FLIRT: HAL HARTLEY X 3

You have to understand Flirt’s position among the rest of the films in Hal Hartley's filmography. It’s the middle child between Amateur & Henry Fool (easily two of Hartley's best films). It was made during Hartley's most productive era, the 90's, where he had this almost Fassbinder-like work ethic releasing 7 feature films and 5 shorts in just 8 years. When you're sandwiched between what I like to consider "Vintage Hal Hartley" it’s easy to be forgotten on the sidelines. According to an interview Hartley did with the AV club back in 1998, he considers Flirt to be his best work so I know he must have been disappointed by the reception the film got upon its release. I've always been fascinated by filmmakers who consider their more "unpopular" films to be their personal favorites. On one hand it’s frustrating - You start thinking about all the classic material a certain filmmaker is responsible for and you find yourself thinking; "You can’t be serious. You think THIS is the best thing you've done?!" But on the other hand there's something beautiful & romantic about a filmmaker standing by a piece work that's taken a ton of abuse. It’s easy to abandon a film that doesn't do well. And sometimes the reasons are legitimate - Under a studio setting a director may have no control over the casting, script changes or editing. But in an independent setting, filmmakers usually have their hands in just about every aspect of the movie making process (Hartley directs, writes, scores, casts and sometimes produces his films) so I do get annoyed when an independent filmmaker doesn't stand by their own work after the fact. After Fear X got trashed by everybody Nicholas Winding Refn blamed the film's downfall on some of the casting choices. He didn't name names but I can’t imagine who because everyone in that film from John Turturro to James Remar gave it their all. Fear X is a great film. Stand by it! Carlos Reygadas was once quoted saying that Battle In Heaven, a film that was booed at Cannes, was his "problem child therefore it is the film that I love the most"

Flirt is a somewhat experimental feature that was developed from an earlier short film. It’s the story of a flirtatious & free spirited person faced with the ultimatum set by their significant other to decide if they wanna be in a stable relationship or not. The story is told three times, with three different casts, in three different languages on three different continents with slight variations each time. The first version, staring Bill Sage (a straight white male) as the flirtatious main character, takes place in New York. The second, this time starring Dwight Ewell (a gay black male), is set in Berlin, while the last variation takes place in Tokyo and stars Miho Nikaido (a straight Japanese woman). Each flirt is caught up in a kind of "love square" as opposed to a love triangle (four people are involved in the drama as opposed to three). Not only is each flirt in a relationship but they also have serious feelings for someone else that's in a relationship of their own. In each retelling of the same story we see our flirtatious main character get in way over their heads and end up in an emergency room.
As with most Hal Hartley films in the 90's, Flirt deals with the complexity of romantic relationships, heartbreak, heartache and having to make a tough decision that could hurt someone.
Rules & ultimatums seemed to be a common theme in Hartley's work from the beginning up until Flirt. In Unbelievable Truth, Audrey is bound by a deal she makes with her father to go to college. Matthew Slaughter (Trust) makes a pact with himself to set off an old hand grenade he keeps on him at all times if life becomes too hard. After Bill gets his heart broken at the beginning of Simple Men he makes a promise to himself to break the heart of the next the women he gets involved with romantically. In Amateur we have two rules set - the first is Sofia making a vow to not tell Thomas his past after he loses his memory. The next is Isabelle (Isabelle Hupert) vowing to keep her virginity until she meets the right man to have sex with. In Flirt, our main characters give themselves a 90 minute window to tell their significant other if they see a future in their respective relationships.
Hartley tips his hat to older foreign filmmakers by giving some of the characters in Flirt names like "Ozu" & "Werner" and as always we see the characters making prolific quotes and profound statements that sound like words torn from some manifesto rather than a movie script.

The idea of Flirt, telling the same story three times, isn’t something that’s totally new within the cinema of Hal Hartley so I’m not quite sure where all the hate came from. Repetition & loops were a common element in his earlier work. Since his first film (Unbelievable Truth) we find characters repeating the same dialogue over & over. At the end of Trust, Matthew Slaughter finds himself working at the same job he quit in the beginning. Flirt was just an extrapolation on what he had already been doing. Perhaps he took it too far?

Weather you like Flirt or not it is a little more important within the world of Hal Hartley than people give it credit for. This was the last film to heavily feature so many of Hartley's SUNY Purchase family in both lead & background roles. Not to say he stopped using them, because he certainly hasn't and probably never will, but from Henry Fool on, he slowly transitioned to working with actors outside of his regular troop more & more and created a new generation of regular actors (Thomas Jay Ryan, Leo Fitzpatrick, Dj Mendall, James Urbiniak, etc). There's something about his regularly used actors that makes it difficult for me to watch them in anything else besides a Hal Hartley films. A few years ago I bumped in to Thomas Jay Ryan (who didn't go to Purchase & wasn't in Flirt, but still) at a Whole Foods and without thinking I quickly addressed him as "Henry" (Henry Fool). I struck up a brief conversation with him and the whole time we spoke I couldn’t get the Henry Fool character out of my head. I was well aware of what his real name was at the time too but Henry Fool had such a profound impact on me the first time I saw it that it’s been forever embedded inside me. It felt like I was talking to a much nicer, non-degenerate version of the mysterious character Hartley created over a decade ago. Not to take anything away from his non-Hal Hartley related work but Thomas Jay Ryan will always be Henry Fool to me. Every time his quick scene in Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind comes up I'm not only reminded of Hal Hartley's 1997 award winning film but I'm reminded of all of his early films in general as Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless mind is set in Long Island which is not only Hartley's hometown but was the backdrop for all of his early stuff.
You know you're a great filmmaker when your regular actors appear in films and on television shows that have nothing to do with you yet the only thing people can think of is your work. From Edie Falco in The Sopranos to Robert John Burke's recurring role on SVU, I'm always a little weirded out seeing Hal Hartley regulars act in other people's stuff. Is this just me? I just can’t not watch people like Martin Donovan (Trust, Simple Men, Surviving Desire) or Bill Sage (Simple Men, The Girl From Monday, Trust) act "conventionally". There’s a piece of Matthew Slaughter (Trust) & Jude (Surviving Desire) in everything Martin Donovan has done. Every time I watch one of those episodes of Law & Order: SVU where Stabler goes too far and almost beats a perp to death in the interrogation room I know that means Robert John Burke will be making an appearance and every time he shows up I get a little thrown off (Burke plays the main internal affairs guy that has a hard-on for Stabler). I just can’t not think of Simple Men or Unbelievable Truth when I see him. James Urbiniak (Henry Fool, The Girl From Monday, Fay Grim) once made an appearance on SVU as a toilet cam pervert and the whole time I was subconsciously reminded of the beginning of Henry Fool where we see Simon Grim (Urbiniak) briefly spying on a young couple having sex.

