Lyn Screens . . .

2007-08-27T23:13:00.000+10:00

Lorna Doone

. . . is a period BBC miniseries made in 2000 based on a British novel, which combines the melodrama of Walter Scott with vague attempts at historical commentary and social realism. In the opening, a boy sees his father by bandits from the Doone family. Naturally, the next time we see him he's older and has sworn to hate the Doones forever. But then! He falls in love with this chick called Lorna! Unbelievably, she turns out to be a Doone. It's already minute thirty, and I'm sure you have no idea where all this is headed.

. . . is not just a BBC miniseries. Go here, and you'll see that this ridiculous story has been made more than ten times, starting way back as a silent film in 1910. There's a prior version from the 90s starring Clive Owen as John Ridd. There's a version from the 70s where Patrick Troughton (the second Doctor!) plays evil Mr Doone. There are more versions of Lorna Doone, than there are of Pride and Prejudice. (That kind of blows my mind.)

. . . is pretty awesome: in 140 minutes you get plots against the king, orphans who turn out to be heiressess, abrupt (and wholly undeserved) grants of knighthood, someone getting shot whilst being married at the altar, and a fabulous final scene where the villian sinks to his death in the bog (pouting his way down to the very end as he refuses the gallant hero's offer of rescue).

. . . is an unlikely Jesse Spencer vehicle! Yes, Chase from House turns up in a smallish part with a bad British accent and a wig - and fops his way around as a second tier villain, until he gets shot whilst trying to stab someone in the back.

. . . is an equally unlikely James McAcoy vehicle! You loved him in Last King of Scotland! watch him in about three scenes (an even smaller part than Spencer), as a pale, freckled military dude. So scrawny and unremarkable looking, that I only realised he was in the film during the closing credits. Either the charisma is all acting, or he's come a long way.

. . . and yes, by "awesome", I mean "hilariously bad". Still. Death by bog!

2007-08-26T23:03:00.001+10:00

The Trouble With Elvis

I ordered one Elvis DVD at least a year ago off Amazon. It's the western Flaming Star - the only "good" Elvis film, anachronistic in the Elvis canon for many reasons.* Clearly, interest in this film does not mean interest in the entire back catalogue of films in which Elvis chases / is chased by girls, and eventually picks one.

But since buying Flaming Star, Amazon has been emailing me non-stop with Elvis recommendations. My log-in page has become wall to wall Elvis, from The Trouble With Girls to Stay Away, Joe to Clambake. (Clambake?)

I feel misjudged. I feel implicated. As someone said to me once, "it's like, you f*ck one goat . . ."

* Here's a few:
1) There are only two songs in the entire film, and they're played over the opening credits and in the first five minutes of the film (apparently, having songs at all was a studio imposition).

2) Elvis's role is a straight dramatic one, and he shows that if he hadn't been one of the most astoundingly successful singers of all time, he probably could have made it as a fine actor (and thereby avoided starring in films called Girls! Girls! Girls!.)

3) It's a Western (were there any other Elvis westerns? I don't think so. I also refuse to look this up because = lazy.)

4) It's really good.

5) It's probably the only film Elvis has been in where Marlon Brando was the alternate casting suggestion.

6) After making this, Elvis swore he'd never do another film where [redacted for spoiler, but it's an easy guess], because it made his momma cry. And apparently, avoiding this kind of ending became a condition of his involvement in future projects.

2007-08-26T01:34:00.000+10:00

AFI Festival - The Shorts

It's that time of year: free screenings of Australian features / documentaries / short films up for AFI awards. Screenings are open to all AFI members (who if my screenings are anything to go by, largely wear cardigans and BYO thermos. Which is to say - I fit right in.) Today's programme included the shorts: 4 animated, 4 live action.

I usually find short films a pretty unsatisfying experience - either there's not much there and I feel it's not worth my attention, or there's too much and I wish it was a feature. Rare exceptions stand out. I still remember how much I loved Green Bush, a short from two years ago about a night at an indigenous radio station (by writer/director Warwick Thornton). I thought after seeing it that Thornton would have queues at his door begging him to do a feature film - but whilst his IMDB page shows he's been working steadily in short subject TV, no other developments as yet.

(Which begs the question: why do shorts? even when your short is fricking genius it seems that it doesn't necessarily get you that break. And a further question: who finances these shorts? given that there is absolutely NO chance of any kind of significant return from exploitation?)

