While Soleil O is in part a transgressive & abstract look at colonialism in Africa (the first portion of the movie shows this), I was more fascinated by the chunk of the film that showed us racism & discrimination in 1960’s France through the eyes of a Black immigrant. This movie has certain specific things in common with stuff like The Story Of A Three-Day Pass (another film from the 60’s about a black man in Europe) and Putney Swope (the dark humor and intentionally chaotic editing). However those films are still from the perspective of Black Americans. Soleil O is its own unique monster because it’s specifically about the relationship between Black people from Africa and White people from Europe (specially France).
In my experience (and others that I have spoken to over the years), a lot of naive Europeans like to act as if because their brand of racism is “different” from America that it’s not as serious (as if to imply that because it’s different than in America that it isn’t as harmful). I’m not a patriotic person in any way but my patriotism comes out any time I hear or read a European act is of their country is above, past or beyond racism simply because they never had Klan rallies on their soil. There’s still this unspoken myth that because James Baldwin & various Jazz musicians were more welcome in places like Paris than in the Deep South that Europe was this ultimate haven for Black folks. Soleil O shows this and more. Not only does this movie delve in to racism between Blacks & Whites in Europe, but in only 100 minutes director Med Hondo shows racism amongst other Black folks and he even touches on the issues between Arabs & Blacks living in France. A lot of times non-Black-yet-still brown immigrants have this illusion of inclusion that because their skin is sometimes lighter that they’re “better than” until they get that wake-up call and see that they’re looked at the same as Blacks in certain scenarios (at one point in the film a sign that reads something along the lines of; “eradicate the Negro/Arab problem in France” flashes across the screen).
There’s quite a bit of jarring imagery in the movie but there’s also a lot of great standout/standalone moments (there’s even a few animated moments)...
The majority of the film follows a dark-skinned African immigrant trying to adjust to his new life in France and falls in to a form of culture shock when he’s quickly confronted with aggression from intolerant whites and signs that read; “Negroes not welcome” (sounds similar to older forms of American racism if you ask me). And when he isn’t faced with that kind of outright racism, he’s faced with the fetishization that some White women have towards Black men when it comes to sex. I wish more folks saw Nicolas Provost’s The Invader (2011), which, is a bit “problematic” in parts, but still swings for the fences in terms of exploring modern-day racism in Europe. The Invader is one of the few recent films that has the same spirit & energy of Soleil O and is also one of the better films that explores the relationship between Black men & White women in France outside of Claire Denis (No Fear No Die & I Cant Sleepare kind of cut from the same cloth as Soleil O).
If Denis’ films make people nervous—and they do—it is in part because they level the gaze of a white woman at black men - Amy Taubin
The Invader
Soleil O / Putney Swope
I find it strange that films like Soleil O & The Invader are difficult to come by. Both movies did the rounds of prominent movie festivals but fell in to obscurity afterwards. Thanks to the beauty of film preservation & rediscovery, Soilel O and the rest of Med Hondo’s films are being streamed, released & screened for the first time since they were released decades ago.
Minutes in to Camille Claudel, 1915 - Bruno Dumont's new film about the famous French sculptor's battle with depression & mental illness, we're made to feel uncomfortable & uneasy. The entire film takes place inside of an old asylum and instead of using trained actors to play the residence of the asylum (with the obvious exception of Juliette Binoche & Jean-Luc Vincent) Dumont uses actors with real physical or developmental disabilities. Just about every Bruno Dumont film is made up of non-professional actors but this was a little different. Camille Claudel was almost ruined by the audience I saw it with because they only knew how to express their discomfort towards the scenes that highlight the disabled actors by laughing. I'm still not quite sure what the audience was laughing at. So Bruno Dumont used a lot of continuous polarizing/hypnotic shots that lingered on the faces of the disabled co-stars. And? What exactly was so funny? I immediately felt that same discomfort from when I saw Manderlay in an audience full of laughter (again...not quite sure what was so hilarious with that movie either). Not that Manderlay is worthy of that much defense but still...I'm baffled why so many audience members were laughing at a film rooted in slavery. Bruno Dumont is a provocative (sometimes pretentious) filmmaker but I refuse to believe that part of his goal in making Camille Claudel, 1915 was to have us laugh at disabled people. I can’t believe that. What I can believe is that Dumont was trying to challenge audiences in some way but he took it a little too far without meaning to. Critics felt Bruno Dumont was being exploitative. I understand the need for authenticity in film (especially in a film that's based on a true story). Why hire actors who end up giving a poor & insulting performance as a person with physical or developmental disabilities? Remember how enraged you felt watching Adrien Brody in The Village or Cuba Gooding Jr. in Radio? What's wrong with using an actor whose physically or developmentally disabled? Its been done before by filmmakers like; John Cassavetes (A Child Is Waiting), Harmony Korine (Gummo) & Crispin Glover (What Is It?) yet every time it happens, the subject of exploitation comes up (which is understandable in some cases).
Like any Bruno Dumont film, I'm conflicted. I enjoyed Camille Claudel, 1915 very very much but unfortunately I see where are a lot of critics are coming from when they accuse him of being exploitative. I don't agree with that at all but I kinda understand how someone could feel that way.
This film actually has me rethinking the early work of Harmony Korine now. I think part of the reason some audiences & critics are reacting the way they are to those scenes in Camille Claudel that highlight the cast members with disabilities is because of previous works like Gummo, Julien Donkey-Boy and other various Korine shorts that some people may or may not have seen (I've been told he has a rare short where it's just him videotaping a girl with downs syndrome in a pool). Korine has since moved on from his style of the 90's. Dare I say he's matured as a filmmaker? But he may have burned a bridge for other filmmakers who may want to explore the subject of mental illness and other disabilities in art films. Nowadays, people cant take that subject matter straight on in the way Dumont presents it. There has to be some kind of artsy or ironic statement behind the presence of a disabled person in an art film.
