About Dry Grasses (2023)

A big favorite at this past New York Film Festival ABOUT DRY GRASSES tells the story of a school teacher in a small village in the Anatolia region of Turkey. As he prepares to finish up his fourth year at the school complications arise.

This is a really good film. I had wanted to see it at NYFF but the run time of three and a half hours made it difficult because of how it ran across other films. I was also wary because I was afraid of getting locked into a really long film at the festival where it might be difficult to bolt.

I should not have worried. This film is compelling film. Watching the film for my year end catch up I figured that if I didn't like it I could just move on to something else.  However from the first frame to the last I was held captive by the film. I was completely engaged with the people up on the screen. I was carried away.  To be honest I really don't know if the film needed to be 217 minutes, I started to waiver a bit after two hours, but at the same time I wasn't going anywhere because I wanted to see where it was headed.

If you want a great drama and have the time, I highly recommend ABOUT DRY GRASSES.

Armageddon Time (2022) Thanksgiving Turkey

When I first saw Armageddon Time at the New York  Film festival I walked about 40 minutes in. I couldn’t take the film’s cartoonish presentation of a family. It didn’t feel real. Instead of reviewing it I ran Liz Whittemore’s piece from Reel News Daily. I figured I’d try it again when it was released to theaters. I was going to take another bite because several people I know really liked it, and because one friend said the film’s events ran close to what happened to him.

Having seen it a second time I still don’t like it. Its still a cartoon. Yes I now see how the film mirror’s real life but the film still is  badly acted cartoon.

Set in 1980 in Queens New York the film follows a well to do white family as changes come calling on them rocking their world.

This is the sort of bad film where you want to get up and scream at the screen in an attempt to make the actors and filmmakers do better. Watching it you are uncomfortable because the film is so disconnected from reality, despite looking kind of like reality. I understand this film was based on actual events but the presentation is so cartoonish  that none of it plays real. You look at the family structure and you see a family and then they open their mouths and the words and accents coming out of the mouths are something from bad TV sitcom rejiggered into a social drama.

I was pained watching the film because I had a sense that everyone on screen was giving the worst performance of their careers and I was mortified for them. Everyone was off, with the kids coming off as truly obnoxious and not sympathetic.

I don't know if it's the script or the direction or the editing, but what ever the reason this movie stinks it's all James Gray's fault. If nothing else with him at the helm this should have been better. There should have been real characters not cut outs. The kids should have been kids and not like someone who was never a kid's idea of what it is like to be a kid.  Worse everything  feels like cut outs are being moved around and not people living their lives.

Watching this film twice was one of the worst cinematic experiences of my life- and considering the crap I've seen that is saying something. Indeed I sat through films so bad the management of the theaters actually gave me free passes because I was the only one to make it the ending of the film without walking out.

I think the best way to sum up this film is quoting the words of the my friend who saw his life on screen, he said that he saw painful chapters of his life played out before him but that he felt nothing because things had been handled so badly there was no emotion  and no connection to life as lived anywhere in the film.

Avoid this turkey.

Return to Seoul (2022) NYFF 2022

This is the sort of cinematic gem I go to the New York Film Festival to discover. This was one of the last films I saw at the fest an it was one of the best.

The film is about a young Korean woman who was given up for adoption as baby and raised by a couple in France. Over the course of the film she returns to Korea over several years attempting to reach out to her birth parents.

This in cinematic magic of the highest order. Its a film where everything comes together to make a film that makes you go wow and then want to shuttle off to a cafe and discuss it with whom ever you just saw it with.

Possessing a genuine narrative complexity that pushes the film into the realm of reality, this is a film you will think about for days afterward. I saw two films after this and my thoughts kept coming back to this film. I loved that the film is so real that we don't care that the film ends with lots and lots of unanswered questions- but it's not being lazy rather its purely the fact we are seeing moments in time.

And then there is the use of music, which includes a jaw dropping dance scenes that reveals so much without a single word.

WOW and WOW.

This is filmmaking and storytelling of the highest order.

Highly recommended

SR. (2022) NYFF 2022

This is a portrait of Robert Downey Sr that focuses on the relationship between the father and his son. It is a giant hug of a film that left me sobbing.

The filmmakers had wanted to make a film about Robert Downey Jr but he wasn't interested. He instead wanted to make a film about his dad and the films he made. What transpired  was that the two  men and their family ended up talking to the filmmakers and each other about the big guy and somewhere it became magic.

