Friday, November 06, 2009

Nov 17 20 22 26: THE MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, VanCity

Lloyd C. Douglas was a pastor at a series of Lutheran, Congregational and United churches before starting a prolific writing career at the age of 50 with The Magnificent Obsession (1929), the first of several of his novels to eventual reach the silver screen. The most notable film treatment of a Douglas story is Douglas Sirk's 1954 Technicolor extravaganza, which was recently released on DVD by Criterion. (Director Todd Haynes pays tribute to Sirk's fifties "weepies" with the extraordinary 2002 film FAR FROM HEAVEN.) Now OBSESSION plays the big screen in all its magnificence: thanks, Cinematheque!



MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION
Pacific Cinematheque
Tuesday, November 17 - 1pm
Friday, November 20, 2009 - 9:35pm
Sunday, November 22, 2009 - 7:15pm
Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 9:15pm

Director: Douglas Sirk
Cast: Jane Wyman, Rock Hudson, Agnes Moorehead, Barbara Rush, Otto Kruger

VanCity: Douglas Sirk described Magnificent Obsession as the "craziest" of his stylish, sumptuous, subversive melodramas. The film’s delirious plot has Rock Hudson as an irresponsible playboy who indirectly causes the death of a doctor and blinds the dead man’s widow, played by Jane Wyman. Sirk's Magnificent Obsession was the director's first big commercial success, and a remake of the 1935 melodrama of the same name, which was based on the 1929 novel by pastor Lloyd C. Douglas. "It was the most confused book you can imagine," said Sirk. "My immediate reaction to Magnificent Obsession was bewilderment and discouragement. But still I was attracted by something irrational in it. Something mad, in a way — well, obsessed, because this is a damned crazy story if there ever was one."

More VanCity: Douglas Sirk’s extravagant 1950s melodramas — All That Heaven Allows, Written on the Wind, Imitation of Life et al. —constitute one of the most piercing critiques of American society to be found in classic Hollywood cinema – an achievement largely unappreciated by “serious” critics of the day because it came in the form of a much derided (but popular) genre: the “women’s picture,” or “weepie.” Sirk described Magnificent Obsession as the “craziest” of his films, and even that might have been an understatement. The film’s delirious plot has Rock Hudson as an irresponsible playboy who indirectly causes the death of a revered philanthropic doctor, blinds the dead man’s widow (played by Jane Wyman, the former Mrs. Ronald Reagan) in another accident, and then becomes a world-renowned surgeon in an effort to restore her sight — falling in love with her, of course, in the meantime. Magnificent Obsession was Sirk’s first big commercial success, and the first in the series of gloriously stylish, over-the-top, colour-drenched melodramas on which the bulk of his enormous critical reputation rests. The film demonstrates “Sirk’s daring, his willingness to take on the most outrageous material and work on it with the deep irony which was one of the most important gifts he brought with him to Hollywood” (Jon Halliday). “Extraordinary . . . Sirk’s films are something else” (Chris Petit)




THE MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION is available on Criterion DVD at Videomatica

Thursday, November 05, 2009

A SERIOUS MAN: Questions For Further Study



1. What is that quote at the start of the film? From a non-Jewish source? How does it shed light on the Jewish world of the film? Specifically, how does it relate to the theology of the first rabbi?

2. How does the Dybbuk story relate to the rest of the film?

3. What is the signifcance of the story of the goy’s teeth? Do you have anything written on the inside of your teeth?

4. Gopnik is dismissive of the stories / fables used to illustrate the principles of physics which he teaches. He claims not to understand the stories, but to put all his faith in the mathematics. How does this relate to the mysterious fables related in the film: the dybbuk, the goy’s teeth?

5. What’s the difference between Gopnik’s blackboards full of formulae, which don’t seem to help him to much, and Uncle Arthur’s notebook full of formulae, which seem to get him in serious trouble? Did anybody else think of A Beautiful Mind?

6. Do the three rabbis correspond to Job’s comforters?

7. What is the Grace Slick quote? What is its function: to undermine the rabbi as a source of wisdom, or to affirm something about popular culture? How does it relate to the warm affirmations of the son’s bar mitzvah, which are oblivious to the son’s actual state of mind? Is all that stuff cynical? Is the film cynical? Is Solomon cynical?

8. What was that science fiction TV show, with the brain in the vat?

9. Think about the recurring phrase “a serious man.”

10. What is the significance of the simultaneity of the two car accidents?

11. Why do critics say there’s no God in this film apart from the film-makers, and they are a cruel God? Is the God of the film cruel? Is He any different than the God of biblical wisdom literature? What does Robert K. Johnston think?

12. One rabbi contrasts a Jewish notion of the afterlife – “Abraham’s bosom” – with the Christian idea of heaven, which he compares to Canada (thereby showing great wisdom). Gopnik sends Uncle Arthur to Canada in a canoe. Or tries to. Significance?

13. If Canada is heaven, is North Dakota hell, Vanity Fair, the place of temptation and damnation? Isn’t Fargo in North Dakota? What would Marge Gunderson say about this?

14. Did this film make anybody else think of Crimes and Misdemeanors?

15. If you had a neighbour’s wife like Mrs. Samsky, would you covet her? Would you be more or less inclined to adjust the TV antenna whenever your son complained about poor reception? Did you like F Troop when you were a kid? I did.

TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER VIEWING THE FILM

16. Think about the variations on the phrase “I didn’t do anything.” A protestation of Gopnik’s innocence: “I don’t deserve this, I didn’t do anything wrong”? A perhaps unconsious confession of sins of omission? How does this assertion relate to Gopnik’s dreams? Is he a good man for not having actually had sex with his neighbour’s wife, though clearly he was tempted? Is he a bad man for not having actually taken his brother to Canada, sending him off with an envelope of cash? How good are we for not doing the wrong we dream of doing? How bad are we for not doing the good we dream of doing?

17. What’s the difference between using the bribe money to bless his brother, or using it to pay his legal bills? Does the apparent choice to do the latter somehow lead to the bad things that happen to this “good” man? Or is it foolish to look for cause and effect in this? Does this relate to Gopnik’s lectures on uncertainty, etc?

18. How does the tornado relate to the flood at the end of O Brother, Where Art Thou? Both seem “acts of God”, the latter clearly an affirmation of the validity of faith (as represented by the blind prophet) and a refutation of the “wisdom of men” (as embodied by Everett), the former seemingly a reversal of the apparent restoration of divine blessings which would more closely parallel the resolution of the biblical Job story.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

NOW PLAYING: Wild Loud Serious Education

THE BIG LEBOWSKI tonight only at the VanCity, 7:30.

Carol, Max, KW

2009: the year of the Amazing Kids' Movie? I just saw WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, and that's one unpredictable, substantial, exotic piece of work: Spike Jonze, Dave Eggers, flings itself with reckless abandon on the same wide-eyed year-end pile as UP. My WILD enthusings evoke insistences I see CORALINE: eager to comply. Awaiting frantically FANTASTIC MR FOX: great extended profile of director Wes Anderson in Nov 2 New Yorker whets the appetite further. And I'm told CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS is fun. Nothing wrong with fun. In a sometimes weary grey autumn, I'd pay fifteen buck for fun.


Look what Jeff Overstreet says about AN EDUCATION, from the director of my beloved ITALIAN FOR BEGINNERS: "The rising buzz about Carey Mulligan’s star-making performance, not to mention the compliments paid to the great Alfred Molina for his supporting role, have made me impatient to see Scherfig’s new film. The fact that it’s about a teenage girl from suburban London being baited by an older man (Peter Sarsgaard) into a wild new life on the promise that he’ll give her a C.S. Lewis sightseeing tour of Oxford makes it seem that much more intriguing."


Plenty of critics are dismissive of A SERIOUS MAN, but it seems to me most Coen brothers flicks get chilly receptions, then grow on us. And many of my Soul Food-ish movie pals hail this Job story set in Midwestern Jewish subculture, c. 1967.


Soul Foodies are often U2 fans (you should have seen my facebook news feed a week ago!): note the daily 2:30 Denman matinees of IT MIGHT GET LOUD, a guitar rock-doc featuring The Edge.

Also at the Denman for the time being, JULIE & JULIA (one of my '09 faves) 4pm daily, and 500 DAYS OF SUMMER (which I liked a lot) 7:00 nightly. J&J also a double feature at the Hollywood with the intriguing DISTRICT 9 Tue/Wed, the latter with a couple shows daily at Granville 7.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Horton Foote: "The Cumulative Momentum of the Mundane"


Excerpted from
LUCKY MAN: Horton Foote's three acts
by John Lahr
The New Yorker, October 26, 2009
"If a poet knows more about a horse than he does about heaven, he might better stick to the horse," Foote was fond of saying, quoting the father of his favorite American composer, Charles Ives. "Someday the horse might carry him to heaven."
. . .
Crucially, more by accident than by intention, he found his way into Method acting lessons with two recently arrived emigres from Stanislavsky's Moscow Art Theatre, Andrius Jilinsky and Vera Soloviova, who taught that "to create truth on the stage, you must be acquainted with your own truth." (To Foote, this strategy became bedrock; throughout his life, he maintained an aesthetic of unvarnished narrative truthfulness.) By degrees, he came to know other Method acolytes, among them Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Franchot Tone, Clifford Odets, Sanford Meisner, and Tennessee Williams.

Foote thought of Williams, who was eight years older, as "artistically my big brother." He followed his lead in rejecting the schematic ideological drama of the thirties and writing plays that embraced the personal instead. . . .

As writers, Williams and Foote were opposites. Williams was a hysteric who wanted to seduce the audience with the truth of his lament; Foote's plays bore witness to the emotional truth of history. Williams wrote out of a sense of absence, Foote out of a sense of fullness. Williams was a romantic who destroyed himself for meaning; Foote was a conservative who made meaning of the world he sought to preserve. In his storytelling, Williams was melodramatic and extravagant; Foote preferred a sly, understated simplicity. "I've tried to be more theatrical, more sensational. It's not my style," he said. "I admire Shakespeare greatly, and deeply love to read him, but his is not my favorite type of theatre. Often it embarrasses me and also I don't believe a lot of it." In Foote's plays, the big dramatic events happen offstage. Foote examined the ripple, not the wave. He was a quiet voice in noisy times. . . .

Lillian Gish in Trip To Bountiful, Broadway

Foote's plays "The Chase" (1952) and "The Trip To Bountiful" (1953) were staged in New York, but received little attention. Unlike the major playwrights of the period – Williams, Arthur Miller, William Inge – he had no axe to grind, no moral posture to strike, no rebarbative wit to peddle, and none of the sensational theatrics that thrilled commercial audiences. Things happened in Foote's stories, but nobody was blowtorched, castrated, raped, eaten alive, or snowed in with a beautiful woman; nor did anyone commit suicide for the insurance money. Foote could not make a living or a reputation on Broadway. . . .

To Kill A Mockingbird

"Keep your ear to the ground and concentrate on honesty," Williams wrote to Foote in 1944. Throughout his career, Foote did just that. From the ordinary, he teased out a subtle song, which was at once true and tender. In his screen adaptation of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird," for instance – "a work of such quiet and unobtrusive excellence that many people have commented the film's dialogue was lifted chapter and verse from the novel. This is simply not so," Lee wrote. . . .

Robert Duvall, who made his film-acting debut as Boo Radley, the subnormal next-door neighbor who saves the lives of Finch's children, and who appeared in six other Foote projects, including an Academy Award-winning performance as the fallen country singer Mac Sledge, in Tender Mercies (Beresford, 1983), compared Foote's dialogue to "sandpiper prints." "They're very delicate," he said. "It's very deep, very specific. His work you have to let lay there and find its own impetus."

Tomorrow

Nowhere in Foote's canon is the cumulative momentum of the mundane more powerful than in Tomorrow (1972), Foote's inspired film adaptation (based on his 1968 stage version) of a 1940 Faulkner short story. A low-budget masterpiece, directed by Joseph Anthony, the movie flashes back from a murder trial that has ended with a hung jury, and is narrated by the defense lawyer, who can't fathom why one holdout on the jury – a plainspoken Mississippi farm laborer named Jackson Fentry (Duvall) – wouldn't vote to acquit an upstanding rancher, H.T. Bookwright (Jeff Williams), who is accused of murdering a cattle thief and lowlife, Buck Thorpe, who was running off with his daughter. . . .

The story that unfolds in flashback . . . is entirely Foote's invention. . . . Foote's uncanny ability to expand another writer's narrative was an offshoot of his ability to listen. (Faulkner liked Foote's version so much that he shared his royalties with him.) In Faulkner's tale, Foote heard the themes of enduring suffering and enduring love, on which his own plays ruminated. "I've known people the world has thrown everything at . . . and yet something about them retains dignity," Foote said. . . .

Foote, who rebelled against the fire and brimstone of the Methodist reaching he grew up with, became a Christian Scientist in 1953. "I am deeply religious but I never write from that point of view," he said. "I don't proselytize." Foote believed that "spiritual values lead you to hunger for more spiritual values." The placid surfaces of his stories conceal an undertow of the eternal. Hymns frequntly signal this immanence. In "The Trip to Bountiful," for instance, Carrie Watts's hymn-singing implies her spiritual restlessness and her longing for transcendence. . . .

In his own household, Foote often repeated the Christian Science axiom "Divine love always has met, and always will meet, every human need." He read the Christian Science Quarterly and did his Bible lessons every day. "I think it sustained him," his daughter Hallie said. "He felt that there was something bigger than he was out there, and he respected that. It encouraged him to follow his instincts rather than impose something on them." The constant flow of his work was evidence of his faith, which worked as an antidote "to being fearful or shut down," Hallie said. Foote himself gave God credit for his literary productivity: "That doesn't come from me – that is, I reflect qualities of God," he said. In an undogmatic way, his plays are more often than not demonstrations of spiritual grace; they try to trap a sense of the miraculous in the ordinary.

Tender Mercies

In Tender Mercies, for instance, the newly baptized Mac Sledge is saved from the hell of alcoholism and the waste of his life and talent by the love of a woman and her son, who literally and symbolically give him a new song. In "Bountiful," Carrie Watts tells the sheriff who takes her the last miles of her odyssey, "Before I leave this earth, I'd like to recover some of the dignity . . . the peace I used to know." She finds salvation not, as expected, in the land but in the journey. She can now join her family and live out her days in harmony, instead of in resignation. That internal harmony also defined Foote; of his almost unnerving calm, Harper Lee said, "He's like God, only clean-shaven." . . .