James Urbaniak (L) & Thomas Jay Ryan (R) in Henry Fool (1997)

The only regulars I'm able to (momentarily) disassociate from Hartley's films are Karen Silas, who gave the performance of her career in Tom Noonan's What Happened Was..., and Matt Malloy who not only gave his best performance in Neil Labutte's In The Company Of Men but somehow manages to show up in just about every American independent film in existence since the late 80's. Bill Sage and Robert John Burke also gave very memorable performances in Mysterious Skin & Dust Devil, respectively. In no way does this mean that Martin Donovan, Bill Sage, Edie Falco, Robert John Burke, James Urbiniak, Adrienne Shelly and a few others are bad actors that don’t know how to adapt outside of their comfort zone. Some of you may be asking me why this doesn’t apply to other famous actor/director combinations like Scorsese & Deniro, Casavetes & Rowlands or Bill Murray & Ivan Reitman (ha, thought I was gonna say Wes Anderson didn’t you?). It’s just that Hal Hartley has such a unique style of acting & choreography in his work that I don't really see anywhere else these days. His films are pretty prolific (in my opinion) and when you see the same faces in all his films its hard disassociate things from one another. Unlike other famous actor/director combinations, Hal Hartley and his troop started together long before their professional careers got underway so their connection with each other is a little deeper than normal.

Perhaps if one were to actually look at Flirt as more of an experiment instead of something like Simple Men or Unbelievable Truth it wouldn't be so disliked & dismissed (I don't mean to downplay Flirt by calling it some small little experiment but no matter what way you cut it, it’s very much a non-traditional feature film with a lot of playful qualities which are some of the main characteristics of an experiment). This film kinda laid the groundwork for Hal Hartley's future films in terms of style, execution and branching out to different languages. This was his first multi-lingual film in the vein of Jarmusch's Night On Earth & Mystery Train (coincidentally, Flirt features Mystery Train co-star Masatoshi Nagase). Certain aspects of Flirt can be found in No Such Thing (a film I already defended) as well as Fay Grim. Sure it’s more than obvious Hartley made it a point to show love & romance from various points of view (black, white, Asian, gay, bi, straight, male, female) but at least it wasn't your predominantly hetero white perspective on the subject of relationships like so many other American indie films at the time. Given what Hal Hartley did leading up to Flirt, what exactly were people expecting? I mean, was this SO out of place from anything else he already done? I definitely cannot say that I love Flirt but it still deserves a little more credit.

SIMPLE MEN (*SPECIAL GUEST WRITER: JASON HEDRICK*)

Initially I approached Nathaniel Drake Carlson about handling this write-up on Hal Hartley's undeniable masterpiece but he assured me there was a much bigger fan of Hartley who could do a better job. That's when Mr. Carlson directed me to Ecstatic - an intensive film site with an analysis of Todd Haynes' Safe that puts mine to shame. I approached Jason Hedrick, the mastermind behind this wonderful site, about participating in Hal Hartley month and without reservation he took to the task crafting a write-up that blends in perfectly with this site.

Enjoy...

Simple Men was my first Hal Hartley film. In 1992 I wasn't quite sure what to make of it, and was certain of only one thing after my initial viewing: I didn't much like it. I was around 20 and, not having a lot by which to gauge the experience, I thought maybe it was a parody of "Art Films." But the film persisted, leaving a somewhat nagging impression. It wasn't long before I returned to Simple Men in near-obsessive form, bouncing it off of friends to gauge their reactions (which usually ranged from slightly amused to downright bored) and soon tracked down and devoured every other Hartley film I could find. I think this speaks to a unique quality that Simple Men retains to this day, which is the capacity to confound and delight in equal measure, as well as inspire investigation into the singular brand of auteur-ism Hartley so consistently offers up. Perhaps not the best of Hartley's early feature work (roughly spanning 1989's The Unbelievable Truth through 1997's Henry Fool) it retains an undeniable emotional core; always the most surprising aspect of this most controlled and idiosyncratic director's work.

Of course, "idiosyncratic" might be a lazy way to describe what is ultimately an impressively detailed directorial signature, built from a keen appreciation of the most influential of his line. Part Theater of the Absurd, part revisionist Noir, Hartley's work is often read through the lens of French Art House icons such as Robert Bresson and Jean-Luc Godard. Simple Men is particularly evocative of Godard's work from the early 1960's, though these comparisons can be made to most of Hartley's early work, all similar to Godard in that they seem to occupy a shared "space" or "world" that is almost instantly recognizable, and are often blocked with the same deliberate sense of humor. But Hartley is not one to wield the camera in quite the same manner as a young Godard, opting to work in the tradition of Bresson's more static attention to the face, the body, and to gesture. After the shooting of Simple Men, Hartley noted in an interview the extent to which he was beginning to use his knowledge of Bresson more consciously: "Bresson cuts right past everything that's superfluous and isolates an image that says exactly what it's meant to say." Harltey and cinematographer Michael Spiller were certainly shooting for the same aesthetic parsimony as some of the great masters, but nothing about their work feels cheap or easy in the way it uses these influences, and is always imbued with their own comedic sensibilities.

Above: Elina Lowensohn in Simple Men (1992)
Below: Bresson's Mouchette (1966)

With that said, the danger in critiquing Hartley's work seems to be the temptation to sum it up as a mere series of knock-offs, which it's not. The great achievement of a film like Simple Men is that it's so unashamedly constructed of these influences, yet manages to have a personality all it's own. Aside from the French New Wave, it seems important to mention the "Indie" late 80's/early 90's here, which was such a rich period for film makers who were working out the differences between reinvigorating forms of pastiche and simply stealing (it's the difference between Reservoir Dogs and Boondock Saints, Kids). The films being made in this period exhibit a fascinating range of post-modernist experimentation. Think across the works of just a handful of directors working at this time--Van Sant, Ferrara, Figgis, Haynes, Soderbegh, Egoyan, Linklater, Kerrigan, Ridley, etc--and even among such distinguished company Hartley's films are some of the most distinctive and instantly recognizable. Still, others may see Hartley as being more associated with the stylized examinations of class and privilege found in the works of Whit Stillman (Metropolitan, 1990), Noah Baumbach (Kicking & Screaming 1995), and Wes Anderson (Bottle Rocket short-'94, feature-'96).

Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

Karen Silas in Simple Men

Metropolitan (1990)

Harltey's films are first and foremost films of Dialogue, bringing to mind yet another emerging cinema presence in this period, Chicago's master of terse, idiosyncratic dialogue, David Mamet (Homicide '91, Glengarry Glen Ross, '92, Oleanna and Vanya On 42nd Street, '94). But unlike Mamet, Hartley is willing to let the dialogue swing loose from the confines of moving the narrative action forward. In a playfully subversive scene late in Simple Men our primary players (Hartley regulars Bill Sage, Robert Burke, Karen Silas, Elina Lowensohn, and Martin Donovan) halt all proceedings of plot to get drunk and discuss the nature of exploitation in entertainment. This conversation perfectly exhibits Hartley's tendency toward rhythmical loops of absurdist dialogue, leaving us with the questioning refrain: "But what about the audience?" - "What about them?" It may be the kind of scene that seemed fresher in the early 90's, but it still feels relevant to understanding Hartley's basic aesthetic proposition. And (to loop myself back around to my initial comparison), the scene is particularly Godardian in a way that Mamet would never venture.

