MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE: 4

Phantasmagoric:

          1. having a fantastic or deceptive appearance, as something in a dream or created by the imagination.

It’s easy to site Tarkovsky as an influence on a young Russian filmmaker like Ilya Khrzhanovsky. Much like Tarkovsky's films (especially The Mirror), Ilya’s 4 deals with surreality and stream of consciousness (there's even a moment at the end of 4 that may be a slight nod to The Mirror). But any modern Russian film that’s mildly strange automatically gets a Tarkovsky comparison in the same way that any "strange"/non-linear American film gets a default David Lynch comparison. If anything, Ilya Khrzhanovsky is a student of Russian filmmakers like Elim Klimov & Alexandre Sokurov. While Klimov & Sokurov are certainly in the same lane as Tarkovsky (some might even call them students of his), their cinema differs from the late great Russian filmmaker because the surrealism in their work is much more aggressive and in your face (certain films within Sokurov's filmography makes me feel downright on edge because they straddle the line between a beautiful dream and an awful nightmare). While Sacrifice, Solaris, Ivan’s Childhood & Stalker aren’t about anything pleasant (the apocalypse, war, mental illness, death, etc), I’d still much rather live in the world of those films over Come & See (Klimov), The Sun (Sokurov) or 4 (Khrzhanovsky).

4 / Stalker
(a possible nod to Tarkovsky?)

4 definitely falls in to that sketchbook cinema category (a term/genre I coined in 2012) along with other stuff like Post Tenebras Lux (Reygadas), The Intruder (Denis), Uncle Boonmee… (Weerasethakul), etc. On some level it feels like a collection of unfinished ideas combined to make one mega-film. There is a basic plot to 4 in which a group of strangers strike up a conversation at a bar one late night and all proceed to lie too each other about what they do for a living. A piano tuner (“Volodya”) claims to be a lab technician who specializes in cloning, a meat vendor (“Oleg”) claims to work for Vladimir Putin (in an unspecified role), and a prostitute (“Marina”) claims to be an ad executive (she even goes so far as to exchange fake information with Volodya). Their conversation is overseen by a narcoleptic bartender who drifts in & out between serving everyone drinks. 

Once the strangers go their separate ways at the end of the night, their lives start to take strange turns (especially for Marina who pretty much becomes the main focus during the last half of the film). 

But much like other sketchbook cinema movies, 4 is less about the plot and more about the strange, surreal and (sometimes) nightmarish vibe that Ilya Khrzhanovsky conveys. Perhaps 4 is his own personal abstract vision of modern Russia. He paints the nation as a rather dark, drab & industrial place. Imagine Henry's surroundings in Eraserhead except in color and with a few more people walking around at night. 

It’s hard to sum up an entire movie with just one word (especially for me), but phantasmagoric is quite fitting (I swear I didn't learn until after I wrote this that an old Indiewire review also used this term to describe 4). All the characters in the film are deceptive to one another. Even the filmmaker is deceptive with the audience. Ilya Khrzhanovsky toys with us to the point where you start to question if anything is real. The one thing you do need to take in to serious consideration while watching 4 is that it goes in & out of what some might consider to be a dream world really seamlessly (it should go without saying that you need to pay attention while watching any movie, but you need to pay extra attention to 4). And, even if you are giving the film your undivided attention, there’s a good chance you may zone out to the point where even though you’re watching the images on the screen, you’ll stop paying attention to the plot (that happened to me the first time I watched it). 

One minute, you feel like you’re in a safe dream with 4. The imagery during certain scenes are hypnotic & polarizing. Then the next thing you know, that safe dream suddenly turns in to a nightmare. This is one of the few truly disturbing films that doesn’t have any gore, blood or guts. After sitting through 4, which clocks in at just over two hours, you’ll find yourself going; “what did I just watch?!”

The number 4 is obviously critical to the story. Various things pop up in quantities of 4 through the course of the film in both plain sight and in the background...

4 pigs on display at a butcher shop

4 fish tanks placed in plain sight

4 dogs laying around at the opening of the film (with 4 dolls on display in the window in the background)

4 military planes in the background

but for the most part, the title of the film holds the same amount of importance as Dr. Strangelove or Todd Hayne’s Poison does to their respective stories (I tried googling the possible importance of the number 4 as it relates to Russia but nothing really stood out).

In a strange way, 4 has some of Robert Altman's DNA in it as well. There's usually something important going on in the background that you may not know to pay attention too on the first viewing.

It’s tough to not gush over Ilya Khrzhanovsky's directorial debut in an unembarrassing way (this is a personal favorite of mine), but it genuinely defies any one genre. Some may try to box 4 into the science fiction genre because it deals with (possible) alternate realities and cloning, but it’s also part (dark) comedy as there’s plenty moments that are laugh out loud funny (like the narcoleptic bartender). Khrzhanovsky's view of modern day Russia is sad (you see a lot of poverty & sorrow in the background of the film) but he’s also cynical and pokes fun at his homeland too. 4 is also somewhat political (in a passive way) as Putin’s name is dropped numerous times to the point where it has to mean something deeper, and the presence of the military is more than prevalent in certain parts.

Of course this film isn’t for everyone, so it’s difficult to openly suggest it, but if you’re in to all the aforementioned films (Stalker, The Mirror, Uncle Boonmee, The Intruder, etc) and filmmakers, 4 should definitely be at the top of your must-see list if you haven’t checked it out already…

GEORGE WASHINGTON: THE SOUTH ACCORDING TO DAVID GORDON GREEN

Hopefully by now you all have read my thoughts on Prince Avalanche and know that I'm no longer upset with David Gordon Green (he made some poor directing choices in the past, but I've let it go). In fact, after seeing the trailer for his latest feature; Joe, I'm more excited about his work now than I've been since All The Real Girls (2003). I know Nicholas Cage's beard & mustache combo looks like the make-up person walked across the street and bought it from a 99 cent novelty shop, but beyond that, it looks quite good. Almost like a better version of Mud. Coincidentally, both; Mud & Joe co-star Tye Sheridan (Tree Of Life) who is becoming the new poster child/"it kid" for all Terrence Malick-related indie films set in the south...

Tye Sheridan, Nicholas Cage & Nicholas Cage's beard in Joe (2014)

But this write-up isn't about Joe. This is about George Washington and the impact I believe it has had on a particular group of films over the last 10-14 years that I like to call; "The New South". You know, films like; Mud, Take Shelter, New Jerusalem, Ballast, Beasts Of The Southern Wild, Ain't Them Bodies Saints, Undertow, As I Lay Dying, All The Real Girls, etc. You could even throw Upstream Color in to the mix given it's dreamy atmosphere along with director Shane Carruth's southern roots (South Carolina to be exact). Its like you can't read a review on any of these films, including my own, without Terrence Malick's name being dropped at least once. Actually, my girlfriend recently came home in the middle of me watching Upstream Color one day and she asked; "was this directed by that same Tree Of Life To The Wonder guy?"
While I only really like some of the aforementioned works (Ballast, All The Real Girls & Upstream Color) and find the rest to be "ok" (Shotgun Stories), Overrated (Mud), very problematic (Beasts Of The Southern Wild & Ain't Them Bodies Saints) or just plain bad (Take Shelter), they all still show a more complex & poetic side of the American south (I'm excluding recent stuff like Winter's Bone & The Paperboy because they don't share the same poetic style).

