Author: Darren

  • By Brakhage

    By Brakhage

    Another capsule review for the Arts & Faith Top 100. Writing a brief introduction to Brakhage for an audience that might not even be aware of the existence of a-g cinema proved to be a really fun challenge.

    “When film subverts our absorption in the temporal and reveals the depths of our own reality, it opens us to a fuller sense of ourselves and our world. It is alive as a devotional form.”
    —Nathaniel Dorsky, Devotional Cinema

    “If I had a friend who wanted me to teach him how to look at films, I’d begin with a couple of months’ worth of Brakhage.”
    —Fred Camper

    If asked to describe Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers”, most of us would say something like, “It’s a fairly simple painting of flowers arranged in a pot. It’s not especially realistic looking. It’s very two-dimensional. There are no shadows, no depth. Nearly the entire canvas is yellow, and you can clearly see Van Gogh’s brush strokes.” If asked to describe Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane, most of us would probably begin with, “It’s a movie about a man who inherited great wealth as a child and went on to become a publishing giant and a failed politician. The movie begins with his dying word, ‘Rosebud,’ and then we spend the next two hours watching his entire life play out before us, all in hopes of discovering why that word was so significant to him.”

    The differences between the two answers are revealing. Even those of us with little to no training in art feel relatively comfortable attempting to describe a painting’s form: the size of the canvas, its use of color, the composition of elements within the frame, the artist’s technique. Moving images (film, television, video), however, are especially well-equipped to tell stories, which is why when we talk about them we tend to describe what they’re about rather than what they are. The narrative drive is strong in us humans. When engrossed by a story, we have a knack for tuning out everything else, including film form—composition, editing, focal length, shot duration, color palette, lighting, etc.

    This is part of what the avant-garde filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky is referring to in the quote above when he talks about our “absorption in the temporal.” When we “escape” into a movie or TV show, we become inert and inattentive, which has troubling moral consequences. One goal of avant-garde cinema (also referred to as experimental or critical cinema) is to subvert that tendency, to provoke (in the best sense of the word) audiences to become conscious of the act of watching. Doing so, as Dorsky argues, has the potential to make film a devotional art on par with those already long established in parts of the church: music, architecture, glasswork, painting, sculpture, iconography, dance, and drama.

    Including By Brakhage on a list of Top 100 films is a bit like naming an anthology of Shakespeare’s tragedies one of the Great Books: doing so requires some bending of the rules for qualification, and, still, neither collection fully represents the astounding achievements of its author. By Brakhage is neither a film nor a unified series of films like some others on our list: Krystof Kieslowski’s The Decalogue (#2) and Three Colors Trilogy (#15) or Satyajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy (#17). Rather, it’s an anthology of 56 films (out of the 350-400 that Stan Brakhage completed) curated by the Criterion Collection that spans a half century, from one of Brakhage’s earliest short works, Desistfilm (1954), to his last, Chinese Series (2003). They range from nine seconds long (Eve Myth, 1967) to 74 minutes (Dog Star Man, 1961-‘64). There are silent films and sound films, black-and-white and color, documentary-like photographed films, collages constructed from multiple superimpositions, hand-painted films, and films made without the use of a camera whatsoever. In the words of Fred Camper: “More often, a single film will seem to be most or all of the above.” Stan Brakhage is unquestionably the most important filmmaker in the long and fascinating history of avant-garde cinema, and his inclusion in the Top 100 (along with Meshes of the Afternoon [1943] by one of his mentors, Maya Deren) is an important critical statement by the Arts and Faith voters. The avant-garde is not only a legitimate type of spiritual cinema; it’s essential, and it’s been too often overlooked.

    Brakhage first picked up a camera in the early 1950s while a student, and many of his earliest movies reflect the small, independent film movement of the day. Like his contemporaries Deren and Kenneth Anger, Brakhage borrowed occasionally from the formal techniques of an earlier generation of European Surrealists, including Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Man Ray, and Marcel Duchamp. Desistfilm, for example, uses quick, handheld, side-to-side camera movements (pans) that leave faces in tight, blurry, and off-axis closeups. The editing of the film is non-linear (there’s no particular story being told here) and is designed to create a disorienting rhythm in its cuts. What distinguished Brakhage in the ’50s and continued to be a hallmark of his work is that it is deeply intimate and personal. Window Water Baby Moving (1959), which is a kind of ode to the birth of his first child, is an especially beautiful instance of this quality.

    By the end of the 1950s, Brakhage was already moving toward greater abstraction. Mothlight (1963) is a good starting point when exploring these films. Rather than loading film into a camera and exposing it one frame at a time, Brakhage collected moth wings and bits of grass and leaves and assembled them by hand using tape, which he then ran through a film printer. When projected at 24 frames per second, the light passing through the wings creates a kind of dancing kaleidoscope. Viewers of Mothlight are made suddenly aware of the mechanics of film, as we can finally see and understand how a long strip of film moves rhythmically through the gears of a projector. But it’s also a jaw-dropping defamiliarization (“Make it new!” the poet Ezra Pound was fond of saying) of natural beauty. In 2010, Criterion released an expanded edition of By Brakhage on Blu-Ray, which now allows us to see with crystal, hi-definition clarity the attention Brakhage paid to each individual frame of his hand-made films.

    Brakhage’s interest in hand-made films continued throughout his life, and, indeed, one portion of the last stage of his career was devoted almost entirely to painting directly onto film, a technique he’d first experimented with in the early 1960s (see his early masterpiece, Dog Star Man). It’s these films (The Dante Quartet [1987] is a standout example), perhaps more than any others in the anthology, that go the furthest in expanding the borders of what we typically conceive of as a “movie.” In one of the features on the DVD, Brakhage quotes that famous line from Walter Pater, “All art aspires to the condition of music.” In other words, all art would like to bypass the intellect and reach, as Brakhage himself writes, that “non-verbal, non-symbolic, non-numerical” thinking that enables us to experience “the un-nameable or the ineffable.” This isn’t pseudo-hippy rambling. The only limits on film as an art form are those we put on it as consumers. If we expect nothing more from the film-going experience than “escape” and “mindless entertainment,” then there are plenty of studios eager to sell us their products. But, as By Brakhage demonstrates—and demonstrates better than any other DVD on the market—film’s potential as a devotional art is boundless.

  • Les rendez-vous d’Anna (1978)

    Les rendez-vous d’Anna (1978)

    This essay was originally published at Mubi.

    – – –

    Dir. by Chantal Akerman

    The Image in Question

    This is the fourth shot in Les rendez-vous d’Anna. Aurore Clément stars in the title role as a young filmmaker who, as the movie opens, is arriving in Germany to attend a screening. In this shot she is checking into the first of the three hotel rooms in which she’ll stay during her trip back to Paris. Like Akerman at the time, Anna is in her late-twenties, a Belgian who is attempting to make a home in France. The autobiographical parallels are difficult to ignore, particularly because Les rendez-vous d’Anna is so much of-a-pair with Je, tu, il, elle, in which Akerman herself plays the lead character, Julie. Julie’s encounter with the truck driver, and the long, unbroken monologue he delivers, serve as a kind of structural template for Anna, in which Clément acts as a mostly-passive sounding board to the friends, family members, and strangers she meets along the way.

    Broken Symmetry

    Although it’s only the fourth shot, the image of Anna at the hotel comes nearly five minutes into the film (if we include the opening titles in the run time). Les rendez-vous d’Anna continues the trend in Akerman’s early work of combining long shot durations with static, precisely symmetrical compositions. The following are the first three shots and their durations:

    Les rendez-vous d'Anna (Akerman, 1978)

    The medium shot of Anna staring just beyond the camera is startling, first of all, because it breaks two “rules” Akerman establishes in the shots that precede it. While Anna appears in each of them—and at progressively nearer distances—the 90-degree cut to Anna’s face brings us closer (in every sense of the word) to the character than we might have expected, especially given the self-consciously long (duration and depth) shot that opens the film. Even more striking, though, is the sudden break of symmetry, which is the visual equivalent of a time signature change in music.

    To continue the music metaphor (and I think it’s a useful one), Akerman’s attention to symmetry is a rhythmic theme that she varies playfully and with remarkable complexity throughout Les rendez-vous d’Anna. I especially like these images, which are two of only a handful of shots that move off of the 90-degree axes. Here, we’re at about 45 degrees, and Akerman has used the physical space to neatly divide the frame.

    Les rendez-vous d'Anna (Akerman, 1978)

    Subjective Structuralism (or something like that)

    My enthusiasm for this film began with the realization that I was so emotionally involved with it because of Akerman’s formal control. I occasionally have exactly the opposite response with narrative filmmakers who so precisely stage each frame (Roy Andersson comes to mind; Kubrick can also leave me cold). A friend suggested that the difference is Akerman’s anthropologist-like curiosity—that each composition illustrates her genuine and affectionate attempt to better understand what she’s looking at. That’s certainly true, but I think the more important factor is that when Akerman cuts to that shot of Anna’s face for the first time, we enter a subjective space. It’s quite a trick. Only rarely does Akerman employ classic techniques for establishing a character’s subjective point of view: there are three or four cuts on eyeline matches when Anna looks out the window of her train car, and in her first hotel room, the sound of the radio gradually becomes drowned out by the noise of passing traffic, despite Anna having already closed the window (presumably we hear the sounds Anna is more attentive to).

    Akerman’s trick is maintaining that subjectivity throughout the course of the film, while simultaneously standing at a distance and pulling the strings. Scroll back up to the first image and note the man in the background. Note how his body is leaning into Anna and how he’s staring at her.

    I’m not prepared to argue the case for “Anna as a feminist text,” but the move to a subjective perspective clearly colors that first sequence of shots: 1. Anna walks alone through the hotel doors, 2. Anna has a typical exchange with a hotel clerk, who is as far as we know, the only other person in the lobby, 3. Anna is being watched. Given the composition of the shot, we read the stranger as forcing himself into Anna’s space (they are battling it out for the center axis), so we expect her to feel his gaze, which she soon does. She turns toward him, causing him to avert his eyes, lean forward to grab his drink, and relinquish a bit of breathing room to her. When Akerman cuts next to a medium-long tracking shot, we discover that the stranger is one of several men who are watching her.

    Les rendez-vous d'Anna (Akerman, 1978)

    This double-ness—this sense of being both inside and outside of Anna’s perspective—can be felt throughout the film. One of the more interesting examples comes soon after the first monologue. Anna has been invited home by a man she met the night before. He wants her to meet his mother and daughter; he tells her a brief history of his family home and explains how and why his wife left him. Akerman literally centers the frame on Anna and expresses the character’s uncomfortable aversion to domestic life by eliding in a single, nifty, 180-degree cut everything that happens inside the house.

    Les rendez-vous d'Anna (Akerman, 1978)

    This is a Horror Film, Right?

    The doubled perspective also lends Les rendez-vous d’Anna a quality that I can only describe as…well…creepy. The standard critical line on Akerman is that she is a poet of transience and displacement, that her rootless characters are haunted by the always-present specter of historical trauma. By those standards Anna could be Exhibit A. Made barely thirty years after the end of World War II, and taking as its central plot device a train journey between Germany and France, the film struggles to make sense of a post-Holocaust world. Order is too unstable, rationality is not to be trusted, the horror is always just right there. History dissolves completely during Anna’s late-night trip to Brussels, when, by stepping from one train car to another, she seems suddenly to have become a passenger bound for the camps. It’s a terrifying sequence.

    Les rendez-vous d'Anna (Akerman, 1978)

    The strangeness of that first shot of Anna’s face, then, can also be attributed to her entrance into a liminal space. The hotel lobbies, hallways, train stations, and platforms where we most often see her are all public, nondescript, and well-traveled places. I’m reluctant to stretch this idea too thin, but I think the case could be made that Anna is a vampiric figure. She enters only one home during the film, and it’s at the owner’s invitation. (It’s interesting that Akerman also elides Anna’s film screening, which would have been a kind of home away from home.) The majority of the movie takes place after dark, and Anna’s most intimate and revealing moments—her conversation with her mother and the song she sings to Daniel—both occur late in the night and seem to be forgotten and alien to her the next morning. When she finally returns to her apartment, it’s dark, lifeless, and unnaturally silent (this is, as I recall, the only scene without ambient noise of passing traffic).

    Like I said, the vampire analogy snaps pretty quickly, but it’s a useful model for the not-quite-fully-present state in which Anna seems to exist. “Anna, where are you?” Akerman’s voice asks in the penultimate line of the film.

  • The Apu Trilogy (1955, 1956, 1959)

    The Apu Trilogy (1955, 1956, 1959)

    Dir. by Satyajit Ray

    Another capsule review for the Arts & Faith Top 100.

    Between 1955 and 1991, Indian director Satyajit Ray made more than thirty feature films, but he’s best remembered in the West for the “Apu trilogy,” which launched his career. Pather Panchali (1955), Aparajito (1956), and Apur Sansar (1959) are based on the novels of Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhya and follow their hero, Apu, from his impoverished childhood in a small Bengali village through early adulthood, when he becomes a novelist, husband, and father. Together, the films constitute one of the cinema’s true masterpieces, a work of Dostoyevskian richness-of-detail and emotional complexity.

    After studying art in college, Ray worked as an illustrator in the advertising industry while also pursuing his amateur interest in film. In the late 1940s he established a film society in Calcutta, and in 1950 he determined to make a small, intimate film of his own, one like those he’d seen on a recent trip to Europe. Of particular influence on Ray were the Italian Neo-Realists, who took their cameras out of the decimated studios and filmed, instead, using natural light in the rubble-strewn streets of post-war Rome. Two of these films are included in the Top 100: Vittorio De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves (1948) at #28 and Roberto Rossellini’s Rome, Open City (1945) at #80.

    Apu doesn’t make his first appearance until twenty minutes into Pather Panchali. Instead, Ray introduces viewers to day-to-day life around the boy’s home: his older sister Durga tends her kittens and steals fruit from a neighboring orchard for her aged “auntie”; his long-suffering mother cooks and cares for her family; his underemployed father daydreams of becoming a great priest and poet. When we do finally meet Apu, it’s an iconic image: Durga wakes him by pulling back a sheet, revealing first just one wide eye before exposing his full, smiling face, all amid a flourish of music from Ravi Shankar (Pather Panchali launched Shankar’s career in the West as well). Over the next five hours, we watch as Apu grows into a promising student, leaves home to live in Calcutta, suffers tragedy, and experiences great joy, all captured by Ray’s curious and compassionate camera. There are frequent moments of jaw-dropping cinematic beauty throughout the trilogy, but Ray is no showman or grandstander here. In these particular films he stays true to the Neo-Realist spirit, privileging the mundane details of life over big-budget splendor and artifice.

    The “Apu trilogy” is also notable for introducing Western audiences to Indian cinema. In the 1950s, Ray, Akira Kurosawa, Yasujiro Ozu, Ingmar Bergman, Rossellini, and, later, Francois Truffautt, Jean-Luc Godard, and Eric Rohmer were among a group of now-canonized foreign filmmakers who received wide distribution of their work in the United States. Many of these directors are represented in the Top 100. Ozu’s Tokyo Story (1953) at #21 is an especially good pairing with Aparajito, the second of the Apu films. The Neo-Realist line that runs through the Italians and Ray extends all the way to contemporary filmmakers in the top 100 like Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Abbas Kiarostami, Jia Zhang-ke, and Lee Isaac Chung.

  • Vivre sa vie (1961)

    Vivre sa vie (1961)

    Dir. by Jean-luc Godard

    I’ve been an occasional participant in the Arts & Faith discussion forum for nearly a decade. They recently polled members to determine a Top 100 film list, and the results are notable. In previous incarnations, we used the vague criterion, “spiritually significant,” to determine what did and did not belong on the list. This time out there were no explicit guidelines. Members nominated several hundred films, we voted, and, in my opinion, we came up with a damn fine list. We then volunteered to write blurbs for the Top 100. This is one of my contributions, which is intended for a general reader who is willing to take some risks while exploring the list.

    My Life to Live (1961) opens with a series of closeups of Nana (Anna Karina)—her left profile, her face straight on, her right profile, and then, in the first dramatic scene of the film, a two-minute shot of the back of her head, as she breaks up with a boyfriend in a busy Parisian cafe. The sequence of portraits anticipates much of what will follow, both thematically and stylistically. Subtitled “A Film in Twelve Scenes,” My Life to Live presents a dozen moments in Nana’s life, with few clues as to how much time has passed between them and with little of the exposition or psychologizing one typically finds in a narrative feature film. Jean-Luc Godard, who directed and co-wrote the film, has little interest in traditional notions of storytelling. Rather, his goal is simply to observe a particular woman’s fall into prostitution, experimenting with the tools of cinema as the Naturalist writers of the late-nineteenth century had done with language. (Nana could be a character from Emile Zola, Theodore Dreiser, or Frank Norris.)