Louis Malle's Vanya on 42nd St. (1994) - from Mamet's adaptation of Chekhov

Martin Donovan and Robert Burke - Simple Men

But all of this cinephilic contextualizing is to make the point that Hartley's best, Simple Men among them, are successful in a way that transcends all the reference points. Hartley's recombinant methods are always in service of building a new product from recycled materials, so to speak. For instance, in Simple Men he takes a small moment of character tension between two men in love with the same woman that, in the hands of many writer/directors, would be played to bland, serviceable effect, but via Hartley is transformed into an unforgettable Mamet meets Abbott & Costello moment:

Martin: I gotta go

Bill: No!

Martin: I get too emotional when I drink

Bill: Have another beer!

Martin: I gotta get up early!

Bill: No you don't. Sit Down.

Martin: (Sits back down) I get too emotional when I drink.

Bill: Will you have another beer?

Martin (Stands up again) I gotta go!

Bill: Why?

Martin: I gotta get up early in the morning.

Bill: Martin, you're drunk.

Martin: And emotional.

Bill: You gotta go.

Martin: Why?

Bill: You gotta get up early in the morning.

The pronounced theatricality of Simple Men is most likely going to be off-putting to some; even for someone like myself who loves Hartley's work there are moments of indulgence that stretch my patience a bit. Once situated to the idea that the film circumvents the action that most Noir or Romantic Thrillers thrive on (the heist, the break-up of Kate and the psychotic Jack, the house fire and the bombing of the Pentagon) Simple Men becomes a surprisingly resonant character-centered film, though not in the tradition of anything close to Realism. In fact, what makes Simple Men truly indelible are the moments that ascend from the mere theatrical to a more Brechtian ideal: the heist denouement/opening involving a broken weapon, a Virgin Mary necklace, and a classic double-cross; the encounter with Ned that turns a struggle with a broken down motorcycle into a moment of Performance Art; the final, transcendent moment of Bill's return that encapsulates both the plight of the characters and the director, as we hear a soft voice from off-screen:

"Don't move."

NO SUCH THING: HAL HARTLEY'S MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE

Anyone notice how Hal Hartley has this cool ability to see in to the future? 22 years ago, long before Brooklyn was the hip capital of the world, he made the short film Theory Of Achievement where the opening lines are; I know the neighborhood doesn’t look like much but plenty of people are moving out here to Brooklyn. Writers, painters, filmmakers, rock & roll musicians... later we hear more: New York, Soho, that's all in the past. I mean, an art capital needs to be a place where people can afford to live. These lines speaks volumes TODAY more than they did back when this was originally made. Moments later a title card reading "Williamsburg, Brooklyn" flashes on the screen. Today, thanks to skyrocketing rent prices in Manhattan, struggling artists needing studio spaces and emerging indie bands, you can’t go anywhere in the world without hearing about how cool & hip Brooklyn is. Hartley's earlier work like; Trust (1990), Simple Men (1992) & Amateur (1994) touch on how technology always frustrates us no matter how advanced it gets. We adapt far too fast. I mean really, how amazing are Iphones, androids, blackberries, and other similar devices yet for some reason we find ourselves saying stuff like: "UGGHH I hate this thing!", "I wish this had more features" or "I wish it was faster!" In 1997, without actually using terms like nook or kindle (the device I used to do this write-up on), Hal Hartley touched on the growth of digital reading in the future. He may be the first modern filmmaker outside of the science fiction/cyberpunk genre to focus on reading in the digital age as early as he did. True, he isn't the first filmmaker to predict the future in his work - In 1995 David Lynch directed Lost Highway, a film about a man who kills his wife, which co-stars Robert Blake who many people believe killed his wife in real life almost a decade later (lets also not forgot the world was enthralled in the OJ case during the filming of Lost Highway as well). But Hartley has a track record of consistent predictions & foreshadows more than any filmmaker I can think of right now

Elements of No Such Thing, as well as its predecessor; The Book Of Life, act as an eerie foreshadow in to a major event in U.S. history...

The Book Of Life (Hartley, 1998)

The final shot in The Book Of Life (1998), a biblical tale set in modern times, shows Jesus Christ (Martin Donovan) watching the twin towers off in the distance deciding as to whether or not he'll rain down an apocalypse on planet earth. Of course no one thought twice about this prior to September 11th 2001, but obviously looking back on it now, The Book Of Life has a very cryptic feel. This moment ties directly in to No Such Thing which has stuff like terrorism, bombs, a plane crash & sensationalized media (all keywords in the realm of 9/11) throughout the story. And let’s also not forget half of the film is set in New York City. Although September 11th hadn't happened yet, the world Hal Hartley creates in No Such Thing has this looming presence of a catastrophic event creeping up around the corner. This, along with The Book Of Life, may be the first post-9/11 film made BEFORE 9/11 (it screened at Cannes in May 2001 but didn't get a theatrical release until after September 11). Strangely enough, No Such Thing didn't face the same kind of censorship as Donnie Darko or any other film released around that time with sensitive subject matter that somehow related to the world trade center bombing. These films kicked off Hartley's exploration in to the world of subtle science fiction, police states, terrorism, the media & globalization that can be seen in The Girl From Monday (2005) & Fay Grim (2006). It’s almost like all of Hartley's post-98 films exist in the same universe as The Book Of Life...

Dear Jim, it was real difficult to get a taxi to the airport because some terrorists threatened to blow up all the bridges leading out of Manhattan. So I tried to take the subway but a religious group had set off nerve gas on the train and we were evacuated before I even got ten blocks...Waiting on line at the airport I saw two men get caught trying to smuggle radioactive materials out of the country. It’s like my mom use to say; The world is a dangerous and uncertain place - Sarah Polley (excerpt from No Such Thing)

If you were to turn on the news today, 12 years after No Such Thing Was made, things really wouldn't sound all that different. It’s EXTREMELY frustrating to read about post-9/11 cinema and rarely see Hartley's name mentioned. True, Hartley’s films don’t reach the same audiences as Oliver Stone’s work or the Bourne Identity movies, but they’re still just as culturally relevant. It should also be noted that in the same year No Such Thing premiered, Hartley’s play; Soon (about the branch davidians & Waco Texas) opened in New York City as well. Anyone familiar with his work should know that prior to No Such Thing he had already touched on globalization, terrorism & the role the media plays in society (Simple Men, Flirt, Amateur & his various short films) but No Such Thing was his first "major" effort that was to reach a somewhat wider audience. Not to downplay his previous films in any way (my favorite Hal Hartley era is between '89-'97) but this was produced by American Zoetrope studios (George Lucas & Frances Ford Coppola). I'm sure Lucas & Coppola weren’t on the set of No Such Thing watching Hartley's every move because they were super invested in the film, but for a filmmaker like Hal Hartley to have his name alongside Coppola in any way is still pretty cool.

After excellent showings by a small handful of select American independent filmmakers in the late 90's, bigger studios were taking chances on people like Todd Solondz (New Line), Todd Haynes (Focus) & Hal Hartley (American Zoetrope). Suddenly we had Conan O’Brien showing up in a Todd Solondz film and Dennis Quaid playing a role he's never played before in his life (seriously, who woulda thought the director of an art film like Poison could get Dennis Quaid to play a repressed homosexual?) Unfortunately, with the exception of Far From Heaven (Todd Haynes), American movie audiences just weren’t ready for stuff like Storytelling (Solondz) or No Such Thing. I'll admit that I wasn't a fan of Hartley's 2001 feature for quite some time but thanks to specific scenes, the score (done by Hartley himself) and my growing knowledge of cinema (No Such Thing referenced films I didn't know of the first time I saw it like Battleship Potemkin & Godard's First Name Carmen) I've come to the realization that this is a great film! No Such Thing was also the first film that really made me see the connection between Hartley & Godard. If you’re at all familiar with both Hartley & Godard you’d have to be an idiot to not see all the nods Hartley gives to the elder director. I learned while reading “The Cinema Of Hal Hartley that he was nicknamed the “Jean-Luc Godard of Long Island".

