10 Reasons ‘Teddy Bear’ is an All-Time Classic Romance

While apparently every other site out there is celebrating Valentine’s Day by releasing lists of top movies/moments/kisses/break-ups/you-name-it, I thought I’d focus on a recent title that’s been way too underseen… and yet has been enjoyed by every single person I know who's ever seen it. Mads Matthiesen’s Teddy Bear, released this week on home video by Film Movement, is a film I first saw almost a year ago, and it made a vivid impression on me then. The reason I feel it’s a classic, though, is that upon revisiting it and reflecting upon it, even more of its virtues are revealed—and for me, that’s practically the definition of a classic.

All right, so here are my reasons, specifically:

1. It’s understated but never boring. Romances are often loud, self-important, hyperbolic affairs—and that turns a lot of people off the genre. And many other romances are moody, morose tales full of torment—which can also be a sign of navel-gazing self-importance. Teddy Bear is neither: it situates romance within the business of authentically being human, no more, no less.
2. The approach is fairytale-ish and yet consistently real. Can the man-boy escape the clutches of his smothering mom, and stand on his own two feet—not to mention his extremely sturdy legs? The script’s set-up may be archetypal in some ways, but the film’s evocation of well-observed real-life details allows you to enjoy the allegorical aspects without regrets because the main character, Dennis, is just so darn dimensional and believable.
3. Teddy Bear acknowledges cynicism and loneliness, and then moves beyond them. Does a Westerner traveling to Thailand for the sole reason of finding a bride sound a little sleazy? Even if we like the character who’s doing it? Yeah, I thought so. But it also speaks to the reality out there, of people afraid to grow old alone and entire industries that seek to assuage that fear. Teddy Bear doesn’t so much judge all this as say that it’s an okay starting point… because we're capable of so much more.
4. The story is a global one. I’m an American caught up in a tale about Danes and Thais. If love is indeed universal, this film is Exhibit A.
5. The movie has broad, but smart, across-the-board appeal. By that I mean that lead Kim Kold, a massive pro bodybuilder, is clearly “a manly man”—the kind that lots of men won’t recoil from as being too "weak" and sensitive. And yet he is sensitive. What’s more, his love interest is sweet… but she’s also a sharp, independent woman, not some damsel waiting to be saved from life by her lover’s muscles.
6. It’s about independence, and the right to be happy. When romances work this is what they’re about thematically. You can make the script clever and funny, and fill the screen with fetching close-ups, but if we don’t sense something beyond the passion and chemistry, our emotional stake in the outcome is a bit more superficial. Teddy Bear goes the opposite route, opting for the quietly profound.
7. Opposites attract—and yet they don’t. Part of the strained formula of the romance genre is to insist, often to the point of shrillness, that the matches "made in heaven" are the ones where the parties involved seem to fit together like matter and anti-matter. There’s some truth in that, but a lot of exaggeration and myth, too. In real life, the differences need to complement each other, not annihilate each other, and Teddy Bear recognizes this while showing that deeper commonalities are also required.
8. The romance sneaks up on you; it’s not telegraphed. In Hollywood movies going back to at least the 1930’s, you know how things will work out as soon as you know who the stars are or, at the latest, the moment you see them on screen together. There’s the sparring, the smoldering looks, and all the rest of the moldy ingredients. With Teddy Bear, if you haven’t seen the trailer you actually can’t predict what direction the romance is coming from even when it’s right in front of you.
9. Mads Matthiesen is a great director. Don’t want to take my word for it? Then check out the two short films included on the DVD release. "Cathrine" is a memorable story of a teenage girl and an older man; like Teddy Bear, it's also about love and also about the dangers of parents judging their children based upon whom they love. The other short, "Dennis," is a kind of downbeat (but effective) prequel to Teddy Bear that you should save until after you've seen the feature.
10. It celebrates possibility. That's what all romances do, really. Some may say that that's one of the shortcomings of the genre: things end happily ever after, and we never see the divorce five years later. There's a valid point in there, but to me it's like criticizing a horror movie for presenting unrealistic or incomplete scenarios in order to scare us. Every genre caters to some form of emotional/psychological fantasy, and so the question becomes how powerful any given text within that genre delivers the goods. With Teddy Bear, the answer to this lies in its wonderfully assured storytelling, hugely likable performances, and an unassuming strength that doesn't need to flex and pose to get our attention.

