BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOR

Blue Is The Warmest Color is a great film (it'll probably end up in my top 10 at the end of the year). But like anything directed Abdellatif Kechiche, its tough to sit through at times and takes some commitment. Its three hours long (and the time doesn't breeze by), it's filled with a lot of scenes that some may consider to be banal and the infamous sex scenes seem to overshadow the rest of the story (that's all anyone has to talk about with this whether they liked it or not). When you take a movie that's three hours long, 15 minutes worth of sex scenes really isn't that big of a deal. This film has so much more to offer than that. Its one of the most raw relationship/coming of age dramas in recent years yet all some people have to talk about is a sex scene that pales in comparison to what everyone has probably already seen on porn sites. The only worthy topic of discussion regarding the sex in Blue Is The Warmest Color is that these are in fact pretty graphic sex scenes involving two young women directed by an older straight man. People, especially feminists (who have been quite critical of this film), have a right to raise an eyebrow at this monetarily as long as they're willing to keep an open mind and give it a chance. What could a straight man possibly know about love making between two lesbians? Straight male directors who've explored gay women on film in the past haven't exactly paved a way for Kechiche. In Chasing Amy we had a film about a gay woman who falls for a straight man. In She Hate Me, not only does our straight male character turn lesbians "momentarily straight" due to the size of his dick, but he gets two (lesbian) women at the end of the movie (seriously, why did they have to have sex with him? They couldn't get his sperm any other way?).

A science fiction movie? I don't know. I think I have made one already. Chasing Amy. Because you go ask any lesbian - that'll never happen - Kevin Smith

There's something very "masculine" about the sex in Blue Is The Warmest Color. I definitely wouldn't call it pornographic but there's something questionable about it at first. The two main characters are "fucking" in the film more than they're making love or having sex. Are these sex scenes genuine & raw or is this just some male lesbian fantasy?
But Abdellatif Kechiche is far too mature to suddenly start exploring sex like an immature little boy. This isn't even his most "shocking" or unapologetic look at sex & sexuality. Has anyone seen Black Venus (2010)? That film is way more graphic in my opinion.

If you actually pay attention to Blue Is the Warmest Color you'll see that Abdellatif Kechiche takes his time developing the relationship between our two main characters; "Adele" (Adele Exarchopoulos) & "Emma" (Lea Seydoux). They don't just jump right in to fucking each other. Kechiche crafts numerous scenes of them getting to know one another, sharing personal stories, finding unique common interests and becoming friends first. The scene when Adele & Emma first walk past each is cliche but still my favorite moment in the film. All of this is what makes Blue Is The Warmest Color genuine.

This film is also genuine because it stays true to the title & art of the graphic novel (there were some changes made to the actual story tho). Abdellatif doesn't do a shot for shot copy like Robert Rodriguez tried to do with Sin City, but he still incorporates the color blue in the same slick yet obvious fashion as the graphic novel...

Based on the French graphic novel; "Blue Angel", Blue Is The Warmest Color is the story of Adele - a high school senior who falls in love in with Emma - a slightly older art student. Emma is openly gay while Adele keeps her attraction to women quiet at first but eventually comes out (although it's made unclear if her family ever finds out). It's difficult to tell at certain points but the film spans several years and as time progresses we watch our two main characters mature, form a real relationship and ultimately start to grow apart. This movie really didn't have to be three hours long but at the same time it kinda did (I don't think Kechiche has ever made anything under 2-1/2 hours). Adele's growth throughout the story is key and you really can't convey her kind of transformation in a 90 minute movie. Three hours is the perfect length for a coming of age tale because you can take your time and not rush things. As you watch Blue Is the Warmest Color you may think a lot of the scenes seem pointless at first but by the end of the film you'll realize that those pointless scenes are just as important as the explosive & emotionally heavy scenes because we're getting to know Adele & Emma intimately. This gave me an even greater appreciation for recent French coming of age films like Goodbye My First Love, Something In The Air and even A Kid With A Bike (a movie we'll be dissecting in 2014). I'd like to see more filmmakers take their time in developing young characters.

Outside of his signature documentary-style look, Blue Is The Warmest Color is quite different from everything else Abdellatif Kechiche has done (all of his films prior to this focused almost exclusively on Africans in France). But this isn't his first foray in to young love or coming of age. His sophomore feature; Game Of Love And Chance, was a relationship drama centered on a group of young teens. But it is his most intense & in depth film on both subjects. He takes his young characters very seriously in Game Of Love And Chance but he really dissects Adele & Emma and we get to see their lives outside of the relationship (Adele is studying to become an elementary school teacher while Emma is trying to make a living as an artist).

What makes this one of the more progressive films in recent years is that it's more of a love story than it is a gay rights issue movie. Yes there's a moment where Adele is confronted about her sexuality and there's a scene where our two main characters march in a gay pride parade but that's it. Homosexuality isn't really the "issue" in the film. Its about a relationship between two people who happen to be of the same sex (and as you watch the story unfold, Adele appears to be more bisexual than gay). Rainer Werner Fassbinder & Gus Van Sant were making films similar to this decades ago but for whatever reason it didn't really catch on. Fox & His Friends (Fassbinder) & Mala Noche (Van Sant) featured main characters who just so happened to be gay but didn't face any real discrimination or persecution. Gay civil rights will continue to be a social issue but it's nice to see a same sex love story that focuses more on the relationship internally and less on the struggles they face due to the outside world. Instead of battling homophobes for three hours we get a real relationship film. Adele struggles with her insecurities (mostly due to her inexperience & young age) and Emma is forced to deal with Adele's betrayal later on in the story.

The success of Blue Is The Warmest Color must feel bitter-sweet for Abdellatif Kechiche. There's been some internal post-production beef between Kechiche, co-stars; Adele Exarchopoulos & Lea Seydoux and some of the crew. Additionally, the author of the graphic novel doesn't support the film (but that almost always happens in the case of a graphic novel being turned in to a film, so whatever). Outside of The Secret Of The Grain, Kechiche's work has generally been overlooked by non-French audiences. Personally, I think Black Venus, his most hated work, is his best film. He finally makes something that's considered a universal success (he won the Palme D'or at this years' Cannes film festival) and everything is tainted with behind the scenes nonsense. 

Abdellatif's films aren't the most mainstream when compared to other filmmakers based out of France so I imagine Blue Is the Warmest Color will be an introduction to his cinema for a lot of non-french movie-goers and I'm perfectly fine with that (although his third film, The Secret Of The Grain, is easier to come by now that it's part of the criterion collection). It's nice to see an underrated filmmaker that I've been a fan of for so long finally get the recognition they deserve without having to compromise their style. 

This is another one of the very few films from this year that's managed to stay with me since I saw it along with Stories We Tell, 12 Years A Slave & Hors Satan so that counts for something...

INSIDE THE PHOENIX

Hey guys, check out my third appearance on Inside The Phoenix in which we discuss this years' New York Film Festival, the depiction of race in modern film, my disgust of Django Unchained and much more...