No Such Thing is a tough sell. I know diehard Hal Hartley fans who aren’t crazy about it but like a lot of films it needs to grow on you over time. Imagine a modern, darkly comical yet serious retelling of Beauty & The Beast heavily influenced by Godard with nods to TMZ. Sounds like a lot to take in but as with any Hal Hartley film there's always a lot going on. Henry Fool mixed things like graphic poetry, the ignorance of far right wing politics & child abuse. The story of Simple Men involves baseball, terrorism, redemption & heartbreak while Amateur mixed pornography, Catholicism & technology. No Such Thing is a comedy but it’s also very serious at times. Its partially a fairytale yet it’s also a realistic portrayal of a world that’s become paranoid due to the scare tactics courtesy of the media.
In No Such Thing Sarah Polley plays "Beatrice" - an innocent kindhearted young woman working as an assistant for "The Boss" (Helen Mirren) - the head of a major, yet nameless, news station whose more concerned with ratings & catchy headlines than reporting the real news...

There's a world of bad news out there, ladies and gentlemen, a world of bad news! All we need to do is get our hands on the worst of it, the very worst news possible! - Helen Mirren

When one of the news station's TV crews goes missing in Iceland, Beatrice goes to investigate their disappearance (her fiancée was part of the crew). After she gets sidetracked in a subplot that could have easily veered off and been a whole separate film, she discovers that they've been murdered by a depressed, foul mouthed monster (played by Hal Hartley-muse Robert John Burke) that wants nothing more than to die. The only problem is that he’s indestructible and the only person who can kill him is an eccentric doctor (Dr. Artaud) that’s locked away by the government. The monster meets his match in the form Beatrice who is the first human to come in contact with it and not be scared. The Monster sees this as a sign and enlists her help to track down Dr Artaud so he can finally end his miserable life. Beatrice brings the monster to New York City with hopes of putting him in contact with the doctor but she’s double-crossed by The Boss and things fall apart.
This is a film full of dark subject matter but at the same time it may be one of Hartley's sweetest films. In my favorite scene we see The Monster sulking by himself in a corner. When Beatrice asks him what's wrong he replies; "No one's scared of me anymore." Beatrice then cuddles up next to him and replies; "I'm scared of you" as a way to make him feel better. Robert John Burke, probably best known for his roles on Rescue Me & SVU, gives the performance of his career as The Monster. Although he's covered in makeup, Burke's performance transcends all that in the same way John Hurt's performance transcended all the make-up in The Elephant Man.



This may also be Hartley's best score to date. I’ve always appreciated his use of analog drum machines & cheesy sounding synthesizers and he's on his A-game with the score for this film.
No Such Thing stands out the most among Hartley's work even though it featured so many of his trademarks (dead pan performances, dry quirkiness, heavily dance-like choreographed movements by the actors, etc). Why was this considered a "flop" while his previous work seemed to be more accepted? Was it a bit heavy-handed at times (mostly due to Helen Mirren's character)? Sure. But her character still represents something very scary that’s still going on today; irresponsible news outlets more concerned with scaring us than reporting the news. Hal Hartley's style my need some warming up too for those not familiar with him but that doesn't mean No Such Thing should be dismissed. This film never got the chance it deserved. Given all that's going on in the world right now this is the perfect time to rediscover this film.

BORING MASTERPIECE #10: NEW JERUSALEM (EVANGELISM, PTS & MALE BONDING)

As I watched a beardless Will Oldham deliver an extremely original performance in New Jerusalem I was reminded of his earliest acting role in John Sayles' Matewan where he plays the young teen preacher hootin' & hollerin' at the congregation. In Rick Alverson's sophomore film Oldham plays an evangelical Christian ("Ike") trying to help/"save" his friend & coworker ("Sean") whose suffering from depression and/or some kind of post traumatic stress possibly brought on by his time spent on tour in Iraq while he was in the National Guard. Oldham seems to fit these characters perfectly. From what little I know about him I’m pretty sure he isn’t super religious but there's something about his folky/blue grass/country side that seems to allow him to tap in to these roles and play them masterfully. In an interview with pitchfork a few years ago he was quoted as saying; I think all religions have truth to them. I get the feeling a lot of the recent characters Oldham has played were either made specifically with him in mind or the stories were somewhat crafted around him. He doesn't strike me as the kind of actor who auditions for parts and there isn't one role he's played where I imagined someone else in his place. Acting isn't even his main gig! As a singer, his music is pretty lo-fi & incredibly soulful which are two characteristics one could use to describe just about any recent film he's appeared in.

New Jerusalem has an interesting vibe. Imagine a John Cassavetes film on anti-depressants - it has the same handheld documentary/cinema verite style as any classic Cassavetes film but at the same time it’s a lot more subdued and laidback without all the yelling and explosive outbursts. If the Cassavetes comparison doesn't do anything for you, imagine a natural & minimalist film from the same school as Kelly Reichardt's Old Joy & Wendy & Lucy (both films coincidentally co-star Will Oldham), Ballast, Shotgun Stories, Junebug (which features a cameo from Oldham as well), a student film directed by a young David Gordon Green or any other modern American indie film that shows the seldom seen hypnotic, droning and sometimes beautiful side of "Anywhere USA".
Did Kelly Reichardt pick up that ball that David Gordon Green intentionally dropped after he made Snow Angels? Is it fair to say she's now the leading figure in that genre of natural looking minimalist American independent cinema that's become so popular today? I know Reichardt had nothing to do with New Jerusalem but her influence is all over it. It’s like Rick Alverson plucked the Ike & Sean characters from the background of one of her films.

Ike & Sean work together at a tire shop somewhere in southeast Virginia (I assume southeast Virginia because the only two specific areas that are mentioned in the film are Richmond & Virginia Beach). Ike is fascinated by Sean and constantly asks him annoying questions almost like how a younger brother asks their older cooler brother a string of annoying questions. A lot of Ike's inquires have to do with Ireland (where Sean is originally from) as well as Sean's time in Iraq. It's clear from the start that Sean is a rough edged, brooding individual with a lot going on inside but we don't REALLY get it until he has a panic attack in the bathroom at work one day. After witnessing Sean's panic attack, Ike takes it upon himself to be the good Christian that he is and help Sean find Christ because he feels that’s the only thing that can save his friend.

Ike's devotion to the lord is subtle at first. In the beginning of the film we see him say a quick prayer before eating dinner or make a little bible reference but after about 20 minutes in it's clear that he's a soldier in God's army. Unlike other stereotypical Christian characters found in movies (...and in real life) Ike isn't a judgy, homophobic, "fire & brimstone" Christian. Perhaps my description of him as a "soldier" in God's army was a lil inaccurate as he seems to be pretty anti-war too. Ike focuses on the positive aspects of Christianity.