Not only is this a film about Sr and his films but about his son who clearly loves his dad and takes a great deal from him. The pair are friends and co-conspirators at times as they tell of their antics in and out of the film world. The film follows Sr as he puts together his own version of the project. It also charts how the family was affected by Covid and by the rapid onset of Sr.'s Parkinson's disease. It would take his life not long after he finished his version of the film.

I don't know what to say except I loved this film. Watching the pair of Robert Downeys on the screen I was struck by how their relationship mirrored the relationship I had with my dad in his final years. Sequences hit  me like a ton of bricks as I saw myself reflected in the events happening before me. This is not to say that the film won't work if you don't connect to it, rather it's simply to state that I some how ended up with skin in the game.

As a film unto itself SR  rocks. Its a glorious portrait of a man whose films (PUTNEY SWOPE, GREASERS PALACE among others) altered how filmmakers saw what could be done with film. It also a wonderful portrait of a man with a wicked sense of humor and wonderful turn of a phrase. Listening to Sr make jokes and crackwise with his sun and wife is just so much fun. 

What makes this film special is that this is the rare "Hollywood" doc where the people in it come off not as high and mighty but rather damn near close to us. Yea they have more money but they come off as regular people.

I love this film to death. It is so warm and inviting. It's a big hug of a film.

Highly recommended.

Liz Whittemore of Reel News Daily on Will-o’-the-Wisp (2022) NYFF 2022

With roughly a 60-minute runtime, I was bewildered by this film. NYFF60 got an eyeful with Will-o’-the-Wisp, a Portuguese musical romcom that exploded with themes from climate change, colonialism, and an LGBTQ love story, all wrapped in an unapologetically erotic package. As a man lay on his deathbed in 2062, he reminisces about his love affair with a fire brigade colleague in 2022. The film begins with sold humor in its historical tableaus, garnering laughs in breaking the fourth wall in Shakespearian aside style. Our lead is the reluctant crown Prince Alfredo, whose passion for the environment and his fellow fire brigade members takes precedence over his royal duties. With long takes and genre-jumping comes an uneven pace as we bounce through time, from theme to theme. The film features a pornographic mutual masturbation scene and numerous projected images of penises. One particular scene stands out above all else. To call it a musical feels untruthful were it not for one singularly spectacular choreographed number. This lengthy scene manages to be beautiful and funny all at once. I was longing for more of this. I was mesmerized. Once finished, I was heartily disappointed with the remaining narrative.

For more from Liz go to her regular home at Reel News Daily

New York Film Festival 2022 Photos

 Here are some of the best photos I took from this years New York Film Festival

Outside the Walter Reade theater the day before the festival opened

 

The Filmmakers Box after the first public screening of TAR

TAR in the rain

Outside Alice Tully before BONES AND ALL

Park Chan-wook 

Discussing R.M.N. from a long way away

Discussing SR

No Bears (2022) NYFF 2022

Jafar Panahi travels to a border town in order to direct a  movie remotely. The actors and film crew are across the border and are taking directions via Zoom.  As Panahi struggles to get the film finished be becomes involved with two sets of lovers, two of the actors, and two people in the village where he is staying. Both pairs want to flee to somewhere safe, something that might not be possible

Panahi is not loved by the Iranian government. As this film was hitting the festival circuit the director was being put into prison. Prior to that they had tried to restrict his ability to make films but he managed to work around the obstructions. The result has been a unique series of films where the filmmaker is the subject and the films transcends the notion of autobiographical cinema.

This time out Panahi has made one of his most affecting films. Forget his personal situation, this story of life in a small town and in a repressive country will leave you shattered at the end. Panahi is juggling a lot of balls in the air and manages to manipulate them perfectly. First we have his situation which is basically hiding out in a small town to make a movie he shouldn't be making. In showing us what it takes to make his film we see how the small minds of the village express an openness that really isn't. there This ties into the story of one of the couples, a doomed romance Panahi captures in a photo, that everyone wants to see, but which he deletes and denies having. It seems the young woman has been promised since birth to someone she doesn't love and that someone needs proof to hurt the girls true love.  At the same time the lead couple in Pahani's film are making a film based on their lives and their efforts to flee to the West. However the need for official documents complicate things. All of the threads end in darkness for the characters and soul searching for the audience.