A lot of these films share connections with each other. Terrence Malick produced David Gordon Green's Undertow and he's also buddies with Jeff Nichols (which might explain why Malick's actors are appearing in his work a lot these days). Plus, actors like Michael Shannon, Shea Wigham & Tye Sheridan have been used in over half the aforementioned works to date.

I don't normally write about my personal favorite films (minus a few exceptions here & there) out of fear of wasting 2,000+ words to just over-praise something to the point where it becomes embarrassing. But after a recent week-long visit to the south (Augusta, GA & Spartanburg, SC) I felt the urge to do this write-up.
After a few personal conversations with various friends, I came to the realization that north of D.C., the south has a bad rep thanks in part to us Yankees up north. Over the years I've heard some pretty crazy generalizations about the south (mostly having to do with racism) by people who have spent none to very little time there outside of Miami which almost doesn't even count anyway. I'm not gonna sit here and try to say that the racism in the south isn't deeply rooted unlike any other place in this world. History clearly proves this (I mean shit, when something like The Klan was founded down there it's damn near impossible to try and downplay things). But at the same time, I spent five years living in Virginia (the home of the Confederacy's capital) and the most racist things that have ever happened to me (a large young uppity black male) personally in life so far have taken place in my ultra liberal P.C. hometown of Amherst Massachusetts, Milford Connecticut and New York City. I mean seriously, a lot of my friends question how things are in the south as if places like Boston or Howard Beach don't exist in the north.
Outside of the racism stuff, there's also the stereotype of southerners being dumb, unclean, overall wearing country bumpkins (one could actually argue that elements of some of the films I listed earlier as part of the new south genre perpetuate that stereotype, but whatever...). There's a slow simmering poetic ambiance to the American south unlike anywhere else that's finally being shown more on film these days.
Be honest, what cinematic world would you rather live in - the rude & busy world of NYC, the superficial world of L.A., or the relaxed slow moving world of the south? Its understandable if some of you rational thinkers still chose NYC or L.A., but for those of you who always complain about being broke, anxious and/or depressed due to city life - you might wanna consider embracing the beauty that is southern hospitality.

Top: Shotgun Stories (2005) & Ballast (2008)
Bottom: Mud (2012) & Ain't Them Bodies Saints (2013)

While Malick is definitely the indirect influence for all of this, I like to give direct credit to David Gordon Green and his debut feature George Washington. Green pretty much took the style that Malick reemerged with in 1998 (The Thin Red Line) and took in to another level. Clearly a young 26 year old director, like Green was at the time of GW's debut, wasn't the first to show a different side of the American south in the year 2000, but ever since the heavily Malick-influenced George Washington debuted, more & more films that were similar in tone & atmosphere began to emerge.
And unlike other filmmakers who deny or don't acknowledge being influenced by obvious sources, David Gordon Green is always open about his love for Terrence Malick. On the commentary track for the George Washington DVD, he drops Malick name numerous times.

Characteristics of the "new south" include: Dreamy voiceover narration (Beasts Of The Southern Wild & Ain't Them Bodies Saints, The Tree Of Life), a focus on youth & coming of age, droning scores (Mud & George Washington), sunsets, family rivalry & inner-turmoil (Undertow, Ballast & Shotgun Stories) and there has to be at least on scene of a wheat field at dawn. David Gordon Green invented NONE of these thing (especially in film) but I feel like George Washington opened the lid on this new poetic southern cinema we're seeing today.
If I may be so bold to say, I feel like the post-2005 Terrence Malick was influenced by his unofficial "pupil" (Green) post-George Washington. I know that by saying Malick was influenced by David Gordon Green really means that Malick was actually just influenced by himself, but ever since he produced Undertow, he got the courage to go even deeper in to his own style. From The New World to Tree Of Life to To The Wonder, Malick's work has become more daring & experimental.

George Washington does have a clear plot. The story focuses on a group of kids (George, Sonja, Buddy & Vernon) and the accidental death they cause one of their friends after carelessly rough-housing, like most kids do, and the decision they make to essentially cover it up. After that, we see how each of the kids deals with carrying the weight of (accidentally) killing someone.
But all of that comes secondary to the ambiance and overall atmosphere. The conflict in George Washington doesn't even come in to play until the middle of the film. Prior to that, it's pretty much a sprawling & (intentionally) unfocused story about a small southern town where everyone is connected to one another in some way, and all the residents, both; kids & adults, are on the same spiritual level with one another.

it is not about plot, but about memory and regret. It remembers a summer that was not a happy summer, but there will never again be a summer so intensely felt, so alive, so valuable - Roger Ebert

Years ago I watched George Washington with a non-cinephile friend and he was perplexed by a scene in which the characters; Buddy (an 11 year old boy) & Ricky (a 20-something year old adult) are talking about women and giving each other relationship advice. "Is this grown man seriously having a heart-to-heart with this little kid?" my friend asked. But that's part of what I love about this film so much. Green shows kids/youth on the same spiritual level as adults. Like I've said quite a few times already on this blog - it's rare that American filmmakers give children the respect they deserve like being presented as actual human beings with complex emotions. Between the voiceover narration and certain lines of dialogue delivered by the child actors in George Washington, there are quite a few moments that may sound forced & unnatural to the point where we're clearly watching lines written by an adult said by a child who doesn't fully understand the lines of dialogue they're delivering. But there are also other genuine moments where the child actors deliver heartfelt moments of maturity & insecurity.

George Washington has connections to cinema outside of just Terrence Malick. Some of its visual imagery comes directly out of Charles Burnett's Killer Of Sheep...

Killer Of Sheep / George Washington

It was also released one year after another Malick-influenced film in the form of Lynne Ramsay's Ratcatcher. Both Ratcatcher & GW are feature debut's that focus on poor communities, coming of age and a young protagonist keeping quiet about the accidental murderer of a friend (there's even a scene in Ramsay's film that uses some of the music from Badlands). It should be noted that both films are part of the criterion collection too.
I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up Gordon Park's The Learning Tree as a subconscious influence on George Washington as well.

Ratcatcher (1999)

Ratcatcher / Tree Of Life / To The Wonder

I'm sure my sentiment for George Washington has to do partially with where I was at mentally when I first saw it. I happened to catch it playing on the Sundance channel in 2004 which is right around the time Tyler Perry was starting to blow up and embarrassing movies like Soul Plane, The Cookout & White Girls were at an all time high. Furthermore, when filmmakers like Spike Lee tried to criticize the direction that black cinema was headed, he was simply labeled as "a hater" or jealous. Needless to say that "black cinema" wasn't looking too great.

