Brief thoughts on CAT CALL (2023) Fantaspoa 2024

Fani can't fall in love. Imagining the death of every man she meets she won't get involved with anyone. However, when she meets her new neighbor, she begins a relationship with his cat since she can hear him talk.

This is an amusing little romcom. Echoing the off kiltered flights of fantasy in things like AMELIE or WONDERFALLS this is a film that walks its own path. Additionally, like those works this is a film that is not going to click with everyone. That's perfectly fine since those who connect with the film are going to find a new favorite film. 

I had a good time.

Definitely worth a look for anyone who likes their romcoms quirky.

A restortation The Werchmeister Harmonies opens Friday

This is a repost review from the very early days of Unseen

Werchmeister Harmonies is Bela Tarr's much heralded work of great beauty and unease. It is a film best viewed, like all of his films, in a dark room with limited interruptions. It is a film that will hang with you and dance about in your head in odd ways. I'm not sure it's quite the classic that some people have proclaimed it but I do think that its worth seeing.

The film focuses on Janos, a young man living in a small village in Hungary. He is clearly smarter than the people around him. One need only see the opening set piece where he explains eclipses to a bar room full of people, to know that he is much more clever than everyone else. Janos takes care of one of his uncles who is a sick intellectual trying to work of the philosophy of music (the title comes from that).

One night while delivering newspapers he watches as a tractor pulls a huge trailer into the town square. Inside of its stark metal walls are the seeds of dissension and destruction for many in the small village, including Janos himself. More specifically inside the trailer is the stuffed carcass of a whale and the home of The Prince, some person of small stature who is rightly viewed with suspicion because it is said the things he says spur evil (and how right that is).

As night turns to day and the trailer opens its door for business, events are set in motion that will take a terrible toll on everyone in the small village.

Say what you will, once you've seen a Bela Tarr film you'll be able to recognize them a mile off. For some filmmakers a recognizable visual style is often a kind of death kiss, in that you get to a point where you know how things are going to go. An example is one of my favorite directors Peter Greenaway, whose recent films often descend into a static image in image style that comes off as a laziness to anyone who's familiar with the other films he's directed. Tarr, as far as I've seen has never run into that problem. Yes he shoots his films in a moody black and white that seem to place the films in a weird world on the edge of reality, but where that is is always changing. The "here" of the film is not like any other film, except that many of his films are set in the villages of his native land. Additionally his use of long extended takes, there are no quick cuts, the camera moves about within a scene, almost never gets tiring because more times than not the technique puts us into the action; we are there with the people in the scene and not some truly outside observer.

This is a film you fall into...like a nightmare. From the opening off kilter explanation of planetary mechanics onward to the haunting final images of an almost deserted village square this is a film draws you in and takes you along as the nice orderly world goes mad. Unlike Janos' explanation that the moment of darkness in an eclipse will give way to light, this is a film where that moment of darkness becomes something else entirely. It is the end of the world in many ways.

The evil at work here is insidious. For much of the film I listened to all of the stories of terrible things going on and I figured they were just stories because, like Janos, we really didn't see anything. Then then, slowly things begin to go amiss, people begin to want things and to step outside of the order of things... things go off kilter. This is thanks to the words of the Prince, a character we hear but never really see. He is a beast of the worst sort, a madman who does terrible things, not for any reason other than he can. Read what you will into it.

Actually read what you will into much of the film. This is a film rife with enigmas and potential meanings. Little is explained, things just are. We are given enough that we can follow along and make inferences and speculate, but there isn't enough to fully have concrete answers. If one looks this film up at IMDB and elsewhere one can easily find multiple meanings and explanations. Its a head trip of the best sort.

I like this film. I'm not one of the people who rave about it and think its one of the greatest films ever made, but I do like it a great deal (personally I like Tarr's earlier Damnation better). I like the dream like quality of it (even if it is a nightmare). I like that you fall into it and it takes you to some place very different than you're used to. Mostly I like that the film makes you think and takes it for granted that the audience has a brain and can work out any meaning on their own.

And I love the images. The stark black and white images, including the stereotypical one of Janos gazing into the whales eye (see above), are the sort of things that stay with you just out of view. Basically this is one of those films you want to hang on your wall and let play just for the art of it.

It's a beautiful dark nightmare of a film that is worth taking the time to see.

Recently restored, the restoration begins playing in theaters starting Friday

Halfway Home (2023) Fantaspoa 2023

 

You are either going to love HALFWAY HOME or you are not. It’s a whimsical tale that is going to those of you who don’t see the magic in everyday life.

The film is the story of a couple who met when they were infants in a burning hospital. One was rescued by a nurse, the other by a woman who took the child and raised the boy as her nephew. Years later  they literally collide while riding bicycles. It’s a meet cute that leads to a an almost first date. When the boy misses the date the girl ends up killed in an accident. He body is brought to the morgue where the boy works as a security guard who is tasked with helping the dead come back to life for a brief period to finish up things before they pass one.