I love Panahi's films. I make every effort to see everyone I can because he always speaks a truth that needs to be heard. I also find that how he is forced to make films ends up making films that are much more real than if were making just a straight narrative.  They are so much more interesting because we have to think about how he did what is up on the screen. His are films that are alive and in the moment.

I was rocked by this film. I did not expect the turns, and yet every one is perfectly placed.

One of the best films I saw at this years New York Film Festival, it is a must for anyone who loves humanity.

Personality Crisis:One Night Only (2022) NYFF 2022

Loving portrait of David Johansen, aka Buster Poindexter,by directors Martin Scorsese and David Tedeschi centered around a performance st New York City's Cafe Carlyle.

If you only know Johansen thanks to his Poindexter persona you are going to be in for a treat. I say that because you will get to see all of the most amazing things that Johansen has done over the past 50 plus years. We get to see the founding of the New York Dolls, who some say created punk rock (when the band puked on stage) , his delving into the blues, his party music with Poindexter, being on the list of one hit wonders twice and so much more.  There are tons of stories told via the performance, interviews, and video and unless you are Morrissey (yes the former lead singer of The Smiths and huge fan) odds are you will not have heard most of them.

And even if you are not into the stories there is the music. Most of the film is  the cabaret performance which takes in a wide swath of songs from across his  career and it's a joy. Its a wonderful collection of material that reveals how good Johansen is as both a writer and a singer. The performance is supplemented by TV and film performances.  The result is a greatest hits of sorts that will make you run out and buy some of Johansen's records.

It should be noted that the film is in no way to be considered a definitive biography, but more an appreciation. This is a film that celebrates its subject and seeks to spread the joy, as a result it is a pure joy.

I loved this film. I can't wait for it to play Showtime so I can just put it on and listen to it repeatedly.

Liz WHittemore of Reel News Daily on Bones and All (2022) NYFF 2022

 

Lucky audiences at NYFF60 had the chance to experience BONES AND ALL, one of the buzziest films to come out of the Venice Film Festival, with its eight-and-a-half-minute standing ovation. At this point, it is hard to imagine that you haven’t heard about it. It is thoroughly accurate to describe it as the following: “A coming-of-age romantic cannibal road film” Directed by Luca Guadagnino, Bones and All comes from a screenplay by David Kajganich, based on the 2015 novel of the same name by Camille DeAngelis. It centers on Maren’s father abandoning her at age eighteen, leaving behind an audio tape as her only guidance and explanation. This narration is an overarching theme during Maren’s journey. Left to fend for herself after years of life on the run with her father, she stumbles across another “eater” named Sully. When he makes her uneasy, she runs again, only to bump into Lee on the road. The two form a bond based on survival and their need to consume flesh. As they travel cross country, the menace from other eaters proves to be the most spine-chilling aspect of their relationship. 

Part of this story features Maren tracking down the mother she’s never met. In what would essentially prove to be a brilliant monologue, Chloë Sevigny‘s brief screentime makes you sweat. Michael Stuhlbarg is incredibly unsettling as fellow drifter Jake. When you discover that he’s teaching a non-eater how to do what they do, it feels wrong and so very right. Stuhlbarg crushes every role. Here, it took me a few minutes to realize it was him. Jake is a dirty, overalls-wearing backwoods soul and proud of it. It’s scary good.

Mark Rylance, who I have had the privilege of seeing on Broadway in Twelfth Night (yes, I had the coveted seats onstage), is hands down the most uncomfortable aspect of Bones and All. His performance borders on caricature and yet somehow works like gangbusters. From his straggly ponytail and fedora to his flair-spangled jacket, Rylance will have you eating out of the palm of his hand, whether you want to or not. Pun intended.

Timothée Chalamet as Lee is nothing but charming. He oozes casual suave. It should come as no surprise to anyone who knows his work. Bones and All reconnects Chalamet with Luca Guadagnino. One could argue that Call Me By Your Name was Chalamet’s star vehicle at NYFFF55. Bones and All is just as bold. Chalamet brings a punk edge and a caring nature opposite Taylor Russell. As Maren, she’s measured and soft. Her approach to adults shows a curated maturity. It’s a perfect balance to Chalamet. Together, they capture the innocence of young love, even if they’re pulling the wool over people’s eyes for a meal.