    My Life to Live is Godard’s third feature-length film, following Breathless (1960) and A Woman is a Woman (1961). The former is Godard’s elliptical take on the “lovers on the run” genre of American movies he often championed as a young critic at Cahiers du Cinema, the magazine around which the French New Wave was formed, and the latter is his ode to Technicolor American musicals of the Gene Kelly, Stanley Donen, and Vincent Minelli variety. My Life to Live is likewise dedicated to “B Movies” and reflects Godard’s genuine admiration for the “fallen woman” stories that have always been a staple of low-budget American filmmaking. However, while most B movies sentimentalize and/or exploit the subject matter, Godard reveals little of his own attitude about Nana and, as a result, complicates our viewing experience. His camera tracks slowly from side to side, occasionally peering through windows at the world of opportunity and freedom unavailable to Nana, but he almost always remains at a critical distance. Nana is worthy of our admiration and our pity, desperate and trapped in a world outside of her own making.

    Godard has had a long career—his latest feature, Film Socialisme, premiered at the Cannes film festival in 2010—and is among a small handful of the most important figures in all of film history. My Life to Live is by most accounts the masterpiece of the first phase of his filmography, roughly from Breathless to Pierrot le Fou (1965), during which he completed an astounding ten features, all of them quite good, before moving into a more politically radical mode of filmmaking. One of his later films, In Praise of Love (2001), came in at #94 on the Top 100, and it’s also worth noting that the #4 film on the Arts and Faith list, Carl Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc, features prominently in My Life to Live. In the film’s most memorable scene, Nana steps into a theater to watch Dryer’s film, and Godard cuts between tear-streaked closeups of Falconetti’s Joan and Karina’s Nana. It’s a beautiful and typically sticky moment from Godard, as it simultaneously celebrates the cinema, echoes the mugshot-like portraits that opened the film, and draws revealing parallels between these two very different women.

  • To be continued . . .

    To be continued . . .

    In the nine years since I first read Denise Levertov’s poem “Making Peace” and pulled the words “long pauses . . .” from it, I’ve bought and sold two houses, changed jobs three times, and launched a freelance business. I’ve attended nearly a dozen film festivals, interviewed several of my heroes, and developed lifelong friendships with an amazing group of bloggers, filmmakers, writers, and fellow travelers. I’ve started and abandoned a doctoral dissertation, cried in anger and shame over the actions of my country, and felt occasional but startling moments of pride and patriotism. I’ve left the church and found my faith. I’ve celebrated nine of my fourteen wedding anniversaries, suffered the loss of two people I loved dearly, and, as of Tuesday, April 27 at 4:09 pm, become a father. And it’s all documented here in this strange archive of my life. I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished here at this site and am even more proud of the man I’ve become in the process.

    I’d been thinking about shuttering this iteration of Long Pauses for quite some time, but the timeline was accelerated by Blogger’s decision to end their FTP service. When I finish this post and click “publish,” the last bits of content will be pushed to longpauses.com/blog, where it will stay, in this form, for as long as I decide it belongs there. I’ve archived it all and might eventually drop it into another format, but for now I’m content to let it stand as a document of this stage in my life.

    I’m not sure how long — or even if — commenting will work. I’d hoped to post this a few days ago to leave more time for that kind of thing, but my daughter’s early arrival threw a wrench — a wonderful, beautiful wrench — into the works. You can find me on Twitter and Facebook, and I suspect you’ll eventually see me back here at Long Pauses.

    Until then, thanks for reading.

  • Rory Greer Hughes

    Rory Greer Hughes

    6 lbs. 5 oz. 20.5 inches. Born at 4:09 pm on April 27, 2010.

  • Lucky Life (2010)

    Lucky Life (2010)

    Dir. by Lee Isaac Chung

    There’s a sequence about 25 minutes into Lee Isaac Chung’s new film Lucky Life that I’ve watched countless times over the past few months. In an earlier scene, the film’s four main characters — old college friends who reunite each year at a beach house on the Outer Banks — are sitting around a table outside a restaurant, telling stories late into the night, and one of them, Jason (Kenyon Adams), mentions that he’s never watched the sun rise over the ocean. “Well, you have to do that,” Karen (Megan McKenna) says with enthusiasm. “We’ll do that!” In a few typically elliptical cuts, Chung then moves us from their conversation to a scene back at the beach house, which is followed soon after by the three cuts I can’t stop watching: 1. a point-of-view shot from within a car that is pulling onto a ferry, 2. a medium close-up of the back of Jason’s head, and 3. a long, high-angle shot of the four friends walking slowly onto the beach, each of them staged like a visitor to the gardens of Resnais’s Marienbad. It’s well past sunrise by the time they reach the water’s edge, but like so much of the film’s plot, this seems utterly, delightfully beside the point.

    Movies about the lives of college-educated-but-still-rambling young professionals are a staple of low-budget American cinema, and it’s tempting in the opening scenes of Lucky Life to graph onto it all of the conventions of the genre. But there are several clues that Chung is up to something different here, that his cinematic points of reference extend well beyond Austin and Park City. The ferry sequence, for example, is held together by a music cue and by an oddly — and beautifully — subjective camera, the likes of which I rarely see in American film. Chung shifts regularly throughout Lucky Life from an objective perspective that captures conversations and the occasional shards of narrative to a more searching, melancholic point-of-view that is clearly designed or authored. It’s often reflected in the form itself, as he alternates between the kind of handheld photography we’ve come to think of, post-Dardennes, as “realist” and a combination of composed tracking shots and long, static takes. Isaac mentioned in a recent interview that he watched a lot of Mizoguchi before making Lucky Life; after watching the ferry scene eight or ten times, I sent him a stack of Claire Denis films. It’s that kind of subjectivity.

    Another clue to Chung’s strategy is the lead performance from Daniel O’Keefe. Mark is a recognizable “indie” protagonist. He’s a 30-year-old writer and husband. He sleeps late, works on his laptop at a neighborhood coffee shop, and seems resigned to his impending fatherhood. But he’s also introverted, soft-spoken, and moody, traits that make him a difficult point of entry into the film’s world. Or, at least, I assume other viewers will have trouble empathizing with Mark. He can be a bit of a prick. (He’s also more like me than any character I’ve ever seen on screen. For an insight into all that my endlessly-patient wife has endured over the years, watch Lucky Life’s crib-building scene. I shrink in shame each time I see it.)

    But Mark’s personality is somehow at the core of this film, which is deeply serious like Tarkovsky’s films are serious. Jason, we quickly discover, is dying and making what will likely be his last trip to the beach. Despite this loss and other personal trials, however, Mark shows few outward signs of mourning or emotional turmoil. He’s a young, American version of the stone-faced cipher we regularly see in art house cinema from Eastern Europe and Asia. But there’s not a shred of irony in Chung’s authorial voice. The film’s main concerns – How does one remain hopeful in the face of suffering? How can the artist transform the stuff of life into a harbinger of beauty and grace? – were heavy subjects when Tarkovsky tackled them, and they’re heavy now. The slightest wink to the audience would cripple Lucky Life, and it’s to Chung’s great credit that this deceptively ambitious film maintains its balance through to the final shot. (I’m eager to see how others respond to that shot, which is so painfully real to my own experience I can barely stand to watch it.)

    A few other random observations. First, I don’t make the Tarkovsky comparison lightly. When I interviewed Isaac a few years ago about his first film, Munyurangabo, we talked a lot about Walter Benjamin’s “Theses on History,” so I was thrilled to see how Lucky Life weaves together Benjamin’s “storm of progress” with Tarkovsky’s apocalyptic visions. One particular tracking shot makes it look like ocean waves are crashing against the old beach house, just as flames consume the house at the end of The Sacrifice. The recurring recitations of Gerald Stern’s poetry, which inspired the film, and Chung’s striking use of archival footage also call to mind Tarkovsky’s Mirror.

  • 2010 Film Diary

    2010 Film Diary

    January
    2 Kings and Queen [Desplechin]
    16 In the Loop [Iannucci]
    19 She Wore a Yellow Ribbon [Ford]
    23 The Quiet Man [Ford]
    25 Swimming Pool [Ozon]
    31 Ratcatcher [Ramsay]
    February  
    1 Import/Export [Seidl]
    2 Wagon Master [Ford]
    2 loudQUIETloud [Cantor]
    7 Frontier of Dawn [Garrel]
    13 Lynch [Larsen]
    14 Mogambo [Ford]
    15 The Trials of Henry Kissinger [Jarecki]
    16 Derek [Julien]
    27 In the Realm of the Senses [Oshima]
    28 Bright Star [Campion]
    March  
    1 The Long Grey Line [Ford]
    4 Wings of Desire [Wenders]
    6 Make Way for Tomorrow [McCarey]
    7 Babette’s Feast [Axel]
    13 The Burmese Harp [Ichikawa]
    14 Tender Mercies [Beresford]
    20 The Apostle [Duvall]
    23 Stroszek [Herzog]
    24 A Serious Man [Coens]
    28 Bigger Than Life [Ray]
    April  
    3 The Aviator [Scorsese]
    13 Days of Heaven [Malick]
    20 Faust [Murnau]
    22 The House is Black [Farrokhzad]
    May  
    11 Written on the Wind [Sirk]
    15 It Might Get Loud [Guggenheim]
    25 The Song of Bernadette [King]
    June  
    1 Hotel Monterrey [Akerman]
    1 Le Chambre [Akermnan]
    2 News from Home [Akerman]
    4 Je tu il elle [Akerman]
    6 The Return [Zvyagintsev]
    7 Les rendez-vous d’Anna [Akerman]
    11 La France [Bozon]
    12 Magnificent Obsession [Sirk]
    July  
    3 into Great Silence [Groning]
    14 Tyson [Toback]
    August  
    8 After the Wedding [Bier]
    15 The Secret of the Grain [Kechiche]
    15 Objectified [Hustwit]
    22 Mother [Bong]
    September  
    7 Leona Alone [Husain]
    7 Everywhere Was The Same [Al Sharif]
    7 Victoria, George, Edward & Thatcher [Cooper]
    7 Get Out Of The Car [Andersen]
    7 Soul of Things [Angerame]
    9 Film Socialism [Godard]
    10 A Married Couple [King]
    10 The Light Thief [Kubat]
    10 Guest [Guerin]
    11 Poetry [Lee]
    11 The Four Times [Frammartino]
    11 What I Most Want [Castagnino]
    11 Burning Bush [Grenier]
    11 Home Movie [Price]
    11 Ouverture [Becks]
    11 Portrait, Teetrinken, Roter Vorhang [Fanderl]
    11 Cinematographie [Fleischmann]
    11 Anne Truitt, Working [Cohen]
    11 Color Field Films 1 and 2 [Brookshire]
    11 RUHR [Benning]
    12 A Useful Life [Veiroj]
    12 Boxing Gym [Wiseman]
    12 Water Lillies [T. Marie]
    12 Compline, Aubade, and Pastourelle [Dorsky]
    12 Hell Roaring Creek [Castaing-Taylor]
    12 Slaveship [T. Marie]
    12 Blue Mantle [Meyers]
    12 753 McPherson St. [Everson]
    12 One [Heller]
    12 Atlantiques [Diop]
    13 The Trip [Winterbottom]
    13 My Joy [Loznitsa]
    13 Nostlagia for the Light [Guzmán]
    13 Coming Attractions [Tscherkassky]
    13 Day Was a Scorcher and Jonas Mekas In Kodachrome Days [Jacobs]
    13 Photofinish Figures [Gioli]
    14 ANPO [Hoaglund]
    14 Incendies [Villeneuve]
    14 Oki’s Movie [Hong]
    14 Meek’s Cutoff [Reichardt]
    15 Curling [Cote]
    15 The Sleeping Beauty [Breillat]
    15 Promises Written in Water [Gallo]
    16 The Ditch [Wang]
    16 Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives [Apichatpong]
    21 Buffalo ’66 [Gallo]
    26 13 Most Beautiful . . . [Warhol]
    October  
    28 Kung Fu Hustle [Chow]
    November  
    1 Les Biches [Chabrol]
    4 The Last Picture Show [Bogdanovich]
    7 A Star is Born [Cukor]
    14 Everyone Else [Ade]
    20 The Secret of Kells [Moore and Twomey]
    21 Winter’s Bone [Granik]
    23 Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl [Oliveira]
    24 The Social Network [Fincher]
    26 The Exploding Girl [Gray]
    28 The Girl on the Train [Techine]
    December  
    4 The Ghost Writer [Polanski]
    6 Sweetgrass [Barbash and Castaing-Taylor]
    12 Greenberg [Baumbach]
    12 Vincere [Bellocchio]
    16 Exit Through the Gift Shop [Banksy]
    19 Metropolis [Lang]
    20 The Ox-Bow Incident [Wellman]
    21 Frankenstein [Whale]
  • Best Films of 2009

    Best Films of 2009

    I’ve now seen about 40 of the point-earning films from the 2009 IndieWire Critics Survey, which seems a reasonable enough number. I’m not even sure how IndieWire qualifies a film as a 2009 release, although given the appearance of Sokurov’s The Sun (which I saw in September 2005!), I assume they go by the one-week theatrical release rule. I’ve taken the coward’s route and included eleven films because I just couldn’t decide which one to leave off. All in all, I’d say it was a good but far-from-great year. As one guide, none of these films made my Favorite Films of the Decade list, and I can’t imagine any of them will gain greatly in stature over time. (Although after a single recent viewing of The Headless Woman, I wouldn’t be surprised if I later come to the realization that it’s Martel’s masterpiece. Still thinking on that one.)

    1. 35 Shots of Rum (Claire Denis) [ more ]
    2. Revanche (Gotz Spielmann) [ more ]
    3. Munyurangabo (Lee Isaac Chung) [ more ]
    4. Liverpool (Lisandro Alonso) [ more ]
    5. The Headless Woman (Lucrecia Martel)
    6. Police, Adjective (Corneliu Porumboiu)
    7. Birdsong (Albert Serra) [ more ]
    8. Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson)
    9. Duplicity (Tony Gilroy)
    10. Two Lovers (James Gray)
    11. Summer Hours (Olivier Assayas)

    Phantoms of Nabua (Apitchatpong Weerasethakul, 2009)

    Favorite New Films I Saw in 2009

    Distribution rules be damned! I saw about 80 films this year that qualify under this category, which is a catch-all: If I saw a recently-produced film in 2009, and it was my first opportunity to see it, then it qualifies. So I’m working from a deep pool here: shorts and feature-length films; narratives, essays, documentaries, and the avant-garde; DVDs, festival films, theatrical releases, museum installations, and, in one case, a pre-release screener. From this vantage, 2009 looks a hell of a lot better.

    1. Phantoms of Nabua / A Letter to Uncle Boonmee (Apitchatpong Weerasethakul) [ more ]
    2. Bluebeard (Catherine Breillat) [ more ]
    3. Face (Tsai Ming-liang) [ more ]
    4. To Die Like a Man (João Pedro Rodrigues)
    5. Let Each One Go Where He May (Ben Russell)
    6. Lucky Life (Lee Isaac Chung)
    7. The Headless Woman (Lucrecia Martel)
    8. Our Beloved Month of August (Miguel Gomes)
    9. Wild Grass (Alain Resnais)
    10. In Comparison (Harun Farocki)

    The Long Voyage Home

    Favorite Discoveries of 2009

    Were it not for my “one film per director” rule, this list would likely consist of nine John Ford films and Jeanne Dielman. Instituting the rule makes it more representative of my movie-watching year, though. Along with the thirteen Ford films I saw, I also went through a brief ’80s phase last spring, when I made a couple great discoveries, and there were a couple hold-overs from last year’s trip through the Borzage and Murnau DVD releases.

    • 7th Heaven (Frank Borzage, 1927)
    • City Girl (F. W. Murnau, 1930)
    • Emergency Kisses (Philippe Garrel, 1989)
    • Grown Ups (Mike Leigh, 1980) [ more ]
    • Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal Akerman, 1975)
    • The Long Voyage Home (John Ford, 1940)
    • Loulou (Maurice Pialat, 1980) [ more ]
    • The Reckless Moment (Max Ophuls, 1949)
    • Tren de Sombras (Jose Luis Guerin, 1997) [ more ]
    • Voyage en deuce (Michel Deville, 1980) [ more ]
  • Best Films of the Decade (2000-2009)

    Best Films of the Decade (2000-2009)

    I’ll follow Tom Hall’s lead and call this my “Incredibly Personal, Completely Subjective List of the Best Films of The Decade.” Consider it a snapshot of my taste right now. Conspicuously absent are several filmmakers who made great films this decade but who, for whatever reasons — my age? critical backlash? the weather? — didn’t make the final cut. Check back in another ten years and things will likely look much different.

    The ground rules: Feature-length films of any genre. One film per director, although I don’t think the list would look too much different without that qualification (Denis, Jia, and Costa would probably get in another film or two). I went by theatrical release date, mostly because there are quite a few 2009 festival releases I haven’t yet seen, and that just doesn’t seem quite fair.