CAMILLE CLAUDEL, 1915

Minutes in to Camille Claudel, 1915 - Bruno Dumont's new film about the famous French sculptor's battle with depression & mental illness, we're made to feel uncomfortable & uneasy. The entire film takes place inside of an old asylum and instead of using trained actors to play the residence of the asylum (with the obvious exception of Juliette Binoche & Jean-Luc Vincent) Dumont uses actors with real physical or developmental disabilities. Just about every Bruno Dumont film is made up of non-professional actors but this was a little different. Camille Claudel was almost ruined by the audience I saw it with because they only knew how to express their discomfort towards the scenes that highlight the disabled actors by laughing. I'm still not quite sure what the audience was laughing at. So Bruno Dumont used a lot of continuous polarizing/hypnotic shots that lingered on the faces of the disabled co-stars. And? What exactly was so funny? I immediately felt that same discomfort from when I saw Manderlay in an audience full of laughter (again...not quite sure what was so hilarious with that movie either). Not that Manderlay is worthy of that much defense but still...I'm baffled why so many audience members were laughing at a film rooted in slavery. Bruno Dumont is a provocative (sometimes pretentious) filmmaker but I refuse to believe that part of his goal in making Camille Claudel, 1915 was to have us laugh at disabled people. I can’t believe that. What I can believe is that Dumont was trying to challenge audiences in some way but he took it a little too far without meaning to. Critics felt Bruno Dumont was being exploitative. I understand the need for authenticity in film (especially in a film that's based on a true story). Why hire actors who end up giving a poor & insulting performance as a person with physical or developmental disabilities? Remember how enraged you felt watching Adrien Brody in The Village or Cuba Gooding Jr. in Radio? What's wrong with using an actor whose physically or developmentally disabled? Its been done before by filmmakers like; John Cassavetes (A Child Is Waiting), Harmony Korine (Gummo) & Crispin Glover (What Is It?) yet every time it happens, the subject of exploitation comes up (which is understandable in some cases).

Like any Bruno Dumont film, I'm conflicted. I enjoyed Camille Claudel, 1915 very very much but unfortunately I see where are a lot of critics are coming from when they accuse him of being exploitative. I don't agree with that at all but I kinda understand how someone could feel that way.
This film actually has me rethinking the early work of Harmony Korine now. I think part of the reason some audiences & critics are reacting the way they are to those scenes in Camille Claudel that highlight the cast members with disabilities is because of previous works like Gummo, Julien Donkey-Boy and other various Korine shorts that some people may or may not have seen (I've been told he has a rare short where it's just him videotaping a girl with downs syndrome in a pool). Korine has since moved on from his style of the 90's. Dare I say he's matured as a filmmaker? But he may have burned a bridge for other filmmakers who may want to explore the subject of mental illness and other disabilities in art films. Nowadays, people cant take that subject matter straight on in the way Dumont presents it. There has to be some kind of artsy or ironic statement behind the presence of a disabled person in an art film.

In the case of using real disabled actors, Camille Claudel, 1915 falls somewhere in between the combination of audiences not being mature enough to deal with it and a director going too far by trying to fight a crusade - the misrepresentation of a group of people who are often overlooked. This film does take place in the early 1900's when the handling of folks with disabilities was pretty archaic & dated (I was reminded of Allan King's Warrendale during certain points). Maybe part of what Dumont was trying to do was shed light on how backwards the health system was in the early 1900's but he just took it a little too far.

Michael Pitt as "Blake" in Gus Van Sant's Last Days (L) / Kurt Cobain (R)

If I had to compare Camille Claudel, 1915 to a particular film in order to give you an idea of what it's like, I guess it's similar to Gus Van Sant's Last Days (I know it's not about Kurt Cobain, but it is about Kurt Cobain). Both films are slow, hypnotic, nature-heavy looks at depressed artists, with only a few brief scenes that highlight the art they create. Instead, the films focus more on the depression that's eating away at these artists. Last Days has a couple of scenes where Blake/Cobain retreats to his music studio to play something but for the most part we get scenes of our depressed main character roaming through the woods or wandering aimlessly through his mansion mumbling to himself. In Dumont's film, there's a few brief moments where Camille/Binoche talks about how she misses her art studio. There's even a scene where she picks up a piece of mud off the ground and tries to sculpt something out of it but eventually gives up (the way in which Camille Claudel breaks down in that scene and throws the mud away kinda reminded me of how Blake/Cobain intentionally brakes the strings off his guitar in the final music scene in Last Days). Camille Claudel, 1915 is a pretty realistic look at depression, how crippling it can be and how it can be triggered from the most unexpected things. Usually in a movie when someone goes in to a depressed mood, they see something obvious that reminds them of a dead relative or some past failure in life. True, these are legitimate reasons for someone to fall in to a depression but sometimes cinema would have you believe those are the only worthy reasons to be depressed. In one scene, Camille/Binoche watches a play rehearsal and as the scene goes on, she slowly breaks down and falls in to a depression. One minute she's smiling and the next minute she's having a crying fit. We later learn that the dialogue in the scene of the play that she was watching triggered memories of a failed relationship she once had. But we don't know that right away. Bruno Dumont wanted to show that depression can be triggered from the most unexpected places.

This is a very drab & depressing film from the subject matter right down to the atmosphere...

I don't know if I'm capable of writing about a modern French film (especially one by Bruno Dumont) without mentioning Robert Bresson's obvious influence. I guess it’s a testament to the fact that he's one of the greatest filmmakers to ever live. It goes without saying that most filmmakers are influenced by each other but in the case of modern European filmmakers like; Bertrand Bonello, Eugene Green, Miguel Gomes, Manuel De Oliviero and Bruno Dumont, the Bresson influence is so strong that you have to mention it. The dry tone and cinematography of Camille Claudel reminded me of a slightly more modern Diary Of Country Priest (with a touch of Maurice Pialat's Under The Sun Of Satan). The nuns who work at the asylum where Camille stays come right out of a Bresson film. 

Performance-wise, there isn’t much Bresson to be found this time around. Because of Dumont's use of non-professional actors, the performances in his films are usually dry, rough and scaled back. There's always the occasional outburst but for the most part, the characters in his films are monotone. But in Camille Claudel there's a lot of emotion in the performances of the actors. Binoche is great as is Jean-Luc Vincent who plays her brother; Paul Claudel. A separate film could have been made about Paul Claudel. There's a section in the film that focuses only on him and we don’t see Camille/Binoche for a good 10-15 minutes. We learn that Paul is not only dangerously religious but he's just as unstable as his sister (he just knows how to hide his madness better). It's good that Bruno Dumont chose to use trained actors for the two main roles this time. He's usually able to get great performances out of people who have never acted in their life before (both lead actors in L'Humanite won best actor & actress at Cannes in 1999 and had no previous acting experience) but I'm pretty sure Dumont knew that an untrained person couldn’t handle the kind of emotions that were required to play Claudel. He still incorporates non-professional actors but only as supporting & background players. 

