THE SCHOOL OF CHANTAL AKERMAN PART 7: MOVING IMAGERY

In this edition of The School Of Chantal Akerman (probably the last one I’ll be doing for a while) I draw comparisons to some strange & unexpected works like Spike Lee’s School Daze & Shane Carruth’s Upstream Color, alongside some more reasonable/believable filmmakers to draw influence from her work like Olivier Assayas & Bertrand Bonello.

Some of these may be a reach (with the exception of Safe which isn’t up for debate), but the films on the right still give me a serious subconscious Chantal Akerman vibe.


Enjoy...

La Chmbre / Safe

Jeanne Dielman... / Safe

Hotel Monterey / Interiors

Les Rendezvous / Upstream Color

Les Rendezvous D'Anna / Nostalghia

Hotel Monterey / Irma Vep

Les Rendezvous / Gradiva

In The Mirror / Four Nights Of A Dreamer

The Golden 80's / School Daze

Jeanne Dielman /
The House Of Tolerance 

ALWAYS SHINE

The greatest thing about Sophia Takal’s Always Shine is that she doesn’t try to hide her influences & inspirations. Takal’s film is, without a doubt, from the school of Bergman’s Persona in that it’s about mental illness and the loss of identity from the perspective of an actress/performer who essentially "cracks" due to pressure & stress (pretty much the premise of Persona on the most basic level). But to get from Persona to Always Shine there’s a few stops along the way in the form of Images & Three Women (Robert Altman), Sisters (Brian Depalma) Mulholland Drive (David Lynch), Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky) & The Clouds Of Sils Maria (Olivier Assayas). There’s obviously a bunch of secondary films that could be mentioned (The Swimming Pool, Inland Empire, etc) but we’re just going to stick with these core films.

Persona / Always Shine

Persona / Always Shine

Images / Mulholland Drive / Always Shine

Mulholland Drive / The Clouds Of Sils Maria / Always Shine - all three films feature similar rehearsal scenes that blur the lines between fantasy & reality...

Mulholland Drive / Always Shine

...Brian De Palma and other influences, like Robert Altman, Ingmar Bergman - all those directors are very astute observers of human behavior. ...Another [reference]: I saw the movie Black Swan. - Sophia Takal

And by pulling from so many great filmmakers, Takal ended up making a film that is all her own (it should be noted that she avoided the sexual tension angle that almost always comes along with these kinds of movies when you have two attractive leading ladies)...

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to. – Jim Jarmusch

There’s nothing more hilariously frustrating than when a filmmaker claims to be a hardcore cinephile/movie nerd yet when they get asked about an obvious homage or reference in one of their films, they suddenly get amnesia and/or don’t know classic films by people like Godard & Truffaut.

Take a guy like Quentin Tarantino for example. He always goes on about every rare movie he’s seen and how much he loves video stores and how much he loves to consume film. But when asked about The Bride Wore Black and it’s (obvious) influence on Kill Bill, he had this to say…

QT: Here’s the thing - I’ve never actually seen The Bride Wore Black.

Interviewer: Really?

QT: I know of it, but I’ve never seen it. Everyone is like, oh, this is really similar to The Bride Wore Black. I’ve heard of the movie. It's based on a Cornell Woolrich novel too, but it’s a movie I’ve never seen. The reason I’ve never seen it is because…I’ve just never been a huge Truffaut, fan. So that’s why I never got around to see it. I’m not rejecting it, I just never saw it. I’m a Godard fan, not a Truffaut fan. So I know of it, I know all that stuff, but it’s a movie I’ve never seen.

Interview: I thought of it because The Bride has that list of names she checks off.

QT: Oh, is that in there too?

For those that don’t know, both movies are about a woman seeking revenge on the people responsible for her husbands murder on their wedding day. Sound familiar?

The Bride Wore Black

Or how about Xavier Dolan who claims to have only seen 1 or 2 Godard movies…

Contempt / Heartbeats

Nicolas Winding Refn is always namedropping & bragging about all the movies he’s seen yet he claims to have never seen Bergman’s Persona…

Persona / Fear X (even I admit this one is a bit of a reach but I think you see what I'm getting at)

I obviously have no way of knowing who has seen what. Sometimes movies slip through the cracks. No one has the ability to see every movie ever made, but I always find it odd when lovers of film claim to have never seen certain specific classic/"important" movies.


Always Shine is the story of two friends/fellow actresses (“Beth” & “Anna”) on opposite ends of the career spectrum. Beth’s career is on the rise while Anna is still struggling to book commercials. Beth’s growing success makes Anna somewhat jealous especially since they both kind of look alike (Anna is clearly wondering what Beth has that she doesn’t considering how similar they look). The two friends go off for a weekend getaway where the tension between the two friends gets so thick that their relationship takes a turn for the worse…

Sophia Takal is a woman unlike Bergman, Lynch, Altman & co. I’m not saying men can't make great films about women (because they absolutely have), but who better than a (talented) woman in the film industry to make a film about being a woman in the film industry? Always Shine has layers to it because outside of the actual movie, it’s safe to assume that the actresses in the film have gone through the same auditions & rejections as the characters they portray.

While Always Shine may not break new ground in terms of plot, it’s execution is a breath of fresh air because we get a woman’s perspective on a film centered around women. Takal also manages to pull off a frightening & thrilling film without the use of monsters, ghosts and other typical supernatural elements & jump scares that one would expect these days.
Always Shine would make a hell of a triple feature with Persona & Mulholland Drive.