I can see you at this pivotal point. And you're gonna fall one way or the other - Ike

Are Sean's panic attacks brought on by PTS or something deeper? He sees a doctor who prescribes him medication to cope but Ike pretty much considers these pills (along with all other forms of medication) to be evil "wacky pills". Is this film also trying to make a comment on how over-medicated America has become? Alverson doesn't really dwell on this too much so I may be reaching. 

To some people New Jerusalem is nothing more than a boring low budget indie about two lonely guys debating about Christ while others may consider it to be a brilliant little gem. I personally go with the latter but I would never try very hard to convince someone of this film's greatness if they dislike it because New Jerusalem isn't for everyone. But if you have the patience and find certain matters interesting like; PTS, atheism vs. religion, loneliness, male bonding, depression and the after affects of the Iraq war told from the perspective of someone that isn't American or Iraqi, then maybe this is a film for you. But the one thing that can’t really be hated on in my opinion is Oldham's performance. Ike is a curious, awkward, strange, good intentioned, unique and sometimes pushy individual. It’s almost like he was made in a movie lab with the DNA of other quirky fictitious indie movie characters like; Eddie (Stranger Than Paradise), Dignan (Bottle Rocket), Joe (The Station Agent) & Morgan (Minnie & Moskowitz). If you genuinely like interesting characters I highly doubt Ike won’t get at least a few chuckles from you or moments where you find yourself totally intrigued or fascinated by him. Not to downplay Colm O'Leary's touching performance as Sean, but Oldham/Ike is the highlight of this film. He's so random and just "not all there" at times. In one scene Ike is trying to peer in to Sean's house to see if he's home but it looks like he's trying to break in. Sean's next door neighbor sees this and comes over to ask Ike what he’s doing but Ike doesn't even acknowledge him and keeps on trying to peek in to Sean's house.
Ike definitely marches to the beat of a different drummer...

Ike (L) & Sean (R)

Although Sean is cynical and blahzay about religion, for reasons we come to find out towards the end of the film (no, he wasn't molested by a priest as a child), he goes along begrudgingly and joins Ike at church and to Bible readings. New Jerusalem is unique in that it doesn't take sides. This isn't a pro or anti Christianit film. I know other reviews seem to think otherwise but that's not how I saw it. Sean is an atheist but not one of those self righteous arrogant atheists who comes off just as annoying as the religious fanatics they hate so much. There is a touch of smugness to him but it isn't that serious (when Sean accompanies Ike to church he has a curious/arrogant smirk on his face throughout the service). Sean isn't outspoken, keeps his opinion's to himself mostly and the only time we actually hear his opinions on religion are when Ike instigates a debate. One of the film's best lines is delivered by Sean in a scene where gives his general opinion on religion - I don't trust the man that comes with the message. 

Ike is pushy with his views. But at the same time he is a good person and he's going out of his way to do what he thinks will help his friend. On one hand Ike makes Jesus & Christianity seem beautiful. The way he speaks of the joy & happiness that the lord brings almost makes me wanna sign up for Bible school. But on the other hand his aggressiveness & pushiness are very off-putting.

Naturally things come to head in a friendship with these two different types of personalities. Towards the end Ike & Sean have a semi-heated argument but make amends a few days later and the film ends on an ambiguous note.

Personally I wouldn’t have had any problem at all with this being an extra 30-45 minutes. There are two subplots that I wish were expanded on – The first involves Sean taking care of his neighbor’s sick cat. At first Sean is hesitant but over time he falls in love with it. This part of the story showed Sean’s sensitive side and his ability to take care of another living thing. The second subplot is about the flirty relationship between Sean and the assistant pharmacist he gets his medication from. Just when things start to spark up between them the film ends. But those are just minor things that don’t make this film any less great. 

Given Alverson's most recent film The Comedy, I expected a more cynical tone to New Jerusalem in regards to religion but thankfully I was wrong. Much like The Comedy, the tone of New Jerusalem slowly creeps up on you. Most films that deal with religion are so black & white. They're either about the evils of religion and the corrupt men behind it or its some naive & simplistic story about someone being saved. There's a lot of grey area in religion and in this film. New Jerusalem isn't just part of Kelly Reichardt's new school of natural realism but it’s also part of a new group of recent films that offer an alternative look at religion and/or spirituality like; Mary, Battle In Heaven, Silent Light, Post Tenebras Lux, To The Wonder & The Tree Of Life.

Beneath the simple plot is a quietly dense and layered film with quite a few hypnotic moments that offers just as many questions as answers.

There's an interesting class of newly established filmmakers emerging in indie cinema over the last 5 years making their presence known with their 2nd or 3rd feature film (Rick Alverson, Sarah Polley, Xavier Dolan, Shane Carruth, Steve McQueen, etc). New Jerusalem is a testament (no pun intended) to the importance of digital media and digital devices in the world of low budget/indie cinema. Although this isn't up on Netflix yet you can see this courtesy of Amazon.com's instant watch. I still love video stores but times are changing. Had it not been for instant watch this would have been damn near impossible to see given there's no DVD release as of yet.

PINNLAND EMPIRE 3 YEAR ANNIVERSARY/HAL HARTLEY MONTH!

To celebrate three years of PINNLAND EMPIRE I will be dedicating this site to the films of Hal Hartley throughout the month of June.

Stay tuned...

LAURENCE ANYWAYS: MONTREAL IS BURNING

As I was sitting on the metro north reading a film comment review of Xavier Dolan's third feature; Laurence Anyways, the story of a transgendered high school teacher/poet, a big guy dressed in 6" heels, black leggings, a tube top style shirt, a wig and make-up stepped on to this semi-crowded train and I immediately thought to myself; "that's brave." I really don't mean to sound patronizing but when you have the physique of a professional linebacker (like this guy did) and you're dressed in women's clothes (with confidence mind you) people are gonna stare and make you feel uncomfortable. I'm sorry but it takes some kind of bravery to stand amongst a bunch of strangers staring & most likely judging you. It'd be cool to live in a world where I don't have to think someone is brave for just being themselves but unfortunately that's the insecure world we live in and I don't think it'll be changing any time soon. Naturally I made a connection between this person on the train and Laurence, the main character of Xavier Dolan's latest film which I was literally in the middle of reading about. If there was ever a sign to write about a film – this was it.

I know the difference between a transvestite (which I’m assuming the guy on the train was) and someone whose transgendered (like Laurence) but the one thing they both have in common is that they don't necessarily feel comfortable in the skin they were given and/or the image/expectation that society has either directly or indirectly put on them. There's quite a few scenes in Laurence Anyways that truly convey the bravery it takes to not only identify with being another gender but to face the world with this new identity when so many people have always known you as a man (in Laurence's case). Laurence Alia is a fictitious character but he represents so many real people.