After watching George Washington for the first time, I was surprised that only one other black person I knew had seen it. I felt like it served (and still does serve) as a pretty good alternative to all the modern black cinema that everyone (myself included) has issues with these days. Actually, I feel strange calling this a "black film". Not that its David Gordon Green's fault, but George Washington is another predominately black casted film, made by a white director that's embraced more by white cinephiles & white intellectuals.
However, George Washington could have easily been about race yet it wasn't. All the pieces were there - young white director, predominantly black cast, story set in the south etc. I really appreciate the fact that Green didn't go the predictable route.
On a side note, I will say that it does bum me out that every film mentioned in this write-up so far focuses on the south yet not one is directed, produced or written by a black person. Black folks are just as much a part of the fabric that is the American south as any other race. Its nice that quite a few films focus on black characters in front of the camera but it would also be good to have more southern stories told by black filmmakers as well.

As much as I love George Washington, I'll be the first person to understand if one were to call it pretentious. Its slow, intentionally plotless at times and the voiceover is enough to make you wanna roll your eyes depending on your tolerance for artsy stuff. But it's beauty is undeniable. If you like cinema in the vein of The Spirit Of The Beehive, The Thin Red Line or Walkabout, you'll probably enjoy George Washington.

You have to bring a lot of yourself to this film if you want it to give something back, but the rewards are considerable - Jonathan Rosenbaum

IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE

In The Mood For Love is one of the sexiest and most romantic films in existence without a single sex scene, kiss or shot of nudity whatsoever. And with the exception of the adult issues & themes (depression, hints of sex & sensuality, infidelity, etc) there's no vulgarity at all when there could have easily been. Its like G-rated for adults. This film defines director Wong Kar Wai to a tee - coolness, moody & colorful with plenty of slow-mo shots. By the time this film was made Wong Kar Wai had already found his style. At the start of his career he was very much influenced by Scorsese as were quite a few Chinese directors in the 80's & 90's which I find interesting because Scorsese ended up remaking a film (Internal Affairs) that was somewhat of an homage to his style of filmmaking, causing him to remake a film that was originally made to emulate his own style.

Wong Kar Wai has came a long way since As Tears Go By (his first feature) which did contain some of his signature elements as a filmmaker but at the end of the day was kind of a melodramatic Chinese reworking of Mean Streets. In The Mood For Love was just his way of rubbing in the fact that he had found his style and he wanted the world to know how awesome he was. We all know there's a million movies out there that are pretty to look at (like In The mood For Love) but don’t really bring anything else to the table. In The Mood For Love is pretty much the total package (not to sound so cliché, but it is). What this film has that others with a similar plot or approach don’t is richness, beauty and the kind of leading performance given by Tony Leung (who went on to win best actor at Cannes) that really cant be found anywhere else these days. Sometimes you get so caught up in looking at this film for its beauty that you forget there's also a great story (and soundtrack) that goes along with the pretty moving images.

On a side note, In The Mood For Love was in the top tier of those prominent east Asian films that surfaced at the beginning of the last decade (Battle Royale/Japan, Audition/Japan, Yi Yi/Taiwan, etc). Wong Kar Wai's influence on new filmmakers like Xavier Dolan (specifically Heartbeats) is pretty evident while modern Japanese cinema continues to influence American cinema through remakes and other recent popular movies (I know Hunger Games was a book first but if you think Battle Royal didn't influence the movie you're crazy)

 Maggie Cheung in Days Of Being Wild (1991)

Tony Leung in Days Of Being Wild (1991)

In The Mood For Love is a loose sequel to Days Of Being Wild. Making a sequel/loose connection to a popular film in the art house world is like shooting yourself in the foot (with the exception of Truffaut's Antoine Doniel saga). The second film rarely turns out good. Just ask Hal Hartley (Henry Fool/Fay Grim), Spike Lee (Do The Right Thing/Red Hook Summer) and Todd Solondz (Happiness/Life Dyring Wartime). Luckily Wong Kar Wai kept the connection between his two films at a minimum (Maggie Cheung plays the same character in both films). This loose connection apparently came about during pre-production of In The Mood For Love when Maggie Cheung was having a difficult time getting through a scene and Wong Kar Wai asked her to play the scene as if she was "Su" from Days Of Being Wild and it just kinda stuck. And although Tony Leung's character at the end of Days Of Being Wild has no name or real connection to anything, I always considered his appearance at the end of Days Of Being Wild to be a pre-cursor to In the Mood For Love. Wong Kar Wai also borrows key shots from his previous films to use in In The Mood For Love...

Happy Together (1997) / In The Mood For Love (2000)

Days Of Being Wild (1991) / In The Mood For Love

Set in the early 1960's, In The Mood For Love follows "Chow" (Tony Leung) - a fiction writer & "Su" (Maggie Cheung) - a secretary, who live next door to each other with their spouses in the same tight/claustrophobic apartment building. Both Chow & Su suspect (and are correct in suspecting) that they're significant others are having an affair with each other. Instead of confronting their spouses they form a (platonic) friendship and try to work out why they were cheated on. In The Mood For Love isn’t so much about the act of infidelity or why people cheat but about the pain it causes others. Neither Chow's wife nor Sue's husband are seen together...actually we never really see them at all. We just get hints of their existence. Besides enduring the pain of infidelity, both; Chow & Su have to endure the gossip that starts to surface among their neighbors about them (Ironically, people start to suspect THEM of cheating with each other because they spend so much time together). Their friendship almost plays out like an affair. Due to the fact that friendships between men & women are kinda frowned upon in their community they have to keep it on the low. They rent a motel room together away from where they live in order to avoid the gossip & rumors. How often do you hear of a married man & a married woman renting a motel room together just to hang out & be friends? But that’s what makes the plot so great. Chow & Su know that if they act on their attraction for one another (which does exist) that they would be no different than their spouses who cheated on them so they fight their attraction as much as possible. And whats funny is that they both get a "free pass" to cheat with one another in my book. There was actually a love scene filmed between the two main characters but it ended up on the cutting room floor as to not make the story predictable. Instead Wong Kar Wai leaves things a bit more ambiguous...

This is very much a Chinese film but the influence of western culture is everywhere from the way the characters dress (the male characters emulate Clarke Gable, the women have beehive hairdos like typical American housewives & the office settings are very Americanized) to the film's soundtrack which prominently features music from Nat King Cole. Instead of giving In The Mood For Love a timeless or ambiguous setting, Wong Kar Wai makes it more than obvious that the story takes place in the 1960's. He lays the nostalgic qualities of the early 1960's on the viewer pretty heavy (mostly through wardrobe) yet it’s not problematic or distracting from the plot at all. I've seen Maggie Cheung in tons of films and never found her sexy or desirable (maybe cute but that’s it). Thanks to her wardrobe & make-up in the film she looks absolutely beautiful. And once again, there's no nudity at all. In fact she's clothed pretty much from head to toe all the time. The dresses she wears (along with Christopher Doyle's cinematography & Wong's extensive use of slow motion) accentuate her curves. I didn’t even realize she had any curves.