5 Broken Cameras (2011)

Get ready to get pissed off.

This Oscar nominated film follows the course of Palestinian and Israeli relations in and around the town of Bil'in as documented by Emad Burnat and his five cameras which end up broken. It's a film that will really make you angry.

The story starts in 2005 when the Israeli government begins to confiscate the land around Bil'in. At about the same moment Emad gets a camera and welcomes his fourth son. As Emad begins to document the life of  his family and the village, he also documents the protests that arise when the Israelis begin to build a containment fence through the middle of their farm land. As the protests grow in intensity and more and more steps are taken to stop the theft of the land things begin to affect Emand's family.

Excellent documentary is sure to make your blood boil. It's truly amazing that people who should know better can behave so badly. I'm kind of appalled that the Israeli government pretty much sanctions some of the things that go on here. Is it any wonder that the Israeli's are not liked when they continually seize land and be have badly toward the people who are already living on the land they want to turn into settlements.

You'll forgive me for not saying a great deal, I'm kind of too pissed off  not to just scream bad things about the settlers who on one hand to stupid callous things and on the other hand no doubt wonder why they aren't liked.

One of the more important films of this past year has deservedly gotten itself an Oscar nomination for best documentary. Is it the best of the bunch? I can't say, but it is one of the ones that really fires up the emotions.

See this film.

Tuesday Romance Joe (2012) plays for free in Tribeca (Korean Movie Night)

Sorry the reminder is late, it's my own fault. I was sent a screener for the film and only popped it in and watched it earlier today.

Romance Joe is a movie I missed earlier this year when it played New Directors New Films. Its a film I probably should have seen in a theater since it's structure requires a bit of concentration.

The film is a series of stories within stories that are all related in one way or another. The central thrust has a director/screenwriter getting stranded in a backwater motel in order to finish the screenplay for his latest film. He orders coffee which is delivered by a beautiful woman who ends up getting paid to spend the night in order to tell the writer/director the story of Romance Joe, a similarly employed man who once went to her home town.

Lee Kwang-kuk has made a beautiful film about people, stories and storytellers. It's a film full of small beautiful moments and very real characters. In many ways it's a charming little film. It's also a little hard to really explain because of the way it's structured...

And that's the problem with the film, the structure, which I think was made worse by seeing the film at home instead of in a theater. The problem is that structure of stories with in stories prevents the film from gaining traction since we're often moving to the next bit. For much of the first hour  the film bounced between stories every five or ten minutes and I was never fully engaged. I kept looking around my room at things that caught my eye. I kept thinking that I should have just stopped the film and went to the screening on Tuesday night.  Then things calmed down  in the second half and I was finally engaged enough to stop thinking about going to the screening.

Ultimately I liked the film. Is it a great film? No but it has greatness in it. There are some wonderful small moments and exchanges between characters that are worth your time.

Do I think you should see it? Yes, especially if you can get to the Tribeca Cinemas on Tuesday night. Seriously this is a prime example of a film that will play very differently if you can focus all your attention on it instead of just some of it.

The movie plays Tuesday at 7. Doors as always are at 630 and it's first come first served.

---

The next two films in the series are:

Home Sweet Home (aka Monster) which in some corners has been billed as a horror film, it's not. It has to do with a man hiding out in a hotel and his relationship with a younger woman amongst other things. I saw the film years ago and was very mixed on it. I'm going to try it again because the film has several big supporters and I'll report back before it's screening on September 25

Choked plays October 9 is about the destruction of a family thanks to the actions of it's matriarch. I've heard excellent things about this descent into hell and I'll be reporting on that as well.

The Ambassador (2012)

The story of what happened when filmmaker and journalist Mads Brugger bought diplomatic credentials from Liberia and went to the Central African Republic.

One of the problems with doing Unseen Films and having a day job and a life away from the cyber and film worlds is that you can’t see everything you want to. For all the good things that Unseen throws our way we still miss a great number of things we should have caught earlier. For example I should have caught The Ambassador when it played at New Directors New Films because by the time it was done I had so many questions I wanted answered.

As I said at the top the film follows Mads, cigarette holder forever clenched in his teeth, as he buys his way into diplomatic service. The idea is to try and get access to money and diamonds while trying to “build” a match factory. What he gets instead is a bizarre trip down the rabbit hole. Freely throwing around envelopes of happiness, envelops filled with money, he winds his way deeper and deeper into the inner circle of power in the Central African Republic. Things also get weirder and weirder as he finds various people who tell him stories about the real way things are done. How weird? People in the Central African Republic actually think that someone in their right mind would sign a contract that forces them to pay for someone else's expenses forever, for a promise, maybe, some day, they may get diamonds in return.