LET THE SUNSHINE IN

I’m not into romcoms but the idea of Claire Denis directing one intrigued me (prior to seeing Let The Sunshine In I read quite a few early reviews that described it as such and I kind of have to agree). If you’re familiar with my site and/or my personal movie preferences then it should come as no surprise that I’ll see anything directed by Claire Denis. She’s my favorite filmmaker. One of the reasons she is one of my favorites is because after 40 years of filmmaking (in various capacities) she continues to step outside of her comfort zone. Not completely but enough where it should be recognized. Every one of her films has the same sheen/layer of “Claire Denis-ism” (which is something I like) but she dabbles in different genres from time to time. Trouble Every Day was her horror film. I Can’t Sleep was her murder mystery/noir. Chocolat & U.S. Go Home were warped personal journals/semi-autobiographical tales from her childhood. Friday Night was Claire Denis’ foray in to romance (that’s not to say romance & sensuality don’t flow throughout a large majority of her work but, in my opinion, Friday Night was her first truly romantic film). Let The Sunshine In has a lot of the same elements of Friday Night but it’s a bit more mushy. This might be the lightest movie she’s ever done so far in her career (this is that new territory I was speaking of earlier) but at the end of the day it is a Claire Denis film. There’s plenty of sad moments & crying. But what’s so disorienting (and I mean this in a good way) is that the sad moments and the funny moments happen within moments of each other. One minute you’re laughing out loud and seconds later you want to cry with Juliette Binoche's "Isabelle". It's difficult to keep track of all the emotions. I know that sounds negative but it's not. Let The Sunshine In keeps you on your toes.

Denis also pleases her more rigid fans like myself who like continuity between all of her movies (Agnès Godard is behind the camera once again, Stuart Staples provided some of the music, Alex Descas co-starred, etc). The way Claire Denis shoots Binoche’s (beautiful) naked body is from the same lens that filmed the half-naked men in Beau Travail. I also came to the realization that in the last two decades we’ve watched Nichols Duvauchelle (who plays one of the love interests) pretty much grow up in Claire Denis’ movies.

Let The Sunshine In is the story of “Isabelle” - a divorced mom who still hasn’t given up on love and continues to try and date/hook up even though most of the men in her life at the moment kind of suck (some are still married, some are self-centered, etc). We feel for Isabelle because she is a romantic who deserves love but that doesn’t mean she isn’t frustrating. I enjoyed this movie very much but there were times when I wanted to yell at Isabelle in frustration like a lot of people want to in most romcoms (“WHY ARE YOU GOING BACK TO THAT GUY?! HE'S TERRIBLE FOR YOU!”)
When you take the solid performances and the overall “arthouse” element out of Let The Sunshine In, Isabelle could very well be the 5th friend in Carrie’s entourage on Sex & The City (I'd be interested in hearing theories as to whether or not Claire Denis was slightly poking fun at romantic comedies).


But the plot is secondary to me. I was more fascinated with the (extended) family reunion aspect of it all. I say extended because while this is Claire Denis’ first time collaborating with French cinema legends like Juliette Binoche & Gérard Depardieu, they’re still (distant) relatives that share the same blood/DNA as Denis. It was only a matter of time that they all work together.

Claire Denis is often associated with the Wim Wenders family tree of directors (Jarmusch, Denis & Wenders), actors (Solveig Dommartin, Issach De Bankole, etc), cinematographers (Agnes Godard & Robby Muller) & musicians (John Lurie) but she also belongs to another large cinematic family...

Leos Carax / Olivier Assayas / Claire Denis
Denis Lavant / Juliette Binoche / Alex Descas
Katerena Golubeva / Lola Creton / Mirielle Perrier
Kylie Minogue / Isabelle Huppert / The Depardieus

The Leos Carax/Olivier Assayas/Claire Denis family tree is seldom mentioned but is so quietly prevalent. It’s an incredibly incestuous web of collaborative artists that should be the subject of a book one day. Claire Denis helped Olivier Assayas come up with the story that eventually became Irma Vep (Irma Vep also co-stars Claire Denis-regular/Let The Sunshine In co-star Alex Descas). Leos Carax’s cinematic alter-ego Denis Lavant gave one of his most iconic performances in Beau Travail (a film many consider to be Claire’s best work). Olivier Assayas’ recent stock actor Lola Creton gave a cryptic performance in Denis’ Bastards. Mirielle Perrier starred in the directorial debuts of both Carax & Denis. Isabelle Huppert has appeared in the films of both Assayas & Denis and Kylie Minogue ended up in Leos Carax’s Holy Motors at the suggestion of Claire Denis (Denis & Minogue were supposed to work on a film together that eventually fell through).
There are more examples that I could give but I think you get the idea.

Let The Sunshine In might be the greatest cinematic artifact that shows the connectivity between Carax, Assayas & Denis. Gérard Depardieu’s son appeared in Carax’s Pola X alongside the late Katerina Golubeva (star of two Denis films and partner of Carax). Juliette Binoche, who’s started in multiple films directed by both Assayas & Carax, has become the first and only actor/actress to appear in films directed by all three filmmakers. So even if Let The Sunshine In ended up being bad, “meh” or disappointing (which it definitely is not), it still ties together decades of a specific scene within modern French cinema that is very near & dear to my heart.

I think it should be noted that years before this movie was announced I had a feeling Binoche & Denis would collaborate...

And here we are over two & a half later watching this dream collaboration become a reality (there's a moment towards the end of the movie where Alex Descas & Juliette Binoche slowly hold hands which solidified everything for me).

Don’t get me wrong, as a stand-alone movie Let The Sunshine In is solid. It’s a departure from Denis’ recent (darker) work. I honestly wouldn’t mind this being a novice’s intro in to the world of Claire Denis (besides the fact that it’s a solid film, it could potentially expose someone to so many different avenues of modern French cinema).
But as a diehard fan of Claire Denis (as well as Carax & Assayas) it’s difficult to disassociate the very large web of modern French cinema history attached to it.
To some this may be another solid Claire Denis effort but to me it’s something much bigger.

THE SCHOOL OF TARKOVSKY PART 10

We're back! In this installment of The School Of Tarkovsky we're going to look at some more comparisons that slipped through the cracks in these last few months. If you follow me on twitter then some of these will look familiar. But for those of you who do not - here are some additional comparisons/visual similarities from regular students of Tarkovsky like Carlos Reygadas & Nuri Bilge Ceylan along with unexpected filmmakers like Wong Kar Wai & Barry Jenkins.