In the case of using real disabled actors, Camille Claudel, 1915 falls somewhere in between the combination of audiences not being mature enough to deal with it and a director going too far by trying to fight a crusade - the misrepresentation of a group of people who are often overlooked. This film does take place in the early 1900's when the handling of folks with disabilities was pretty archaic & dated (I was reminded of Allan King's Warrendale during certain points). Maybe part of what Dumont was trying to do was shed light on how backwards the health system was in the early 1900's but he just took it a little too far.
Michael Pitt as "Blake" in Gus Van Sant's Last Days (L) / Kurt Cobain (R)
If I had to compare Camille Claudel, 1915 to a particular film in order to give you an idea of what it's like, I guess it's similar to Gus Van Sant's Last Days (I know it's not about Kurt Cobain, but it is about Kurt Cobain). Both films are slow, hypnotic, nature-heavy looks at depressed artists, with only a few brief scenes that highlight the art they create. Instead, the films focus more on the depression that's eating away at these artists. Last Days has a couple of scenes where Blake/Cobain retreats to his music studio to play something but for the most part we get scenes of our depressed main character roaming through the woods or wandering aimlessly through his mansion mumbling to himself. In Dumont's film, there's a few brief moments where Camille/Binoche talks about how she misses her art studio. There's even a scene where she picks up a piece of mud off the ground and tries to sculpt something out of it but eventually gives up (the way in which Camille Claudel breaks down in that scene and throws the mud away kinda reminded me of how Blake/Cobain intentionally brakes the strings off his guitar in the final music scene in Last Days). Camille Claudel, 1915 is a pretty realistic look at depression, how crippling it can be and how it can be triggered from the most unexpected things. Usually in a movie when someone goes in to a depressed mood, they see something obvious that reminds them of a dead relative or some past failure in life. True, these are legitimate reasons for someone to fall in to a depression but sometimes cinema would have you believe those are the only worthy reasons to be depressed. In one scene, Camille/Binoche watches a play rehearsal and as the scene goes on, she slowly breaks down and falls in to a depression. One minute she's smiling and the next minute she's having a crying fit. We later learn that the dialogue in the scene of the play that she was watching triggered memories of a failed relationship she once had. But we don't know that right away. Bruno Dumont wanted to show that depression can be triggered from the most unexpected places.
This is a very drab & depressing film from the subject matter right down to the atmosphere...
I don't know if I'm capable of writing about a modern French film (especially one by Bruno Dumont) without mentioning Robert Bresson's obvious influence. I guess it’s a testament to the fact that he's one of the greatest filmmakers to ever live. It goes without saying that most filmmakers are influenced by each other but in the case of modern European filmmakers like; Bertrand Bonello, Eugene Green, Miguel Gomes, Manuel De Oliviero and Bruno Dumont, the Bresson influence is so strong that you have to mention it. The dry tone and cinematography of Camille Claudel reminded me of a slightly more modern Diary Of Country Priest (with a touch of Maurice Pialat's Under The Sun Of Satan). The nuns who work at the asylum where Camille stays come right out of a Bresson film.
Performance-wise, there isn’t much Bresson to be found this time around. Because of Dumont's use of non-professional actors, the performances in his films are usually dry, rough and scaled back. There's always the occasional outburst but for the most part, the characters in his films are monotone. But in Camille Claudel there's a lot of emotion in the performances of the actors. Binoche is great as is Jean-Luc Vincent who plays her brother; Paul Claudel. A separate film could have been made about Paul Claudel. There's a section in the film that focuses only on him and we don’t see Camille/Binoche for a good 10-15 minutes. We learn that Paul is not only dangerously religious but he's just as unstable as his sister (he just knows how to hide his madness better). It's good that Bruno Dumont chose to use trained actors for the two main roles this time. He's usually able to get great performances out of people who have never acted in their life before (both lead actors in L'Humanite won best actor & actress at Cannes in 1999 and had no previous acting experience) but I'm pretty sure Dumont knew that an untrained person couldn’t handle the kind of emotions that were required to play Claudel. He still incorporates non-professional actors but only as supporting & background players.
The last time Bruno Dumont used professional actors was a decade ago in Twenty-nine Palms which was indeed a train-wreck (but the kind of train wreck that should still be seen at least once or twice in your life). But Camille Claudel is nothing like Twenty-nine Palms. Bruno Dumont continues his fascination with isolation, loneliness, religion & characters giving their life to god. The one thing that makes Camille Claudel, 1915 stand out from the other films in his catalogue is that Dumont doesn't explore sex and/or violence this time.
It may take more than one viewing for this film's subtle brilliance to sink in. If you have that kind of patience (the movie is only 97 minutes) then I say give Camille Claudel, 1915 a chance (bear in mind that it's not only very depressing but pretty slow). If you aren't familiar with Bruno Dumont's work, I wouldn't recommend this as an introduction.
Jean- Luc Vincent in a creepily intense performance as Paul Claudel (L) / Camille Claudel Sculpting of Paul Claudel, 1905 (R)
In his own unique way, Bruno Dumont crafts his own Dancer In The Dark-style ending with Camille Claudel. For a moment he gives the audience a glimpse of hope then he quickly takes that it away and the film just ends. Its subtly powerful and a bit of a punch in the gut. Camille Claudel’s history is no secret. All you have to do is google her. Her time spent battling depression & mental illness is documented just as much as her time as a sculptor. But she also isn’t the most world renowned artist either so there’s a chance that audiences (especially American audiences) don’t know how the rest of her life played out (like me) which makes the ending that much more depressing because I had no clue she lived out the rest of her life in asylum.