But back to today's films. None of them was earth shattering. Australia has had a great record of getting AFI winning shorts into the Oscars (just from the last three years: Harvie Krumpet won the animated short Oscar, The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello was nominated as an animated short, and that one about the Mormon door knocking guy was nominated in live action). Not to sound too negative, but it's pretty clear none of this year's bunch really has a shot.

Live action:
Boy's Own Story: Bizarre. Highly stylised account of a kid talking of key childhood incidents, leading up to fairly horrific outcomes in his adulthood. Blackly funny, but mostly just plain weird - US accents all round (I wonder why?)
Dugong: probably my pick as the strongest short overall, just because it was so understated and felt real. A long lost brother turns up for a wedding. The great moments are in the details - a scene in a bathroom feels incredibly intimate until the door swings open and people crowd in (bringing with them a blast from the music playing outside) - just really well done. Each scene suggesting acres of backstory without making you feel shortchanged by the brevity.
Spike Up - The longest "short", clocking in at thirty minutes. A few familiar faces in this one - the lead (played by Roy Billing) was instantly recognisable, and I spent most of the short trying to figure out why (answer = he played the mayor in The Dish). A police officer deals with a run of events between the station and his less-than-happy home. Main flaw is that there's enough going on here for a feature - and doesn't really satisfy as a short film.
Swing - A young (Vietnamese?) girl goes to work for a blind vet. A relationship piece, done well - but perhaps a bit long given how little it ends up really giving you.

Animated:
An Imaginary Life: the Tropfest winner about what happens to imaginary friends when kids stop believing in them. Whilst neat and well put together, it's just not at all surprising. Unfolds exactly as you'd expect. Best touch is the use of family footage interspersed with the animation. But not even close to the quality of Tropfest winners of previous years (remember The Wave - about two homeless guys reminiscing about an amazing moment at the beach? - now there's a short film worth seeing).
The Girl Who Swallowed Bees: Paul McDermott's latest short (his earlier one was The Scree, with a similar narration / animation combination). It's well done, but then, so was The Scree: I mean, how many fairy tale-but-twisted animations will McDermott do before he moves on? Anyway, despite my bitching, this is beautifully done and given the slim field, it's probably my pick.
The Goat That Ate Time - suffered from being very similar in structure to "The Girl Who Swallowed Bees" but with less cool animation. But if "best title" was a category, it would win easily.
The Bat and the Butterfly (Dust Echoes) - an indigenous story. The claymation style animation was pretty cool, but just not all that much there.

Robbed of a nomination?: The Australian contender from the SFF that I'm surprised isn't here is Spider - Nash Edgerton's nasty (but good) little film about a prank gone wrong (and wrong, then wrong some more). Sure, it's a one note film - but it succeeds entirely in mastering that note.

Which is I guess all you're really after in a short film. Who knows? Not me: as soon as I got home, I cleansed myself by watching a 160 minute feature. (Michael Mann's Heat. Ahhhh.)

2007-03-28T23:52:00.000+10:00

What I've been watching lately:

The Day of Three Movies (aka: last Saturday)

(1) Bride of Frankenstein (1940 . . .ish?)
Title says it all, and yet - there's still so much more! the villains! the hair! the mwah hah hah mad scientists! the bridging story starring Byron in a thunderstorm!

(2) To Sir, With Love (1965 . . . ish?)
Sidney Poitier, inspirational teacher. I can't remember Dangerous Minds or much of Dead Poets, but I bet there's not a scene where the teacher calls the girls of the class "sluts". (Even when one of them is Ethan Hawke).

(3) Straw Dogs (1971)
Dustin Hoffman gets violent in this freaky, freaky film by Sam Peckinpah. nightmares, with interest.

. . . closely followed by: Sunday!

(4) Rio Bravo (195 . .. ish?)
At least I think it was Rio Bravo (and not Rio Grande, Rio Lobo). these westerns get confusing. anyway, indian butt was kicked in a very black/white moral universe. weirdly, there seemed to be a lot of choirs and trumpeters. very musical branch of the army. would love to see their efforts at pantomine.

. . . and Tuesday! (yesterday)

(5) Frankenstein meets the Wolfman (1941? 42?)
Sequel to the excellent Wolfman film starring Lon Chaney. Chaney was back for this effort, but Frankenstein was played by Lugosi (not Karloff). Which is weird, because Lugosi was IN the orginal Wolfman, but played a gypsy guy cursed with lycanthropy who was killed by Chaney's character the first time around. So Lugosi's in this sequel, but this time as the Monster . . . meaning that the title should actually be "Frankenstein's monster meets the Wolfman" but who's keeping score? (me.)