This film gets away with another thing I usually can’t stand which is a loud score. Normally when a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan uses music in a film that's louder than the actors (Inception & Dark Knight Rises) I throw a mini-conniption fit on the inside. Although beautiful, In The Mood For Love's score is a bit loud but somehow it doesn’t seem to bother me. I guess that’s because there isn't the same amount of dialogue as your average film (apparently Wong Kar Wai doesn’t work from traditional scripts anyway). Another plus about this film is that instead of clocking in at some epic three hour long saga, In The Mood For Love gets its point across in just 90 minutes.

Tony Leung’s performance has been compared to Clarke Gable but in my opinion it’s more along the lines of an Alex Descas performance (35 Rhums, I Can't Sleep, No, Fear No Die). Much like Descas (who's cinematic relationship with Claire Denis is pretty much identical to Wai & Leung) not once in the film does Tony Leung yell, raise his voice, cry or lose control of his emotions. He's cool, calm & collected from beginning to end. Its easy for a man to flip out & lose it after discovering his wife has cheated yet we don't see that with him. AND he doesn't come off like a submissive or weak husband either. The saga of Chow & Su was made in to a trilogy with 2046 which focuses more on Chow with a brief mention of Su. Although 2046 is a great film (probably one of the best of 2004) Tony Leung’s performance was a bit more sleazy and a lil’ less likable (really the only thing I disliked about that movie). In The Mood For Love shows an alternative look at men in a situation that would cause them to act typical & destructive. I think all of Wai's films, along with most of the performances in them, are a good source for women who have a narrow minded view of men on the big screen (or even in real life).

REPO MAN: TO LIVE & CARJACK IN L.A.

The life of a repo man is always intense – Harry Dean Stanton 

Alex Cox's feature film debut may not be on the same level as some of the other great works released in 1984 (Paris Texas, Stranger Than Paradise, Love Streams, The Element Of Crime, etc) but its cult status is unmatched. Repo Man takes me back to my earliest video store memory. For some reason I was always drawn to the VHS box cover art as a kid. The Repo Man box was the first thing I’d go to every time we’d make that trip to the video store. There was something about that grungy looking font, the greenish tint and Emilio Estevez standing in front with his arms folded - it looked badass. Repo Man is a fun, silly, random film that also deals with issues like; televangelism, Conspiracy Theories involving aliens, nuclear war, misguided youth (specifically in the L.A. punk scene), drug addiction, etc. As a kid I was obviously too young to catch any of that stuff but when I revisited the film in college, thanks to a surprisingly good entertainment weekly article on cult films, I got what Alex Cox was doing. After repeated viewings I came to the conclusion that Repo Man is a brilliant film in disguise under a bunch of bad takes & bad audio synchs that shoulda been redone (Repo Man holds a comfy spot on my all-time top 25 but I’m not above pointing out its faults for those of you who haven’t seen it). But at the same time I think that's part of what draws people to Alex Cox - his early work had rawness & moments of imperfections that served as a contrast to all the big budget blockbusters that were starting to emerge in the early 80’s. It takes guts to make a film like Repo Man. It went on to influence other great random & forgotten about L.A.-based movies like Tapeheads & Roadside Prophets (both films are made up of a lot of the same cast & crew from Repo Man) as well as not so great movies like Dude Where's My Car. The first half hour of Bette Gordon’s Luminous Motion also has the same kind of ambiance right down to the opening credits. Cox's overall style also went on to influence Tarrantino (both Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction borrow heavily from Cox's third feature; Straight To Hell). Along with Lost Highway, The Day Of The Locusts, Mulholland Drive, Barton Fink & Chinatown - Repo Man is one of my favorite films that shows the more alternative, dark yet quirky side of Los Angeles. Without too many traditional landmarks Alex Cox captures the ambiance of the city perfectly. He effortlessly exposed viewers to LA's multiracial population long before films like Crash, he showed us the punk scene, crime and how spread out the L.A. is (you have to drive everywhere in order to get somewhere). This film also shares a connection to other works like Williams Friedken's To Live & Die In LA and Wim Wenders' Paris Texas (all three films were shot by Robby Muller, set in the American west and two of the films star Harry Dean Stanton). Repo Man is centered around the punk scene (a genre of music I'm not really in to) but unlike other music genre-based films like 24 Hour Party People (post-punk/new wave) or Who's The Man (Hip-Hop) there aren’t too many inside references or jokes catered only to people within that specific music scene. Repo Man's main inside joke is that half of the characters are named after beers ("Bud", "Lite", "Miller", etc). There’s also an ongoing joke throughout the film where all food labels are modeled after that generic no frills label. Repo Man has this rare unique quality in that even if you aren’t a fan you'll still have a good time watching it.

In the film Emilio Estevez plays; "Otto" - A young L.A. punk who loses his job, girlfriend & life savings (his parents give it away to a televangelist) all in the same day. With no source of income he becomes a car repossessor under the tutelage of "Bud" (Harry Dean Stanton) - a washed-up, coke addicted repo man. Otto quickly learns the ropes from Bud and the rest of his veteran repo coworkers (Lite, Miller & Marlene) and takes to the coke snorting, car stealing, hot-wiring, no-sleep lifestyle. Otto becomes a repo man at a very interesting time as every car repossessor in Los Angeles (along with a group of secret government agents) are on the hunt for a mysterious green Chevy Malibu (there’s a $20,000 reward for returning it). This Chevy Malibu just so happens to contain a trunk full of dead alien bodies which still emanates a deadly radiation (anyone who opens the trunk is immediately zapped in to dust). Soon the race is on to see who can get to the car first. This isn’t exactly the kinda movie you look too for great acting but Harry Dean Stanton and Sy Richardson (somewhat of a staple in the L.A. independent movie scene) all deliver underrated comedic performances.
Underneath all the Mohawks, screwball humor and all around randomness lies brief moments of intellectualism and the kinda stream of consciousness though found in a David Lynch film (who at the time of Repo Man hadn’t even fully come in to that signature style of his yet). Another clever element about Repo Man is that there always seems to be something going on in the background during a lot of scenes – notice the dead body on the ground in the laundryman scene or the Altman-esque moments where random lines are spoken off camera that still have something to do with the storyline.

