indication the new film is good. Just because a director had a previous good film doesn't mean the new one is good. I've seen a couple of films where the talk before the film was a rapturous discussion of the director and his or her previous work only to have the new film fall flat or worse. Nobody’s Daughter Daewan and especially Bastards (a review will appear Tuesday) were a failures, Jimmy P, while good isn’t up to the directors earlier films. In years past the connection often resulted in some gems, this year we’re getting lesser work which feels like they are repaying a debt to someone or filling a slot rather than running a deserving movie.

Here's to hoping the remaining days radically changes my opinion.
----
I need to take a moment and let you all know that our coverage of the festival is going to be a tad less than what I had hoped and will be spilling into the weeks after the festival ends.

The short answer is that due to circumstances beyond anyone's control and the intervention of nature some of our team has been derailed by familial emergencies. While everything is under control, it simply means less films were seen and the time to write up events has been pushed back. Reports will be coming-just a little later than planned.
----

And now some links many ala crack researcher Randi

Color Dr Strangelove pictures
Talking with Peter Weller
Behind the Scenes at the AMC 25 in NYC- the most profitable theater in the world
Teller in Esquire
Akira Kurasowa storyboards
Conserving the Muppets
Early Henson- Sam and Friends
On the superships that figure into Captain Phillips
Did Hollywood help the Nazis?

Missing Picture (2013) New York Film Festival

Director Rithy Panh recreates his years under the Khmer Rouge using dioramas and a few scraps of film footage from the Khmer's own propaganda films. The result is film that is largely an informative look at life under a mad regime.

The story begins when Panh was 12 and the Khmer's took over the country. Emptying the cities they forced everyone into reeducation camps where they were worked to death and starved for their troubles. Panh lays out what life was like in those hellish times as those in charge tried to force everyone back to some fictional glorious agrarian past.

With all his possessions gone, with all the pictures of his life gone Panh turns to dioramas in order to illustrate what he and his fellow countrymen  went through. Its a bold stroke that makes what was going to be a conventional look at the same story and turns it into something better. For whatever reason seeing the small figures makes the story more real then if we had been treated to actors and actresses. We are in the camps, and the swamps and the empty cities. Everything is highlighted by the use of the Khmer footage which reveals the world as the Khnmers wanted it seen. Its a scary tale.

For me the film is a wonderful primer of what happened when the Khmer's came calling. So long as the film remains focused on life in the camps we are getting a wonderful history lesson and being told one hell of a tale of survival.

The trouble is that somewhere in the final half hour Panh trails off. He stops telling us about life in the camps and begins waxing poetically. Narratively Panh simply says that after the war many people stayed in the villages to which they had been brought and that some people were never tried for their crimes. Its all anti-climatic as is his attempt to explain how the Khmer's took power in a final moment reference to land grabs and US bombings. Things were not that amorphously simple.

I liked this film a great deal. Actually I love the first half and merely like the second. That said this is a good film and is worth tracking down when it next screens on the 8th at the Film Festival.

The Immigrant (2013 New York Film Festival 2013

The Immigrant is one the rare films that doesn't end until the final fade out. What I mean by this is that until you get to the marvelous final closing shot the story is still spinning out. I say this because I don't want you to think you know what the film is about until the very end. I'm also saying this because you need to get all the way through this film to experience it's full effect.

The film is the story of Ewa, played by the marvelous Marion Cotillard. She has come to America in 1921 to make a new life for herself and her sister, who unfortunately is sick. Ewa's sister is taken to the hospital  at Ellis Island to recuperate or be returned to Poland if she doesn't. Meanwhile Ewa is labeled as woman of loose morals thanks to a ship board incident and is redirected to be immediantly sent back. While waiting on line to go back, she catches the eye of Bruno, played by Joaquim Phoenix, a burlesque manager/pimp with connections to the people in the right places.Bruno gets her out but there is a price to be paid. Forced to do things she doesn't want to in order to get the money to buy her sisters freedom, her fortunes seem to decline. However hope arises in the form Orlando, a magician played by Jeremy Renner. However Bruno and Orlando don't get along and soon the down hill slide becomes bumpy...

I didn't want to see this film at all. I didn't want down beat and depressing which is how the film seemed based on the descriptions. Frankly the only reason I went was that the other two films being screened for the press the same day looked to be full so I went early to see this to assure myself a seat for those films. Honestly I'm glad I went since this is one of the best films I've seen at the festival.

Where to begin?

Perhaps by saying yes the film is pure melodrama. Director James Gray said the film comes from a mixture of a Puccini opera and the stories his grand parents told him about coming to the US. He made the film in part to counter the typical coming to America was great stories that most people do. Coming to America was hard and sometimes you had to do things you would be ashamed of just to get by. Ewa's tale is full of things that she is ashamed of. Its telling is pure epic or opera.

Gray scores points in any number of places, chief amongst them is that there is a complexity to every character. No one is wholly good. No one wholly bad.  Its the complexity which keeps the melodrama from falling over into parody. Bruno, Ewa's manager/savior/pimp is the sort of character you can't get a bead on. Does he love her? Does he hate her? Is she just fodder? You never are sure, nor is he ever sure why he's doing what he is doing. Its a wonderful human way of being. Even Ewa has levels with in her as we see her steal money and turn nasty when needed.

The performances are amazing with Jeremy Renner being a complete surprise with his ability to disappear into his role. Honestly I couldn't believe it was him. Equally lost in her role is Cotillard as Ewa who seems to be a face we've never seen before despite having won an Oscar. Only Joaquim Phoenix seems out of place. Its not that his performance is bad, its not, rather it's that his force of personality steals the spotlight at every turn, which is not good in what is otherwise an ensemble film.

