CIFF '08: A Christmas Tale

Like his previous film Kings and Queen, Arnaud Desplechin's A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël) is a fractured family drama, in this instance set around Christmas at the Vuillard house right after the family learns that the matriarch of the family, played by Catherine Deneuve, has been diagnosed with a degenerative type of cancer. The cancer can only be treated through injected bone marrow, and each member of the family is tested to see whether or not they match Deneuve's rare type, which brings them all together at their childhood home in the days leading up to Christmas. The sprawling family is largely made up of Desplechin regulars like Mathieu Almaric, as the Vuillard's troubled son, Emmanuelle Devos, as Almaric's lover, and Jean-Paul Roussillon, as the older husband of Deneuve. Desplechin divides the film into chapters, with title cards coming up with words like "reunion," and "farewell," but Desplechin's Christmas is hardly storybook-esque. As the film opens we learn that Almaric has been banished by his sister, played by Anne Consigny, after another in a serious of screw ups. Consigny's son just has just been discharged from a psych ward, after suffering a meltdown and coming at her with a knife. As such, the family dynamic is always based in some form of conflict. The numerous story and character threads are weaved by Desplechin in a mixture of film devices, from frequent irises in and out, to having the characters directly address the camera. With all of the family activity and emotional turbulence, Arnaud keeps Deneuve's wavering search for a marrow match as the through line of the film, and allows the rest to be as messy and untidy as life often is. What emerges from the confusion and film devices is the characters, bolstered by uniformly superb performances, including a strong turn from an increasingly reliable Chiara Mastroianni, Deneuve's real life daughter, playing the wife of one of Almaric's brothers, for whom another brother holds lingering romantic feelings. At the end of A Christmas Tale, we're left with an often funny, but ultimately sad story of a family moving in separate directions. It's due to the truth of the performances and great aplomb in the way in which Desplechin and co-writer Emmanuel Bourdieu' script unfolds that the story feels so organic to its characters. What makes the film so successful is that Desplechin and Bourdieu don't feel the need to tie up their Tale with a bow, but rather let its characters and various story threads remain messy and realistic, and that's the real gift.

CIFF '08: Synecdoche, New York

As a writer, Charlie Kaufman has always been interested in exploring large concepts in his work, from identity in Being John Malkovich, to memory in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and directors Spike Jonze (Malkovich, Adaptation) and Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine, Human Nature) have helped thread those ideas into what essentially end up being love stories. Directing his own screenplay for the first time in Synecdoche, New York, Kaufman has rid himself of the love story, and has this time thread his characters and plot around his ideas. In this case those ideas include theater, death, illness, death, gender, marriage, art, death, and the color of stool. Picking up a visual aesthetic that combines Jonze's and Gondry's, and a score from Eternal Sunshine's Jon Brion, Kaufman tells the story of a theater director played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who, after receiving a genius grant from the MacCarther Foundation, attempts to stage an "honest," massive theater piece that "truly reflects who he is." Or maybe not. In a Q&A after the film, Kaufman said he attempted to write with dream logic, and though the film doesn't offer the pat conclusion that it was all a dream, it helps to explain the tone of the film and things that comprise Kaufman's mise en scene. One indicative example is Hoffman's assistant, played by Samantha Morton, who moves into a house that is constantly on fire, which her real estate agent explains drastically reduces the price. Other such oddities fill the film, but don't seem to be there just to be eccentric, but rather, as Kaufman said, exist to externally reflect the characters' state of mind. An abundance of characters play into the story, with a cast that includes Catherine Keener, Emily Watson, Tom Noonan, Michelle Williams, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Hope Davis, and Dianne Wiest. As with his previous films identity plays a large part, with characters playing one another in Hoffman's theater piece, and the line between real life and art are blurred, but the film never feels confusing. Nonetheless Synecdoche is a film that's almost impossible to explain after seeing it once, and unlike Malkovich, Adaptation, or Eternal Sunshine we're not offered any kind of traditional narrative conclusion, no strings are tied together, but it's as powerful a film I've seen in some time. A mad fever dream of a movie.