The film tells a wild story and by the end of it I was full of questions that weren't clearly answered or simply popped into my head.This isn’t to knock the film, oh dear lord no, I only mention it because the film is so rich in characters and incidents that the brief 93 minute running time is horribly too short…

…on the other hand I can’t imagine a longer version of the film simply because to tell it any other way would be to have the film spin out uncontrollably in all sorts of weird directions. The best thing I can say is there was ever a film in desperate need of a commentary track and bonus documentaries this is it. This is a story that bleeds off the screen on the the floor and into your mind.

The fact that the film fills you with questions, and a desire to know more puts this into the elite group of great documentaries. Good documentaries tell you things you never knew. Great ones take it step further and make you want to get involved or know more. The Ambassador makes you want to know more in the right sort of way, it wants you to continue the story, not just to fill out things you were never told.

What is also really clear is that the whole notion of what diplomats do, beyond the main ambassador, really needs to be rethought. I mean the way it looks is that all these guys do is run scams or near scams in the hopes of making a buck.

I wish I had gone to New Directors.Actually I wish I had a chance to sit down with Mads and ask him a steady stream of questions.

If you care about knowing how things are done, really done, you should see this film... on the other hand if you want to see a true story that will amuse the hell out of you see it as well.

The Rabbi's Cat (2011) — New Directors/New Films

Animated film from Joann Sfar is based upon his graphic novel.

The film is the story of the rabbi's cat who begins to talk after eating a parrot, who then helps the rabbi pass a French exam before heading off on a journey across Africa looking for a city called Jerusalem.

This great looking film truly is the comic come to life (director Sfar refused to let anyone film his comic until he did it himself). Its an amazing living and breathing work of cinematic art that really should be seen in on the big screen...

...but not in 3D. The brilliant colors are completely washed out by the glasses making the eye popping colors turn to mud. I have no idea why 3D was used, other than for marketing, since it only adds minimally to the films sense of space. Its a lessening of all that is beautiful in the film.

The film outside of the 3D is a really good. Its a grand adventure about how we all are ultimately the same. Its a point driven home as we see all of the various people across Africa saying terrible things, the SAME terrible things, about each other.

The film also takes some of the piss out of Tintin who shows up briefly as a know it all, and overly talkative journalist.

I like the film a great deal. While it may ramble all over the place in the second half, it always remains engaging and entertaining. Actually my only serious complaint is that the film doesn't end so much as stop. My reaction when it ended was more or less, that's the end? Why not either sooner or a little later?. I can't really explain since you won't know what I'm talking about until you see the film.

Definitely worth seeing.

A word or two of warning. The film is being billed as both New Directors New Films first 3D and first family film. Its fine for older kids, but little ones (or more likely their parents), assuming they can read the subtitles, maybe upset by the graphic bloody violence, inferences of sex and the lack of shying away from real talk and actions. There is nothing wrong with any of it, it's just that some parents are overly protective and easily upset when cartoons turn out not to be juvenile as they think they are.

How to Survive a Plague (2012) New Directors New Films

Moving documentary on the men and women who decided to ACT UP and try force someone to find a cure for AIDS. Told most through news footage and film and video from the period, and an occasional talking head, the film has a you are there feel. Its a film that puts you in the trenches.

If the film has any real flaw it's that it drops we the audience into the middle of things. As the film starts we are six years into the AIDS crisis. People are dying from a new disease. People like Jesse Helms refused to do anything because it was killing mostly gay men. The film assumes that we have some knowledge of what had been going on up to that point. It's a small flaw that is repeated a time or two later in the film when it assumes we know things already. Its a minor flaw but one that keeps this very good film from being a truly great one.

Great or not the film is full of many emotional moments. I dare you not to be moved by Larry Kramer's shaming of a bickering ACT UP meeting that was losing sight of things. His cries of "Its a Plague" is chilling, and heart rending because in the middle of everyone verging on being wiped out they were quibbling over some bullshit matter. Also moving is the march on the White House by the dead. We watch as the cremated remains of AIDS victims were carried, and then dumped on the White House lawn. I dare you not to tear up as lovers, friends and parents truly say their last good byes before they dump their loved ones on George Bush's door step. And there is a "we got lucky" when we see those who have survived the plague, and we see the pain of having lived through it when those they fought to save died.