    1. Beau Travail (Claire Denis, 2000)
    Quite possibly my favorite film of any decade, Beau Travail constitutes a genre unto itself. Equal parts literary adaptation (Melville’s Billy Budd), contemporary dance piece, psychological character study, formalist experiment, postcolonial analysis, and music video, it is also on my short list of Truly Beautiful Things.

    2. The Son (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 2002)
    The format they established in The Promise and Rosetta — hand-held cameras, natural lighting, the famous “back of the head” shot, and moral questioning along the lines of Dostoevsky and Bresson — made the Dardenne brothers the most influential art-house filmmakers of the decade (judging by the slew of imitators that land in festival lineups, at least). The Son is the one I keep returning to, though. Olivier Gourmet as a wounded carpenter: the conceit is six feet thick with metaphorical implications, most of them valid and compelling, but it’s his body — the sheer, muscular physicality of it — that drives the film’s momentum.

    3. Still Life / Dong (Jia Zhang-ke, 2006)
    Jia is, for lack of a better word, the most “important” filmmaker of the decade, I think. Each of the seven features he made documents globalization by examining some small corner of China. Watching his movies is like watching helplessly as a museum is looted. There’s an urgency to his project, as if he’s reluctant to put his camera down for too long or risk losing his tenuous grasp on a nation’s culture and history and humanity. I consider Still Life and Dong, made and released simultaneously, a diptych — each benefits from the juxtaposition. Together, they’re Jia’s best, most complex, and most compelling work.

    4. Colossal Youth (Pedro Costa, 2006)
    Any of the Vanda Trilogy films could fill this spot. But Colossal Youth was the first I saw and, so, it left the deepest impression. I remember thinking, only 30 minutes in, “Well, I didn’t know the cinema could be this.” Like several other directors on this list (Denis, Jia, Godard, Lynch, Varda, Zahedi), Costa is also significant for his contributions to the evolution of digital filmmaking, which is surely the real story of film in the first decade of the 21st century. More here.

    5. What Time is It There? (Tsai Ming-liang, 2001)
    My favorite Tsai films, What Time is it There? and Face, probably won’t be the ones he’s best remembered for (my money’s on the more sexually transgressive The River and The Wayward Cloud), but his treatment of grief — the strange tangle of pain and desire, shame and beauty — is what he does best. I watched parts of Time over and over again in 2004, after my mother- and father-in-law died suddenly, and years later it still brings me great comfort. More here.

    6. Syndromes and a Century (Apitchatpong Weerasethakul, 2006)
    After being frustrated by a first screening of Claire Denis’s L’Intrus, I was offered a useful insight by my friend Girish: “The line separating narrative film from the avant-garde is pretty arbitrary, really.” Apitchatpong has erased the line completely, and God bless him for it. I mean, just watch this clip. Not for all tastes, obviously, but there’s a magic and beauty in those few minutes that many great filmmakers will fail to achieve in a lifetime.

    7. Cafe Lumiere (Hou Hsiao-hsien, 2004)
    Hou’s films were more groundbreaking in the ’80s and more ambitious in the ’90s, but he has perfected his craft and refined his taste to such a degree that I find him almost impossible to write about or discuss: he makes these perfect little objects full of soul and wonder. That Cafe Lumiere was inspired by Ozu never interested me much, except that it gave Hou an excuse to deal with a father/daughter relationship. The trailer I’ve linked to is almost ruined by the music, but it includes my favorite moment from the film: the shot of the father picking out the potatoes from his meal and giving them to Yoko.

    8. In Praise of Love (Jean-luc Godard, 2001)
    Suddenly it occurs to me that a good number of the films on my list are obsessed with history, memory, power, and image-making, which I’ll blame, in part, on my having spent the first half of this decade in a graduate English program. But it’s a reasonable obsession, right? Certainly it’s nothing new for Godard, whose first feature of the 21st century borrows techniques from the films he made 40 years earlier (I love equally the first-person interviews in Masculine/Feminine and In Praise of Love). Also, this film ranks high on my list simply because I got to see it projected on 35mm at a multiplex in Knoxville, Tennessee.

    9. Before Sunset (Richard Linklater, 2004)
    For the longest time, Waking Life seemed destined to fill the Linklater spot on my list, but after rewatching it and Before Sunset recently, I realized that the latter does all of the things I most love about the former — it delights in human curiosity, engages with life, and champions the creative imagination — but it does so in a form (the romance, generally speaking) that tends to degrade those qualities in its characters. It’s quite a feat.

    10. RR (James Benning, 2007)
    At the start of the decade I could have counted on one hand the number of avant-garde films I’d seen. Now, it would take, like, fifteen or twenty hands, which is a start, I guess. More here.

    11. Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)
    There Will Be Blood is finding its way onto many Best of the 00s lists, but Glazer gets my vote for Kubrick Heir Apparent. More here.

    12. In the City of Sylvia (Jose Luis Guerin, 2007)
    I can’t decide if I should feel guilty for loving this film as much as I do. Formally, it’s as perfectly controlled as any movie I can name. Guerin has made a little cinematic fugue here, discovering new rhythms and dissonances as he returns to and transforms images — hair blowing in the wind, a hand sketching faces, a man with a limp trying to sell a lighter, two people walking. But, really, this movie is about the pleasures of watching, and parts of it (the cafe sequence, “Heart of Glass,” the final five minutes) just make me smile like an idiot.

    13. The Fog of War (Errol Morris, 2003)
    I spent the majority of my spare time between 2001-2006: 1. researching and occasionally writing a doctoral dissertation about the American Left and the Cold War, 2. swallowing bile. I’m sympathetic to the complaints leveled at this film, but I have watched The Fog of War at least a dozen times, and it’s the only Iraq/Bush-era documentary that comes close to representing my deeply-felt ambivalence about the “American Century” that came to an end ten years ago. I was pleased to find this clip on YouTube because it’s my favorite section of the film. You see McNamara’s prevarications, his pride and shame, but most of all you see the ironies contained in that poisoned word, “efficiency.” Did Hannah Arendt ever write about spreadsheets?

    14. Inland Empire (David Lynch, 2006)
    I wonder if other cinephiles of my generation have had this experience? After discovering Blue Velvet as an undergrad and declaring Lynch The Greatest Director Ever (cough, cough), I matured, turned my back on him, and declared him That Overrated Director Who Is Loved Only By Pot-Smoking Undergrads. So, in 2007 I rewatched all of his films, ending with Inland Empire, and concluded that he deserves neither title. Rather, he is just exceptionally gifted at making a particular type of film. I’ll stand by my comments from two years ago: “My Damascus experience came midway through the first season of Twin Peaks, when I found myself suddenly and unexpectedly overwhelmed by the deep sorrow that pervades the Laura Palmer story. While watching Inland Empire again last night, it occurred to me that one reason I’m completely unconvinced by all of the critical praise being heaped on the Coens’ treatment of evil and violence in No Country for Old Men is because violence — real, non-metaphoric violence — is always sorrowful and tragic. Lynch seems to have been born with a peculiar sensitivity to that fact, and has spent his career perfecting the formal means of articulating it.”

    15. When It Was Blue (Jennifer Reeves, 2008)
    It’s easy to forget that, for the better part of a century, the experience of cinema was created by projected light, fast-moving gears, and strips of celluloid. And then you see something like When It Was Blue, and you hear two projectors running behind you, and you’re occasionally blinded by the brightness of the bulbs, and you ask yourself, “What am I seeing? How did she get that image on that frame of film?” More here.

    16. The Gleaners and I (Agnes Varda, 2000)
    Last year I saw, within just a few days of each other, Agnes Varda and Terrence Davies introduce and discuss their latest films, The Beaches of Agnes and Of Time and the City, both of which are autobiographical essay films. And I’m still struck by the juxtaposition: Davies the bitter nostalgist versus Varda the curious anthropologist. Varda is my hero. At 80, she’s as alive to the wonder and potential (and the sorrows and ironies) of the world now as she was 55 years ago, when she first picked up a camera. The Gleaners and I makes me want to be a better man.

    17. In the Bathtub of the World (Caveh Zahedi, 2001)
    In 2000, Caveh shot at least a minute of video a day and then assembled it into this remarkable film. Ironically, there are no clips from this YouTube-anticipating project on YouTube, so, instead, I’ve embedded a clip from The World is a Classroom, his short contribution to the post-9/11 collection, Underground Zero. More here.

    18. Bamako (Abderrahmane Sissako, 2006)
    Life on Earth (1998) is my favorite of Sissako’s films, but Bamako was the first I saw and it left me teary-eyed and speechless. The court scenes are didactic and on-the-nose — deliberately so — but it’s all that life going on around the court that makes the film work. It all culminates in one of my favorite scenes of the decade, as an elderly man sing-speaks his testimony to the court, an act of astonishing beauty that also exposes the absurdity of the proceedings.

    19. Heartbeat Detector (Nicolas Klotz, 2007)
    This is the only film by Klotz I’ve seen, and, frankly, I’m surprised to find it on my list. I’d anticipated including a Haneke film instead (Code Unknown, probably, or maybe Cache), but Heartbeat Detector is the film I found myself most eager to revisit. The first of two Mathieu Amalric performances to round out the top 20. More here.

    20. Kings and Queen (Arnaud Desplechin, 2004)
    I considered cheating here by naming two films, this one and Hong Sang-soo’s Woman on the Beach (2006). While their styles and ambitions are quite different, I’ve decided I like Desplechin and Hong for basically the same reason: their movies constantly surprise me in small but significant ways. On the Kings and Queen DVD, Desplechin recounts a story about Truffaut’s frustration with a screenwriter. “How do you expect me to shoot a four-minute scene that expresses a single idea?” he asked. “I want every minute of film to express four ideas!” Desplechin has taken that as his motto, and you can see the results in each of his films, which are consistently messy, ambiguous, and haunted — Kings and Queen especially so. I mean, just try to summarize Louis Jennsens’s (Maurice Garrel) deathbed letter to Nora (Emmanuelle Devos). Watching a scene like that, I actively envy the imagination of its creators.

    And ten more (alphabetized) that just missed the cut
    Battle in Heaven (Carlos Reygadas, 2005)
    Code Unknown (Michael Haneke, 2000) [ more ]
    Distant (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2002)
    Fat Girl (Catherine Breillat, 2001)
    Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005)
    Hamaca Paraguaya (Paz Encina, 2006)
    Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Alfonso Cuaron, 2004) [ more ]
    I’m Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007)
    Los Muertos (Lisandro Alonso, 2004)
    Woman on the Beach (Hong Sang-soo, 2006)

  • 2009 TIFF Wrap-Up

    2009 TIFF Wrap-Up

    To carry on the tradition from past years (2006, 2007, 2008), here’s a breakdown of the feature-length films I saw at TIFF, more or less in order of preference.

    Masterpieces

    Will likely end up on my short list of favorite films of the decade:

    • none

    Stand Outs

    Will be among my favorite films of the year:

    • Face (Tsai Ming-liang)
    • To Die Like a Man (João Pedro Rodrigues)
    • Let Each One Go Where He May (Ben Russell)
    • Police, Adjective (Corneliu Porumboiu)
    • Wild Grass (Alain Resnair)
    • Like You Know It All (Hong Sang-soo)
    • Dogtooth (Yorgos Lanthimos)
    • In Comparison (Harun Farocki)

    Strong Recommendations

    • Carcasses (Denis Côté)
    • The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke)
    • White Material (Claire Denis)
    • Hadewijch (Bruno Dumont)
    • Independencia (Raya Martin)
    • Huacho (Alejandro Fernández Almendras)
    • To the Sea (Pedro González-Rubio)

    Solid Films

    • Le Père de mes enfants (Mia Hansen-Løve)
    • Colony (Carter Gunn & Ross McDonnell)
    • Les Derniers Jours Du Monde (Arnaud Larrieu & Jean-Marie Larrieu)
    • Ajami (Scandar Copti & Yaron Shani)
    • Karaoke (Chris Chong Chan Fui)
    • My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done (Werner Herzog)
    • La Pivellina (Tizza Covi & Rainer Frimmel)
    • Women Without Men
    • Defendor (Peter Stebbings)
    • Antichrist (Tars von Trier)
    • L’Enfer de Henri-Georges Clouzot Inferno (Serge Bromberg & Ruxandra Medrea)
    • Petropolis (Peter Mettler)
    • Hiroshima (Pablo Stoll)
    • Air Doll (Hirokazu Kore-eda)

    Duds and Misfires

    • At the End of Daybreak (Ho Yuhang)
    • Samson & Delilah (Warwick Thornton)
    • The Man Beyond the Bridge (Laxmikant Shetgaonkar)
    • Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold)
    • Moloch Tropical (Raoul Peck)
    • The Wind Journeys (Ciro Guerra)
    • Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé)
  • 2009 TIFF Day 3

    2009 TIFF Day 3

    Antichrist (Tars von Trier)

    When asked at TIFF what I thought of Antichrist, I got in the habit of saying, “Well, it’s a testament to von Trier’s talent that he can make such an unremarkable film of such remarkable imagination and control.” It’s a genre film, right? A psychological horror movie with a few unexpected plot twists? I enjoyed it on that level, and I was amused, also, by its ostentatious wanderings into psychoanalysis-bashing, the history of gynocide, and bizarro-world astronomy, all of which beg pedantic interpretation. But I can’t seem to muster much energy for it myself. The most compelling defense of the film I’ve read is from Victor Morton, who sees it as a “raw production of von Trier’s inner depressive state.” There’s a strange and irresistible grandeur to von Trier’s images — the way he warps nature with a slow pan of his camera, for example, or that signature shot of arms reaching through the knotted roots of a tree. The actual experience of watching the film is more interesting and complicated than any of its rabbit-hole provocations. Having never suffered through it myself, I can’t speak to whether or not Antichrist accurately evokes, a la classic Surrealism, the true terrors and violence of depression (regrettably, I can vouch for Punch-Drunk Love‘s anxiety attacks), but the film certainly has an uncommon tenor that I found both exciting (as a cinephile) and despairing.

     

    Independencia (Martin, 2009)

    Independencia (Raya Martin)

    Southeast Asian film programmer Raymond Phathanavirangoon dedicated the screening of Independencia to Alexis and Nika, which almost surely deepened my affection for it. Shot entirely on soundstages and with obviously-painted backdrops, the film alludes to a curious collection of precedents — early cinema, melodrama, newsreels, popular theater, the avant-garde (particularly Brakhage’s film scratching), and who knows how many Filipino influences that were lost on me. But I was most often reminded of wax figure museum displays of the sort one finds at national parks and tourist-friendly historic districts. Decades-old, dust-covered mannequins costumed as heroic leaders and noble savages, they recite, again and again and again, some story about our shared history, told from whatever enlightened perspective was en vogue at the moment of the display’s dedication. I’m not sure how much credit to give the politics of Independencia‘s content, but its form strikes me as being something quite original and potent (despite the many idle comparisons to Guy Maddin I keep reading), as if the wax figures were suddenly coming to life and confronting museum patrons who are in search of simple and comforting self-justifications.

     

    Women Without Met (Neshat, 2009)

    Women Without Men (Shirin Neshat)

    There’s much to like in Women Without Men, visual artist Shirin Neshat’s first feature. Like another, better TIFF film, João Pedro Rodrigues’s To Die Like a Man, it’s a work of magical realism that imagines an Edenic space where oppressive social and political forces are kept at bay — temporarily, at least. I have a weakness for stories like this one, which concerns four women: 30-something Munis, who lives at home with her domineering brother and spends her days crouched beside the console radio, hungry for news of the coup that would soon install the Shah; her friend Mahdokht, who lives in disgrace after being raped; Zarin, an anorexic-looking prostitute (played by Orsolya Tóth from Kornél Mundruczó’s Delta); and Farrokhlaqa, the bored, cultured wife of a wealthy officer. Each is drawn to a small orchard outside of Tehran, an idealized sanctuary where they are allowed a brief respite from their suffering, and where, under Farrokhlaqa’s influence, they have parties, discuss art, and sing secular songs. Neshat has a nice eye for composition, although much of the film feels familiar, like we’ve seen these shots and met these women in other Iranian films. The shock of what is new in Women Without Men, the female nudity and frank treatment of sexuality, seemed less radical when I learned afterwards that Neshat has spent her adult life in the States and that she had made her film outside of Iran and with some non-Iranian actresses.

     

    Father of My Children (Love, 2009)

    Le Père de mes enfants (Mia Hansen-Løve)

    Hansen-Løve didn’t make it to Toronto, but her producer introduced the film by saying it was loosely inspired by a once-prominent member of the French film industry. It was only at the midpoint of the film, after the main character Grégoire (Louis-Do de Lencquesaing) puts a bullet through his brain, that I realized he was standing in for Humbert Balsan, who committed suicide in 2005 after producing nearly 70 films, including Claire Denis’s L’Intrus, Lars von Trier’s Manderlay, and Bela Tarr’s The Man from London. Generally, I enjoy films that break in two, but in the case of Le Père de mes enfants, the two halves are a bit out of balance, owing mostly to de Lencquesaing’s charismatic performance. Perhaps it’s inevitable that a film about the death of a good husband and father will feel his loss: there’s a narrative and emotional void in the second act that Hansen-Løve can’t quite overcome, despite another impressive turn from Alice de Lencquesaing (also memorable in a similar role in Assayas’s Summer Hours). All the best parts of Le Père de mes enfants (and they’re very good) are the small gestures — the way Grégoire kisses his younger daughter’s hand when she reaches for him from the back seat of the car or the scene in which he patiently explains the history of the ancient church they tour together. Liquidating the foundered production company, which is the main focus of the second half of the film, seems so irrelevant by comparison. And maybe that’s the point.