CIFF '08: Wendy and Lucy

It's not often you find a film that demands an audience to decipher the nature of its characters. So subtle is the film in the way it draws you into its main character Wendy, played by a mesmerizing Michelle Williams, who writer-director Kelly Reichardt advised to give up bathing and make-up, in a film that gets in deep to the rhythms of its characters' lives. As the film begins we find Wendy and her dog Lucy in Oregon en route to Alaska, where Wendy hopes to find work. A transportation problem temporarily strands Wendy and Lucy, and armed with a few hundred dollars they're forced to sleep in her car in Oregon. In a painful and believable development, Lucy goes missing, and the rest of the film follows Wendy in her search for Lucy and the trouble she encounters staying in Oregon. Like Reichardt's previous film Old Joy, Wendy and Lucy is not showy in any way. We get a real sense of life being lived on screen through the combination of the performances and Reichardt's understated, observational aesthetic. All of the information we receive about Wendy is indirect, as in a scene after Lucy goes missing, Wendy calls her sister in Indiana who, without prompting, mentions that she doesn't have any money to lend Wendy. One line and Reichardt and Jonathan Raymond's script tells us so much about Wendy's past, and her relationship with her sister. We can draw these few suppositions about Wendy from the film, but beyond that we're left to watch this woman and decipher her emotions and state of mind. The film's success is due in large part Michelle Williams, and in the years since her flirtation with teen stardom, she's had an eclectic career in non-commercial film. Working with Wim Wenders, Todd Haynes, Ang Lee, Tom McCarthy, and others, Williams has turned in performances with progressive depth and skill. So quiet she is in this film, so immersed in this character that you don't for a second question the authenticity of her performance or her circumstances. There's little I can say that can express the tone of the film or the lack of forcedness and plotting, other than to say that the performances are excellent, the photography is splendid, and the film is pitch perfect and among the best I've seen this year.

CIFF '08: The Wrestler

Darren Aronofsky is one of my favorite directors, and I've loved his last three films. This is a definite change of pace. Instead of his usual visual flourishes, he strips down his aesthetic, and simply follows the characters. Mickey Rourke is the movie, and through the almost Dardenne brothers like style, we get inside the mind of a man who can do one thing, do it great, but no longer has a place where can excell in that field, professional wrestling. Rourke has few friends, but he does have one person he seems to connect with, a stripper played by Marisa Tomei. As Rourke is sidelined for a time, he begins to try and reconnect with his daughter, played by Evan Rachel Wood, at the urging of Tomei. This isn't a film you need to go into with any predeliction towards pro Wrestling, you can even hate it, and I don't think that'd detract from what a great movie it is and how special the performances are. I like Mickey Rourke, and I like even more now that his face is a big hunk of battered flesh. Even in a cartoonish role like Marv in Sin City, Rourke brings a sadness to his characters, a kind of big lug with a lot of inner conflict, that you rarely see in men of his build in movies. Tomei and Wood are equally as good in their scenes, balancing out Rourke's tragic hero. The music, much like the wrestling attire, is often cheesy, but it so fits the world of these characters, and what they listen to and like that any other choice would diminish the realism that this film thrives in. A small, human drama that's distincly American, and yet approached from an angle more traditionally seen in European films, The Wrestler is a clear departure for Aronofsky, but one that's not out of line with his creativity or his talent. At the Q&A after the film Aronofsky mentioned that he thought of his first three films as a loose trilogy, building up to 2006's The Fountain, and that he hopes he can continue to reinvent himself and surprise his audience. With The Wrestler, Aronofsky surprises his audience a great deal, and delights them even more.

Nobody Played

So it seems the reaction to "Funny Games" has been...silence. The film's barely broken a million dollars (which is great for a Haneke film, but pretty poor considering it has a major star whose opened both "arthouse" and big horror films big before*), and is closing in most of the 250+ theatres it played in. Those who've seen it have said nothing (unless you count likely false accounts like this one). People like to be entertained, especially those in the horror crowd and the reaction in the theater I was in seemed like mostly indifference. I do wonder if it'd been pushed as hard as the films it condemns, or released in the number of theaters, would it have had any impact. If anything its taught me that a strong personal reaction is not a neccesary indication that others will give a shit.

Alright everybody, out of the theater.

*by comparison, Watts' last film "Eastern Promises opened at $547,092, playing in 15 theatres, and "Funny Games" opened to $3000 less, playing 286 theatres.

Not "Funny," Ha Ha

So I'm trying something new on this blog, actual film writing.

I've been following a discussion at Jim Emerson's "Scanners" blog for the past couple of days about Michael Haneke's new remake of his 1997 film "Funny Games."

The first part of the discussion can be found here, but what made me write the response below was Mr. Emerson's review of the film, linked to here. I'll update as the discussion continues, and post any responses I get, and possibly use this as a place to continue the discussion if it loses steam over there.




Spoilers and angry rebuttal ahead

I'm kind of flabbergasted by your analysis, and particularly your utterly ridiculous comparisons between the movie and the Abu Ghraib photographs.