You can never just simply like a Bruno Dumont film (refer to my write-ups on L'Humanite & Hors Satan). There's always a struggle or some frustration. I'm a fan of his but there's a few films of his that even I don't like (Flanders & Hadewijch). But that's what I love about him. I'm becoming bored with (new) cinema more & more these days. Slightly pretentious or not, Dumont's work is still challenging and often leaves me intrigued, pleasantly confused & wanting to talk. Carlos Reygadas & Claire Denis are the only other filmmakers to consistently get those types of reactions out of me (maybe Apichatpong Weerasethakul but that's it). The only other film this year I found to be as thought provoking as Camille Claudel, 1915 was Hors Satan (also directed by Dumont, but not released in the U.S. until this year) which makes Bruno Dumont the most intriguing and most frustrating filmmaker of 2013 in my opinion.
It's easy to call any kind of "non-traditional" film without some kind of a straight forward plot; surreal or strange (which could both easily describe Leos Carax's long anticipated return; Holy Motors). Just read a lot of my recent reviews and you'll see even I get caught up in that. But with recent works like; Post Tenebras Lux, To The Wonder, Uncle Boonmee & The Tree Of Life, I feel terms like dreamy & surreal are getting played out. The aforementioned films play more in to the stream of conscious genre and look like live-action sketchbooks - ideas that aren't necessarily finished or complete but still look beautiful, has some kind of depth or story behind it, shows talent and possibly contains something personal about the creator that's too good to be kept under wraps no matter how incomplete it may be. Like I said, there's a reason old sketchbooks of famous artists, cartoonists, designers & architects are rare collector's items. Leos Carax's Holy Motors is the perfect example of a sketchbook/stream of consciousness film. Half of Holy Motors' inspiration/influence comes from an unfinished idea (Carax's real life attempt at trying to make a big budget, English-speaking film that never panned out as well as his experiences working with non-French movie studios). The other half of Holy Motors' inspiration comes from inside Leos Carax's very own head - the random thoughts, books & films that circulate inside his mind. Holy Motors is another "movie mixtape" in the same vein as Pulp Fiction, Irma Vep, The Player, Europa & Drive (although not as straight forward) with references to everything from Eyes Without a Face (the film features Eyes Without A Face co-star; Edith Scob) to Carax's very own work from back in the day (Holy Motors makes reference to Mauvais Sang, The Lovers On The Bridge & his 2008 short Merde from the collaborative feature length film Tokyo)...
Holy Motors (2012) Eyes Without A Face (1960)
Holy Motors Tokyo (2008)
Not to toot my own horn but the sketchbook analogy makes perfect sense as Holy Motors plays out like a series of comedic sketches instead of one cohesive film (which isn't a negative jab at all). The film's only consistent element comes in the form of long time Carax collaborator; Denis Lavant and Edith Scob who plays his limo driver. Carax & Lavant are one of the few long lasting director/actor combos that still manage to put out great work and kinda keep that spirit of Godard & Belmondo alive. In the film, which takes place over a 24 hour period, Lavant plays "Mr. Oscar" - some kind of a performer/actor who's hired by a nameless company to act out various scenarios throughout the streets of Paris. He gets from one location to the next in a stretch limousine that contains all his different disguises & costumes. In one scenario we see Oscar play a homeless lady begging for change on the street. In another scenario Oscar plays the infamous Godzilla-influenced "Merde" monster that wreaks havoc throughout Paris and kidnaps a super model (played by Eva Mendes). In between, he plays everything from a man that's married to a chimp to an assassin. The film is part musical (featuring a musical number from Kylie Minogue), part dark comedy and part fantasy. To best describe Holy Motors' style, imagine the randomness & humor of Soderbergh's Schizopolis, mixed with Kids In The Hall's Brain Candy with a touch of Luis Bunuel (specifically the sketch style of The Phantom Of Liberty) yet told in Leos Carax's own signature random/"off"/dry style that can't really be found anywhere else these days. The majority of the 8 scenarios in the film feel like comments on cinema today (the use of special effects, violence on film, phasing out the old and in with the new, etc). Not to sound so cliché but this really is a breath of fresh air in 2012 – an intelligent film that doesn’t take itself too seriously at the same time. Holy Motor's can honestly be enjoyed by the biggest of movie snobs who love a lot of the names I've already dropped (Bunuel, Malick, Godard, etc) to fans of The Cartoon Network's late night TV programming. Sure Holy Motors tips its hat to films & literature that everyone may not get, in the same vein as Assayas did with Irma Vep, but it doesn’t take away from the film (although it wouldn’t hurt to get familiar with Carax’s filmography before watching Holy Motors).
Edith Scob's presence isn't the films' only connection to the older generation of cinema. Michel Piccoli, who appeared in Carax's Mauvais Sang, makes a cameo in the middle of the film as well. Carax's use of Scob & Piccoli is similar to Von Trier's use of Udo Kier, Barbara Sukowa & Eddie Constantine in Europa (an homage to Rainer Werner Fassbinder) or Tarrantino's use of John Travolta in Pulp Fiction (a reference to his cult status due to movies like Grease & Saturday Night Fever as well as an homage to Blowout & Depalma).