The last time Bruno Dumont used professional actors was a decade ago in Twenty-nine Palms which was indeed a train-wreck (but the kind of train wreck that should still be seen at least once or twice in your life). But Camille Claudel is nothing like Twenty-nine Palms. Bruno Dumont continues his fascination with isolation, loneliness, religion & characters giving their life to god. The one thing that makes Camille Claudel, 1915 stand out from the other films in his catalogue is that Dumont doesn't explore sex and/or violence this time.
It may take more than one viewing for this film's subtle brilliance to sink in. If you have that kind of patience (the movie is only 97 minutes) then I say give Camille Claudel, 1915 a chance (bear in mind that it's not only very depressing but pretty slow). If you aren't familiar with Bruno Dumont's work, I wouldn't recommend this as an introduction.

Jean- Luc Vincent in a creepily intense performance as Paul Claudel (L) / Camille Claudel Sculpting of Paul Claudel, 1905 (R)

In his own unique way, Bruno Dumont crafts his own Dancer In The Dark-style ending with Camille Claudel. For a moment he gives the audience a glimpse of hope then he quickly takes that it away and the film just ends. Its subtly powerful and a bit of a punch in the gut. Camille Claudel’s history is no secret. All you have to do is google her. Her time spent battling depression & mental illness is documented just as much as her time as a sculptor. But she also isn’t the most world renowned artist either so there’s a chance that audiences (especially American audiences) don’t know how the rest of her life played out (like me) which makes the ending that much more depressing because I had no clue she lived out the rest of her life in asylum.
You can never just simply like a Bruno Dumont film (refer to my write-ups on L'Humanite & Hors Satan). There's always a struggle or some frustration. I'm a fan of his but there's a few films of his that even I don't like (Flanders & Hadewijch). But that's what I love about him. I'm becoming bored with (new) cinema more & more these days. Slightly pretentious or not, Dumont's work is still challenging and often leaves me intrigued, pleasantly confused & wanting to talk. Carlos Reygadas & Claire Denis are the only other filmmakers to consistently get those types of reactions out of me (maybe Apichatpong Weerasethakul but that's it). The only other film this year I found to be as thought provoking as Camille Claudel, 1915 was Hors Satan (also directed by Dumont, but not released in the U.S. until  this year) which makes Bruno Dumont the most intriguing and most frustrating filmmaker of 2013 in my opinion.

ROOM 237 (THE PINK SMOKE)

Hey guys. When you have a moment, head over to The Pink Smoke to read our latest article on Room 237...

12 YEARS A SLAVE

After Hunger & Shame, Steve McQueen became one of my new favorite filmmakers. And I'd be lying if I said a very small part of that had nothing to do with him being black. I don't care, I admit that. But that's something very minor. Steve McQueen could be of any ethnicity and I'd still love his films as long as they continue to come out the way they do (I actually thought he was an Irish guy before I saw a picture of him given his last name and the subject matter of his first film; Hunger - the story of an IRA hunger strike). And I feel I'm allowed that small bit of racial fanboyishness given how much I dismiss the large majority of modern black films & filmmakers these days. But 12 Years A Slave is hardly a "black film". It's an American film. Slavery is a piece of American history (I don't care if the director, along with half the cast, is based out of the UK).
My reaction to most recent films concerning black people is somewhere between a yawn and cynicism that borders on mean spiritedness. Thankfully I've come across so many other people who feel the same way as me so I don't feel so bad. You'd think I'd want nothing to do with a film about slavery because it's such a typical subject. But when you stop and think for a second - there really hasn't been a recent film, good or bad, on the subject of slavery to come out until late last year (please don’t say Manderlay or Confederate States Of America to counter that). I know at first glance a movie about slavery doesn’t exactly sound “new” or progressive but what sets 12 Years A Slave apart from something like Glory or Manderlay is that it’s a personal story. 12 Years A Slave certainly sheds light on slavery as a whole but for the most part it doesn’t try to take on the whole subject in 133 minutes. That’s impossible. This is only about one man which makes McQueen’s take on the subject of slavery slightly different. True, Roots, probably the most iconic representation of Slavery on the small screen, had a central character (“Kunta Kinte”) but the series featured tons of characters that branched off of him and got their own story. McQueen only focuses on Solomon Northup. As long as it's done right, I hope there's more films about slavery made as it can't all be dealt with (and still hasn't been) in one or two movies. It's the recent high profile stories of servitude (The Help & The Butler), the first black person to do something among a sea of evil white people (42 & Red Tails) or the microcosm of the ghetto (Precious) that I feel we've had enough of.

But lemme not get sidetracked. We're supposed to be talking about 12 Years A Slave, right?

In the film, based on the book of the same, Chewital Ejiofor plays "Solomon Northup" - A free black man living in upstate New York whose drugged and eventually kidnapped in to slavery leaving behind his wife & family. 

There seems to be a sudden interest in slavery in cinema all of a sudden. The Rza had a nice little connection/subplot about slavery in The Man With The Iron Fists, I've been told the beginning of The Butler takes place on a plantation, Steven Spielberg recently gave us Lincoln and Quentin Tarantino made Django Unchained which 12 Years A Slave keeps getting compared too. While Django Unchained is a well made movie (minus the two endings and the unnecessary wordiness at times) it's still entertainment. It's cool, fun & action-packed (nothing I associate slavery with, but that's just me). 12 Years A Slave is obviously a movie but it's so far from "entertainment" it's not even funny. Like Abdellatif Kechiche's Black Venus (another recent film with a loose connection to slavery), 12 Years A Slave is great but it's filled with scenes that you just want to end and/or go away because they're so long and tough to sit through. Early on in 12 Years A Slave when Solomon Northup (Chewital Ejiofor) is captured and sold in to slavery, he’s beaten repeatedly with a paddle until it breaks. ...But the scene isn't over (the camera doesn't even cut). The man beating Northrup gets a whip and continues to beat him until you find yourself going; "ENOUGH! OK!" Later on in the film one of the slave owners (played amazingly by Michael Fassbender) has his way with one of the female slaves (once again the scene also has no cuts) and it just becomes beyond uncomfortable and I found myself squirming in my seat. Yes, the reason behind those scenes are to make us feel uncomfortable and horrified (and it certainly succeeded in doing that) but still - that doesn't sound like entertainment, does it?