It's an incredibly whimsical tale that will put a smile on your face.

It’s also a film that has its own tone. Playing kind of like what might have happened if Tim Burton directed the TV series PUSHING DAISIES, the film seems like it’s something else, except that it’s not. This is a film with it’s own sense of the universe and it’s own mythology. That’s something that I didn’t fully appreciate until I saw the film for a second time. It was only on that repeat viewing that I truly heard the film’s unique voice.

This is a sweet and charming film and one that is worth your time, especially if you want a little magic in your life.

THE ROUND UP (1967) NYFF2021

 One of Bela Tarr’s favorite directors Miklós Jancsó tells the story of the attempt to round up rebels and get information on the leaders after the 1848 rebellion.  It’s a moody black and white film that feels akin to Tarr’s work but instead of long static shots we get a constantly prowling camera. 

This is a beautifully constructed film that slowly drags us into the events and makes us want to lean in and see what is going on.

To be honest this film was not on my list of films to cover at the festival, I ha no real idea what it was. However the opportunity fell into my lap and I took. As a result THE ROUND UP is going to end up as one of the great finds not only of the New York Film Festival but also the year.

Highly recommended.

Damnation (1987) NYFF 2020

This film is one that is full of potential meaning, whether the director feels that way or not. To me this is a film where taking the film as the director intended, as a straight forward film, is not the best way to see this film. To me this is one of the few times when the creator 's work is not as he has intended but has instead become something else.

Bela Tarr's mediation on interpersonal relationships (and perhaps, the end of the world) is a simple tale of a man in a small town who is obsessed with a singer in a night club. She's married but doesn't completely deflect his advances. Where it goes is the story as the man pursues what his heart desires.

Dark brooding tale filled with Tarr's patented long takes seems to be set in another world or another time (perhaps it's an after life). It's a hypnotic trip about the nature of obsession and how we view ourselves. If you click with it and its possibilities this is a great rumination on a variety of things, if not it's a pretentious and tedious exercise.

I've read that director Bela Tarr insists that the film (as he insists about all his films) is a portrait of life "as it is" but I would be hard pressed to say that this is any sort of reality except perhaps a reality of the internal. The film's stark and beautiful black and white photography creates a world that seems forever in a mist or rain. It is a place like our own and yet different.

People speak in ways that don't seem wholly normal. Verse is quoted as is the bible. No one speaks that way. Musicians play music but how they play doesn't quite match up with the music we hear. The mine carts that we see over head seem to be moving the damned to and from this place and not ore (indeed we never see either end of the line). Tarr says there is nothing allegorical or metaphoric implied or intended but I would argue that the film doesn't function as a straight narrative. Too much is off kilter, too much fails to connect for this to be real life.

I'm not saying that the story of obsession, of a man doing what he feels he must to obtain the object of his desire doesn't work if it's taken as straight tale, it does, but at the same time the film becomes a battle with tedium. There becomes no reason for the film to run two hours, for the odd passages of dialog or the long takes. Frankly if the film is taken as the director intends it to be, then the film is a crashing bore and a failure on anything but a basic level. The film only works on some other level that isn't straight reporting, certainly the much used term 'apocalyptic' that I've read and heard connected to the film is appropriate in some sense.

Having been a creator of various things I know that sometimes the works we create change or become not what we intend. I understand that the creator of say a film is the one to ask what he intended but at the same time that doesn't mean what he intends is what is there on the screen. I think Tarr thinks he made one thing however I think he ended up with something else instead. I think as a film that is open to our own interpretation, being real world or not, the film is a masterpiece and a trip ripe with possibilities. I think as a straight tale of people locked in a straight forward battle of possession of each other it's a crashing bore filled with WTF moments. As something else, of souls elsewhere or even inside of themselves, it's a trip.

See the film, take it for what it is, or take it however you wish to take it, but see it and be carried away.

Son of The White Mare hits virtual theaters Friday

I honestly don't know what I think of the plot of THE SON OF THE WHITE MARE. While I have a vague idea about what happens, I wasn't paying full attention to the story. What I was focused on was the magnificent and hypnotic visuals. The images are true works of moving art. I don not know what drugs the director was on but I want some.

The reason to see this film, preferably in the dark and on a big screen is sound and image. What goes in your ears and eyes will rock you on the most gut level. It is like being trapped in a dream of someone else's doing. It smashes you pillar to post but you really don't care because its being done in the best sort of way. When the film was done I was exhausted and I wanted to go again right then.

While I have seen things that have tried to do something like this on a small scale I have never seen nor experienced a film quite like this. For me it is one of those films that changes what I think film could be be.

A masterpiece of cinema and of art.