I gotta admit, I used to feel sorry for Alex Cox and how bad he fell off. That independent/maverick/D.I.Y. mentality worked for his peers like John Sayles & Jim Jarmusch yet not so much for him. After Sid & Nancy everything he did got worse & worse (I honestly don’t understand why people think Walker is so great especially when we already had Burn starring Marlon Brando which makes Walker look like a joke when you compare the two films with each other). Throughout the 90's and the last decade Cox never let the lack of funding or distribution stop him from making films that hardly anyone would see but ever since he made Repo Chick (the sequel to Repo Man and quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made) I have no more sympathy for him or his career (there were plans for a legitimate sequel in the mid-90's which was supposed to include the original cast members along with Willem Dafoe but it fell through).

Repo Man is timeless and appeals to many different groups - It was made for punks, pseudo-anarchists & rebellious youth of the early 80's, rediscovered by the video store generation in the late 80's (video store rentals & VHS sales played a huge part in keeping Repo Man afloat), then dug up again by generation Y (my generation) who were babies & toddlers when Repo Man was first released. With minimal use of computers and no mention of virtual reality, this film still manages to fall in to the cyber punk genre - Otto's environment is somewhat dystopian (with a comedic twist), artificial intelligence is a major part of the story and its full of twisted & rebellious characters. Instead of the threat of computers & artificial life, the threat in Repo Man was nuclear war which was a clear jab at Reagan & Thatcher. Cox is one of the few people to have a connection to both Thatcher (he's from the UK) & Reagan (he moved to the U.S. during the Reagan years and was taken in by the punk scene which wanted nothing to do with Reagan). Fans of William Gibson, Eating Raoul, World On A Wire & Bladerunner should enjoy Repo Man.
This year Criterion blesses us all by adding Repo Man to the collection (I honestly didn’t see that one coming). Normally I'm not a fan of Criterion putting out films that already have multiple special editions already in circulations but this one gets a pass (plus most Repo Man DVD's are currently out of print).

HUSBANDS

Nothing says true friendship like John Cassavetes' masterpiece; Husbands - a dramedy about three best friends who mourn the sudden loss of their friend in an unconventional yet manly way. At this point in my life I feel it's in John Cassavetes' all-time top three (along with Faces & A Woman Under The Influence). And nothing says chemistry like the performances of real life friends; Cassavetes, Peter Faulk & Ben Gazzara - a genuine rat pack in every sense of the term that could probably out drink and out party Sinatra, Martin & Sammy any day of the week. Husbands transcends age, era, race, upbringing, etc. Although Husbands centers around three forty-something year old upper-middle class family men, I still relate to so many things in the film. When I use to watch Husbands at the age of 21 & 22 I enjoyed it very much but I was still watching it at a distance. I couldn't fully relate to it at that point in my life. I had no responsibilities, bills, a family, nothing. It was like watching my father and his friends on film. But a decade later in my 30's (still maintaining the same group of close friends) I see elements of myself and my buddies in the characters in Husbands more & more (the same can be said for a film like Old Joy as well, which may be written about sometime early next year). Anyone who has that regular group of best friends that you've; gotten drunk with, laughed with, gotten in to trouble with, kicked out of a bar together, argued with then made up without talking an hour later can all relate to Gus (John Cassavetes), Archie (Peter Falk) & Harry (Ben Gazzara). My favorite aspect about Husbands is that it deals with grown men temporarily abandoning their responsibilities (jobs, family, money, etc) and going on an international bender for a few days to deal with the unexpected loss of their friend and fourth member of their group. This is a fantasy most adults would love to experience (minus the dead friend part) yet reality sets in and you realize you can’t just exactly up and run away to have a good time. But Cassavetes makes that fantasy of running off and saying; "fuck the world" for a few days a reality. And what makes Husbands such a reality is the very ending where we see his character (Gus) coming home from his multi-day drunken party where he's met by his (real life) son in the driveway saying; "DAD! oh boy. you're in trouble!" as if to imply no matter how long you take a break from reality to have a good time, you still have to come home and face your responsibilities at some point. Husbands is very much a "guys movie" - the three lead characters are loud & rambunctious, when you watch the film you can almost smell the beer, cigarettes & sweat and it's the one prominent Cassavetes film without a strong female presence. This isn't to say that women can't enjoy husbands (although I imagine most women who watch this will be laughing, rolling their eyes & shaking their heads at the same time as it will remind them of all the embarrassing & annoying things their boyfriends, husbands, fathers, brothers and other male loved ones do), but it's still very much a guys movie in the same sense that Steel Magnolias or even Morvern Callar (one of my favorite films actually) is very much a female film. Forget Spike TV or a Vin Diesel action movie - Husbands is a real mans film. Now…the one prominent female presence in the film DOES leave a lasting impression (with the exception of the three women Gus, Archie & Harry pick up in the last half of the film). In one of the film's most famous scenes, Gus' wife stand up to him (with a knife) to the point where she exposes him and he runs away from her like a scared child after trying to be a tough alpha-male.

Husbands has so many real, genuine & funny moments that sometimes you'll think you're watching B-role footage or bloopers (I mean that in a good way). Its difficult to pick a favorite scene...



Up 'til Husbands (excluding Too Late Blues & A Child is Waiting) Cassavetes was more accepted by Europeans than Americans. What's funny is that Cassavetes was never really a fan of the French art-house scene that accepted him. He genuinely thought Americans would embrace his films in the same way they would accept other American filmmakers like Robert Altman (who had minor "beef" with Cassavetes back in the day), Hal Ashby, Nicholas Ray, Sam Fuller, Coppola & even Kubrick! This is the kinda delusional thinking that you have to love. Anyone who knows anything about cinema knows Cassavetes’ style was progressive, ahead of its time and would be more accepted by Europeans (some Americans appreciated him, but still…). But you have to love & respect Cassavetes for giving American audiences credit and assuming they wanted to see something new & different (only in the last decade have Americans REALLY embraced his work thanks to the Criterion box set of his five critical works). Husbands wasn't Cassavetes' biggest "crossover" or "successful" film (both; Faces & A Woman Under The Influence were nominated for multiple academy awards) but it was still nominated for a golden globe (best screenplay), Cassavetes and his crew landed on the cover of Life magazine...

John Cassavetes was also able to get some decent national promotion, most notably on the Dick Cavett show, where the drunken, immature, childish tone of Husbands spilled over in to real life making for one of the most memorable talk show appearances of all time. I don't know if their behavior was staged or not but this was brilliant and really conveyed what Husbands was all about (notice how annoyed Cavett gets as the show goes on)...


The dick cavett show - cassavetes, falk, and... by Ali_La_Pointe

With a few exceptions, I doubt a progressive film like this would get the same kind of national exposure today. Husbands isn't exactly "counterculture" but it still came out around the same 1969/1970 game changing era as other important (mostly counter culture) films like; Easy Rider, IF..., Two Lane Blacktop, Z, MASH and The Conformist (which is overrated to me, but still...). We all know the 70's were the greatest years of cinema and it makes sense that the decade started off with these important works.