I remember my anticipation for 12 Years A Slave being indescribable. "This will be Steve McQueen's masterwork" I thought. Then I saw the trailer earlier in the year and I thought "...oh. this isn't exactly what I had in mind." It looked "Hollywood" (sorry to sound like the cliche movie snob). Nowhere in the trailer did I see signs of McQueen's modern style that I love so much. But I quickly remembered that this isn't a modern story so a modern style of filmmaking wasn’t needed. To my surprise, the film is still filled with tons of unconventional shots and strange moments that you wouldn't find in an average historical film/period piece. 12 Years A Slave opens bluntly & abruptly without any grand introduction. And throughout the film theres a few eerie wordless moments of our protagonist (portrayed masterfully by Ejiofor) looking off in to space or intensely zoning out without saying anything. There's also tons of darkly lit shots with minimal movement from the actors in frame which seemed cool & unconventional too (McQueen definitely drew from his photography background for this). So although I didn't get everything I personally wanted in terms of style, McQueen still threw in little things here & there to satisfy. My "favorite" part of the film is the 10-15 minute period from the moment when Solomon Northrup is first loaded on to the slave ship until he reaches his first plantation. It's easily the most (purposely) disorienting experience you'll find in any movie this year outside of Leviathan & Gravity which is a testament to McQueen's directing and the film's editing. Steve McQueen's direction in 12 Years A Slave made me we think of what other modern directors would do with source material set in the 18th or 19th century. Now that Michael Mann has found his groove with new technology & digital filmmaking I'd like him to revisit the time period of The Last Of The Mohicans (not necessarily the same story) to see what that world would look like now. What would a Lodge Kerrigan period drama look like or a Gaspar Noe film set in the 1800's be?

As most of you know, 12 Years A Slave features an all-star cast but in reality a lot of the big names in the film really only have "extended cameos" which I found to be a little distracting at times (especially in the case of Brad Pitt & Michael K Williams). We get this introduction of a particular character played by a familiar face and then minutes later we never see them again. That was just odd to me. But at the same time, this is a sad, dark & horrific film. It may not feature the cinema verite style of a John Cassavetes film but its still real enough (it was real enough that I found myself hating Paul Dano & Michael Fassbender outside of the evil characters they played in the film). Maybe we needed the occasional extended cameo from Paul Giamatti or Brad Pitt to make us all feel safe and to remind us that 12 Years A Slave is just a movie. 

I’m apprehensive to give ANY criticism of 12 Years A Slave. Much like Gravity, people are treating it like it’s beyond criticism but there are a few things that could have been done a little better. I don’t mean to harp on the bad stuff so much because at the end of the day 12 Years A Slave is pretty exceptional. But I really found Brad Pitt’s presence to be strange. It’s like he was just playing himself. *SPOILER* And Brad Pitt’s character really can’t be distracting or take you out of the story at all because he’s a crucial element in Solomon’s freedom *SPOILER END* I also found the score to be a little unnecessary in some parts. Its good overall but a lot of the scenes spoke for themselves without the music and I already knew what to feel without the added presence of heavy stringed instruments. Some scenes would have been absolutely incredible had there been no music because everything would have felt even colder & darker.

Outside of Chewital Ejiofor & Michael Fassbender, the supporting cast of Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch and newcomer; Lupita Nyong’o are also great (Lupita Nyong’o being the standout, delivering a heartbreaking performance that’s bound to make you tear up). What's kinda cool is that 12 Years A Slave is somewhat of an amalgam of modern black film in that it features actors & actresses like Michael K. Williams & Alfree Woodward (both very briefly) as well as Quvenzhane Wallis & Dwight Henry (Beats Of The Southern Wild) and Adepero Oduye (Pariah).
This is an American film about slavery & racism so naturally there’s plenty of typical evil white characters (Michael Fassbender takes it to another level) but unlike the prototypical characters found in something like 42 (a movie I wish I never watched, but I saw it on a plane so it’s almost like it never happened) McQueen crafts more complicated characters, specifically the slave owner William Ford - played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Ford is a Baptist preacher, he’s “kind” to Solomon and there’s even one scene where he tries to buy an entire family as to not separate them from each other. Early on when his character was introduced I thought to myself; “oh no, one of these characters?” (the racist white person who eventually changes his evil ways and we’re supposed to feel good about it or the white character whose racist but only under the circumstances. It's not really his fault). But by the time his character is out of the story, it’s made clear that no matter how “nice” he may be to the slaves, he’s still businessman and a slave owner first.
And speaking of 42 (if I can just divert for a moment) cinema really has yet to the scratch the surface of the psychological pressure & depression that comes along with being the first black person to do something. Specifically the post-stress. There are plenty of films like 42, but the really sad story behind Jackie Robinson’s life is the fact that he died at the age of 53. No professional athlete should die that young. There have been four movies made about Jackie Robinson’s years in major league baseball and they're all pretty much the same. Haven’t we had enough? Will someone make a film about his life after baseball? That’d be the real unique story...

It's not saying much, but 12 Years A Slave is definitely one of the best films of the year (this year has been fairly weak) even with my little criticisms. But if it means anything I'd probably be saying the same thing had it been released in 2010, 2011 or 2012. This has been stuck in my head since I've seen it and hardly any movie has been able to do that this year which makes it a success in my book.

ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE (THE PINK SMOKE)

When you have a moment, head on over to The Pink Smoke to read my review on Jim Jarmusch's latest; Only Lovers Left Alive, which is part of the seasonal themed series; Auteur Horror - When Renowned Filmmakers Turn To Horror.

Happy Halloween...

THE STRAIGHT STORY: NEBRASKA (Alexander Payne's Nebraska @ NYFF)

I don't think I’ve ever anticipated an Alexander Payne movie in my life. His stuff just really isn't my thing. He makes these slightly edgy, yet quirky, R-rated dramedies for a generation of people I don't really relate too. He's got that Coen brothers pass where he can kinda make any movie he wants and film society critics, young baby boomers & old gen x-ers will blindly praise it. Maybe when I'm in my mid-40's I'll get it, but for now - meh. The ultimate reason that I decided to see Nebraska is because I didn’t want to only see two movies at this years' New York Film Festival (Bastards & Only Lovers Left Alive) having missed a bunch of movies due to not being able to make Toronto this year.

Election and Laura Dern's performance in Citizen Ruth are the only things that Payne is associated with that I’ve ever really liked. I thought Sideways was overrated long before it was cool to think that, The Descendents was "ok" and I haven't seen About Schmidt since it first came out over a decade ago. But I’ve always had respect for Alexander Payne as a person thanks to his participation in the Z Channel documentary. It was in that film that I came to learn he was a true cinephile. It’s becoming rare these days to find cinephile filmmakers who aren't annoying & obnoxious like Quentin Tarantino or even Nicolas Winding Refn (someone I actually have love for). Its beyond frustrating to be at a Q&A with a director who clearly knows very little about the artform that they participate in. I understand how busy things must get once you become a filmmaker, leaving you with little personal time to catch up on movies, but didn't you at least watch a lot of movies BEFORE you started started making them? There's still a rare breed of filmmaker out there that knows more about film than Quentin Tarantino & Nicolas Winding Refn combined but you'd never know that (unless you read about them, actually listen to a director's commentary on a DVD or watch a film like Z Channel) because people like Richard Linklater, Steven Soderbergh, Alexander Payne, Jim Jarmusch and a few others don’t spend all their time making movie collages (as opposed to actual movies) to show off how much cinema knowledge they posses.

