AN INTERVIEW WITH MARINA DE VAN (INTRODUCTION BY JOHN CRIBBS)

Horrifying an audience with the image of a blood-spattered woman surrounded by strips of her own mutilated flesh isn't difficult; to make a prolonged sequence of this the tender, transcendent - even romantic - climax of your film could only be accomplished by Marina de van. Even the dark films she wrote with and acted in for François Ozon (most notably the provocative short Regarde la mer) couldn't prepare anyone for In My Skin, De Van's harrowingly resonant directorial debut in which she plays a young woman who becomes fascinated with the essence of her physical body, ultimately discovering an aberrant kind of liberation through self-laceration and cannibalization. Fantastically, de van reveals the beauty in her character's decision to eviscerate herself piecemeal, presenting it as a way to establish a connection to her life and a release from the spiralling conventional world from which she finds herself exceedingly detached.
De van's penetrating second feature film Don't Look Back incisively identifies an intangible terror of the commonplace, in which the unreliable outward texture of things change - imperceptible to others, these shifting designs threaten the stable reality, and eventually the physical presence, of Sophie Marceau's mother of two. The discrepantly nurturing and dimishing nature of family was revisited in De Van's fairy tale adaptation Le petit poucet (featuring Denis Lavant as an ogre) and continues in Dark Touch, which opened the Tribeca film festival this past weekend. Involving the massacre of a provincial clan that may have been carried out by the inanimate objects of their happy home, De Van's new film suggests an even more sinister take on the altering pieces of furniture that daunted Marceau in Don't Look Back.

PINNLAND EMPIRE: In our previous Interview you mentioned that Dark Touch was partially about child abuse - Is part of the reason for making Dark Touch due to the lack of films about child abuse in France?

MARINA DE VAN: I don't know anything about this lack. I never paid attention to that. Anyway, I don't choose my stories looking at any objective need or lack about a subject in culture. I choose them because I'm inspired and touched by them; so that was the case with child abuse.


PE: Dark Touch seems like an appropriate (yet dark) title for this kind of film – Would you care to elaborate on the title of your new movie?

MDV: It's a good title, very subjective. I can't talk about the creative process about finding it though, because I wasn't the one who found the idea.


PE: Any particular influences (films, literature, music) for Dark Touch?

MDV: Not that I'm aware of.

Dark Touch

PE: Was it difficult for the lead child actress to work on a film like Dark Touch with such heavy subject matter?

MDV: I don't think so. There's a lot of action to be used as a base for expressing emotions by the actors so, as far as it is physical, it's easier to act. The child did well.


PE: All of your films tend to incorporate many different genres (noir, personal drama, existential horror, psychological thriller) – Is it your intention to combine multiple movies genres or do you like to be uncategorized as a filmmaker?

MDV: That's not important. I don't mind. But I don't work thinking about genre. I just tell stories, I don't work on codes or categories. And except Dark touch, I never shot a genre movie so far.


PE: Although Dark Touch is its own piece of work, it seems to combine elements from your previous films – the darkness of In My Skin & and the personal/family drama element of Don’t Look Back. Would you agree with this statement?

MDV: I don't know, it's a bit vague for me to agree or disagree.

PE: Do you fear that audiences & critics will misinterpret certain elements of your new film? If so – what elements of your new film do you worry will be misunderstood?

MDV: No, I have no peculiar fear.


PE: Was it difficult to get funding & distribution for Dark Touch?

MDV: Yes it was, because of the subject and because genre movies arent very welcome in France.


PE: Is it at all intimidating to be the opening film at The Tribeca Film Festival?

MDV: No, it's cool.

PE: Are there any particular films you’re looking forward to seeing this year?

MDV: I haven't read the program yet.


PE: Do you consider yourself an important & relevant female voice in cinema? (Not just French or European cinema, but cinema as a whole)

MDV: I don't think about me nor as important nor as being a female director or creating as a female. I create as myself, not as a sample of sexual or social identity. Every director is different. There's not two classes of director, males and females. For me, this idea is stupid.


PE: Are there any ideas forming for a NEW Marina De Van film after Dark Touch?

MDV: I'm still working on it.

On set of "Dark Touch" at Gothenburg Film Studios from Gothenburg Film Studios on Vimeo.

THE TORONTO VAULT VOL. 2: FAUST (SOKUROV'S MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE)

I’m not a TIFF Vet like my buddies John & Chris but at this point I know enough to know that around the end of day 4/beginning of day 5 of the festival all the movies start to meld together and you feel like you’re watching one mediocre day-long movie. Faust was the last memorable film that I saw at the festival in 2011 before everything started to get all jumbled (and almost anything is enjoyable after just sitting through Rampart).

Apparently winning best picture at a major festival like Venice doesn't always guarantee that a film will get a descent run in theaters (art house theaters, but still…). Such as the case with Alexander Sokurov's latest; Faust - another retelling/reworking of the famous tale of Faust's quest/struggle to find ultimate enlightenment and the deal he makes with Mephistopheles. To my knowledge this hasn't been released yet outside of festivals & special screenings. Maybe I’m being a bit naïve but I assumed that Sokurov’s recent stuff like Russian Ark (a feature length film shot in one take) & his “power trilogy” (Moloch, Taurus & The Son) had solidified his spot in the art house cinemas but I guess not. In my opinion Sokurov has reached “master auteur” status (if you refer to 5 Questions with Guy Maddin, he considers Sokurov to be the best active filmmaker around) and Faust felt kinda special to me as this was the FIRST film of his I saw on the big screen. This version of Faust isn't your typical German fairytale. Even though this made my top 10 in 2011 it's still not the easiest thing to sit through. This Faust is a world full of deformed characters (in this version, Mephistopheles reveals that his penis is located on the back of his gross pear/squash-shaped body. ...yeah), the creepiest homunculus of ALL the Faust films and dissected bodies (in one of the film's earliest scenes we see Faust inspecting the inside of a body he's just cut open in order to find where the "soul" is). This almost doesn't feel like an adaptation. It’s as if Sokurov brought Faust, Mephistopheles, Gretchen and all the other characters into HIS dreamy world of dense beauty & intentionally slightly un-synced audio where everything feels just a bit...off.
In 2011 much was made of Terrence Malick's Tree Of Life and I couldn't help but think that if there was a place in theaters for that - then why not Faust? Both films have a similar disorienting vibe, deal with vague subjects & issues like; science (on some level) & the origin of life and both films have what many believe to be hidden messages. With Tree Of Life it was the message of Christianity, religion & evangelism whereas with Faust it was apparently a hidden message about Russia’s integration with the rest of Europe (honestly…I don’t see it, but that’s what people are saying).