Michel Piccoli in Carax's Holy Motors (L) & Mauvais Sang (R)
And Denis Lavant really does deserve some kind of a lifetime achievement award for his performance in Holy Motors just for the simple fact that he's over 50 years old and still managed to pull off the same physically demanding performance that he gave in Carax's mid-80's work. Lavant manages to make the audience laugh without much effort. His acting is a combination of comedic genius mixed with great dramatic acting. Given that Carax & Lavant's careers are pretty much synonymous with each other, Holy Motors is just as personal to Lavant. Along with The Avengers & Seven Psychopaths, Holy Motors is the most fun I've had at the movies all year (this says a lot because I'm usually uncomfortable while sitting in the film forum due to my height). I was laughing out loud and scratching my head at the same time. Its yet another recent film that breaks the mold and dispels the misconception that "art house" films can't be great and silly at the same time (Dogtooth, ALPS, Attenberg, Spring Breakers, etc). There's nothing worse than waiting for a great director to return after a 10+ year hiatus with a disappointment (Lynne Ramsay/We Need To Talk About Kevin, Monte Hellman/Road To Nowhere, etc) and thankfully Leos Carax delivered with a film that'll probably end up in my top five at the end of the year. It's clear from Carax's past as a film critic for Cahier Du Cinema and his obvious French new wave references all throughout his early work that he's a lover of film first and a filmmaker second. What sets the "dreaminess" of Holy Motors apart from the rest of the films I've unofficially grouped it in with is that it isn't light, airy, droning, drawn out or other typical qualities you'd expect from a film that plays out like a dream. Holy Motors is more like a traditional silly comedy hidden inside of an art house movie.
Well thanks to a sneak preview, courtesy of BAM, I finally got to see Andrea Arnold's (loose) adaptation of Emily Bronte's classic story: Wuthering Heights - the doomed love story about Catherine Earnshaw and her mysterious adopted brother Heathcliff. And I don't use the term: “loose” simply because Heathcliff is black in this adaptation. Enough hoopla has already been made of that even before the film hit the festival circuit last year. Long before this version came out there’s been tons of speculation of Heathcliff’s ethnicity from gypsy to moor. The problem with Arnold’s version is that the ambiguous race thing gets distracting at times because it becomes more about race than it does the love story (although there is one interesting line in the film - "your mother must have been an African queen and your father a Chinese emperor”). Now...it’s been a while since I've read Wuthering Heights but I don't remember lines like; "Fuck you, you cunts" and I don't remember the Hindley character (Catherine's brother) being a modern day skinhead/football hooligan. That’s part of the problem with this adaptation of Wuthering Heights - It feels like a modern day remake trapped inside of a remake that’s trying to stay true to the original that’s trapped inside of a whole 'nother jungle fever/Othello/tragic interracial Romeo & Juliet love story with mumbly dialogue (sounds like a mouthful, huh?). I mean really tho, watching this kinda made me think; "is this is Wuthering Heights or Othello?" Now this isn't the first time a director has mixed modern day elements in to a period piece (Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette & Derek Jarman's Jubilee come to mind) so I'm not trying to crucify Arnold for doing something that other filmmakers have already been doing for decades. It just seriously didn't feel like I was in the 19th century while watching this. There are a few moments but overall it felt like the story took place today and the characters were just dressed up in dated clothes (which was my main complaint about Coppola's Marie Antoinette). In Arnold's version, almost 60% percent of the story focuses on Healthcliff & Catherine as kids and huge chunks of the rest of the story are left out (literary purists will probably be furious at this adaptation). This is a film that's been haunting me for over a year ever since I overslept through the screening at Toronto last year. As many of you who read this blog know, I'm an Andrea Arnold fan (mostly due to Red Road and her music selection in Fish Tank). For some reason I was expecting a masterpiece (or a misunderstood masterpiece) but what I got instead was a problematic, flawed film with a few beautiful elements (that we'll get in to later). Dammit, I wanted to love this. Chris Funderberg, who warned me about this, wasn't lying in his Sundance write-up. This IS a rough one to sit through- The lingering shots of bugs & mud started to get on my nerves and Its very difficult to understand what the actors are saying half the time due to a combination of mumbling & whispering on top of the thick accents.
At the Q&A after the screening, a silly & jetlagged Andrea Arnold brought up an interesting/reasonable point in reference to all the people who complained about her re-working and/or leaving out so many things from the book. Arnold's reasoning was that the original Wuthering Heights story is so complex and layered that it’s impossible to put all of that in to one film. I guess that’s Understandable (even if that didn’t seem to be a problem for all the other countless film adaptations of Wuthering Heights in the past). The problem I have with her saying that is the film is 130 minutes long, which is more than enough time to tell the bulk of the famous love story between Heathcliff & Catherine (in my opinion). It’s just strange that the adaptation of such a wordy book has hardly any WORDS in this new film version…you know what I mean? I would understand the reasoning/excuse from Arnold if the film wasn’t full of so much void space, dialogue-less moments or lingering/long unedited shots of bugs, animals, hills and the sky. Maybe if there wasn’t so much focus on those things, that some may consider unimportant, she could have used her 130 minutes to focus more on the story. So I’m not buying it. But at the same time, I don’t think that’s exactly what Arnold wanted to do so even if you don’t like this film you can’t exactly call it a total failure. Even though this isn’t the best thing she's done, I think it’s what she's been working for since the beginning of her career. The handheld/P.O.V. perspective that we saw in Wasp is magnified times 10 in Wuthering Heights. The element of the unspoken/conveying something without dialogue that we saw in Red Road was taken to another level in Wuthering Heights. Arnold’s focus/fascination with youth, seen in Fish Tank, is magnified in this adaptation of Wuthering Heights as the majority of the film focuses on Catherine & Heathcliff as children. On a side note, Wuthering Heights may make some of you uncomfortable as there’s tons of serious sexual tension between kids in this (there’s one moment where young Catherine is looking young Heathcliff up & down while biting her bottom lip like she’s sizing him up to make out). Other Arnold staples, like her love for animals, are found in the film as well (although I will say that if you are a hardcore animal lover you may wanna turn your head at certain parts). And with the exception of the song in the end (which felt very out of place), this is her first score-less feature unless you count the sounds of the wind and tree branches scratching up against the windows. Seriously, sometimes it felt like Arnold intentionally picked the windiest days to shoot some of the scenes. It’s like she put the boom mic right up to the wind and just hit record on extra loud. Given the film’s vibe & ambience, I wouldn’t have been opposed to a brian eno/cliff martinez-style score.
