ENTRANCE

Dallas Hallam & Patrick Horvath’s Entrance is a horror film about a recent Los Angeles transplant ("Suzy") who cant find her groove/footing in her new west coast surroundings. While that sounds like a standard plot that's been told a million times, this is a unique horror film with multiple layers & double meanings. The first layer is the slow-burn story of a woman being stalked by a violent mysterious figure. This basic idea is nothing new. Horvath & Hallam just kind of turn things up a bit and use the horror genre as a vessel to get a deeper point across. This is actually the second layer of Entrance. The politics within the film double as a sort of commentary on the harassment that women often have to deal with. In this climate of "post-horror" nonsense, a lot of horror films aren't given the credit they deserve beyond gore & jump scares from critics who don't fully understand/respect the horror genre. Entrance is incredibly personal. Co-director Patrick Horvath revealed to me that some of the genesis of Entrance came from very real life stories & experiences from the women involved in the movie both directly and indirectly...

That was definitely our main intention though, essentially the heightened fear of the day-to-day experience of a woman...
A lot of those scenarios came from Suziey, Karen and Dallas' wife Michelle. I mean, you know, sans serial killer. - Patrick Horvath

All the scenes of Suzy walking down the street alone passing by male pedestrians is reminiscent of the infamous street harassment video that went viral a few years ago (for those that don’t know or remember – a “social justice warrior” strapped a hidden camera on himself and followed a paid women/model around and recorded all the harassing comments & gestures she endured throughout the day). While the video (shown below) is quite different than Entrance, they both still share some of the same strands of DNA (that street harassment video also has layers of race baiting and questionable editing, but at the end of the day, some men can be pretty disgusting and disrespectful to women and I guess that’s the ultimate point).

Entrance highlights the realism of the harassment that women deal with. I often hear my lady and her female friends talk about the potential dangers & fears of walking to and/or from a train station late at night or, depending on their moods, how uncomfortable they (sometimes) feels next to men or groups of men when they're alone (even if the men they are around aren’t even conscious of them or have any kind of bad intentions).

Note the number of times we see Suzy walking alone with tight/protective boy language with an unknown man behind or next to her.

Suzy walking alone with tight/defensive body language

And look - I'm a large man that lives in crowded-ass New York City. A lot of men end up being in close proximity to women with absolutely no bad intentions. Some places are crowded and there's nothing that can be done about it. And some people don't always grasp the idea of personal space. But there is a physically intimidating presence some men do intentionally use around women.


In my opinion, Dallas Hallam & Patrick Horvath travelled down the same path as films like Peeping Tom, Psycho, & When A Stranger Calls kind of created but then they went a bit further and added some necessary social commentary. The violence against women in the aforementioned films are obvious but it just kind of stops there for some people. There are certainly knowledgeable critics who have called out violence against women on the big screen long before it became popular, but those people are still outnumbered by audiences who seem to get off on violence against women. Entrance makes it clear that empty violence against women (on & off film) is a serious problem that is often fetishized.


I don’t want to turn this review in to an ironic twist of a male critic (…me) forcefully urging other women to see this, but it is an important film that I strongly recommend to women who take a special interest in female safety, feminism and/or violence against women (especially in film). There’s also something kind of refreshing about the fact that two male directors seem to “get it” when it comes to that kind of stuff.
The only potentially challenging thing about Entrance is that a lot of it is very (intentionally) mundane. A lot of people hate “boring”. Personally, I love boring when it’s done right (like in the case of Entrance). But the boredom in Entrance takes on a kind of metta level because a big part of the film is an exercise in boredom and the mundane day to day life some of us live in. Much like Michael Haneke’s The 7th Continent, the boring and the mundane is part of what makes Entrance truly horrific. Monsters, Zombies and murderous stalkers are certainly scary, but not as scary as loneliness, depression, living your life set to an alarm clock, living pay check to pay check or not finding your footing in a new city. These are some of the things that our protagonist deals with in Entrance. To be honest, Entrance is a horror film for mature adults with a good attention span and an equal appreciation for horror & experimental film.

I think this movie might be off-putting to others because it’s so real & relatable (just like Haneke’s 7th Continent). We wake up every day and go to work, get frustrated, dream of things we’ll never attain and find disappointment in our commutes to & from work in real life. Movies are an escape for a lot of people. Why would you want to spend the few hours of free time you have watching sad/scary elements of your real life on TV? So Entrance isn’t for everyone (sorry to the filmmakers if I’ve discouraged viewers). But that’s what makes it special at the same time. The folks who “get it” will appreciate Entrance to the utmost.


How often do you see a modern horror film compared to the work of Michael Haneke? And Haneke is my own comparison. Some of you may find this hard to believe but The Dardenne Brothers (and their Belgian elder Chantal Akerman) played a part in the inspiration of Entrance.

That summer when we conceived it [Entrance], Lorna's Silence came out and it also happened to be when Zombie's Halloween 2 came out.
We were lamenting how a slasher film would be a lot more interesting as a Dardenne film, and so it went. - Patrick Horvath

Entrance / Lorna's Silence

Subconscious shades of Chantal Akerman (left) in Entrance (Right)

But all artsy references aside, this is a film directed by a team responsible for The Pact 2 & one of the stories in Southbound (two projects that came after Entrance, but still). So they understand horror. Entrance is a breath of fresh air within the horror genre and shows that Hallam & Horvath have the chops to step outside of the traditional horror tropes. Or...they have the chops to take traditional horror tropes and deconstruct them in to something new & fresh.

And if you’re looking for a co-sign from within the world of horror then look no further than Stephen King...

This is a very interesting low-budget? almost no-budget? film. Suzy (Suziey Block) is a pretty young barista living a barely middle-class life in Los Angeles. She has a roommate and a lovely dog named Darryl. For the first 60 minutes of this scant 84-minute movie, we see her going through her routine, almost the same every day. It becomes clear that she is disconnected from any real, vital life but perhaps too emotionally numb to be lonely…although she senses something is wrong. She brings a fella home from a bar and stares blankly up at the ceiling as he makes love to her. No distaste, no disgust, also no excitement or pleasure.

Little by little, we realize that something is VERY wrong with Suzy’s life. Her dog goes missing, and this becomes the emotional center of the movie. I was deeply moved by her halting efforts to get him back and by her breakthrough sadness. There’s no movie music, the actors are not professional, and for long stretches, nothing seems to be happening. But my anxiety built up almost to Blair Witch Project levels. You know something awful is going to happen, and there comes a point when you wish it would, so you could relax. Finally it does. I was really astounded by how much the filmmakers (Dallas Hallam and Patrick Horvath) did with so little, especially when Horvath’s only other picture was a slasher job called Die-ner (Get It?) -Stephen King

It really is worth the wait if you sit through the first major chunk of Entrance because there are plenty of entertaining elements to counter the experimental qualities that some may not be used to. Whats also great is that this is a fun second viewing because you want to go back and see if you missed any small/minor details.