     

    et Each One Go Where He May (Russell, 2009)

    Let Each One Go Where He May (Ben Russell)

    I hope, eventually, to write at length about this film, one of the best I saw at the festival. In the meantime, read Michael Sicinski’s essay, “The Unbroken Path: Ben Russell’s Let Each One Go Where He May.” It’s fantastic.

  • 2009 TIFF Day 2

    2009 TIFF Day 2

    Like You Know It All (Hong Sang-soo)

    Given the generally low opinion of Like You Know It All among many Hong fans, and given my enjoyment of it, I’ve concluded I just can’t tell the good ones from the bad. This one has everything I enjoy about his work: a self-absorbed, unintentionally cruel, and likable protagonist; a complicated web of sexual entanglements; a calculated yet surprising structure built upon doublings and distorted echoes; and gallons of booze (and arm wrestling!). Here, Kim Tae-woo plays a young filmmaker who wanders through the scenes of his life with little concern for the often-significant consequences of his behavior. He’s more of a catalyst than a person in the film, drifting into the isolated homes of friends only long enough to unsettle the happy chemistry of their lives. I like Hong’s women. They’re independent, sexually liberated, and as confused as the men, which is what makes the final scene in Like You Know It All (and its echo in A Woman on the Beach) so tender and melancholy. Hong’s men expect the women in their lives to grant them access to some secret insight, answers to life’s grand questions, and the film is structured in a way that portends epiphanies. But they never come. Not in so many words, at least.

     

    Face (Tsai, 2009)

    Face (Tsai Ming-liang)

    Those at Cannes who were lukewarm on Face were just plain wrong. Along with being a Tsai greatest hits package — the busted pipes, musical numbers, and obsessive behaviors — and a sequel of sorts to What Time is it There?, Face also includes five or six scenes that are among the most visually arresting and heartbreaking he’s ever filmed. (Does the photo above make more sense if I tell you Laetitia Casta is Salome? How many artists have reimagined the beheading of John the Baptist over the centuries, and how many filmmakers in 2009 would be able to find new textures in the story?) Perhaps this is obvious, but while watching Face I was struck by how much of Tsai’s cinema can be boiled down to simple action. Laetitia Casta taping a window dark or struggling to carry her cumbersome wardrobe up a ladder. Fanny Ardant moving a mounted deer head or applying makeup to Jean-Pierre Leaud’s battered face. And, most moving of all, Chen Shiang-chyi and Yang Kuei-Mei loading and unloading a freezer. It’s elemental. A rich human comedy. I watched Face again on the last day of the fest and am tempted to call it my new favorite Tsai film.

     

    La Pivellina (Covi, 2009)

    La Pivellina (Tizza Covi & Rainer Frimmel)

    La Pivellina fits a certain mold popular these days at international film festivals. At my most cynical, or when beaten down by a particularly thoughtless film, I think of it as “poverty tourism” — an opportunity for upper- and middle-class liberals like myself to safely experience the “gripping, real lives” of those less fortunate. La Pivellina fits the mold, but much to its credit, it avoids a fatal flaw common in the genre: the crisis, which usually involves a rape (see below), a beating, or the theft of the hero’s cherished something or other. (Oh, St. De Sica, look at what thou hath wraught.) Instead, Covi and Frimmel give us three characters who are genuinely kind and generous. In the opening moments of the film, Patty (Patrizia Gerardi), an aging carnie, finds an abandoned toddler with a note from its mother promising to return for the child as soon as possible. Patty walks home with the little girl, and the rest of the film follows her, her husband Walter (Walter Saabel), and their 13-year-old neighbor Tairo (Tairo Caroli) for a week, as they bond with baby Asia. La Pivellina is filled with nice little moments, wonderfully performed — I especially like a scene in which Walter teaches Tairo how to box — but I wish the film had stronger structural bones. The episodes begin by the second hour to feel too disconnected, which leads to a predictably unresolved and, in my opinion, somewhat unsatisfying conclusion. Still, a nice character study of grace.

     

    Fish Tank (Arnold, 2009)

    Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold)

    Fish Tank is from the more vicious school of poverty tourism that takes its cues from Hardy, Norris, and Crane (and Von Trier?), the sadists of Naturalism who aren’t satisfied until their heroines have been suitably degraded, preferably under the shadows of Stonehenge. I saw Fish Tank despite my frustrations with Arnold’s first film, Red Road, chalking up her lapses in taste there to her involvement with the “Advance Party concept,” which put certain rules and restrictions on the production. The fact is, I’ll see Arnold’s next film, too, because I really like the way she shoots, especially night scenes, in which characters are back-lit with yellows and reds. Fish Tank is a portrait of Mia (Katie Jarvis), a 15-year-old with no friends (apparently), a drunken whore of a mother, and an adorably foul-mouthed little sister. Mia’s lonely, horny, and mature beyond her years, so when her mother brings home a new man (Michael Fassbender, awesome as usual), they strike up a friendship. And then he drinks a little and rapes her, although the film is designed to make it all seem perfectly consensual. Lovely, even. (Cameron Bailey describes it as a “taboo-breaking love story.”) The final act of the film features characters who barely resemble those we get to know in the first 90 minutes. Arnold has great promise as a director, but the writing needs work. Bonus points to her, though, for digging out Bobby Womack’s cover of “California Dreaming.”

  • 2009 TIFF Day 1

    2009 TIFF Day 1

    L’Enfer de Henri-Georges Clouzot Inferno (Serge Bromberg & Ruxandra Medrea)

    The YouTube clip above is tacked on like a coda to Bromberg and Medrea’s documentary, and seeing it in that context is a slightly different experience. By that point we’ve learned the story of Clouzot’s failed efforts to bring to the screen what was to be his masterpiece, L’Enfer, a revolutionary experiment in form inspired in part by Fellini’s 8 1/2. The project was abandoned after endless months of camera tests; after millions of Hollywood dollars were spent; after the film’s lead actor, Serge Reggiani, walked off the film, due either to depression, his exasperation with his director, or some combination of the two; and after, finally, Clouzot himself suffered a heart attack. By way of analogy, imagine if, after all that time in the jungle, Coppola had returned to the States with only 13 hours of exploding forests and Brando’s improvisations. And imagine if that footage had been locked in a legal battle — and locked in a vault — for 45 years, unseen by anyone.

    Bromberg and Maedrea tell the story behind the film through fairly dry and conventional means, interviewing members of the crew and filling in the blanks with a written, conversational voiceover. Much more interesting is their splicing together of whole scenes from L’Enfer, based on Clouzot’s 300-page script and notes, the hours of dailies, the one surviving audio recording, and, in several instances, contemporary dramatizations of dialogue that was never filmed. Bromberg and Medrea film their actors (Bérénice Bejo and Jacques Gamblin) on a dark soundstage and elicit from them natural and compelling performances, which offers a stark contrast to what we see of Schneider and Reggiani. In principle, it’s an odd device — a kind of anti-Brechtian effect or something — but I enjoyed the acted scenes, as they hint at the human drama on the page that is nowhere to be found in the eye-popping camera tests.

    Watching the YouTube clip is also different, coming at the end of the film, because what begins as, quite simply, some of the most beautiful glamour shots ever photographed, becomes, through repetition, a slightly unsettling document of the director-starlet relationship. (It would make an interesting companion to Mark Rappaport’s From the Journals of Jean Seberg, and to Vertigo and In The City of Sylvia as well.) L’Enfer was to be the story of a middle-aged man whose jealousies over his young wife send him into ecstatic, technicolor fantasies, which Clouzot then films, and we then watch. There’s something — and I hesitate to use this word — pornographic about it all.

  • Alexis Tioseco and Nika Bohinc

    Alexis Tioseco and Nika Bohinc

    I was already choking back tears even before reading this Tweet from Raya Martin:

    http://twitpic.com/g5qbk – i love you pards why did you leave me we’re not yet done

    Added: “The Letter I Would Love To Read To You In Person,” from Alexis to Nika

  • Anticipating TIFF (2009)

    Anticipating TIFF (2009)

    I just received my ticket order confirmation. I have a 50-ticket pass but will probably only — only — see 36-40, so I went ahead and double-booked several time slots and will make a last-minute decision about which tickets to use. The last day of the fest is especially tricky. As much as I’d like to see the new Kore-eda film, I’m guessing I’ll probably begin the day with the crazy-awesome-looking David Lynch (!) and Werner Herzog (!!) collaboration, see the new Denis film again, and then collapse at my hotel room in front of some college football.

    Thursday, 9/10
    L’Enfer de Henri-Georges Clouzot Inferno (Serge Bromberg & Ruxandra Medrea)

    Friday, 9/11
    Like You Know It All (Hong Sang-soo)
    Face (Tsai Ming-liang)
    La Pivellina (Tizza Covi & Rainer Frimmel)
    Wavelengths 1: Titans
    Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold)

    Saturday, 9/12
    Antichrist (Tars von Trier) OR Vision (Margarethe von Trotta)
    Independencia (Raya Martin)
    Women Without Men
    Le Père de mes enfants (Mia Hansen-Løve)
    Wavelengths 3: Let Each One Go Where He May (Ben Russell)

    Sunday 13
    Hadewijch (Bruno Dumont)
    Dogtooth (Yorgos Lanthimos)
    Petropolis (Peter Mettler)
    Wavelengths 4: In Comparison
    Wavelengths 5: Une Catastrophe
    Police, Adjective (Corneliu Porumboiu)

    Monday, 9/14
    Moloch Tropical (Raoul Peck)
    The Man Beyond the Bridge (Laxmikant Shetgaonkar) AND Wavelengths 6: Flash Point Camera
    OR Mall Girls (Katarzyna Roslaniec) AND Colony (Carter Gunn & Ross McDonnell)

    Tuesday, 9/15
    Wild Grass (Alain Resnair)
    Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé)
    White Material (Claire Denis)
    Lourdes (Jessica Hausner)

    Wednesday, 9/16
    Scheherezade, Tell Me a Story (Yousry Nasrallah) OR Defendor (Peter Stebbings)
    Karaoke (Chris Chong Chan Fui)
    To Die Like a Man (João Pedro Rodrigues)
    The Wind Journeys (Ciro Guerra)

    Thursday, 9/17
    Ajami (Scandar Copti & Yaron Shani)
    Samson & Delilah (Warwick Thornton)
    Hiroshima (Pablo Stoll) OR I, Don Giovani (Carlos Saura)
    Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl (Manoel de Oliveira)
    Carcasses (Denis Côté)

    Friday, 9/18
    I Am Love (Luca Guadagnino) OR Les Derniers Jours Du Monde (Arnaud Larrieu & Jean-Marie Larrieu)
    The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke)
    I Killed My Mother (Xavier Dolan)
    At the End of Daybreak (Ho Yuhang)

    Saturday, 9/19
    My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done (Werner Herzog)
    Air Doll (Hirokazu Kore-eda) OR White Material (Claire Denis) OR Between Two Worlds (Vimukthi Jayasundara)
    AND MAYBE Once Upon a Time Proletarian (Guo Xiaolu)
    Huacho (Alejandro Fernández Almendras)

  • Phantoms of Nabua and a Letter to Uncle Boonmee

    Phantoms of Nabua and a Letter to Uncle Boonmee

    Dir. by Apitchatpong Weerasethakul

    Mark Peranson’s article at Moving Image Source, “Exquisite Corpus,” is a useful introduction to Apitchatpong “Joe” Weerasethakul’s Primitive project, a collection of shorts, installations, and an in-the-works feature inspired by the director’s new-found interest in reincarnation and, more specifically, by a short book he was given about the many lives of Uncle Boonmee, whose ghosts still haunt the village of Nabua in northeast Thailand. The project also reflects Apitchatpong’s increasing political engagement. Peranson writes:

    Beginning with the onset of a famous gun battle between farmer communists and the totalitarian government on August 7, 1965, Nabua was occupied by the Thai Army from the ’60s into the ’80s to suppress communist agitators. The only thing similar to the story of Boonmee is that, in Apichatpong’s words, “the village is also full of repressed memories. . . . It is a place where memories and ideologies are extinct.” It is with the sons of those communists who were tortured or oppressed, or who died during the brutal period of the occupation, that Apichatpong made the works that constitute Primitive. Set in a place whose history has been forgotten by both the country and local inhabitants, the project reimagines Nabua by bringing light to the ghosts of the past through the lost generation of today, while also confronting the current political turmoil in Thailand.

    Phantoms of Nabua, which will be installed at the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art throughout the Toronto International Film Festival as part of the Future Projections program, can be viewed online, but I’d recommend seeing it projected and (hopefully) with surround sound if possible. As has become Joe’s trademark, the ten-minute film is first and foremost a sensory experience. Phantoms takes place at night in a field where a makeshift screen has been assembled, onto which is being projected flashes of lighting that erupt on impact with the ground. (According to Peranson, these are clips from Nabua, another of the shorts from Primitive.) In the foreground, a group of teenage boys, barely visible in the darkness, pass a flaming soccer ball back and forth until it ignites the screen, leaving only the projector, which continues to spray its images into the dark.

    There are ways of “decoding” this film, I suppose — the soccer ball as a synecdoche for military armaments, the cinema as documentarian, the hovering florescent light as ghost (or Ghost) — but reducing Joe’s films to points on a symbolic answer key seems beside the point. Watching Phantoms and A Letter to Uncle Boonmee (playing in Wavelengths 5: Une Catastrophe), I was struck by the idea that Aptichatpong is one of the few true heirs to Tarkovsky. They share thematic obsessions, particularly the intersection of personal (autobiography) and national (History) memory, and they’re certainly two of the cinema’s great mystics. More than any of our other great filmmakers today, I see Apitchatpong consistently striving for — and realizing, with breathtaking clarity — Tarkovsky’s ideal, “the film image,” which, as opposed to the intellectually-reducible symbol, “gives the beholder a simultaneous experience of the most complex, contradictory, sometimes even mutually exclusive feelings” (Sculpting in Time, 109).

    An example: Another of Apitchatpong’s short films, Mobile Men (2008), part of the Stories on Human Rights Project.

    On the YouTube page a well-intentioned commenter offers a point-by-point analysis of what this film means, as if the experience of watching it, especially the last minute, could be so easily expressed in words.

    A Letter to Uncle Boonmee is set at a home in the jungles of Nabua, through which Apitchatpong’s camera tracks and pans — floats, really — observing photos of lost relatives on the walls and peering through open windows. On the soundtrack, we hear first one man then another recite Joe’s desire to make a film about the reincarnated lives of Uncle Boonmee. (Later, we also hear one of the men rehearsing his lines and jokingly chastising Joe for screwing up their dialect, which recalls one of my favorite scenes in Syndromes and a Century, when we hear two actors discussing the minutes-long shot they’re currently filming.) The penultimate shot in the film is particularly Tarkovskian. The camera tracks over the home’s roofline, tilts up, looking into the tree tops, and then returns to ground level, where it sees an animal in the far distance — another of Boonmee’s ghosts and also, like Tarkovsky’s horses, a multivalent, shape-shifting image.

    A Letter to Uncle Boonmee feels a bit like a sketch for a feature-length film, but, especially in juxtaposition with Phantoms of Nabua, it’s the best thing I’ve seen in 2009. I can’t wait to see the rest of Primitive.

  • Wavelengths: Tamalpais and Hotel Roccalba

    Wavelengths: Tamalpais and Hotel Roccalba

    Tamalpais (Chris Kennedy)

    Toronto filmmaker Chris Kennedy is a familiar face at Wavelengths. His films Memo to Pic Desk (co-director, ’06), the acrobat (’07), and Tape Film (’07) were all screened in the program, and my limited sense of him based on those projects was that he was still experimenting (pun intended) with the material of movie-making but hadn’t yet successfully married form to an equally compelling concept. Tape Film, for example, is fascinating to look at — it’s a disorienting and super-saturated self-portrait — but it feels scholastic, like an assigned exercise in the mechanics of handprocessing and stock manipulation.