Because he broke no new artistic ground and staked no intellectual claims, he has only a minor place in American theatre history. But, within the limits of his compassionate vision, he was an expert storyteller, who achieved something that no other modern American playwright has: he had not only a second but a third act. At present, his screenplay Main Street is in production; "The Orphans' Home Cycle" is in performance; a biography, "Horton Foote: America's Storyteller," by Wilborn Hampton, ahs just been published; and The Horton Foote Review: The Journal of the Horton Foote Society continues to debate the issues and nuances of his oeuvre. "He had a gift and an ear," Hallie said. "There's a side of me that feels like that was a kind of a divine thing. He was lucky."

Tender Mercies

Snarky about television


In my new post at Filmwell, I get snarky about television...

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Anthony Lane on THE INVENTION OF LYING


Anthony Lane, The New Yorker, October 12 2009

The new Ricky Gervais film, THE INVENTION OF LYING, postulates a world in which no one has ever told a lie. We know this because the hero tells us all about it in an opening voice-over. It is the first, small warning sign that the movie may not be firing right. . . One delight of THE TRUMAN SHOW was the onus it placed on viewers from the start, both daring us and trusting us to work out, at our own speed, just what the hell was going on in that spotless seaside town. No such joy from Gervaise. . . who seems to have mislaid the T-shirt that is handed to every first-time movie director - the one that reads "Show, Don't Tell." That is a shame, because the conceit itself is ripe with possibility. . . .

We have heard something similar before, in LIAR LIAR (1997), which presented Jim Carrey as a lonely blurter in a mendacious world. Here the situation is reversed. Everyone dwells in veracity except for Mark, who, one day, at a bank, suddenly tells a lie; we watch it happening, inside his brain, a rare synaptic spark, and it nets him five hundred dollars. . . . He comforts his aged mother as she fades away in a nursing home. . . with an off-the-cuff account of a radiant afterlife, complete with mansions, where she will continue to exist. "Go on," one of the nurses urges him.

So he does, and THE INVENTION OF LYING promptly lurches into another gear, with Mark finding fame as a Moses figure, with a hint of John the Baptist. The difference is that those men believed what they foretold, whereas Mark makes it up as he goes along, scribbling nostrums on whatever comes to hand. "Everything you need to know is written on these pizza boxes," he declares to a crowd of people gathered outside his apartment, telling them of a mysterious "man in the sky" who controls their destinies, and promising them eternal ice cream if they behave well on earth. Audiences here should be reminded, at this point, that Gervais found his fame on the BBC, with "The Office" and "Extras," and that the execration of religious faith, specifically Christianity - plus a reflex sneer at the fools who fall for it - has, in the past decade, become the default mode of British cultural life. It makes sense, I suppose, for Gervais to use his film to air such mockery, if spiritual belief genuinely strikes him as a lie like any other; the plan would carry more weight, however, if he didn't use the rest of the film to air his transcendent belief in Ricky Gervais. . . .

Toward the end, THE INVENTION OF LYING becomes almost a one-man show; we find ourselves in a traditional church (who built that?), with the Cross digitally removed from its steeple and an icon of Mark, with outstretched arms, above the altar. So, the sweet best friend with the snub nose not only gets the girl; he gets to play the man in the sky. Talk about invention.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

NOW PLAYING: You The Living, A Serious Man, It Might Get Loud

Quick note about three Soul Food-ish titles playing this week.


YOU, THE LIVING is at Pacific Cinematheque Thursday night only, 7:30. More Nordic strangeness with distinctly Biblical moments, from the creator of SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR. I saw it at VIFF last year or the year before, and liked it immensely.


Jeff Overstreet is recommending A SERIOUS MAN, the Coen brothers' latest, a Book Of Job story set among the Jewish community in the 1960s midwest. TinselTown (3:00 4:15 5:30 6:45 8:00 9:15 10:30) and the Park (4:00 7:00 9:20).



Not that there's any straight up Soul food, but Soul Foodies are often U2 fans, and The Edge is featured in IT MIGHT GET LOUD, a celebration of the rock guitar. TinselTown 2:50, 5:10, 7:40, 10:00

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Retro-Modern Movie Posters

Marvelous post at My Modern Met blog, featuring new posters for well-known films created by a number of graphic artists, in a retro / modernist vein. Gorgeous work! Here's a sampling...





Monday, October 12, 2009

Favourite Films, 2000-2009: First Draft


I don't think the first decade of the new millennium actually ends until 2010 is over, does it? But people are starting to tally their "Best Films Of The Decade" lists, and of course I can't resist.

It actually makes a certain kind of sense to consider as a group any films released after 1999, if only because 1999 was such a remarkable year at the movies. Remarkable year for Soul Food Movies, in fact, but generally speaking, a watershed.

So I scanned some lists and started tallying the movies of the past ten years that have entered my personal pantheon of beloved films. For starters, here we go.

The first three are easy. After that, it's going to take some thinking. (And of course, there will be plenty of contenders yet to be released in 2009).


1. Dogville
2. The Son
3. Pan's Labyrinth

About A Boy
About Schmidt
Adam's Apples
Adaptation
After The Wedding
Amelie
The Assassination of Jesse James
Born into Brothels
Capote
Dirty Pretty Things
The Diving Bell & The Butterfly
Gosford Park
High Fidelity
I'm Not There
In Bruges
Into The Wild
Italian For Beginners
The Lord of the Rings
The Man Without A Past
Matchstick Men
The Merchant Of Venice
Napoleon Dynamite
O Brother Where Art Thou
Once
Open Range
Passion of the Christ, The
Pieces of April
Rivers & Tides
Silent Light
Son Of Man
The Station Agent
U23D
Up
Ushpizin
The Woodsman

Oct 15 VIFF Pick: The White Ribbon (Haneke)


The White Ribbon ["Das Weisse Band"]
(Austria , Germany , France, Italy, 2009, 144 mins, 35mm)
Mon, Oct 12th 9:00pm | Empire Granville 7
Thu, Oct 15th 3:00pm | Empire Granville 7

Winner of the Palme d'Or, Cannes 2009. In a German village in the early part of the last century, something is terribly amiss with the children. As always, Michael Haneke's take on the human condition resists easy definition. "A rich, detailed work pregnant with the sinister undertones and evil deeds for which the filmmaker's work is legendary..." - Screen International
With this new film, Haneke returns to his classic themes of guilt, denial and violence as the mysterious symptoms of mass dysfunction. The White Ribbon is a period film set in a secluded northern German village on the eve of the first world war, shot in a pellucid monochrome, impeccably acted, and directed with this filmmaker's icily exact rigour and severity.

An isolated community is shaken by unpleasant, inexplicable events: a razor trip-wire fells the local doctor on his horse, and he is badly injured. The landowning baron's son is found, bound and whipped. A boy with Down's syndrome is horribly abused. The white ribbon of the title is a badge of mortification: the pastor's children must wear it as a reminder of their sinful state and need for purity. But of course it is effectively the symbol of the retaliatory violence to come.

Like Haneke's earlier film HIDDEN, this is to some degree about the return of the repressed. Unlike that movie, however, The White Ribbon is not about the repercussions of a single buried event, but a continuous diseased process, in which those without power... are in a permanent state of futile rebellion against authority, expressed in spiteful acts of anonymous nastiness... The White Ribbon has an absolute confidence and mastery of its own cinematic language, and the performances Haneke elicits from his first-rate cast, particularly the children, are eerily perfect. The Guardian


The film just played in the New York Film Festival. There's a fine profile of the director in the Oct 5 New Yorker: here are some clippings...





And here's a link to something I wrote on my last encounter with Herr Haneke, at VIFF 2006 - TIME OF THE WOLF - available at Videomatica, as are most of the director's films.

Oct 15 VIFF Pick: Letters To Father Jacob


Letters to Father Jacob [Finland]
Thu, Oct 15th 6:20pm
Empire Granville 7

A simple but transcendent story about faith and human frailty achieves a state of grace in Letters to Father Jacob. Centring on a tough ex-con temporarily serving as an amanuensis for a blind pastor in rural Finland, director Klaus Härö's magisterial control over the proceedings renders predictable material into something fresh and heart-rending, particularly for thoughtful audiences.

Surprised at being pardoned 12 years into a life sentence, hard-bitten killer Leila (Kaarina Hazard) takes the prison warden’s suggestion and winds up at the ramshackle parsonage of Father Jacob. The elderly man needs a secretary to pursue his main joy in life: answering the letters of those who write asking for his help. Although Leila regards the pastor’s correspondence as pointless, it ultimately plays a role in her own redemption and self-forgiveness.

In what’s essentially a perfectly cast two-hander, both leads provide remarkable, exquisitely calibrated performances. The heavyset masculine-looking Hazard (a feminist academic and writer) makes one feel a lifetime of repressed anger in Leila’s stomping and banging, while Nousiainen (a TV vet) movingly conveys Jacob’s anguish and vulnerability... Working in wide screen, prize-winning cinematographer Tuomo Hutri supplies director Härö’s trademark lush visuals, while an affecting piano score gives extra weight to big emotional moments.

Richard Brody on CREATION


From The Front Row, Richard Brody's New Yorker movie blog...
"Macy Halford worries that religious conservatives in America are getting in the way of movie distributors picking up CREATION for U.S. release. She cites ... the film’s producer, Jeremy Thomas, and anti-evolution invective spewed about the film on conservative Christian Web sites, but it seems to me that Thomas is just doing his job as a producer: he’s trying to shame or flatter a distributor into ponying up for it.

"Could it be that Thomas is holding out for a U.S. distribution deal rich enough to require a large national release? In other words, could this really be about money rather than religion? And one more thing; look at the trailer:



"Doesn’t it look bland? There are lots of films from around the world that don’t have American distribution, many of great artistic significance. I’d like to see a movie about Darwin, about the work that went into the discovery of evolution, and, for that matter, about the controversy it still arouses. Is “Creation” the one we’ve been waiting for? I have my doubts."

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Oct 11-17: Homelessness Action Week, THE CATS OF MIRIKITANI & THIS DUST OF WORDS


Soul Food friend Judy Graves is the person at the City of Vancouver who is our point person for homelessness. (Some people say she's responsible for homelessness in Vancouver, but I'm not sure we can blame her exclusively). She's not just an office worker: Judy spends much of her time in the streets and alleys and parks and shelters, and knows by name pretty much everybody you've ever given a loonie to.

Anyhow, she sent this note...



Steven Ng is showing my two personal favourite homelessness movies October 16. CATS OF MIRIKITANI and THIS DUST OF WORDS. If you haven't yet watched these two documentaries - I strongly recommend that you make this your Homeless Action Week treat to yourself.

Each movie gives us a lifechanging shift in world view. Each gives more questions than answers. Both impact my day to day work profoundly.

Judy

(CATS is available at Videomatica)

There will also be a related film event on the North Shore...


Tuesday, October 06, 2009

AMADEUS (1984, USA, Milos Forman, Peter Shaffer play and screenplay)


Whilst my father prayed earnestly to God to protect commerce, I would offer up secretly the proudest prayer a boy could think of. “Lord, make me a great composer! Let me celebrate your glory through music - and be celebrated myself! Make me famous through the world, dear God! Make me immortal! After I die let people speak my name forever with love for what I wrote! In return I vow I will give you my chastity, my industry, my deepest humility every hour of my life. And I will help my fellow man all I can. Amen and amen!”

What extraordinary writing! Economy, irony, implication – volumes are spoken in this one brief speech, themes sounded that will be repeated and inverted in subtle variations throughout the film. Salieri, speaking at the end of his life, recounts the childhood prayer that set the course of his life. He critiques the self-serving prayers of his father, a merchant, yet his own prayer is every bit as mercenary: he isn’t confiding in a loving Father, he’s unilaterally setting the terms of a quid pro quo contract, and presuming that makes it binding on both parties. When he calls the prayer “proud” he means it was noble, but we hear the irony as he names the cardinal sin that will come to define him. He pledges a chastity he will readily cast aside when he decides God isn’t keeping His end of the bargain, he promises a humility that will only ever be evident in recognizing – and coveting, and seeking to destroy – another man’s greater gift. The musical gift of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

These vows amuse us at the same time as they trouble us. They are childish, speaking a conventional piety as naïve as a Boy Scout promise – “and do a good turn to somebody every day.” But the fact the man who recounts them has never outgrown them, that he repeats them without recognizing their vanity, is chilling. What we smile at in the child, we recoil from in the man. By the time Salieri whines “all I ever wanted was to sing to God,” we know better.

Salieri believes he yearns only for eternity: we recognize a thoroughly earthly-minded man lusting for a merely earthbound immortality. Cruel justice lies in the fact that his prayer will in fact be answered. The now-aged man’s final speech picks up this opening theme and plays it back in an ironic inversion, and we realize that he is in fact remembered centuries after his death. People are writing plays and making movies about him. How pathetic.

When the young Salieri’s father chokes to death on a piece of fish and the self-consumed lad is sent away to study music, he takes it as a miracle – “I knew God had arranged it all; that was obvious” – and it is all clear: this God will do Salieri’s bidding, and even murder is an acceptable means to that end. How tragic.

Indeed, for all its energy and brilliantly entertaining wit, this film is a classic tragedy: not the story of Mozart at all, except indirectly, but the story of a man who could have been noble, or at least godly, but whose tragic flaw brings not only his own ruin, but the ruin of those around him. And this is a singularly theological tragedy: Salieri's tragic flaw is "the eldest sin of all, that struck down the morning star from heaven." The deadliest of the deadly sins.

“Amadeus” means “beloved of God.” Celebrated playwright Anthony Shaffer – preoccupied (like his playwriting twin brother, Peter) with twinning, and with the clash between conventional religiosity and a wilder, more dangerous communion with the divine – imagines in this not-quite-historical story something of a Cain and Abel tale, a Jacob and Esau rivalry. He considers what it may have been like to labour as a moderately skilled composer in the shadow of one of the sublime musical geniuses of all time. To believe oneself cursed because of another’s greater measure of blessing.

One smart friend is convinced the film is anti-religious, and certainly the image of God the film conveys is thoroughly unappealing. But perhaps the film is not so much anti-religious as it is the study of an anti-religious man. Bear in mind that this is Salieri's story, his version of event. We see everything through his jaundiced eye – including God. If his deity seems cruel, withholding, manipulative, capricious, punishing, are we seeing a true image of the Father, or only one that Salieri makes in his own image (or that of his own father?).

Or perhaps it is even closer to the truth to say that the film is not anti-religious, but rather anti-religion - if by religion we mean the things we do to please God. Biblical scholar Robert Jewett reads immense theological insight in the film, arguing that it conveys “a distinctive and little-understood aspect of the theology of Romans”: that sin, properly understood, has little to do with the conventional sense of sin as indecency – Mozart’s arrogance and crudity, his irresponsibility and unwillingness to conform to social niceties – and everything to do with the self-deception of the self-righteous man who would set himself against God. Who would set himself up as God.