But at the end of the day, the very real depression & loneliness in Entrance is what makes it a horror film in my eyes.

LA BAS

Agoraphobia:

an anxiety disorder characterized by symptoms of anxiety in situations where the person perceives the environment to be unsafe with no easy way to get away.
Those affected will go to great lengths to avoid these situations. In severe cases people may become unable to leave their homes.


I know this is a stock/cliché statement for just about any Chantal Akerman film but...La Bas is not for everyone. It is truly an acquired taste. If you are not familiar with, or a super fan of Akerman’s work, La Bas could very well be seen as a study in agoraphobia (imagine a film told from the perspective of Robert Crumb’s brothers in Crumb). The entire film, which straddles the line between documentary & fiction, is shot from the inside of an apartment from the perspective of a shut-in (Akerman) accompanied with Akerman’s own raspy voiceover narration. So you can see how that would be considered “boring” to the average person/movie-watcher. La Bas is essentially a film about a person observing her neighborhood from insider her apartment while reflecting on her current existence. It’s totally understandable if that doesn’t sound appealing. However, to a Chantal Akerman fan this is a quietly important film that not only bridges the gap between her early/classic films and her final film (No Home Movie), but it also gives some (possible) insight in to her own psyche.

In no way do I want to over-analyze and/or romanticize Akerman’s suicide but depression, melancholia, loneliness & sadness were all common elements in her work (not every film but still…). And it is my opinion that her (personal) work was a reflection of her own self more than the average filmmaker who sprinkles autobiographical bits of themselves in to their movies. Les Rendezvous D’Anna is about a female filmmaker doing the festival circuit with her latest film (that has to be autobiographical). News From Home is a loose documentary chronicling late 70’s New York City (Akerman had a few stints living in New York City). No Home Movie is a documentary chronicling her mother’s day-to-day life (Akerman’s sister also makes an appearance midway in to the film). She was also known to work with subjects who take their craft quite seriously (Pina Bauch).

Chantal Akerman's movies are also quite intimate...

UP CLOSE & PERSONAL: TIGHT SPACES IN THE CINEMA OF CHANTAL AKERMAN

Je Tu Il Elle

Hotel Monterey

Les Rendezvous D'Anna

News From Home

The up close & personal feel of Akerman’s early work is seen all throughout La Bas. Saute Ma Ville & Je Tu Il Elle are shot primarily in small apartment kitchens & elevators while La Bas takes place in a seemingly tiny & darkly lit apartment. In Je Tu Il Elle we see Akerman looking out of windows quite a bit. In La Bas we see a first person perspective of Akerman looking out of windows. Is LA Bas a loose sequel to Je Tu Il Elle? Is Chantal Akerman playing the same “character” from her 1967 film, or is La Bas just a continued exploration of her personal life on film?

looking out of a window in Je Tu Il Elle (vouyerism is a common theme in Akerman's work)

deeper/closer vouyerism in La Bas

While Akerman released some films between La Bas in 2006 and her final film in 2015, I stand by the statement that La Bas bridged her later work with her early work. Half of No Home Movie is set in her mother’s kitchen just like in Saute Ma Ville. No Home Movie brought things full circle and La Bas was simply the arc that connected everything because it shared the same claustrophobic, isolated, intimate feel as the aforementioned films.

Full circle: dining in the first & last films of Chantal Akerman
Soute Ma Ville/No Home Movie

Depression:
a mental disorder characterized by at least two weeks of low mood that is present across most situations. It is often accompanied by low self-esteem, loss of interest in normally enjoyable activities, low energy, and pain without a clear cause. People may also occasionally have false beliefs or see or hear things that others cannot. Some people have periods of depression separated by years in which they are normal while others nearly always have symptoms present. Major depressive disorder can negatively affects a person's personal, work, or school life, as well as sleeping, eating habits, and general health.


It goes without saying that you had to be suffering from depression when suicide comes in to the picture but I truly wonder how depressed she was. There were many speculations surrounding Akerman’s suicide ranging from a failed relationship to her dissatisfaction with how her films were received/criticized over the last decade or so (we’ll never really know). But based on her constant work & output up until her death in conjunction with the more textbook description of what depression is – I see some discrepancies…

No matter how disappointed she may have been with the criticisms of her later films, it still didn’t stop her from putting out work pretty regularly (it should be noted that both IMDB & Wikipedia have her filmography incorrect with quite a few gaps). While working as a filmmaker she also taught film. I know enough from other filmmakers to know that teaching film rather than actually making them can be a little frustrating because it feels like a "step down", but, if I’m not mistaken, Akerman taught and made films at the same time which seems pretty motivated to me. But who knows? People hide their unhappiness in many different ways so there’s no point in trying to get to the bottom of “why?”. But I am fairly certain that La Bas is a peek in to the depressive side of things. I like to imagine Chantal Akerman made it during a depressing yet motivated/functioning period in her life. This is honestly a film she could have made without a crew. The lighting is mostly natural using the sunlight from all the windows in the apartment. And when there is no sunlight things get so dark to the point where you can’t see anything. So I doubt there was a lighting person on this film. A lot of the shots are long & uninterrupted so I don’t see the editing process being to grueling or tedious either. There isn’t even any music. I wonder if La Bas could be “registered”/considered for a dogma95 certification (by the time this film was made the dogma95 movement had died out so I doubt anyone would have taken notice).

THE BUILDER

Rick Alverson is always growing as a filmmaker. Each project is more “polished” than the next. But that’s not to say his earlier films like New Jerusalem or the film of discussion (The Builder) are UN-polished. They’re not. In fact, a lot of the themes & subject matter from his feature film debut are still very much a part of the fabric of his more recent work like The Comedy & Entertainment. His recent work is less about nature & rural surroundings, but The Builder planted the seeds for all the films in the cinematic universe that Rick Alverson is building. Every protagonist in a Rick Alverson film always deals with some form of depression (Entertainment), melancholy feelings (The Builder), heavy jadedness (The Comedy) or is going through an existential crisis (New Jerusalem). In The Builder – the story of an Irish immigrant’s quest to build a historically accurate cape house, our protagonist (“The Builder”) is overcome with all of the aforementioned feelings along with serious fatigue and bouts of hopelessness & self-defeat. To me, The Builder is Alverson’s take on the romantic idea of doing away with the big noisy city but finding out how difficult that really is to follow through with. The main character in the film moves from Queens to upstate New York after purchasing some land but is so overwhelmed by the task of building a home & living in seclusion that he kind of shuts down. Have you ever had a romantic idea like writing a book, making a film, painting a house, fixing a car, etc and then realized; “Shit…this sounded cool to talk about but I’m in way over my head!” I find myself wanting to leave New York City all the time. But when I think about the logistics of moving & starting over it does sound a bit overwhelming. Not the most overwhelming thing in the world but still overwhelming nonetheless. We’ve also all had major bouts of procrastination when a project seems too ambitious to even start.