If you love film you must seen this it will change your way of seeing the world

VIRTUAL ENGAGEMENTS SCHEDULE
8/21 - Film at Lincoln Center, NY
8/21 - Austin Film Society, Austin
8/21 - Roxie Theater, San Francisco
8/21 - Cleveland Cinematheque, Cleveland
8/21 - Lightbox Film Center, Philadelphia
8/21 - Hollywood Theater, Portland, OR
8/21 - Suns Cinema, Washington DC
8/21 - Loft Cinema, Tuscon
8/21 - Coral Gables Art Cinema, Coral Gables
8/21 - Cinema Lamont, Detroit
8/21 - Carolina Theatre of Durham, Durham
9/4 - Row House Cinema, Pittsburgh
9/4 - Trylon Cinema, Minneapolis

Demimonde (2015) Dallas International Film Festival 2016 4/19

Sometimes style over substance works. Sometimes when you have style to burn you can take a slight narrative and make a kick ass film, such as in the case of Demimonde.

The story of three women, a social climbing demimonde, her house keeper and the young maid who comes to work with them. The relationship between the women is frequently changing as mistress and housekeeper circle each other in a love hate relationship and the young maid tries to take it all in and learn how to improve her station. We know it all ends badly since the film begins with the discovery of a body floating in a basket in a river.

The story isn’t the most revelatory one you’ll find, we’ve seen stories like this before, however the cinematography is absolutely stunning. I love the look and feel of the film which transports us back to the years before the First World War blew Europe apart. I love the explosions of movement that add life to the seemingly sedate proceedings. It’s a visual manifestation of all the pent up tension hiding under the surface.

This is a great great film and I can’t wait to wade in and see it again when I can just lose myself in it and enjoy it without having to review it.

Highly recomended

Fr tickets and more information go here.

LIZA, THE FOX FAIRY (2015) Ithaca International Fantastic Film Festival

The opening night film if the Ithaca International Fantastic Film Festival was a completely out there film. Its a one of a kind film and the sort of thing that is going to have a huge cult following once people discover it. Yea it's kind of like some other films but it bends any expectations to it's wonderful own end....

The plot of the film has Liza, a 30 year old woman whose best friend is a dead Japanese pop singer looking for love. She thinks that on her 30th birthday she'll find her true love like the heroine of a trashy novel she loves. However as things go anyone who gets near her romantically dies. As suspicions rise Liza begins to investigate.

Romance and musical numbers mix with dark comedy and fantasy in a film that's best described as a lot of fun. I adore that the film has a wonderful go for broke attitude. Anything can and probably will happen. Once we accept the fantastic nature of it all and take for granted there is a dead singer floating around everything else just falls into place.

If you want to know what it's like I'd say it has a feel that's similar to some of the films of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, however saying that implies the film is a copy, but that's not true any more than you could say that it riffs on Tim Burton or even Wes Anderson. To be certain director Karoly Ujj Meszaros steals from those directors and makes a movie that is completely of it's own. Its like the work of those directors but not.

You know what - track this film down and see it. Trust me this is going to become one of your favorites and a film you connect with other fans with.

SON OF SAUL (2015) New York Film Festival 2015

Gavin Smith talks to director Laszlo Neemes and star Gee Rohrig at the NYFF press conference

I hate to say this but "the emperor has no clothes."

I say that because when SON OF SAUL started to make the rounds of festivals it was being hailed as one of the great films of the year and one of the greatest Holocaust films ever made. Many pieces talked abut how when people saw it they could hardly move from their seats. Everyone talked about how the way it was filmed- largely close ups of  Geze Rohrig- managed to put us inside the death camp.

No.

Please don't take my contrary opinion to early reviews means I dislike the film, I don't I simply think that the initial reviews over sold the film, which I think is good, but terribly formal in its construction and by the numbers in it's telling.

The plot has Saul, worker tasked with cleaning up the dead in a death camp deciding to give a boy a decent burial. This sets Saul on a round about trip across the camp in order to secure the body and to find a rabbi who will help him bury "his son".

The film is told in what is best described extreme close up. The camera almost never leaves Saul's face. We never really see much beyond him, with most of the details as to what is going on conveyed by the aggressive soundtrack or snippets of images we see around Saul's head.

The gamble to shoot the film in close up and in 1:33 to 1,the Academy ratio really didn't work for me. Its not that the gambit fails for any reason other than Saul never really changes his expression. He is simply intense until almost the last moment of the film. I've read reviews saying that people have seen Rohrig reveal all sorts of emotion in through his eyes but to me it was all the same.

For me the real killer of the film was script which came off as highly artificial. The film very much feels like an artistic construct with a point about trying to buy one's piece of mind or trying to do one right thing. I felt as if very little of it real, more so when as all of the key bits of death camp lore was hit  and then the added layer of the possible prisoner revolt was thrown into the mix felt like it was trying to do too much and cover everything. Director Laszlo Nemes has some points and he very much wants to make them at all costs.