Truth be told, this film had been in the back of my mind since I saw it last year at TIFF but not necessarily for good reasons. Sorry if I set the tone for a positive review but I had some issues with Laurence Anyways. Even though I had very high hopes for Dolan's latest feature, this wasn't a case of me being disappointed because it didn't live up to some unrealistic expectation I had before seeing it (something I’m guilty of quite a bit). This film is flawed. I’ve had some time to think this one over and I realized it's better than I initially gave it credit for but there’s still an uneven feel. On one hand, Xavier Dolan DID manage to create one of the most complex characters in years (we'll get in to that later) but on the other hand this felt a little TOO stylized for a film with this kind of subject matter. Not to say that a filmmaker shouldn't put his/her own stamp on their work but in a film about the struggles of being transgendered things can get a little distracting when half the movie looks more like an 80's new wave music video. It’s difficult to take parts of this film seriously. Influence & inspiration is another thing that may rub some people the wrong way. Since the beginning of his filmmaking career Xavier Dolan has gotten a lot of heat for "heavily borrowing" from auteurs like Wong Kar Wai (the overuse of slow motion shots and the emphasis on rich colors) as well as Godard (the women in his films seem to be modeled after Anna Karina). But given that I'm such a huge Nicholas Winding Refn fan whose recent style is made up of so many elements from so many other filmmakers (Old school Michael Mann, Stanley Kubrick, Kenneth Anger, Takeshi Kitano, etc) I can’t really criticize Dolan for that. All I can say is that Xavier Dolan is still very young (he just turned 24) so it’s natural for a young filmmaker to borrow from people he/she admires. At least we have a director that young who admires filmmakers like Wong Kar Wai & Godard.

I like Dolan's approach to cinema even through its still developing. It serves as a contrast against all the other depressing & slow shit I love so much. I do see him eventually coming in to his own style but right now he's still stuck somewhere in between selected scenes from In The Mood For Love and an androgynous Human League music video. But I'm still a fan. I mean, what’s there to not like about him? He has a lot of drive for such a young guy (he’s currently in pre-production on his fourth feature), he often works triple duty as actor, director & writer, the musical selection in his work is excellent, he makes hipsters seem appealing & interesting and he does the voice of Stan for French-Canadian South Park episodes.

This time around Xavier Dolan tips his hat to filmmakers like Pedro Almodovar yet the difference here is that the transgendered main character in Laurence Anyways is an actual human being and not a borderline comical shemale caricature like we so often find in Almodovar’s films (c’mon, you know this is true). Not to say that’s always the case but it’s come to a point where people are starting to express cynicism towards transgendered characters in Almodovar's work because they’re so one dimensional and silly (the few Spanish cinephiles I know express more annoyance with Almodovar these days then pride). The same thing could also be said about John Waters at times. I find it interesting that two of the leading voices in LGBT cinema (Almodovar & Waters, both gay like Xavier Dolan) have such a difficult time portraying transgendered & transvestite characters as real people sometimes. Of course it’s not their obligation but let’s be honest, straight directors certainly can’t do it (minus a few exceptions here & there) and up until recently I don't think there's ever been a (prominent) transgendered filmmaker to take on that task and that one prominent transgendered director we all know of now (Lana Wachowski) is more interested in science fiction. It should also be noted that Gus Van Sant, another important figure in LGBT cinema, was the executive producer for Laurence Anyways. Almost two years ago I predicted Van Sant & Dolan would work together in some capacity and look what happened.

In A Year Of 13 Moons (1978)

Paris Is Burning (1991)

Hedwig & The Angry Inch (2001)

XXY (2008)

Even though Laurence Anyways was disappointing overall it still helped to clear that path, started by previous works like In A Year Of 13 Moon, Paris Is Burning & XXY, for future filmmakers to portray transgendered characters as human beings instead of the comic relief or someone to be parodied & poked fun at. Think about it – as serious as something like The Crying Game is (for those that forgot there’s a major subplot involving terrorism and the IRA) the one thing it will always be remembered for is the transgendered character played by Jaye Davidson that’s been parodied and made in to a joke since its release over two decades ago. Are people just not mature enough to handle this type of subject matter? Luckily Xavier Dolan seems to think so and he gives the audience some credit.
His previous work already touched on the complexity of sexuality and sexual identity so I assumed Laurence Anyways would be a masterpiece. I Killed My Mother dealt with teenage sexuality and Heartbeats dealt with a love triangle between a straight woman, a gay man and a metro/borderline androgynous, yet straight, male. Focusing on the blurriness of sexual identity seemed like a natural progression for the young director but he got a lil' too caught up in style.

*Throughout this write-up I’ll be shifting between using “he” & “she” when referencing Laurence because the character does identify as being a male in the beginning*

In Laurence Anyways Melvin Poupaud plays Laurence Alia - A seemingly happy male college professor in a relationship with a beautiful woman ("Fred") who suddenly breaks down on his 30th birthday and confesses that he’s been living a lie all these years and wants to live the rest of his life as a woman. At first Fred doesn't get it and just thinks Laurence is simply coming out as gay but Laurence still wants to be with her. After some initial hesitation on Fred's part they reconcile and make a go at trying to maintain their relationship but Fred finds it too difficult and leaves Laurence only to get back together years later and then leave Laurence again. I understand relationships can he a bit complicated but after a while I found the on-again/off-again relationship between Laurence & Fred to be a little tiresome. They're together, they break up, they're back together again then they break up again (their story spans a decade). Fred does genuinely love Laurence but just finds it too difficult to be in a relationship with someone transgendered.

Laurence Anyways is told from the title character’s perspective but we also get some outside perspective from Fred and the difficulties that come along with trying to be in a relationship with someone who identifies with a gender that you aren’t necessarily attracted too. Suzanne Clement (Fred) gives the standout performance as Laurence's depressed, confused, loving & vulnerable soul mate. Monia Chokri, co-star of Dolan's last film Heartbeats, gives a good supporting role as Fred's supportive yet cynical sister.

Clement hits homerun in this scene...


Laurence faces plenty of prejudices through the course of the film beyond people just staring at her. She gets beat up, her father essentially disowns her (although there was clearly some deeper stuff there prior to Laurence's gender change that the film doesn't really get in to) and there's a scene where Fred stands up for Laurence at a restaurant after a waitress makes things uncomfortable. I still had issues with the Laurence character. This goes back to what I said earlier about her being complex. Yes we're supposed to sympathize for Laurence in her struggle to be identified as a woman but Xavier Dolan makes her a bit of asshole at times. This is something I have yet to hear anyone address. I guess that is a progressive move on Dolan's part. Instead of making Laurence some angelic martyr for the LGBT community he makes her human with many faults. In between her relationship with Fred, Laurence lives with a woman named Charlotte who she treats like shit (probably due to the fact that Laurence is still in love with Fred). In the middle of the film Laurence leaves Charlotte and runs off with Fred and we never hear from her again. It’s almost like Xavier Dolan treated Charlotte the same way Laurence did. She’s just brushed off to the side and we never hear from her again after being unfairly dumped.

Laurence Anyways was also quite long when it didn't really need to be, clocking in at two hours and forty minutes. If the film delved a little deeper in to things like why Laurence identified as a woman or the strained relationship he had with his parents then I wouldn't mind the length but that never really happens. When Laurence confesses to Fred that he wants to live his life as a woman 20-30 minutes in to the movie we (the audience) are kinda put in the same position as Fred. This confession almost comes outta nowhere. It’s like "Huh?! Where is this coming from?" I'm not asking for some cliché flashback of a young Laurence trying on his mothers clothes but there coulda been some insight in to why suddenly in his 30's did he want this dramatic change. There's a quick scene at the beginning of the film where Laurence is looking over the female students in his classroom almost with envy as if he wished he could be them but if that one scene was supposed to convey Laurence's desire to be identified as a woman then that’s pretty weak. At no time in the early part of this film when Laurence still identifies as a man do we get any discomfort or feeling of him putting on a facade besides that one moment.