    Kennedy’s latest contribution to Wavelengths, Tamalpais, represents a significant step forward for him, I think. About two-and-a-half minutes into the fourteen-minute film, we see in the distance a lovely composition of the green hills north of San Francisco; in the foreground, a handmade wooden frame in the classic movie ratio, 4:3, the same as the film itself. This shot puts all that comes before it in some much-needed perspective. The wooden frame is cross-sected by ten wire lines, six vertical, four horizontal, that divide the framed space into 35 smaller frames, and it’s only in hindsight that we realize each of the opening shots in the film was inspired (probably the wrong word) by one of those smaller frames. Like the twelve-tone composers of the early 20th century, though, it’s what one does with the given notes that determines whether a particular work is successful or pedantic or (insert your own evaluative adjective here), and Kennedy’s real achievement is at the level of individual shots, which are often beautiful and demonstrate a curious deftness with focus and depth of field. Kennedy recycles the technique six or seven times, creating slight variations on his landscape theme and shepherding his audience through shifting relationships with the material, from the simple pleasure of the opening images to the puzzle-like gamesmanship of his structuralist conceit and back, finally, to the beauty of his shot-making.

    Hotel Roccalba (Josef Dabernig, 2008)

    Hotel Roccalba (Josef Dabernig)

    Until watching Hotel Roccalba and then immediately googling Dabernig to learn more about him, I’d forgotten about his previous film, Lancia Thema, which screened in Wavelengths three years ago. I remember wondering at the time why Andrea Picard was so enthusiastic about him — the film struck me as slight and offbeat, like a Stella Artois ad — but Hotel Roccalba may have made me a believer. The film opens on a shot of two women knitting outside. He then cuts to others in the courtyard — an old man chopping wood, a bicyclist repairing his bike, a woman in a lawn chair. It’s only after introducing his characters — and make no mistake, these are staged tableau, this is a fiction — that Dabernig situates them in space by planting his camera on a tripod and panning 180 degrees.

    Hotel Roccalba is also relatively slight and offbeat, funny even, but the execution is so precise and Dabernig’s cutting so angular and shocking that it feels right at home in Wavelengths. My favorite section of the film involves an elderly man and a put-upon bartender who wouldn’t be out of place in Satantango. As in the opening sequence, Dabernig reveals their relationship gradually and in splintered fragments, cutting from a series of medium one-shots to a long-range, wide-angle shot that provides something like an objective perspective on them both. A note to cinema studies teachers: this would be a great piece for a unit on editing.

  • Lumphini 2552

    Lumphini 2552

    Dir. by Tomonari Nishikawa

    Tomonari Nishikawa’s Lumphini 2552 is constructed from still black-and-white photos (2,552 of them?) of dense growths of plants and trees. The images fly by quickly — 12 per second, I’d guess — which turns them into high-contrast abstraction and allows Nishikawa to carefully modulate the rhythms of the film. In the opening seconds, he cuts repeatedly from long shots to close-ups, mimicking the effect of time-lapse photography. Later, he alternates between compositions of vertical and horizontal lines, which, like Muybridge’s horses, creates the tense illusion of movement. Shots of shaded stems are a palette of blacks; low-angle views into the treetops are whites. And the whole thing resolves perfectly into darkness, like a breath. It’s a sublime kaleidoscope, I’ll tell you, and a damn fine way to spend three minutes.

    My tendency when describing a film like Lumphini 2552 is to fall back on Modernist rallying cries like that old Ezra Pound chestnut, “Make it new!” Maybe a useful way to think of Nishikawa’s film is as a beautifully defamiliarized — and uniquely cinematic — landscape. In that sense it reminds me of the few Brackhage collages I’ve seen — films like The Garden of Earthly Delights and Mothlight.

  • 2009 SFIFF Diary 3

    2009 SFIFF Diary 3

    Rembrandt’s J’Accuse (Peter Greenaway)

    The last Greenaway film I saw was Prospero’s Books, so I have no idea if Rembrandt’s J’Accuse is a return to form, as programmer Rod Armstrong claimed when he introduced it at SFIFF. A companion to Greenaway’s recent Rembrandt biopic, Nightwatching (2007), Rembrandt’s J’Accuse is an art history lecture disguised as an essay film. In his meticulous dissection of Rembrandt’s “The Night Watch,” Greenaway alludes to the painter’s biography, to the political life of 17th century Amsterdam, to the aesthetic tastes of the day, to romantic intrigues, to the history of technology, and to various schools of relevant academic criticism, but the film seems less intent on uncovering the mysteries of a great painting than on modeling for a contemporary audience the fine and fading art of looking. Really looking.

    Though drowning in a whirl of images, we are sorely lacking in visual literacy, the film implies. Or, that’s certainly what I found most interesting about it, at least. Formally, Rembrandt’s J’Accuse is an odd bird. Each of Greenaway’s arguments is presented logically and in sequence (such is the burden of a linear medium), but it has something of the quality of a Flash presentation or a late-’90s CD-Rom. I can imagine it being spliced into hyperlinked elements and finding a home as an interactive museum kiosk. (I almost certainly would have preferred to explore it that way.) Greenaway’s talking head even appears throughout the film like a pop-up window, reading from the script in a resounding, pedantic tone that rivals Terrence Davies’s.

    The Other One (Patrick Mario Bernard and Pierre Trividic)

    The Other One (Patrick Mario Bernard and Pierre Trividic)

    My expectations for The Other One skyrocketed during the opening title sequence, which is a beautiful montage of high-angle, nighttime shots of a mostly-empty, twelve-lane highway. It reminded me of a Claire Denis film — the helicopter ride that opens I Can’t Sleep or the rooftops of Paris in Friday Night. The wide highway leads eventually to a toll station. Then, as I recall, Bernard and Tridivic cut to their heroine, Anne-Marie (Dominique Blanc), who proceeds to drive a hammer into the side of her skull. Anne-Marie, we learn, has recently ended her relationship with a much younger man, freeing him to meet someone more appropriate. When she later learns that his new partner is also d’un certain age, she comes unhinged. She fails, embarrassingly, to seduce him, she cyberstalks, she begins to hallucinate.

    With The Other One, Bernard and Tridivic are positioning themselves somewhere in that line from Sirk to Cassavetes to Almodovar, all of them male directors preoccupied by strong women of fading beauty and sexual power. Blanc’s performance is impressive, and the style of the film is often suitably claustrophobic and disorienting, but something has gone awry in the structuring of this film. That cut from the toll station to Anne-Marie’s bathroom is the first of countless ellipses, most of them chronological jumps, both forward and backward in time. It’s not confusing — I never struggled to understand what was happening, or when — but the cutting creates a flatness or stasis in the main character, a woman who is presumably becoming transformed through a moment of crisis. Particularly during the last half hour, as my patience waned, I thought often of Fien Troch’s disappointing recent film, Unspoken, which also seems to assume that fixing a camera long enough on an actress will necessarily reveal the complexity of her character (exactly the wrong lesson to be learned from the best practitioners of contemplative cinema). Sirk, Cassavetes, and Almodovar (at his best) empathize with, are curious about, and have an essential understanding of their heroines. I don’t doubt Bernard and Tridivic’s commitment to Anne-Marie but the film lacks a trustworthy guide behind the camera.

  • Why I don’t read (or write) music reviews

    “It’s music inspired by Disney films.” — Annie Clark on her new album, Actor (recorded as St. Vincent)

    “One would hardly expect the phrase ‘Technicolor Disney nightmare’ to become an overused idiom anytime soon, but it’s a good bet you’ll see some iteration of it, written or otherwise, in just about every reference to this album.” — No Ripcord

    “if it sounds a bit like the kind of dark, violent fairy tale Disney might have made had they not strayed so far from their Grimm roots, well, that’s a pretty fair take on the album as a whole.” — The Hurst Review

    “imagine Trent Reznor scoring an old Disney movie—princesses and demons battling in a swirl of distorted synth noises, orchestral strings and pianos.” — Culture Bully

    “Marrow is the perfect mix of Disney musical meets rock n’ roll.” — Sputnik Music

    “The sophomore album from St. Vincent employs a cacaphony of sounds to create its Grimms brothers atmosphere. And indeed, Clark even looks like a Disney heroine.” — AOL Music

    “The way that Clark’s trilling voice delivers melodies that skip and soars overtop richly-appointed arrangements, you could imagine these songs soundtracking any animated Disney film” — Chromewaves

    “Estas canciones nacen como un score imaginario para escenas de cintas como Badlands, Picnic at Hanging Rock y algunos clásicos de Disney como La Bella Durmiente y La Dama y el Vagabundo.” — Flaming Milk

    “And like a Disney flick, the tune has a happy ending, with a soothing mix of accordion, acoustic guitar, and skyward vocals. However, Michey Mouse [sic] probably won’t approve of Clark’s lyrics about ‘painting the black hole blacker,’ quarreling with a lover, and keeping secrets in a relationship. Oh, well.” — Spin

    “Clark’s sweet vocals carry a tinge of malice, and set against the fanciful, dreamy arrangements, they often recall a golden-era Disney-villain.” — Tiny Mix Tapes

    “Annie Clark may look like an animated Disney heroine sprung to life, and the influence of willowy, ethereal singers and songwriters such as Feist and Tori Amos is obvious.” — STNG

    “The whole project at times seems Disney-ish in its aims, soaring with its whimsical orchestral arrangements and painting scenes that you really want to see brought to life in animation.” — Express Night Out

    “‘The Stranger’, the ambulatory opening track of Actor, is indicative of St Vincent’s efforts: kitsch strings, reminiscent of 60’s easy listening or a mournful Disney soundtrack, give way to a storm of fuzzed-up guitar.” — Wireless Bollinger

    “Even when the music is at its most dramatic, as when songs slip out of placid, Disney-esque string accompaniment into jagged, distorted guitar passages, Clark consistently understates her characters’ angst, and buries their negative emotions under layers of denial, stoicism, and subservience to the desire of others.” — Pitchfork

    Okay, I like this one: “The fantasy of Disney is juxtaposed with the sweep of Morricone, David Mamet’s unsettling dramatic form and the alienation of Philip Roth.” — Music Remedy

  • 575 Castro St.

    575 Castro St.

    Dir. by Jenni Olson

    Rather than write about the “Voices Carry” shorts program, which was a jarring and poorly curated combination of Roy Andersson/Terry Gilliam wannabes and thoughtful documentaries, I want to focus, instead, on 575 Castro St., Jenni Olson’s cleverly conceived piece about Harvey Milk. The film is seven minutes long and consists of only four static shots, along with an opening title that contextualizes what we’re seeing:

    In February 1977, the San Francisco Gay Film Festival was born when a self-described “ragtag bunch of hippie fag” filmmakers got together and projected their Super 8 short films on a bed sheet. Many of these films explored gay themes, but (like many other experimental films of the era) many were simple light and motion studies. Most of these films passed through Harvey Milk’s Castro Camera Store at 575 Castro St. for processing.

    In 2008, the Castro Camera Store was recreated at that address for Gus Van Sant’s film MILK. This film was shot on that set.

    I’ve quoted the text in full because it’s as essential to Olson’s project as any of the shots are. It’s as essential as the soundtrack, which is an edited recording of the “In Case I’m Assassinated” tape that Milk made while seated alone at the desk in his store. The film works wonderfully on the most basic level — that is, as a haunted image. When I spoke to Olson after the screening, she told me how overwhelming it was to visit the set, to listen to Milk’s voice, and to know that it was here — right here — that he contemplated his imminent murder. She’s translated that experience well to her film, which is ghostly and deeply moving. But, of course, it wasn’t right here that Milk made his tape. This is a meticulously dressed set. That’s Sean Penn in the top-left corner (see the image above). It’s artifice. Make-believe. Harvey’s been gone for more than thirty years now.

    A few ways of looking at 575 Castro St.:

    As a history of film technology — I’d forgotten that Milk owned a camera shop, and didn’t realize he processed Super 8 there and played a role in the making (literally) of gay cinema. That made the experience of watching 575 Castro St. interesting in two ways: first, Olson’s film was projected not onto a bedsheet but onto a large screen in a stadium-seated multiplex; second, shot digitally, projected digitally, this “film” required no physical processing whatsoever. Olson didn’t need a shop like Harvey’s. Her medium is ones and zeroes rather than celluloid. You can even watch 575 Castro St. online.

    As a “simple light and motion” study — I wish I were familiar with the specific films Olson is alluding to in the text of the film’s opening title. A longtime collector, archivist, and critic of LGBT cinema, she is presumably offering her film as an homage to those who came before her and claiming her place in their line. Each of the four shots lasts a bit longer than the one that precedes it, and the final shot lasts for nearly three minutes, or just under half of the film’s total run time. It’s a beautiful image. Sunlight reflecting off of passing cars illuminates the wall and gives a curious movement to the static shot. I would have happily watched it for several minutes more.

    As tragedy tourism — One consequence of the extended shot lengths is that viewers are allowed the time to thoroughly and freely explore each image. As a result, we become consciously aware of the artificiality of it all. The opening shot could be from 1977, until we spot two late-model cars pass outside the storefront windows. The last shot could be vintage as well, until we recognize Mr. Penn. I have a theory that, because 21st-century Americans’ lives are marked by such comfort and politeness (generally speaking), we have a strange desire to associate ourselves, personally, with other people’s tragedy, as if doing so will grant us access to some hidden, distant experience and wisdom. Hence the Martin Luther King, Jr. museum at the Memphis hotel where he was gunned down and, more recently, our commitments to “never forget” the victims of 9/11, the Virigina Tech shootings, the Minnesota bridge collapse (remember that one?), and on and on. When the Harvey Milk museum is eventually built, somewhere in the Castro, Olson’s film will likely play on a constant loop there. Which isn’t to say it’s not genuinely moving. It is. But it’s also one step removed from the genuine. It’s a tourist destination.

    As a comment on the Hollywood biopic — I’ve bumped Milk to the top of my Netflix queue, although, truthfully, even as a great fan of Gus Van Sant, I don’t have high expectations for it. Traditional biopics — and especially Hollywood productions about recent historical figures — are hamstrung, I think, by a wealth of extratextual pressures. Large budgets demand large returns, and that economic pressure necessitates the transformation of a complex, messy life into a coherent and familiar narrative. (Steve McQueen’s Hunger is a recent and remarkable exception that proves the rule.) Hollywood biopics also tend to be marketed as acting showcases and “prestige” pictures, which forces audiences to view the film through a thin veil of celebrity. Plus, there’s always that nagging problem of verisimilitude. (I’ve always liked E. L. Doctorow’s response to critics of his “inaccurate” depiction of real historical figures in Ragtime: “I don’t know if these events actually happened, but I’m absolutely confident they’re true.”) Again, that photo of Sean Penn is key here. 575 Castro St. challenges every formal tendency of the Hollywood biopic — it’s short, slow, contemplative — but, in a way, it is a Hollywood biopic. On a practical level, an independent filmmaker like Olson would rarely have the resources to access and dress a location like this. And, presumably, those of us who are interested in a film like 575 Castro St. approach it with those same preconceptions about Penn’s performance and celebrity, even if we haven’t seen Milk. (Such is the nature of contemporary media saturation.) It’s a clever interrogation of the form, I think.

    As a document of progress — Finally, as uncanny and heartbreaking as it is to hear Harvey Milk confess his fears, there’s something celebratory (not quite the right word) about 575 Castro St., too. This is not a nostalgia piece or maudlin reveille. Even down to its digital form, it is very much a document of the present moment. When Milk mentions that, rather than rioting on news of his death, he would rather see “five, ten, a hundred, a thousand rise” and come out, we know that his dream is slowly but steadily becoming realized.

  • 2009 SFIFF Diary 2

    2009 SFIFF Diary 2

    Oblivion (Heddy Honigmann)

    Four years ago, on my first trip to the San Francisco International Film Festival, a couple friends and I had our liveliest debate after a screening of Ellen Perry’s The Fall of Fujimori, a documentary about Peru’s recent political history told mostly in the first person by Fujimori himself. On one side of the debate were those of us who felt the strength of the film was its subtle ironies, particularly its use of the contemporary context (the early days of Bush’s war on terror) to undermine the elected dictator’s self-aggrandizing justifications of his anti-democratic domestic policies. On the other side were those who argued that people in power are afforded ample opportunity to speak for themselves and that the filmmaker was morally obligated to condemn Fujimori outright. It was a fun — and heated — exchange. Heddy Honigmann’s latest film is a fascinating answer to that discussion. Oblivion is also told in the first person, though this time mostly by aging, blue-collar workers who, in several cases, literally served (whether food or drink or services) several past presidents and dictators, including Fujimori. I’ve only seen two Honigmann films, but in both I’ve been startled by the candor she elicits from her interview subjects. Here, her camera lingers awkwardly on a man who admits with some shame that after working for more than 30 years in one of Lima’s finest restaurants, he had never had an opportunity to take his wife there. A 60-year-old leather worker hides his face when he’s overcome by emotion while remembering all he lost during the days of runaway inflation. An adolescent shoeshine boy stares blankly into the camera and tells Honigmann, “No, I don’t have any dreams. No, I don’t have any happy memories.” She intercuts these stories with footage of young, self-taught jugglers and acrobats — homeless kids — who perform in busy intersections during red lights. They’re graceful and full of life, their performances have a startling and kinetic beauty. The juxtaposition is complex and loaded with ambiguities — a reflection, I suspect, of Honigmann’s personal relationship with her home country.