For me the trip around the camp was very artificial. As the film went on I started to make notes as the film hit each part of the camp. Would the film not cover some part of the functioning of the final solution? Nope it got it all from prisoner arrivals to disposal of the ash this film doesn't leave any thing out. The NYFF write up talks about the 9 circles of hell, I'd call it a grand scavenger hunt. While it does bring home what was going on in the camps in ways we've not really seen before, it still feels artificial.

I think part of the problem with the film is something that they talked about a great deal at the post screening press conference which was the seemingly big revelation that the prisoners helped the Nazi's kill all the people. It was a statement that kind of had me cocking my head sideways and wanting to ask the people on stage if they hadn't read on the camps before they made the movie. The complicity of the prisoners is an uncomfortable truth of the Holocaust. The fact we see the prisoners helping things along, while trying to save themselves apparently rattles a lot of people even when they should know that's what happened.

Still there is no getting around the fact the film is quite good on it' own terms. It is in someways it is the kick in the pants it was aiming to be from start to finish.

If the subject interests you its worth a shot,but if not you're not missing a masterpiece despite what some writers claim.

The film plays tonight  (Tuesday the 6th) at 9pm. It encores on Sunday at 9pm as well. For tickets and more information go here.

On Further Review: WHITE GOD (2014) New Directors New Films 2015

(Warning there maybe spoilers- and I will take you past the ending of the film to what happens next)

Hailed by pretty much everyone I know who's seen it as a great film I went into the press screening for New Directors New Films with very high expectations. I was ready to be bowled over.

Sadly I was not bowled over. Don't get me wrong I really like the film a great deal but I'm left to wonder about why the film has become the darling for many of my fellow writers.

The plot of the film has Lili and her dog Hagen moving in with Lili's father for three months while her mother and her new boyfriend go off to a conference in Australia. When Lili's dad refuses to pay the licensing fee for the dog its either send the dog away or to a shelter. Lili's dad simply lets the dog loose on the side of the road. We then watch as Lili tries to find her dog again and the dog goes through various trial and abuses before turning on it's abusers.

I'm at a loss as to how to explain the film. What is is about exactly? I'm not too sure. I'm not being snide here for three quarters of the film you have the parallel stories of Lili and Hagen, then it turns into a weird revenge film that borders on science fiction

In a weird way it seems to be a psuedo-remake (or riff) of RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES with the final turn of the dogs playing out like a canine version of the earlier film (we could call it Planet of the Puppies). It also seems at times to be a canine version of the Bourne films with Hagen being chased by animal control officers as if he were the cinematic super spy.

Its all really cool to watch and it will make you amazed at how it was done. Indeed when the film ended I asked one of the other writers what he thought and the first thing he said after he really liked it was how amazed he was at what the dogs did. If you read any review of the film everyone will wax poetic about what the dogs do being so amazing. Its so pervasive that I'm wondering if the super positive reaction to the film is really for the dogs and not the film....

...I say this because let's face it the plot of the film makes no sense.

I could go through a laundry list of problems with the film (including that the viciousness of the dogs is all cleverly staged and that if you look at angry Hagen's eyes you'll see he's just playing) but I'll only pause here to mention a few things that really bothered the hell out of me.

First and foremost why is everyone one with the exception of Lili are horrible human beings? Think about it every human is mean nasty, self centered, hateful or in the case of the object of Lili's affect a jerk (he's nice until the older girl comes around-then again he give Lili his drugs to hold and she gets busted). There isn't a likable human in the film. Worse everyone seems to have an aversion to dogs. What are they aliens?

The other huge problem is that the film puts in twists and turns that exist simply to allow the film go forward. Things like the city having an army of animal control officers always running around emass are completely ludicrous. Then there is that weird moment where the dogs bust in on the concert for no reason other than to alert Lili that the canine army is on the march,

Things are so messed up that I was going along as if it was a low budget direct to home video action film that makes no real sense but keeps you interest. this is the sort of film that the boys at Riff Trax would have a field day with because there are so many plot holes.

As I frequently say at times like this I don't hate the film, I quite like it since for all it's flaws it is compelling. Hell I'm probably the only person who found the end of the film terribly sad since if you follow the ending to it's logical conclusion a half an hour after the end all of the dogs are going to be rounded up or killed by the authorities. (try not to unsee that)

The film plays at New Directors New Films (for tickets and information go here) and opens in theaters on the 27th.

Grizzly II: The Predator (1983)

This feels almost unfair to judge a film by it's work-print. In other words, a very early version used during the editing process. But what if it's something so obscure, so incomplete and quite frankly something that probably wouldn't have been good regardless. No I'm not referring to that unfinished, fourth Sleepaway Camp sequel, this is much more sinister. A follow up to the 1976, Jaws inspired rip-off, Grizzly, entitled Grizzly II: The Predator. Also known as, Grizzly II: The Concert and Predator: The Concert.