Xavier Dolan kinda lets his love of nostalgia get in the way. Yes, the large majority of the story takes place between the late 80’s through the 90’s but the film is almost drowned in neon colors, swatch watches, big hair, synthesizers & acid washed jeans. Sometimes it gets to the point where you wanna shout at the screen saying; “I GET IT! WE’RE IN THE 80’S! TONE IT DOWN A LITTLE.” 160 minutes is more than enough time to make a strong coherent film but Xavier Dolan uses up too much time crafting pretty looking isolated moments and sequences instead of one whole film. Laurence Anyways is far from awful or terrible. It just could have been better. Clearly you can see I had a lot to say about it which counts for something. I do see growth & maturity in Dolan, who stayed behind the camera this time minus one super quick cameo, and I still look forward to his next film. I wouldn’t even mind giving this a second chance. Perhaps I was just worn out by the 30+ movies I’d seen at Toronto prior to watching this.

THE COMEDY: SURPRISINGLY DARK & SUBTLY BRILLIANT

Am I crazy or is The Comedy a quietly brilliant piece of work? And I'm not using the term "brilliant" lightly simply because I'm a huge Tim & Eric fan. The Comedy was excellent and it offers much more than random Harmony Korine/Andy Kaufman-esque humor. This is a film that honestly has something for everyone whether you're a Tim & Eric fan or not. Even if you aren’t in to their style of random/surreal humor, there's a good chance you'll still "get" this film or at least understand & respect what it tried to do. Plus, the humor in The Comedy isn’t even the same style of blinky, seizure-inducing, high energy humor we see on Tim & Eric Awesome Show. This is a dark comedy in the truest sense.

The Comedy may frustrate some viewers as the main character; "Swanson" (Tim Heidecker) is a very unlikeable human being yet because he's the center piece of the story and he’s funny, you feel like you're supposed to care about or have some type of emotional investment in him (his father just died and his brother is in an insane asylum). But I'm pretty sure we're supposed to dislike Swanson, his group of friends (made up of Eric Werheim & James Murphy of LCD Sound System) and everyone he represents. Just treat the main character in The Comedy the same way you'd treat Alexander DeLarge (A Clockwork Orange) or Troy Duffy (Overnight) - intriguing to watch but not someone to root for. As I watched The Comedy, Rick Alverson's third feature film about a bored, self centered, aging Brooklyn hipster coasting through life being a shitty person, I was reminded of that whole Vice magazine/street carnage/pseudo-artsy/pitchfork media/not racist but racist/sarcastic/"indie" Brooklyn hipster type. Actually, I wonder if Rick Alverson had a person like Gavin Mcinnes or even Vincent Gallo in mind when he wrote this. I've lived in NYC since 2005, have a music studio in North Brooklyn (Williamsburg/Bushwick) that you have to take either the L or G trains to get too (two subway lines synonymous with Brooklyn hipsters) where I spend a decent amount of time at. Most of the music venues I go too are in Williamsburg and I read the occasional Vice magazine/Street Carnage article (which usually leads me to being pissed off) so I'm a bit familiar with that whole scene and this film kinda pins it down and shows how shallow it can sometimes be. But Brooklyn hipsters aren’t the only focus of this film. Any type of comedy or "art" that tries to be provocative yet instead comes off as offensive, racist, sexist and just plain unfunny gets called in to question (even stuff I may personally like) - From all the new age sketch comedy & viral videos on YouTube to stand-up comedians in the vein of Louis CK, Patrice O’Neal (R.I.P.), Jim Norton & Paul Mooney or even Seth McFarlane to a certain extent. Any type of humor or art that’s made you stop & question whether or not something is funny & button-pushing or just downright fucked up kinda subconsciously comes up while watching The Comedy.

Sundance film festival programmer Trevor Groth described The Comedy best when he called it a critique of a culture based at its core around irony & sarcasm and about ultimately how hollow that is
(I almost don’t wanna write anything more. That’s one of the best & most accurate descriptions of a film I've ever read)

Alverson's cynicism towards hipsters is still pretty evident. There's plenty scenes of the characters in the film drinking Pabst, wearing their ironic looking thrift store sunglasses, riding around on fixed gear bikes just being cliche...



Certain aspects of this film reminded me of Soderbergh's Schizopolis (a world I sometimes wished Soderbergh would revisit). Both films break down the pointlessness of dialogue & conversation between people and they both have the same kind of random humor. In one scene we find Swanson at a party having a wordy, borderline pretentious conversation with a girl about socialism, then in another equally executed scene, he's having an in-depth conversation with a stranger (played by comedian Neil Hamburger) about the cleanliness of hobo dicks. Both of those scenes/conversations are treated the same as if to say no matter what people talk about (from so-called important social issues to dick humor - it can all be pointless sometimes). You ever find yourself at an artsy Brooklyn hipster party and listen in on some of the conversations going on around you and start rolling your eyes wishing everyone would just shut the fuck up? This film plays on that.
The Comedy also has that type of dark humor found in a Todd Solondz film like Happiness or Welcome To The Dollhouse where you question if you should be laughing at something or not.

I know it’s tough to fathom but for those who haven’t seen this, there's plenty of serious & heavy elements in The Comedy. Beyond the odd humor, this film touches on racism, white privilege & gentrification - there’s a scene where Swanson is in a predominantly black bar trying to be "down", discussing "the hood" and how more people will eventually move in to the area and how it needs to be more diverse (aka more "white"). This scene immediately reminded me of a scene in Kelly Anderson's documentary; My Brooklyn where predominantly white people are asked their opinion on the Fulton mall area (a mostly Black & Latino area in Brooklyn) and they give nothing but negative & passively racist comments about the area simply because they don’t relate to the Fulton mall demographic. It’s like in order for privileged white people to be comfortable anywhere they have to do away with anything ethnic or “different” from their world. The Comedy also focuses on dysfunctional & distant families - Swanson's father left him everything in his will but it’s clear that he didn't have the best relationship with his father and he doesn't seem to care that he’s inheriting a bunch of money. He has a brother that's clinically insane and he doesn't know how to deal with that either. He also has a rocky/complicated relationship with his sister-in-law. Swanson has some serious internal issues going on inside (along with some serious depression) and he doesn't know how to deal with anything but there's little to no sympathy for our main character because he’s such an unbelievable dick. It’s tough to imagine devoting ones time to a film with an unlikeable main character but somehow it kept my attention.



Some feel The Comedy is also about redemption to a certain extent and I guess I kinda see that but I think due to Alverson's last feature, New Jerusalem, a religious drama about redemption & evangelism, people wanna make a connection that's barely there between two films directed by the same guy.