    Everything Strange and New (Frazer Bradshaw)

    Everything Strange and New (Frazer Bradshaw)

    To recycle a line I’ve used before, I’m often more interested in what a film does than what it’s about, and Bradshaw’s first narrative feature, Everything Strange and New, does quite a lot. The opening shot (pictured above) is a long, static take accompanied by an explosion of percussive, dissonant music — a self-conscious announcement that this is not another of those suburban stories about disaffected fathers and husbands. As it turns out, it is one of those films, but I’ll credit Bradshaw for his experiments with the genre, particularly his working-class lead character, Wayne, and for his often fascinating photography. One or two shots approach Bela Tarr territory (if Tarr shot a low-budget dv movie). Had the film ended 20 minutes sooner, I would have even applauded Bradshaw’s success at blending avant-garde techniques with more naturalistic storytelling. But a plot turn in the final act — and, more importantly, Bradshaw’s cynical handling of it — caused me to reevaluate everything that came before. Everything Strange and New is cruel to its characters in a way that comes off as smug rather than searching.

    35 Shots of Rum (Denis, 2009)

    35 Shots of Rum (Claire Denis)

    I’ve already written a bit about this film, but I want to quickly mention a scene that, to me, encapsulates all that distinguishes Denis’s take on the small, family drama from most other films in the genre. The morning after the “Nightshift,” Noé (Grégoire Colin) announces to Gabrielle (Nicole Dogué) and Joséphine (Mati Diop) that he’s leaving for a job in Gabon. Rather than dealing explicitly with the fallout from his decision, Denis cuts, instead, to a closeup of Lionel (Alex Descas), who’s walking home, presumably after a one-night-stand. She then cuts on an eyeline match to Joséphine climbing precariously out of their top-story window with a bottle of cleaner and towels in her hand. We are given, cinematically, the perspective of a father watching his child in danger. Or, at least that’s how I read the image the first time. On repeat viewings, there’s something much more interesting in Lionel’s expression: his intimate and hard-won understanding of his daughter’s behavior, his realization that she’s cleaning, which means that she’s upset, which means that it’s his job to go soothe and protect her. This plays out in the next few minutes in a wonderful scene in which their history is revealed through gestures. There’s text — Joséphine shaking out the bedsheets, looking through family photos, and arguing with her father — and there’s subtext — not only the loss of their mother/wife but also their deep familiarity with each other and with moments like this. (We can immediately imagine them having a hundred other similar confrontations — her cleaning, him stoic, with arms folded.) Characters in movies expertly express their feelings; real people, in my experience, typically don’t. Yet those of us in successful, long-term relationships manage to communicate anyway. 35 Shots of Rum is rare for managing to capture that peculiar kind of intimacy on screen. Ozu would approve.

    Zift (Javor Gardev)

    Zift (Javor Gardev)

    A Bulgarian film noir? Yes, please. Although a bit too stylized (in the Tarantino sense) for my tastes, Zift is a hell of a lot of fun and could probably find a decent audience in the States if a distributor packaged it properly. (First-time director Gardev must surely be taking studio offers for his next film as we speak.) The movie borrows liberally from classic Hollywood noirs, most notably a reenactment of Rita Hayworth’s iconic number in Gilda, and the black-and-white cinematography honors that legacy while updating the camera movements for contemporary audiences accustomed to a more frenetic pace. The two lead actors are fun discoveries, too, particularly Tanya Ilieva, who, frankly, is one of the sexiest women I’ve ever seen on screen. Zift was on my radar last September at TIFF, so I’m glad to have finally had a chance to catch up with it.

    Wild Field (Mikheil Kalatozishvili)

    Wild Field (Mikheil Kalatozishvili)

    Wild Field belongs to a class of films I’m drawn to at festivals. I rarely expect them to be great (and they rarely are), but I see them less for their stories or formal innovations than for the opportunity they provide to watch people in a part of the world I would never have a chance to see otherwise. (Tulpan is another recent example.) Wild Field is set in a remote region of the Kazakh steppes, where a young doctor lives Thoreau-like, tends to a handful of locals, and pines for his girlfriend back in civilization. Although I can’t find confirmation for this, I suspect this is an adaptation of a novel. I can imagine the protagonist’s inner life being a playhouse of ideas for a gifted writer, and the moments of magical realism that pockmark the film could flower beautifully in prose, but Kalatozishvili fails to find a cinematographic analogue, and the pacing of the film suffers for it. Still, I was perfectly content to study the landscape and faces for 90 minutes or so.

  • 2009 SFIFF Diary 1

    2009 SFIFF Diary 1

    Adoration (Atom Egoyan)

    There’s certainly no mistaking an Atom Egoyan film — the non-linear narrative, the technology fetish, the intertwined obsessions with history, identity, and trauma, and all of those secrets and lies. Closest in spirit and form to Ararat, Adoration is another interesting jumble of ideas from Egoyan that, to my surprise, works more often than other critics had led me to expect. I especially like the scenes between Scott Speedman and Arsinee Khanjian, who are the only two actors in the film who consistently make Egoyan’s dialog sound like words an actual human being might speak. (In Egoyan’s defense, the performance of language and identity is a central concern — and plot point — of the film, so some of the awkwardly-heightened language is clearly by design. Egoyan alerts the attentive viewer to this fact by formal means, though I’m not sure if that defense justifies the unfortunate shifts in tone he creates.) Egoyan’s at his best when he manages to balance his wealth of ideas with drama, when his characters transcend the intellectual and psychological conceits they are intended to embody. That happens often enough in Adoration, particularly in the final act, to make it my favorite of his films of the last decade. (I’m still eager to see Citadel.) One final note: Mychael Danna’s original score is fantastic, but I’d prefer to hear it alone on a soundtrack album. I suspect I would have liked Adoration a good deal more if Egoyan had trimmed 75% of the music cues.

    Bluebeard (Breillat, 2009)

    Bluebeard (Catherine Breillat)

    God bless you, Catherine Breillat. When Bluebeard started last night around 9:40, San Francisco time, I’d already been awake for 19 hours. Who else under those circumstances could put me at the edge of my seat, giggling and gasping at the nerve of a film? A playful and stylized period piece in the (formal) vein of Rohmer’s Astrea and Celadon, Bluebeard is a wicked dismantling of a fairy tale that, although lacking Breillat’s trademark nudity and explicit sexual content, is no less obsessed with bodies. Mary-Catherine (Lola Creton), Bluebeard’s young bride, is one more Breillat heroine, tempted by, curious about, and fearful of both sexual desire and by sex itself — by the physical, biological realness of it. I can’t think of a better image to represent Breillat’s cinema en toto than a shot of the massive, shirtless Bluebeard (Dominique Thomas) being watched unnoticed by his waif, virgin wife. Brilliant film.

  • A preview of things to come?

    My contributions to the fake Criterion thread at The Auteurs.

    Fake Colossal Youth Cover

    Fake Cache Cover

  • Films of the ’80s (part 1)

    Films of the ’80s (part 1)

    Loulou (Maurice Pialat, 1980)

    Nelly (Isabelle Huppert) leaves her controlling, bourgeois husband André (Guy Marchand) for Loulou (Gérard Depardieu), a petty criminal and top-notch lay, and all hell breaks loose. In my tweet about Loulou I described it as “the missing link (for me) between early New Wave & contemporary naturalism,” which, like so much of what goes on in the twitterverse, is pithy and imprecise. Like Jules and Jim and a number of films from Godard’s first phase — and also like so many of the classic genre films they’re riffing on — the love triangle here is a site of class conflict and shifting sexual and gender dynamics. Who’s the Whore here? Who’s the John? Pialat’s style allows plenty of room for the performers (is Huppert ever not amazing?) and ratchets up the cruelty and emotional suffering. My favorite scene takes place at a family reunion of sorts for Loulou and his kin, which plays like something from a Bruno Dumont film.

    Cruising (Friedkin, 1980)

    Cruising (William Friedkin, 1980)

    Given Cruising‘s checkered reputation, I was disappointed to discover that it’s little more than an uninventive serial killer movie. That a film set in New York leather bars was financed and widely distributed in 1980 is fairly interesting in its own right (note to self: learn more about Lorimar, who also produced Being There the previous year), but the only aspect of Cruising that really piqued my curiosity was Al Pacino. I’m not refering to his performance, which is refreshingly low-key and out-of-balance, I guess. I’m talking about Pacino himself. He’s bulkier and more muscular in this role, which has the incongruous effect of making him seem smaller. That and his wardrobe made me consciously aware of his body for the first time. Cruising is structured as sensationalized tourism (“And on your right you’ll see that this breed of American Homosexual signals his fetishes with a brightly-colored bandana in his back pocket”), but its real transgression is its foregrounding of the gay male body, which, regrettably, remains a charged political act even now, three decades later. I guess it deserves some credit for that.

    Atlantic City (Malle, 1980)

    Atlantic City (Louis Malle, 1980)

    My only memory of Atlantic City, which I saw one other time nearly twenty years ago, was, of course, the lemon scenes. I had no idea it was such a strange film. Populated with quirky, two-dimensional characters and structured around over-written and weirdly implausible plot turns, it’s closer in spirit to Sundance-approved American indie cinema of the last decade than the continental drama I was expecting. But, really, it’s impossible to not love Burt Lancaster here. Lou Pascal, the aging and never-too-important gangster he plays, is quietly dignified and kind, which makes him pitiful in the best sense of the word. The final shot of Lou and Grace walking off together after one last score is as sweet and joyful an image as you’re likely to find.

    American Gigolo (Schrader, 1980)

    American Gigolo (Paul Schrader, 1980)

    Another loose adaptation of Crime and Punishment, this time by way of Robert Bresson and Jerry Bruckheimer (there’s a pairing!), Paul Schrader’s third film as director is never less than watchable, thanks largely to Richard Gere’s performance, which is appropriately charismatic, pathetic, and vacuous. Schrader now admits he’s unsure whether the moral transformation Gere’s gigolo experiences in the final scene is authentic or “one that was simply imposed on him by his maker.” I share his ambivalence. That American Gigolo places a distant third in a race with Bresson’s Pickpocket and the Dardennes’ L’Enfant isn’t a surprise, but given their radically different modes of production, I find it hard to fault Schrader. It’s an interesting narrative experiment from a Hollywood release of 1980.

    Bad Timing (Roeg, 1980)

    Bad Timing (Nicolas Roeg, 1980)

    Amidst the formal fireworks on display here — the mesmerizingly elliptical cutting, the fast zooms, the unexpected music cues — what I found most shocking was Theresa Russell’s performance, which gives life to a role that, on paper, is little more than a misogynist fantasy. But, damn, she’s good. The image I captured above is from a scene on a bridge, where her reunion with Alex (Art Garfunkel) is spoiled by his pettiness, and her response is so natural and solicitous that, for a second or two, she breaks the movie. All of Roeg’s machinations are undone by the sudden intrusion of uncalculated emotion.

    Grown Ups (Leigh, 1980)

    Grown Ups (Mike Leigh, 1980)

    Made for BBC2 Playhouse, Grown Ups is about Dick (Philip Davis) and Mandy (Lesley Manville), a working-class Canterbury couple who are settling awkwardly into adulthood and their first home. Next door live one of their former teachers, Mr. Butcher (Sam Kelly), and his wife Christine (Lindsay Duncan), who, at first glance, seem the very models of middle-class civility. And that, of course, is the joke. Leigh has great fun contrasting the cold pedantry of Mr. Butcher with Dick and Mandy’s crass and loud-mouthed affection. The star of the film, though, is a nearly unrecognizable Brenda Blethyn, who plays Mandy’s older sister Gloria — a kind of spinstery, 30-something cross between Vickie Pollard and MadTV’s Lorraine. (Here’s a nice clip of Gloria in action. The entire film is available on YouTube.) Grown Ups reminds me that I need to spend more time with Mike Leigh.

    Voyage en Deuce (Deville, 1980)

    Voyage en douce (Michel Deville, 1980)

    Thanks to Dan Sallitt for making several mentions of Deville, the first great discovery of my little jaunt through the ’80s. I’m rarely caught off guard by a film these days, but Voyage en douce, a film I’d never heard of by a filmmaker I’d never heard of, offered one surprise after another. On paper, it sounds like late-night Cinemax fare: two women spend a weekend in the south of France, ostensibly in search of a vacation home, but devoting much of their time, instead, to remembrances of their sexual awakenings, casual flirtations, and, in the words of that old Monty Python sketch, “candid photography” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). From the opening sequence, though, Deville establishes his authorship and makes obvious that titillation is not his chief concern. About À cause, à cause d’une femme (1963), one of Deville’s collaborations with Nina Companéez, Dan writes: “[They] are interested, not in the mechanics of their commonplace plots, but in an affectionate and profuse evocation of the feminine principle, and in giving a deadly serious account of romantic love. . . . To give full play to their concerns while remaining faithful to their narrative task, Deville and Companéez direct us to the important stuff largely through cinematic form.” The same can be said of Voyage en deuce, particularly in its final act, when Bunuel-like moments of surreality disrupt the women’s stories by blurring the divide between fantasy and memory. A stunning film, and one certainly worthy of more than a capsule-length response.

  • Lisandro Alonso: Who’s John Ford?

    Lisandro Alonso: Who’s John Ford?

    This interview was originally published at Senses of Cinema.

    * * *

    The basic narrative outline of Liverpool – a solitary man journeys home – will be familiar to anyone who has seen Lisandro Alonso’s earlier feature, Los Muertos (The Dead, 2004). When we first meet Farrel (Juan Fernandez), he is napping in the bowels of a freighter, surrounded on all sides by ear-splitting machinery. This claustrophobic, metal-and-grease environment is something new in Alonso’s cinema, and the contrast created by it and the vast, snow-covered landscapes Farrel explores in the second half of the film is telling. I ran into Alonso the day after our interview and asked him one last question: “Is there any John Ford in that shot of Farrel standing in an open doorframe?”

    He smiled, put his hand on my shoulder, and asked, “Who’s John Ford?”

    In Liverpool, really for the first time, Alonso’s protagonist struggles with the social order – one more instantiation of the Fordian hero. Unlike Argentino (Argentino Vargas), the recently paroled killer in Los Muertos who remains a blank slate even after the final frame, Farrel is a man of complex psychology – so much so that even Alonso, who claims to have no interest in explaining his characters, can’t resist speculating here about his motives. In the final act of Liverpool, Farrel wanders away from the small mountain village where he has travelled to visit his dying mother, but Alonso stays behind, turning his camera on the people Farrel long ago abandoned. The final shot, of Farrel’s daughter holding a small keepsake, is multivalent, intensely satisfying, and further evidence of Alonso’s place among the world’s great filmmakers.

    * * *

    HUGHES: I love when a film breaks in the middle and becomes something unexpected.

    ALONSO: You mean the girl?

    HUGHES: The entire final sequence, really, from the moment Farrel leaves. What was your starting point for the film?

    ALONSO: Before shooting a film, I first think of a place. So, the first thing that came to mind was the little town.

    HUGHES: How did you find it?

    ALONSO: I was looking at a magazine and saw some pictures of the camp and I thought, “I have to go there.” I got in my car and drove 3,500 km and met the people I saw in the images. I started talking with them and thought, “Okay, maybe I can make a film with them.”

    HUGHES: How long did you stay with them?

    ALONSO: Before shooting the film? I visited several times for a total of about 15 days. Something like that. Did you see my earlier film, Los Muertos?

    HUGHES: Yes.

    ALONSO: Maybe you remember there was a scene where Vargas kills an animal in his boat and then a child appears eating fruit?

    HUGHES: Right.

    ALONSO: Suddenly the film changes for this kid. And I’ve always kept the thought, “Why can’t I stay with this kid?” And so that became the point of departure for Liverpool.

    HUGHES: The girl seems to be the heart and soul of the film.

    ALONSO: She’s just the female character. I don’t know. I cannot say. Whatever character you want to think is the heart or the soul of the film, it’s okay. Why do you think it’s her?

    HUGHES: Maybe because I had a personal connection with the film. I knew someone very much like Farrel and saw the damage he left behind. I was glad that in this film, unlike in Los Muertos, you gave your protagonist a society and a family. It doesn’t explain him, but it gives him some context.

    ALONSO: I don’t like to explain characters, because as soon as you do you also judge them. I’m not interested in judging them. I just observe them and use montage so that the spectator must make sense of the sensations of the film.

    HUGHES: Your montage is different in this film. I’d come to expect whole sequences to be shot from a single, fixed position, but in Liverpool there are a few more traditional shot breakdowns, especially indoors. I’m thinking especially of the little café where everyone eats. You came indoors with Fantasma (2006), but was shooting inside small locations a challenge you gave yourself in this film?

    ALONSO: No, actually, it was freezing. [Laughs.] No, it’s true. It’s a very different kind of environment than in La Libertad [2001] or Los Muertos. It’s totally freezing. No birds, no cars, no trains, no planes, no voices, no animals walking around, nothing. Everything that happens there happens inside, because outside it’s too cold to have a conversation. So, I preferred to be realistic and to shoot inside.