While Faust shares a strange & unexpected connection with the cinema of Terrence Malick in terms of content, it also shares a connection with Post Tenebras Lux in terms of style & execution. Faust & Post Tenebras Lux, which are both directly inspired by the cinema of Tarkovsky (as well as psychotropic drugs) are two of the few recent works that come the closest to conveying the feel of an actual dream on the big screen.

If I had to describe Faust in one word it would be; dense – the kind of film that you make confused facial expressions at while watching it. On one hand, Faust is a beautiful & rich piece of art that almost feels like a moving painting. The costumes & set designs are excellent...

an appearance from Fassbinder regular; Hanna Schygulla

But on the other hand, Faust is dizzying & tough to watch in some parts (and not just the scenes of grotesque deformed bodies or the guts & organs we see in the beginning). It’s almost like watching an actual headache in the form of a movie (I realize the point of these write-ups are to shed a positive light on these mostly unseen films and I may have just turned you all off by that last statement, but it’s true). It’s a bit difficult to describe, but the ambiance of Faust was very very “thick” & cloudy in both the “feel” and the actual look. The beautiful Gothic-looking images & stills you may find on the Internet paint one picture but the actual moving images tell another story (look at the trailer at the bottom of the review). Sokurov used some kind of filter or special setting on the lens of the camera to give the film an intentionally blurry/cloudy perspective (like that feeling when you first wake up in the morning and haven’t rubbed your eyes yet). This is a challenging film to say the least. Not everyone is gonna wanna sit through something like this for OVER two hours (Faust clocks in at 134 minutes). Alexander Sokurov, who is an amazingly talented director with a unique style, is an acquired taste. Faust is a film that you have to ease in to and it should NOT be anyone’s introduction to his work (no matter how good it is). I genuinely found myself mumbling “…what the fuck?” under my breath more than once while watching this. Faust sometimes seems intentionally alienating. For such a dense, disorienting & trippy piece of work, it didn’t need to be as long as it was. I honestly can’t be mad at anyone if they don’t like this or need more than one sitting to finish it. Depending on the film you have to be kind of a trooper in order to make it all the way through some of Sokurov’s work and Faust REALLY weeds out the true fans (there were quite a few walkouts throughout the screening I attended).
But the beauty of the lead actress; Isolda Dychauk (who plays Gretchen) counters all the roughness & ugliness. Whenever Faust starts to become too much & unbearable her presence (just her face alone) calms the nerves and eases the anxiety that this film may bring on.

Faust might be the oldest and most adapted story in cinema (1926-2011). Every director that’s tackled it has told it in their own unique style. I'd been sitting on an unfinished proper length write-up of Sokurov's Faust for quite some time. Before finishing it off I sought out the original Murnau version and re-watched the Jan Svankmajer version last year at The Museum Of The Moving Image. Apparently there's an adaptation of Faust directed by Brian Yuzna (of Society fame) I still have yet to see. The Mephistopheles character has taken many different forms over the years...

Murnau (1926)

Gorski (1960)

Svankmajer (1994)

Sokurov (2011)

What is it about the story of Faust that has directors of almost every era since the silent era want to adapt this? I can still think of a few modern filmmakers that I'd personally like to see adapt this and put their own twist on it (Guy Maddin, Manuel De Oliviero & Catherine Breillat to name a few)

An interesting fact I recently learned about Faust is that it’s actually meant to be part of his “power trilogy" (which makes it a tetralogy I guess) but I honestly don’t see this fairy tale of a film fitting in with his biopics on Hitler (Moloch), Lenin (Taurus) & Hirohito (The Sun). Yes, Faust deals with similar themes & elements as Sokurov’s aforementioned works, like power & and the misuse of it, but Faust is a standalone work in his filmography. Faust pretty much became a misunderstood masterpiece before it even left the festival circuit. It has all the characteristics – a work of art to some and a piece of crap to others, frustrating to sit through yet rewarding at the same time and some attempt at originality.

AN INTERVIEW WITH BEANS...

Not many rappers name-drop Helen Mirren or reference films like The Descent in their lyrics but Beans isn't your average rapper. Hes actually not even a rapper. Hes an MC - a pioneering one at that in the world of progressive hip-hop both with his solo work and with Antipop Consortium (one of my all time favorite groups). Besides being a gifted MC (and producer) Beans is a fan of good cinema. His appreciation for film goes above & beyond the average person's appreciation for film so I threw some movie-related questions at him and here's what he had to say

Enjoy...

You did an interview with Vernon Reid a few years back where you expressed wanting to move away from rapping and focus more on doing film scores. It seems like more contemporary musicians are scoring films these days (Trent Reznor, Rza, Brian Eno, Tindersticks, etc)

      PINNLAND EMPIRE: Have you ever been approached to do a film score?

      BEANS: No. No one’s ever approached or asked me to participate in doing so.

      PE: Is there a specific genre of film you'd like to score or are you open to anything?

      BEANS: Yes, I would love to be involved in either a noir or a sci-fi flick.

      PE: Are there any specific filmmakers that you'd like to do music for? Like a dream collaboration.

      BEANS: Gasper Noe or Todd Solondz or Andrew Wagner or Nicolas Winding Refn or Steve McQueen


PE: Is there a particular actor or filmmaker you identify with as a musician? Basically - who do you feel is the cinematic equivalent to Beans?

BEANS: I hope not LOL!! I really don't know. That actor would do really good work but is slept on. I'm not sure.

Your music is considered progressive & experimental by many (especially in the realm of hip-hip).

     PE: Does this automatically make you more of a fan of progressive & experimental cinema? Or
     do you prefer bigger studio films?

     BEANS: Man, I just like a good film. A great movie is a great movie.

     PE: Open question (feel free to elaborate as much as possible) - What do you think the connection is  
     between progressive/experimental music & progressive/experimental film?

     BEANS: Sometimes one doesn't necessarily always have to influence the other.



PE: Random question - what's your favorite movie sample used in a song?

BEANS: Recently, I liked The Dark Knight samples used in the Captain Murphy song,"The Killing Joke"


PE: Do you occasionally sample from films in your own production? (in an effort to avoid possible legal issues you can just give a simple yes or no. No need to get specific if you don't want to haha...)