Under the supervision of an unknown (never to be heard from again) director, and the co-producer & writer of the first film, Grizzly II: The Predator began filming in the early 80's in the Country of Hungary. So Hungary was chosen as the location for a film who's plot centers around a rock concert in the open, desolate woods. I guess the State of Vermont wasn't interested. As to what exactly happened to the film, between rumored problems with the animatronic bear, money issues and the film crew's equipment being seized by the Hungarian government, Grizzly II seemed dead on arrival. It took nearly 20 years before a semi finished work-print traveled around the horror circuit. Yet how fitting that a film about a killer grizzly would be missing one small factor...A BEAR! Scenes involving the grizzly were held off until the final weeks of production. That didn't exactly pan out.

So the film begins with footage of a random poacher who is quickly knocked off screen by the bear's monstrous arm. And that is the last you'll see of the grizzly until the final climax. Oh but you'll know when the bear is close due to it's signature growl, which sounds like pigs being slaughtered. Let's get back to the concert that's in the making, since that's where most of the movie takes place. While the staff of this Woodstock-lite gathering prepares the stage, we are treated to an endless loop of Michael Jackson music in the background. Maybe that's why this was never released, Jackson could have raked in the cash from copyright infringement.

Grizzly II: The Predator has so many recognizable faces, it should be a drinking game. Academy Award winner Louise Fletcher plays a greedy, business woman who will stop at nothing to make sure this concert goes as planned. This requires having nearly every park ranger in sight to act as security. It certainly seems like a better option than hiring the Hell's Angels. Back at the woods, word is getting around that a giant grizzly is on the loose killing people. Have no fear, Gimly from The Lord of the Rings trilogy (John Rhys-Davies) and a ensemble cast of "Hey I know that guy" actors are on the hunt. Also we have Laura Dern, Charlie Sheen & George F'N Clooney. All of which I'm sure would deny their participation in this piece of garbage. Unfortunately the three young upstarts don't have much screen time. While Sheen's character heads off to dreamland to reminisce of better times, like being on the set of Platoon, Dern and Clooney, stay up for some late night activities. An appearance from Jason Voorhees could really save this scene, but both are killed off by the camera man...oops, I mean bear. Sure, let's go with that. Meanwhile, 'Wild Thing' Ricky Vaughn jumps in a Tiger Blood fueled rocket ship destined for the Moon. Spoiler alert: he dies too.

Thirty minutes into the film, the stage crew is still working to get things in place for the big show. And yet no one has grown tired of hearing the same Michael Jackson songs over and over. The poachers in the Hungarian woods are still on the hunt for what we learn is a 20 foot tall bear. So not much has changed since the beginning. We do have the Chief Park Ranger (Steve Inwood) who tries to warn Nurse Ratched (Fletcher) that a deadly grizzly is on the loose. She ignores the cry for help because people need to hear 1980's new-wave and damn it they're going to get it. Let's face it, the last time Louise Fletcher and someone named 'Chief' we're in the same film, it didn't end well either. Actress Deborah Raffin plays opposite of Inwood's character, and remains optimistic about the grizzly's reasons for attacking. It is totally possible this is all a big misunderstanding, maybe the bear is just looking for a picnic basket.

At the half way point we finally get a look at the live musical acts for GrizzlyFest '83. And when you see them perform you'll pray to hear 'Billie Jean' or 'Wanna Be Starting Something' again. More back and forth footage of what's going on in the woods. Which means characters are being killed off screen because WE HAVE NO BEAR. Though it is quite amusing to see the camera man's reflection among the rocks. One of the film's many highlights comes towards the one hour mark, where we witness a sound check that goes on for several minutes. It's literally footage of someone doing a mic check.

Since there is no such thing as a time-lapse in this film, we go from having an empty concert field to the entire population of Central Europe showing up. In the meantime our head hunter (Rhys-Davies), has been preparing for his inevitable meet up with the grizzly. I bet he spent his time thinking of all the horrible things he was going to tell his agent. Seriously, he went from starring in Raiders of the Lost Ark to Grizzly II. Back to the chief and his female companion, they soon get word that the grizzly is approaching the concert area. Now again just to mention, this is an unfinished film. Though you only get hints of that during the first three quarters. All of that changes in the final 10 minutes.

The ending sequence of Grizzly II: The Predator contains:
- The sound completely cutting in and out.
- Multiple takes and angles of several scenes. All without sound.
- Numerous times 'cut' & 'action' are heard during scenes.
- Explosions are set off with no connection to each other.
- Characters reacting to things that are not seen on screen.