PS: if you're wondering who is the better Frankenstein - Karloff. Karloff. Karloff. Lugosi is so bad, it bears repeating.

2007-03-11T21:44:00.000+11:00

Sunshine (2007)

I attended a screening plus Q&A with director Danny Boyle in Sydney tonight. (You know . . . Danny Boyle? Trainspotting! 28 Days Later! Danny Boyle, man!)

First up: the film looks amazing.

Sunshine has some of the third act plot problems that sci-fi films often have . . . but the atmosphere, the feel of the film works. Space scenes of recent years have missed the mark in making audiences believe in space, in the majesty of space, it's immensity, the feel of it, the depth. This is a big screen film. And the way it's been put together - there are sequences you lean forward, and breathe through it with the protoganists onscreen.

Danny Boyle is a storyteller, and makes these Q&As a breeze - with an answer for every question, however trivial. He talked at length about the difficulties in making a film as effects heavy as this one - on the actors, and on the other creative types like composers who have to make guesses about the atmosphere of the finished product long before the FX work is complete.

Things I learnt:
- He made the actors live in student acccomodation (cooking for each other) to help get them into the right frame of mind.
- The film cost $40 million, but they tried as best they could to make it look like $100 million. (they've succeeded).
- The script went through 35 drafts.
- Post production took one year. The film tested horribly with test audiences, because the ship and much of the FX weren't finished when the studio tried it out.

Good questions from the audience:
- Sunshine: Why were the gender roles so predictable? Boyle claims that Yeoh was offered her choice of roles and picked the botanist - but admitted that there could have been more women on board.
- Alien Resurrection: Boyle turned the opportunity to direct it down, but talked about how great Joss Whedon's original script was (it was apparently much changed by the time the film was made).
- Boyle's next project?: a bizarre sounding "who want's to be a millionaire" tale involving a street kid, the girl he likes, and the British TV show. Written by the same guy as The Full Monty.

Grading: 3 1/2 out of 5
The big screen experience is compulsory,

2007-03-10T23:53:00.000+11:00

Performance (1970)

Because I was a bit too young to get the whole Stones thing, I've always had this image of Mick Jagger as this vaguely repulsive ancient guy. The lecherous drunk psuedo-uncle who isn't an actual relative, but turns up to family gatherings anyway and gets all handsy with girls a third his age. Someone I know spent a couple of hundred dollars on the last tour the Stones did to Sydney. Our conversation about this went something like: "who wants to see the Stones?" "But I'll see . . . Mick!" "no really, who wants to see the Stones?" etc.

But after watching this flick (apparently, the feature length precursor to the rock video) . . . I get it. Mick Jagger is a sex-on-a-stick, hypnotic, fallen angel. If only I'd gotten this memo earlier, I wouldn't have wasted this last decade trying to talk myself into thinking that appreciating The Beatles on some level was a necessary life goal.

Performance also the closest I've got to understanding why you'd ever cast a singer (not an actor) in a film role. Someone "acting" or inhabiting this role would have been all wrong. Jagger can actually act, and pulls off the small moments, but he also amps it up gloriously in a way that would be difficult to replicate in an actorly way. This role needed his id - but not in a way that's as simple a showcase as say, the Madonna film roles.

And as for what Performance is about, what it means . . . who the fuck knows. On a first viewing, it's all surface baby - I think I need viewings #2 and #3 before I seriously venture a theory. About as deep as I can get: it's clearly about the reflections we have each other: the costumes, the attitudes, the labels, the dressing up, the stripping down - with every possible angle explored. A complete headache of a film.

2006-06-25T02:42:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival DAY FOURTEEN

Film #23 United 93 (Feature, US)
A film about the September 11 hijacking of the one plane which didn't hit its intended target. A documentary style feature which is hard to watch - such ordinary people, in such a surreal and awful situation.

Interesting questions: what is the purpose of making a film like this? Why the choices in focus on the command centres? What did the director want to achieve - a good film, or some kind of public document / record?

Verdict: regardless, it's a fascinating piece of cinema and I think it would be impossible to watch it and remain unmoved. I never want to see it again, but it's the kind of film that will become a reference point/touchstone for describing a certain kind of film.

Film #24 C.R.A.Z.Y (Feature, Canada)

Canada's entry into the last Oscars for foreign film is a (french language) coming of age film. The film follows Zack as he considers the dire warnings of his brothers and father that he may be "a fairy" and/or "a fag". Everything in Zack's world teaches him that this fate is one to be dreaded - but everything in his head, his heart, his experience of the world suggests something else.