For much of the running time I was being dragged along looking at the pretty pictures and enjoying what I thought was a non-think melodrama. And then the end came and I realized that this was a much more complex film than I ever imagined. I won't say what the film is really about however I will tell you to take note of the religious facets of the tale for yourself.

This is a film that is going  improve with age, consideration and repeat viewings. Its a film of seemingly simplicity that hides a complexity that few modern American films ever attempt never mind reach.

This is a gem and one of the best films I've seen at the New York Film Festival.

A few words on the charming Le Week-End (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

Give Jeff Goldblum an Oscar Nomination now.  He's so good he's what you'll remember about Le Week End...

...which is sad because this film actually deserves more than just talking about Goldblum's need to get an Oscar for a supporting role.

This is the story of a couple (Jim Broadbent and Lindsay Duncan) who go to Paris for a weekend. They are a long married couple trying to rekindle something on their anniversary even as we find out they are verging on divorce. It begins with their getting a bad hotel room, then upgrading and then seeing the sights, fighting, making up and fighting some more.The eventually meet Goldblum who is an old friend of  Broadbent's. Goldblum invites them to a dinner party and... well that would be telling. Lets just say your heart will be touched you'll laugh a bit and maybe shed a tear.

Beautifully acted by all concerned, this is the way long time couples are. This is real and raw and frequently funny for any number of reasons. Hanif Kureishi's beautiful script makes this film completely unpredictable. And while we're at it let's give him an Oscar nomination for making something unlike 99.99% of stories floating out there. Real people and real dialog who would have thought it possible?

I should also mention if you're a Paris junkie the third character is the city itself.

This is one you're going to have to keep an eye out for because its going to run the danger of getting lost. I'm certain it will get great reviews, great word of mouth but its going to run the risk of getting lost in the shuffle.

The best thing I can say is just go see this small gem of a film.

A few more pictures at Tumblr- this time THE IMMIGRANT

My camera died during the press conference for THE IMMIGRANT this morning. I've managed to recover a few pictures and I've posted three of the best at tumblr. The pictures can be found here.

Jimmy P: Psychotherapy of a Plains Indian (2013) New York Film Festival 2013

Blackfoot Indian Jimmy Picard hasn’t been right since he came back from the second world war. Showing signs of brain trauma, headaches, occasional blindness and other symptoms, he travels from his home with his sister to a VA hospital in Topeka. There the doctors are baffled, he seems medically fine, but his problems persist. Could it be mental illness? Or could it be his native American background colliding with modern life? Unsure of what to do the doctors call in Georges Devereux anthropologist who also is a psychologist/psychiatrist as a last resort.

Based on a true story of a well-chronicled case of the talking cure this is film that is much too short for what it is. Less a whole film rather than a series of connected moments the film feels like this is a short version of a much longer film. Many sequences seem to start in the middle, there are references to things we never see and more telling a sense of an entire world that’s off screen. Normally its great when a film creates a world that bleeds off the screen, but in this case there is too much off screen. There is a sense we should know more about Mathieu Amalric‘s Devereux and his life in Europe. Also there isn’t a great deal of shading to Benicio Del Toro‘s Jimmy P. While we do find out a great deal about the troubles that sent him to the hospital, there is little sense to him as anything other than a giant wound. (I’m also incredibly disappointed the scenes involving Jimmy P at home are so cliché in the handling.) There is so much more to explore here that we never see.

Problems with the script aside the performances by Amalric and Del Toro are incredible and when the two begin to talk to each other you don’t want the exchanges to stop. When both actors are on screen sparks fly. Its such a joy to watch two actors at the top of their game tearing it all up. I just wish that there was more of the session for a longer duration- yes we get lots of scenes between the pair, but rarely do they go on for anything other than a couple of minutes. They are supposed to be spending an hour a day together and we should have gotten a sense of what at least one full session was really like, especially toward the end as Jimmy makes progress. The fact that the don’t go on longer is a major disappointment in the film.

While far from a bad film, it is quite good when firing on all its cylinders, outside of the across the board great performances, this film isn’t anything special.

Sadly this film about the talking cure is not a film that we’re likely to be talking about a couple of weeks after it’s theatrical release.

Sandro Aguilar: Dive Approach and Exit -From the New York Film Festival 2013's Views from the Avant-Garde

I am really mixed about Avant-Garde films. Some I like, manny are okay, and a good number of them I want to toss out the window. Being an open minded guy I do try the films as I come across them. This year I took the time and saw a couple of press screenings of films that are running in the huge Avant-Garde sidebar. (No offense guys this should be a festival unto itself)

The collections of shorts I saw made up the Sandro Aguilar: Dive Approach and Exit collection which will run later today.

I'm going to be honest here and say while I admired the visuals of all of the films anything beyond that was lost. I don't see the point. Call me heathen, but god damn the films were kind of pointless.

For the record the films screened were:

DIVE: APPROACH AND EXIT (12m) which involves a man on a dock getting into a wet suit so he can do a night inspection
SIGNS OF STILLNESS OUT OF MEANINGLESS THINGS (28m)- This film was run without subtitles and concerns a diver, a man collecting things in the wilderness, a woman with two kids in a museum/lab and a man wandering around said museum/lab with a flashlight. It looks identical to the previous film in someways but the lack of subtitles reduced any understanding.
MERCURIO (MERCURY) (18m) A man meets a woman in a car while we view things throughreflections of trees through windows
ARQUIVO (ARCHIVE) (19m) We watch a fish die.

I leave the choice to see them or not up to you.