With its semi-poetic vibe and sprawling shots of nature, it’s easy/lazy to compare The Builder To Tarkovsky (which is something quite a few bloggers & critics have been doing for the last six years) but The Builder is really more in tune with films like Richard Linklater’s It’s Impossible To Learn To Plow By Reading Books or the cinema of Chantal Akerman (Linklater actually credited Akerman’s work as an influence on his often un-credited feature debut). Sure there’s a “plot” to The Builder, It’s Impossible To Learn To Plow & various Chantal Akerman films but the plot is secondary to the film’s ambiance. I guess you could compare The Builder to Tarkovsky in a kind of backhanded/indirect way in that it has quite a few similarities to Carlos Reygadas’ Japon which is heavily influenced by the work of Tarkovsky (both Japon & The Builder are about depressed/tired men who set out to complete a personal project/task in a rural area but take their time doing what they came to do). But The Builder doesn’t deal in surreality or stream of consciousness like Tarkovskyor or Reygadas. I also think any similarities that The Builder may have with other films is completely coincidental. I’ve read enough about Rick Alverson to feel like he’s one of the few filmmakers that isn’t influenced like other filmmakers are. When he says that Entertainment wasn’t influenced by Paris Texas (something he was once asked at a Q&A) I genuinely believe him. Alverson is quietly (and respectfully) open about what he dislikes in film more than what he does like (a trait I wish more filmmakers had). Sure there may be some uncontrollable subconscious influences on his work that no artist can deny, but I like to think Alverson doesn’t surround himself with tons of films to borrow from. He seems to keep an intentional blind eye to what other filmmakers around him are doing so his work can be original. And I think that’s evident. When you take The Comedy & Entertainment and put them up against the films of hispeers (Kelly Reciahrdt, Lance Hammer, Aaron Katz, Jeff Nichols, etc) you see that his work can’t be mistaken for anyone else’s.

Although speaking of influence, I do find it peculiar that The Builder (2010) - a film about a man trying to build a cabin in the woods – has similar promotional material to a later film about another man known for building a cabin in the woods…

It’s also easy/lazy to label The Builder as boring (another characteristic I’ve seen some critics & bloggers incorrectly use to define it). But have you ever been depressed and/or severely fatigued? It isn’t exactly exciting. It’s droning & sluggish and The Builder conveys that. The faces, expressions & energies exuded by all the characters in the film are that of depressive fatigue. If you’re going to make a film that partially deals with sadness, self-doubt and/or depression - the film should feel depressing. And this does. Without meaning to, or possibly even realizing it, The Builder travels down the path that Haneke made with The 7th Continent as well as Two Lane Blacktop (it should be noted that Alverson cited Two Lane Blacktop as an influence on Entertainment so it isn’t too far-fetched that the sprawling & intentionally directionless vibe of Monte Hellman’s anti-road movie rubbed off on The Builder as well)

I doubt the casual movie fan looking for something “fun” or “exciting” to watch will blindly stumble upon The Builder. You have to kind of be familiar with Alverson’s work or the school of films that it kind of belongs to (Ballast, Wendy & Lucy, Old Joy, The Brown Bunny, Last Days, etc). The Builder is the perfect lazy afternoon film (your viewing experience might even be slightly more heightened or enhanced if you’re familiar with or living in certain areas of upstate New York, New England or Virginia (where Alverson is from & currently resides).

KINETTA

At first glance, one wouldn’t associate Kinetta with the rest of the films in Yorgos Lanthimos’ body of work. And that’s understandable. Not only was his feature film debut made almost five years before Dogtooth (a movie that is often times wrongly credited as Yorgos Lanthimos’ first feature film), but the camerawork in Kinetta is a lot more rough & “amateur-ish” in comparison to the polarizing/polished cinematography we saw in later works like The Lobster & Alps (a lot of the hotel scenes in The Lobster are reminiscent of the Overlook Hotel in The Shining). Kinetta almost looks like a dogma film (it should be noted that before The Lobster, the use of music in Lanthimos’ films stayed close to the dogma-esque rules concerning music in that whatever music is featured in a dogma film cannot be added in post production).

But if you’re willing to get past the look of Kinetta (which isn't even an issue as far as I'm concerned), you’ll see that it literally planted the seeds for all the recent stuff we love like Dogtooth, Alps & The Lobster. It is my opinion that Kinetta, Dogtooth, Alps & The Lobster all take place in the same universe. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the characters from Kinetta knew some of the characters from Alps. There’s a strong continuous thread that connects everything in the cinematic world of Yorgos Lanthimos. Kinetta has very little dialogue. For those of you who haven’t noticed (or are only familiar with The Lobster) minimal/spaced out dialogue is a common characteristic of Lanthimos’ pre-Lobster work. Both Dogtooth & Alps contain a lot of empty space as far as talking goes when compared to "conventional movies". Loneliness (The Lobster), identity (Alps & Dogtooth), awkward dryness (Lobster, Alps & Dogtooth) and deadpan expressionism (Lobster, Alps & Dogtooth) are embedded in to the fabric of Kinetta. Even the basic plot of Alps sounds like a light reworking of the plot to Kinetta...

The emphasis on music: Kinetta/The Lobster

In Kinetta we follow three residents of a resort town during the off season. To pass the time they reenact murders just like the characters in Alps who reenact scenes from people’s past in order to help them get some closure.
I immediately related to the ambiance of Kinetta having went to college near Virginia Beach. I’m not sure if you know this but during the late Fall & Winter seasons, Virginia Beach is a (sometimes) strange, empty, desolate place depending on where you are. And that isn’t an insult (I know it sounds a little harsh). It’s just strange seeing such a popular tourist spot so empty for an extended period of time (I'm really talking about the main strip in Virginia Beach to be quite honest). Actually, the vibe of Kinetta kind of feels like staying on a college campus during Christmas or summer. On one hand – it’s incredibly lonely & isolated. But on the other hand, depending on your personality, there’s something calm & soothing about isolation (and it goes without saying, but when you find yourself isolated & lonely you don’t say much, just like the characters in Kinetta).

Kinetta kind of comes off like Antonioni’s Red Desert except with a slight tinge of dark/dry humor that one would expect from Yorgos Lanthimos.