What sparked my interest in Nebraska was hearing about Bruce Dern's award winning performance at this years' Cannes film festival. Cannes always shows love to underrated performances, usually given by American actors, that don’t ever get recognition from the more popular award shows like the Oscars or Golden Globes. There's been a fairly eclectic mix of American award winners at Cannes over the years - Forest Whitaker (Bird), James Spader (Sex, Lies & Videotape), Samuel L. Jackson (Jungle Fever), Sean Penn (She's So Lovely), Benecio Del Toro (Che), Tommy Lee Jones (The Three Burials Of Melqiadas Estrada), etc. Now that I've actually seen Nebraska I can safely say that Dern deserves all the praise he gets along with co-star; June Squibb (she honestly steals the show in my opinion).
After doing a little more research I came to find out that not only is Payne's latest film shot beautifully in black & white but it also co-stars the always underrated Stacey Keach, Bob Odenkirk AND Will Forte, who is probably the funniest human being on the planet right now and he just so happened to have given one of the most slept-on comedic performances of 2012 in Tim & Eric's Billion Dollar Movie (just a heads up - Forte's character in Nebraska is a fairly straight forward/straight-laced guy which is pretty out of character for him). Actually, I was subconsciously reminded of Tim & Eric through the coarse of the film as both Odenkirk & Forte are regulars on that show.
I'm also a sucker for a good road movie. And a black & white road movie at that?! Forget about it. Has there ever actually been a "bad" modern black & white road movie? Nebraska falls in line with other great, eerie, modern road trip films like; Stranger Than Paradise, Kings Of The Road, Juha, Paper Moon, Alice In The Cities, etc.

Clockwise from Top Left: Alice In The Cities (Wim Wenders), Paper Moon (Peter Bogdonavich), Kings Of The Road (Wenders), Stranger Than Paradise (Jim Jarmusch)

Nebraska has a lot of good stuff going for it - road movie, good cast, a subconscious connection to one of my all-time favorite tv shows, beautiful cinematography, etc. The end result is a solid film that lies somewhere in the upper tier of Payne's filmography - In my opinion it's better than Sideways & The Descendents but not as good as Election or Citizen Ruth (remember, I think Payne's recent work is a bit overrated so take my ranking of Nebraska with a grain of salt). The performances are great and the vibe is comically eerie. Some scenes in the film felt like what America would look like from Bela Tarr's perspective, shot with the same camera that was used to make Werkmeister Harmonies.

It's evident that Payne set out to make a smaller, more personal film this time around by casting Bruce Dern in a film set in Nebraska (Payne's home state) which couldn't be any more opposite than his previous film which was set in Hawaii, starring George Clooney. So no matter where this may "rank", Nebraska is probably his most personal & mature work to date...

In Nebraska, Bruce Dern stars as "Woody Grant" - a grumpy retired old man, probably in the very early stages of dementia or alzheimer's, who suddenly receives a letter in the mail telling him he's won a million dollars (clearly this is a scam but Woody is too old to understand). In order to claim this so-called prize money he has to travel to the headquarters in Lincoln, Nebraska from his home in Montana. After multiple attempts to get there on his own (like Richard Farnsworth in The Straight Story, Woody can't drive), his son; "David" (Will Forte) offers to drive him. Part of me questioned David's motivation at first - If your aging father, whose clearly not all there, suddenly told you he won a million dollars in the mail would you seriously go along with it to the extent that David did by actually driving him from Montana to Nebraska just to entertain him? Perhaps David wanted to spend time with his father. Pretty early on in the film we know there's no damn prize money but we're just so happy to see our lonely old anti-hero, who might remind us all of a dad, grandfather or uncle, motivated to not just get up off the couch but to take a trip somewhere before its too late.

Or maybe like Michael Haneke did with the videotapes in Cache, perhaps its Alexander Payne himself who sent Woody the letter telling him he won a million dollars.

Once word gets out that Woody is a "millionaire", old friends & family members suddenly come out of the woodworks to reclaim money that they supposedly loaned him years ago.

Clockwise from top left: Paris Texas (Wenders), The Straight Story (David Lynch), Broken Flowers (Jarmusch), About Schmidt (Payne)

Nebraska has tons of humor but there's also quite a few moments of deep reflection and plenty of touching moments. This almost felt like Payne was taking another stab at making About Schmidt with a few variations. Both movies deal with retirement, loneliness, reflecting back on life in old age, etc. And like Nebraska, About Schmidt is also a road movie about a slightly unpleasant, although likable, anti-hero. 

What I liked most about Nebraska is that this was the first time Alexander Payne REALLY let his inner-movie nerd out by referencing and paying homage to so many movies (on purpose and by accident) while still making a film that's all his own. Bruce Dern's performance in Nebraska carried the spirit of quite a few past performances given by aging, iconic American actors on a road trip through Anywhere USA: Jack Nicholson (About Schmidt), Harry Dean Stanton (Paris Texas), Bill Murray (Broken Flowers) and of course Richard Farnsworth (The Straight Story). And likewise, June Squibb's performance in the film is reminiscent of Jim Jarmusch's aunt in Stranger Than Paradise or the grandmother in Raising Victor Vargas.

A movie snob like myself always seems to be drawn to films outside of America but Nebraska fills me with a little bit of pride (mixed with a little bit of embarrassment & cynicism) about my homeland. Nebraska has it's share of cliches & predictable moments but it was still an enjoyable film...

THE BASTARDS SLEEP WELL (Claire Denis' Bastards @ NYFF)

Its no mystery that PINNLAND EMPIRE is the kindest place on the web for all things Claire Denis-related. Part of me wishes that her latest film was bad so you all wouldn't think I was just blindly praising her work but Bastards was really good in my opinion. Denis' latest film is like one of those creepy dreams that stays with you for the entire day leaving you feeling slightly disoriented. It's not exactly a nightmare but nothing you wake up smiling about. And like any dream, there is no traditional beginning or end. We're just thrown right in to the story and we're not exactly sure how we got there.

Bastards is a neo-noir revenge story/family drama about a naval captain; "Marco" (Vincent Lindon) who returns home to help his sister; "Sandra" (Julie Bataille) whose fallen on some incredibly hard times. Sandra's husband (who was once Marco's friend) has just committed suicide and her daughter, Marco's niece, was brutally raped and the same man; "Edouard Laporte" (Michel Subor), is possibly responsible for both tragic events.
Although Claire Denis denied that Bastards has any underlying messages about capitalism or corporate greed, Edouard Laporte is a powerful businessman who triggers the suicide of a smaller/struggling businessman (Sandra's husband). One can't help but still think that on some level this film applies to issues like "The 99% vs. The 1%" or the unfair distribution and/or misuse of power in different parts of the world. These aren't the typical issues that Denis focuses on so that could just be me reaching.