Bones and All is one of the most visceral films in history. As a horror fan (one might even call me a fanatic), I have seen and heard it all. Bones and All had me squirming and gagging and utterly entranced. It gives new meaning to “a visual feast for the eyes.” It will not be a film for everyone. It is best to go into your viewing experience with little to no knowledge, but that may feel like a bait and switch to some viewers. You can find out if you have the stomach for BONES AND ALL when A24 releases it on November 18th. Bring an open mind, and leave the snacks at home.

For more from Liz go to her regular home at REEL NEWS DAILY

RMN (2022) NYFF 2022

Cristian Mungiu's R.M.N. is a damning look at racism and the fear of the other that pervades the world.

The plot of the film has a man named Matthias returning to his home after punching his boss through a door when the boss called him a gypsy.  In the small village he really can't find work, there are no well paying jobs and most people are fleeing to elsewhere in Europe for the same well paying jobs. The lack of decent pay is a problem since the local bakery can't find workers so they are bringing in people from Bangladesh. As the villagers, many of them actually transplants from Hungary, begin to threaten the dark skinned new comers Matthias finds his life unspooling.

Mangiu's film is a killer. This is a look at the world as it is as people flail about in fear of the "invaders" coming into their towns unaware that they are seen the same way elsewhere in the world. My jaw was hanging open through much of the film since a lot of this plays as if its actually a documentary.

The feeling of this being a documentary was  strongest in the film's centerpiece a 17 minute single take town meeting where the layers of civility are peeled away and the darkness in everyone's heart is laid bare. It's one of the truly great moments (or 17 minutes) in the cinema of 2022.  It's based on a video of an actual town meeting from the area where the film is set. The real video shook things up and forced resignations. Here the sequence left the audience dazed and broken as we see just how badly we are screwed.

After the film there were long long conversations. So many people wanted to talk to Cristian Mungiu he said he would go on instagram to talk to anyone with questions. Hubert Vigilla and I  were so rocked we ended up going to a late dinner because we had to talk about the film. A week on I'm still pondering the film and what it's revelations say about the world.

What a shattering film.

Highly recommended- especially in this us vs them world we live in.

Thoughts on the new restoration of Solaris(1972) which played NYFF 2022 with a live score

I'm not going to re-review SOLARIS having done so almost a decade ago here at Unseen Films (the review is here) however I will talk about the new restoration and the live score that played at the New York Film Festival. Going to see this film was at the top of my must do at the festival list and it was the first ticket I bought over all the other bigger event films.

I've been watching SOLARIS is differing forms for the better part of 35 years now. I originally saw it at the Cinema Arts Center in Huntington New York, and I've seen it several times since then on VHS, DVD and on the big screen. It's always been a treat for me to go back to the planet and see what new thoughts it kicks up.

This time out there was a new restoration. After seeing it in all sorts of versions I have to say that this is the best version yet. It's a stunner to such a degree that I noticed bits and pieces of the set I hadn't seen before. I was was looking to read what was written on various signs and labels- despite not knowing Russian I had never done that before. I felt I was on the space station and not just watching a movie.  Its so good I may actually get a new copy when it hits home video.

The film played with a new live score by Matthew Nolan and Stephen Shannon and it was a magical experience. Its a towering achievement that adds a great deal to the film. While I know purists might squawk at the changes the score made to the film, I think it worked and added an emotional coloring that allowed those of us familiar with the film and the story to look at the themes and ideas fromi a slightly different perspective. 

How good is the score I inquired  the next day at the press office about plans to screen the film with the new score as well as the ability to get a copy for myself (as of this writing the answers are to be forth coming)

I had a blast at the screening and it was one of the true highlights of the festival

Liz Whittemore of Reel News Daily on Aftersun (2022) NYFF 2022

Liz Whittemore of Reel News Daily drops by with thoughts on AFTERSUN which mlayed the new York Film Festival and hits theaters Friday

One of the most surprisingly intimate NYFF60 films centering on a father-daughter relationship, Charlotte Wells‘ AFTERSUN, hits you square in the chest, over and over. Eleven-year-old Sophie and her father, Calum, go on their annual holiday. A resort in Turkey is the backdrop of a screenplay that has three distinct narratives playing out simultaneously. By which I mean AFTER SUN is a coming-of-age film, a story of depression and the unbreakable bond between a parent and their child.