Loneliness: Kinetta/The Red Desert

Desolate landscapes: Kinetts/The Red Desert

I’m not quite sure if Yorgos Lanthimos is trying to show the dreariness of small town life in Greece, or if he’s trying to explore the pointlessness of our existence all together. I’m sure if you seek out enough reviews for Kinetta you’ll find cases for both scenarios (or perhaps you’ll find a completely different analysis all together). I find it interesting that the characters in all of Lanthimos’ pre-Lobster films are all servants and/or caregivers of some kind. The protagonists in Alps are EMTs & Medical assistants. The wife & children in Dogtooth are essentially homemakers, and the main characters in Kinetta all work in the service industry. The existence of a caregiver can be depressing. No wonder the large majority of Yorgos Lanthimos’ characters are always trying to be someone else and escape their own existence. The more I think about it, the more I think that maybe Lanthimos is trying to show outsiders with romantic views of Greece (and other "exotic" lands) that it isn’t always this beautiful getaway that some people make it out to be (just look at their ongoing financial problems).
But Yorgos Lanthimos is tough to read. He’s very much like his films in that he’s a little deadpan and sometimes expressionless. So who knows what he’s really trying to convey at the end of the day. All I know is that all his movies are great and they bring out some kind of emotion in me.

I’ve never been to Greece but I’m sure it’s beautiful. I’m sure some places are like paradise on earth based on some of the pictures I’ve seen. But (some) outsiders have this romanticized vision of Greece as if it’s one big vacation getaway (same with places like Nevada, Hawaii and even Florida to a smaller extent). I would love to see more films set in places like Vegas & Hawaii told from the perspective of folks who were born and raised there as opposed to outsiders.

Revisiting Kinetta also brought me to the realization that there’s an incredibly strong parallel between the works of Rick Alverson & Yorgos Lanthimos (two PINNLAND EMPIRE favorites). Both directors have four features under their belts with the same progression & growth from one movie to the next. Look at the bookends of their careers so far - Kinetta & The Builder (Alverson) are both raw, “natural-looking” films, while The Lobster & Entertainment (Alverson) are a lot more polished-looking and feature better known actors (John C Reilly appears in both the aforementioned movies). Lanthimos & Alverson also challenge the idea of “humor” in the same non-pretentious yet provocative way (when you watch movies directed by these two contemporaries you find yourself wondering if it’s OK to laugh or not).
If you’re a fan of Lanthimos it’s important that you seek out Kinetta. Not just to see where it all started, but because it’s a solid film. I understand that up until recently it was a tough film to come by (I was lucky enough to see a screening of it at The Museum Of The Moving Image a few years ago) but there’s finally a multi-region DVD available courtesy of Second Run DVD that I highly recommend seeking out.

TWO BY KIAROSTAMI: CLOSE UP & TASTE OF CHERRY (CRITERION BLOG-A-THON)

Cinema lovers are sick people - Francois Truffaut

In the late 1980's the Ahankhah's (an Iranian family made up of Husband; Abolfazl, Wife; Mehrdad and their two sons; Monoochehr & Mahrokh) became acquainted with famous Iranian filmmaker; Mohsen Makhmalbaf. At one point the family invited the filmmaker in to their home because they believed he wanted to use it (and them) in his next project. The only problem is that the person they thought was Mohsen Makhmalbaf was in fact some guy (Hossain Sabzian) pretending to be the famous filmmaker. A few days earlier Sabzian happened to be sitting next to Mehrdad Ahankhah on the bus and he introduced himself as the famous Iranian filmmaker (who Mehrdad happened to be a fan of) and just went with it.

I have vivid memories from when I was a child of my father doing shit like this to amuse me & my mom (although he didn't take it nearly as far as Sabzian did). When I was nine years old we went to visit my grandmother in Queens like we usually did once a month or so. While we were on the subway a lady noticed my father was wearing an NBC hat and asked if he worked for the television studio in New York. Without hesitation my father replied yes and went on to explain his (made up) position at NBC. The only thing is my dad was really a social worker for a corporation in Northampton, Massachusetts. This didn't surprise me too much because at that point I already knew my father was the same person who told my mother he knew Arthur Ashe personally as a way to impress her back before they dated. A lot of people tell lies & tall tales for various reasons. However Sabzian's reasons for lying go a lot deeper than simple self-amusement...

Somewhere in between William Greive's groundbreaking yet convoluted Symbiopsychotaxiplasm (1969), Orson Welles' F for Fake (1973), Colour Me Kubrick (2005) & Henri-Georges Cluzot's Inferno (2009) lies the "docufiction"; Close Up - Abbas Kiarostami's uncategorizeable film based on the true story of a lonely cinema lover and the family he briefly took advantage of. Hossain Sabzian is a living breathing example of Truffaut's famous quote at the start of this piece yet at the same time Kiarostami makes us feel sorry for him in a way. From his sad/insecure mannerisms right down to the holes in his socks; Hossain Sabzian is a pitiful guy. A pitiful guy with an appreciation for good movies. Part of me thinks Kiarostami knew audiences who watched this film would be somewhat sympathetic towards Hossain's situation as we can kind of identify with him. Lets be clear - Abbas Kiarostami is one of the most important filmmakers in world cinema but he ain't Steven Spielberg. His films aren't the kinds of films that play at major theaters. The average movie-goer doesn't just happen upon his work like; "hey you wanna see a movie tonight? Abbas Kiarostami's new movie is playing at the multiplex downtown". Most people who watch his films are cinephiles who have a little bit of Hossain Sabzian in them. Take me for example - Not only do I have in my possession (well...at my grandmother's house) a small trash can that once belonged to Martin Scorsese (seriously tho, I do) but I have saved print screens of all the email correspondents between myself & Claire Denis and I will probably NEVER throw away the shitty disposable phone I used to speak to her on a few years back as it's now an important artifact in my life (I was fortunate enough to do a brief interview with Denis in 2013). I have other similar stories from other cinephile buddies of mine but I wont go in to those. Truffaut is righgt. We are sick people. Hossain Sabzian just took it to another level. Even now as write this, Close-Up brings up so many other cinematic moments in my obsessive movie brain. 

The shot of Hossain Sabzian sitting behind bars is like something out of a Bresson film...

the final freeze frame shot at the end is reminiscent of everything from the obvious 400 Blows to Chameleon Street...

While films like Room 237 & The The Father Of My Children make me proud to be a cinephile, Close Up makes me a little embarrassed to love films the way i do. When Sabzian was eventually arrested and tried in court for impersonating the filmmaker, he makes a statement along the lines of how he lived his life according to Makhmalbaf's film The Cyclist and how it had such a huge impact on his life. This was his defense to a certain extent. Like...He seriously came to a court of law with that. What a romantic yet crazy/disconnected thing only a dedicated cinema lover would think to say when facing serious charges. Although Sabzian deceived a family, he still admits that what he did was wrong and is a stand-up guy in court. He doesn't deflect or try to avoid blame and doesn't even resist arrest. I think that's why people (myself included) find some redeemable qualities about him. He's clearly a lonely guy. In court the only person who comes to his defense is his mother.