The film doesn’t gloss over the sins of Amadeus – as winsome as he can be, he also acts out his own high-flying arrogance, lives in deadly thrall to his own vices. “There is none righteous, not one.” But he possesses a humanity, ultimately a vulnerability, that leaves room for the glories of grace Salieri can hear in “The Marriage Of Figaro” but not live. That can find the humility to ask forgiveness from one who is all the more in need of it.

EQUUS, WICKER MAN, COPYING BEETHOVEN

Available at Videomatica

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Oct 17/18: Stone Soup Film Festival

Note from Soul Foodie Rosie Perera...


Hi Ron,

Here’s something to blog about at Soul Food Movies.

The full festival details are here.

I’ve seen one of the films being shown – the short documentary “A Well-Watered Garden” (which I own a copy of) about some Regent students who did a form of “guerilla gardening” to pretty up a vacant lot in the Downtown Eastside. The festival isn’t coming from a Christian perspective, but many Christians are thinking about these issues. I found out about the film festival through an email that was send out to all participants in the Food Course that Loren & Mary Ruth Wilkinson taught.

-- Rosie

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Oct 1/3: Lars von Trier's ANTICHRIST at VIFF

I approach this one with dread and fascination. DOGVILLE was very tough going, but ended up among my top three favourite films ever, alongside TENDER MERCIES and MAGNOLIA. MANDERLAY was Von Trier's sequel, the second in a proposed trilogy, and a bitter, galling disappointment: the precision, restraint, and artistry were blunted or gone completely, and what remained seemed the exploitative self-indulgence that detractors had seen all along in DOGVILLE. Von Trier then entered a period of clinical depression, and apart from the cheeky screenplay he contributed to the Thomas Vinterberg's DEAR WENDY, we heard nothing from the God-Obsessed Danish Bad Boy.

Until Cannes Festival 2009. And the coming of ANTICHRIST.

By all accounts, a very difficult film. With the same sort of divided response evoked by the director's last two films - one of which I admire wholeheartedly, the other of which I would go so far as to say I detest. Because of what I saw in DOGVILLE, I'm going to risk this one - sometimes this guy serves up Transcendent soul food - but because of MANDERLAY, I'm quite prepared to leave the theatre as occasion demands.

Lars is back. And going to the movies just got exciting again...



ANTICHRIST
(Denmark, 2009, 109 mins, 35mm)
Special Presentation | Thu Oct 1, 9:45pm | Sat Oct 3, 11am

Official Film Website
Trailer

Lars von Trier. Antichrist. Such is the title card launching the Great Dane's self-acknowledged incursion into the recesses of his warped psychology, a succès de scandal at this year's Cannes and a film destined to resonate for decades to come.

When we first see the protagonists, Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg (their names, unspecified--"She" and "He" in the credits), they are engaged in carnal acts more suitable to beasts than humans; paying little attention to their toddler, he plummets out the window. She, quite understandably scarred, plunges into typical von Trierian madness; he, a psychotherapist, takes her case into his own hands. Off they venture into the verdant woods to an isolated cabin for treatment, where she spent much time earlier writing a thesis on witches and misogyny. And then the fun begins.

Much has already been made of von Trier's problems with clinical depression; he makes no secret that Antichrist results from his own failed therapy, and he's sensationally puked it all out there for his viewers to lap up like starved voracious hounds sniffing after fresh blood. And oh, is there fresh blood! Not for the queasy, Antichrist is the closest von Trier has come to pure horror, and in his nightmarish vision of good and evil, the battle of the sexes traces back to the beginning of time and will stretch until the end of days. The forest of Antichrist is no Garden of Eden, and this is not your parents' marriage.

VIFF Program Notes

PS I didn't mention von Trier's previous two films, both nasty, both - for some viewers - transcendent. BREAKING THE WAVES I've not yet seen, believe it or not. Here's a review of DANCER IN THE DARK And of course, there's all the von Trier you could want at good ol' Videomatica.

DANCER IN THE DARK (2000, Denmark, Lars von Trier)


This is a musical, and there's always someone to catch me.

You get the impression Lars is a messed up guy, and that just maybe he's got serious problems with women.

After filming DOGVILLE, Nicole Kidman withdrew from the three film series, citing "schedule conflicts." Uh hun. Bryce Dallas Howard showed up to take over her role in the sequel and couldn't figure out why this strange European man kept throwing water at her. (Opie, didn't you warn her? Maybe you should have rented your daughter that documentary about this guy's work with actors on THE IDIOTS: they didn't call it THE HUMILIATED for nothing). Shooting DANCER IN THE DARK, his relationship with Bjork became so contentious she disappeared from the set for three days, after biting off a piece of his shirt! (Though separating fact from fiction on a Zentropa project is impossible.) Von Trier originally cast himself as the angry man who berates Selma for talking in the movie theatre, but he bowed out of the role when he realized his animosity toward the actress might result in him playing the scene with a bit too much force. Bjork vowed never to make another film. With anyone.

It is possible to see the Danish director's films as nothing but elaborately constructed mechanisms designed to inflict the maximum suffering on the most helpless possible female victims. And while his woman protagonists are inevitably innocent, appealing, even holy victims, they are invariably victims, and that's a troubling fit with his on-set treatment of the actresses who play them.

But that would be reductive. The Danish director may also be a genius: while lots of American critics couldn't get past DOGVILLE's Yankee-baiting, there are many others who believe it is one of the truly great films of the new millenium. Me included. And if you don't think crass and fallen people can make great art, even God-glorifying art, maybe you need to go rent AMADEUS.

The first two-thirds of DANCER IN THE DARK is filled with such dread it's almost unwatchable – apart from its artistic daring, the justly celebrated performance of Bjork in the lead role, and our hope, based on other LvT films, that there may be a redemptive (if agonizing) payoff to it all eventually. The Icelandic pop star plays Selma, a desperately poor European immigrant to a small American factory town who struggles to build a life for herself and her boy. Her childlike innocence is so extreme that we initially wonder if she's simple-minded: she often daydreams around the heavy factory machinery, caught up in in exhilarating fantasies where she imagines herself a character in an American-style musical – all singing, all dancing, all happy endings!

We soon learn that part of what we see as other-worldy-mindedness results from the fact that her eyesight is rapidly deteriorating, due to an hereditary condition. We watch her fall into the blindness her self-sufficient spirit won't allow her to reveal, riding a bicycle to work or walking home along the railway tracks that guide her steps. You see what I mean about dread.

Everything works together to render the poor woman terrifyingly vulnerable, not only to trains and traffic and the heavy factory machinery Selma operates (she cheated on the vision exam), but also to the predatory human nature that may lie behind the apparently helpful facades of people around her; the simple-minded man who obsessively offers her a ride home from work each day, the landlord who takes a fatherly interest in her boy and confides his late-night troubles to Selma alone in her trailer, her over-solicitous director in an amateur production of THE SOUND OF MUSIC, even women friends who find themselves troubled or threatened by her self-reliance and influence on their lives.

I hope I'm not revealing too much in saying that the film does offer some transcendence in the face of all this pain: suffice it to say that DANCER is as bleak as it is hopeful, an observation which shouldn't surprise anybody who knows anything about good old Lars. My disappointment is that, once all hell breaks loose (as we know from the opening moments that it must, as all hell is wont to do), the film loses much of its power as plot machineries begin to creak like poorly maintained instruments of torture, and desperately improvising actors push for emotional climaxes that begin to feel contrived, melodramatic, sentimental. I'm not referring to the intentionally melodramatic notes of Selma's fantasy sequences, raising the dead and flinging open prison doors, or the intentional David Lynch-like incursions of soap opera and movie melodrama: it's the bathetic straining for emotional effect in the "real-life" moments that undermines things for me in the film's final reel.

Even when my pendulum-opinion of this love-it/hate-it film swings to the cynical side, I can't forget the audacity of those train-car or courtroom dance sequences, or the truer-than-Guffman skewering of those ultra-amateur SOUND OF MUSIC rehearsals. And as qualmy as I am about the creepy resonance between the director's real and fictional worlds, I cannot help but admire his sometimes floundering attempts at the catharsis of genuine tragedy, his occasionally ham-handed efforts at fashioning statues of self-sacrificing saints from the muck of his own screwed up psyche.

DOGVILLE, BREAKING THE WAVES

All three films available at Videomatica

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Sep 26, 10AM: THE APARTMENT, Fifth Avenue


In May I launched a summer movie-watching project, 34 Films I DO Want To See Before I Die. Now, I didn't see nearly as many films as I have other summers, and as for the project, I'm afraid I bogged down midway through RASHOMON. But of the half-dozen I saw (of the dozen or so I had left to see), I acquired three great favourites: SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, SUNSET BOULEVARD, and - chief among them, cock full o' soul food - THE APARTMENT. In fact, the three make a fascinating mid-century triptych about ambition, celebrity and power, toadyism and compromise. And all three are classic "city pictures" - vintage portraits of New York or Los Angeles, with the city a palpable, specific presence. / Well, THE APARTMENT is on the big screen this Saturday morning, with a fascinating talkback, in our favourite cinema, sponsored by our favourite video emporium - Videomatica! "I love the smell of popcorn in the morning!"

ABOUT THE SERIES

Visit Fifth Avenue Cinemas the last Saturday of every month for the most memorable films from Hollywood's Golden Age, followed by a Q&A with film critic Jim Gordon. This is a great opportunity for film students and movie fans to enjoy classic films and learn about the process of how they came to be.

The Next Film: The Apartment - Saturday, September 26th at 10AM

Winner of five 1960 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, The Apartment is legendary writer/director Billy Wilder at his scathing, satirical best, and one of "the finest comedies Hollywood has turned out" (Newsweek). C.C. "Bud" Baxter (Jack Lemmon) knows the way to success in business...it's through the door of his apartment! By providing a perfect hideaway for philandering bosses, the ambitious young employee reaps a series of undeserved promotions. But when Bud lends the key to big boss J.D. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray), he not only advances his career, but his own love life as well. For Sheldrake's mistress is the lovely Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine), elevator girl and angel of Bud's dreams. Convinced that he is the only man for Fran, Bud must make the most important executive decision of his career: lose the girl...or his job.

Tickets are only $7. For more information, please visit festivalcinemas.ca

Co-sponsored by Videomatica

The films that will be presented are:
The Apartment - September 26th
The Graduate - October 31st
The Hustler - November 28th

*

Want to win free tickets?

THE CONTEST DETAILS

WHAT: Tickets to select films at Jim Gordon's Classic Cinema
WHERE: Fifth Avenue Cinemas
WHEN: Various

HOW TO ENTER: Please e-mail contests@videomatica.ca include the following information.

Your Name
Your Phone Number
Your E-mail Address
"Jim Gordon's Classic Cinema" in the subject line

Contest closes on Wednesday, September 23rd at 1PM. Eligible winners will be contacted by e-mail

Monday, September 21, 2009

Ebert: Indie Distribution Panic Meter "Stands at Yellow, Rising Toward Orange"


In the wake of TIFF, Roger Ebert sounds the alarm about distribution for independent film - bad news for CREATION, for example - and points us to POD.

First book publishing, then live theatre, now independent film. Next... Armageddon.

(Article at Filmwell. Thanks, Jason.)

(Also note Chattaway's comment: CREATION does have distribution in Canada! Just not south of 49. Smile.)

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Seraphine (updated)

For those of you who don't see the comments when you view the blog, N.W. Douglas brought the unhappy news that SERAPHINE has been and gone: it played the Ridge for a few nights this summer. Alas. But Peter Chattaway brings the happier news that it's at Videomatica. Of course. I hadn't realized the film had been out long enough to be on DVD, but of course since it has been, Videomatica's got it! Now top of my queue: Overstreet's wish is my command. (Even a visit to my local suburban movie mart yielded rental copy. So, like the Chicken Man, Seraphine appears to be everywhere.)

Oh, and Ken Morefield has a typically thoughtful, spoiler-free piece at 1More Film Blog. Posted in April. Man, am I behind the times! Must have had other things on my mind in April.

Now back to the original post...


Jeffrey Overstreet is recommending this one. With. Periods. After. Every. Word. So either his keyboard is on the blink, or he really likes it. Let's keep our eyes open and let one another know when it arrives in Vancouver, shall we? The Official Site lists showings through November, none of them north of the 49th parallel, so... Eyes peeled, soul foodies!


"Séraphine is the story of Séraphine Louis aka Séraphine de Senlis (Yolande Moreau), a simple and profoundly devout housekeeper who in 1905 at age 41, self-taught and with the instigation of her guardian angel began painting brilliantly colorful canvases. In 1912 Wilhelm Uhde (Ulrich Tukur), a German art critic and collector - he was one of the first collectors of Picasso and champion of naïve primitive painter Le Douanier Rousseau - discovered her paintings while she worked for him as a maid in his house in Senlis outside Paris. A moving and unexpected relationship develops between the avant-garde art dealer and the visionary cleaning lady leading to Séraphine’s work being grouped with other naïve painters – the so-called “Sacred Heart Painters” - with acclaimed shows in France, elsewhere in Europe and eventually at New York’s MOMA . Martin Provost’s poignant portrait of this now largely forgotten painter is a testament to the mysteries of creativity and the resilience of one woman’s spirit."
Apple Movies. There's also a trailer there.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO


THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO (1998, USA, Whit Stillman)
I'm going to turn over a new leaf in Spain. I'm going to turn over several new leaves. You know that Shakespearean admonition, "To thine own self be true"? It's premised on the idea that "thine own self" is something pretty good, being true to which is commendable. But what if "thine own self" is not so good? What if it's pretty bad? Would it be better in that case not to be true to thine own self? See? That's my situation.

Indeed, that's the situation of all the characters in this closing chapter of Whit Stillman's NYC WASP triptych (acronyms cluster around these films like debs around a punchbowl). Of course, none of them know it at the outset: when first we meet them, they're out for a disco night on the town, flushed with youth, good looks and the high spirits that come from gaining admission to New York's most exclusive dance club. They're on top of the world, neither sadder nor wiser than their younger METROPOLITAN counterparts – but they will be by the end of the movie.

The tagline for the first film of the cycle was so apt, you'd think it was penned by the writer-director himself: "Doomed. Bourgeois. In love." – a phrase later appropriated by Mark C. Henrie for the title of his very fine anthology of essays on "the peculiar comic genius" of Whit Stillman, whose work is there described as "class-conscious, theory-laden, nostalgically romantic, and deflatingly ironic." A tone of nostalgia and deflation permeates this autumnal final installment in the series, a sharp contrast to the sunny, summery comedy of BARCELONA, its immediate predecessor. Charlie spoke in the first film of the impending doom that awaited his entire class. Prophetically enough, as it turns out: as the trilogy draws to its close, it's reckoning time. Time to come to terms. With sin and consequence, with weakness and mortality. And, perhaps, with redemption.