This is another "family affair" with Denis regulars; Gregoire Colin, Michel Subor, Alex Descas, Florence Loire Caille, Agnes Goddard, Jean-Pol Fargeau & The Tindersticks all appearing in front of or behind the camera in some fashion. This also marks the second collaboration between Vincent Lindon & Denis since Friday Night (2002). 

There's even "extended family" in Bastards with the presence of Lola Creton whose relationship with Olivier Assayas, Denis' friend, probably had something to do with her being cast in this (Creton co-starred in Assayas' last film; Something In The Air and she also starred in Goodbye My First Love which was directed by Assayas' girlfriend Mia Hansen-Love). And I don't mean to downplay Creton's natural acting ability or screen presence by saying she was only cast due to some kind of "cinematic nepotism". It's the same thing with other actors. Bastards co-star; Alex Descas, who is Claire Denis' most frequent collaborator, is one of my favorite actors but I'm sure his relationship with Olivier Assayas is an extension of his relationship with Denis (Descas has co-starred in three of Assayas' films). Creton's performance is both haunting & heartbreaking at the same time...

The French love William Faulkner. And its no mystery that Claire Denis, who is obviously French, is heavily influenced by books & literature. Some of her best work is adapted from or inspired by books - Beau Travail (1999) is a loose adaptation of Billy Buddy and both; Friday Night (2002) & The Intruder (2004) are adapted from books/essays, so it doesn't come as too much of a surprise that elements of Bastards draws heavily from Faulkner's writing (specifically Sanctuary). In Bastards, one of the characters is violated sexually with a piece of corn and eventually tries to go back to the very same person who abused her. For those that aren't familiar with Faulkner's Sanctuary, one of the most alarming scenarios in the story involves one of the characters (Temple) getting raped & violated with a piece of corn which opens up her dark side and pulls her in to a world of sexual abuse & prostitution. Even the basic plot of Bastards; the lone male character going home to be with his sister who eventually gets caught up in a series of tragic events, is a play on Sanctuary. 

Based on this review so far one might think Claire Denis has gone back to that dark side we saw in films like I Can't Sleep (1994) and Trouble Everyday (2001). To a certain degree that's true. Bastards, which couldn't have a more appropriate title as almost every male character in the film is very much a bastard, has some of the same frightening sexual aggression found in Trouble Everyday along with the same dark/moody atmosphere (thanks in part to The Tindersticks' score). But Bastards also feels like a loose sequel to The Intruder with its somewhat dreamy/non-linear structure (it should be noted that both; Bastards & The Intruder were written by Jon-Pol Fargeau). 

As I've said on here before, its difficult to talk/write about one Denis film without mentioning two or three of her previous films in the process. Her filmography has this invisible continuous thread that ties all her work together. In Bastards, Michel Subor plays an evil businessman but he could very well be the same self centered, mildly unpleasant character that he played almost a decade ago in Denis' The Intruder (the same picture of Michel Subor as a young man that we see in Beau Travail is used again in Bastards). Vincent Lindon's quietly edgy character in Bastards could easily be the same mysterious guy he played years ago in Denis' Friday Night. Much like The Intruder, Bastards has a plot but its more about the feelings you get from the images & isolated scenes placed in front of you. I honestly feel like the plot isn't the most important element here. Denis kinda makes this clear in the way she structures the film - the story does intentionally jump out of order at times (although not in a chaotic way but rather in a more organic & seamless way), some of the dialogue between the characters is extremely familiar (at times it feels like we're thrown in to the middle of a conversation that we should already have the inside dirt on), the moody music is just as important to the film's atmosphere as the acting or cinematography (a completely separate write-up could be done on The Tindersticks' score as they've adopted a slightly new electronic/computerized sound this time around) and, in true Claire Denis fashion, a lot of important information in the film is conveyed through hints & implications rather than traditional straightforward dialogue (although quite a bit of important information is laid out for the audience pretty clearly in the film's 8mm-esque ending).

Faulkner's books & Denis' own previous works aren't the only influences found in Bastards. If you refer to the interview she gave here on PINNLAND EMPIRE earlier this year, Denis mentions Akira Kurosawa & Toshiro Mifune as an influence. Vincent Lindon's motivation for revenge is somewhat similar to Mifune's in Kurosawa's The Bad Sleep Well (seeking revenge on a corrupt businessman for the death of a family member). And apparently part of Bastards is based on a true story that Denis read about in the news involving a woman who was beaten, raped & left for dead on the side of the road by sex traffickers. In one scene Lola Creton is seen walking naked in the middle of the street at night with blood dripping between her legs which is very reminiscent of a scene in Elim Klimov's Come & See. Bastards is obviously not an autobiographical film but at the same time it feels like we're watching all the random thoughts and feelings that go on inside Claire Denis' head - newspaper articles, books, cinema, music, and unfinished ideas that still deserve to be shared with others. 

In my opinion, Bastards isn't as dark as some people were making it out to be but there are a few moments that may cause you to go; "oh shit." (honestly, if the implication of sodomy with a corn cob doesn't make you squirm in the least bit then something may be wrong with you).

If I had to quickly sum up the character of Marco I guess I'd call him an anti-hero. But if you wanted to go a little deeper I'd use the term, coined by Claire Denis collaborator Alice Houri; "Good Bastard". Yes, Marco is the protagonist of the story but he isn't the traditional good guy we unconditionally root for. His actions are sometimes questionable and his thoughts are dark. But if my brother-in law's suicide was triggered by the same person behind my niece's rape, I might go on a quest for revenge knowing the information that Marco knows. Marco is yet another imperfect character in a long line of Claire Denis characters that we either like or feel sorry for at first then eventually come to dislike or want no part of (like Richard Courcet in I Can't Sleep or Vincent Gallo in Trouble Everyday) or one of those characters we dislike at first but come to feel sorry for later on (like Alex Descas in No Fear No Die or Denis Lavant in Beau Travail). At the Q&A for Bastards Claire Denis compared Vincent Lindon's performance to James Caan in Thief but in my opinion I found Caan to be somewhat childish at times, bordering on being dumb & hot-headed in certain scenarios (when it came to criminal activity however, Caan was intelligent & badass). Marco/Lindon is a lot more methodical and cool-headed to be compared to Caan in Thief.
Michel Subor also gave a noteworthy performance as "the villain". His loyalty to Claire Denis is profound. He seems to only ever act in her movies these days. Subor has the same swagger as that of Takeshi Kitano in that he can play a good bad guy, a bad good guy or a bad bad guy (like in Bastards) with such ease. His ability to casually play such a quietly evil person in Bastards makes me want to see him collaborate with other European filmmakers like Michael Haneke, Catherine Breillat or even Gaspar Noe.