European cinephiles (who were/are mostly leftists) in the early 70's felt a little betrayed by Husbands as it focused on everything they kinda despised at the time - the upper-middle class, loud ignorant drunken Americans, etc. This was probably Cassavetes' most "American" film. Whenever you read about Husbands on the festival circuit before it was released in theaters (especially in Ray Carney's “Cassavetes on Cassavetes”) you'll more than likely read stories of Cassavetes, Falk & Gazzara arguing with angry European audiences at Q&A’s who felt Cassavetes "sold out". The film wasn’t in black & white and there was no jazzy soundtrack (minus the opening credits). European's love of John Cassavetes always made me scratch my head because as a person he was pretty much the epitome of what Europeans typically dislike about Americans (loud, at times obnoxious, drunk, etc). Maybe that's part of the reason he made Husbands - to distance himself from a scene he disliked. What many Europeans (still to this day) don't realize is that Cassavetes thought stuff like Godard & Bergman (which he took a quick jab at in Faces) was "faggy" or "artsy crap". But to this day he’s STILL loved in Europe (on my first quick trip to Paris his name came up quite a few times when I was nerding out with a bunch of my Parisian cinephile buddies). Husbands is a pretty realistic portrayal of how men can handle the loss of someone they love. We all know those traditional expectations that are put on males since birth - don't cry, "be a man", "be tough", etc. And this film shows that (what's funny is that something tells me that wasn't even what Cassavetes was trying to do and even if he was it wasn't his main goal). It's clear these are the things Gus, Archie & Harry were told when they were kids and it stayed with them in to adulthood. Instead of crying or mourning at their friends funeral they turn in to irresponsible children, suddenly decide they wanna go to London where they drink gamble & hook up with random women because they don't really know how to mourn, express sorrow or deal with non-traditional manly emotions. All three actors have their moments to shine, but in my opinion Ben Gazzara gives the standout, award worthy, performance - he's the loudest of the bunch (how could he NOT be with a voice like his) and we get more in to his personal life than any of the other three characters. Anyone who reads anything about John Cassavetes should know he had a habit for editing & RE-editing his films to the point where he had two, three, sometimes four versions of the same film (this was the case with Killing Of A Chinese Bookie, Faces & Love Streams). Husbands was no exception. According to Cassavetes he made three different versions of the film in which each of the three actors comes off as the lead. Apparently Cassavetes went with the Gazzara version. There's very few films that remind me about the importance of true friendship. And what's funny is that the few films that DO aren't even masterpieces. Say what you want about Shane Meadows but A Room For Romeo Brass is one, Wes Anderson's debut; Bottle Rocket is another as well My Bodyguard (the one film in the bunch that I WOULD actually consider somewhat of a masterpiece). These are films that show the joy, hilarity, trials & tribulations of having real best friends (even if they aren't exactly the most realistic at times). But in my opinion Husbands is probably the greatest film about friendship (especially among men).
The beautiful thing about Husbands is that it's the perfect introduction film for someone looking to get in to his work (in my opinion).

MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE (HALLOWEEN EDITION): PARENTS (NICKELODEON MEETS TED BUNDY)

You really like the dark, don’t you, Michael? You can be yourself in the dark. But, you know? There’s one dark place that we have to be very careful in. - Randy Quaid (Parents)

Halloween is a great time to get together with friends to watch a scary movie. If you're tired of the same ol' Friday The 13th/Nightmare On Elm Street suggestions, why not give a more unconventional film like Parents a shot? Parents is The Shining meets Nickelodeon. Norman Rockwell meets Ted Bundy or an episode of Pete & Pete guest directed by John Wayne Gacy. Bob Balaban knew the kids of the 80's (like myself) who watched Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid Of The Dark and read those RL Stine books would grow up and grow out of that stuff but would still be looking for something to fill the void once they reached adulthood...

Bob Balaban gives off a strange vibe. Sometimes he comes off like a creepy accountant by day and serial killer by night. Other times he reminds us off that out of touch father who cant connect with his kids (pretty much the role he played in Ghost World) but behind closed doors he's a sexual deviant with a questionable porn collection. It's like he's wound way too tight, ready to snap at any moment and go on a chloroform napkin killing spree in the park. Bob Balaban may not be JT Walsh or Harry Dean Stanton but he's still a great character actor that doesn't get the proper recognition. There's more to him than guest spots on Seinfeld and his appearances in Christopher Guest's movies. And besides his underappreciated work as an actor, he's also a somewhat underrated director responsible for one of my all-time favorite movies; Parents - the story of a young boy ("Michael") that suspects his parents (Randy Quaid & Marybeth Hurt) are cannibalistic serial killers. Throughout the film Michael has these disturbing visions, reminiscent of Danny in The Shining, about his parents committing horrible murders. The only people who believe Michael's theory are "Sheila"(Michael's only friend) and his guidance counselor. To further emphasize our suspicions, Balaban constantly shoots Quaid & Hurt through dark creepy lighting whenever we see them though Michael's point of view. Parents is a film about what goes on beneath the surface and how things aren't exactly as they seem. Besides being a horror/comedy, Parents is very much a noir. What makes it such a unique noir is that it's a film geared towards adults but is told from the perspective of an 8 year old. Up until the final moments of the film Balaban makes everything subjective & ambiguous. Before the explosive finale, he gives us just as much evidence to support that Michael's parents are disturbed serial killers and just as much evidence to show that they aren't.

Parents is brilliant right down to the box cover art which pretty much captures the movie's vibe perfectly - from the font to Randy Quaid looking directly at us. This film may be silly but it's still a film that both Freud & Kinsey would love to over-analyze if they had the chance. There's a ton of sexual undertones and Freudian moments - Michael's mother seems almost flirtatious with her son, his father sometimes talks & acts like a pedophile and there's a pivotal scene where Michael walks in on his parents having sex. This is a film that plays on those feelings we had about our mom & dad when we were kids - "Who are these strange people?" It may belong to the same school of dark comedies as Heathers, Meet The Applegates or Shakes The Clown, but it also gets a lot of influence from more serious sources like David Lynch (specifically Blue Velvet) or those A&E specials on serial killers. I know that any movie that has any scene that's remotely surreal or strange gets an automatic comparison to David Lynch but trust me, this comparison is worthy. It's more than obvious Blue Velvet left a lasting impression on Bob Balaban. The opening scenes of both films feature dark & disturbing secrets hidden behind white picket fences, chirping birds & friendly waving crossing guards. Parents could also turn the biggest, baddest, heftiest meat eater in to an outspoken vegan (forget vegetarian). Not only does Michael think his parents are cannibals themselves, but he suspects they're serving the dead bodies up to him every night for dinner (this predates Dahmer). In the film Michael never eats the meat his mother prepares for dinner. I don't know if it's the lighting or what, but every shot of meat in the film looks gross. This is a unique film. Very few horror/comedies will have you name dropping everything from Freud & Kinsey to Nickelodeon & Ted Bundy. Quaid's performance isn't too shabby either (he nabbed a nomination for best actor at the 1990 independent spirit awards). There will be a lot to talk about once this movie is over so I highly suggest getting together with a group of friends for a fun/unique movie together.