The Cyclist (1987)

Perhaps to get a better understanding of Sabzian (and this film) one must get an understanding of Makhmalbaf's The Cyclist - The story of an Afghan refugee who tries to raise money to pay for surgery for his dying wife by riding a bicycle nonstop for a week as people bet on whether or not he can complete the task. This film goes a little deeper as it's apparently based on something Makhmalbaf actually witnessed as child. It's also believed by many film critics that The Cyclist is a metaphor about the immigration system in Iran.

Was Abbas Kiarostami fascinated by the fact that someone so much in love with film would try something like this? Or to take it a step further - was Kiarostami fascinated by a fellow Iranian that much in love with Iranian cinema given its sometimes limited resources that he felt the need to base a film on this man? Was he intrigued because Mohsen Makhmalbaf is a friend/acquaintance? I'm not entirely sure but I'm glad he made this film (which may have never of happened had Kiarostami not picked up the magazine that reported the story). What makes Close Up so unique is that it's a film made up of reenactmented moments using the actual people involved playing themselves (Sabzian, the Ahankhah's, the journalist who reported the story, and even Mohsen Makhmalbaf). The court scenes are particularly confusing because it really looks like authentic grainy footage. This isn't the first film in history to do this. I'm immediately reminded of Muhammad Ali playing himself in the pre-Michael Mann biopic - The Muhammad Ali Story. But Close Up is definitely one of the best films of its kind (Tony Buba's Lightning Over Braddock, which we'll be getting in to early next year, is an earlier genre-less film that may have influenced the style of Close-Up in some way). 

It's pretty brave of the "cast" to come back and relive/reenact such an embarrassing moment. Its already been established how embarrassing this event was for Sabzian (i mean seriously, how far was he going to take this charade until he got caught) but on the other side you have an entire family duped in to believing they were going to take part in a film directed by their favorite director when they could have just sought out a picture of the real person. Its also brave to star in a film alongside someone who came in to your home and tried to take advantage of you (although peace was made between both parties in real life, I can't image how awkward and tense it must have been on set).

The biggest mind-fuck about Close Up is that Hossain Sabzian got everything he wanted and more. When he was pretending to be this famous filmmaker he had plans to make a film about the family and that's partially what Close Up ended up becoming. He got what he pretended to set out to do which I'm sure deep down inside was a dream of his. Not only that, but Sabzian got to work with two of Iran's most important filmmakers (one of which is the man he pretended to be). I'm not trying to compare a guy like Hossain Sabzian to Mark David Chapman. Their crimes are nowhere near the same. But at the same time there is some similarity - they both got recognition and fame after doing something wrong (which is an understatement in Chapman's case). No matter how sad & pitiful Sabzian may be, what he did was wrong yet at the end of the day he was more than rewarded in return. There's a scene in the film where Abbas Kiarostami visits Sabzian in prison and asks what he can do for him and Sabzian requests Kiarostami make a film about his struggle. Well...he definitely got that. And not just any movie. Many people consider Close Up to be Kiarostami's best film. He's in the history books of cinema now. Mark David Chapman shoots John Lennon and there's been movies & songs made about him. Chapman wanted to be famous and he got it. Did Sabzian want fame? Did he play everyone including Kiarostami? Did he pull a pre-Banksy/Exit Through The Giftshop on everyone? Eh, probably not. He doesn't come off that clever of a person (although he did manage to get away with pretending to be someone for a little while without anyone noticing). Plus, Kiarostami approached him not the other way around. (we learn that years after Close Up was made, courtesy of a mini documentary that's part of the special features on the Criterion disc, Sabzian is still pretty much the same sad pitiful person and hasn't moved on with his life).

I am still very surprised that I managed to make that film. When I actually look back on that film, I really feel that I was not the director but instead just a member of the audience. Because the film made itself, to a large extent. The characters involved were very real, I wasn't directing the actors so much as being directed by them. So it was a very particular film. One of the very worrying aspects of the film is exactly what Geoff has asked about. I asked Makhmalbaf, the director, to come and meet Sabzian on his release from prison. Sabzian had no idea what was going to happen on that day and who he was going to meet. That moment is very real, when Sabzian meets his idol [and Sabzian bursts into tears]. They got on the motorcycle and we followed them in the car without Sabzian's knowledge that we were filming. - Abbas Kiarostami

Mohsen Makhmalbaf & Hossain Sabzian ride to the Ahankhah's home to appaologize and make peace towards the end of the film. This scene also serves as an obvious tip of the hat to Makhmalbaf's The Cyclist

Mohsen Makhmalbaf: Do you prefer being Makhmalbaf or Sabzian?

Hossain Sabzian: I'm tired of being me

The moment where Sabzian meets Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who plays the role of peacemaker between the Ahankhah family and Sabzian, is, in my opinion, one of the most humbling moments in modern film. The impostor breaks down in the presence of the man he pretended to be but is given comfort instead of shame & ridicule. The difference between Sabzian's story and that of Alan Conway (the man who got away with impersonating Stanley Kubrick who, like Sabzian, looked nothing the filmmaker he was pretending to be) is that Conway did what he did for attention and to feel important for the sake of feeling important. Although his execution is fucking creepy, this was about being an artist for Sabzian. He, a poor "insignificant" everyman of the Iranian lower class (much like the main character in The Cyclist), wanted the experience of being in the shoes of an important cultural figure in a land where art & culture are sometimes limited & censored. That's the beauty of film scenes like in Iran. They go through so much heartache & restriction during the filmmaking process yet still manage to produce beautiful pieces of art (sometimes restrictions help in a roundabout way).
Close Up is told in a kind of cut-up style. The chronology of events in the film jumps around quite a bit. I hate getting on Tarantino so often but does anyone besides me get pissed every time he's credited as this innovator/inventor of non-linear storytelling? Obviously more people are going to identify with Pulp Fiction & Reservoir Dogs than they will with Close Up bit it still bugs me (Abbas Kiarostami has some interesting comments about Tarantino on the special features of the Taste Of Cherry DVD). Additionally, so many mockumentaries, which has now become an over saturated genre in both film & TV, are mislabeled as original and/or thought provoking simply because they make us question if something is real or not when they clearly obviously aren't real. But Close-Up genuinely makes you question if what you are watching is real or a reenactment. This isn't anything on the level of Stan Brahkage or Maya Deren but in terms of storytelling it's pretty experimental and unique especially for a feature length film.

One could say the experimental style in Close-Up rubbed off on the final moments of one of Kiarostami's most know films; Taste Of Cherry...