Did I mention while all this is happening, the concert is still going on. This crowd is either unbelievably dumb or is in a complete trance with the 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood' type music. It's not a complete loss though, we sort of get an idea as to what the bear was going to look like. As far as what becomes of the beast, we get a final shot of it being restrained within the side of the concert stage. It's very unclear as to what happened or how we got to this point.

No ending credits, the film comes to a conclusion with the crowd celebrating. Cheering because the concert is over? Cheering because the grizzly is dead? Though I doubt the latter, no one seemed to notice that some serious bear chaos was happening right next to them. Or maybe the concert-goers are much like the viewers of this film. The only thing they saw was some dreadful lip syncing.

Despite it's many, and it does have many obvious flaws, the film at times is fun to watch. Especially if you enjoy bad cinema, and that's the only reason for seeking this out. The fact that Grizzly II never was or will be officially released, is what keeps it from being celebrated for it's awfulness. If you need visual evidence of that, see for yourself.

New York Jewish Film Festival 2014 Capsule Reviews REGINA, WHEN JEWS WERE FUNNY, LONELY PLANET, ZIGZAG KID and AMY WINEHOUSE THE DAY SHE CAME TO DINGLE

While I've seen many of the films at the New York Jewish Film Festival some of the films have defied my efforts to turn in full reviews. To that end I present some capsule reviews:

Regina (2013)
Hour long portrait of Regina Jonas (1902-1944) the first female rabbi in the world.  The film is a very good portrait of a specific time and place and a person I never knew existed. One has to admire  her drive to do what she felt was God's work. My sole complaint film about the film is that there is too much slow motion imagery which I know was used to evoke a time gone by but what it does is simply slows the film way down do that it feels much longer than it's 63 minutes. Worth a look.

Plays January 13 and 15

When Jews Were Funny (2013)
Alan Zweig's discussion about the influence of Jewish comedians in popular culture. Full of interviews and clips of comedians over the last several decades the film is frequently funny.

Unfortunately the film  suffers in two areas. First if you have any sort of interest in the history of comedy you probably know most of the history here. Yes, there are are new stories and jokes but odds are you know most of this already.

The other problem is that director Zweig makes some major missteps. First he isn't a good interviewer, asking frequently obvious questions or questions that just lie there or get non-answers (I don't have an answer for that or I don't know what you're asking me is a frequent refrain). At other times his subject berates him for not listening to what they are saying. Personally I wanted to smack him.

A funny film but I'd wait for TV.

Plays January 9

Lonely Planet (2011)
A documentary crew investigates the story of Mishka Zilberstein who spent three years living with wolves during the Second World War.

Strange blending of fact and fiction is the sort of film you either buy into or you don't. Gorgeous real life images of traveling through along the Trans Siberian Railway mix with sequences that are staged. It plays like a weird found footage film where some sequences are very much head scratchers or knowingly obtuse. Its a kind of absurdist documentary.

To be honest 20 minutes in I was done and tuned out much of the rest of the film. While I was enjoying the scenery the staged material left me cold. For whatever reason I simply couldn't click with the film.  The mixing of real and stage material just didn't work for me.

I have no idea what your reaction will be but I suggest proceeding with caution.

Plays January 9

Amy Winehouse: The Day She Came to Dingle (2012)
BBC Arena documentary about when Amy Winehouse went to Dingle in Ireland to record an episode of the The Other Voices TV series.Wonderful portrait of not only a singer and her music but also the village of Dingle. I don't know what to say other than if you are a fan of the late Ms Winehouse you owe it to yourself to see this short documentary (it runs an hour)

It plays January 14 and 15

Zigzag Kid (2012)
Amusing family film about a young boy who is being trained by his police inspector father to follow in his footsteps. When he’s sent away by his dad on the eve of his bar mitzvah he soon finds himself on the trail of a mystery which will impact his life. Better than most recent American family films of the last few years this romp is a great way to spend an afternoon at the movies. Might I suggest January 12 when this plays?

Final Cut- Ladies and Gentleman (2012) New York Film Festival 2012

You have one shot (Monday night) to see this one of a kind riff on the movies when it plays the New York Film Festival. If you love movies and think you can pick out clips from any film you must see this, it will amaze you. Seriously this when the film works, it provides some of my favorite movie moments of the year.

Cut from over450 films Final Cut is a series of sequences brought together to tell a boy meets girl typical love story, complete with infidelity, war and sex (its not for kids). its a marriage of music (culled from movies) and image that will have you wanting to stop the film frequently to figure out where the clip was from, or becoming amazed at how  well the new music makes some movie moments better. (I'll only say Staying Alive and leave you to discover the rest). Since it's so many movies joined with rapid fire cutting you will not want to blink.

As a real movie I'm not sure it adds up to much, some bits are too long, others are too short, but at the same time it's a sweet little confection that will have anyone who loves movies smiling from ear to ear.