Blue Velvet/Parents

Parents also seems to borrow some visual elements from Kubrick's The Shining as well...

MORVERN CALLAR

A female's presence in a (good) road movie is either non-existent (most road movies involve men on some journey to find themselves due to some mid-life crisis or a divorce...There's too many examples to name) or in the form of a small girl partnered with an older man (Alice In The Cities, Paper Moon & Lolita). There's the occasional exception like Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise but generally speaking, it’s true. Women can have a mid-life crisis or go through some devastating event that can make them wanna hit the open road and never look back too (and please don’t say Thelma & Louise. I said GOOD road movie). I guess it was up to a woman (Lynne Ramsay) to bring some legitimacy to the female road movie genre with her sophomore feature; Morvern Callar - a road movie full of planes, trains & automobiles that takes us from Scotland to Madrid to the Spanish desert, then back to Scotland. The style of Morvern Callar is like Claire Denis in her prime (there are moments in Morvern Callar that do remind me of Nenette & Boni and Beau Travail) meets Andrea Arnold's Red Road (and I'm not just making that comparison because they're all female directors). Morvern Callar has the same realistic tone as her first feature; Ratcatcher (most of the cinematography is handheld, the dialogue is very natural and comes off non-scripted and all the moments just seem genuine) yet the atmosphere is a lot more dreamy (but not super David Lynch dreamy). The film's dreaminess is due to Samantha Morton's detached and slightly "off" lead performance, the use of slow motion, minimal dialogue and the soundtrack courtesy of music from artists like Broadcast, Aphex Twin & Boards Of Canada (which is music that you'll pretty much always find on heavy rotation on my iPod). Much like Olivier Assayas, Ramsay is another indie/art house director who doesn’t get enough recognition for her ear and use of great music (both original and pre-existing) in her films. Ramsay also pulled off a very dreamy style without it being so Malick influenced like her 90’s work. All of her early student films, as well as Ratcatcher, were straight outta the school of early Terrence Malick whereas Morvern Callar seemed more of her own style. On a side note, Ratcatcher also remains Ramsay's one and only “gritty” film (I mean how can a film with garbage and rats in almost every scene NOT be gritty?). There was more of a focus on (natural) beauty in her later work starting with Morvern Callar and she doesn’t shy away from showing things that are still kinda unattractive to see on the big screen as far as leading ladies are concerned. Throughout the film we see Morvern (Samantha Morton) prance around her apartment in "granny panties" with unshaven legs and squatting to pee in the bushes.

Morvern Caller represents the Lynne Ramsay that I miss so much. There IS a plot (a pretty straight forward one), but this film is more about the atmosphere. Going back the soundtrack for moment, not much is said (compared to more traditional movies) in the first 10-15 minutes of the film (I mean, there's a lot of background talking and noise but not much of it is really important or key to the story) so we rely heavily on the score. There's other moments like Morvern walking through a noisy rave with annoying techno music playing but she has her headphones while walking through the crowd not talking to anyone, or the scene where she hooks up with a random stranger in his hotel room yet hardly anything is said between the two of them. These are moments where music makes up for the lack of dialogue...

Morvern Callar is a rather unique take on dealing with the death of a loved one. The film starts on Christmas morning moments after Morvern's boyfriend (James) has just committed suicide on their kitchen floor leaving behind an unpublished book with instructions on what publishers to mail the book to. Instead of freaking out, Morvern is in a bit of a daze. Not even in shock. Its more along the lines of she doesn’t really care/hasn’t fully processed the fact that her dead bloody boyfriend is laid out on the kitchen floor. She follows his instructions on what to do with the book with the exception of one little change - she takes his name off as the author and puts her name on it instead. To me, this move on Morvern’s part was her way at getting back at her boyfriend who left her (maybe there were some unfinished things left between Morvern and James or maybe she felt cheated not getting that chance to say goodbye). Two interesting things about Morvern's boyfriend is that at no point in the film does she ever tell anyone he's dead (with the exception of one moment where she blurts it out to her friend but no one hears it) and just from a few lines spoken about James from the supporting cast we get to know him pretty well (he's kind of a gloomy, dark person...I guess that all adds up to him committing suicide, huh?). We get that James was still a pretty good boyfriend. Before killing himself he left behind personal Christmas gifts that Morvern seemed to really love (one of which is a personal mixtape titled; “music for morvern”, and the other is a leather jacket that she wears through the first third of the film which kinda reminds the audience of James’ presence even though he's dead). Instead of mourning, she cleans out James’ account (he left behind his bank card for her) and goes about her regular routine (she goes to a party, goes to work, hangs out with her friend, etc). She eventually uses her boyfriend's money and takes her friend (Lanna) on a vacation to Madrid. While on vacation Morvern and Lanna having a falling out between taking drugs and hooking up with random guys (we come to find out that James cheated on her with Lanna). Morvern ditches her in some random Spanish desert to meet up with two book publishers who're interested in her boyfriend's book (well...Morvern’s book now). As it turns out, the book is really good and she strikes a six figure deal. Over night she goes from being a broke grocery store clerk to having over $100,000 in her bank account. With that money she continues to travel (after making peace with Lanna) and the film ends on a rather open/subjective note with Morvern waiting at a train station platform. Besides Morton's detached performance (she's always great in my opinion) Kathleen McDermott (Lanna) is also a delight. Her performance is natural, cute, funny and according to the actress herself (on the special features of the DVD) the character she plays isn’t that much different from her real self.

Subtlety is another one of Ramsay's strengths with this film. At first glance Morvern Callar doesn't fit in with other classic road movies but when you take a step back and think about it for a minute you'll see that it has just as much sex, drugs & rock n' roll as other classic road movies like Two Lane Blacktop or Easy Rider. You also forget about the whole name change/book publishing part of the story up until the very end (the only time Ramsay addresses this is at the very beginning & end with one quick mention of it in the middle). By the end of the film its almost like; "oh yeah, I forgot she stole her dead boyfriend's manuscript and put her name on it.

Almost all of the films put out by Palm Pictures (minus Time Of The Wolf) are either about music in some way or it plays a major role in the film - DIG (a documentary about the rivalry between The Brian Jonestown Massacre & The Dandy Warhols), Demonlover (Sonic Youth), Stop Making Sense (Talking Heads), etc. I really can’t stress enough about how important music plays in Morvern Callar. This is one of my favorite recent discoveries (easily one of the 50 best films of the last decade) and I'd recommend it to just about anyone without reservation (something I usually have to do with most films I really like these days). My tagline for this film would be "an artsy chick flick that men can enjoy." Besides Claire Denis and Andrea Arnold (who I’m starting to feel is somehow spiritually connected to Lynne Ramsay as far as style is concerned), fans of Marina De Van (another progressive female director) and last year's I Travel Because I Have To (a similar premise to Morvern Callar except told from a male's perspective) will love this.