If you're a fan of Denis' darker side, the new french extremity, 8mm, or films that fall under that "Sketchbook Cinema" genre I've been writing about recently (Uncle Boonmee..., Post Tenebras Lux, etc) then this film is absolutely something you'll dig. If you're not a fan of moody non-linear cinema then maybe its best to stay away from Bastards and avoid yourself the frustration. This is some advice that critics failed to mention in their early reviews of the film after it played at Cannes in May. There's nothing more frustrating for me than reading a review of a Claire Denis film written by someone who clearly doesn't understand her work or is still expecting her to make another Beau Travail. Bastards got some early negative press because it was essentially reviewed against & compared to films it played alongside in this years' festival circuit like; Blue Is The Warmest Color & Twelve Years A Slave which couldn't be any more different from each other. If you're gonna put Bastards up against something at least compare it to the appropriate films (The Intruder, Trouble Everyday, Uncle Boonmee, etc).

THE ELEPHANT MAN: DAVID LYNCH'S TRANSITION FROM MIDNIGHT MADNESS TO MAINSTREAM SUCCESS

The Elephant Man is tough to place among the other movies in David Lynch's filmography because even though it’s really good, it doesn’t really feature his trademark quirky surreal/neo-noir style as prominently as his other work. Over the years there's been some odd choices in directors to make films outside of their comfort zone (most notably David Cronenberg's offer to direct Ferris Bueller's Day Off). This isn't the strangest example but at the time it was a bit strange for David Lynch to be making this. Before The Elephant Man went in to production, the higher-ups at Paramount must have been asking themselves what the hell they were doing putting out a biopic on John Merrick Directed by an experimental, up & coming director (Lynch) produced by (comedian) Mel Brooks. Say what you want about movie studios but this was actually a case of "mainstream cinema" taking a gamble on a young progressive director. You have to remember that in 1980 David Lynch wasn’t the Twin Peaks creating, pop culture oddity that we know now. At that point he was a new director responsible for a handful of experimental shorts and one feature-length film that was embraced more by the cultish midnight movie crowd. And Mel Brooks' career speaks for itself. Dramatic biopics weren't exactly his thing which is why he downplayed his involvement in the film until after it was complete.

I guess If you absolutely had to categorize David Lynch at that point in his career he'd be considered a horror director...? Obviously we aren’t talking about the traditional horror directors of the time like Carpenter or Hopper but Eraserhead (one of my favorite films) and The Grandmother (one of my favorite Lynch shorts) haunt my dreams more than Michael Meyers or Leatherface. I get the idea of hiring a “horror director” to do a movie like The Elephant Man as it involves startling scenes and extensive make-up that would transform someone in to an “oddity” but that’s a touchy subject because it poses the question: Is John Merrick a "oddity"? Of course he's not. To quote John Hurt in The Elephant Man: "He's a human being!” But when you associate him with the baby from Eraserhead and use the term; "horror" in the advertisements, you're not only asking for trouble but you're obviously giving off the wrong impression of what the movie is going to be. Every once in a while I come across reviews that make comparisons between Elephant Man & Todd Browning's Freaks and although there are a few legitimate comparisons between both films it still bothers me to associate the term "freak" with John Merrick...

David Lynch, 1980

At first glance one would think the only thing The Elephant Man has in common with Lynch's other work is the black & white cinematography and its use of make-up & prosthetics. But the more you watch the more you may come to realize that from the film's surreal opening sequence (which also has some seriously disturbing sexual undertones), to all the surreal "interlude" shots of factories, pipes & industrial noises (all key elements in the world of David Lynch), The Elephant Man is just as much a David Lynch film as Blue Velvet or Lost Highway. Actually, the dream sequences from The Elephant Man went on to influence parts of Blue Velvet (specifically Jeffery Beaumont's first dream after witnessing Frank Booth for the first time).

overlapping imagery & experimentation in The Elephant Man...

In The Elephant Man we follow the final days of John Merrick (John Hurt) through the eyes of Dr. Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins) form an abused circus sideshow freak to a medical anomaly. After seeing Merrick ("The Elephant Man") at a circus, Treves takes it upon himself to try and help Merrick by looking after and studying him. The film's most interesting angle is Dr. Treves' early treatment of John Merrick. Although his intentions are good, he's no different than Merrick's previous owner who paraded him around as a sideshow attraction. Only Instead of the circus, Treves parades him around and shows him off to the medical/scientific community almost as a found object instead of a person. After a reality check from one of his nurses, Treves’ treatment of Merrick changes.

The Elephant Man isn’t exactly a horror movie but it certainly has its share of startling and/or shocking moments. For the first quarter of the film Lynch intentionally keeps Hurt/Merrick under wraps or in the shadows. We only get quick glimpses of his deformities or see the terrified facial expressions of those who look at him for the first time...

The Elephant Man went on to compete against Raging Bull at the academy awards which is probably the only time two filmmakers like David Lynch & Martin Scorsese would draw so many parallels between one another. Obviously The Elephant Man & Raging Bull don't have the same spiritual connection as stuff like Blue Velvet & Something Wild or Lost Highway & Crash (1996) but both films are artistic, black & white biopics (both featuring crucial scenes shot similarly in slow motion) that represent high points in both filmmakers' careers released in the same year.

Lynch's history as an academy award nominated director is quite similar to Scorsese's. Prior to The Departed & Hugo, much fuss was made about the number of times Scorsese had been nominated yet never won but Lynch was only one winless nomination behind Scorsese for quite some time.

Raging Bull

I know this may seem like an odd choice for my first official Lynch review but this is one of those films that grew on me the older I got (it's also technically the first David Lynch movie I saw). The Elephant Man is proof that David Lynch can straight up direct a film without relying on his surreal quirkiness. And that’s not too say I don’t love Lynch's quirky style. Eraserhead & Blue Velvet are two of my all time favorite films, I think Mulholland Drive is one of the five best films of the last decade, and his last film inspired the name of this very site. But the surreal randomness in his work can sometimes work against him and distract viewers who may not necessarily like that kind stuff. No matter how great a film Mulholland Drive is, people get way too caught up in how weird and strangely humorous it can be at times to realize that not only is it a tragic story on multiple levels (broken dreams & a failed relationship) but its inspired by real events. Same goes for Twin Peaks - sure it’s odd and has humor (although the movie prequel is damn near completely the opposite of that) but it’s also a story about incest & sexual abuse. 

The Elephant Man isn’t a fluke/one-time occurrence either. The Straight Story, a film that even some Lynch fans forget exists, is another example of his ability to tell a straightforward story without imposing his style all over the film when it isn’t needed. The Straight Story wasn’t even stylized like The Elephant Man. With the exception of Harry Dean Stanton's presence and a re-occurring shot we commonly see in all of Lynch's work (a first person perspective shot of a road at night) you'd have no idea it was directed by Lynch. 