While some of these comparisons are in fact totally coincidental (which still doesn’t take away from how cool they look next to each other), you have to understand the connections that some of these have with one another. You aren’t required to know the backgrounds of these images and/or the filmmakers responsible for them but if you feel the need to negatively & cynically question Tarkovky’s influence (like some do on various forms of social media), at least know what the fuck you’re talking about. The more people question some of these comparisons the more they just confirm that they don’t read about cinema very much. I understand that some of this pushback comes from the assumption that I’m calling their favorite filmmakers “copycats” when that isn’t the case (there are only so many original images & ideas in film. You could trace the majority of modern cinema's visual influences back to the work of early Bunuel, Epstein & Cocteau).
I’m not always talking out of my ass when I compare films. Especially in the case of Andrei Tarkovsky. I don’t mean to repeat myself but some of the regular filmmakers who pop up in this series are folks like Carlos Reygadas, Lars Von Trier, Claire Denis, Elem Klimov & Alexander Sokurov. When Carlos Reygadas first stepped on the scene with his first two films (Japon & Battle In Heaven), can you honestly say to yourself that he didn’t bring up Andrei Tarkovsky any chance he got when being interviewed? Not only that, but in the special features of Japon he goes out of his way to praise Tarkovsky. Given those two facts, is it so far-fetched to think that he wouldn’t reference Tarkovsky in his work (see below along just about every other entry in this series)?
Lars Von Trier not only dedicated some of his work to Tarkovsky but he also once said that he wanted to be Andrei Tarkovsky early on in his career (he also name-dropped Tarkovsky more than once at a video Q&A at the IFC Center back in 2006 where I was in attendance).

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – Claire Denis worked on Tarkovsky’s Sacrifice. While that doesn’t guarantee that his influence rubbed off on her, the connection between Denis & Tarkovsky is still there on some level.

Is it out of line that Alexander Sokurov would draw inspiration from the films of his personal friend Andrei Tarkovsky?

I always find it funny when filmmakers rummage through the criterion collection closet praising the films that influenced them or talk about the scenes they “ripped off” on a DVD commentary track (see/listen to any early Paul Thomas Anderson commentary track) but when someone (…me) shows the influence they speak of, suddenly everyone goes; “whoa whoa whoa! That’s pretty vague, man! You could find those images in any movie!” It really makes no sense to me.

Speaking of rummaging through criterion closets, look at Barry Jenkins who recently participated in the criterion closet series. Someone recently put together a lovely video analysis comparing Moonlight with the films of Wong Kar Wai (many people are ripping it off as their own work) which he co-signed and endorsed. It should also be noted that Mr. Jenkins took joy in a few of my own movie comparisons as well…

Given Barry Jenkins' obvious love of cinema, is it really too far-fetched to think that a Tarkovsky film rubbed off on him in some way (see the first image below)?

Solaris / Moonlight

I dedicated an entire entry comparing the work of Nuri Bilge Ceylan to Tarkovsky so when you see this Stalker/Uzak comparison, please don’t question me...

Stalker / Uzak

The horrors of war seen through the perspective of young Russian Protagonists who start out innocent & hopeful but by the end of the film they’ve aged psychologically (highlighted by scenes where you can see the aging all over their faces as they look directly in to the camera).
I don’t think it’s so out of line to compare these two movies. Do you?

Ivan's Childhood /  Come & See

The contrast of a fake/model house next to a real house burning to the ground...

Badlands / Sacrifice

This could be a reach but it still looks cool, doesn't it?

The Mirror / The Clouds Of Sils Maria

Ivan's Childhood / In The Mood For Love

There's nothing to debate here

Ivan's Childhood / The Revenant

again - nothing to debate...

Ivan's Childhood / Post Tenebras Lux

Ivan's Childhood / The Tree Of Life

The Mirror / The Thin Red Line

The Mirror / Silent Light

While Bertrand Bonello is more a student from the School of Bresson (he would have his actors watch Bresson films to prepare for their roles), it isn't too out of line to assume he was influenced by other filmmakers like Tarkovsky

Andrei Rublev / Tiresia

ZEBRAS IN AMERICA EPISODE 20!

This week we're talking deep cut Abel Ferrara, Lucrecia Martel, the anticipation of Boots Riley's directorial debut and so much more.

Enjoy...

ZEBRAS IN AMERICA EPISODE 19

We talk a lot about Clouds of Sils Maria, and Morvern Callar. 

We also talk about depression and suicide.  If you are ever feeling down, remember that you are love.

You are.

Suicide Prevention Lifeline
1-800-273-8255
suicidepreventionlifeline.org
-Scott Thorough

PERSONAL SHOPPER (NYFF 2016)

Personal Shopper is tricky because on one hand it's beautiful to look at, it kind of romanticizes Europe in the way Americans love (the cafes, the trains, the architecture, etc) and we're seeing Olivier Assayas explore new territory in that he deals heavily with supernatural elements (parts of Personal Shopper felt like The Shining mixed with The Innkeepers...but with that unique almost uncategorizable Assayas touch). But this film could potentially come off a little empty to some (not to me, but to others). Personal Shopper is a slight return to the Demonlover/Boarding Gate-era Oliver Assayas that I love & missed so much. He teased this side of himself with last year's Clouds Of Sils Maria (my personal favorite film of 2015) but he's even more in touch with his Demonlover-esque self this time around. And while that's great for me, I completely understand if some folks roll their eyes at this one. Some of the characters are a little flat and/or uninteresting (while others, like "Ingo", played by Lars Eidinger are incredibly intriguing) and audiences may be thrown off by the mixture of a ghost story & a personal/intimate drama about loss. So while I enjoyed Personal Shopper overall (some parts are a little silly and Kristen Stewart's performance goes in & out being great to being almost self parodying) it's something I can't really defend if someone dislikes it.