Each chapter in Stillman's magnum opus concerns a different set of characters, but they are essentially alike. (In a very satisfying touch, several faces from the first two films show up at the disco: Audrey Rouget, now something of a legend in the publishing business, is deep in conversation with Charlie, Fred and Sally – nice to see the SFRP at least somewhat intact – and when Ted Boynton enthuses about his new job in Spain, it's a kick to realize how much we already know about the "future" trajectory of his relationship with his date, whom he awkwardly introduces as "Betty." Our disappointment at not seeing Taylor Nichols in a central role is at least mitigated by the fact that he gets not one but two cameos.) The Audrey-ish Alice (Chloe Sevigny) works in an entry-level publishing job with her stunning soon-to-be-roommate Charlotte (Kate Beckinsale). Around them, a cluster of attractively Young, presumed-to-be Upwardly-mobile Professional men: Jimmy Steinway, in advertising; Josh Neff, an Assistant D.A.; Des McGrath, majordomo at the club (played by Chris Eigeman, a veteran of both prior Stillman campaigns); and "Departmental Dan" from the publishing house, who may be an Ivy League grad, but whose politics and social manner mark him as being a little less haut than his fellow bourgeois.

As suggested by the film's wryly apocalyptic title, the heyday of disco is beginning to wane, along with the youthful optimism of the characters. The bottom rungs of the professional working ladder are tougher than freshman year at college and, far more important to this financially independent crowd, the rituals of romance have changed from the exhilarating game of dating to the high-stakes business of mating – a risky business indeed in the promiscuous early eighties.

Religion, however ironically disguised, makes its presence felt early in each of the two previous films, but for much of THE LAST DAYS the only cathedral is the dance club, the only faith a misplaced allegiance to "the disco movement." That absence, combined with the realistically rendered downward spiral of Alice's search for love, lends the story a slowly accumulating gravitas that has much to do with moral consequence and more to do with spiritual emptiness: isolation surrounded by copulation, loneliness in the middle of a partying crowd. More often than in any of Stillman's other films, the irony falls away for entire scenes: he's playing for keeps. This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around.

When grace comes, it comes unexpectedly (as grace is wont to do), from damage and weakness. The ragged words tumble desperately over each other, tuneless and unmusical, manic, apologetic, embarssing, and we don't know just how to take them – as evidence of mental instability, or a very present refuge in a time of trouble.

Dear Lord and Father of mankind,
Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.

Drop Thy still dews of quietness,
Till all our strivings cease;
Take from our souls the strain and stress,
And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Thy peace.

Breathe through the heats of our desire
Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind, and fire,
O still, small voice of calm.


And there's more hymn-singing to come! From a source so unlikely as to defy not only expectation but explanation. Apparently the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. The high and mighty are brought low and helpless, characters move from control to abandonment, and it just may be Divine Providence they end up abandoning themselves to, whether they realize it or not. As we learn along with Alice "to appreciate the virtue in what others find defective" (Mary P. Nichols) – a bogus spiritual memoir, a loyal Scotty-dog, a damaged friend and the universally despised dance music that is his glory – we sense that, while the reign of disco must come to an end, another Kingdom may well be at hand.

METROPOLITAN opened the Stillman saga with a hymn that quickly gave way to a dance tune. So THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO bookends the set with The O'Jays' "Love Train," which surrenders the dance floor to John Newton's "Amazing Grace." Human love, divine grace – and everybody up dancing, not just the ones well-dressed or gorgeous enough to get past the gatekeepers at Studio 54. Amazing indeed.

"Doomed Bourgeois In Love" dubs Stillman's work "a major achievement of Christian humanism in our time." You may feel that's overstating the spiritual case, but the more one considers the puzzling place of religion in Whit Stillman's films, the more plausible that statement seems. If, like me, you find yourself intrigued by the question of the film maker's own relation to the faith that keeps asserting itself in his autobiographically-informed creations, your curiosity will likely never find a direct answer. Like so many of his characters, Stillman is reticent about these matters. Perhaps the closest we'll come to a response is the suspicion that Josh's last word in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO is, in effect, that of the filmmaker's: "Most of what I said, I believe."



* * *

Terrific that the new Criterion release renews interest in this quietly substantial film and its predecessors, disappointing that the extras are weak. ("Nice movie, pity about the Supplements...") Trailer, Featurette (a slightly extended trailer), some decent deleted scenes, audio excerpt from the intriguing novel treatment, and a commentary track with Stillman, Eigeman and Sevigny that's pretty run-of-the-mill: not much about the film itself, just the usual boring backstage talk about challenges with the shoot and how talented people are. Stillman comes off as a warm, thoughtful man - no surprise there - but nobody does much to enhance our appreciation of the film itself. They mostly just chat while the movie runs in the background.

A couple nuggets:
"The composer, Mark Swazo, came in with the idea of having some Jamaican music. He introduced me to it, and it's a fatal attraction because I became obsessed with it. After Disco I started thinking on and on about early sixties Jamaican music. I went down to jamaica. Down there it's the church scene, so I could go to churches and feel safe and be with people. I love the churches down there, and the Christians and their community, and started thinking about a story there. Of course if they're Christians and really believers, they're thinking about angels and demons, and so there are angels and demons in that story. It turns out I picked about the hardest film to get financed in the world. But I hope one day to do that."

"Stanley Kubrick talked about (these) movies all the time. He adored Barcelona, he's very interested in John Thomas's photography, and he said about it that this is a new kind of cinema, this is dialogue advancing story in an interesting way. He had called up Thomas Gibson who had an important but not big part in Barcelona, and Thomas was sort of surprised to get cast in a Stanley Kubrick film without any audition or anything. Stanley Kubrick had just liked him in Barcelona and called him up and got him to do it. I met Nicole Kidman later at the premiere of Eyes Wide Shut and she said, yeah, it's true, Stanley would talk about Barcelona all the time. He said it's different kind of dialogue, it's dialogue advancing story. So that's our apology. We get beaten over the head by a lot of people saying there's too much talk, and maybe there is. But at least a great filmmaker had another version."

Available at Videomatica

David Denby on Meryl Streep


From the New Yorker review of JULIE AND JULIA. "The movie is memorable, of course, for Streep’s performance. Like a tall ship at full sail, she leans, tilts, and billows. Odd explosions of air—whoops, exclamations—come hurtling through the passageways. She runs out of breath, and then settles, mysteriously, like an old Bible that italicizes ordinary words, on a single syllable."

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Jack Rabbit Slim (Tarantino, 20??)

NEXT TARANTINO MOVIE AND HOMAGE TO BELOVED TARANTINO MOVIES OF DIRECTOR'S YOUTH
September 7, 2009 | The Onion | Issue 45-37

MADRID—While attending a European press junket Monday for his film Inglourious Basterds, director Quentin Tarantino announced that his next project, Jack Rabbit Slim, will go into production this fall, and will be an homage to his favorite director and screenwriter of all time: Quentin Tarantino.
"I've been a Tarantino fan for as long as I can remember," said Tarantino, who repeatedly referred to his hero as "The Master." "Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown—those movies were basically my film school. I mean, the ability to take a genre or a subgenre, embrace it to its core, and then blow it up and make it your own is something that has to be admired."

"We're talking about the quintessential writer-director of our time," Tarantino added.

A self-described "Tarantino geek," Tarantino said Jack Rabbit Slim was conceived as a tribute to his idol, and is deeply influenced by Tarantino's blaxsploitation movies of the late 1990s, Tarantino's classic multi-volume kung fu pictures, and the grindhouse films of the late 2000s that Tarantino made famous.

Tarantino has already cast the once-popular actor Eric Roberts to play Slim, in a role director believes will resurrect Roberts' career.

The film will reportedly feature elements and techniques lifted directly from Tarantino's past works, including numerous point-of-view shots from car trunks, and references to Tarantino's favorite cult films, My Best Friend's Birthday and From Dusk Till Dawn.

In one sequence Tarantino called "distinctly Tarantino-esque," Slim delivers an unexpectedly poetic monologue on cheeseburgers while dancing to an Ennio Morricone instrumental with a drug-addled Uma Thurman. And in the film's stunning climax, Slim remembers his training with a martial arts expert in China and then exacts revenge on the film's antagonists: a Nazi colonel, a Hollywood stuntman, and a Los Angeles syndicate of 88 yakuza warriors.

As an homage to Tarantino, Tarantino said he also plans to give the famed director a minor role in the film.

"If nothing else, I hope Jack Rabbit Slim makes moviegoers want to go back and explore the complete filmography of this great, great American artist," Tarantino said. "I really can't think of another living director who has made as large a contribution to the evolution of world cinema, and I feel it is my duty as a filmmaker to remind people of that."

Added Tarantino, "God, I love Quentin Tarantino."

The filmmaker, who became more and more excited when talking about the films of Quentin Tarantino, admitted that he has an autographed Reservoir Dogs poster signed by the director hanging in his living room. He also bragged about owning the syringe that John Travolta used to give Uma Thurman an adrenaline shot in Pulp Fiction.

"The actual one," Tarantino stressed.

Tarantino went on to say he was pleased to see that, almost 20 years into his career, director Quentin Tarantino was still going strong with his latest film, Inglourious Basterds, which Tarantino felt was one of the legendary filmmaker's "very best."

"If Jack Rabbit Slim is even a third as good as Basterds, I might just make a movie so good that Tarantino himself will give it a standing ovation," Tarantino said. "You know what, I bet he will."

Thursday, September 03, 2009

BARCELONA


BARCELONA (1994, USA, Whit Stillman)
What is this? Some strange Glenn Miller-based religious ceremony?
No. Presbyterian.


Whit Stillman's wonderful trilogy of serious comedies about rich kids in love might almost be dubbed "The Discrete Charm of the Urban Haute Bourgeoisie." The second, a story of not-so-much-ugly-as-absurd-but-still-rather-charming Americans abroad, is the lightest of the three, the characters' upper-class foibles extended to the point of likable ridiculousness (to borrow Donald Lyon's apt description). It is probably also the most spiritually explicit – in Stillman's characteristic, delightfully confounding way.

Here his whole tone is sunnier and lighter hearted, as befits the Mediterranean locale: these kids are having fun, earnest and self-preoccupied though they may be. Stillman's humor is at its most direct and whimsical, turning on endless (and endlessly inventive) misperceptions and "lost in cultural translation" moments. If the stakes are higher in this story of twenty-something Americans abroad – in fact, they are truly life-and-death, with a prolonged hospital vigil and at least one funeral – somehow the tone remains less sombre throughout. And while we are dealing with far more serious matters – the end of the Cold War rather than the last days of the debutantes or the decline of disco –romance and comedy carry the day. The last act of the original screenplay extended an anti-American terrorist subplot in a way that risked dominating the film, rendering it far messier, more explicitly political, and therefore distinctly less Stillmanesque. The film version edits out that "bigger" story in the home stretch, wisely narrowing its focus to character: the political points have been made, we want to get to the wedding for God's sake! Multiple weddings, as it turns out, with plenty of surprises: heck, it's practically Shakespearean.

If Audrey was the still centre of the social whirl that was METROPOLITAN, Charlie and Nick made it spin, and you have to think Stillman penned this follow-up as a showcase for actors Taylor Nichols and Chris Eigeman. Here they play cousins Ted and Fred Boynton (you can sense the broader humour even in the names), but it's mostly only the names that have been changed: these innocents abroad are pretty much yuppie extensions of their preppy forebears.

Both are sales reps of a sort. Ted represents the ultra-Yankee IHSMOCO – The Illinois High-Speed Motor Corporation – a devout apostle of Saints Benjamin, Ralph Waldo and Dale, while his cousin takes a decidedly more casual approach to his role as "sort of an advance man" for the U.S. Navy; "The last fleet visit was a disaster, so they thought it was a good idea to get someone in early to smooth things out and make sure nothing goes wrong." Of course, this being a comedy, the job falls to the utterly tactless Fred, who is oblivious to the fact that he is grossly unsuited to such a potentially (and literally) explosive diplomatic mission. Of course, this being a Stillman comedy, the implicit comment on a military leadership that would choose so blunt an instrument for so delicate an operation is left unstated – only to be quietly subverted in due time. One might almost say the film ends up a remarkably subtle study of the glories of good old fashioned Yankee bluntness.

In fact Eigeman's character differs significantly from his METROPOLITAN antecedent: if Fred puts the boor back in bourgeois, Nick was in fact the sophisticate of his circle, the keeper of its morals and traditions, however poorly he proved able to fulfill those standards. Prone to speak the unspeakable, he was more gadfly than goofball: to his circle, Nick's behaviour could appear unconsciounable, but he was in fact its conscience. Ted is more or less socially unconscious, and pretty much lacks any conscience at all apart from his reflexive pro-Americanism. Stillman's great accomplishment is that we love him for it.

It is the Nichols character who follows the most directly from the prior film. In his opening speech, METROPOLITAN's Charlie is pegged as a compulsive theorizer with a religious bent, his certainty of God's existence predicated on the flow of chatter that plays constantly in his head and the conviction that Someone must be listening. In the latter film, that Someone is (at least in part) the audience: Ted's relentless intellectualizing spills out into voice-over, and we are made privy to a curious sort of spiritual awakening. The all-too-decent Charlie hoped someday to regain his innate childhood "belief in a supreme being" by "a conscious act of faith": in the character of Ted, we have the privilege of seeing that process unfold.

The film is packed with memorable moments. An evasive Ted lies about his true reasons for staying home one evening, clandestine "reading material" hidden behind a copy of The Economist – leading to a comic payoff as touching as it is absurd. There is an embarassment of feminine riches (and you'd better pay close attention: the gorgeous dark-haired princess is Marta, Aurora is her maybe-plain-maybe-beautiful friend who gets named most often but shows up least, Montserrat is the cosi-perfecto blonde who shows up at the Hampton concert, Greta the "War And Peace" reader): out of this confusing chaos of attractive, sexually active Spanish girls emerges one who sketches angels – but not professionally – and knows a few Catholic prayers: she's cosi-religious. And a perfectly obvious miracle is wrought before our very eyes, obscured by playful editing and subverted by clever writing, our attention rodeo-clown distracted by Fred's definitive declaration of that Stillman trademark phrase, "Oh give me a break!"

Writing about METROPOLITAN, Armond White comments that Stillman's singular interest in character "reveals each one's moral quest. The effort to behave decently, even by the most eccentric (self-serving) standards, gives Stillman's upperclass stories a surprising kick and a fine grain." It is marvelous to see these moral quests extend beyond the confines of a single movie, as a handful of familiar characters in fascinating variations are stripped of superficial childhood securities to make their slow, stumbling journeys toward grace.

THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO, THE QUIET AMERICAN


The Criterion DVD of BARCELONA is available at Videomatica, as is the brand new Criterion DVD of THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO.

Friday, August 28, 2009

METROPOLITAN


METROPOLITAN (1990, USA, Whit Stillman)
Of course there’s a God! We all basically know there is.
I know no such thing.
Of course you do! When you think to yourself — and most of our waking life is taken up thinking to ourself — you must have that feeling that your thoughts aren’t entirely wasted, that in some sense they are being heard. I think it's this sensation of silently being listened to with total comprehension that represents our innate belief in a supreme being, an all–comprehending intelligence. What it shows is that some kind of belief is innate in all of us. At some point most of us lose that, after which it can only be regained by a conscious act of faith.

And you’ve experienced that?
No, I haven’t. I hope to someday.


It is a truism universally acknowledged, that Whit Stillman is the Jane Austen of indie film. But truisims only become truisms because they're at least partly true, and this one most certainly is. Both Austen and Stillman bring an affectionate irony to their carefully observed studies of romance and social ritual among the young and privileged, whether in rural Britain around the turn of the eighteenth century or in uptown Manhattan at the end of the twentieth.

We don't want to like these people: they have too much, they are too full of themselves. We delight in the author's gentle skewering of their pretensions, the understated portrayal of their follies and the quietly relentless exposure of their casual cruelties. All too eager to see the high and mighty fall, we intuitively trust Stillman and Austen to be our guides in these exotic locales: their knowing attention to detail proves them to be insiders, their ironic distance shows them to be like us.

Little do we know, it's all authorial strategy. These writers love the worlds they describe, love the characters they create, and in spite of ourselves we find before long that we've been won over. That sort of affection is contagious, and we end up bigger-hearted people for the experience.

In METROPOLITAN, we enter the world of debutante balls and exclusive Park Avenue afterparties through the character of Tom Townsend, a bookishly intelligent and humorless young man who is inadvertently drawn into "The S.F.R.P." (the Sally Fowler Rat Pack) when a party of preppies mistakenly conclude that they've commandeered his cab. Tom disguises his inability to afford cabfare (or a decent overcoat) with high-sounding principles, they (approvingly) label him a "public transit snob," and he's in – all the while hiding his desperate loneliness and desire to fit in behind a deliciously transparent intellectual posturing, his attendance at the social functions he pretends to disdain cloaked in a condescending quasi-anthropological curiosity.

But his disdain and ours begins to fall away as the outspokenly snobbish Nick takes Tom under his wing, tutoring him in such matters as detachable collars and "the standards and ideals of the UHB" (the Urban Haute Bourgeoisie, which they prefer to terms like "preppie" or "yuppie."). The artistry in the way Stillman crafts his story is seen most clearly in the way he shapes our perception of Nick (brilliantly played by Chris Eigeman, who became a fixture in Stillman's films), as an initial impression of grating arrogance gives way to genuine respect and affection. Nick may not be like us, but by the end of the film we may wish we were more like Nick.

In his introduction to the Penguin edition of Pride And Prejudice, Tony Tanner calls the story "a drama of recognition," which is to say, of re-cognition: as events unfold, not only the characters are called on to change their initial judgments of other characters, but so too the reader. Just as Elizabeth Bennet must revise her original assessment of the "proud" Mr. Darcy, and, in the process, expand her view of the world, so are our perceptions – indeed, our prejudices – challenged.

There is something significantly Christian in this shift from judgment to understanding, affection, even respect. One might call it the perspective of grace. In fact there are any number of other little markers that seem to hint at the writer-director's transcendent intentions. The opening credits are heralded by "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," the opening phrase elegantly rendered by piano and string quartet before a sassy segue into the film's neo-Jazz Age theme. We are introduced to Audrey (the film's Fanny Price, a virtuous heroine whose favourite novel is Mansfield Park), then the title card "Manhattan – Christmas Vacation – Not so long ago" gives way to a shot of the Pan Am building, its office windows illuminated in the shape of a cross. Tom is swept up into the Sally Fowler afterparty, and we reach what Stillman describes as "the original beginning of the film": an intense after-midnight conversation about the existence of God. "And you’ve experienced that?" "No, I haven’t. I hope to someday." Which certainly tells us much about the essence of these characters, the gap between their sophisticated theories and their meagre life-experience, but which also seems to be the culmination of a whole sequence of references to Something Beyond the narrow concerns of the debutantes and their escorts.

One recurring motif in the film is the tendency of these naïve sophisticates to resolve any conversation about another character's short-comings or questionable moral behaviour with some variation of "Well, he's basically a good person." Only the brash, truth-speaking liar, Nick, sees further into things. We take as essentially comic his early instructional monologue to Tom:

You haven't seen this? Detachable collar. Not many people wear them anymore, they look much better. So many things which were better in the past have been abandoned to supposed convenience. It's a small thing, but symbolically important. Our parents' generation was never interested in keeping up standards. They wanted to be happy. Of course, the last way to be happy is to make it your objective in life.
I wonder if our generation is any better than our parents'?
Oh it's worse. Our generation's probably the worst since… the protestant reformation. Barbaric. But a barbarism far worse than the old-fashioned straightforward kind. Now barbarism is cloaked with all sorts of self-righteousness and moral superiority.
You're obviously talking about a lot more than just detachable collars.
Yeah, I am.
Yet this is very much of a piece with his much more costly admission of personal guilt later in the film;
Charlie: So you're just another hypocrite!
Nick: That's not hypocrisy.
It's sin.
For all Cynthia's dismissive response that "It's hardly that," we feel that a deeper, starker truth has been spoken than we've heard in all the earnest self-disclosures and intellectual theories that comprise the bulk of the film's dialogue. And later, when an evocative return to "A Mighty Fortress" underscores one of the film's most touching (yet understated) scenes, that ancient hymn almost becomes Nick's theme.

It would be a mistake to read METROPOLITAN as essentially a religious film, yet there's no denying that faith – Protestant Christian faith, in particular – is part of the essential fabric of Whit Stillman's world. As his characters move from the debutante balls of METROPOLITAN to the dance clubs of THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO to overseas careers in BARCELONA, the childhood protections of naivete and privilege erode: Stillman's characters are increasingly confronted with their own limitations and mortality, and find themselves reaching for something beyond what money, youth, and social standing can provide.

Fundamentally, though, these are not message movies. If there is serious spiritual intent beneath these delightfully comic surfaces, fear not – it's cleverly concealed, if indeed it is there at all. Whatever these films may intimate about eternity, the chief pleasure they offer is the opportunity to spend time in the company of the gracious, erudite Whit Stillman and his earnest, bright, "basically good" young friends – however filthy rich they may be.

It bears mention that not everyone ends up liking these characters: for some viewers, the initial perception of pettiness, arrogance and self-preoccupation is only confirmed by ninety minutes spent in their presence. If Audrey alone is hard to fault on these grounds, her attraction to Tom may nonetheless baffle: what is there in his clued-out prickliness to win her love beyond a poorly disguised insecurity? But whether or not one finds her fondness for the wounded outsider sweet or admirable (or even an embodiment of grace), it is nonetheless entirely believable, played to understated perfection by Carolyn Farina, a non-actress discovered working the Macy's perfume counter. I think one of the film's real achievements is that it leaves room for us to draw our own conclusions, observing its characters acutely but never dictating our response – much in the manner of Jane Austen herself, or Noel Coward, even Oscar Wilde, who may not always like their characters, but always enjoy them. Whether or not we share Whit Stillman's author's affection for Audrey, Tom, Charlie and Nick, we can still delight in their wit – and in their witlessness, wittily observed.

CLUELESS


There is a very fine Austin Bramwell article on all three Whit Stillman films at "First Things," a Catholic journal of "religion, culture and public life" (though I'm not nuts about his last paragraph).

The Criterion DVD of METROPOLITAN is available at Videomatica, as is the brand new Criterion DVD of THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

VIFF Countdown Begins

Fall approaches, and so does the Vancouver International Film Festival. Jason Morehead's TIFF picks at Filmwell have me wondering what Soul Food there'll be at VIFF this year. A little nervous - the festival dates (Oct 1-16) coincide with THE LAST DAYS OF JUDAS ISCARIOT at Pacific Theatre (Oct 7-17), in which I play Butch Honeywell, so three daytimes, four evenings and one afternoon a week are out. Hoping to see ANTICHRIST (Lars von Trier), CREATION, CLEANFLIX. Fingers crossed!

September 5
Sneak Preview Guide Available at locations around town. Click here for more info

September 12
Complete program published on viff.org (film info, schedules)

September 18
2009 VIFF Program Catalogue available

September 19
Cash sales begin. Tickets can be purchased in person with cash and at the VISA Advance Box Office, Vancouver International Film Centre, 1181 Seymour St.

October 1 - 16
The Festival

Jason Morehead picks CREATION

My compadre over at Filmwell posted his Top Ten picks for TIFF, a couple with real Soul Food potential. Here's one...

CREATION (Jon Amiel, United Kingdom)

In this day and age, science and religion seem to be completely at odds with one another. On the one hand are scientists such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers who campaign vociferously against religion. On the other hand are folks who have come to view science — and scientists — with increasing skepticism and even contempt. And much of this mutual antipathy swirls around Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, along with its scientific, philosophical, and social interpretations and implications.

So I can’t help but wonder how a film that depicts Darwin — a man some believe to be one of the greatest minds of all time, and that others believe to be the source of many of society’s ills — as a man struggling with his own faith and doubts about both God and science will go over with both groups.
And here's the description from the TIFF website
Featuring riveting, impassioned performances from real-life couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, Creation is a profoundly humanist rendering of the story of a man whose scientific ideas famously and irrevocably changed the world.

It's 1858 and Charles Darwin (Bettany) has returned from his far-flung geological explorations on the HMS Beagle to settle into a quiet life in the British countryside. He begins work on On the Origin of Species, destined to become perhaps the most widely read book of natural science. In it, he outlines his theory of evolution through natural selection, inspired by discoveries about the transmutation of species that dispelled the prevailing religious beliefs of the day. After receiving a twenty-page letter from Alfred Russel Wallace describing similar theories, Darwin forges on to finish and publish his work. Met with instant success, the book enacts a paradigm shift within Darwin's lifetime, inaugurating a new era in biological science.

Rather than simply recount these well-known details of Darwin's life, however, director Jon Amiel explores the hypothesis that history is written more by the inner workings of the human heart than by a strict adherence to scientific fact. Darwin and his religious, God-fearing wife, Emma (Connelly), lost their first daughter, Annie (a feisty and charming Martha West), to illness when she was nine years old. Darwin fought to overcome his guilt and grief while trying to cope with his increasing estrangement from Emma, who in turn watched with sadness and horror as her husband grew more ill by the day and distanced himself from his four remaining children.

An ongoing imaginary conversation between Darwin and daughter Annie provides the thematic and structural thread of Creation, as she leads her bereaved father to eventual catharsis so he can persevere with his now-legendary work. Her unwavering commitment to her father's revolutionary ideas is testament to our continued need to reconcile heart and brain, faith and science, love and the life we lead in its wake.

Jason Morehead picks CLEANFLIX

My compadre over at Filmwell posted his Top Ten picks for TIFF, a couple with real Soul Food potential. Here's another...

CLEANFLIX (Andrew James/Joshua Ligairi, USA)

A few years ago, a bit of a controversy erupted when companies began offering versions of popular blockbuster movies sans sex, nudity, violence, and language. While popular amongst some groups, such as Mormons, the businesses predictably raised the ire of filmmakers, who resented having their movies reedited and resold. Cleanflix follows the rise and fall of this cottage industry amidst government crackdowns and sex scandals.

As someone who is keenly interested in that tenuous balance between celebrating artistic freedom and making moral and conscionable choices about the media (i.e., films) that his family experiences and enjoys, Cleanflix’s subject matter hits home.

What I find reassuring about the film, and what might prove to be critical to its success, is that the filmmakers — Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi — aren’t removed from the subject matter. They grew up within the Mormon community where the industry first got its hold, thus giving them access to key people in the controversy. Which I hope will make for a more nuanced discussion of the matter.
And here's the description from the TIFF website
Mormons can be movie lovers too. The problem is that their religious leaders strongly discourage R-rated content. As one Mormon prophet explained, “The mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards.” In order to better serve their Mormon clientele, enterprising video stores in Utah started to offer “clean” versions of popular titles like The Matrix and Titanic. Using digital editing software, self-appointed censors removed nudity, gratuitous violence and profanity, then mass duplicated the clean versions for DVD rental. Soon the idea took off, and multiple franchises sought to capitalize on brands like Clean Flicks and Flick's Club. For a brief spell, it seemed like the perfect business.

Unfortunately, no one consulted the copyright holders. Hollywood figures such as Steven Soderbergh, Curtis Hanson and Michael Mann became vocal opponents of having their work re-edited. As quickly as the clean movement blossomed, it started to unravel, with legal threats from Hollywood, accusations among rivals and even a sex scandal in the backroom of a clean video store.

In Cleanflix, directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi chronicle the rise and fall of the clean movement. Having grown up in the Mormon community, the duo gained close access to the main players that outsiders might never have achieved. The controversy over cleaning films raises further questions: Who gets to set cultural standards? Does what we watch affect how we behave?

The film gives a broader context for understanding the Mormon institution (known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) by talking to its adherents and those who have dropped out, most notably the playwright and filmmaker Neil LaBute, known for the dark themes in scripts like In the Company of Men and Bash.

As events unfold, one thing becomes clear: in movies, you can skip over the parts you don't like. But in real life, you can't.

Thom Powers

Monday, August 24, 2009

Aug 28 - Sep 10: LORNA'S SILENCE, Dardenne brothers

Fantastic news! After a string of four straight masterpieces - and I don't use the word loosely - from the Dardenne brothers (LA PROMESSE, ROSETTA, THE SON, L'ENFANT), I've been eager to see their latest. In the past, their films have screened in Vancouver for three or four nights at Cinematheque, maybe a week, but we've got fourteen days to catch LORNA. Can't wait!

Lorna's Silence (Le Silence de Lorna)
Aug 28 to Sept 10
Ridge Theatre
Daily at:4:00, 7:00, 9:15
Plus Sat, Sun, & Mon (Sept 7) at 1:30

France-Belgium-Italy
Lorna, a young Albanian woman living in Belgium, has her sights set on opening a snack bar with her lover Sokol. In order to do so, she has become involved in a scam conducted by Fabio, a gangster. . . .

Directors: Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne
Cast: Arta Dobroshi, Jérémie Rénier, Fabrizio Rongione, Alban Ukaj, Morgan Marrine, Olivier Gourmet.