I don't know what else to say other than I really like and admire the film a great deal.

See the it and understand that you really can make a difference and save lives....

The film is playing New Directors New Films before traveling to several film festivals and a regular release in the fall.

Neighboring Sounds (2012) New Directors New Films (spoilers)

What in the hell is this film all about?

Seriously, what's the film's point?

The film shows life on a street in a city in Brazil around the time that residents agree to pay for private security. We follow the security guys, a guy who sells apartments in one building, his girlfriend, his uncle, his cousin breaks into cars, their grandfather who owns many of the buildings on the block, and a family in one of the buildings who are driven nuts by a barking dog.

The film is told in three parts that move the characters over the course of several months.

I can't tell you what the film is about other than what it shows, nor can I tell you what the point of it is. The film, despite having an often ominous tone just sort of runs to a stop.

The film falls apart in the the third part. It's here that the film begins to flail about in all sort of directions making you wonder what the director was thinking.

What do I mean by flailing about?

We get a sequence where one of the security guys ands the grandfather's maid go into a house and have sex. There is a shot of some one walking by a door in a supposedly empty house that caused the audience I saw this with to scream and jump with a greater intensity than most horror films. What does this have to do with anything? I have no idea since its just one shot that is never referenced again- despite the camera moving to capture this key event.

We get two horror movie like dream sequences, one involving a shower of blood and an another involving a bunch of people leaping over a wall and congregating in a hallway. Do either mean anything? Your guess is as good as mine.

Then you have the ending which is best described as out of left field. Its a scene where a conversation between the grandfather and the security men talk about something we've never heard referenced before and it implies something terrible except the film cuts away to the dog family setting off firecrackers and a black out.

There is no resolution, no anything just more threads. I wanted to yell out - YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. but I held my tongue and just watched the audience flee.

Personally I want to smack the director upside the head. He has a great cast, some interesting plot threads, and then he tosses them all out the window.

What was he thinking?

No clue. After the screening I read the press notes which told me nothing- other than they talk more about the barking dog than the film does.

Pretentious twaddle.

What a waste. Two hours of my life gone for a film that ultimately means zippo.

Skip this one.

The Raid (2012) New Directors New Films

This is a two part review. The first part, before the Addendum is what I wrote after seeing the film at the sparcely attended press screening for New Directors New Films. It was a screening that was mostly quiet and respectful, not the sort of way you want to see a film like this. The Addendum is my reaction after seeing the film with an audience pumped up and primed for a good time. It also contains my feelings after two weeks of discussions on the film.

Gareth Evan's follow up to Merantau is a must see for action film lovers. Its a more or less nonstop battle between a group of cops trapped in a high rise controlled by some bad guys. They got in okay but they were spotted early and the plan to extract the main bad guy is thrown aside in favor of just surviving.

Gareth Evan's first action film, Merantau was a mixed bag. Its a film about a young man who leaves his village on a spiritual quest and finds himself having to fight bad guys to help a young woman he's befriended. The story is a soapy mess, however the action is incredible.

The Raid pretty much dispenses with plot and just throws us in the deep end with the team of police who head into the high rise. Almost from the get go the fighting begins. Its guns, knives, machetes, fists, clubs and everything else you can think of. Yea a plot creeps in here and there, but it's mostly disposable.

I can't say this enough the action is incredible. Its an amazing assortment of fights that will make you jaw hang open and make you yelp with pleasure. As a pure action engine this film is way up on the list. If you're an action junkie you will love this film. Its the best definition I know of action speaking louder than words

The twists and turns in the bits are fantastic. For example there is a sequence where our hero and a wounded officer are hiding in a false wall from some baddies. I won't say what happens but lets just say that one of the baddies want to make sure there is nothing behind the wall.

See this film.

See this film with an audience of action film fanatics.

See this film and have a good time.

(A few last notes.

The picture at the top is prerelease art I found on line. The building in the film isn't 30 stories but 15.

I should say that, as much as I like this movie and as highly as I recommend it, I would not and will probably not put this on on my best of the year list. The action is amazing but Evans attempts at story telling results into some logic problems. Ultimately it doesn't matter, thats just my feeling- you want to see the film and I want to see it a couple more times.