    After Fantasma, I became more interested in trying to generate a kind of strain from interiors. When you are shooting realistically in nature – with the trees and the birds and the movement of the camera – it’s easy to create something unrealistic. But when you’re shooting in a bedroom, what can I do? It’s more difficult for me.

    HUGHES: The opening shot of Los Muertos is a good example. What most interests me about that shot is that you’re using what could be described as a contemplative style – long takes, non-professional actors, elliptical editing – but you’re injecting into this “transcendent” moment the experience of dread or violence. Are you interested in …

    ALONSO: … which part? [Laughs.]

    HUGHES: Well, both, I guess.

    ALONSO: Hmmm, I don’t know. If I had to choose, I would say I prefer the boring parts of cinema. You know what I’m trying to say? In Los Muertos, I thought it was a good first image – a kind of dream or memory of this character who was in jail, the day before he’s released.

    I know what you are asking. I’m trying hard to change my way of shooting, but I can’t. Each day when I shoot, I shoot with the same style. Maybe in the future I will introduce some more elements. The thing is, when I was studying in university, I chose to walk this way. [He grabs two pens and aligns them on the table to illustrate divergent paths.] Now I can move a bit to the left or right, but I’ll always be walking this way. I don’t want to go back and take the other path.

    Also, I don’t think I’d be good working the other way. It’s not so easy to say, “Oh, now I’m going to make my commercial film. Now I’m going to make an art film for festivals. Now a comedy. Now a Western.” I just do what I think I can do, so it’s not a matter of choosing what kind of film I want to make.

    In the future, there will be new questions and, so, maybe new answers. Maybe I’ll change. Maybe actors, maybe not. Maybe more dialogue, maybe not. Maybe a film totally without humans. Who knows?

    HUGHES: In interviews you have said that this process – driving 3,500km, exploring new places, meeting new people – is your favourite part of making a film.

    ALONSO: Maybe it is, because otherwise I would have no excuse to meet these people. I go there with the excuse of being a filmmaker and I can say, “Hello, how are you? Hello, how are you?” Afterwards, maybe the film is good, maybe it’s bad, but I’ve had the chance to meet people who live away from TV and cities and newspapers and radios. I enjoy sharing the way they live with audiences, and I think they enjoy the process of working with us, too – the crew, I mean. There’s never more than twelve of us. It’s a matter of respect.

    HUGHES: You mentioned finding this location in a magazine. How does this secluded, old sawmill function today? I assume there are trucks that climb even higher into the mountains to log the forest. Does everyone we see work for the same company?

    ALONSO: There’s no company anymore. There’s an owner and there are some people from Chile who live there to keep the place alive and functioning. It was much more active in the past, but today it’s not really producing. Remember Torres, the cook? He’s been there for the past ten years, working and looking through the same window, and nothing ever happens on the other side of that window. Ten years! Maybe some rabbits will pass. I’m very curious about him, about the mystery of what is going on in his head. That’s why I like to be there before the shooting. He looks out that window, I look out this window. I’m thinking about him, he’s thinking about me. “What is he doing here?” “What is he doing here?” If I’m lucky, then some of these feelings are there in the film. Or at least that’s what I’m interested in, you know?

    HUGHES: There have been several films this week that have adopted an observational style of filmmaking. There’s such a difference between the ones that work and those that don’t. In the bad ones, the directors seem to think that, if they just point a camera at an actor long enough, audiences will magically intuit some great mystery about the character. Your films are different but I’m not sure if I can explain why.

    ALONSO: I don’t know either, but I understand what you’re saying. I see it also at film festivals. So, what the fuck? [Laughs.] What is happening? [Laughs.] I don’t know what’s happening, why I don’t feel anything with some films.

    HUGHES: Do you know Pedro Costa’s films?

    ALONSO: [Smiles] Yeah.

    HUGHES: There’s something about having someone behind the camera who is giving himself to the other people in the room.

    ALONSO: I’m not talking about my films right now, but I can feel very easily if there is a filmmaker behind the camera – being honest with the characters, with the house, with the streets, with a dog, with the sound, with the photography. It’s hard, though, because my uncle, for example, will go to the cinema and he doesn’t feel shit about Costa or about the new director who puts a camera in front of a dog; it’s all the same. It’s my hope that there are audiences who can feel the difference.

    HUGHES: How do you find your camera set-ups? For example, there’s the scene where Farrel passes out and is carried into a room and put in bed. How do you settle on a camera position? Is it intuitive? Is it just finding the most practical place for the camera?

    ALONSO: No, I just talk with the D.P. and say, “What do you think?” We usually have no more than three options. And then we talk to the people who live there, and we ask, “How do you usually enter the room?” “Like this”, they say, and then we’ll decide where to put the camera. Most of the time it depends on the action and what I prefer to see behind the character. We don’t spend much time discussing the camera. For sure, we are not going to put it too close to the actor. Usually, it’s a medium-shot or a bit further away. I want to see them, but I also respect the distance.

    HUGHES: Didn’t you get fairly close to Farrel’s face? It is somewhere in the first half of the film. I remember being surprised to see him in such a tight close-up.

    ALONSO: Yeah, it’s the only close-up I’ve ever shot. It’s when he wakes up in the abandoned bus. It’s the only time I’ve ever gone like this [creates a tight frame around his own face with both thumbs and forefingers and then recreates the shot, pulling the frame further and further way]. I don’t know why. [Laughs.]

    No, I really wanted to understand – and this is me taking on the point of view of the audience – that he asked for permission to go out, he’s in his land, he got drunk last night, he got together with a prostitute. “Now, I wake up as I did twenty years ago, in the same state, drinking whiskey. This is my fate. What am I going to do now? Now I have to go back and see if my mother is still alive. Should I go? Or should I keep drinking here?” I thought, “Let me see your eyes and maybe I’ll be able to understand your preoccupations.” But maybe it’s just a Kuleshov Effect. I don’t know. [Laughs.]

    HUGHES: Where did the idea for the final shot come from?

    ALONSO: We kept shooting the life of this girl for another half hour. And after Farrel had his final scene with his parents – or whoever he is, the old man – he remembers he has this [Alonso fumbles with a piece of paper like Farrel fumbles with the keychain]. He doesn’t know if she can read because she’s a little bit retarded. So what does “Liverpool” mean? For her, it’s like this piece of paper. It doesn’t mean anything for her. It’s just the one thing given to her by her father.

    For me, it’s more important for the audience than for the girl, because the audience is the only one who can recognize that Liverpool is a distant port. Now, we are thinking, “What about Farrel? Where is he going? Is he back on the cargo ship? Or is he dying in the middle of the mountain?” It’s only the audience who can make the connection between Farrel, the girl and the keychain. If there’s some power in that scene, it comes from the spectator, not from the frame or whatever. What do you think happens to Farrel?

    HUGHES: I assume he went back to the ship.

    ALONSO: How does he get there? By walking?

    HUGHES: I don’t know. Maybe another log truck passes by?

    ALONSO: I don’t know. Maybe I’m more negative. [Laughs.]

    HUGHES: You think he dies somewhere under a three-foot snowdrift?

    ALONSO: Like The Shining!

    HUGHES: He gets lost in the labyrinth!

    ALONSO: He just went back to this place to chase a strange memory. He thinks, “Oh, my mother is alive. She is alive, but she cannot see, she cannot hear. But I had to go back.” So he says goodbye. He doesn’t give a shit about the daughter. No one likes him at the sawmill. No one knows him except for the old man. So he knows: “Soon my mother will die, and now I know. Now I can feel lighter. Now I can drink seriously.” [Laughs.]

    HUGHES: You think he’s made his peace? I don’t know.

    ALONSO: I don’t know either. But that’s what I like about films. When I know too much about the characters or the subject, I don’t do it.

  • Albert Serra: Iconic Images

    Albert Serra: Iconic Images

    This interview was originally published at Senses of Cinema.

    * * *

    Like Hamlet’s two doomed friends in Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the Three Kings who wander through Albert Serra’s El Cant dels ocells (Birdsong, 2008) are tangled in an existential snarl. Were one of the Wise Men to wander too far away from his companions, one suspects they would all suddenly lose their essential Three Wise Men-ness and vanish in a cloud of smoke. They inhabit, as Serra describes it, an absurd “land of nowhere”, a fleeting moment of historical time and space in which Christianity is relatively free of ideology and meaning, and among Serra’s many remarkable accomplishments in the film is his discovery of a cinematographic analogy for that moment.

    In an era when the long take has become a hallmark of world art cinema, Serra tests the limits of each composition. The Wise Men are, at one moment, bumbling sojourners on a fool’s errand and, at the next, genuine icons of faith and devotion. Serra’s camera stands at a distance, watching it all with an amused but reverent curiosity. His images are simple and lovely – filmed reflections of one King’s observation early in the film: “At times we’re awestruck by the beauty of things.”

    * * *

    HUGHES: I grew up in a very pious Christian home, and it occurred to me while watching your film that I really only know the story of the kings through a few iconic images.

    SERRA: These are truly iconic images.

    HUGHES: I assume that is something that interested you? Since so little is known about the wise men, you have great freedom to interpret them however you like.

    SERRA: What interested me was to mix into the film different atmospheres. So, in the film there is humour but at the same time there is a seriousness. There are some classical, iconic religious images, especially in the shots of the Virgin Mary (Montse Triola) and Joseph (Mark Peranson), which I took quite seriously, but at the same time there are also profane shots. The risk of the film, what I love about it, is the mixture of these two atmospheres.

    We are talking about three men. (1) Christianity has not been born yet. All of the ideology, what Jesus means, we added later. We’re talking about the pioneers. Just three men who probably feel stupid, you know? They don’t know why they are going to see this child, or where they’re going, or how long it will take. They’re following a star to find a small child in order to adore him. There is something absurd here, something profane, because Christianity doesn’t yet exist.

    But, at the same time, it’s the beginning of everything. At this moment, Christianity is being born but it hasn’t yet grown up. We’re in this land of nowhere. It’s an absurd situation because they don’t know Christianity will become this big thing, but at the same time they know they are looking for something very important.

    HUGHES: You keep using the word “absurd”. My first note, midway through the opening shot, was “Beckett”.

    SERRA: Yes, of course. Absurdity in cinema today is something provocative. We are used to seeing narrative films where every shot is related to the shot before and to the shot we will see next. My taste for films is nearer to the way you read a poem. When you read a poem, you don’t expect every verse to have an obvious meaning. Perhaps it’s only a suggestion. Perhaps it’s only there because a word has a particular sonority or creates a particular image or atmosphere. You don’t expect each line to be perfectly comprehensible.

    My film, like a poem, has freedom inside of it, but at the same time it’s very calculated. Each shot is carefully worked by the author, but always with some freedom inside it. It’s like a koan – one image colliding with another.

    I shot 110 hours and edited it myself. You have to be very sensitive to edit all of this material. The film was clear. It took me two months to build the structure of the film and then I edited for another four months, but I only cut one image! The work of this four months was editing the length of each shot.

    This is important. I am one of the only filmmakers today who works on the set without a monitor. I use digital technology but in an old school way. Like [Luis] Buñuel or [Carl Th.] Dreyer or [Yasujiro] Ozu or [Pier Paolo] Pasolini, I never saw one image of the film before I finished shooting. The old masters never saw footage until it had been developed at the lab. I discover the film later, when there is nothing else to do.

    This is important because it’s a question of faith – faith in the film. You have to be more attentive to the details, to the atmosphere of the film. If you are looking at a monitor, you do not really feel the film. You see an image, but you do not feel the film. How can you make a decision looking at a small monitor? A lot of filmmakers react to what they see in the monitor and begin to doubt themselves, make changes. They don’t feel the film.

    HUGHES: There seems to be a whole class of filmmakers today who trust long takes to reveal mysteries about their characters.

    SERRA: It’s easy to shoot someone’s face, I think. One of the points of Birdsong is trying to find some magic in images shot from very far. It’s more difficult to keep the power of the film without first shooting close-ups. In my earlier films, there are a lot of close shots of faces, and I thought, “Well, let’s try changing things a bit, because perhaps it’s too easy.” A face is always interesting. The viewer is trying to discover, “What is this character thinking?” But put him further away and it’s much more difficult to keep that magic.

    HUGHES: I wanted to ask you about one really long shot, where the three men are walking off toward the horizon. Did you adjust the camera at all in that shot or is it just the naturally changing light?

    SERRA: No. The magic of this shot … When I began editing I was scared that people would get bored watching this shot, but what I’ve discovered is nobody gets bored. [Laughs.] Nobody. Nobody! Even the most primitive, stupid spectator keeps looking and keeps wondering, “What’s happening?” And it’s ten minutes. No, eleven. Eleven minutes!

    So, why does it work? The entire film, but this shot in particular, has the right percentage of freedom inside mixed with the right percentage of necessity or structure. How did I do this? This is important to understanding the whole film. I gave the actors a walkie-talkie and told them, “Go away. I will tell you what to do. You will listen and react.” The rules on set were: “Never look at me, never talk to me, and never stop acting. You’re tired? Fine. Get a drink. Or fall asleep. Do what you want to do, but never look at me, never talk to me, and never stop acting.”

    So, I sent them off walking across the desert with the walkie-talkie. And there they go. Walking. Walking. And then I started speaking jumbled words. And I could tell they were saying to each other [whispers], “Mother? Wall? Tree? What is this? The walkie-talkie must not be working.”

    I’m saying something that’s completely unrelated, you know? But they have to react. Each reacts in his own way. And, five or ten seconds later, I say, “Please! A mother! Tree! Sky!” And they all stop and think, “Tree? Sky?” But they stop and look off at the sky.

    So, in this shot, I got the right percentage of real freedom – because they really don’t know what to do – but at the same time there is some kind of necessity because you feel that they are following something. They are following my absurd instructions. They didn’t understand what I was saying, but there is something imperative in their walk.

    I used this technique many times in the film. It’s very beautiful. I used it with Mark Peranson’s scenes. He speaks Hebrew, right? The Virgin Mary speaks Catalan. They do not understand each other. I didn’t worry about translating, but, when you read the subtitles, they’re okay, like intuition. Again, the actors have a level of freedom, because they really do not understand exactly what the other is saying, but at the same time they are bound by necessity. They are performing the roles of Mary and Joseph, so they can’t do exactly what they want.

    This is all related to the first point of our discussion – this mixing of a serious and religious side with a more profane and free side.

    HUGHES: When we finally see the pieta, you shoot it from above and behind Mary.

    SERRA: Yes. We got that in one shot. I wanted to make a simple film, like paintings from the Middle Ages. It’s not narrative. It’s one image … stop … another image. It’s like if you were in a church and saw Middle Age paintings side by side. Very simple.

    HUGHES: One of the other iconic images is of them spotting the star. You stage it so that they strike a pose, pause, reposition themselves, strike another pose, pause and so on.

    SERRA: That shot is very humoristic, but also serious. And you never really know what to think of the atmosphere of any single moment.

    HUGHES: I’ve heard you describe Birdsong as one of the first truly religious films in many years.

    SERRA: It’s true.

    HUGHES: In what tradition of religious films would you like to see your film included?

    SERRA: I don’t know. The tradition of Dreyer, [Roberto] Rossellini, Pasolini, maybe.

    HUGHES: What distinguishes their films from others? What makes them truly religious?

    SERRA: Well, they are not “truly religious” films, no? Great art, I think, always has ambiguity and a richness that allows viewers to apply many points of view. Pasolini was a Communist and he made religious films. Rossellini was engaged politically but made The Flowers of St Francis [Francesco, giullare di Dio, 1956].

    HUGHES: I thought of St Francis many times while watching Birdsong.

    SERRA: It has the best ending in film history. Do you remember? When they have to decide where to go, all of disciples, to spread the word of St. Francis? Do you remember? [Serra stands up and begins walking in a small circle, re-enacting the scene.] They start doing this, until they fall. And when one falls, that is the direction they must go. Do you remember? I think that is the best ending in all of film history. It has that beautiful ambiguity. It’s serious – they really do want to go and spread the word of Christ – but the moment is also poetic and humorous.

    HUGHES: There’s one especially poignant line in Birdsong. One of the wise men picks up a stone and says, “At times, we’re awestruck by the beauty of things.” I love that word “things”. It’s a material beauty.

    SERRA: We are talking about three wise men, who were supposed to be magicians or men of great intelligence, but it’s the simple things. In St Francis, there is the scene where one man is accidentally burned and begins to complain and curse, and another man says, “Oh, do not bother Brother Fire.” This kind of purity and innocence is magic, and it’s what I wanted to create in the atmosphere of my film.

  • Claire Denis: Dancing Reveals So Much

    Claire Denis: Dancing Reveals So Much

    This interview was originally published at Senses of Cinema.