Cannes Film Festival (France) Won: Best Screenplay (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne) Nominated: Golden Palm (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne)
César Awards (France) Nominated: Best Foreign Film
European Film Awards Nominated: Best Actress (Arta Dobroshi)
Lumiere Awards (France) Won: Best French Language Film

The Dardenne brothers previous four films can all be rented at Videomatica. Of course.

Friday, August 14, 2009

NOW PLAYING / COMING SOON

NIGHTMARE ALLEY
From the novel by William Lindsay Gresham, the first husband of Joy Davidman Gresham,
who later married C.S. Lewis.
Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 7:15pm
Monday, August 17, 2009 - 7:15pm
Check out Geeks, Freaks & Rubes for more on Gresham and the film.


NIGHTFALL
Directed by Jacques Tourneur
Friday, August 14, 2009 - 9:20pm
Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 7:30pm
Monday, August 17, 2009 - 9:20pm


THE TRUMAN SHOW
Brand new Bluray edition arrives at Videomatica August 18


A TOUCH OF EVIL
One of the "Loose Canon" of thirty films that show up on all seven of the "Greatest Films Of All Time" lists I compiled early this summer - with one of the most famous opening shots in film, 3 minutes and 18 seconds of continuous suspense without a single edit.
Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 7:15pm
Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 9:15pm
Monday, August 24, 2009 - 7:15pm


UP
continues at Hollywood 3 (Surrey), Station Square 7 (Burnaby), Scotiabank (Vancouver)

CAT PEOPLE (TOURNEUR)


CAT PEOPLE (1942, USA, Jacques Tourneur, Val Lewton / DeWitt Bodeen screenplay)
I've tried to make you realize all these stories that worry you are so much nonsense, but now I see it's not the stories. It's the fact that you believe them. We don't need a King John with fire and sword, we need someone who can find the reason for your belief and cure it.

You're drawn to her. She's sexy, sure, but not like the mankiller in a velvet gown that's on the posters. She's petite, shy, unsure, gorgeous eyes. Kittenish. Lonely, there's a sadness there, some secret wound. You just want to help her, and she wants to be helped. She's hungry for it. If you go for that kind of thing, you're doomed from the start.

The artistry of this film is something nobody expected. RKO Pictures hired a producer cheap and gave him a tiny bit of money and said, "Here, nobody went to see CITIZEN KANE, it cost us a fortune and lost us a forture, make us some creature features, people go see those and they don't cost much. WOLF MAN made a pile: here's a title, CAT PEOPLE, see what you can do with that. If you make a few bucks, we'll want more. Now scram." You can almost smell the cigar smoke.

So Val Lewton hired himself a like-minded director, and they set out to make some art, which nobody expected. It's gorgeous to look at, it's moody, it's understated, it's troubling: it's what horror might feel like in real lives. These two take seriously what this kind of movie usually just exploits, and the result not only sold a million tickets, it earned itself pages and chapters and volumes of commentary, and (fifty years later) a place in the National Film Registry. CAT PEOPLE is psychologically complex, it's geniunely sexy and hauntingly sad, and when it comes to the creepy stuff you gotta have in a picture like this, it plays for keeps.They're not called "supernatural thrillers" for nothing: when the subject is treated with this kind of respect they're not only thrilling but theological: the supernatural is rendered spiritual, grounding otherworldliness in this everyday world, and taking seriously things like sin and the human condition.

Lewton and Tourneur's artistry and integrity make this an unexpected classic, a movie to return to over and over again. But I think what really sets the hook is Simone Simon's presence in the central role. It's not a perfect performance: at times she's making faces, just a bit, at times she's pouting or indulging or playing it up ever so slightly. But you know, maybe even that contributes to the power of her work here – who is it that's self-consciously manipulating her own emotions, the slightly stagey actress or the slightly off-kilter young woman she's playing? If at times the effect is calculated and slightly false, is it the audience or the "good plain Americano" in the picture that she's performing for? (Is it part of the "not-quite-rightness" the pet store animals pick up on?)

Those slight (and I suppose delicious) false notes aside, Simon creates a portrait of troubled desperate-to-be-goodness you won't easily shake. "You might be my first real friend." The damaged loneliness she embodies – partly it's that accent, so softly exotic, distinctly other – is something contagious, like a plague. Perhaps it matters that the terrible evil she flees is placed but not named: she comes from Serbia, where she has witnessed (or taken part in?) terrible things, and even this scrap of geography roots her not in generalized horror movie evil, but in specific atrocities a modern viewer can all too readily bring to mind. She is fleeing not just something spooky but something specific, and something specifically evil, a legacy of very real human horror.

She has a horror of drawing close to anyone, of knowing or – mostly – being known. Her isolation is for protection. But the power of the film lives in this ambiguity: does she fear for herself, or those she might come to know? Saint Paul – that hard-shell New Testament bastard – breaks your heart when he pours out his own: "The thing I do is the thing I don't want to do, the very thing I hate. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" He doesn't name the sin, or the thoughts that haunt him, but I wonder what memories and impulses rise up even now, in this new life he clings to with such ferocity. What residue remains of the man so driven and steely he'd reveled in the deaths of so many of Jesus' followers?

It's all there in Irena, in the way she draws close to this man who walks into her life, draws him close but won't be known. The talisman she makes of that bizarre statue in her apartment, the way she says "Christian" and the way she says "Satan," the fear in her eyes as she crosses herself when the cat-like woman calls her "sister." It's the white-knuckle Christianity of one who knows the darkness, has loved the darkness, but now resists its pull like a recovering addict fighting the compulsion to use. No wonder the film's abiding feel is more of melancholy than terror.

Irena isn't the film's only memorable character. Kent Smith is a more wooden performer – definite B-list forties performance, here – but whether the screenwriters wrote for what they knew they could get, or the director cast well, or whether everything about this unlikely miracle of a movie was blessed by some all-pervading cinematic good fortune, he's the utterly perfect counter-force to Irena's urge-and-emotion exoticism. And the beautifully shaped contour of his story eovkes such a complex response: at times we feel he's just the sort of guy she needs, we're grateful for his feet-on-the-ground common sense, yet it's shot through with something that grows increasingly repellent, a sort of fundamentalist materialism that begins to smell like arrogance or willful ignorance. He's smitten, we feel his tenderness toward this frightened kitten in our bones, so we feel his frustration and disappointment just as tangibly when she is unable to draw close, even after their marriage: the moments when we see each of them on the opposite sides of a door – once on their wedding night, once on the night when she weeps alone in her bath – are scenes of unshakeable poignancy. And when (Paul) is increasingly drawn to his co-worker – Irena's opposite, thoroughly American and straight-forward, a little bit pretty and a little bit tough, she says what she feels and goes after what she wants – we both understand and don't. Irena warned him things would take time, he promised he'd wait, but when he's faced with a bit of unhappiness that goes on a bit longer than he's used to, so much for the promise. He's a faithless lover, he's not the self-denying knight on horseback we all wanted him to be – he's just a perfectly normal red-blooded schmuck like any one of us. We understand, we ache for him – hey, a guy deserves a little happiness, this is America after all! – but we see the self-first-ness that eventually borders on cruelty, and we partly figure whatever might happen to him, he's got it coming.

"Less is more" say the artists, and the Lewton/Tourneur CAT PEOPLE could serve as Exhibit A if they ever have to defend their claim in court. (Paul Schrader's remake could be called to the witness stand as some sort of proof by contrast. Or maybe his movie is the crime?) Rather than monsters and hideous bestial transmogrifications and explicit violence and gore, we get shadows and silence and precise edits and carefully calibrated, utterly mundane sound effects: the sound of high heels on pavement, a braking bus, the shrill distortion of a woman's voice in an indoor swimming pool. (One is reminded of that other minimalist Frenchman who grounds his spiritual transcendence in the sounds and textures of everyday physical observations, Robert Bresson. And by that comparison, and the fact it's not dismissable out of hand, we recognize how very unusual a monster movie this truly is. More Bresson to come in the boys' next outing…)

So how does the story end? Happily. The cheapy horror thriller made back all the money CITIZEN KANE lost, it ran so long that the critics who dismissed it opening weekend had to go back for second looks and rave reviews, and the money-minded studio chiefs came up with a bit more money and another swell title ("I Walked With A Zombie. Think it'll sell?") to see if Val and Jacques cold come up with another high-class supernatural thriller.

To be continued.

I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, THE ADDICTION

Available at Videomatica

CAT PEOPLE (SCHRADER)


CAT PEOPLE (1982, USA, Paul Schrader, screenplay w/ Alan Ormsby, DeWitt Bodeen story)
You can see why this God-haunted, Total-Depravity-Of-Man-obsessed ex-Calvinist Schrader would be drawn to this landmark supernatural thriller. But as you might guess, his sensibilities are all wrong for it, and the genius – not to mention the spiritual frisson – is completely lost. Understatement becomes overstatement, what's implicit he makes explicit: sexual undercurrents open out into rancid sloughs of prostitution, promiscuity and incest, and the threat of violence is more than threatened – we even get to see a melodramatic Malcolm McDowell slurp down some human entrails. Lovely, if that's your kind of thing. The religious elements that Tourneur takes more seriously than expected are sensationalized here, robbed of any potency: instead of Irena holding hard to Christianity to keep her darkest impulses at bay, her brother is the religious one in the family, part of a fanatical cult; the T-square that offered unexpected protection in the first film is as utterly ineffectual in Schrader's film as we would have expected in the first place. The celebrated park and swimming pool scenes are both here: on the commentary track the director refers to them as obligatory scenes, and that's pretty much how they feel. Oh yeah, the girl in the pool this time is topless. It's that kind of movie. Watch the original.

Available at Videomatica

I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE


I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE (1943, USA, Jacques Tourneur, Val Lewton / Curt Siodmak / Ardel Wray screenplay, Inez Wallace article, loosely adapted from Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre")
How do you ever expect to get to heaven, with one foot in the voodoo houmfort and the other in the church? Some of this native nonsense... The houngan has his prescription, Dr Maxwell and I have ours.
You never talked about voodoo before, Mrs Rand.
It's just part of everyday life here.
You don't believe in it?
A missionary's widow? It isn't very likely, is it?

If CAT PEOPLE affects us so potently because of our compassion for its central character, this follow-up from Tourneur and Lewton achieves its greatest effect by maintaining a chilly, chilling distance. Again, a young woman (possibly in peril) is at the centre of the story, but we view her with an odd detachment: she seems a sweet enough girl, but perhaps her immediate attraction to the cold, even cruel Paul Holland distances us from her from the outset – her psychology grows increasingly complex as the story progresses, and it's not easy to hope (or imagine) that everything will work out for these two.

The concentrated pathos of the earlier film is replaced by something altogether eerier and more disquieting, though once again there's a pervasive sense of melancholy, even despair. Somehow, events on this Caribean island seem fated, orchestrated: the naïve Canadian nurse is walking into the middle of something her good old northern common sense hasn't prepared her for. We learn early in the story that the narrative ground we walk on is soaked in blood and human misery: the plantation was built and farmed by slaves, the figurehead of the slave ship (which the servants call "T Misery") has been built into a fountain in the centre of the courtyard, and everything on the island seems fated to end in the sadness that flow from that tragic history.

Before producer Val Lewton was handed the keys to the shop and a (very small) wad of cash to make some little movies of his own (and big money for the studio), he worked on the much-bigger-budget classic REBECCA, which is somewhat derivative of JANE EYRE where he served as story editor. The premise of both stories is evident enough here. A Caribbean plantation owner hires a young nurse to care for his wife, who is kept in an isolated tower room. Though she is awake, and can walk around, she is sedate, completely unresponsive: the locals call her as a zombie, one of the living dead. As in those other two stories, a terrible mystery draws us forward through the story: how did such terrible things come to pass? What – and who – could have caused such misery? And, because this is a Lewton-Tourneur picture, easy answers will be elusive, and there will be a strong suggestion that they are at least partly spiritual.

If you are hoping for a horror movie, ZOMBIE will disappoint: even seemingly climactic scenes mystify rather than thrill, paying off only in mood and a slow accumulation of character detail. In fact, by the final third of the film even the the basic narrative seem to dissipate. This is a strange aspect of the film: on careful viewing, it becomes evident that every necessary piece of the rather complex story is provided, yet we still notice an odd dislocation to the narrative.

This may be due in part to the elision of certain story elements which would be expected in most films: their absence means we have no more awareness of the progression of things than individual characters may have, or at times even less. We are able to fill in the narrative gaps by intuition and by assembling scraps of dialogue and behaviour, but we are forced to "lean in" to the story, and even our heightened attention leaves us with a sense of mystery, unsure that we have the full story. Kind of like life.

At one point, a scene involving significant plot developments (which appears in the original screenplay but was either not shot or deleted in the editing room) takes place indoors: we are outside with the nurse and a servant woman, minding a stubborn horse, getting only glimpses of the men inside and hearing nothing of their dialogue. From this point on the telling of the story becomes more and more odd, the narrative threads increasingly disconnected – just as the story grows more and more inescapably supernatural. Most screenplays zero in on a central line of action in their third act: ZOMBIE seems to do the exact opposite. If CAT PEOPLE suggested Robert Bresson in the use of sound and the understatement of its performances, this film not only carries forward those techniques but adopts similarly elliptical story-telling style – and in so doing, evokes a similar sense not only of mystery, but of Mystery. (Of course, Bresson's distinctive "transcendental" style didn't emerge until THE DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST, still seven years in the future: you don't suppose Robert watched a lot of RKO horror flicks, do you?)

The film has been widely celebrated for it's use of light and shadow: blinds, screens, gauzy curtains, leaves and even a prominently placed harp which appears to have no other function in the film but its visual interest (and a perfectly placed contribution to the soundtrack, tagging the end of an establishing shot that watches the shadows its strings cast on a sheer curtain blowing in the night breeze) give a remarkable sense of depth and texture to Tourneur's meticulously framed black and white images.

But the film's most striking image is the bust of San Sebastian. The servant who brings Betsy Connell to the plantation underscores its identification with those who have suffered on the island, calling it by name ("T Misery") and speaking of the sculpture as if it were human;
"A man, Miss. An old man who lives in the garden at Fort Holland, with arrows stuck in him and a sorrowful weeping look on his black face."
"Alive?"
"No miss, he's just the same as he was from the beginning, on the front side of an enormous boat. The enormous boat brought the long-ago fathers and the long-ago mothers of us all, chained to the bottom of the boat."
"They brought you to a beautiful place, didn't they?"
"If you say, Miss. If you say."
Tourneur's films are remarkable for their anti-racist sensibility: not only is this film grounded in a hatred of slavery, but its portrayal of the Caribbean people of colour and their religious practice is extraordinarily accurate and respectful, free of the racial stereotypes common to other films of the day. No wonder the film had such immense popularity with African-American audiences at the time.