In the film Kristen Stewart plays "Maureen" - a personal assistant to rich & famous people by day, , and a medium by night. She's still coping with the death of her twin brother Lewis and is waiting for some kind of a sign from him in the afterlife to assure her that he's at peace.
Eventually she's haunted/stalked by a nameless/unidentifiable entity that may or may not be Lewis.

I find it interesting that this is the second Assayas film where Kristen Stewart plays a personal assistant to a celebrity. Remember towards the end of Clouds Of Sils Maria where Stewart's "Valentine" suddenly disappears and we never see her again (kind of like how "Betty" disappears in Mulholland Drive just before "Rita" opens the blue box)? I like to imagine Valentine somehow took on a new identity and moved on to Personal Shopper (not only are both characters played by Stewart personal assistants, but they're also ex-pats with similar personalities).


I have to hand it to Olivier Assayas in that he really tried his hand at traditional scares & startling moments. He even had the nerve to throw in scary visual effects to simulate spooky ghosts (is this the first time Olivier Assayas has used visual effects to this extent?). I'm not sure if Personal Shopper is an "anti-ghost story" (...but with actual ghosts still) or if it's just a psychological thriller in the vein of a Roman Polanski film...

Personal Shopper/The Tenant

Personal Shopper/Rosemary's Baby

The only other issue I have with this movie (and others like it) isn't so much with the movie itself but with the inevitable dumb theories that are bound to come from it like with The Shining. While these theories are sometimes entertaining & well thought out, others are just plain dumb. I can see all the theories on Personal Shopper right now (kind of like that Clouds Of Sils Maria theory I just threw out earlier): "Everything was in her head all along" or "You notice how every scene where we see Kristen Stewart there's always a clock in the background set to midnight?!"

I still don't know what to fully make of this yet I did want to get some initial thoughts down while they're still fresh in my head. I will say that you'll more than likely be hearing about this again before the year is over. I'm not sure if this belongs in the honorable mention section or the "frustrating but rewarding" category in my end of the year wrap-up...

MID-SEASON REVIEW

Most of what you're about to read is a mixture of slightly tweaked excerpts from longer reviews that you can read on this site (Francofonia, Knight Of Cups, The Witch, etc) and films I have yet to touch on in full (Everybody Wants Some, Keanu, Captain America: Civil War, etc). While I've seen a good amount of movies so far this year, the movies below are the ones that have stuck out to me more than others for reasons ranging from pure enjoyment to disappointment. If something isn't on the list it's probably because I was underwhelmed by it (10 Cloverfield Lane) or haven't seen it yet (Hail Caesar).

And no matter what, everything I've seen in 2016 will be addressed in some form or fashion at the end of the year.

Enjoy...

PERSONAL FAVORITES SO FAR...

(in no particular order)

Captain America: Civil War

In terms of entertainment value, Captain America: Civil War was my Mad Max: Fury Road of 2016. Civil War certainly has a flaw (or two) that Mad Max might not have had but it's the most fun I've had in the theater so far this year and that matters when the large majority of your other favorite movies (seen below) are dark, bleak (no pun intended) and overwhelmingly existential to the point where it becomes crippling. You need balance and Civil War is the occasional Carmines Chicago heavy deep dish pizza to all the other organic, healthy food films that I need in my life. It's also nice to see black superheros handled correctly for once when so many have failed miserably in the past (Spawn, Meteor Man, Blank Man, etc).

Wiener Dog

I thought I was done with multi-character films. I thought I was done with dark & quirky American indie stories (even if it comes from one of the innovators of that style like in the case of Todd Solondz). Quite honestly – I thought Todd Solondz’s best years were behind him. That’s not to say he hasn’t made good movies in the last 15 years but I was convinced he wouldn’t be able to capture the magic of Welcome To The Dollhouse & Happiness (and what is the need to make another loose Welcome To The Dollhouse sequel?). But Todd Solondz has made me a believer again. In my opinion, Wiener Dog is the best thing he’s done since Happiness. This multi-character film about life, depression, lonliness & regret is essentially Solondz’s Au Hasard Balthazar (just like Dollhouse was his Mouchette) in that we see all different walks of life through the eyes of an animal (instead of Bresson’s donkey we get an actual Wiener Dog). This is also his most personal film. Not only is it connected to his best film (Dollhouse), but it’s incredibley personal because he doesn’t just criticize the world around him (it’s clear at this point that Todd Solondz is incredibley depressed. That isn’t a judgement either. It’s just very very obvious and I think he wants the world to know), but he also criticizes (and kind of pokes fun at) himself (the third story in Wiener Dog involving Danny Devito is very autobiographical).

It’s been a very long time since I’ve had the pleasure of including a Todd Solondz film in an annual top 10 (Wiener Dog is currently in my top 5) and I think it may hold its place throughout 2016…

Bleak Street

I'm a fan of “arthouse” cinema & professional wrestling so you can only imagine how excited I was for this film (without reading any synopsis on it beforehand I saw the image above and was immediately sold).
I've been selling Bleak Street as an arthouse film about Luchadors but it's really more than that (a lot more). However, Luchador wrestling (something I'm very much a fan of) is a constant element throughout the film - two of the main characters are wrestlers of the Lucha Libre variety (they always keep their masks on too), there are flyers for wrestling shows visible in the background of a lot of shots, and the film shows a bit of the training process that goes in to Lucha Libre. For those that don't know, Luchadors are a little different than American-style wrestlers. Lucha Libre consists of acrobatics, gymnastics, choreography & martial arts whereas American-style wrestling is more character driven and theatrical in terms of behind the scenes storylines (American wrestling has borrowed quite a bit from Lucha/Mexican-style wrestling over the decades).
There's an incredibly strong nostalgic quality about this movie that takes over inside me and I doubt most people that this film was marketed towards can even relate (I highly doubt the Lincoln Center film society crowd are familiar professional wrestling like I am). Growing up I was the one kid in my group of friends that truly loved wrestling (I had two other friends who liked it in a casual way but overall it was a joke to most people and I got shit for liking it). When I discovered the cultural importance of Luchadors/Mexican wrestlers in my mid-teens it instilled a little more pride in me and made me feel less ashamed for liking it. Seriously – if you think pro-wrestling is popular in America, go to certain parts of Mexico where wrestlers are considered gods and even where their signature masks in non-wrestling settings (for those who have seen this movie and don't believe the angle about the wrestlers keeping their masks on all the time in public, I assure you that is very real in certain parts of Mexico as their masks have cultural, religious & generational importance.