I AM an Andrea Arnold defender and there are a few things in this film that I liked. I did enjoy the cinematography overall (but after a while it starts to get a little droning and painful...I mean CUT already). If Arnold wanted to make a book of images & stills from this film and put it out I'd buy it without question. Somehow they managed to make depressing shit like endless rain, grey weather and heavy fog look beautiful...
On the other hand, the cinematography may make some dizzy after a while. The camera work is a little too free sometimes and you could get lost.
This adaptation of Wuthering Heights had..."something". Like, there was an honest attempt at trying to do something different but there was too much emphasis on the atmosphere, ambiance and "look" of the film and not enough attention to anything else. Behind all that thick fog is a pretty empty film.
There's something attractive and fascinating about this film’s cold, isolated, up-close & personal feel that I can’t completely put in to words. You just kinda have to see it to get what I mean. The sound of the wind that’s present through most of the film along with all the shots of the foggy mountains reminded me Valhalla Rising (minus the violence) and I like that kind of atmosphere a lot these days. For further examples check out; The Spirit Of The Beehive, The Nest, la Cienaga, Solaris (specifically the first 10-15 minutes), Japon or Once Upon A Time In Anatolia. The only difference is that these films pull that style off much better than Wuthering Heights. It’s more of a personal preference and I wouldn’t waste my time trying to defend it. I understand if people don’t like that stuff. Unfortunately cinematography and atmosphere is about all I can come up with in terms of things that I really liked about the film (and that’s still not enough). There aren’t any standout performances and there doesn’t seem to be much of a traditional script to comment on. Sure the young Heathcliff & Catherine do an ok job of expressing their fascination and love for one another, but then other times they have no chemistry at all (we all know that chemistry between actors is KEY in a film that doesn’t have a lot of dialogue). I guess if you haven’t figured it out by now - approach this film with caution.
There were just too many clichés that didn’t need to be there like the interracial love angle and the intolerant racist community that hated Heathcliff. Had the casting choices been different (possibly professional actors) and the racial angle been taken out, Arnold could have focused more on the angst and pain in the Wuthering Heights story. There was clearly an attempt at showing that pain of losing the one you love in the last 45 minutes of the film, but due to the actor’s poor/flat performances (especially the actor who played the older Heathcliff) it just didn’t work. I understand Arnold was trying to approach this adaptation differently, but it ended up backfiring. How many film adaptations have there been of Wuthering Heights already? It just makes things worse when unnecessary clichés are thrown in to a remake (which is kinda cliché in itself). We seem to be in an interesting era as far as cinema is concerned. Since the start of this new decade, some of the most talked about films have the most flaws and get the most boos yet manage to bring up more discussion and dialogue among film lovers than perfect/flawless masterpieces like The White Ribbon. Think about it - Uncle Boonmee, Black Venus, Tree Of Life, Post Tenebras Lux, Road To Nowhere, To The Wonder (which will probably split humanity right down the middle just like Tree Of Life did), etc. Even early "best of the decade" candidates like Once Upon A Time In Anatolia have drawn some serious haters. Just like Wuthering Heights, all these films could easily be described as tough or difficult to sit through yet they have "something". They bring out emotions in people (even if its intense hatred). These films have the same amount of haters as they do fans and both sides have valid arguments that make for endless debate & conversation. That’s a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I've had more fun writing about and discussing recent films I don’t like (Road To Nowhere) or am conflicted about (Tree Of Life & Wuthering Heights) than I do recent films I love unconditionally. It feels like I’ve either written about or mentioned the Tree Of Life on PINNLAND EMPIRE more than any other film in the last year and a half. It makes me wish certain directors, which could be described as "tough" or "challenging" like David Lynch, Lodge Kerrigan, the old Lynne Ramsay or the 2002-2007 Gus Van Sant were present right now.
In closing, I'll say it once again - approach Wuthering Heights, which opens at the film forum on Friday, with caution.
The only reason I saw this was off the strength that the person responsible for it (first time director Michael Schleinzer) was the casting director for two of the greatest films made in the last decade (Michael Haneke's 'The White Ribbon' & 'The Piano Teacher'). Not that that should be any definite indication that he'd be a great director, but if he had anything to do with the casting of those two films that means he should have SOME kinda talent. An association with the likes of Haneke will get you far on PINNLAND EMPIRE. But unfortunately Schleinzer's directorial debut is almost pointless and not even his association with one of my favorite directors (Haneke) could help him. If you're familiar with the type of film that 'Michael' is and the category/genre it falls under (a humanistic portrayal of child molesters/pedophiles, it may leave you going; "ok, sooooo...?" (similar to my reaction after watching 'Kill List'). I had more than one opportunity to see 'Michael' before it was released in theaters but the subject matter completely turned me off. Much like post-2003 films about high school shootings (see my review of the disappointing 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'), I get a little indifferent towards films about pedophilia these days (I know that sounds odd coming from Todd Solondz' #1 fan but hear me out...). After Dylan Baker's performance in 'Happiness' and Brian Cox's performance in 'L.I.E.' (two criminally underrated and snubbed roles), where else is there to go? What's left too explore in the genre of realistic and/or humanistic portrayals of pedophiles? (Oh and don't worry, I'm not gonna use this blog entry as another platform to rant about how someone else copied Todd Solondz' style)
A HUMANISTIC PORTRAYAL OF PEDOPHILES ON FILM IN THE 21st CENTURY:
Between the late 90's &the first half of the last decade, indie film had this sudden fascination with showing not only the reality of child molestation and pedophilia, but actually showing things from the pedophiles point of view, almost bordering on sympathy which is pretty dangerous and fucked up. Films like Francois Ozon's 'Criminal Lovers' (1999), Solondz' 'Happiness' (1998) & 'Palindromes' (2004), Michael Cuesta's 'L.I.E.' (2001) and Greg Araki's 'Mysterious Skin' (2004) are all examples of this. These films helped show people the real horrors of child molestation (and some films like 'Mysterious Skin' & 'L.I.E.' even went so far as to symbolize how important it is for fathers to be present in the lives of their sons). When you show the stereotypical creepy old man with one tooth or the heavily breathing sweaty monstrous man, sometimes it makes pedophilia and child molestation more like a fantasy and less realistic which shouldn't be the case. Hell, the Coen Brothers made us laugh subconsciously at pedophiles with characters like "Jesus" in 'Big Lebowski' (I wonder if people realize that when they wear one of those novelty Big Lebowski shirts with his image on it, they're wearing a picture of a fictitious child molester). The films I listed above were ahead of their time in that they showed us that everyone from the handsome baseball coach ('Mysterious Skin') to the neighborhood "uncle" that everyone loves ('L.I.E.') could have a dark side that no one could possibly know about.