BEANS: I personally have sampled in the past but I try NOT to sample as the basis of my framework and I strove to be as original as possible which is why I started to pick up drum machines and synths in the first place. I tried to put the music in a context of what happened in the beginnings of early hip hop electro stuff with the influence of musique concrete by trying to duplicate what I was hearing in my head.

I couldn't also do that by searching through other people's records. It has helped me to make some joints in the past but that shit is also very expensive to sample.

Honestly, I'm NOT big on production. I'm not in love with it and my earlier material was produced out of necessity. THORNS was the last album I produced but recently, I feel the need to get out of my own head so I like to work with various producers because I find that more challenging.
But back in the day, I sampled from the THIEF soundtrack.

PE: When you're on the road touring in other countries do you ever watch films even if you don't speak the language?

BEANS: In France, but the theaters don't always have subtitles


PE: What were your favorite films from last year?

BEANS: The Grey, Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, Artbirage, Silver Lining Playbook, Looper, Django Unchained.
I still haven't seen The Sessions, Killer Joe, Amour, or Argo (My mom wants to see it as well so I've been waiting on her)



PE: What films are you anticipating this year?

BEANS: Iron Man 3, Star Trek, A Place Beyond The Pines, Pacific Rims, World War Z, Superman, Thor: The Dark World, Europa Report, Zero Theorem, Elysium, Gravity, Snowpiecer, and World's End so far.

PE: Not sure if you know but Steve McQueen's new movie (12 Years A Slave) got pushed to getting released at the end December instead of 2014

BEANS: The one about slavery, correct? Yes, please add that (*to the list of anticipated films) as well.

PE: Yup that's the one

BEANS: That shit is gonna hurt!! I feel it already

12 Years A Slave

PE: Haha yea man. I think this might be the one. And it couldn't have come at a better time (exactly a year after Django). Also, I'm not sure if you know but Steve McQueen's next film is a Fela Kuti biopic!!! It was supposed to be after Shame but he ran in to some problems

BEANS: I know, I know. Very, very exciting!!! Honestly, I missed Shame. I got open on him from Hunger. That shit was crazy!

PE: Well Shame is WAY better than Hunger and I love Hunger haha

BEANS: Word? I gotta catch it!

The last time I ran in to you we had a brief discussion about Skyfall.

     PE: Do you like the more serious/darker tone of these new Bond films?

     BEANS: Looking back, the older Bonds seem corny except for the Sean Connery joints. The
     gadgets made it quite camp.

     PE: Do you think Daniel Craig makes a good Bond?

     BEANS: Yeah, I think he's on point

There's a documentary called Kill Your Idols (2004) about the return of the no-wave/noise rock scene in New York City (Black Dice, Liars, A.R.E. Weapons, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, etc). I've always felt a documentary on the rise of the underground/progressive/"different" hip-hop scene that you were a part of in the late 90's/early 00's (with an emphasis on groups/people like; Antipop, Co-Flow, Mike Ladd, Sonic Sum, Sensational, etc) would be a great subject.

     PE: Do you think that would still make a relevant film today?

     BEANS: I don't know. Everyone's still working. I'm not ready to be dated. Give it a few more years
     when I hit 50.

     PE: Is there a particular filmmaker you'd like to make that documentary?

     BEANS: http://muzikrevyze.com/2013/03/19/rubble-kings-documentary-teaser-trailer/
     & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU7V4GyEuXA&feature=share

MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE: MARIE ANTOINETTE (*SPECIAL GUEST WRITER: LEANNE KUBICZ*)

Truth be told - THIS was one of the three films I've always had in mind when I started the misunderstood masterpiece series (Trouble Every Day & Solaris being the other two). After revisiting rule breaking/time-period bending works like Swoon (a film set in the 1920's yet features modern appliances), Walker (an overall awful movie but still strangely relevant) & Jubilee (a film that I'm convinced directly inspired Sofia Coppola's third feature) I gave Marie Antoinette a 2nd chance and came to the conclusion that it’s not the disaster I once thought it was. But for some reason I could never get past a few sentences when writing about it. 

So I gave Leanne Kubicz the task of writing about Sofia Coppola's flawed masterpiece here on PINNLAND EMPIRE.

Enjoy...

Sophia Coppola’s 2006 film, Marie Antoinette, about the most famous Queen of France has enchanted and conversely frustrated audiences due to the eponymous character’s portrayal and her misunderstood history. Many viewers perceive this film to be a flimsy trifle, due to the aesthetic opulence and caressing light with which Coppola aims to humanize this oft maligned woman. Yet one should consider that this is Coppola’s second film adapted from text, therefore she is following the thesis which the author laid out. The biography Marie Antoinette: The Journey (2001) by Antonia Fraser is a hefty book which offers one of the most accurate descriptions of the monarch’s life and the political environment that doomed her. Though the audience is not required to read the source text before viewing the film, Coppola assumes that the audience will have a sufficient prior knowledge of the history of Marie Antoinette, and this may be why many are left unimpressed by the airy treatment that follows.

Marie Antoinette is another Coppola film in which place weighs heavily on the narrative. The four feature films which Coppola has directed integrate a location as a main character: the Lisbon house in The Virgin Suicides is a malignant force of suffocation, the Park Hyatt Hotel Tokyo from Lost in Translation serves to shield and mollify the guests from their real desires, the Chateau Marmont from Somewhere offers easy leisure at the expense of a truly lived life. The Palace of Versailles in Marie Antoinette is the ultimate place as character, as it represents French cultural domination and the crushing force of that society upon the young monarch.

The Palace of Versailles: We Live in Public – 18th Century version

Much has been made by critics of the anachronisms present in the film; often times the inclusion of two pairs of modern shoes in the “I Want Candy” montage. Manolo Blahnik and Converse shoes did not exist at that time obviously, but is that an adequate reason to discount the rest of the affair? Strict historical accuracy in a biographical film is not requisite. The cast alone blows the idea of historical accuracy out the window. Marianne Faithful as Empress Maria Theresa alone should have irked the dissenting critics, yet no mention of the fact that the Empress did not have a British accent. The same could be said of the inclusion of a good deal of the cast. British and American accents mingle freely; the only true French accent or French words spoken are by the young girl who portrays Madame Royale. The ages of the actors are also not congruent to their historical counterparts. Kirsten Dunst was 24 years old during filming and plays a role spanning from the ages of 14 to 37. Does she look like a young teenager? Not quite, and neither does Jason Schwartzman playing a teen King while in his mid-twenties. Such is the suspension of reality one has to make while viewing a period piece, as has been done with previous Marie Antoinette bio-pics. Think about Norma Shearer in the 1938 film of the same name; she’s glamorous and regal, but by no means teenage in appearance.