It is quickly apparent Calum is struggling with his mental health but attempts to make the most of his time with Sophie. Like most kids, she is keenly aware of her father’s tendency to please, regardless of his financial circumstance. Their vacation, while average to Sophie, proves to be their last.

The film utilizes camcorder footage. Sophie is behind the camera. The film’s cinematography also lends to the intimacy, with close-ups of hands and faces, as well as the use of reflections, in everything from mirrors to glass doors and television sets. Besides the fantastic costumes marking the 90s, the soundtrack makes it loud and clear while subtly enhancing the story. Carefully chosen tracks like “Under Pressure,” even though it’s from 1981, speak volumes.

There are moments in the film that appear unusual until you realize the larger picture. Calum frustratingly attempts to teach Sophie a self-defense technique that feels inappropriate for her age. He is unbothered by her confession of a first kiss and more focused on the fact that she felt comfortable sharing about her life. He offers her a sip of beer. What draws us into the screenplay is an intoxicating mix of awkward moments juxtaposed by a relationship one strives to have with their offspring. The care Calum expresses, the time feels weighted and invested.

Paul Mescal is extraordinary. The emotional highs and lows draw you into the film. If you’re a parent, they also cause concern for Sophie’s well-being Frankie Corio is a revelation as Sophie. She is funny, spontaneous, observant, and fearless. Mescal and Corio share an onscreen bond that feels genuinely familial. I was blown away by their chemistry. Charlotte Wells has an undeniable gem here in AFTER SUN. You must seek it out.

From writer/director Charlotte Wells and starring Paul Mescal and Frankie Corio. AFTERSUN – Only in Theaters October 21. #AfterSun

 DIRECTOR: Charlotte Wells CAST: Paul Mescal, Frankie Corio, Celia Rowlson-Hall

For More From Liz go to her regular home at Reel New Daily

She Said (2022) NYFF 2022

Maria Schrader’s look at the the reporting that broke the Harvey Weinstein case is an uneven but ultimately moving account of  reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey struggling to get the facts.

I have had a lot of discussions of what the film is and is not and what the film left out or changed.  After the film everyone wanted to talk. All of these discussions, with film writers who have hate-ons for Weinstein, were interesting to a point but all were less about what the film was but more about how they would have done it differently,  most insisting that the film failed because it didn't deal with events outside of the story of the two women at the center of the film. Why wasn't anyone meeting the film head on and discussing it for what it was and not what it might have been?

I took the film head on for what it is and I ended up liking it a great deal.  Playing like a kind of ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN for the modern age its a lot of people talking on cellphones and knocking on doors. Cellphones are the way of the world (despite several reviews taking the film to task for showing how things were) and while they are not the most exciting things visually it is how we communicate now.  While the film doesn't have the life or death stakes of the earlier film it still gets tense because unless we are well versed in the story we don't know what Weinstein might do.

I was moved by the film several times during it. It wasn't the predictable crowd cheering moments that moved me but small moments such as when Jodi Kantor's young daughter mentioned rape and said the boys were talking about it and you suddenly realized how such a vile act is trivialized. Other moments moments had heavy impacts thanks to great supporting performances.

And that brings me to what I see as the one real flaw in the film and that is that as written Kantor and Twohey are the least interesting characters on screen. there is very little to them. They are reporters and they are mothers and that's all we know about them. We get no sense of them outside of that. In ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN we got a sense of Woodward and Bernstein through the things on their desks (the things on the yellow pad that gets added to) or the odd ticks of the characters, there is no shading here. I know part of it is the nature of cellphones which results in people just standing and talking in random spaces (there are no desks, so nothing on them to give visual clues) but a good part is the writing which eliminates any talk of anything outside of the story or being a mother.

Thankfully the cast is so good across the board that we really don't notice it much since we are carried along by performances that are so good the actors disappear into their roles.

I really liked this film. Say what you will, this attack on sexual predators in Hollywood and elsewhere, the film begins with a broadside at Donald Trump, is a vital and important film, that also manages to be a damn compelling and, dare I say it, entertaining film.

Recommended

Decision to Leave (2022) NYFF 2022

A detective investigating the death of a mountain climber becomes obsessed with the dead man's wife. Things become complicated when the detective finds evidence that it may have been murder instead of an accident.