For years I avoided The Taste Of Cherry because it seemed like one of those art house movies that you not only had to see but you also had to love it and couldn’t question its greatness. I was also under the impression that this movie was given special treatment by cinephiles because it was made under all the harsh scrutiny & religiously-based rules set by the Iranian film industry. Kiarostami faced problems in Iran during & after the production of Taste Of Cherry. Apparently he not only had to cut out certain scenes that depicted the country as poor but he could only edit the film at night when the editing equipment was available. When he won the Palme D'or at Cannes he got in to more trouble in his home country for kissing Juliette Binoche on the cheek after she presented him with the award (13 years later they would go on to make Certified Copy together). Because Juliette Binoche isn’t his wife it caused a stir in his home country. Taste Of Cherry wasn't the first time Kiarostami faced some type censorship and/or stoppage, and it certainly wouldn't be the last (in 2002 he was denied a visa to come to Cannes because of all the post-9/11 nonsense). 

It felt like I was hearing more about Kiarostami's censorship and other controversies surrounding him than I was hearing about his actual films. I mean...were they actually any good, or was he just getting sympathy due to all the hardships he faced? Keep in mind I was young at the time I thought all this. I was a Kiarostami novice up until 2006. Knowing what I know now, I have an even greater respect for Iranian cinema and any other movie scene that creates such great films under harsh restrictions.

Most people I knew who had seen Taste Of Cherry either shrugged their shoulders at it or labeled it as boring. But curiosity finally got the best of me so I blind bought the (criterion) DVD and it turned out to be one of my greatest cinematic discoveries of the last 10 years. I know Taste Of Cherry is kind of like "Kiarostami 101" but it’s still a great film. Even though I fell in love with it on the first viewing and still watch it on a fairly regular basis, I can’t exactly argue that it isn’t boring. It’s quite boring. A good portion of this film takes place inside a car, as do a lot of Kiarostami's films...

Top Row: Certified Copy & Like Someone In Love
Middle: The Wind Will Carry Us & Taste Of Cherry
Bottom: Ten & ABC Africa

...But it’s a good kind of boring. There's constant dialogue, interesting conversations and beautiful cinematography. 

The story is pretty simple - a middle-aged man is driving through a small town in Iran looking for some assistance in committing a potential suicide. There’s an aire of mystery to the film as we're not given any back story about the main character; "Badii" (Homayon Ershadi) or why he wants to die. This aspect of the story didn’t sit too well with some people, most notably the late great Roger Ebert -

If we're to feel sympathy for Badii, wouldn't it help to know more about him? To know, in fact, anything at all about him?

Ebert does have a point. What if Badii was a shitty person not worthy of our sympathy or any kind of redemption? For those hypothetical reasons Kiarostami had this to say...

In “Taste of Cherry” I have tried to keep a distance between my spectator and the protagonist. I didn’t want spectators emotionally involved in this film. In this film, I tell you very little about Mr. Badii, I tell you very little about what his life is about, why he wanted to commit suicide, what his story is I didn’t want the spectators to get engaged in those aspects of his life. For that purpose I had to keep Mr. Badii away from the audience. So he is a distant actor in a way…I was very concerned, and am always concerned, about my spectators. I do not want to take them hostage. I do not want to take their emotions hostage. It is very easy for a filmmaker to control the emotions of spectators but I do not like that. I do not want to see my audience as innocent children whose emotions are easily manipulable.

the three passengers Badii picks up in the film...

In the film, Badii drives around looking for someone to bury his body in a hole he dug near a tree out in the dessert after/if he decides to go through with killing himself. In return for helping, Badii promises to leave behind a nice sum of money for whoever buries him. After a few failed attempts he finally picks someone up who agrees to do it. I'm almost embarrassed to admit but I've seen this film many times and only recently (courtesy of John Cribb's pink smoke review of Like Someone In Love) did it dawn on me that at the start of the film it comes off like Badii is "cruising" as opposed to looking for someone to help him commit suicide (this also probably didn’t sit too well with the "powers that be" back in Iran).

On the issue of Badii wanting to end his life, Passenger #3 makes an assumption that his depression has to do with some kind of debt or family troubles. Generally speaking, that’s usually the reason someone in a film wants to commit suicide (either that or over a woman). What Kiarostami is essentially trying to say (or challenge us on) by not giving up much info on the main character and his decision to kill himself is; why concern ourselves with the "why"? There are already a million movies that do that. Why dwell on the past? If anything, Taste Of Cherry is about the importance of the now, the importance of life and the future. Yes, the future. Although it’s pulled off in a very dark and almost backwards way, Taste Of Cherry is partially about the importance (or dare I say, celebration) of life. Or at the very least it’s an intellectual anti-suicide film. I'm not even sure if this was even Kiarostami's goal but that's what I took from it. Think about it - everyone Badii picks up off the side of the road (each a different ethnicity; Kurdish, Afghan & Azeri) tries to talk him out of killing himself in their own way. The soldier he picks up first absolutely refuses to do it and eventually runs off scared. The second passenger (a man studying to be a priest) talks to him about the immorality of suicide and tries his best to talk him out of going through with the act as well. Even the third and final passenger, who does agree to help him, gives Badii some advice to try and change his mindset and outlook on life...

I'll tell you something that happened to me. It was just after I got married. We had all kinds of troubles. I was so fed up with it that I decided to end it all. One morning, before dawn I put a rope in my car. My mind was made up, I wanted to kill myself. I set off for Mianeh...I reached the mulberry tree plantations. I stopped there. It was still dark. I threw the rope over a tree but it didn't catch hold. I tried once, twice but to no avail. So then I climbed the tree and tied the rope on tight. Then I felt something soft under my hand. Mulberries - Deliciously sweet mulberries. I ate one. It was succulent. Then a second and third. Suddenly, I noticed that the sun was rising over the mountaintop. What sun, what scenery, what greenery! All of a sudden, I heard children heading off to school. They stopped to look at me. They asked me to shake the tree. The mulberries fell and they ate. I felt happy. Then I gathered some mulberries to take them home. My wife was still sleeping. When she woke up, she ate mulberries as well. And she enjoyed them too. I had left to kill myself and I came back with mulberries. A mulberry saved my life.

Every man on earth has problems in his life. That's the way it is. There are so many people on earth. There isn't one family without problems. I don't know your problem otherwise I could explain better.

The world isn't the way you see it. You have to change your outlook and change the world. Be optimistic. Look at things positively. You're in your prime!

Although a somewhat simplistic story, it’s still uplifting. Taste Of Cherry mixes religion (the film opens with a title card that reads “In The Name Of God”) with spirituality. If anything the Iranian film industry should make Abbas Kiarostami's Iranian films as accessible as possible. His work does its small part to break all the ridiculous stereotypes many westerners have towards Muslims in this post 9/11 world we live in. Taste Of Cherry is very much a Muslim film yet I still felt a connection to it without being Muslim.