I strongly suspect that how and with whom you see this film will determine how you react to the film. The more into action those seeing the film with you are, the more you'll like it.)

Addendum

Last Wednesday night I saw The Raid for a second time at a preview screening set up by Fangoria Magazine. This time it was with a pumped up audience that included Mondocurry, Mr C, Rufus from cineAwesome, plus Roy, Joel and Earl. It was a loud verbal and very appreciative crowd that really got into the film and really got what was happening on screen. This was, and is the way the film should be seen.

Seeing the film for a second time I came to a couple of realizations.

First the film plays better the more you see it. Part of it is simply that on the second time through you can see little story bits from late in the film and see how they are reflected earlier in the film. Knowing some of the twists adds to what’s going on earlier.

Also seeing the film a second time allows you to really watch the action sequences. If you thought the sequences were amazing when you were watching the film for just the story, they are even more mind blowing when you can focus a bit more attention on them and a tad less on the story.

Walking out of the theater and talking with everyone after the film I felt certain that I was going to go home and change the review that I had written up when I first saw the film.

Strangely, other than adding this addendum I haven’t.

Yes it’s a thrill ride. Yes the film is a blast, there is something about the ending, something about the final battle, that kind of doesn’t work for me. I don’t think the film is bad. I do think it’s a mostly great film. I think I find that the resolution, after all that has gone before is kind of a let down…I think in large part that’s because the film was conceived at the first part of trilogy which mandates that you have to leave some plot threads open for what follows. It may keep the cash cow alive but it does mean that you can’t do certain things to your characters.

I stand by my initial feeling- that the film is a must see for action lovers. I also don’t think I’m going to end up with it on my best of the year list – though it has inched closer to it with the second viewing.

For Mr C's take on the film check oyt his home base Planet Chocko

Where Do We Go Now? (2011) New Directors New Films

New Directors New Films opening night film is the story of a small isolated village in Lebanon. The Church and the Mosque sit side by side. The people in the town get along for the most part, until sectarian violence flairs and someone ends up in the cemetery. The cemetery for Christians is next to the one for the Muslims. The women of the village are fed up with the BS and in an escalating series of ploys they try to keep the men from killing each other.

I'm mixed about this film. Its a beautiful movie, with a great cast of largely non-professionals. It has a large number of characters you'd be happy to spend an extended period of time with...

...unfortunately the script seems to be a only half formed. We get bits of the story of this town, but instead of filling in enough details it simply jumps to the next bit. Its all in the service of the point of film, which is a condemnation of sectarian violence, we are after all the same, right.

Don't get me wrong, its a good film. Its enjoyable. It's just not a great film. Its too intent on beating us over the head with its point, something it starts early on with it's frequent attention to the portraits of the dead. For my money a better look at sectarian violence is the brilliant The Time That Remains about the Arab Israeli conflict. Its a film that makes you laugh, makes you cry and ultimately makes you think.

Ultimately you should give the film a try. Its got some great characters you really do want to meet. You'll also want to see the musical numbers which are quite good.

Ticket info is here.

The tentative schedule for the major film events at Lincoln Center

I got an email from the Film Society from the membership people talking about the up coming series, The Romanian Film Festival and Spanish Cinema Now series (both of which we are covering in some small way with reviews locked and loaded and ready to run closer to time).

Also included is a list of the dates of the major events/series for 2012. This year we covered 9 of them and if all goes well we'll be hip deep into at least that many in 2012.

For those who want to know the list of dates, quoted from the email, is as follows:

The dates have been set for each of our eagerly-anticipated annually-returning series – so mark your calendars now! We look forward to sharing all of this exception programming with you in the New Year! (Please keep in mind that all dates are subject to change.)

New York Jewish Film Festival: January 11-26
Dance on Camera: January 27-31
Film Comment Selects: February 17-March 1
Rendez-vous with French Cinema: March 2-11
New Directors/New Films: March 21-April 1
New York African Film Festival: April 11-17
Open Roads: New Italian Cinema: June 8-14
Human Rights Watch Film Festival: June 15-28
New York Asian Film Festival: June 29-July 12
Latin Beat: August 10-23
New York Film Festival: September 28-October 14
Views from the Avant-Garde: October 5-8
Scary Movies: October 26-31
Spanish Cinema Now: December 7-20

I'm planning my days off already....