It's funny, a month or so ago a documentary called "Taxi to the Dark Side" came out, and I saw it. Sitting in the theater, I was horrified, angry, disgusted, and I came out shaken. I didn't need the film. I'd read about what was happening to the detainees, but I saw it anyway. It added to my understanding of the situation, and though its a tough, gruelling watch, I was glad I saw it. I'd liken that to seeing the 1997 "Funny Games" in some ways. I think both are vital, important, very different, but brilliant films. Do I love them? No. Insomuch as its hard to love something you never want to see again. Does that make them any less vital? Or powerful? Or great? I don't think so. I didn't love the despair and confusion and anger and all of the emotions that come with seeing detainees being forced to strip and masturbate, piled on one another being beaten. I didn't love seeing the atrophied legs of a dead detainee. But these things are happening, and denying them helps nothing.

Maybe its a stretch, but in a way, the things in Haneke's self-consciously filmy FILM are happening too. They happen in the multiplexes every January, and October when scores of teenagers scream for blood and mutilation while munching on popcorn. I don't know if you've been in an audience whose shouted for blood, but it's like you've been transported back to the Coloseeum. I myself don't love watching people being tortured, but clearly people do. The reason I'd willingly go to something like "Taxi" or 'Funny Games" is because theirs a point to witnessing these acts, and it's not entertainment. The films do exist, and Haneke's statement isn't mixed or hypocritical at all. He made one of those "torture porn" films, and instead of leading it to its "normal" conclusion, he steps outside of the film and comments. When one of the torturers asks the audience if they're on the family's side, I don't think that's a condemnation of the audience on Haneke's part, its a legitimate question. The normal expectation for this kind of movie is that the family will be tortured for a while, one or two might get killed off, but eventually they'll get some kind of redemption, and probably kill the two boys.That way the audience gets the fun of torture with a tidy, unambiguous ending that superficially evens the moral keel. That doesn't happen in Haneke's film, and so it either makes the audience realize or acknowledge that deriving glee from the torture in those films makes you complicit.

Granted, it's much easier NOT to pay attention to the media coverage of Iraq and Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib, and its much easier to do as you suggest and NOT see "Funny Games" and think about what Haneke is expressing. I mean, how dare Haneke be so obnoxious as to mirror the torture trend and comment on it, right? How obnoxious of Alex Gibney for documenting actual torture, right? They gave an Oscar to that sadist? Right...

Do you have the same complaints with Gibney, Mr. Emerson? Or how about the makers of "The Bridge?" Or, if you think its unfair comparing Haneke to a documentarian, do you have the same problems with Gavin Hood for "Rendition?" Or Neil Marshall for keeping those poor women in the cave in "The Descent?" Why is it not okay for Haneke to have message take over his film rather than character or story, but it is okay for Gibney, or Charles Ferguson, or Michael Moore to? Is the overt falsity in Haneke's film what makes it so abhorrent? You can argue that Haneke could have made his point more eloquently, or maybe made a documentary, but the bluntness in the film is the same bluntness you find in "Cache," which you admire, and the rest of his work. "Cache" is certainly more entertaining, and most definitely a better, more complex film. It'd be a stretch to call "Funny Games" entertainment, but is that all film can be? You might not love it, but does it really only achieve half a stars worth of its goal?

And here I thought the "Contrarian Blog-a-than" had been over for months...

The Best Films of 2007

Joe Wright's second feature is a tour de force of directing, and storytelling. The film is divided into three sections, each featuring a different actor playing the central character, Briony. The first section is set at an idyllic English country home in the early 1940s. Wright manages to make this so idyllic and so incredibly beautiful (with the help of his brilliant cinematographer Seamus McGarvey), that when the turn in the first act comes, its shattering and heartbreaking. Once we're jolted out of this paradise, we find ourselves near the end of WWII, and there's a flashback sequence between the other two lead characters, Celia and Robbie, that rivals "Breif Encounter" as heartbreaking romantic melodrama. The third turn slams us into present day. Not much has been said of the film, and its greatness, but along this brilliantly executed story, based on Ian McEwan's novel, there's a 6 minute tracking shot, and some of the best filmmaking I've seen in years. Pride and Prejudice tipped Wright as soemone to watch, but with Atonement, he shoots to one of the best working today. This film is a masterpiece, and the best of the year.