Park Chan-wook  make what he calls a "romantic comedy" and the result are a funny but completely heartbreaking film. Yes, the film will make you laugh at times at the comfortableness of a man lost in love, but as things proceed the film turns slowly tragic as the would be lovers are pushed farther and farther apart by circumstances and their own prejudices.  The result is one of the most crushing endings in years.

This is a great film, it's a technical marvel that if fun to watch to just see the craft of the film. This is a technical tour de force and it reveals just how good Park Chan-wook really is. The best part is that as the film winds down the film hooks us emotionally. We care about the characters on a deeper level then we would in a typical rom com...though somewhere in the second half the (decidedly dark) rom com gives way to grand tragedy.

The Sunday afternoon screening at the New York Film Festival was a blast, despite turning out some of the most violent and ugly films Park Chan-wook is a very funny guy especially when trading quips with Park Hae-il. He's a guy you would want to have a beer with and just shoot the breeze. Listening to him talk made me love the film more. It was a joy finally getting to see him speak after being a fan of his for decades.

Recommended for anyone who likes to mix light and darkness in their romance.

Liz Whittemore of Reel News Daily on Armageddon Time- (2022) NYFF 2022

 

Writer-director James Gray brings his childhood to life in NYFF60's feature Armageddon Time. The story centers on twelve-year-old Paul, his familial chaos entering sixth grade, and the global backdrop of 1980 running up to Reagan's election. 

In the press conference that followed the screening, Gray explained the complexity of telling what he described as a "ghost story." His production design team worked off Gray's memories; what his china looked like, how his father was always concerned with lights being left on, leading to the actors being lit from adjacent rooms. He admits to telling an honest story, one in which he showed himself as the shithead he was at that age. While I'm not satisfied the film has the climax it needed, it's Gray's genuine portrayal of his characters that will stick in my gut.

Sir Anthony Hopkins plays Paul's grandfather, Aaron. Hopkins nails the role with charm and grace. He is a crucial moral compass for Paul but is also part of the broader problem. Gray explains how this microcosm of one family is just relevant today, stating that one can be oppressed and still be an oppressor. This idea is never more true as we watch Paul begin to understand white privilege while simultaneously wrestling with popularity, acting out, and physical discipline. 

I asked the cast to discuss their approach to the several physically confrontational scenes in the film. Anne Hathaway plays Paul's mother, Esther. She shared the importance of building a safe environment while portraying violence. Once trust existed between the cast and crew, it was easier to go to a darker place because they cared for each other like family. Jeremy Strong plays Paul's father, Irving, a contradictory man who has typical dorky dad moments but also possesses a violent temper. He acknowledged that he and young lead Banks Repeta had a safe word. Jaylin Webb, who is extraordinary as Johnny, discussed his excitement with his work in perfect child actor form, sharing that he and his fellow actors would frequently check in on his comfort level. 

Let me explain why the cast's explanations became of great significance. The most successful aspect of Gray's script is the nuance in character building. These are not sugar-coated versions of people, but characters in volatile times, racially and economically. Their flaws are exponentially recognizable, regardless of the year. Armageddon Time could be happening right now. The cynical nature of history and generational trauma will have audiences' hearts in their throats, shaking their heads in shame for much of the film. Therein lies the film's strongest achievement. 

For more from Liz Whittemore go to her regular home REEL NEWS DAILY

Women Talking (2022) NYFF 2022

For generations the men of the Colony drugged and raped their women in the middle of the night. The women were gaslit into thinking it was the work of Satan. When one of the rapists was caught the women revolted and attacked the rapists. Told by the men that they must forgive the rapists or be excommunicated and damned to hell the women are given two days to decide what to do- forgive the men,  fight the oppression or simply leave. When the vote is tied between fighting and leaving, two families were chosen to decide the fate of all the women. They retire to a barn to discuss what must be done.

Sarah Polley's film adaption of Miriam Towes novel is a very messy polemic. This isn't a film but a long pained scream into the night regarding sexual abuse and incest, specifically in a religious society, though it's pain comes from general hatred for misogyny as well.  Its a film that so wants to end the evils it sees that it never fully engages emotionally. It's so focused on the desire to get it's point across as to be clinical in it's telling. Worse the women discussing things are not fully formed characters but sketches with visual traits and speech patterns so we can tell them apart. They do not come across as women who have been held down for all their lives but a member from a debating team who loads every line of dialog with precise meaning... to the point that all of the women speak with the same voice. These are not women discussing their pain but Polley breaking up her sermon into different lines of dialog. While I understood going in this was to be a lecture, I didn't expect it to be one voice. If there wasn't to be any real drama I would have liked at least some semblance of a conversation.