I had a blast when it was on, and I want to see it again, despite having some reservations about some of it.

On any level this is one of the must see films of the film festival simply because its a film that is deliriously in love with film.

Go see this movie.

Satantango (1994)

Made with the intention that you will watch the film in one sitting (with a couple of intermissions) Bela Tarr's seven hour adaptation of Lazlo Krasznahorkai's novel will either thrill you or make you run for the exits. Despite the fact that this has been popping up recently all over the New York Metro area at revival houses I sat down to watch it over the course of a very long evening at home on DVD where I could control the pacing and the breaks.

The film nominally tells the story of several characters who are at a a farming collective. It then spins out from there but it always crosses back and forth in such away that we see some events repeated from differing angles. We have two slackers who refuse to work, the various people in the collective who all want to take all the money they earned for themselves and then run off with it (but people keep finding out about the larceny), a young girl and a cat and all of the peripheral characters.

It's done in what seems to be Tarr's typical fashion: shot in black and white in long takes (as long as ten minutes) and often focusing on things which don't seem to be important (several times we watch tables as action goes on off screen). It's a beautiful and daunting film which for me held mixed rewards.

I've had the film on my shelf for about two years now. The trouble was finding a day or a night where I could just sit down and watch it. Having liked two of the previous three Tarr films I'd seen (Damnation and Wreckmeister Harmonies I liked, Man From London I thought was way too long) I wanted to give the film a fair shake- in other words at least try and see the film as Tarr intended-in one sitting.

For me the film is a mixed blessing. Its a beautiful film. It's an often funny and heartbreaking one. The trouble is that it's a frigging seven hour one and it's length is occasionally a killer.

Told in twelve segments of various lengths (from about fifteen minutes to about an hour) the film often feels like it' 12 short films tied together with a visual style and a group of characters. As is often said you could release several of them as short films in their own right. Watching the film it's at times almost too much of a good thing and I found that I paused after several sections to take stock of what I had seen.

The two problems for me with the film come from Tarr's long take mis-direction style. After a while some of the long takes, the walking to the horizon sequences and the focusing on a table or a chair or even a person while things transpire off camera wore thin. Granted I knew what I was getting into when I saw this film, but some where about two hours in,and knowing I had five more hours to go, my patience began to get frayed for however long we just sort of stared at nothing. On the other hand most of the rest of the film is actually quite good.

Is this a film for everyone?

Oh hell no. Its a long winded, rambling pretentious piece of film making. I say this with love and affection, and the badge of honor of having actually made it through the seven hours. Its an often painfully slow film that will reward those who can click with it and send others screaming from the room.

The choice to watch it is your own...

Actually the best thing about Santantango is the reviews it inspires. I would never have attempted the film with out reading many differing opinions on the films. They are a blast. If you want to start try Slates piece or the one at Spectrum Culture and then google some more. Watching people try to explain how they feel about the film is great fun.

(An aside with a possible spoiler- Having lost my place after pausing the film I found I had to scan to get back to where I left off...Watch the sequence with the dead person on the table at high speed and you'll notice they are breathing.)

Damnation (1987)

This second film of this weekends "double feature of double features" is one that is full of potential meaning, whether the director feels that way or not. To me this is a film where taking the film as the director intended, as a straight forward film, is not the best way to see this film. To me this is one of the few times when the creator 's work is not as he has intended but has instead become something else.

Bela Tarr's mediation on interpersonal relationships (and perhaps, the end of the world) is a simple tale of a man in a small town who is obsessed with a singer in a night club. She's married but doesn't completely deflect his advances. Where it goes is the story as the man pursues what his heart desires.

Dark brooding tale filled with Tarr's patented long takes seems to be set in another world or another time (perhaps it's an after life). It's a hypnotic trip about the nature of obsession and how we view ourselves. If you click with it and its possibilities this is a great rumination on a variety of things, if not it's a pretentious and tedious exercise.

I've read that director Bela Tarr insists that the film (as he insists about all his films) is a portrait of life "as it is" but I would be hard pressed to say that this is any sort of reality except perhaps a reality of the internal. The film's stark and beautiful black and white photography creates a world that seems forever in a mist or rain. It is a place like our own and yet different.

People speak in ways that don't seem wholly normal. Verse is quoted as is the bible. No one speaks that way. Musicians play music but how they play doesn't quite match up with the music we hear. The mine carts that we see over head seem to be moving the damned to and from this place and not ore (indeed we never see either end of the line). Tarr says there is nothing allegorical or metaphoric implied or intended but I would argue that the film doesn't function as a straight narrative. Too much is off kilter, too much fails to connect for this to be real life.