Paul Thomas Anderson has previously speicalized in comic dramas that feature large ensemble casts and cross cutting between multiple stories. With There Will be Blood, he's made the most unique American film of the year, and perhaps one of the most unique of all time. It's a focused character study, mainly of two people, Daniel Plainview, a self-made oil tycoon and Eli Sunday, a self-made preacher. Its uniqueness has put some others off, specifically its ending, but its the right ending, and it's what makes the picture. With this film, Anderson steps up his already impecable game and creates a wholy unique work of art, a focused meditation on greed, religion, and commerce.
Jason Reitman's film so completely captures the world and the feeling of suburban teenagers in his coming of age comedy, with a script by Diablo Cody. Ellen Page and Michael Cera inhabit their roles so deftly that it'd be easy to say they aren't acting, but in Juno, Ellen Page has created one of the great film teenagers. She's a knowing, sarcastic character, and her performance, coupled with Cody's writing and Reitman's direction turn her into a funny, scared young woman coming to terms with her first brushes of adulthood. The pregnancy in the movie is just a location, and Reitman fills his film with equally rich portayals, notably with J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney, who both bring weight and complexity to their roles as Juno's loving parents. Though it might not add anything to new to film language, Reitman's film is the most heart-warming and optomistic comedy of the year.
Like Blood, David Fincher's "Zodiac" is an instensley focused American film. Recreating the period setting not just in the art direction, but also the film style, Zodiac is one of the most tightly crafted films in recent decades. Remniscent of classic investigation movies of the 1970s, its a film that'll be obsessed over for years, and marks a bold new direction for high-definition digital filmmaking. A myriad number of actors take on the different personas of Bob Dylan in Todd Haynes' film that is just as much about movies and American culture as it is Dylan. Haynes uses Dylan as an entry point into Fellini, Godard, Altman, Billy the Kid, Woody Guthrie, and the very fiber of American history of the 19th and 20th centuries. Though its subjects are diverse, Dylan is very much there in his music, and in the various landmark events of his career and life that Haynes inteprets into various film styles and periods. Never for a moment is it dull, or confusing. It plays very much like listening to a Dylan song, you can try to sort it all out, and get no where, or you can go for the ride, and let it all mean what it means.

1. Atonement

2. There Will Be Blood

3. Juno

4. Zodiac

5. I'm Not There

6. Persepolis

7. Ratatouille

8. Dans Paris

9. Knocked Up

10. Once

The Other 10

The Darjeeling Limited, Across the Universe, Superbad, Eastern Promises, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, The Namesake, In the Valley of Elah, Starting Out in the Evening, Michael Clayton, Cassandra's Dream, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Death Proof (Grindhouse cut).

Other Reccomendations: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, No Country for Old Men, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Margot at the Wedding, Away From Her, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Romance & Cigarettes, Taxi to the Darkside, The Orphanage, American Gangster, Rendition, Hot Fuzz, Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Sicko, No End In Sight, La Vie en Rose, Into the Wild, I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With, Lars and the Real Girl, Lust, Caution, 12:08 East of Bucharest, Gone Baby Gone, The Savages, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, The Golden Compass, The Kite Runner, The Lookout, Interview, Delirious, 3:10 To Yuma, Control, The Hunting Party, Black Book, The Simpsons Movie, Bug, The Bourne Ultimatum, Paris, je t'aime, A Mighty Heart, This is England, 2 Days in Paris, Shoot 'Em Up, The Brave One, Hot Rod.

Best Revivals: Killer of Sheep, Blade Runner: The Final Cut.

Biggest Dissapointments: Youth Without Youth , Oceans 13, Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

Best Documentaries: Taxi to the Darkside, Sicko, and No End in Sight.

Worst: Hannah Takes the Stairs, and Youth Without Youth.

Wes Anderson & Sofia Coppola consistency and some favorite close-ups

The following series of images are a gallery of close-ups for Matt Zoller Seitz's "Close-Up Blog-a-thon." (Note: some of these are not close-ups in the strictest sense, but are shots that draw the viewer's focus to one point, often that of a face or an object.)

------------------------------------------------------

In all five of Wes Anderson's features (and his short film Hotel Chevalier), he frequently cuts to extreme close-up insert shots of objects or text. Below are examples from his films of such instances where the details are made big. Since The Darjeeling Limited is not yet on DVD, and the trailer has none of them, it's excluded. It's now on dvd and I've added some examples from that film.

Bottle Rocket (Short-1994)

Bottle Rocket (Feature - 1996)

Rushmore (1998)

The Royal Tenenbaums (2002)

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

A twelve-person medium shot!

Hotel Chevalier (2007)

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

------------------------------------------------------

Sofia Coppola's three features have all been about lonely women, and they all share one shot: a girl coming home from a party of some sort is seen inside a car from outside the car, looking out as the reflection on the window passes her by.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Lost in Translation (2003)

Marie Antoinette (2006)

-------------------------------------------------------
and some of my other favorite close-ups (that were readily available.)

Birth (2004)

Breaking Away (1979)

Closer (2004)

Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)

In the Mood for Love (2002)