Kiaorstami's views on religion are more spiritually-based which explains a lot in Taste Of Cherry (especially the ending)

In my view, religion is to believe in all the things that are invisible

Taste Of Cherry actually has two endings - One is an open & ambiguous ending, while the other is an ambiguous ending to the whole movie watching experience that may leave you going; "huh?".
At the end of the movie we see Badii in the grave he dug for himself on his back looking up at the sky as it starts to rain. Before we see if he dies, the screen goes black momentarily and we're left to decide if he goes through with the suicide or not. In true art house fashion the director leaves the ending up to us to decide what happens. He leaves it up to us to believe in our own (invisible) interpretation. Going back to my statement about the film being a possible celebration of life - there are so many signs that lead me to believe Badii lives in the end; Every character in the film tries to talk him out of ending his life. Even the background characters one might think serve no purpose play an important role in helping Badii chose life.

There's a scene in Taste Of Cherry that’s been embedded in my mind since the first time I saw it - After the first passenger runs off, Badii’s car runs off the side of the road and he gets stuck. Suddenly a group of workers close by gather around to push his car out. This may seem like an insignificant scene to some but I found it touching. The instant willingness of these strangers to help dig this car outta kinda seemed like some sign. As if something was trying to show our depressed main character that even though life can be shitty sometimes, there are still kind people out there willing to help and lift you up. In this case even strangers (one of 'em is even smiling while he's lifting the front of the car as if he's glad to help). Also, the grave Badii lays in is next to a tree. Yes it’s extremely cliché but in cinema "the tree" does pretty much represent life (especially in art house). Just refer back to the story Passenger #3 told Badii. It was a tree that stopped him from ending his life. A tree provided the berries for him to eat, the tree provided him with the view to see the sun rise and it was a tree that made the little children happy. In the end Badii lies in an open grave and it starts to rain. It goes without saying but, when something is planted underground it needs rain to grow and rise above the ground. So at the end of the day no matter how dark or heavy the film may be, I think all signs point to life.

ending #1

The second ending is what the film is most known for and kind of split audiences in half. At the end of David Lynch's long & intense trip through Inland Empire we see the cast behind the closing credits dancing & celebrating and blowing kisses at one another reminiscent to the end of a play or the end of a Saturday Night Live episode where the cast & crew come out to thank everyone. After an intense film like Inland Empire an ending like that serves as kind of a breath of fresh air and assurance that everything is ok. This is the same case with the final moments of Taste Of Cherry where we see b-role footage of Kiarostami directing behind the scenes with the cast & crew. Although Taste Of Cherry is heavy and subtly intense in its own way, this second ending serves as a way of saying "it's just a movie". It’s almost like you're under hypnosis while watching Taste Of Cherry and then the hypnotherapist suddenly snaps their fingers or uses the trigger word and we're out of the trance. It’s the general consensus among most people (who've seen this) that the ending is supposed convey the message that "nothing matters" but that's a pretty simplistic view if you ask me. Unlike most art house filmmakers who avoid answering questions directly, Abbas Kiarostiami had this to say about the films ending...

ending #2

I understand the difficulty you have comprehending the last scene of this movie. I sympathize with you. But this has been deliberate on my part...I was afraid that if I ended the movie where Mr. Badie laid down on his grave the spectator would be left with a great deal of sadness. Even though I didn’t think the scene was really that sad, I was afraid that it would come out as such. For that reason I decided to have the next episode where we have the camera running as Mr. Badie was walking around. I wanted to remind spectators that this was really a film and that they shouldn’t think about this as a reality. They should not become involved emotionally. This is much like some of our grandmothers who told us stories, some with happy and some with sad endings. But they always at the end would have a Persian saying which went like this "but after all it is just a story!" The very last episode reminds me of the continuation of life, that life goes on, and here the audience is confronted with the reality they had hoped that Mr. Badie would be alive and there he is a part of nature and nature still continues and life goes on even without Mr. Badie. And if one could really think about being or not being present in life, or if one thinks about it in terms of the real implication of such presence, one might not in fact engage in committing suicide at all. The person committing suicide might think that s/he is taking revenge from the society, nature, life, powers to be, and so on. But s/he doesn’t realize that after a suicide life still goes on and things stay the way they are. I could interpret this in a different way. If my audience is as creative as I imagine them to be, they can take this in a variety of interpretations and I can sit here and every time make a different interpretation of it, as every time one can creatively reinterpret the reality.

On one hand that sounds like artsy babble but what stands out to me is the phrase "life goes on". Say my interpretation is wrong and Badii really does kill himself in the end. According to the views of the filmmaker (which I'm sure come from a spiritual place) life will still go. He will be buried in the ground and now become part of the earth.

Taste Of Cherry was my introduction in to the world of Abbas Kiarostami so it has some sentimental value. It carries the spirit of Bergman's Wild Strawberries - both films are contemplative road movies about life, and, in my opinion, it had a subconscious influence on quite a few road movies that came after it like; I Travel Because I Have To, I Come Back Because I Love You (the film's co-director, Karim Ainouz, confirmed Taste Of Cherry's influence on him at a Q&A a couple of years back at Anthology film archives where I also came to discover that he studied architecture just like Taste Of Cherry star Homayon Ershadi. For those that don't know, Architecture is the field I work in. Perhaps my spiritual connection to this film has to do with the subconscious (professional) connection I have with the film's star...

Make sure to check out all the other entries in the Criterion blog-a-thon over at Criterion Blues...

THE CINEMA OF KELLY REICHARDT TOLD THROUGH IMAGES & STILLS *UPDATED*

I don't know if I could come up with my own personal list of today's top American filmmakers right now (too many of them are too inconsistent, inactive or new these days), but if Kelly Reichardt were one of the names on someone else’s list, I wouldn't be mad at that. These days when I think of “American Cinema”, I think of stuff like Old Joy. In the last 8 years, Kelly Reichardt has explored everything from poverty (Wendy & Lucy) & “eco-terrorism” (Night Moves) to this country’s history (Meek’s Cutoff) & the importance of friendship (Old Joy). And what’s so great is that she touches on all these topics in a subtle/non-preachy way. 

Kelly Reichardt has been one of the true MVP's this year here at PINNLAND EMPIRE so it’s only right that we explore her filmography.

Enjoy…

THE GREAT OUTDOORS 

It's no mystery that Kelly Reichardt's work (especially everything post-Old Joy) is rooted in natural surroundings. Nature, woods and just all things green are a noticeable backdrop in Ode which gives the film a calming vibe. In Old Joy we see our two characters driving through the mountains of Portland to find a hot spring (along the way they do things like hike, camp and just embrace nature). Around the time of Wendy & Lucy (2008) is when things got a little darker... 