'Happiness' (1998)
'L.I.E.' (2001)
'Mysterious Skin' (2004)
'Criminal Lovers' (1999)
But its 2012 and we (the audience) get it by now; pedophiles are monsters no matter how sympathetic or humanistic you try to portray them on film. Most people already know that a pedophile or sex offender could very well be the last person you expect (which is PART of what 'Michael' tries to convey). Why would someone wanna sit through 90 minutes of something that's super obvious? 'Michael' didn't really bring anything new to the table (outside of showing things from the abused child's perspective). Films like 'Mysterious Skin' & 'L.I.E.' already did what 'Michael' tried to do (show a complex father & son, big brother/little brother, tormented Stockholm syndrome relationship between the child molester and his victim). In my opinion, when you're making a film about child molestation you kinda have to try and be somewhat original because if not, you're just making a slight variation of a movie that's already been done a million times before and it'll seem like your only purpose was to shock the audience (although that's not the case with this film).
'Michael' shows us the day to day life off "ordinary", middle class, "everyman": "Michael". He goes to work every day where he keeps his head down and socializing to a minimum, has a family that cares for him (a mother, a sister and a brother), pays his bills and does everything else you and I do. The only difference between Michael and the average everyman is that hes keeping a little boy ("Wolfgang") locked up in a secret shed beneath his house. That's right, hes a pedophile (and no one suspects him). His methods are precise and he's very careful not to get caught. But Michael's world slowly starts to crumble and he becomes more and more careless as the film progresses. Only in the final minutes of the film is there any type of a resolution...kinda. I say "kinda" because like I said earlier (as well as in the title of the blog), I felt nothing after watching it (outside of the obvious sympathy for the young kidnapped boy). I wasn't angry, sad, confused, disoriented or anything. All I could do was give a shoulder shrug and head home. If the point of 'Michael' was to show the horrific things that go on beneath the seemingly normal surface, then I'd rather watch 'Happiness'. If you're trying to make a film that questions the idea of what a "Monster" truly is, I'd recommend focusing on something other than a Pedophile because it's a little played out.
However, there were SOME good qualities about the film that shouldn't go unmentioned
MICHAEL HANEKE'S INFLUENCE ON MARKUS SCHLEINZER:
Working with Michael Haneke (who got a lot of influence from the later films of Robert Bresson) clearly had an effect on Markus Schleinzer's directorial debut. The somewhat slow pacing, the extended focus on banalities like preparing the table for dinner & washing the dishes afterwards as well as the minimal soundtrack totally reminded me of early Michael Haneke ("The Austrian Years"). I enjoyed the atmosphere of this film very much and I hope Schleinzer keeps it up for his next couple of films...
'Michael' (2011/12)
'The Seventh Continent' (1989)
'Michael'
'The Seventh Continent'
'Michael'
'71 Fragments...' (1994)
Like the ending of Haneke's '71 fragments' or the messages behind 'The 7th Continent' and 'Funny Games', its clear Markus Shcleinzer was trying to make an honest attempt at being thought provoking. Its also clear that not only did he spend lots of time watching early Haneke films, but other dark noir's like 'Vanishing'. Both 'Vanishing' and 'Michael' are about regular family men who are methodically plotting some diabolic criminal activity without anyone being suspicious of them (however the fate of our main character in 'Michael' is completely different than the fate of our villain in 'Vanishing'). Another thing you need to give Markus Schleinzer credit for is that with this kinda subject matter he had a golden opportunity to try and shock the audience (which woulda made it more problematic than it already is). This is such an easy route that quite a few first time directors have gotten caught up in over the years from the racist butcher punching his pregnant wife in the stomach in Gaspar Noe's 'I Stand Alone' to the blood splattering and ear chopping in Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'. Outside of two kinda fucked up scenes that clearly indicate a rape has or will take place, there's no graphic or disturbing imagery. The intentions of the film were good, but I think there needed to be a little more thought put in to the story. Or maybe Schleinzer coulda used his obvious talents (which will serve him well in the future) on a whole different project all together. Whats strange is that I actually have the urge to watch this again. As far as plot or message go, I wanna give 'Michael' a C-/D+. But as far as film making, style and atmosphere go, I wanna give it a A-/B+. I guess no matter how many problems the film has, it still succeeded in some way. It got me to take the time out to write about it on my blog over other/better films that I plan on writing about in the future ('The Reflecting Skin', 'Yi Yi' & 'CQ' to name a few). It managed to draw a positive comparison to some works ('The 7th Continent', '71 Fragments' and 'Vanishing') so it did something right. But overall I wouldn't recommend this to anyone outside of a few people who's tastes i really know.