Eek! Sneakers!!

One aspect of the film that is as accurate as can be, yet did not seem to satisfy the majority of critics, is the set. Filming at the Palace of Versailles is about as authentic as a director can get when portraying the life of Marie Antoinette. The magnificent size of the palace and its grounds envelop Marie and the rest of the royals in an alternate reality. The strict rituals that Marie must learn are a reflection of this imposing structure. Living amongst such opulence and curious conventions skews how the inhabitants conduct themselves, yet act as if their lifestyle is entirely normal. For example, near to the end of the film, after Marie and Louis have sent their entourage away forever to safety from the looming mob, a rather peculiar event takes place the next morning. Louis is seen hunting for pleasure that dawn, despite the fact that the majority of his family and friends are in mortal peril. He does not even understand that he is in the same danger, because he cannot. His cloistered life has lead him to feel he is always protected, which illustrates what a fool palace life has made him.

The foolishness of Louis XVI is subtly but glaringly apparent in this film. History has heaped a good deal of blame on Marie Antoinette for her apparent transgressions as Queen, but history is incorrect. The Queen of France never had any political power; her job was to produce children and “look the part” by outfitting herself in rich fabrics and jewels. Louis XVI was the monarch with actual political powers which he entirely neglected due to his disinterest in the position of king. A key scene which illustrates this point occurs when Louis XVI is speaking to his advisors about possibly funding the American patriots. Louis thinks supporting revolutionaries would give the wrong idea to the French people about what he sees as the rightful position of monarchy. His advisors quickly rebuff his protest and explain that funding the Americans will hurt England, which is the ultimate goal. Louis easily acquiesces to their suggestions and then picks up a rolled map, holds it to his eye and pretends it is a telescope; not exactly kingly or adult behavior. The flippancy which Marie displays when Ambassador Mercy (Steve Coogan) tries to have her read and discuss a political matter about Austria is understandable in comparison. She was only semi- literate and due to having no real political influence, why bother with taking the time out? Louis XVI on the other hand, was better educated and had real powers which he did not utilize; hunting and tinkering with locks was much more important to him than the well-being of his country. Unfortunately, history has blamed a woman for grievous ineptitude when in actuality it was her husband who was beyond remiss. In the end both their heads were chopped off, but the symbol of selfishness has been borne by Marie Antoinette throughout history and not Louis XVI, who should be the symbol of obliviousness instead.

The continued celebrity status of Marie Antoinette through centuries can be attributed to her economic waste precipitating a revolution, but also her fashionable attire. Coppola utilizes the clothing of Marie to implicitly reflect her emotions. Though the costumes are not exact replicas (most of the Queen’s clothing was destroyed during the Reign of Terror; only a few tattered pieces remaining) they are accurate enough to the time period to have won a Costume Design Oscar. When we first meet fourteen year old Marie Antoine in Austria she is wearing a light blue dress, which is formal but age-appropriate; her long hair tied with a simple velvet ribbon. She is free of makeup, other than a youthful flush, which will soon change. The ease of Austrian court dress and custom are juxtaposed radically with what she encounters when transported to France for her marriage. Gone is subtlety, replaced with ornate, stiff French clothes that will define the person that young Marie Antoine becomes.

The stages of Marie’s turbulent life are mirrored in her sartorial and hairdressing choices throughout the film. When she is a fledgling to life at Versailles she wears French dress, but in light pastel colors. As her position becomes shaky (due to being both an Austrian foreigner to the French court and her inability to become pregnant) the colors of her clothes become louder. One outfit is of hot pink fabric, accented with small white feathers. This dress suggests that she is blushing wildly from the embarrassment of an unconsummated marriage and the shame of not being able to fulfill her duties. The pressure put upon Marie to both produce an heir and to “be French” cause her to go against her nature and capitulate to the demands of her family and others at court. Though she finds the idea of speaking to her Grandfather-in-law, King Louis XV’s (Rip Torn) gaudy mistress Madame du Barry (Asia Argento) morally abhorrent, she finally cedes to the myriad demands. When she speaks her few required words to Madame du Barry, she is clothed in black. Not mourning black, but rich black velvet with ermine trim, which feels as if she is almost wearing a costume. Her innocence to the scheming nature and rigid rules of the court has been weakened, so she wears black to thrown her inner-anger outward.

“There are a lot of people at Versailles today.” Are you not satisfied?

As Marie’s sexless marriage continues and her sister and brother-in-law have a child before her, her outlandish stylings ramp up considerably. She is a teenager who is pretty and jovial, yet cannot get her husband into bed. From her perspective, if he is not interested and everyone in her family and at court continually disapproves of her behavior, she may as well do as she pleases. Time to shop, eat, drink and gamble to forget the cold bed she returns to every night. Due to the Queenly duty of looking sophisticated and fashionable, she throws her energy into that aspect fully. Her hair becomes higher and higher, her clothes more ornate and her parties and friends more lavish. Louis allows Marie her indulgences because he is weak-willed and in the back of his head he knows her reactions are due to his sexual dysfunction.

Cheers to Léonard, the Gravity-Defying Hairdresser

Marie’s approach to her appearance evolves when her marriage is finally consummated. Awkwardly enough, Marie’s brother, Emperor Joseph II (Danny Huston) visits Versailles and has a conversation with his brother-in-law about marriage and sex. He couches his conversation about sex in terms about locks and keys, which is one of the few things which Louis understands well. Through Joseph’s allusions to oiling locks (wink, wink), Louis finally has the gumption and knowledge to accomplish the “great work”. At last, Marie is pregnant and gives birth to a baby girl, which fulfills her requirement as Queen.

With Marie’s new motherhood and active sexual life, she softens her style. Louis presents Marie with her own home, the Petite Trianon, as a refuge away from strict court rules. The chateau is where she can live her own way and can wear less elaborate garb. She commissions “more natural” clothes, with less restrictive bodices and panniers, made of flowing muslin and silk fabrics. She also takes a lover during this time, the handsome Swede Count Fersen (Jamie Dornan), who awakens her lust and allows her to feel passion and longing. She longed for relations with her husband, but with Fersen, she can play and enjoy the lighter side of sex. For a woman who seemingly had everything a love affair helped her to escape the binds of her station, if only for a short while.