In Wendy & Lucy, nature becomes Wendy's home due to the fact that she's homeless. Instead of hot springs, mediation & heart-to-hearts by camp fire (as seen in Old Joy) Wendy is forced to survive in the woods. Survival became an even bigger factor in her next film...

Meek's Cutoff follows a group of travelers crossing the Oregon Trail and we see an even harsher side of nature (along the way our characters get lost, run low on supplies and are headed towards potential danger). It makes sense that her most recent film (Night Moves) deals with Eco-terrorists/extreme environmentalists who go to horrific lengths to protect the earth they love so much.

Old Joy

Old Joy

Wendy & Lucy

Wendy & Lucy

Meek's Cutoff

Night Moves

Night Moves

Certain Women

Certain Women

Certain Women

First Cow

FOUR LEGGED FRIENDS...

Long before Night Moves, which opens with Jesse Eisenberg pulling off to the side of the road to help an injured animal, Kelly Reichardt has been an advocate for animal rights and just an overall love of animals since day one. If they aren't always present in the background of every other frame (Meek's Cutoff & River Of Grass), they're treated like key supporting actors (Old Joy & Wendy & Lucy)...

Meeks Cutoff

Certain Women

Old Joy

River Of Grass

Wendy & Lucy

First Cow

THE OPEN ROAD

With the exception of Wim Wenders, I don't know if any other country has mastered the modern road movie genre quite like America has (Jim Jarmusch, Alexander Payne, Monte Hellman, Bette Gordon, etc). Actually, some of Wenders' best road movies take place in America (Paris Texas and the first half of Alice In The Cities). Kelly Reichardt's work has taken us from the south (River Of Grass & Ode) to the northwest (Old Joy & Meek’s Cutoff). And like any road movie, her characters are using the open road to either run away from something (River Of Grass); start over (Meek's Cutoff & Wendy & Lucy) or for existential reasons (Old Joy).

Meek's Cuttof

Old Joy

River Of Grass

Wendy & Lucy

Certain Women

Night Moves

MALICK'S (POSSIBLE) INFLUENCE

I feel like Kelly Reichardt has quite a few subconscious influences ranging from Chantal Akerman to Gus Van Sant, but nothing seems more obvious than Terrence Malick (besides the visuals below, Reichardt utilized haunting voiceover narration with her first film)

Badlands/River Of Grass

Days Of Heaven/Meek's Cutoff

FALSE PROPHETS/CHARACTERS FULL OF SHIT

I recently attended a Q&A with Reichardt and I asked her if the similarities between Harmon (Night Moves) & Meek (Meek's Cutoff) were intentional. I felt both characters, birthed from the same author and brought to life by the same director, talked a good game but were, as Reichardt herself put it, "full of shit". This was the validation I needed. Right when Reichardt made that statement about both characters being full of shit, it hit me that Kurt (Old Joy) is also another one of her characters that’s in the same boat. Throughout Old Joy Kurt talks so much about what he knows and gives off the vibe that he’s doing ok when in reality he's jobless, probably broke and living in his van. Meek is very similar. He talks about all his experience in the wilderness yet clearly gets the group of people he's supposed to be leading lost. Josh & Dena (Night Moves) hire Harmon because he's supposed to be a discreet marine with experience handling explosives, only to find out he's also an ex-con who doesn't fully know what he's doing. 

Old Joy

Meek's Cutoff

Night Moves

COUPLES/PARTNERS IN CRIME

I’m not sure if this is intentional, but Reichardt focuses a lot on couples (Ode), buddies (Old Joy & Wendy & Lucy) or partners in crime (River Of Grass & Night Moves). I wouldn’t necessarily label her films as “buddy movies”, but there’s definitely that buddy/couple dynamic in most of her work, and she rarely focuses on just one lone person (an argument could be made that Wendy & Lucy is mostly about Wendy, but her dog Lucy was still very much her companion and an important part of the story).

Ode

Old Joy

River Of Grass

Wendy & Lucy

Night Moves

First Cow

A FEMALE'S PERSPECTIVE

I almost didn't want to include this category because I thought it would be a little cliché (a female director focusing on female characters & "female topics" from time to time). But some of the issues in her films are a little heightened because of the female protagonists.
Men don't have to deal with some of the same potential threats as women do who travel alone or are living out of their car like Wendy in Wendy & Lucy (Reichardt doesn’t play too much in to the dangers of being a female drifter, but she does include a few scenes that are gender specific to women in my opinion). Reichardt also challenges traditional characters like “the bored housewife” (River Of Grass); the young girl discovering her sexuality & attraction to boys (Ode) and the complacent old fashion wife whose supposed to know her place (Meek’s Cutoff).

Ode

Meek's Cutoff

River Of Grass

Wendy & Lucy

Certain Women

Certain Women

RECURRING SETTING: DINERS...

A lot of key scenes go down in diners in the cinema of Kelly Reichardt (this could be a reach on my part but I love diners)

Night Moves

Certain Women

Old Joy

TENSION

Although Night Moves is Reichardt's first official "thriller" with plenty of tense moments, it’s not the first time she’s shown serious onscreen tension. There's often some kind of unspoken tension between Reichardt's characters. Kurt & Mark (Old Joy) haven't seen each other in a while and they both have a lot to say to each other regarding their friendship, but they don't know how to address it (Mark always seems to have some kind of scowl or uncomfortable facial expression when dealing with Kurt). With the exception of ... all the other characters in Meek's Cutoff are afraid to come right out and call Meek on the lousy job he's doing in leading everyone across the Oregon trail, but it’s written all in their body language and facial expressions.

Old Joy

Night Moves

Meek's Cutoff

Certain Women

First Cow

DREARINESS & LONELINESS

There's an understated bleak tone to most of Reichardt's work (that's not to say there isn't an element of beauty to everything she does). Her characters are either homeless (Wendy from Wendy & Lucy); on the verge of homelessness (Kurt from Old Joy) or lost, either literally (the character’s in Meek’s Cutoff) or figuratively (Josh & Dena in Night Moves). 

Meek's Cutoff

Night Moves

Ode

River Of Grass

Wendy & Lucy

First Cow

This leads us to the final category…

OPEN ENDINGS

Reichardt’s last four films have ended on a sad ambiguous note. She often ends things giving off the vibe that her characters won’t be alright or are headed down a destructive, dangerous and/or sad path. The last time we see Kurt (Old Joy), he’s roaming the streets of Portland with no place to go. By the end of Wendy & Lucy, Wendy no longer has her dog or her car (which was technically her home); she barely has any money left and has no job prospects. Meek’s Cutoff is probably her most “notorious” ending as she ends the film abruptly without notice and leaves it to us to decide what everyone’s fate will be (which, in my opinion, isn’t looking too good).

Meek's Cutoff

Old Joy

Wendy & Lucy

Night Moves

Certain Women