Hopefully you guys have been checking out my reviews for the flud watches website in addition to this blog (links for recent flud reviews are on the right, or click the "flud reviews tag" on the right as well). The content from the old flud website is gone, but thankfully i saved everything. Here's the 2nd installment of older reviews that aren't up anymore. And make sure to check out the new flud site if you havent already...http://www.fludwatches.com/
ENTER THE VOID
I cant remember the last time I was in a movie theater when the audience ripped open in applause simply because of the opening credits. Maybe it was because the somewhat controversial director Gaspar Noe hasn’t released a feature in almost 8 years. Or maybe its because the opening credits to his latest film; Enter The Void have more energy and excitement than most films have in their entirety. Seriously, I haven’t gotten so hype from an opening credit sequence since the first time I saw David Lynch’s Lost Highway in the theater years ago. Enter The Void, centers around the relationship between a low level drug dealing brother (Oscar) and his stripper sister (Linda) who’s parents were killed when they were little kids. After their parents’ death, Oscar and Linda make a promise to never separate from each other, but that pact is soon broken when they’re sent to live in different foster homes. After years of being apart, they finally reunite, living together in Japan. However, they’re separated once again, this time permanently, when Alex gets set up by his friend and killed by the police. Although Alex’s body is dead, his spirit still remains on earth, and we spend the rest of the movie looking through Alex’s point of view as he watches over his sister (still keeping the promise he made to never leave his sister). The POV perspective isn’t as bad as cloverfield, but at 2 hours and 23 minutes, your eyes my need a break so you might want to look off to the side for a few seconds.
The acting in Enter The Void is nowhere near as good as the acting in Noe’s other films. In fact, this is probably his weakest film when it comes to acting (when you go from your last movie headlined by an amazing actor like Vincent Cassel to having 2 mumbling 20-something year olds front your cast you notice the difference) . But at the same time, this isn’t a performance-driven movie. Enter The Void relies more one CGI, trippy sequences, (sometimes) dizzy editing and dark atmospheric music. Unlike Gaspar Noe’s previous work, there aren’t any pregnant women getting punched in the stomach (I stand alone) or faces bashed in with the butt end of a fire extinguisher (Irreversible). I think by now anyone who’s been following this movie knows that many people are comparing Enter The Void to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Oddessy. Now, Enter The Void obviously doesn’t have the same impact as 2001, but at the same time, watching Enter The Void is like watching the last 20-30 minutes of 2001, except for over 2 hours. No matter what, you have to respect what Gaspar Noe did. With each film, he becomes and more technically advances, and manages to push some kind of boundary, weather it be special effects or how we view violence in film. If you were able to make it through Irreversible, you shouldnt have a problem sitting though this.
Images & Stills from Kubricks '2001'...
Images & stills from 'Enter The Void'. Cleary by looking at the pictures above you can see where Gaspar Noe drew a lot of inspiration...
In addition to drawing inspiration from the imagery of 2001, its also been brought up on many different movie sites and blogs that there may have been some influence from the great russian film; 'Come and See' in the design of the 'Enter the Void' movie poster. And even though the 2 films arent very similar and dont have much in common plot-wise, they are both equally intense and difficult to sit through at times. With both films, you feel like you need a break afterwards...
'Come and See' (1985)
'Enter The Void'
THE WHITE RIBBON
I gotta say, in the four years i’ve attended the new york film festival (inland empire, the wrestler, cache, etc) this is by far the most memorable movie i’ve seen so far. And i STILL have one more movie to see (Todd Solondz’s latest, so i’m sure i’ll be in for some dark comedy about pedophilia and dysfunctional suburban family life). This new film proves that Michael Haneke has become one of the very few directors to NOT make a “bad” film (…yet). In Michael Haneke’s latest film; “The White Ribbon”, he channels the spirit of classic german cinema (specifically; “Young Torless” and “Coup De Grace”…two movies you all should see if you havent) in both; subject matter and beautiful black & white cinematography. He gives a slight nod to the filmmaking style of Carl Theodore Dryer (a director i just recently got in to) as well as Tarkosfky. Haneke also revisits some of themes of one of his most recent films; “Cache”. ”The White Ribbon takes place in a small german town just before the start of WW1. The town starts to change after a series of mysterious and often gruesome (somewhat sadistic) events occur one after another. By the end of the movie, two of the townspeople start to put the pieces together as to who’s responsible. Through out the movie until its chilling end, you start to slowly see the seeds of violence within youth grow, and how they were planted. Seeing that the youth in this movie are of a particular age, set in a particular time period (early 1900’s), this film is also a look at the growth of fascism and the how those seeds were planted as well. One major hint are the white ribbons two of the children are forced to wear around their arm at the order of their father. Do the white ribbons foreshadow the swastika armbands that nazi soldiers will be wearing in the future? And similar to “Cache”, Haneke hints and lightly pokes at major events that make you wanna dig further. For example, one could look at “Cache” as a movie about “white guilt” and race issues in society. In the film he just casually mentions the algerian massacre, which serves as an important backstory for the 2 main characters in the film (also, is it any coincidence that the random person the main character gets in to an argument with outside the police station is a dark skinned african? for those of you who havent seen “Cache”, and don’t know what im talking about…make it a priority to see it). “The White Ribbon” now has me quite interested in the birth of fascism, and germany’s history leading up to WW1 (i was on google & wikipedia after i got home from watching the movie, lol). This is easily one of the 3 best movies of the year so far, and puts Haneke up there with all the “masters of cinema” (in my opinion).