Knight Of Cups

Personally, I enjoyed Knight Of Cups overall but I wouldn't really recommend it to just anyone. Not even the casual Malick fan (if there is such a thing). Knight Of Cups is kind of like Terrence Malick's Inland Empire in that there isn't much of a filter. Because I'm such a big fan of his recent work, I do feel the strange need to be a little protective/territorial no matter how understandably frustrating he can be at times. At this point everyone should know what they're getting in to when it comes to a Terrence Malick film. I never understand all the recent negative/snarky reviews from critics & bloggers who are familiar with his work & style yet always manage to get worked up and angry as if, at this point, they don't know what to expect from a post Thin Red Line Terrence Malick movie. For those who do want something different from the filmmaker, this is his first film set outside of a rural territory/small town, and he works with an ensemble cast of some unlikely actors. This is also his first movie broken up in to chapters.
Knight Of Cups falls right in line with the style of Tree Of Life & To The Wonder (all three films kind of act as a trilogy for Malick's personal life). There's lots of dreamy/breathy voiceover narration that'll probably make the average person roll their eyes. Emmanuel Lubeski uses the same style of cinematography as his previous collaborations with Malick (I still find it odd that folks have issues with his Malick-related work while his work for Alejandro Innaritu gets blind praise).

I can only speak for myself when I say that Malick's exploration of inner-turmoil, confusion and just that overall feeling of "blah" speaks to me right now more than any other filmmaker (with the exception of Carlos Reygadas). And you know this feeling has to be true because it takes a lot of courage/balls for anyone to openly admit something like that and actually mean it (I often face ridicule from my friends and my fiancée for my love of Terrence Malick's films). I think we all know that Malick is looked at as more of a joke/slow-moving target than a serious filmmaker these days.
It's easy to watch Knight Of Cups and claim that nothing happens or it isn't about anything (like some early reviews have been saying). But that is kind of the point (sorry to sound pretentious and blindly defensive at the same time, but it's true). This film draws inspiration from a period in Malick's life when he was feeling kind of "blah" and a little cloudy. Christian Bale's silent/brooding/confused performance in Knight Of Cups falls right in line with Ben Affleck in To The Wonder & Sean Penn/Hunter McCracken in Tree Of Life (which makes sense as all of these actors are essentially portraying Terrence Malick at different stages of his life).

No Home Movie

No Home Movie is a low-key love letter to Chantal Akerman's family. Specifically her mother. Akerman's sister Sylviane makes an appearance at one point and there are constant references to her father, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. But at the end of the day this is a film about her mom. In No Home Movie Chantal Akerman places cameras throughout her mother's apartment and observes her over the course of what seems like a few months. It should be noted that Akerman's own presence in the film is rather cryptic. We never see a full-on shot of Chantal but rather half shots of her face through Skype chats, her voice off camera, or shots of her back. What's even more cryptic (and a little heartbreaking) is that there are a few lines of dialogue in this film where she mentions her unhappinesss & depression to her mother through casual conversation (for those that don't know, she took her life late last year).
No Home Movie is classic Akerman in the sense that time is taken very literally, the pacing is very slow and Akerman isn't concerned with editing or keeping the attention of the casual viewer. At the screening I went to there were quite a few walkouts which not only pissed me off, but also confused the hell out of me. I mean...Akerman's films aren't the kinds of movies you just casually stumble upon. By 2016 you should know what you're getting in to when it comes to one of her movies. Walking out of one of her (recent) films because it was "boring" kind of makes you look a little stupid in my eyes (just like people who still get worked up over the style in modern-day Terrence Malick films. Again - what the fuck were you expecting?)
I know this all sounds harsh and a little pretentious but Akerman's work meant a lot to me so it's hard to not take things personally. She not only influenced some of my favorite filmmakers (both directly & indirectly) but she had the kind of guts that you don't see in too many filmmakers (male or female). (Two-face) Publications like indiewire are always clamoring for strong female voices in film as if Akerman hadn't been around since the late 60's (maybe stop writing so many articles on Melissa McCarthy, Tina Fey & Cate Blanchett and shine a spotlight on Akerman's work).

Everybody Wants Some

First off – whoever cut the trailer for this movie should not be allowed to cut trailers again (or at least not for Linklater). I know that sounds harsh but I feel justified because every time I tell someone this movie is in my top 5 of 2016 so far they go: “REALLY?!?!” I'm convinced this has to do with the trailer making this out to be a slightly more sophisticated American Pie-style frat boy/bro comedy when in fact it has a lot of soul and relatability (like some of the characters in the film I loved high school but also couldn't wait to go away to college no matter how intimidating & scary it seemed). This is a movie that makes you appreciate making new friends, growth and the fun you had in your late teens/early 20's. If anything, this is what American Pie (er...American Pie 2) should have been.
Even though I consider Richard Linklater to be one of the best active American filmmakers working today, he usually doesn't make three good movies in a row. And if you liked Bernie, which many folks did (I didn't), then Linklater is really four for four which never happens. Everybody Wants Some is the movie I needed to solidify my stance on him.

Nice Guys

Nice Guys was everything that Inherent Vice was supposed to be (both movies are old-school Los Angeles noir-ish gumshoe murder mysteries with slightly clueless private investigators so it's perfectly valid to compare them). Remember in the final act of Inherent Vice when the story just went bye-bye and the movie started making no sense (admit it)? Well...Nice Guys actually makes it a point to put a period on things. I'm sorry but murder mysteries need to have some kind of resolution and Nice Guys delivered. Not only that, but the humor worked, there was chemistry between Russell Crow & Ryan Gosling, and Angourie Rice kind of stole the show (it's also nice to see Keith David is still doing his thing).