Even though I was warned and read quite a few reviews (I even met someone who worked on this film last summer who was quite open about the making of it) I still didn't expect The Comedy to be as dark & serious as it was at times. Not to say that this is on the same level of seriousness as an early Haneke film but when all you have as a reference is Tom Goes To The Mayor & Tim & Eric Awesome Show it’s understandable to get thrown off by the tone of this film. Tim Heidecker surprised the hell outta me with his breakout lead performance and I’d honestly like to see him collaborate with other filmmakers & actors outside of his comfort zone (possibly Todd Solondz? I think that would be a powerful duo).

SOMETHING IN THE AIR

Maybe I unfairly labeled Something In The Air as "meh" in my end of the year wrap-up. It’s a pretty good film. It’s just that ever since Demonlover & Boarding Gate I hoped Assayas would continue down that path of unique, strange, sexy, bat shit crazy espionage films he pulled off so well. His more personal/tame films like Late August Early September & Summer Hours never fully hit me right away. They're cool to watch on a Sunday afternoon at first then their greatness finally creeps up on me months (or years) later. I remember feeling somewhere in between disappointed & "meh" after watching Something In The Air @ TIFF which bothered me because Assayas is, in my opinion, one of the top 4 directors working right now (Haneke, Denis & Mike Leigh being the other three). I always expect excellence from him and Something In The Air was the third film of his in a row that I initially shrugged my shoulders at once the credits rolled (I've since come around with Summer Hours, but I have yet to fully see what all the hype is about Carlos outside it being really long). But now that Something In The Air is set to be released in U.S. theaters soon, is featured on the cover of the latest Film Comment and has recently come up in conversation a couple of times with Chris Funderberg of the Pink Smoke, I've started to rethink my stance on Olivier Assayas' semi-autobiographical film.

There's something about modern films set in the late 60's & 70's (Dazed & Confused, Almost Famous, the first half of Boogie Nights, parts of Forrest Gump, etc) that sometimes rubs me the wrong way (this is a personal problem, not yours, but I'd still like to share it with you). There’s this unspoken vibe they give off almost like bragging as if to say; back in the day we had stuff like vinyl & and GOOD music, revolution, the black panthers & the Vietnam War. We smoked weed & dropped acid but we were still productive and made a difference. This is how it was in our time. Sometimes I watch these movies and I just wanna say; get over yourself. Something In The Air has a hint of that stuff but not like the afformentioned films.

Maybe I'm so much in to being an 80's baby and have had my limit of older Generations talking down to me about how I don't know anything simply because I'm younger makes me feel kinda "blah" about their era. The nostalgia in the Something In The Air is a bit heavy at times. Like, it almost feels TOO "70's". Plus I don't relate too (and don't really wanna relate too) things like hippies, pseudo militants or sitting around a bonfire smoking weed talking about revolution, philosophy & change or other annoying things that makes me role my eyes. Something In The Air is full of that stuff. Don't get me wrong, I've come around to liking this but I can never LOVE it like I do Demonlover.

In Something In The Air Assayas gives us a glimpse in to his life as a teenager, how he eventually got in to film, the social change that was going on in Europe and the revolution that was...in the air. The young Bressonian characters that the film focuses on (who are loosely based on real people from Assayas' past) have some kind of drive & determination to follow their passions, but at the same time they also also come off as apathetic, almost blank and blahzay about life as they lay around looking pretty and getting high.

The 400 Blows (Truffaut)

I don’t know what it is about French & Belgian cinema but ever since The 400 Blows it almost seems like there's an unofficial requirement for all prominent French filmmakers to make at least one coming of age tale (sometimes semi-autobiographical) thats either politically and/or socially charged or about some kind of sexual discovery (Rosetta, The Promise, US Go Home, The Devil Probably, Small Change, Murmur Of The Heart, Fat Girl, Water Lilies, tomboy, The Boy With A Bike, A Hair Under Roses, Cold Water, Small Change, Boy Meets Girl, etc) and Something In The Air fits right in with that group of films. Although there are quite a few exceptional coming of age stories from America, whenever something is politically or socially fueled it’s so obvious and in your face that it sometimes turns me off. Great European coming of age stories set during a turbulent or historic time tend to hint at or casually mention important political events rather than shove stuff down your throat. The backdrop of Something In The Air are the protests that took place in May '68 in France and the after-affect it had on young leftists in the early 70's but Assayas doesn’t constantly reference it (at least not directly to my knowledge) over & over again. He focuses more on the main character "Gilles" (who essentially represents Assayas as a teen) and his group of young left-wing friends and their experiences after high school (or whatever Parisians call high school). They travel the world, experiment with drugs, take part in student protests & revolutions, fall in & out of love with each other and start to discover their paths in life as filmmakers, painters, writers & dancers.

Gilles/Assayas' entry in to filmmaking starts through painting & sketching, then on to visual arts (controlling those trippy slide shows in the background while rock bands perform). He then gets a job in television (thanks to his father) which eventually leads to a job in the film industry where he works his way up from the bottom as an assistant. And Gilles isn't the only character in the film who discovers a love for filmmaking. One of Gilles' love interests; Christine (played by Lola Creton) goes on to become a political filmmaker as well.

In the March/April edition of Film Comment, Olivier Assayas references Bresson's The Devil Probably as an influence which makes perfect sense when/if you get around to watching Something In The Air. It’s almost like the Gilles character was plucked from the background of The Devil Probably and placed in Assayas' film with his long shaggy hair and borderline monotone/emotionless delivery. The beauty of Something In The Air beyond the political & coming of age stuff is that it helped me realize how influential of a film The Devil Probably is. I think it’s almost on the same level as The 400 Blows or Breathless. Due to its influence on two of my personal favorite films (Taxi Driver & Stranger Than Paradise) I've been a bit fixated on Bresson's Picketpocket or even L'Argent (that film also influenced stuff I love like Henry Fool & Shadows In Paradise). But The Devil Probably's influence in French cinema just hit me all at once recently. Look at some of the recent entries on Pinnland Empire (along with older stuff like 5 Questions with Bertrand Bonello & The Cinema Of Michael Haneke). So many things branch off of it. Both Claire Denis (sorry, don’t care if you're sick reading that name on here) & Humbert Balsan (the unofficial subject of The Father Of My Children) both had background roles in the film when they were young and up & coming in the movie business. Bertrand Bonello had the actors in The Pornographer study The Devil Probably (and you can still see its influence on Bonello's later work like The House Of Tolerance & Tiresia) and its influence on Haneke's earlier films goes without saying.

The Devil Probably (Bresson)

I guess I've learned now to give Assayas' films time resonate and grow on me before judging them. I genuinely have the urge to see Something In The Air again whereas in Toronto I was a bit indifferent. If you enjoyed his recent work then chances are you'll enjoy this. With Something In The Air Olivier Assayas uses the political elements from Carlos along with the "lighter" qualities of Summer Hours. Even though Carlos came first, Something In The Air feels connected to it (I imagine Gilles in his mid-twenties following Carlos The Jackal on the news). Globalization has been a common theme in Assayas' work since Demonlover. He makes these multinational/multilingual casts and his recent films are set in multiple countries (Paris, London & Rome)

For those of you not too familiar with all the films I've mentioned, imagine an altered French version of Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous (I usually make my own awesome movie comparisons but I gotta give credit to John Cribbs, the other half of the pink smoke, for the Almost Famous Comparison).