TIFF 2012 HIGHLIGHT #6: POST TENEBRAS LUX (BEST MOVIE OF TIFF)

"Reason will intervene as little as possible" - Carlos Reygadas

Within the first two scenes of Post Tenebras Lux, Carlos Reygadas' latest film that would make Andrei Tarkovsky proud, I was immediately reminded of Uncle Boonmee, To The Wonder (which I'd just seen the day before) and The Tree Of Life. In one of the film's earliest scenes we see an animated glowing red demon lurking through a house at night and right away you're reminded of the ghostly red-eyed figure at the beginning of Uncle Boonmee who lurks around in that same slow creepy way. The heightened sounds of the crickets, wind, tree branches and other night time sounds are also reminiscent of not just Uncle Boonmee but Apichatpong Weerasethakul's overall style. The comparison to Terrence Malick, which many critics made after seeing Post Tenebras Lux at Cannes, is also pretty understandable. After all, Reygadas' new film does deal with extreme stream of consciousness centered around a family in the same surreal/dreamy style as The Tree Of Life minus the loud classical music. In my opinion it actually takes that exploration into the stream of consciousness to the next level. The non linear style not only bounces back & forth between what might be the present and what might be the future but there are many moments that'll have you scratching your head and/or contemplating long after it’s over (this film has been stuck in my head for the last four days). Post Tenebras Lux also has some of the same dreamy elements as Alexander Sokurov's work (specifically Moloch & Taurus). But all Tree Of Life/Uncle Boonmee/Sokurov comparisons aside, this is still very much a Carlos Reygadas film with his own ideas. Before the screening at TIFF, lead actress; Nathalia Acevado advised the audience to feel the film rather than try to understand it right away. May sound like pretentious crap to some of you but after watching this I couldn't think of any better advice. I don't mean to sound so dramatic but Post Tenebras Lux, which does have a plot, feels more like an actual dream than any David Lynch film could imagine being with the exception of Inland Empire and Mulholland Drive (and this is coming from a hardcore David Lynch fan). It’s as if Reygadas finally discovered a way to record dreams, daydreams & random thoughts and project them on to the screen. It’s obvious many of the thoughts and feelings in Post Tenebras Lux belong to Reygadas himself and the fact that he cast his own children and used his actual house in the film (he developed the first ideas for Post Tenebras Lux while constructing his home) just kinda confirms the personal feel. The opening scene where we see the little girl (Reygadas' real life daughter) running and playing in the field looks like a personal home video rather than an actual movie...

Post Tenebras Lux                                                                                Uncle Boonmee

My only worry when it comes to Post Tenebras Lux is that although I do think it’s a frontrunner for best film of the year (along with The Avengers which couldn't be any more opposite) more people will be turned off by it than turned on which is a shame because this felt like a masterpiece right away. If I told you this film featured scenes of bath house orgies, a dog being viciously beaten, blood raining from the sky and a man literally ripping off his own head (and I assure you, all of these things happen in the film) you'd probably be either turned off or get the wrong impression. But trust me when I say you shouldn’t. I guess the best I can do is to reiterate what Nathalia Acevado told us which is to feel rather than try to understand it so much.

Post Tenebras Lux centers around a family (Juan, Nathalia and they're two children) living in a beautiful modern house in rural Mexico. Juan seems to have a temper (yet he doesn't take it out on his wife or kids) and belongs to some kind of a 12 step anger management group. He’s also having marital problems highlighted by sexual frustrations with Nathalia (in one awkward scene they go to a bath house together for sexual pleasure and in another scene they have an argument after Juan makes a strange announcement that he wants to have anal sex with her later). Eventually Juan has a near-fatal encounter with another member of his anger management group (or is the encounter fatal? The film is intentionally vague about that). Post Tenebras Lux deals with elements of redemption, good versus evil and obvious stuff I already mentioned like anger and how it can either control or take you over, family, marriage and dreams. Some great films have the ability to make one think of elements in their own life and Post Tenebras Lux kinda did that with me. Living far out in a rural area away from New York City (although with plenty of modern technology at my disposal) is a random fantasy that pops in and out of my head from time to time. There's this belief in the back of my head that living in a nice house away from the big city, like our main characters in the film do, that all the problems in the world will be greatly diminished and I'd be in paradise. Clearly that's ridiculous and Post Tenebras Lux helps to emphasize this ridiculousness by showing the anger issues, marital issues and the dangerous encounter Juan has. Simply running off to live far away from things doesn't make life perfect. And I really can’t mention enough about how much this film feels like a genuine dream. The most noticeable element of Post Tenebras Lux is the look of the film. Reygadas intentionally distorts things with an almost blurry/double vision POV perspective with all four corners of the screen having this watery effect to it. As one critic already pointed out: imagine watching a movie with beer goggles on although not as distracting or difficult to see through.

A major issue some people had with Post Tenebras Lux when it showed at Cannes (where it was booed) was that they felt the film came off like a bunch of half explored/half thought up ideas thrown together. I can kinda see why someone would say that off of one initial viewing but to me Post Tenebras Lux kinda came off like a beautiful sketchbook from an amazingly talented artist. And not some cheap notepad with doodles on every page. I'm talking about one of those nice hardcover art store sketchbooks used by people like Robert Crumb. There's a reason sketchbooks from famous artists are sold for tons of money (if you remember in the Robert Crumb documentary his sketchbooks were auctioned off for so much money that it allowed him to move to France and live). Having a sketchbook is something I'm familiar with as I was an Architect major and sketching, although I wasn't good at it, is a huge part of the curriculum. Once again the film has me dipping in to my own personal life (architecture). A sketchbook may seem like a bunch of random drawings from page to page but when you look closer you see a lot of the same elements, figures and techniques on most of the pages that tie everything together. That's what Post Tenebras Lux is to me. The glowing red demon we see at the beginning of the film seems out of place at first but then we see it again towards the end. A lot of the scenes in the film have that same blurry and disorienting look to it. The man ripping his own head off seems random at first but it’s clearly a scene about redemption and a comment on anger and how it can control you. Sure there's other random elements throughout the film (that all carry some important meaning as random as they may seem) but what makes it grounded at the same time is that it does have a very personal, semi-autobiographical plot. Like I said in my To The Wonder write-up (which in my opinion felt like a first cousin to Post Tenebras Lux) - the majority of people who end up seeing this film are probably somewhat familiar with Carlos Reygadas so you should kinda know what to expect without this review I just wrote. True, this is his most experimental film but it still has elements from all his previous work (especially his last two features). When the credits rolled I heard everything from: "what the hell did I just watch?" to "wow, I think that's his best film".



Non-stop kid-friendly shows just $7.99 a month