As the Queen ages and the French people start to revolt, her attire becomes subdued and deeper. The death of her mother and the passing of her youngest daughter sends her into mourning taffeta. Her face starts to show the worry of the volatile political climate, from which she has no path to safety. The Queen tires to placate the angry mob, which reach the palace walls by bowing to them from the palace balcony, to no avail. She knows the end of her sheltered life is over and strives to keep a noble manner through the crisis.

The end result of the film is a lush and drowsy portrait which endeavors to extricate a misinterpreted woman from the legends of the past. One may not feel particularly compassionate towards a woman who was a queen and lived in great luxury. The oppression and poverty of the French people due to the unwise decisions of the government is not to be forgotten. The case for empathy for Marie Antoinette is realizing she had no choice in the matters of her life. There was no escape from her duties due to her position and gender; she was born to one of the most famous monarchs of all time and her path was set from that point onwards. She had an arranged marriage as a teen, was transferred into an alien environment for the political gain of Austria and France and had to endure years of humiliation for events which were not of her making. She was ultimately executed, which the film completely excises, for living a life she had no true control over. The exclusion of the trials and guillotines befits the tone of the film. Marie says a bittersweet goodbye to Versailles as the family travels to an uncertain future. We are left with a shot of her bedroom torn to shreds; the image suffices to capture the horrors to follow not only for Marie Antoinette but for all of France.

THE TORONTO VAULT VOL. 1: CARRE BLANC (A GOOD FILM HIDDEN UNDERNEATH A HUGE MESS)

Beneath the Argos, Money Balls, Descendants and other big/buzzworthy movies that play at the Toronto International Film Festival are smaller films that may never get any kind of real distribution. And if they do, its for a short run in a few small theaters in random parts of the world. This new series is designed to shed light on some of those small films that I've seen at TIFF in the last two years...

Here's something I was disappointed by (although didn’t completely dislike) but its been stuck in my head for almost two years. Carre Blanc is one of those small French films that probably didn’t even get much play in its own country which obviously means it won’t make it to the states. This was one of the reasons I made it a priority to see it at TIFF in 2011 (naturally there's a lot of big films that play at Toronto but at a festival like TIFF it’s a good idea to take advantage of checking out stuff you may never get a chance to see again). In the few reviews I was able to find on Carre Blanc before Toronto, I saw Tarkovsky's name pop up a few times. I could see how one would make that comparison without putting much thought in to it. There's even a scene lifted directly from Solaris in Carre Blanc (the highway scene)...

Carre Blanc (2011)                                                                           Solaris (1972)

But a Tarkovsky comparison is pushing it. Carre Blanc lacked soul. Tarkovsky's work is full of soul & spiritualism. The only comparison Carre Blanc deserves when put next to Tarkovsky's work is imagery. My main issue with Carre Blanc, a sci-fi dark dramedy about a suicidal married couple ("Philippe" & "Marie") who have to hide their emotions in an odd futuristic dystopian society, was that there was actually a pretty good movie hidden somewhere underneath all the "big brother"/Kafka-esque atmosphere that's been done a million times already (there's also a subplot about cannibalism which was clearly a metaphor for fast & processed food consumption). There's not a whole lot to work with when it comes to this film. It’s not even 80 minutes long, there isn’t a lot of dialogue and most of the scenes seemed forced & random in an effort to try and be "different". This is a case of too much style and not enough content (much like Park Chan Wok's latest; Stoker, which we may get in to at a later date). But there's this almost unexplainable reason why it deserves a write-up longer than a small blurb. Carre Blanc had a few things I love when it comes to film: cold atmosphere, dreary (yet strangely beautiful) weather and an emphasis on bold & solid colors (reminiscent of Kubrick's work). I'm also a fan of cold, droning, electronic music (Brian Eno, Boards Of Canada, Sigour Ros, Jan Jelinek, etc) and Carre Blanc's score is full of nothing but that kind of music. This is  also a very architectural film (once again for those that don’t know, that's what I studied in school). The buildings & designs in Carre Blanc are pretty sleek & rhythmic. Its almost as if Le Corbousier came back to life and worked on the set design...

Architecture & Design in Carre Blanc...

Selected architecture of Le Corbusier...

The Carpenter Center (Cambridge, Ma)

Unite D'Habitation (Berlin)

Unite D'Habitation (Interior)

Le Corbusier Sketch - "A City Of Towers"

Bottom line - this film was beautiful to look at but after a while even that started to wear off and I wanted more. There was some nice haunting voice-over narration and a few interesting scenes (a waiter being kicked to death by a group of businessmen for spilling a drink on one of them while people pass by and go about their business as if nothing is happening) but I still found myself checking my watch more than once (which is bad because, like I said; Carre Blanc isn't even 80 minutes long!). There weren’t any real memorable performances and I found it hard to even care about the characters. Everything just felt so...empty, bordering on pointlessness. What is the point of all this? What is Carre Blanc telling us that Michael Haneke didn’t already perfectly convey in his first three films (The Seventh Continent, Benny's Video & 71 Fragments)? After about 40 minutes in to Carre Blanc I found myself thinking; "why don’t I just watch Michael Haneke's early stuff instead of this. He did a much better job at getting across that cold, urbanized, depressed, working ourselves to an early grave "thing" much better. Carre Blanc is trapped somewhere between the flaws of Vinterberg's It’s All About Love and Matthew Barney's Drawing Restraint 9 yet it has the BEAUTY of both films as well.

Sami Bouajila (who plays "Philippe", the main character) is a great actor and his character's story is actually pretty interesting - At a young age he watched his mother jump to her death. Before committing suicide she left him with a list of strange guidelines to live his life by in order to survive in this cold futuristic world. He grows up to work for some big nameless corporation where his job is apparently to put the employees through a series of strange tests to keep them sharp & on point. He lives with his depressed wife ("Marie") who is on the verge of cracking up. And although it isn’t outright said, its clearly implied that they lost their child at some point in their marriage. There just wasn’t enough time for the audience to latch on to Philippe & Marie. I don’t mean to keep getting on the length of this film but that's also what kinda hurt it big time. It shoulda been longer in my opinion. On the drive up to Toronto in 2011 Chris Funderberg (the pink smoke) made an interesting statement along the lines of how movies should be either just under 80 minutes or over 3 hours. There's some serious validity to that and this film is a good example. Carre Blanc dealt with way too many issues (depression, suicide, globalization, parenting, the loss of a child, the future, marital problems, processed food, etc) and crossed to many genres (dark comedy, dramedy & science fiction) to only be a 70-something minute long film.
As you can tell from this write-up it’s a very visual/image heavy film and if you're in to architecture & design you'll probably appreciate this a little more than the average person but at the end of the day it needed more substance, a bit more dialogue & some cohesiveness.