Weiner

The body language award definitely goes to Huma Abedin (wife of documentary subject Anthony Weiner). For those who have yet to see Weiner, I assure you that the body language exhibited by Huma in the picture above represents the quietly boiling rage, discomfort, embarassment & frustration that we see throughout the movie (I honestly think Weiner could have been at least an hour longer had they focused more on her). I was worried this film was going to do nothing more than poke fun at the subject through editing & quirky audience pandering music (Weiner is kind of guilty of that on some level). 

Now...Anthony Weiner is certainly a jackass, but after five years I just think there have been enough mediocre/sub-par funny memes, tweets, facebook statuses and newspaper articles written/made about this man. Enough. I get it. If I wanted to see good Anthony Weiner jokes in 2016 I'd just log on to my hulu account and pull up three year old Daily Show episodes. 

Luckily the filmmakers took a slightly alternative route with Weiner.
Although Weiner is partially about the “900 pound gorilla in the room” (a direct quote from the film), the audience also gets an insight in to the politician's beliefs and desires to fight for lower & middle class New Yorkers (nothing wrong with that, right?). This film acts as a mirror to journalists and smug pundits who are no better than him on a personal level (some are worse). There's also a sympathetic side to Weiner. Like I said – he is a jackass (and Anthony Weiner certainly conveys that about himself on his own without any editing or manipulation on the filmmaker's part), but he also didn't/doesn't deserve (all) the shit that came down on him (in my opinion). I think we can all agree that he was/is probably judged by people who have way more skeletons in their closest (sexual & non-sexual).

HONORABLE MENTION

Francofonia

I know it’s pretty lazy to compare Alexander Sokurov to Andrei Tarkovsky in the year 2016 (it’s so easy & obvious) but the comparison goes much deeper than similar shots of a withering tree in the middle of an open field. At times Fancofonia feels like a heavily reworked/remixed version of the middle segment within Tarkovsky’s Mirror where we see real archival War footage mixed in to the semi-fictional story that is The Mirror. The only difference is that Francofonia mixes fiction & non-fiction much more seamlessly than Tarkovsky did in The Mirror.
It goes without saying that Russian Ark & Francofonia go hand in hand as both movies are essentially warped history lessons on the subject of European art, architecture, politics, etc. If my earlier assessment of Sokurov’s latest film being an offshoot of The Mirror doesn’t work for you, picture Francofonia as a sequel to Russian Ark (I know Russian Ark is specific to Russian history, but it’s still a branch off of the very large tree of European history). The fascination with the likes of Adolf Hitler that we saw in Sokurov’s Moloch (2002) continues in Francofonia. Through subtle voiceover narration placed on top of archival footage of Hitler in certain scenes, Sokurov in turn makes Hitler a “character” in the movie. We see a fictitious version of Napoleon which brings to mind Sokurov’s "Trilogy Of Power" (Moloch, Taurus, The Son). Napoleon’s presence in Francofonia makes the film feel like a new chapter in that saga.

The Witch

What I found most interesting about The Witch (on a personal level) is that it seemed to draw inspiration from the (few) positive aspects of Ben Wheatley’s Kill List. Both films have a creepy/mysterious tone, they both death with the occult and they have similar color palettes (I highly doubt this was intentional but perhaps Kill List had a subconscious influence, or the similarities are just a coincidence). I’m not a fan of Wheatley’s 2011 horror/thriller but the one thing Kill List did have going for it was ambiance and that certain element of “coolness” – the tone of the film was dark & grey, a good portion of the dialogue was both “in the know” & mumbled, and Wheatley took his time setting up moments in the film that were meant to startle or shock us. Basically - there wasn’t a whole lot of blood & guts and forced satanic symbolism around every corner of the film.
Director Robert Eggers still isn't beyond playing in to traditional horror tropes. As you can imagine there are quite a few startles & possibly scary moments (depending on your threshold) and the score is both sparse & jumpy at the same time (I guess one criticism I have is that the score sometimes made it obvious as to when something spooky was about to happen).
Naturally this film deals with the barbaric ignorance & religious superstitions folks had about witches & witchcraft back then, but if you take out the horror element, this is a drama about the breakdown of a family due to the insertion of an unspoken “virus”/threat similar to Passolini’s Teorema or Francois Ozon’s Sitcom (a loose remake of Teorama). This isn't meant to be an all-out brag but co-star Anya Taylor-Joy thanked me for bringing up this point at the Q&A I attended. Not only did the actors portray a family living on top of each other in a small space in the movie, but they also lived together during the filming of the movie so naturally reality seeped in to the story. So whether you're a fan of scary movies or not, The Witch does branch out to genres beyond just horror.

Eisenstein In Guanajuato 

Similar to my advice regarding Malick & Knight Of Cups, if you dislike Peter Greenaway in terms of style then please stay away from this movie and avoid the heartache and frustration that's definitely going to come with it (although if you're a lover of cinema you'd be passing up on a nice little nugget of film history from the tree of one of cinema's most influential directors in the form of Sergei Eisenstein). Now...if you like Greenaway, like me, then by all means dive right in (it's currently streaming on Netflix).
Like Naked Lunch (the book & the movie), Eisenstein In Guanajuato focuses on a strange/confusing/tumultuous period in the life of an artist that's stifled creatively while living in exile (William Burroughs & Sergei Eisenstein were in exile for very different reasons but there's still some strong parallels between the two artists).
Once again Peter Greenaway takes art, culture, history & cinema and mixes it all in to one very strange, darkly comical, disorienting & depressing pot that can't be found anywhere else in my opinion.