I'm not saying that the story of obsession, of a man doing what he feels he must to obtain the object of his desire doesn't work if it's taken as straight tale, it does, but at the same time the film becomes a battle with tedium. There becomes no reason for the film to run two hours, for the odd passages of dialog or the long takes. Frankly if the film is taken as the director intends it to be, then the film is a crashing bore and a failure on anything but a basic level. The film only works on some other level that isn't straight reporting, certainly the much used term 'apocalyptic' that I've read and heard connected to the film is appropriate in some sense.

Having been a creator of various things I know that sometimes the works we create change or become not what we intend. I understand that the creator of say a film is the one to ask what he intended but at the same time that doesn't mean what he intends is what is there on the screen. I think Tarr thinks he made one thing however I think he ended up with something else instead. I think as a film that is open to our own interpretation, being real world or not, the film is a masterpiece and a trip ripe with possibilities. I think as a straight tale of people locked in a straight forward battle of possession of each other it's a crashing bore filled with WTF moments. As something else, of souls elsewhere or even inside of themselves, it's a trip.

See the film, take it for what it is, or take it however you wish to take it, but see it and be carried away.

Currently on DVD.

Werckmeister Harmonies (2000)

This weekend I'm doubling up on double features. In addition to the Easter double feature this weekend I'm going to do a double feature of Bela Tarr films.

Werchmeister Harmonies is Bela Tarr's much heralded work of great beauty and unease. It is a film best viewed, like all of his films, in a dark room with limited interruptions. It is a film that will hang with you and dance about in your head in odd ways. I'm not sure it's quite the classic that some people have proclaimed it but I do think that its worth seeing.

The film focuses on Janos, a young man living in a small village in Hungary. He is clearly smarter than the people around him. One need only see the opening set piece where he explains eclipses to a bar room full of people, to know that he is much more clever than everyone else. Janos takes care of one of his uncles who is a sick intellectual trying to work of the philosophy of music (the title comes from that).

One night while delivering newspapers he watches as a tractor pulls a huge trailer into the town square. Inside of its stark metal walls are the seeds of dissension and destruction for many in the small village, including Janos himself. More specifically inside the trailer is the stuffed carcass of a whale and the home of The Prince, some person of small stature who is rightly viewed with suspicion because it is said the things he says spur evil (and how right that is).

As night turns to day and the trailer opens its door for business, events are set in motion that will take a terrible toll on everyone in the small village.

Say what you will, once you've seen a Bela Tarr film you'll be able to recognize them a mile off. For some filmmakers a recognizable visual style is often a kind of death kiss, in that you get to a point where you know how things are going to go. An example is one of my favorite directors Peter Greenaway, whose recent films often descend into a static image in image style that comes off as a laziness to anyone who's familiar with the other films he's directed. Tarr, as far as I've seen has never run into that problem. Yes he shoots his films in a moody black and white that seem to place the films in a weird world on the edge of reality, but where that is is always changing. The "here" of the film is not like any other film, except that many of his films are set in the villages of his native land. Additionally his use of long extended takes, there are no quick cuts, the camera moves about within a scene, almost never gets tiring because more times than not the technique puts us into the action; we are there with the people in the scene and not some truly outside observer.

This is a film you fall into...like a nightmare. From the opening off kilter explanation of planetary mechanics onward to the haunting final images of an almost deserted village square this is a film draws you in and takes you along as the nice orderly world goes mad. Unlike Janos' explanation that the moment of darkness in an eclipse will give way to light, this is a film where that moment of darkness becomes something else entirely. It is the end of the world in many ways.

The evil at work here is insidious. For much of the film I listened to all of the stories of terrible things going on and I figured they were just stories because, like Janos, we really didn't see anything. Then then, slowly things begin to go amiss, people begin to want things and to step outside of the order of things... things go off kilter. This is thanks to the words of the Prince, a character we hear but never really see. He is a beast of the worst sort, a madman who does terrible things, not for any reason other than he can. Read what you will into it.

Actually read what you will into much of the film. This is a film rife with enigmas and potential meanings. Little is explained, things just are. We are given enough that we can follow along and make inferences and speculate, but there isn't enough to fully have concrete answers. If one looks this film up at IMDB and elsewhere one can easily find multiple meanings and explanations. Its a head trip of the best sort.

I like this film. I'm not one of the people who rave about it and think its one of the greatest films ever made, but I do like it a great deal (personally I like Tarr's earlier Damnation better). I like the dream like quality of it (even if it is a nightmare). I like that you fall into it and it takes you to some place very different than you're used to. Mostly I like that the film makes you think and takes it for granted that the audience has a brain and can work out any meaning on their own.

And I love the images. The stark black and white images, including the stereotypical one of Janos gazing into the whales eye (see above), are the sort of things that stay with you just out of view. Basically this is one of those films you want to hang on your wall and let play just for the art of it.

It's a beautiful dark nightmare of a film that is worth taking the time to see.

Currently out on DVD.