THE PUFFY CHAIR: JOHN CASSAVETES' INFLUENCE ON GENERATION Y

If you enjoy the films of John Cassavetes and say the words; "like" & "dude" an excessive amount of times then there's a good chance you'll love The Duplass Brother's feature film debut; The Puffy Chair - a part road movie comedy, part relationship drama that takes us from Brooklyn to Atlanta. Ever since the start of that mumblecore scene (courtesy of Funny HA HA) critics, cinephiles & film festivals like SXSW & Sundance have given praise to Puffy Chair-influenced works like; LOL, Dance Party USA, Hannah Takes The Stairs and other pointless films about broke Brooklyn & Portland hipsters wandering around aimlessly wearing ironic t-shirts they found in thrift stores while listening to hip indie pop music, saying “like” in between every other fucking word that comes outta their quirky little mouths and I honestly never got what all the fuss was about. And this isn’t some misguided rant towards hipsters or the kinds of brooklynites that live off the L & G train lines. These films, that show a lifestyle I have no interest in seeing on the big screen, just aren't any good. They’re quirky for the sake of being quirky and get mislabeled as "real" or cinema verite when it’s just lazy half writing & sloppy improvising. I guess I kinda respect the filmmakers of the mumblecore movie scene for picking up some cameras and just making movies without concerning themselves with all the roadblocks that would cause a person to not wanna make a movie in the first place but I don't wanna listen to dialogue along the lines of; "um, well yeah, ya know" or "like uh, like, I dunno" for 90 minutes (seriously, you think I'm exaggerating to make a point but listen to the dialogue in a film like Quiet City and tell me I'm lying). And what's more frustrating is that these films somehow manage to get mentioned in the same breath as legitimate filmmakers like Spike Lee, Terrence Malick, Jim Jarmusch, Mike Leigh & John Cassavetes.

My biggest gripe with the Mumblecore genre, which I've never really expressed in my writings until now, is that it’s more commonly associated with my generation (Y) instead of the films that really should be like; Rushmore, Welcome To The Dollhouse, Ghost World, Half Nelson, Elephant and other films that paint a better, somewhat deeper and slightly more complex picture of people born in the early 80's.

But The Puffy Chair is one of the FEW mumblecore films worthy of praise & comparison to a legendary filmmaker like Cassavetes. I have no problem with The Puffy Chair being a defining Generation Y movie. It’s more than evident that Mark & Jay Duplass spent some time studying Cassavetes' work. The abrupt opening scene of the The Puffy Chair where our two main characters (Josh & Emily) go from having a sweat boyfriend/girlfriend moment to one of them storming out of the apartment is almost like a reworking of the scene in Cassavetes' Faces when John Marley & Lynne Carlin are sitting at the dinner table laughing hysterically one minute then exploding at each other the next. The way the camera in The Puffy Chair momentarily goes in & out of focus or zooms in on something way too close is reminiscent of the camerawork in Cassavetes' Shadows or The Killing Of Chinese Bookie.

Faces (1968)

It was Ray Carney’s praise of The Puffy Chair that sparked my interest. Not to say that because a film critic like Ray Carney likes something means that I should too but he’s a notorious snob and picky about what he likes. What would a snob who spends his time over-analyzing the works of John Cassavetes, Mike Leigh & Carl Theodor Dryer be doing loving something like The Puffy Chair? To my surprise it turned out to be one of my favorite films of 2006. I actually hadn’t seen or even thought about this film in a couple of years but when it came up in conversation a few weeks ago I was immediately reminded of how much I love it. I don’t normally like to quote other critics but Ray Carney hit the nail on the head when he wrote about this film:

The Puffy Chair gives us the real McCoy, the real thing, the way life and love and romance really, truly are. 

If you walked in on the middle of a scene in The Puffy Chair you might think you were watching a documentary along the lines of A Married Couple (ESPECIALLY during the arguments & blow-ups). I know its beyond cliche to talk about how "real" an indie film is but there's a genuine realness to The Puffy Chair that we don't see in many films today. The two main actors in the film (Mark Duplass & Katie Aselton) are married in real life and I imagine some of the heartache, joy, growth, pain & love from their real life relationship seeped in to the film. This goes back to that Cassavetes influence I spoke about earlier. All of his personal work had a serious documentary-like feel. It’s almost as if Duplass & Aselton weren’t even acting. Certain moments in The Puffy Chair felt like b-role footage that we weren’t supposed to see of a real life couple arguing off camera.

The Cinema of John Cassavetes isn't the only appropriate comparison to The Puffy Chair. In 2005 Sideways was its most commonly associated with and/or compared to film. I guess that’s somewhat understandable as both movies are partially comedic, partially dramatic, indie road movies but there’s a clear generational difference between the characters, dialogue & scenarios in both films. For people my age or younger who don’t identify with the wine tasting, vineyard visiting, divorced, mid-life crisis aspects of Sideways, The Puffy Chair is the perfect answer for you.

Although it’s technically a comedy, The Puffy Chair falls right in line with other stuff like All The Real Girls, Flannel Pajamas, Blue Valentine and other examples of modern cinema verite about young-ish love where a relationship is put to the ultimate test. These are the kinds of films where we wonder if the couples we've been watching for the last 100 minutes are going to last. The Puffy Chair is not without a few seriously touching moments (Josh's speech at Rhett's "wedding") explosive arguments and important moments between fathers & sons. I'm always a sucker for a good road trip movie (Alice In the Cities, Roadside Prophets, I Travel Because I Have To, The Brown Bunny, etc) and The Puffy Chair delivers. Along their roadtrip Josh & Emily pick up Josh's brother (Rhett) who joins them for the rest of the trip, get sidetracked along the way for various reasons, and they also come to discover that the puffy chair Josh thought he was getting off eBay isn't quite what he expected.

This is the perfect introduction to the Duplass Brothers' filmography. The only problem is nothing else they've done comes close (in my opinion) so you may be a bit disappointed with their later work. The Duplass Brothers do grow as filmmakers with each movie (I don't wanna totally shit on their post-puffy chair work) but I almost wanna recommend that you watch The Puffy Chair last in order to appreciate it even more. I thought Baghead bordered on being pointless, Jeff Who Lives At Home has its moments and Cyrus, they're first film using actors outside of the mumblecore scene, was ok and surprisingly touching but still not as great as The Puffy Chair.

MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE: THE PILLOW BOOK (*SPECIAL GUEST WRITER: WARREN ANDERSON/INSIDE THE PHOENIX PODCAST*)

The last time I made an appearance on Warren Wade Anderson's Inside The Phoenix (an excellent podcast you should all be up on by now) we got in to a mildly heated, although friendly, debate about a few misunderstood masterpieces here on PINNLAND EMPIRE (most notably The Brown Bunny & Soderbergh's Solaris). We didn't quite see eye to eye on those films but the dialogue between us was great. That's the beauty of misunderstood masterpieces - one person may consider a certain film to be a work of art while another may consider it to be an abomination. Given Warren's passionate stance on misunderstood works like The Brown Bunny and his knowledge of cinema I gave him the opportunity to write about his own misunderstood masterpiece here on the site.

Enjoy...

When I was asked to make my contribution to PINNLAND EMPIRE’s MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE series, I was asked to write about Peter Greenaway’s first feature film, The Draughtsman’s Contract but I believe The Pillow Book is his most refined and original work; originally, can be defined as something created, undertaken or presented for the first time. This could be done in an instance where all the components of the undertaking are new or in an instance where the juxtaposition of familiar items are presented in a new way. Peter Greenaway’s film The Pillow Book represents the latter definition. Now, I realize that this might be a controversial statement for many people because, it’s an obscure film that has never been placed on any publication’s notable list, contemporary filmmakers have not cited it as an influence on their work and it has not won any consequential awards. With all that said, the film is an original because it foreshadowed the way we currently engage art and culture. This foreshadowing was built on three familiar components of filmmaking.

The first component was constructed in the story. Writer/Director Peter Greenaway was inspired to write the screenplay after reading a translation of The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon in 1972 and again in 1984. The book recalls the personal observations and musing of 990s court life by Japanese Lady in waiting, Sei Shonagon. At the time of Greenaway’s second reading of the book, he wrote a screenplay treatment called 26 Facts About Flesh and Ink. In the treatment he delineates the life of a one thousand year reincarnation of Shonagon, Nagiko. In section D of 26 Facts, Greenaway wrote: “The contemporary Sei Shonagon is passionate to the point of abnegation about literature, about words, about writing, authors, poets and men-of-letters. She keeps a cupboard, a large, eighteenth century European cupboard, stocked to overfill with a vast array of pens and inks, but there is no paper in the cupboard. Her body is the paper”. In the final 1994 screenplay, The Pillow Book became the story of a Kyoto born model, Nagiko (played by Vivian Wv) living her early adulthood in 1990’s Hong Kong. At an early age, she develops an obsession with The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon from her Aunt and fetish for writing on skin from her father. After much searching, she eventually finds a lover, an Englishman (played by Ewan McGregor), who shares her love of writing. Together they embark on an endeavor which leads to tragic consequences.

The next integral part of the film is the unmistakable work of Cinematographer Sacha Vierny and Greenaway’s knowledge of art history. Vierny is known for a number of very notable films, including, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Last Year At Marienbad and Belle de Jour. In this thirteenth collaboration with Greenaway, he uses interior lighting techniques to capture Nagiko’s life from the age of four to the age of twenty eight, switching from stark black and white to cold blues and warm sepia tones in color. The life of Sei Shonagon was often drenched in outdoor light to complement the colorful costumes of that era. While films like John Huston’s Moulin Rouge, Vicente Minelli’s Lust For Life and Peter Webber’s Girl With A Pearl Earring particular tones or shots are based on works for a painter, The Pillow Book is bathed in references from multiple painters and calligraphers. As a graduate of Walthamstow College of Art (now known as the University of East London) and a practicing artist, Greenaway brings his knowledge of calligraphic writings, the works of Ando Hiroshige, Katsushika Hokusai and Kitagawa Utamaro to life in very provocative ways. Examples of calligraphic writings are most poignantly shown in scenes where different lovers write on her body in mutiple languages. Scenes of copulation between Nagiko and Jerome are posed to match erotic Utamaro compositions. Instances of exposition utilizes Hiroshige and Hokusai prints as guides to stage Nagiko’s modeling on catwalks and the moments after Nagiko’s kidnappers fled the scene of the crime in Hong Kong.

The last original component of this film is the editing. Mr. Greenaway, Along with editor Chris Wyatt uses the concept of a picture book as a framing device to compose the non-linear narrative of Shonagon’s life (along with anecdotes from her book) and the linear story of Nagiko. They also use, color and tonal changes and spilt screens to make this esoteric film visceral. The spilt screen technique have been apart of cinema since the silent era, in films like Abel Gance’s NAPOLEON, in modern times, we remember the bank robbery scene in Norman Jewison’s The Thomas Crown Affair, The Who’s performance in Woodstock and the phone call scene in When Harry Met Sally. The Pillow Book transform split screen from a technique to an indispensable part of the story. It becomes a means to bring the audience into the use of diaries to express secret thoughts and books to express oneself publicly. Secret thought is evident in the scene where Nagiko’s aunt reads Section 016 of The Pillow Book to her: “A lover on his second night - time visit”. It’s also shown in the scene in which Nagiko’s Japanese husband becomes so offended by the content of her diary that he burns it. Public expression is shown when Nagiko pens her first book of thirteen on Jerome’s skin and sends him to display his naked body and her work to her father’s publisher.

I must admit, that the unforgettable conceit of the film, the Cinematography rooted in Japanese culture and the multi-layered narrative of this work made an indelible mark on me. It introduced me to a Japan beyond the Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and Ran. After The Pillow Book I began to seek out films like Hiroshi Teshigahara’s Woman In The Dunes and Antonio Gaudi, Takeshi Kitano’s Sonatine, Fireworks, Brother and Outrage. I also opened my mind to books on Hiroshige, Hokusai and Okakura Kakuzo’s The Book of Tea. While this film was an epiphany for me, it is gift for us all because it presupposed the way we all currently use the internet and production software. We sit in front of a screen consuming multiple threads information by expanding and collapsing smaller screens with Google Chrome, Apple Safari, or Internet Explorer. We enhance photos with Photoshop and create virtual three dimensional objects with Autocad, Maya and 3d Studio. Although Peter Greenaway’s The Pillow Book was originally a homage to a courtesan’s tenth century diary, the means of creating it became an echo to a rich future.

THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS

Thank god this was good. The Man With The Iron Fists was no masterpiece or work of art but it was fun & entertaining. For the last 20 years The Rza has based almost everything about his persona, music & way of life around Asian culture & kung-fu films. He also scored other modern martial arts films like Ghost Dog & Kill Bill. It would have been pretty embarrassing if a guy like The Rza made a bad martial arts movie. He'd never be able to show his face in public again. Thankfully he didn't rush to make The Man With The Iron Fists. He took his time & developed the story for several years. Rza had a lotta pressure to deliver a solid piece of work. Some doubted his ability as a filmmaker but remember - he's the unofficial "leader" of the greatest/largest supergroup in hip-hop history and one of the most influential producers of all time. He's a mastermind. If he could manage the personalities & ego's of the 8 other Wu-Tang members (along with a musical dynasty of countless other artists) as well as exclusively produce 7 of the greatest hip-hop albums of all time in the span of 4 years - making a film isn't the most difficult task for a guy like The Rza. He's a born leader & strategist. Plus many of his solo projects & music videos have a very cinematic quality so he wasnt exactly a novice when it was time to make The Man With The Iron Fists. Look at his first solo album. Bobby Digital was a concept album that played out like a movie for the headphones. And who could forget the music video for Tragedy (directed by Rza himself) that came off more like a short film...



Given all the elements that went in to making this (Eli Roth's involvement, Tarantino's influence, a ragtag ensemble cast made up of a pro wrestler, a few "A-list" actors & some cult movie figures) The Man With The Iron Fists could have EASILY been a disaster. It comes from that school of Tarantino-influenced "movie mixtapes" which is usually nothing to boast about (with the exception of stuff like Black Dynamite) and lets also not forget about that unspoken low expectation many people have towards hip-hop artists that act in legitimate films (which is sometimes understandable). But The Rza somehow managed to make it all work...

Set during the 19th century in a fictitious place known as "Jungle Village", Rza stars as "The Blacksmith" - a former slave who washed up on the shores of China that's taken in and trained by shaolin monks. He makes weapons for rival clans at war with each other in order to make enough money to move himself and his woman ("Lady Silk") out of Jungle Village. There's currently a major power struggle going on between all the clans and The Blacksmith gets caught in the middle of it all. When he gets in way over his head he has to join forces with "Jack Knife" (Russell Crowe) - a mercenary & "X Blade" (Rick Yune)- the son of slain emperor, in order to save his woman and bring order back to Jungle Village.

On one hand The Rza, being the strategist he is, used the knowledge he gained from acting in so many films over the years as well as his connections with all the people he's collaborated with in the past (Russell Crow/American Gangster, Tarantino/Kill Bill, etc) to make his dream project come to life. On the other hand, The Man With The Iron Fists feels like he was just copying Kill Bill-era Tarantino in some parts. Some may view this as nothing more than the last 45 minutes of the first Kill Bill stretched out to a feature length movie. I guess its understandable for a first-time filmmaker to emulate others but the end of the day this was very much Rza's own film and he did the kung-fu genre justice. I loved the idea behind the Blacksmith using his "inner-chi" in order to essentially turn himself in to a human weapon. Rza nods at everything from the classic Shaw Brothers Shaolin films (cameos from Gordon Liu & Bryan Leung) to Enter The Dragon (there's a "house of mirrors" scene towards the end). I'm interested to see what The Rza will come up with for his next project. The ending of The Man With Iron Fists clearly indicates there's gonna be a sequel but I'd like to see Rza branch out from the martial arts genre. Personally, I think a comprehensive documentary on Wu-Tang is long overdue (36 Chambers is almost 20 years old now) and The Rza is the only person who can make that happen in my opinion.

The Man With The Iron Fists is not without a few more flaws. There were WAY too many characters for a film that wasn't that long. Its like Rza got caught up in that Robert Rodriguez style of filmmaking where a new character gets introduced every 5 minutes. In the first half of the the film all these characters kept getting introduced as if they were gonna play a part in the story then they got killed. It kinda threw me off. At times it was difficult to tell who was on what side or who was who. This leads us to the next problem - The plot wasn't exactly convoluted but it was unessecarily layered with too many subplots & storylines. Classic Kung-Fu films that The Man With The Iron Fists tips its hat too don't always have the simplest storylines but they weren't as layered as this. But I kinda wanna give The Rza a pass on this. This was his "baby". He'd been working on it for years so its understandable that he got a little carried away. Its like the ending of Malcolm X or the last Lord Of The Rings. Sure they both took fucking forever to end but those films were lifelong projects for Lee & Jackson. The one storyline I did like very much was The Blacksmith's back story as a slave taken in by Chinese monks. Throughout the film I wondered if Rza was ever gonna explain how a black person ended up in china during the 19th century. The Rza's fascination with Asian culture is evident but his lyrics & persona are also influenced by African culture so this storyline didn't seem out of place at all (listen to his lyrics on the 2nd Gravediggaz album). The slave angle in The Man With The Iron Fists made me think about its connection to Django and why so many people (black people & fans of hip-hop culture in particular) were so gung-ho and in love with Django (which i get) but kinda downplayed The Man With The Iron Fists. Both films, which are equally entertaining & silly, are violent homages to a certain movie genre about a former slave that forms an alliance with a white bounty hunter/vigilante character in order to get revenge. Sure both films have some obvious differences and Tarantino is a much more experienced filmmaker than The Rza but at the same time the comparison between the two films is pretty uncanny on some levels.

Many film purists or lovers of B-movies might not like all the special effects & CGI. The Man With Iron Fists pays homage to films that didn't really use special effects. A lot of the blood shed in the film was clearly fake & computer generated which may look cheesy to some. The budget seemed rather high for something that was supposed to emulate a style of film that was originally cheap & grainy. I may be a lil' bias towards this as The Rza is responsible for about 50% of what I listened too as a teenager and he's also responsible for one of my favorite film scores of all time (Ghost Dog) but I was genuinely surprised with the great job he did. Oh and on a side note - I'm shocked & surprised that Eli Roth was involved in, or partially responsible for something that was actually good. If you're a fan of the first Kill Bill, 90's hip-hop, violence and hanging out in video stores I don't see how you cant enjoy this. As a fan of hip-hip (which is an understatement) this film reignited my love for Wu-Tang's music that Rza sprinkles all throughout the movie (I'm listening to my wu-tang playlist on my ipod as I write this). Woulda been nice to see a cameo from a Wu-Tang member or two but that's just me being nitpicky.