Another problem with the film is that the spiritual side of the story isn't wholly there. These are deeply religious women, we know that because of the discussion they are having, but we never get any real sense of what it is. We get bits and pieces of what the women believe, especially in a late in the game discussion of how leaving informs their belief's desire for pacifism  but it isn't near enough to fully feel any notion of what the women do or why this discussion is so shattering to them.  The religion is just sort of there.

The film has other problems as well, specifically with plotting of the threadbare drama in that it doesn't move, it lurched forward by the hand of writer director Polley who probably pare too much of the source novel.  There is no narrative flow, rather it's all a series of moves by the hand of  the director to move things along. The Daydream Believer playing census taker gives us one bit of information and firmly let us know the film is set in 2010 despite the film feeling about 80 years earlier. Other lines/incidents seem to be shown to us not for a narrative reason but to make sure we know that things, say incest, is happening despite there being other clues. I would not be against them in a film that had more of a narrative structure but things are there just to add backing to the point. The fact that the film's narrative is weak can best be seen in the romance/non-romance involving Ona and the young man named August who returned to the colony which feels completely out of place, largely because we have no backstory. There is something there but Polley pushes it aside.

The film also suffers from its very existence as a film, in that this is something that would have been better on stage where the static nature of the discussions would have been par for the course. It also would have allowed more acceptance of the out of left field turns, and life being in a moment.

Despite being moved to tears twice in the film (once when August says that Ona's child will be able to read what he wrote and the other when the blind girl joins the women)  I never was connected to the "drama" on screen, because there really isn't one.  As I said above this is a polemic or lecture which wins its argument from the first frame but then repeats itself for 105 minutes. This is not to say anything against what the film is saying, rather that if it was hoping to change minds and win hearts it should have given us more than partly drawn characters to care about.  

While WOMEN TALKING is an earnest heart felt film with much to say its also a film whose presentation hobbles its ability to do so.

The Adventures of Gigi the Law (2022) NYFF

It opens with an almost ten minute single argument about trees where Pier Luigi (Gigi of the title and the directors uncle) argues with someone off screen about the trees on his property. The film then follows Gigi in a series of long takes as he goes through his daily routine patrolling around his village and deals with a rash of suicides where people throw themselves in front of trains.

A blending of documentary and narrative, this is a film where much is not said and not seen (things happen off screen). It a film that moves at the pace of the country. There are long car rides where nothing happens. There are conversations, some of which are mundane. For example an officer riding with Gigi discusses the need to have the grass cut in one location for safety reasons. At other times the discussions are more philosophical.  We are not given everything. Gigi is revealed to be a ladies man, but we don't really see it. Other details are just left hanging. There are no big chases or crazy action just life unwinding at its own pace.

I liked this film, but I was in the mood for something different. I was ready for an off beat character study and I was willing to go with the slow pace and long takes. At the same time I could completely understand if some people fell asleep on the film because it's a bit too leisurely...

...on the other hand Gigi is quite a character and a joy to hang out with.

Worth a look.

BONES AND ALL (2022) NYFF 2022

Young woman is forced to go out on her own when her cannibalistic tendencies result in tragedy. Along the way she meets other people like her as well as falling in love with a young man just like her.

The brilliant first half hour where the mythos of the 'eaters" randomly born cannibals that must consume human flesh, bones and all, is as good a horror set up as we've had in decades.  Promising a world where the monsters are regular people doomed to a lonely existence of consuming humans, it sets up the possibility for an entirely new horror universe.  It is as good a world building exercise as I have ever run across and I found my self leaning in to try and learn more about these "mutants" with super abilities.

The problem is that once the romance starts the film goes from ground breaking, to been there and done that. Largely squashing the eaters threads for young love and only bringing them back in order to provide shocks for the lovers to over come, the film becomes far less interesting as we know how this is all going to go  including  the ending because at no point does it veer away from the well worn paths or Checkov's rule that a Sully in each act points towards a final confrontation. Whats worse is that the film is so unimaginative that it repeatedly will infer events in the past, say about Lee's father, giving us just enough for us to imagine terrible things, only to then show us what happened finding out they were infinitely less that what was in our heads. My reaction was constantly "that's it?"