The Neon Demon

Most of you have seen (or at least heard about) Refn's last few films (Drive & Only God Forgives) and are familiar with his neon, synthesized, Dario Argento/Michael Mann homage style. The Neon Demon is absolutely an extension/continuation of those films and that particular style. Yes, this movie is trashy pop-art. And that's a good thing. You need a good decadent desert or snack after eating healthy and taking care of your body for an extended period of time. The Neon Demon is the cinematic version of that thought process - attractive women of all shapes & sizes (Christina Hendricks' curvaceousness is on display just as much as the aspiring petite models we see throughout the film), loopy/addictive synth driven music, highly stylized (standalone) shots, etc.

Even if you aren't a fan of Drive or Only God Forgives you can still enjoy Neon Demon given it has elements of everything from Black Swan (Neon Demon explores the themes of pressure & "making it" from a young woman's point of view just like Black Swan) to John Wick (in terms of style - Neon Demon & John Wick take place in the same cinematic universe).
Before the year is over we will definitely go deeper in to this movie (I'm sure I'll see it more than once in the theater) but for now just know that I give this movie my seal of approval even if it has a nice share of flaws.

OTHER MOVIES OF NOTE...

Make sure to read my review of the very personal post-war documentary; My Father's Vietnam, check it out on iTunes (or Google Play, Amazon, Vimeo, etc), then spread the word so it doesn't get overlooked. After that head on over to Netflix to watch The Do-Over (contrary to what IndieWire had to say, this movie is in fact funny and the humor is slightly different than your average Adam Sandler movie), The Art Of Noize (some of you may not have the same emotional attachment to this documentary as I do, but if you love golden-era non-NYC/non-West Coast hip-hop, then this is the film for you) & Sembene (any documentary that doesn't make the main subject out to be an unrealistically perfect person but rather touches on his/her flaws and not-so good qualities is a winner in my book). And if Whit Stillman's Love & Friendship happens to still be playing near you I highly recommend checking that out too (if not, I'm sure it'll be available to stream in Amazon soon).

BEST OF 2015 RELEASED IN 2016

The Lobster

Adults sometimes put a lot of pressure on themselves when it comes to finding love to the point where they become desperate. The motions that some of the characters in The Lobster go through to find a partner is an obvious not-so subtle comment on the idea of speed dating which, in my opinion, is rooted in desperation on some small level. I understand the purpose behind speed dating but the idea that strangers are essentially rushed to meet each other under the setting of a date is a little weird to me (no offense to anyone who found a lasting relationship through speed dating. I certainly don't want to downplay the positive aspects that can come from it).

I imagine some fans of Dogtooth & Alps are worried about Yorgos Lanthimos making the transition to English-language cinema as it may compromise his style or just not "work" in the vein of Wong Kar Wai's My Blueberry Nights or Park Chan Wook's Stoker (I know those films have their fanbases but at the end of the day they were pretty disappointing when compared to the films that came before them). I had my own reservations. John C Reilly's presence worried me because he's starting to become a doofy caricature of himself more & more which can distract from a film (there were definitely shades of that in The Lobster but Reilly was tolerable overall). But rest assured that Lanthimos' dry semi-surreal humor is all over The Lobster. In one scene we see a donkey get shot in the head execution style and we're supposed to find it funny. In another scene David/Farrell kicks a little girl in the shin. And like with all of his films, there's plenty of goofy/awkward dancing (I'm still not certain if Yorgos played up his particular style a little bit now that he has a larger audience).

I asked Yorgos Lanthimos if he looked at The Lobster as an extension of Alps (I feel like both stories exist in the same cinematic universe). While he doesn't share my spectrum-brained fascination with connecting every movie in existence, he did acknowledge that there are quite a few similarities between both films. With The Lobster Lanthinos continues to explore themes concerning identity (Alps) and the false meanings we sometimes put on things (Dogtooth). Dogtooth & Alps fans should also find comfort in the fact that Yorgos regulars Ariane Labed & Angeliki Papoulia shine in their supporting roles (not to take anything away from Farrell, Weisz & Ben Winshaw as they all give solid performances as well).

Cemetery Of Splendour

I did struggle with some aspects of this film. On one hand it's really cool that all of his movies weave together so seamlessly. But at the same time, it's difficult to decipher certain scenes in Cemetery Of Splendour from certain scenes in Uncle Boonmee or Syndromes & A Century. Apichatpong Weerasethakul is obviously not the first director to make a slight variation of the same basic plot. Take David Lynch for example - Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive & Inland Empire are all pretty much the same basic plot (split personality disorder, alternate universes colliding in to one another, etc). But the execution from one film to the next is slightly different. That's not really the case here. While watching Cemetery Of Splendour I found myself going: "isn't this a scene from one of his older movies? I feel like I've seen this before". 

This isn't a criticism in any way but Apichatpong's latest feels like a beautiful, yet somewhat unfinished idea that he just had to get out (like a detailed sketch you might find in an artist's well-kept sketchbook). It's like a gumbo pot of ideas ranging from spirituality to socio-political awareness. Throughout the course of the film he hints at everything from unwanted property development & issues concerning skin complexion, to hospitals in small villages not having enough equipment to take care of the sick.

Because Cemetery Of Splendour also deals with the idea of slumber, Apichatpong Weerasethakul leaves plenty of room for the audience to zone out from time to time. There were a few moments when I totally stopped paying attention and just zoned out to the hypnotic imagery in front of me (I also thought it would be interesting to write the first draft of this review dead tired on the train just after watching the film). One Enter The Void-esque scene in particular, where an overhead shot of an escalator overlaps with a neon-lit hospital room, stood out the most to me. Cemetery Of Splendour relies more on static shots & and its hypnotic tone than it does dialogue or a straightforward plot. That may sound boring to some of you (which is perfectly understandable) but those of you who like art-house cinema, moments of mind-numbing silence & experimental feature filmmaking will more than likely enjoy this.

CONFLICTED...