    * * *

    The centrepiece of Claire Denis’ 35 rhums (35 Shots of Rum, 2008) is a long sequence that takes place in a small, mostly-empty restaurant. It is late at night and the four central characters have wandered in for a drink after their car breaks down in a rainstorm. Alex Descas plays Lionel, a middle-aged widower and train engineer who’s spending the evening with his daughter Joséphine (Mati Diop), a former lover (Nicole Dogué), and Noé (Grégoire Colin), his long-time neighbour and surrogate son. The scene is, as Denis describes it, “a sort of tragedy, in a family sense”, but it’s rendered with staggering joy and tenderness. The turning point comes as The Commodores’ “Nightshift” plays over the radio. Lionel hands Joséphine to Noé and then watches silently as his daughter dances away with another man.

    Directly inspired by Yasujiro Ozu’s Banshun (Late Spring, 1949), 35 Shots of Rum is a departure from the epic, conceptual adventures of L’Intrus (The Intruder, 2004) and from the abstract video experiments of Vers Mathilde (Towards Mathilde, 2005). It is a smaller, more intimate film – closer in spirit to Vendredi Soir (Friday Night, 2002) and Nenette et Boni (1996). Denis’s preoccupation with outsiders and with the sociopolitical forces that determine their lives remains, but, with the exception of one scene in a college classroom, it remains inexplicit. This is a love story – or, in fact, several love stories – told in small gestures and commonplace tragedies.

    * * *

    HUGHES: 35 Shots of Rum was a bit of a surprise.

    DENIS: Really? I’m a little bit flabbergasted because last night the screening was great, and I think most of the audience really loved the film – it was kind of warm and soft when I came up for the Q&A – but there were a few stupid questions. I was terribly shocked. One question was, “We are people from North America and, if we see a character filmed from behind, it means something is going to happen.” And I said, “Yeah, I agree with that. It’s another way to look at someone.” And then the woman went on: “And if it’s only to fall off a bicycle [or something relatively insignificant], then it’s a little bit unfair.”

    I consider that a very interesting question, in that maybe the stereotypes [about black people] are much stronger than I thought. I told her that this way of looking at people has long existed in painting. It’s a sort of way of being with them. From a French point of view, it means that anything might happen to them, but not necessarily being shot or stabbed.

    HUGHES: Over the years, I have learned that I need to see your films twice because I tend to spend 30 or 40 minutes reading them incorrectly.

    DENIS: I’m sorry. It’s not on purpose.

    HUGHES: No, it’s one of the things I love about your films. Like your audience member, I think I was imposing suspense onto the film that wasn’t there.

    DENIS: Maybe the suspense comes from introducing the main four characters, their lives, but leaving the links connecting them untold. I thought that maybe if the story began by introducing a very together group – a father, a daughter, a neighbour – and their own rituals, it could create its own suspense. I was not trying to invent suspense.

    HUGHES: Audiences have been conditioned to expect a major conflict, whereas your film is about genuinely loving, supporting relationships.

    DENIS: But it’s also a sort of tragedy, in a family sense. It’s the major separation. It’s probably the worse separation since the mother died. They have built this sort of balance in their lives, their small rituals, and, whatever happens afterwards, they will be marked by that day forever.

    HUGHES: When my father-in-law passed away a few years ago, we found a frame on his desk at work. On one side of the frame was a photo of my wife as a four-year-old ballerina; on the other side was a photo of her on our wedding day.

    DENIS: Yes. Although I can say the film is a homage to Ozu, it’s also the story of my mother and my grandfather. He was a widower and he raised my mother. Now my mother is 80, and my father is sort of weak and is a dying man. When she’s sad in the night, she will call me or my brother or sister, and often she will tell us, “Well, probably the man who was the most important man in my life was not your father but my father.” We know she dearly loves her husband in a husband-and-wife way, but getting older she has a new perspective.

    HUGHES: After seeing Vers Mathilde and the videos you made with Sonic Youth, I was expecting your camera to be more kinetic. You mentioned Ozu. Did he influence your work with [cinematographer] Agnès Godard here?

    DENIS: It’s not Ozu. I spoke with Agnès about bringing back Ozu, but obviously I would not have set the camera like him. I felt the film demanded a certain type of calm, and also handheld, so it’s sort of breathing. But my main desire was to make it simple and solid, because all of the characters are black, and I wanted to make it very clear to the audience that they do not live like clandestines. They have a real life, they are settled, they are French. And I thought if the camera were shaky, it would make their life shaky.

    HUGHES: Was your first decision to make a film about a black family, or did you begin with the idea of casting Alex Descas as the father?

    DENIS: Remembering my grandfather. My grandfather came from Brazil and he was a very attractive man. He was non-French, not typically French. He had a sort of elegance. Of course, his wife, he met her in France. He came from Amazonia and, so, had this dark air, and he was also very gentle. As a grandfather, he would take me on his bike. He was the best grandfather. A prince. And I thought the only actor I really could imagine being as good as my grandfather was Alex.

    Also, a long time ago I told Agnès, “Alex, for me, has something close to Chishu Ryu”, the father in Ozu’s films, a sort of aloofness or secret. Then I met Mati [Diop] for his daughter, and little by little I found out that, without making a concept, it could normally organize the circle of relationships. I wanted it to not be a concept but to realize they were French, that they were there. There was nothing else to see. In France, whenever you see dark-skinned people, it’s always violent. And I thought, “Yeah, this also is true.” I think the real thing is that there is a community that is French and also has black skin, that is integrated but also rejected.

    HUGHES: I was interested to see the shots of the retirement party, where there are large groups of only black people.

    DENIS: In the commuting trains, many drivers, men and women, are from the Caribbean, like in the post office. But I made it most, so it was clear. I think when you make a mixture of black and white in film, it’s like, “Ha! This is a well-balanced film!” It’s like Benetton. One Asian person, one black person. It’s like advertisements. So, I made it really clear. [Laughs.]

    HUGHES: One of my favourite moments in any of your films is Grégoire Colin’s dance scene in U.S. Go Home, so it was great fun to see him dancing again. As soon as that scene began, I thought, “Now this is a Claire Denis film.”

    DENIS: [Laughs.]

    HUGHES: I also had the biggest smile on my face when “Nightshift” kicked in.

    DENIS: [Laughs.] Me too! Such a great song.

    HUGHES: How did you settle on that song?

    DENIS: Immediately! Writing the script, I thought, “This is a father dancing with his daughter. What will give that push so that Noé [Colin] will catch her? And what will make the father think, ‘Okay, this is it. I’m going to be the one to move. My daughter will not, so I will be the one to move.’”

    Honestly, I had no hesitation. The song is soft and warm and sexy and enveloping. For me, it was a very important song. When I asked Stuart Staples, the musician from Tindersticks [and Denis’s long-time composer and musical supervisor], about my choice, he said, “I agree completely!” It was nice, also, because the first idea of “Nightshift” – although I like the song – came because I thought there was a sort of “night shift” happening in the scene.

    HUGHES: Also, the song is literally a remembrance of loss and tragedy.

    DENIS: Yes.

    HUGHES: Your films are so much about bodies in motion and in relation to one another. Those are always my favourite moments in your films – when you fix your camera on your actors’ bodies.

    DENIS: But you know, it’s not involuntary – of course, it’s voluntary – but I’m a complete amateur. Apart from being, since I was a teenager, addicted to music and dance and nightclubbing, I never thought about choreography. And it’s only because, after a while, choreographers came to me and said, “We are interested in your work.” Like Bernardo Montet, with whom I made Beau Travail. I was not aware. I was just doing it the way I felt it.

    Maybe I was lucky also to find actors and actresses who were shy actors ready to let something go in the dancing scenes, like many people. I remember when I was young, a teenager, and going to parties and dancing, that girl, that boy, both very shy, suddenly revealing so much by dancing.

    HUGHES: On YouTube, there’s a video – I don’t know who shot it – of Denis Lavant in a rehearsal space, working, I assume, with students. Have you seen it?

    DENIS: No.

    HUGHES: It’s fascinating. For example, at one point he falls and gets back up again, falls and gets back up again, but always gracefully. His students try, and they keep slamming their heads on the floor and hurting themselves. There’s such beauty and mystery in just watching Lavant’s body.

    DENIS: But we never rehearsed the dance scene at the end of Beau Travail. I told him it’s the dance between life and death. It was written like that in the script, and he said, “What do you mean by ‘the dance between life and death’?” So, I let him hear that great disco music [laughs], and he said, “This is it.” So, we didn’t need to rehearse. I would be there, and I would let it go. He said, “You don’t want us to fix some of it?” I thought it was better to keep the energy inside, because if we started fixing some stuff then we would have made many takes. And we made one take. But he was exhausted at the end.

    HUGHES: Your films are often filtered through a character’s subjectivity. In 35 Shots of Rum, there’s just that one shot of the father and daughter on horseback.

    DENIS: I thought it was a dream.

    HUGHES: It was the one moment that seemed to slip out of a more objective camera position.

    DENIS: It’s because of the Goethe poem [“Der Erlkonig”] about the father riding his horse with his baby, who is dying of a high fever. I felt that because of the German wife. He holds his daughter and he feels the horse is too slow and maybe he will be too late to the next village to save her. The poem is more famous for being sung in a Schubert liede.

    HUGHES: This is Mati Diop’s first film?

    DENIS: She is not an actress. She is studying to be a film director. She has already made two short films, and she’s the daughter of a musician in Senegal, Wasis Diop, and the niece of Djibril Diop Mambéty, the famous film director from Senegal who died ten years ago.

    HUGHES: How did you talk her into acting?

    DENIS: I met her. I saw one of her films and, of all the girls I met with Alex, she was the one I really trusted. I didn’t want her to be only pretty. I wanted her to be brave and intelligent.

    HUGHES: Apparently you have almost finished another film, White Material. When will that be released?

    DENIS: In the winter, I guess.

    HUGHES: Based on what I’d been able to find out about the two films, I was kind of surprised when 35 Shots of Rum was announced for Toronto. I’d expected the other one to be finished first.

    DENIS: The other one is not finished because it needs much more work. 35 Shots was short shooting, easy editing.

    HUGHES: Isabelle Huppert is in the new film?

    DENIS: Yeah. We get along well. I really love her.

    HUGHES: She’s one of the few actors or actresses who I think of as an auteur herself. She can command a film.

    DENIS: She’s not commanding. She’s a very intelligent actress. She is guessing and she’s inventing a relation with each director that creates an addiction to her. She’s not commanding because that would be too easy. She creates a need for her, when she’s an addiction. Somehow the film becomes … her. Commanding would be too easy, you know? It’s much more seducing the way she’s doing it.

    HUGHES: What kind of character is she playing for you?

    DENIS: A woman who is brave and stubborn and doesn’t want to realize the country she is living in, in Africa, is at war. There is a war surrounding where she works and she should leave. She is staying for the worst.

    HUGHES: Have you ever read Nadine Gordimer’s novel, July’s People?

    DENIS: Yes, but I don’t like Nadine Gordimer. I’ve met her a few times and our chemistry … We didn’t experience Africa the same way.

    The only person I can feel so much is Doris Lessing. Nadine Gordimer is too dictatorial and she has no heart. I prefer [J. M.] Coetzee. Gordimer is forcing something and I can’t stand that.

  • Tren de Sombras (1997)

    Tren de Sombras (1997)

    This essay was originally published at Senses of Cinema.

    – – –

    “It isn’t life, but its shadow, it isn’t movement, but its silent ghost.… This, too, is a train of shadows.”
    – Maxim Gorky

    José Luis Guerín’s fourth feature-length film, Tren de sombras, is, like so much of the Spanish director’s work, a challenging and mesmerising hybrid – part genre piece, part structuralist experiment, part city symphony. The film is built on a provocative premise: Seventy years after the unexplained death of Gérard Fleury, a Parisian attorney, family man, and amateur filmmaker, several reels of his home movies have been unearthed, and someone, the unnamed author of the film we are watching, sets out to restore and recreate them, thereby embarking on an investigation into this long-forgotten mystery. That synopsis, however, paints a misleading portrait of Tren de Sombras, which is more concerned with the texture of images and the fickle nature of memory than with gumshoe detecting or intrigue. To borrow from late-20th century critical parlance, this is art about art, a film about film. Much to his credit, Guerín, as he’s proven throughout his career, is among the handful of directors today who possess the wit, poetry, intellectual rigour, and technical command of the medium necessary to transcend cliché and reinvigorate discussions about the relationship between image-making and meaning-making in our post-Matrix, pop philosophy discourse.

    Tren de sombras begs comparisons with Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow Up (1966) and also, I suppose, with all the other narrative films that followed suit by revolving their plots around some formal aspect of the cinema (mise en scène, editing, sound design, etc.), thus foregrounding it in a self-reflexive, self-critical, and, one might cautiously add, postmodern way. Films like Blow Up, The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974), Blow Out (Brian De Palma, 1981) and, more recently, the work of Michael Haneke (Code inconnu [2000] and Caché [2005]), transform filmic materials into forensic artefacts, physical evidence to be meticulously examined and deconstructed. Attention to form is the hallmark of Guerín’s cinema, as demonstrated clearly in his latest films, the companion pieces Unas fotos en la ciudad de Sylvia and En la ciudad de Sylvia/In the City of Sylvia (both 2007). The former is a silent, autobiographical, essay film constructed mostly of still, black-and-white, documentary photographs that harkens back not so much to Chris Marker, who famously used a similar technique in La Jetée (1962), but to Eadweard Muybridge and other 19th century innovators of the “moving image”. In Unas fotos, Guerín wanders the streets of Strasbourg, chasing the ghost of a woman he met there more than twenty years earlier. Each photograph reconstructs and, in a sense, supplants a particular memory, transforming it, like one of Muybridge’s horses, into a single, extended frame in Guerín’s slow-moving picture. En la ciudad de Sylvia is a more traditional narrative film, shot in colour 16mm and blown up to 35mm, but it’s no less concerned with form. Here, Guerín again re-enacts his search for lost love in the streets of Strasbourg. However, the act is now made multivalent – curious, humane, nostalgic, voyeuristic – not unlike cinematic spectatorship in general.

    Likewise, the very subject of Tren de sombras allows Guerín to explore, both literally and metaphorically, the meaning of images. In Fleury’s footage, we see his extended family at their large home near the village of Le Thuit in Normandy, relaxing as if on holiday. They hike to a site overlooking a lake and picnic there. The children ride bicycles, play with dogs, and perform magic tricks. On several occasions the family poses for portraits. It’s only in the second half of Tren de sombras, after the author of the film begins to re-sequence shots, blow-up images in order to reveal lost details, and freeze particular frames, that we begin to detect something amiss among the Fleury clan. As in Antonioni’s film, there’s a fetishistic thrill to watching the clues become revealed through real, mechanical processes. Gérard Fleury rarely steps out from behind his hand-held camera, so nearly all that we witness in the old footage is from his first-person point-of-view (it’s similar to Unas fotos in that respect). The “author” first becomes fascinated by and suspicious of Fleury’s sister-in-law and pays particular attention to two shots of her, one on a swing, the other in a passing car. The author rewinds those shots, slows them to half speed, juxtaposes them in a split-screen, enlarges her face, and freezes the frames in which her eyes make direct contact with the camera (and by analogy with Fleury). What shared secrets are revealed in that glance? The mystery appears to be on the verge of revelation.

    Guerín, however, pushes the experiment even further than Antonioni, veering out of narrative filmmaking altogether and toward the truly avant-garde. To say that Guerín is fascinated by the texture of film is a literal truth. Near the end of Tren de sombras, the author’s use of Fleury’s footage becomes more playful, the pace of the jump-cuts more frantic, and the relationship between images more unpredictable and fractured. In a word, everything begins to disintegrate – the Fleury family relationships (or our tentative understanding of them, at least), the satisfying order the author had briefly conjured with his editing, and the literal, physical record of what we are studying – that is, the film itself. In Tren de sombras’ most compelling sequence, Guerín moves into pure abstraction, finding a Stan Brakhage-like beauty in the scratched and disintegrated material of the found footage. It’s a fascinating modernist turn for Guerín, a kind of escape from chaos into the aesthetic realm. In this sense, Tren de sombras would be at home programmed alongside the work of contemporary avant-garde filmmakers such as Jennifer Reeves, Martin Arnold, Peter Tscherkassky, and David Gatten.

    Like Guerín’s return to Strasbourg decades after his first encounter with Sylvia, Tren de sombras is also structured around a return to the scene of the crime: the village of Le Thuit and the estate where Fleury’s footage was shot. The author brings with him actors in period costumes and recreates scenes from the decayed home movies. He reverses angles, finding new clues and new shared glances. But even more interesting are the contemporary shots that seem totally unmotivated by the through-line of the plot. Again with one foot in the avant-garde, Guerín devotes considerable screen time to images of abstract beauty found among the prosaic. Several shots from a long sequence that takes place in the old home at night during a rainstorm would not be out of place in a Nathaniel Dorsky or Jim Jennings film. And one image in particular, the light cast by a passing car moving slowly along an interior wall, not only returns multiple times in Tren de sombres but also in the opening moments of En la ciudad de Sylvia, evidence that Guerín is still haunted by a train of shadows.