I know that this film has shocked many, but out side of the first hard turn, there isn't anything anyone who hasn't seen a bunch of the recent horror films, including the likes of NEAR DARK,  hasn't seen before.

Blandness aside I did like the film, I just don't understand the mad love some people have shown it. Horror fans will want to see it as it gives them a whole new world 

Human Flowers of Flesh (2022) NYFF 2022

The actual pull quote from the Cineuropa at the top of their review for this film is "the slowest example of slow cinema in recent memory".  While I don't think it's the slowest example, I absolutely don't think this is for anyone who wants any sort of pacing in their films. I mean the film begins with watching a group of people walk down to the sea with the camera holding each shot after they leave the frame. After that we get shots of people sitting and talking, sitting, a short segment that mirrors Derek Jarman's BLUE and some other stuff.

The problem with all of that and the other stuff really goes no where. Yes, it's supposed to have something with the woman at the "center"  of the tale boating around and pondering the life of the Legionnaires but none of that is really on the screen. Seriously there isn't enough material in the film to have it make sense despite what the filmmakers and festival programmers will insist is there. 

Simply put I don't think this film adds up to much.  Its a lot of pretty pictures with nothing much to link them up except wishful thinking. Sure if you love pretty films on a big screen (or need sleep) this is worth a look but unless you like films just short of paint drying and cryptic

Is That Black Enough For You? (2022) NYFF 2022

 

This is the best I can do right now in  the area of a review. I say this because I started to write a piece which annotated the film in order to give context to the the things, the films and the people that the film mentioned but glossed over. I desperately wanted to give you the reader a better context of what was in the film because too much is mentioned and not enough context is given. After several hours of fighting it I cut it all back and just went with a review.

Elvis Mitchell's IS THAT BLACK ENOUGH FOR YOU? should have been a series, or in the words of fellow Unseen Films writer Randi when I was speaking to her after the screening, a graduate level college course. As vital as the film is more often then not the film gets lost with the massive data dump of names and people it is attempting to present to the audience with not enough context.

Nominally a look at Black Cinema from 1968 to 1978, the film is also a look at how Mitchell's view of film was shaped going all the way back to when his grand mother discovered the movies and her dreams became stories. The period covered is the period where the portrayal of Blacks in films changed thanks to films like the mainstream IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT and the low budget and independent  films that started what would become Blacksploitation under the leadership of directors like Melvin Van Peebles, Ossie Davis and Gordon Parks further pushed the envelope further. It follows things to the point in 1978 when THE WIZ died and made Hollywood think twice about making Black films

The easiest way to explain this film is to say is that there is a great deal to unpack here and quite honestly after a very good start Mitchell loses his way. He aims to tell us every thing  but it gets away from him. In covering the early years Mitchell speaks specifically about the films and how things changed. We get a context for everything. We know why things matter.

The trouble is as as time movies forward Mitchell pickes up the pace and begins to flood us with films, names and events, and in doing so he begins to drop the context. We are left with little understanding of many of the films, especially important ones like COOLEY HIGH, which changed perceptions and influenced hundreds of films that came after. Why are the the films after say 1972 being put front and center when other films are not? Mitchell doesn't really tell us, he simply assumes we know the films already.

Mitchell also is narrow in his focus as to who is important, Poitier, Belafonte, Van Peebles, Davis and Parks are named directors  of importance but someone like Michael Schultz, who did COOLEY HIGH and CAR WASH, as well as others while not being a media darling is not.  Why isn't Fred Williamson mentioned beyond THE LEGEND OF (BLACK) CHARLIE, since his framing of how his characters were presented altered the way many people saw lead?

While there is nothing wrong with what is here, you really have to understand that there is way way more to this story. Each film fed on what went before and didn't exist in a vacuum. Here many of the films stand alone and are not tied together and we need to know the connections to understand more fully the history. 

This really is a story that needs multiple hours of screen time to explore. If you need proof consider that the whole soundtrack thread, which seems to steer the second half of the film,  needs several hour unto itself.  The film needs more because even to discuss this ten year period you need to know more of what went before and you need to know where things went after this because despite Mitchell rushing through what happened next this time period set up seismic shocks that would soon change cinema as we know it.

To be honest I do like the film, but there is simply way too much being left out. As such this film is a good starting point, but the truth is there is much more that needs to be told.