Keanu

Anyone that knows me well knows how much I love Key & Peele so you're probably wondering why I've been so silent about Keanu. Well...it was kind of disappointing. It certainly wasn't bad, but it could have been so much better. And I think a lot of people agree with me but because they love K&P so much (like me), they don't want to criticize the movie. Think about it – after the second week Keanu was in theaters the buzz had completely died. That's not a good sign especially since Nice Guys was still being talked about weeks after it's release (some of you may be thinking that it's unfair to compare Keanu to Nice Guys- and you have a point on some level – but both comedies have the same buddy structure as well as some of the same darkly comical elements so it isn't too far-fetched to compare them either).
Most sketch comedy groups don’t have the best luck when it comes making a feature. Run Ronnie Run (Mr. Show) was quite bad and Bob Odenkirk (Mr. Show) hasn’t had the greatest luck as a movie director either (Lets Go To Prison & The Brothers Solomon). The majority of the SNL movies aren’t that great either. What’s even worse is that when a lot of sketch comedy “greats” aren't acting in their own films, they end up lowering their standard to pay the bills. For example, Amy Sedaris (exit 57 & Strangers With Candy) and Scott Thompson (Kids in the Hall) both made appearances in the My Baby Daddy. Rob Cordry (ucb & daily show) and The Kids In The Hall were in Un-accompanied Minors and just about any movie David Cross (Mr. Show) is cast in ain't that good either. In fact, the few great sketch comedy-based films out there are either misunderstood upon their initial release (Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy & Neighbors) or they’re not that known by the general public (Martin and Orloff & Blackballed: The Bobby Dukes Story). Keanu kinda continues this unfortunate legacy.

But perhaps some of the disappointment falls on me because my expectations were so high.

Midnight Special

What's frustrating about Midnight Special is that it gives off this vibe that it's not going to be like all those other science fiction movies where a special alien kid with magical powers has to escape the government that wants to use it/him/her as a weapon and/or test subject. But not only did Jeff Nichols end up making a modern/revamped version of E.T. or Mac & Me or The Boy Who Could Fly or any other movie that generation X & generation Y grew up on, but at times it felt like a feature length back-story for one of the X-Men.I’m not the biggest Jeff Nichols fan but I do appreciate that a filmmaker of his ilk got the opportunity (and budget) to make Midnight Special rather than someone like Brett Ratner, Zack Snyder or Bryan Singer, but still - this film forces me to use cliché critic terms & keywords like "hack", "retreaded material", "slightly unoriginal", etc (it even forces me to do the cliché critic thing by taking shots at obvious targets like Zack Snyder, Brett Ratner & Bryan Singer).

But perhaps it wasn't Jeff Nichols' goal to make an "original" film. There's only so much you can do with the basic source material that is Midnight Special. What this film does have going for it is that it is a true family film in the sense that it can be enjoyed by most ages. With the exception of two isolated moments of quick gun violence (with minimal bloodshed) there isn't any nudity, harsh language or inappropriate subject matter for little kids. As for the adults, Midnight Special isn't fluffy or made for 5-13 year olds. The dramatic aspect in Midnight Special is enough to keep the attention of any adult. Imagine elements of early David Gordon Green, Goonies, Badlands, live action Disney films, all the other aforementioned movies in this review thus far mixed together in a giant pot. While that may not sound appealing to some of you, to others I imagine the combination of all those things sounds pretty intriguing.

Green Room

*MILD SPOILERS AHEAD*

Green Room was absolutely entertaining. I was kind of (...kind of) invested in (some of) the characters and truly felt a pain in the pit of my stomach when one character in particular was killed off...

And I'm also down for any kind of senseless violence directed at skinheads.

BUT...Green Room was also a little silly in my personal opinion. Like...a lot of the decisions made by both the good guys and the bad guys were really dumb. I mean...I appreciate the director trying to paint a realistic picture of what would happen in a panic-induced situation. With the exception of one character who conveniently knew all the latest MMA/UFC submission moves, all the protagonists were essentially sniveling little cowards. They were punks. And that's OK. If you were stuck in a position where you had to fight for your life all because you accidentally witnessed the aftermath of a crime you weren't supposed to see (and were greatly outnumbered), you'd panic and make hasty decisions too (maybe not on the same level as the characters in Green Room, but still). So there are redeemable/respectable qualities about this movie but at the end of the day you're just better off watching Assault On Precinct 13, Pontypol (an underrated movie) or any other movie where someone is trapped in a tight space with their back against the wall in a life or death situation with very little chance of survival (a genre that Green Room pays homage to).

MAJOR ISSUES...

Eye In The Sky

Without meaning to, Gavin Hood made the most insulting movie of the year so far by reverting back to those late 80's/early 90's movie tropes where we get a story set in Africa about Africans yet all the main characters are white. I can only hope that wasn't his intention but at the end of the day this movie still exists and it's incredibly arrogant (accidentally or not – it's arrogant). For those that don't know/haven't seen Eye In The Sky (you aren't missing much), it's a multi-character story concerning the decision to drop a bomb on an African village that happens to be the residence of a highly dangerous terrorist with plans to carry out a suicide bombing in the near future. The problem is, the film focuses mostly on the conflicted thoughts made by the (white) military & governmental figures in the film rather than the African characters that are affected by a decision that they had no part of. Doesn't that sound a little arrogant? Or is that just me? Sure, this kind of arrogance is nothing new (and the movie does feature a few supporting characters with brown skin) but bottom line – it's insulting. I cant stop repeating myself on that.

Unfortunately a lot of folks are afraid to really criticize this movie because it's Alan Rickman's last film and it also feature Aaron Paul who people still love because of Breaking Bad (and his social media presence on Instagram).

Then there's an additional layer to all of this because even if the film was made up of mostly brown actors I still doubt it would be that good to begin with. It's like with movies like Exodus or Gods Of Egypt. Sure its fucked up that those movies feature all white casts but even if they were ethnically correct, they'd still be terrible.

HIGHLY ANTICIPATED

These are all the latest films from some of my personal favorite directors (Jim Jarmusch, Bruno Dumont, Olivier Assayas) and considering I'm such a loyal/director-oriented fan, it goes without saying that I cant wait to see these. I'm going back to the Toronto film festival this year so hopefully I'll catch all of these.

Paterson

Personal Shopper

Slack Bay