Like the statue of King John in CAT PEOPLE, there is something emblematic, almost sacramental, about this gruesomely beautiful sculpture to which we return so frequently, often at moments of greatest misery. Through most of the picture the camera shows us the carving at eye level in full or three-quarter profile, sustaining in the viewer's mind the primary identification of this as the figurehead of a slaveship. But as the film reaches its ultimate climax, something quite remarkable happens to the way this image is presented to us, causing us to re-interpret its significance, drawing out a distinctly spiritual layer to the way we read it.

A character makes a choice to co-operate with what appear to be supernatural forces on the island, then turns to the image of Saint Sebastian that stands in the fountain at the centre of the plantation garden. For the first time the statue is touched: the character grasps one of the arrows imbedded in the figure's chest and moves the arrow up and down to free it from the carving. We feel the violence of this tangibly, in our ribs: we've long been aware that this image has come to represent the general sufferings of the slaves and their children's children, but suddenly we're reminded that this carving is also the likeness of a specific saint and martyr, and we almost physically feel that his suffering is being enacted before us. Then the camera cuts to a full-on front perspective, viewed from below, and we see not only the image of a Christian martyr, but a striking evocation of Christ himself, whose suffering was echoed not only in the death of Sebastian and in the agonies of generations of slaves, but which is being carried forward in the film's present action. Now we see not only the profile but the face of suffering, the willing victim's eyes turned heavenward, the camera's upward angle drawing our eyes to something like a circle of thorns which crowns this man of sorrow. In the darkness, the water that streams down the figure's chest appears to be blood.

A further ritual death is carried out, a tragically relentless collusion of supernatural forces and human decision that is in itself a judgment, a damnation, at the same time as it may be a rough kind of salvation – at any rate, it provides the release, the terrible catharsis, of authentic tragedy. Perhaps a curse is now broken, or perhaps it has at last been fulfilled.

We are drawn into this story by a mystery, a dark and essential question: who is responsible for Jessica's condition? What crime or sin or failing led to this unnatural state of things? A once-beautiful, once-beloved woman is trapped between life and death, her will – that singularly human, singularly divine faculty – extinguished? As an African-Caribbean voice intones a final, funereal prayer, a judgment is rendered – a particular selfishness is named, and deemed wicked, and we receive a final answer to the question.

Or do we? Have we traced the evil back to its source, and in knowing it and naming it, broken its power? Or have we merely uncovered one more face of evil, yet another outworking of a malady far more pervasive? Are its consequences at last put to rest with the ritual sacrifice that climaxes the film, or is something greater and more universal needed?

In the final analysis, in the final prayer, an "answer" is offered to the mystery at the centre of this mythic tale. And yet, it is nothing like the whole truth, nothing close to satisfying. We remain as unsure of precise cause and effect, unconvinced about such precise assignment of culpability and responsibility, just as we are unclear about so many other features of this dark dream. We are uncertain, even, which of the film's characters is the zombie of its title. The one who strolled on a beach, or one who journeyed through a midnight cane field? Or some other character whose will was surrendered to forces darker and more powerful?

Someone chooses to play God and ultimately, with the best of intentions, sentences a woman to a living death – there is something of the Frankenstein myth being played out here. Another character, gripped by an irrational urge to lash out, lives in the grip of the shadows of his own nature, fearing what other beautiful things might be destroyed – Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde, with all its thundering Pauline wretchedness, comes to mind. One brother is consumed by jealousy, another by bitterest resentment, and any number of Old Testament tragedies are invoked. Ancient sins carry forward from generation to generation, as a privileged few profit from the misery of the many – is it any wonder that a final judgment is wrought? Or that, when it comes, it counts for so little, changes almost nothing.

And to think – all the studio wanted was a monster movie.

AMISTAD, AN INSPECTOR CALLS, 3 NEEDLES, CURSE OF THE DEMON

Available at Videomatica

STARS IN MY CROWN

STARS IN MY CROWN (1950, USA, Jacques Tourneur, Margaret Fitts screenplay, Joe David Brown novel and adaptation)
There's no writing on here. This ain't no will.
Yes it is. It's the will of God.


Fans of the moody supernatural thrillers Jacques Tourneur lensed for Val Lewton in the forties or his noir masterpiece OUT OF THE PAST may find little appeal in this sunny, easy-going tale of a small town parson set just after the American Civil War. But of the twenty-nine feature films he directed between 1939 and 1965, Tourneur often cited this as his favourite. A gentle, non-assertive man by all accounts (uncommon traits in a film director!), this is the one he fought to do;
I went to see Eddie Mannix who was the boss at MGM. He said, "It's a little B picture. We can't pay your price." To which I said to Eddie, "I'll do this picture for nothing." He said, "We're not allowed to pay you nothing because there's a Guild and we'll have to pay you the minimum." So I said, "Fine. Pay me the minimum."
In some ways, he sacrificed his career to get this movie made: once he'd agreed to make a film "on the cheap," studios never again paid him more than a fraction of what he'd earned on previous assignments.

Why was this project so important to Tourneur? One wonders if he may have felt an affinity with the story's central character, the transcendently decent Reverend Josiah Gray. Chris Fujiwara paints paints the portrait of a remarkable man, "quiet, caalm and humane," in his definitive work, Jacques Tourneur: The Cinema of Nightfall;
Paul Valentine said "Tourneur was a delightful, lovely man, and he treated everybody like they were his own family members. And we enjoyed it. There was never a loud word, never an argument." Robert Stack thought him "shy and pleasant"; Gregory Peck said he was "smiling, easygoing." To Peter Graves, he was "a kind man and a good director…. So many Hollywood directors were gruff and abrupt. I remember him as kind and patient." During production of THE FLAME AND THE ARROW, Tourneur walked off the set because Burt Lancaster had been terribly rude with a technician without any reason." Tourneur explained: "I detest people who insult those who can't defend themselves. I told him that if it happened again I would abandon the film, and he was very docile after that."
In one memorable sequence near the beginning of STARS IN MY CROWN, the no-longer-pistol-packin' preacher discovers a man teasing the simple-minded "Chloroform" Wiggins with a bull-whip: the scene is agonizingly protracted as the victim tries to laugh it off, fuelling his tormentor's compulsive cruelty, until finally Grey – a Civil War veteran – intervenes. The scene blazes with Tourneur's passion for justice and his compassion for the powerless and outcast, while it's unexpectedly gracious conclusion restores a remarkable affability and harmony to the community. Esteemed critic Jonathan Rosenbaum calls it "one of the most neglected films in the history of cinema… It recalls some of John Ford's best work in its complex perception of goodness, and I can't think of many films that convey a particular community with more pungency."

One also senses that Tourneur's intense desire to direct this sweet-spirited, faith-affirming story, which seems so out of step with the darker subjects and style of the films he's more famous for, has a great deal to do with its spiritual themes – themes which are treated with surprising seriousness in his horror pictures. We've sensed that this guy really takes evil seriously: now we begin to wonder if maybe he really believes all the God stuff, too.

STARS is loaded with God stuff, no mistaking, and it's not just the general clerical do-gooding of too many minister movies. The town's new doctor is antagonistic to the Reverend Josiah Grey and his religion – "I'm not interested in souls" – but when medical science has failed and the young doctor's wife, Faith, is on her deathbed, he calls for the man of God, whose bedside prayers bring miraculous healing. Perhaps more significant (and certainly less melodramatic) is the healing of Doc Harris's soul. Early in the film his antipathy toward the parson extends to condescension toward the entire town, but the minister deals graciously with his enemy and makes room for him to gain the trust of the community, until in the end the man of science sits beside Faith on a pew in the church, singing the pastor's favourite hymn, "Stars In My Crown."

The tension between scientific reductionism and spiritual reality may be this auteur's most distinctive theme: interestingly, STARS is unique among Tourneur's films in finding a reconciliation between the two. The director's "magnificent obsession" with another sort of reconciliation provides a second link between this atypical film and his other celebrated works: a fierce passion for racial equality that's all the more remarkable given the fact that these films predate the full blossoming of the civil rights era.

While the screenplay draws little attention to it, the common perception that the Civil War was in part "the war against slavery" provides a perfect historical context for the story of a man who has set aside violence as a means but continues to fight for the same end with the weapons of peace. (Characters intent of building a new life are central to CAT PEOPLE and OUT OF THE PAST). The pioneer preacher might use his status as a Civil War hero to win the respect of school children or stand up to the town bully, but he leaves his guns at home when it comes time to face a mob of Klansmen intent on lynching a black farmer and taking his land – far and away the film's most powerful scene. Viewers who find themselves impatient with the quiet, pastoral (heh heh heh) tone and pace of the first eighty minutes really must hang in for the powerfully filmed climax. Josiah Grey's confrontation with his racist neighbours, their identities (and humanity) masked by white sheets, prefigures one of the best-known and most moving scenes in American film, Atticus Finch's vigil on the jailhouse steps in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.

I've got to think that a 24-year-old Harper Lee saw STARS IN MY CROWN when it played the local movie house in Monroeville, Alabama. Who knows, maybe she shared popcorn with her peculiar childhood friend, Truman, who would have been less impressed than she with this nostalgic portrait of a small town much like theirs, with its obvious sense of community and shared values, as well as its less obvious cruelties and racism. A story about adult matters, told by a child: the story of a wise and peaceful man, a man of immense integrity and courage, who simply will not stand by and let his town be less than it might be.

I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, CURSE OF THE DEMON, A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT


Available only on vhs

CURSE OF THE DEMON


CURSE OF THE DEMON ("NIGHT OF THE DEMON," 1957, UK, Jacques Tourneur, Charles Bennett / Hal E. Chester / Cy Endfield screenplay, Montague R. James story)
You could learn a lot from children. They believe in things in the dark, although we tell them it's not so. Maybe we've been fooling them.

There's too much demon for me, and much too soon. I love Tourneur's grand theme – "I make films on the supernatural, and I make them because I believe in it" – and this, his last journey into the fantastique genre, is saturated with dialogue that goes straight to the heart of his favourite and most fascinating questions. But in this picture, I wonder if it isn't all a bit much? There's a thin line between theme and message, and when things get obvious we grow impatient.

Dr. John Holden (another of this director's uber-Yankee rationalist-materialists) travels to England to debunk a Satanic cult, only to be confronted with the reality of evil when he finds himself under a deadly ancient curse. He encounters any number of "believers," from seancing grannies and the sort of not-so-tourist-friendly British country folk who would later show up in STRAW DOGS and WICKER MAN to Fifties-sexy kindergarten teachers who won't take any of this guy's guff because they majored in psychology. (Reminds me of Dr Science: "And remember, he's smarter than you: 'I have a master's degree….'") None of whom make a dent in Doc Holden's boiler-plated and compulsive skepticism.

Problem is, the narrative deck is stacked against the good doctor from the outset, so there's no room for the sort of ambiguity and psychological suspense that make CAT PEOPLE and I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE so effective. Is Irina right about this whole fatal feline thing, or is she psychologically troubled? For the longest time, we don't know, so we can at least empathize with (and many times even agree with) the common-sense perspective of her practical Americano boyfriend. In ZOMBIE, we never do really know what's nuts-n-bolts explicable and what's the legacy of the past and what's full-on voodoo "more in heaven and earth" supernatural stuff – or even whether the spiritual carryings-on are evil or benign.

But in CURSE, we spend almost a full minute with the demon only six minutes in, a twenty foot wolf-bear-godzilla type beast that walks out of the darkness in that gravity-free, jerky way bad movie monsters have, all covered in unkempt black hair and flames. Violins swirl, horn sections bombast, there's this screechy noise like the wheel on some kid's wagon needs to be oiled, and a guy in a bowler hat screams, panics and gets electrocuted. And I'm thinking, this is a Jacques Tourneur movie?

Not exactly, at least not according to Jacques. When JT signed off on this one there was no monster at the front end, and at the back, only a four-frame glimpse of something that might be a demon, or might not be. "The scenes in which you really see the demon were shot without me. The audience should never have been entirely sure…" The flaming black horned critter is courtesy of the producer, whose monster picture was darn well going to have a monster in it, thank you very much. "They ruined the film by showing it from the very beginning."

I'm afraid he's right. In a film that's completely preoccupied with questions of skepticism and belief, that's centred on a character whose stubborn commitment to scientific rationalism only slowly gives way to something… well, more rational… the presentation of a big, hairy, incontrovertibly real demon in Scene Two is a serious problem. When he first opens his mouth he's obviously just plain wrong about things, the audience knows better, and the more he opens that mouth, the more annoying he gets.

There are marvelous elements, though, in spite of studio tampering. When we first meet Dr Julian Karswell, the purported Satanist, he's playing cribbage with his old mum, and the film's most effective scene (loaded with ambivalence, irony and uncertainty) takes place at a party he holds for the local children, complete with clown nose and everyday magic tricks. "I see you practice white magic as well as black." "Oh yes, I don't think it would be too amusing for the youngsters if I conjured up a demon from hell for them." There's something about the scene's utter Englishness, and its suggestion that supernatural parlour games may cloak real occult forces, that could have come straight from one of the supernatural thrillers of Charles Williams,the author who was such an influence on C.S. Lewis, (particularly in That Hideous Strength). "You know, the devil has something here. Very pleasant." "He's most dangerous when he's being pleasant."

The best way to watch DEMON may be to imagine the film as the director intended it. Let go of the producer's certainty that there is a big, nasty demon, and give Doc Holden a chance by leaving things up in the air. After all, most of us share at least a measure of his skepticism, don't we? If not about all things spiritual, at least about ghosts and demons and things that aren't the family dog but do go bump in the night. The interfering Mister Chester's "real" Scary Monster only succeeds in robbing the film's real horror any sense of reality, and that sells Jacques Tourneur's vision sadly short: he would have defined things less, left more to the imagination. As they say at the end of the film, "Maybe it's better not to know."

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE

Available at Videomatica

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Filmwell Index


In May 2009 I started writing for Filmwell, a new movie site that also features writers Jeffrey Overstreet, M. Leary, Mike Hertenstein, Alissa Wilkinson and Jason Morehead. I'll use this post to index various Filmwell pieces I want to keep track of.