'Young Torless' (1966)
'Coup De Grace' (1976)
'The White Ribbon' (2009). Even though this film was made in 2009, you really felt like you were watching a film that was made years ago (courtesy of Haneke's decision to make the film black & white)
VALHALLA RISING
Its nice to know that independent/art-house directors are trying their hands at films and genres outside of the typical slowly paced, depressing dramas they’re often associated with. Nicholas Refn, is one of the most misunderstood directors out right now. Refn’s films like the ridiculously underrated Fear X and Bronson have brought on a comparison to the likes of Stanley Kubrick (which is something I imagine no up and coming filmmaker wants). Being compared to one of the greats like Kubrick must not only be intimidating for a young director, but give people high expectations to live up to. This movie came out at the perfect time. Ive been revisiting all of Nicholas Refn’s films over the last few months; Fear X, Bronson and The Pusher Trilogy (the movie he’s most known for). Valhalla stars Danish film star; Mads Miklesen (the villain from Casino Royale for those unfamiliar with his work), as “One-Eye”: A prisoner in 1000 A.D. Who’s forced to fight other prisoners to the death for the enjoyment of their captors. His ruthless fighting ability has not only left him undefeated, but it slowly builds him a reputation among the other prisoners. After escaping from prison, he joins up with a group of religious crusaders set on claiming on a land, which just happens to already be inhabited by a certain group of people called “Native Americans”. Kubrick’s influence is nowhere to be found in Valhalla Rising. If anything, you could say the structure of the film draws inspiration from fellow danish director; Lars Von Trier. Valhalla Rising is told chapters (something Von Trier is known for in many of his films), and soundtracks (very similar to the soundtrack Brian Eno did for Fear X) leaves you with an easy feeling, similar to the soundtrack in Von Trier’s most recent; Antichrist. The one-on-one fight scenes are realistically brutal and entertaining. Although thats not all the movie is about. In fact, the trailer to this movie can be somewhat deceiving. The fighting scenes between the other prisoners really only take place in the first 30 minutes or so of the film. The middle of the film is where things get interesting (and at times a little troublesome and out of control). The film turns in to heavy handed religious symbolism, and there’s very long stretches without much dialoge. Some may find this part of the movie boring, while others my look at it as a work of art. Either way, the ending is worth sitting through the troublesome middle part.
In Kelly Reichardt's latest film (which is her first film set outside of the present day) we follow three families who try to cross the Oregon Trail with the help of a tracker, who gives off the vibe that he hasn't got a clue where he's going (no matter how much he brags and boasts about how well he knows the land). Naturally the characters suffer some setbacks along the way and they eventually end up capturing a Native American who's been following them for some time.
The ending of the film seems to piss some people off. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that Meek's Cutoff has a VERY open ending. Some may consider it a cliffhanger, while others will be going; "you cant be serious. that cannot be the end" (something i actually heard someone say this past weekend at the film film forum when the end credits for Meek's Cutoff came up on the screen). On one hand i really commend Kelly Reichardt. It takes balls (well maybe not balls in HER case) to end a movie the way she did. On the other hand i feel that she took an easy way out. These days, ANY movie involving any type of relationship between native americans (or people of any race for that matter) and white people seems to piss someone off. Because of this, i think a lot of (mostly white) directors are timid when approaching these kinds of stories. For example, on the commentary track for 'In The Company Of Men', Neil Labutte kept reassuring that the scene where Aaron Eckhart corrects the young black employees english and makes him pull his pants down wasn't supposed to be seen as racist. But why not? Part of 'In The Company Of Men' of men is about "the workplace", which CAN be very racist. That doesn't mean Labutte himself is racist (the irony of course is that he later went on to make the awful 'Lakeview Terrace' movie with Samuel L. Jackson). Same thing with the ending of 'Night of The Living Dead'. Roger Corman insists that the ending wasn't supposed to have anything to do with race. But, once again, why not? It doesn't mean Roger Corman is racist. Once again, without giving too much away, its almost like Kelly Reichardt didn't wanna do the wrong thing, or she was worried about portraying the native american character as a savage leading the three families to the slaughter, so she left the ending up to the audience to decide. I also don't think she wanted to make an ending that showed the native american befriending and working with the white characters, which is that typical 'dances with wolves'/'new world' thing that some american directors tend to do. If Reichardt had made that kind of an ending, i know that i woulda been a little annoyed. Why would this native american character help these people who captured him, tied him up and beat him (well i guess only one person in the group was aggressive and violent towards him, but still...). I still would have personally liked to see her make a decision on her own, and come to more of a closing.
Anyway, Regardless of the ending (which is still a big thing), the rest of the movie is really good. Michelle Williams continues to show why she's one of my favorite actresses working right now. Will Patton, who always seems to come off as a young Robert Duvall, was perfectly cast, as was Paul Dano. Shirley Henderson continues to play a slightly clueless and somewhat ditsy character, which is a role I'm afraid shes starting to get typecast as. Bruce Greenwood, who plays the clueless tracker does a great job too. It would've been nice to see Reichardt's frequent collaborators like Will Oldham or even Larry Fessenden (who's work i only recently discovered) act in the film. Their persona's seem go perfectly with the old time setting of Meek's Cutoff. Like all of Kelly Reichardt's other films, she continues to focus on the poor and the not-so-well off, like Oldham's character in 'Old Joy' and Michelle Williams character in 'Wendy & Lucy'. She also continues to photograph the american landscape and nature beautifully just like she does in all her other films.
'Old Joy'
'Wendy & Lucy'
'Meek's Cutoff'
Watching Meek's Cutoff really did remind me of the Oregon trail computer game i use to play in school. Having to cross the river while carrying personal items above your head so they don't sink, having to repair broken wagon axle's, the riffle shooting, running low on water, everything. Overall this movie was a success, even with the extremely ambiguous ending. But like i explained earlier, if you aren't a fan of open endings, and you like things to be wrapped up a little more nicely, you'll probably throw something at the screen when you watch this. This is one of those movies that will grow on me over time, like all of Reichardt's movies.