As a David Lynch fan who sees beyond all the dark quirkiness hes known for, I find myself openly praising his work less & less due to the large majority of so-called David Lynch fans who cant hold a conversation about his work beyond how "TOTALLY WEIRD" it is. I just don't wanna be grouped in with people like that. I'm not so pigheaded that I don't see his main appeal is how odd his films are, but he brings a little more to the table than dancing midgets and log ladies. I am more a fan of the Lost Highway/Mulholland Drive David Lynch but the over-analysis of those films by bloggers & critics has gotten to the point where I role my eyes at most new reviews & write-ups of those films.

The Elephant Man wouldn't be my #1 suggestion as an introduction to the world of David Lynch but it should be seen at some point on life.

THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MY LIFE (The Pink Smoke) & PINNLAND EMPIRE RETURNS TO THE NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL...

Hello all!

When you have a chance, head over to The Pink Smoke to see my first installment in "The Whole History Of My Life" series. 

First up: The Belly Of An Architect

And in October I'll be covering new films from Claire Denis (Bastards), Jim Jarmusch (Only Lovers Left Alive) & Alexander Payne (Nebraska) at this years' New York Film Festival followed by another appearance on the Inside The Phoenix podcast to discuss what I saw...

(Top to Bottom: Bastards, Only Lovers Left Alive & Nebraska)

THE TORONTO VAULT VOL.3: THE SKIN I LIVE IN

I'm not a diehard Pedro Almodovar fan but I do recognize that he is an important figure in modern cinema and, like I mentioned in my recent write-up on The Paperboy, he has a pretty unique visual style and that counts for something (when I think of his work, the term; "NEON-noir" comes to mind). But my issue with Almodovar's work is that in the last ten years or so, his films have become SO formulaic that I can practically predict half of whats going to happen in the story along with half of the characters we're going to see - the overly feminine gay male caricature, the transgender character, the religious figure (nun or priest or both) and the ridiculously handsome straight male lead. And at some point in his films, someone will be raped, the music will be overly dramatic, the colors in his films will be extra bright (we get it, Pedro - you like pink, orange & red) and half of the story will be told out of chronological order. I'm not the only person whose called Almodovar out on his recent predictability. Ever since Bad Education through Broken Embraces, there's been endless reviews that have complained about the very same thing.

At first glance, one would think Almodovar took these criticisms in to consideration with The Skin I Live In - there are no transgender characters this time around (...or so we think), for the first time in a while we get a gay female character instead of strictly gay men and Almodovar went back to working with his old collaborator; Antonio Banderas, after over two decades.

But in reality, The Skin I Live In is a middle finger in disguise from Almodovar to people like me and others who've complained about him in recent years. 

He still recycles the same themes & elements but this time around he made it work and managed to make one of his best films since Talk To Her (almost 10 years ago). Not that The Skin I Live In is a game-changer (although it did make the top 10 in the honorable mention category of my 2011 wrap-up) but its still a major improvement from what he's been doing. 

I'm not even offended by the middle finger Pedro Almodovar gave to all the critics. Its reminiscent of his early work (which, on some level, were carbon copies of John Waters' early films, but still...). It's a cliche statement, and it almost makes me cringe writing this but, Almodovar's early work was very "punk rock" and anti-establishment when compared to other classic Spanish filmmakers from the late 70's/early 80's. Instead of dealing with the impact Franco had on Spain in the same poetic/artsy way as Carlos Suara (Cria Cuervos) & Victor Erice (The Spirit Of The Beehive & The South), Pedro Almodovar pretty much jumped on a chair, pulled his dick out and slapped it against the camera lens as if to say; "There's gay people in Spain, we listen to loud noisy music, we dye our hair green and have free will!" As far as Spanish cinema goes, I prefer the work of Erice & Suara over Almodovar but I still respect him for not trying to be another slow "artsy" Spanish filmmaker. The Skin I Live In is FAR more mature than Labrynth Of Passion (1982) or Pepi, Luci & Bom (1980) but his approach is still the same - "Fuck you. I'll make what I want." 

In The Skin I Live In, Antonio Banderas plays "Robert Ledgard" - a radical plastic surgeon whose invented a new type of artificial skin (imagine stockings for the whole body) specialized for burn victims. The inspiration for Ledgard's invention came from his wife who was badly burned in a car accident years ago leaving her almost unrecognizable (she eventually committed suicide after seeing her deformed face). In addition to his wife, Robert's teen daughter, who was mentally unstable, also killed herself after she was sexually assaulted. The death of Robert's wife & daughter, which both took place over the span of a few years, has caused him to go quietly insane. I say "quietly insane" because to the outside world he seems fine but behind closed doors he's losing his grip on reality and is working on a disturbing experiment that we slowly see unfold through the course of the film.

***SPOILER ALERT (skip ahead to the next paragraph if you haven't seen this and are planning too)*** 

As it turns out, Robert has been keeping a beautiful woman ("Vera") captive in his mansion and experimenting on her. But as the story unfolds we discover this woman was once a young man ("Vicente"). And not just any man. This was the same man who sexually assaulted his daughter which ultimately triggered her suicide. As a form of revenge Robert kidnapped and performed various surgeries on Vicente in an effort to transform him in to a woman (anatomy and all). However, during the transformation, Robert falls in love with his creation (he kinda made him/her look a little too beautiful) and forms a romantic relationship with the newly transformed Vera whose now suffering from a bit of Stockholm syndrome. 

Although two different actors play the part (Elena Anaya for Vera & Jan Cornet for Vicente) Almodovar cleverly cast Cornet for the part of Vicente because his body frame is a tad bit small for an average man which makes the male to female transformation angle more believable (midway in to the film I found myself noticing how tiny he is but when its revealed that he's to be transformed in to a woman, it all made sense). 

There's some underrated imagery in The Skin I Live In. Almodovar even throws in a Bergman/Persona reference...

I understand the revenge aspect of the story but once Almodovar throws in the love angel I get completely thrown off. One minute you want revenge on the person who raped your daughter and triggered her suicide then you end up falling in love with the very same person later on? I get that Vicente has been completely changed in to someone else but I thought this element of the story was a little strange.  

Upon my initial (and only) viewing of The Skin I Live In, I wasn't sure if I liked this or not. It felt like an odd mixture of The Bride Of Frankenstein & Oldboy with a touch of Hitchcock. But over time I grew to appreciate it very much. The Skin I Live In is surprisingly darker than I thought it would be and Antonio Banderas' over the top acting, which is sometimes difficult to take seriously, fits perfectly with the tone of the film. It's as if he drew upon Dr. Mabuse, Caligari & Nick Cavanaugh (Boxing Helana) for inspiration.

For something directed by such a big name, The Skin I Live In certainly came and went pretty quickly in the U.S. I wrote about this from memory (I saw it over two years ago) so I guess that says something about the small impact it had on me. Almodovar seems to be returning to form with his latest film (I'm So Excited) which makes The Skin I Live In stand out more among his recent body of work. I'm always hesitant to say this when it comes to recent work of important modern filmmakers but The Skin I Live In may be one of Almosovar's best.