Favourite Articles

Rushdie, Kansas & Oz (Oh, My!) 6/2/09 (MH)

Goodbye Solo, This American Life, and Ramin Bahrani 3/24/09 (AW)

My Contributions

Andrei Rublev: The Passion According To Andrei (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966) 7/08/09

The Big Apple & Les Fils Dardennes 5/27/09

Cat People (Paul Schrader, 1982) 8/5/09

Commemorating “The Crossing” 8/7/09

Communists, Catholics & WW2 5/31/09

Did Leigh Film Trigger New Legislation? 7/28/09

Filmwell’s Book of Filmmaker Wisdom: Excerpt 3 - Kiarostami 7/13/09

Jacques Tourneur, B Movie Auteur (Part 1): Cat People (1942) 7/30/09

Jacques Tourneur, B Movie Auteur (Part 2): I Walked With A Zombie (1943) 8/4/09

Jacques Tourneur, B Movie Auteur (Part 3): Stars In My Crown (1950) 8/11/09

Jacques Tourneur, B Movie Auteur (Part 4): Curse Of The Demon (”Night Of The Demon” 1957) 8/13/09

Lahr Vid Clip: L'Enfant 6/1/09

Leftovers: A few more thoughts on movies that feed the soul 8/11/09

Loose Canon: a rough consensus on 30 great films 5/20/09

The Lost Films of Rolf Forsberg 6/3/09

The Man Who Planted Trees (1987, Frédéric Back) 6/10/09

Mundruczó’s Delta Evokes Tarr, von Trier, Joan of Arc 6/25/09

O’Connor Meets Huston: Wise Blood (John Huston, 1979) 6/17/09

Prokudin-Gorsky Reflected in Silent Light? 7/14/09

Revanche (Götz Spielmann, 2008) has all the right influences 7/03/09

"Revisiting Tarkovsky": Lincoln Center, July 7-14 7/8/09

Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002) 7/13/09

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Joel & Ethan Coen, "World Cinema"



Back in 2007, we posted the Dardenne brothers' contribution to CHACUN SON CINEMA (To Each His Own Cinema), an anthology of short films commissioned to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Cannes Festival. Now another entry appears on YouTube, by the Coen brothers, featuring the star of their recent NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Sweet. (Thanks, Jeff.)

Leftovers: A few more thoughts on movies that feed the soul


Jeffrey Overstreet posted a more-than-you-can-eat smorgasbord essay on (soul) food movies yesterday at Filmwell, in response to Alissa Wilkinson's reflections "Julie, and Julia, and Me." Chef Overstreet's menu includes such mouth-watering films as PIECES OF APRIL, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN, WINGS OF DESIRE, RATATOUILLE, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, and many more - including those mentioned below...

When CHOCOLAT was in theatres, two widely varying responses deepened my appreciation of the film; Frederica Mathewes-Green brilliantly and forcefully made the case for what bothered me about the film, then Loren Wilkinson (Regent College) drew out what was right about the film - as is his way.

And yes, I'd have to agree that BABETTE'S FEAST is pretty much the ultimate "soul food" food movie. My experience of the film was a curious echo of the experience its characters: until the feast began, I was as cold toward the movie as those frosty Scandinavians were toward one another. But that all changed. And when you talk about the sacramental nature of that sacrificial feast, I can't help thinking of the final scene of PLACES IN THE HEART, a surprising, arresting sequence that lifted a good film into something like greatness.

The "food for the soul" metaphor that figures so prominently in Jeff's movie writing is one that's also important to me - obviously, I suppose, given the name of this blog. I found that BIG NIGHT especially connected with those themes in my own experience.

And two films come to mind that you Jeffrey didn't mention. I love the way BROADWAY DANNY ROSE - Woody Allen's warmest film - is centred around a pair of meals. And while I haven't written anything about it, MY DINNER WITH ANDRE is a great favourite, and definitely calls for a return visit since the June release of Criterion's DVD.

Saying grace in the movies surely merits its own essay - LES MISERABLES and PIECES OF APRIL come immediately to mind. My favourite would have to be Joe's prayer in THE STATION AGENT.

But surely the last word must go to THE GODFATHER: "Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."

All available at Videomatica

Saturday, August 08, 2009

I Am Sam: Commemorating "The Crossing"

A little something to commemorate the occasion,
forty years ago today: 11:35AM, August 8, 1969.
from I Am Sam (Jessie Nelson, 2001)

Edited from Wikipedia: In Danny Boyle's Trainspotting the four main characters walk towards a climactic drug deal processing the "wrong" way across a street crossing: the scene takes place as they walk out of Smallbrook Mews across Craven Road to the Royal Eagle, 26–30 Craven Road, Bayswater. The 1998 Walt Disney movie The Parent Trap featured a brief imitation, including a freeze frame to make it obvious: after Hallie arrives in London, she and her mother walk across the street together, on the same street, zebra crossing, and with the same cars as the Abbey Road album cover, as the song "Here Comes The Sun" plays. The very final shot of the Spanish movie El factor Pilgrim (The Pilgrim Factor) by Alberto Rodriguez and Santi Amodeo features the four main characters crossing Abbey Road in procession. I Am Sam, which features covers of Beatles songs as its soundtrack, includes a scene in which several characters walk across a zebra crossing carrying pink balloons.


I AM SAM, TRAINSPOTTING and THE PARENT TRAP all available at Videomatica

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Noir

"I'm poison, Swede, to myself and everybody around me!"

"My, my, my! Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains!"

"I was born when she kissed me. I died when she left me. I lived a few weeks while she loved me."

"Listen, I'm no cop now. I'm a husband! What did you do with her? Where's my wife? My wife!"

The Killers, The Big Sleep, In A Lonely Place, Touch Of Evil
Film Noir series, Pacific Cinematheque
All available at Videomatica

POP SWITCH wins

POP SWITCH won Special Jury Mention at its world premiere at the In The Palace International Short Film Festival (Bulgaria)! Congrats to Jason Goode, Lucia Frangione, Michael Kopsa, Jan Keisser and all.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Did Leigh Film Trigger U.S. Drug Legislation?

happy-go-lucky-poster

Film-makers Shaping The Course Of History

Trusted sources speculate that the 2008 hit film Happy-Go-Lucky may have triggered recent FDA approval of ground-breaking new medication, placing director Mike Leigh among a small but influential group of film-makers that includes such luminaries as Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Errol Morris, and Krzysztof Kieslowski.

The landmark Errol Morris documentary The Thin Blue Line (1988) challenged the capital murder conviction of Randall Adams, and led to Adams' release from prison in March 1989 (Texas Monthly). A Short Film About Killing ("Krótki film o zabijaniu" Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1988) contributed to Poland's 1989 moratorium on executions (The Guardian), and the Dardenne brothers' 1999 Palme d'Or recipient Rosetta inspired Belgium's "Rosetta Plan," reforming youth employment legislation in that country (European Industrial Relations Observatory).

Now it appears that Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky (2008) may have provided the impetus for U.S. lawmakers to approve new medication which offers the hope of a normal life to an estimated 20 million Americans, and relief to their long-suffering families, friends and co-workers.



All available at Videomatica

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Jul 24-30: REVANCHE has all the right influences

Coming late July to the Cinematheque, the Vancouver premiere of an Austrian film that's getting compared to all the right directors...


REVANCHE ("Revenge" (2008, Austria, Götz Spielmann)
Pacific Cinematheque
Friday, July 24, 2009 - 7:00pm
Friday, July 24, 2009 - 9:20pm
Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 7:00pm
Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 9:20pm
Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 7:00pm
Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 9:20pm
Monday, July 27, 2009 - 7:00pm
Monday, July 27, 2009 - 9:20pm
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 7:00pm
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 9:20pm
Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 7:00pm
Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 9:20pm
"Revanche, a ravishing, masterfully restrained, unusually intelligent neo-noir revenge tale from talented Austrian director Götz Spielmann, was nominated for the foreign-language Oscar this year — "and it’s a better movie than most of the films in the main race" (Wesley Morris, Boston Globe). "A suspense-filled thriller, full of jarring angularities, perfectly composed scenes and dollops of steamy sex...Alex (a stellar Johannes Krisch) is a disgruntled, tightly wound ex-con working in a Viennese brothel. His only respite is his love for Ukrainian prostitute Tamara (Irina Potapenko) who reluctantly plies her trade in the same brothel. Out in the sun-dappled countryside, couple Susanne (Ursula Strauss) and inexperienced cop Robert (Andreas Lust) have just moved into their new home. Two couples in seemingly diametrical opposition are brought into one another’s spheres after a deadly botched robbery sets Spielmann’s taut tale in motion" (Vancouver I.F.F.). The film has been widely praised — and drawn comparisons to the lofty likes of Hitchcock, Haneke, Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, and Bresson — for its emotional and moral depth, life-affirming humanism, beautiful formal qualities, eloquent economy of means, and firm sense of place and purpose. "Directed with terrific control...Revanche gets its hooks into you early and leaves them there" (Scott Foundas, Village Voice). Colour, 35mm, in German with English subtitles. 121 mins." Pacific Cinematheque
At Twitch, fellow Filmwell writer Jason Morehead calls the film "the unexpected discovery and delight of the 2008 Toronto International Film Festival," and points out the double-entendre of the title: "'Revanche' means not only 'revenge' but something like 'a second chance.'" And if you watch the trailer at the auteurs (full screen!), you'll read Soul Food-friend Darren Hughes' quote that "Revanche is the kind of taut, thinking-adult's drama that America stopped producing 30 years ago." Here's what else Darren had to say at longpauses.com: "
I've developed a lazy habit of saying that I don't particularly care what a film is about; I care what it does formally. But, while well-directed and wonderfully performed, the standout feature of Gotz Spielmann's Revanche is the story, which, particularly over the last 80 minutes, is perfectly constructed. Borrowing from scattershot genre conventions (lovers on the run, an escape to the country, the Madonna whore), Revanche is the kind of taut, thinking-adult's drama that America stopped producing 30 years ago. Although his film maybe lacks so neat a moral dilemma as that posed by The Son, Spielmann matches the Dardennes at the level of execution. Or, more to the point, I was tense and curious for the entire length of the film, and I was completely satisfied by its resolution. (Also, what the Dardennes did for the lumberyard, Spielmann has done for the wood pile.) Highly recommended."
And here's more of what they had to say at theauteurs.com...
Revanche shows just how successfully one can transpose the plot and character based drama of Hollywood to the refined style of European art-house cinema without hampering it with a sense self-importance. The film’s story of an unhappy Ukrainian prostitute (Irina Potapenko) and her boyfriend (Johannes Krisch) who works at her brothel essentially has all the ingredients of a sordid American narrative: exploitative setting, crime, a botched armed robbery, and an accidental murder. It is this last element that sparks the title and the film’s focus on contemplating vengeance. But Götz Spielmann’s film is far from the exploitative thrill ride this description would suggest. His approach is respectful and measured, as if wanting to give what would normally be considered a B-plot its due. There is no pretension in his scenes, each usually made up of longer takes and only one or two shots, all from a cool, respectful distance. Patience is the key, the film noticeably lacking any additional, deep-seeded psychological tumult that this divergent, far more brooding approach to such a story might bring to the robber’s boiling desire, while hiding out, to find and kill the murderer who upset the robbery.
Revanche takes the kind of story usually compressed into a taut, 90-minute film and carefully elongates it, drawing out relationships always given the short shrift in a more compacted versions—the attachment between the robber and his girl, between the cop (Andreas Lust) who ends up killing one of them and his wife (Ursula Strauss), between the robber’s father and the survivor, the cop’s wife and everyone else. Although coincidence connects everyone's relationship to one another just a bit too much, it also allows each character to settle into their tragedy by developing relationships with those similarly, but unknowingly affected by the very same events. The cop tears himself up over the murder, the robber over the lost loved one, and both the wife and father on the outside, one trying to push her way in deeper, the other trying to pull himself out, distance himself from this world and leave it for a better place. The idea seems too simple but the results speak for themselves: deliberation clearly can turn the regular into the accomplished. Revanche does just that, taking the time not to imbue its story with anything new or different, but rather giving a clichéd story room to breath, to settle down and admit its emotions, and to find its own tempo and tragedy on its own terms, in its own time.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Until Aug 2: Criterion, DeepDiscount

Criterion Sale at Barnes & Noble
50% off until August 2
I'm not entirely clear if this includes every one of the 360 Criterion titles listed at the Barnes & Noble website, but it may.
Soul Food titles include Au Hasard Balthazar, Ikiru, Andrei Rublev, The Seventh Seal, Metropolitan, Days Of Heaven, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, Pickpocket, The Diary of a Country Priest, The Last Wave, Au Revoir Les Enfants, Flowers of St Francis, Through A Glass Darkly / Winter Light / The Silence, The King Of Kings, Ma Nuit Chez Maude (in "Eric Rohmer's Six Moral Tales), La Strada, Solaris, Wild Strawberries. The Virgin Spring. There's also lots of quasi-Soul Food, like By Brakhage, The Life Of Brian, Black Narcissus, Magnificent Obsession, Wise Blood, Picnic At Hanging Rock, Simon Of The Desert, Ugetsu Monogatari, Ivan's Childhood, Sullivan's Travels, The Ice Storm, Salesman, Yi-Yi, Mouchette, Il Posto, The 49th Parallel.
Save 50% Off on Criterion Collection DVDs and Blu-ray discs. Offer ends 8/2/2009 at 2:59 a.m. ET or while supplies last. Look for the "50% Off Criterion DVDs & Blu-rays" icon on select DVDs online at Barnes & Noble.com. Barnes & Noble Member program discounts will apply. Shipping charges may also apply. Additional discount if you use coupon codes (like 10% off highest item), AAA discount (10% entire order), or visa discount (5% off and free shipping).


DVD & BluRay Sale at DeepDiscount
25% off already discounted prices until August 2, free shipping: Enter Promo Code SUPERSALE at checkout
They've got tons of DVDs, so I won't try to be exhaustive, but here are some Soul Food titles they've got that have been on my mind lately: Godspell, Jesus Of Nazareth, Magnolia, In Bruges, Smoke, Rivers And Tides, American Beauty, Ten (Kiarostami), Into The Wild, and tons more.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

SILENT LIGHT photography

Between 1909 and 1915, photographer Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky traveled throughout Russia recording scenes of Russian life in vivid colour. The images seem anachronistic: we're used to seeing the early twentieth century in monochrome, and - apart from the clothing and machinery - many of these arresting pictures could come from last month's National Geographic. R.J. Evans provides an overview of the photographs (including the only known colour portrait of Leo Tolstoy), as well as a description of the innovative color process devised and used by Prokudin-Gorsky, at Quazen.com.

There's a similar feeling of anachronism to sections of Carlos Reygadas' SILENT LIGHT ("Stillet Licht" 2007, Mexico), filmed among the Old Order Mennonites of Mexico - many of whom emigrated from Russia via Manitoba, Canada. One almost wonders whether Reygadas had the historical pictures in mind when one compares images such as this from his film...


...with this photo of Russian settlers from the archival collection...


An extensive selection of the Prokudin-Gorsky photographs is displayed on flickr.com.

SILENT LIGHT available at Videomatica