At a running time of over two hours, this film is too long. There have been so many coming of age films, and "how hard it is to come out" films, and although it's well written with a very good cast, this film doesn't add anything really new to that well-trodden subject matter. With one exception - the use of music. Both Zack and his dad listen to a lot of music (particularly Patsy Kline) and the songs played in the film go beyond setting the mood - to being really pivotal moments and keys to character.

Verdict: This film is really likeable if not brilliant - and there's some genius moments - a rendition of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" is hands down one of the best uses of a song in a film, ever.

2006-06-25T02:41:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY THIRTEEN

Film #21 Brick (Feature, USA)

A film set in an American highschool where everyone talks like they're in a Dashiell Hammett novel (and I should know. I love Dashiell Hammett). Better yet, there is no "joke" to be in on - it's played completely straight with no winks to the audience about the style. Unusual doesn't begin to describe it. Awesome might.

There are scenes when the style just feels stretched too far. I think the greatest criticism you make of this film is to dismiss it as like the cinematic equivalent of someone playing fast scales on a piano: technically proficient, but empty (the guy who sat next to me in another film fell basically within this camp). There are also moments when you reflect on the plot and think: this makes no sense. But:

a) I love Dashiell Hammett.
b) The lead actor is just as awesome here as he was in Mysterious Skin.
c) It's amazing how well all the tropes / styles of the genre/noir film work in a high school - who knew that the fit would be this perfect? On reflection, this probably says something very disturbing about high schools.
d) No one ever cares about plot in Dashiell Hammett novels, and look how awesome he is!
e) In fact, a nonsensical plot is almost a genre requirement.
f) I love this film.
g) Love doesn't need to be rational.
h) But in this case my love is completely rational, because the film rocks.

My advice would be to go into this film resolved to go with (rather than argue with) the mood. You won't be disappointed.

Verdict: Loved it.

Film #22 The Descent (Feature, US/UK?)
I know I was in the same session as SMH critic Gary Maddox, because during one scene (yeah, the bit with the climbing axe) someone behind me said emphatically and loudly: "Man, this film is fucked up." What an accolade!

There are elements of this film that are totally standard "guess who dies first" horror movie tropes we all know (and secretly enjoy). However, The Descent is also more interesting than you'd think . . . [spoilerish discussion ahead]

[wait for it]

. . . my current theory of the film: it's like the lead character drags all the other women into her world of grief - instead of going into a cave, they're moving into part of her psyche (remember, they were going to name the cave after her) - and it destroys them because instead of the calm exterior she's been presenting, her anger/grief/rage has simmered, manifesting into these violent beings "kept out of the light of day" below the surface.

Even at its most graphic and violent, there was always something haiku like about the way the story unfolds: so simple, so final, so hopeless. And as she circles around her own head and can't get out (those memory sequences) - I think we all knew how it would end. The "axe to the leg scene" wasn't a satisfying moment - we understood why she does it, but it's the wrong decision, it's the decision not to let go, not to get out, not to forgive, not to grieve. She's still in the car, she's still blowing out the candles. Chilling.

[end vague spoilers]

Verdict: The entire audience screamed at one point in my session - how can that not be a win? This is one of those rare genre movies that's aiming for something more interesting, and (rarer still) it gets there. Pretty much . . . I loved it. Christ, I need a new review.

2006-06-25T02:39:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY TWELVE

I had plans to see a documentary, but then my work mobile rang all "can you stay back and check this thing?" and I moped, but ended up saying yes.

Booo!

But I'm also starting to feel the strain by this point.

2006-06-25T02:38:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY ELEVEN

Film #20 - Funny Ha Ha (2002)

2006-06-25T02:37:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY TEN

Went home and crashed. [/lame]

2006-06-25T02:35:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival
DAY NINE

Film #18 The Great Game

Film #19 The Pusher III

2006-06-17T22:09:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY EIGHT

Film #16 Le Doulos (1962)
(Feature, France)

Film #17 Abduction: The Megumi Yokota Story
(Documentary, USA)

2006-06-17T22:08:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY SEVEN

Film #14 Mutual Appreciation

Film #15 Perhaps Love

2006-06-17T22:07:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY SIX - The day of shame

A headache and general fatigue made me miss half of The Aura and all of Marock. Boo! I am fading! fading!!

The Aura (feature, Sth America) : I picked this film because it was by a director I liked, it was a thriller, it sounded intiruging, and Sth American films in general have been kicking arse. I can report that the first half was so absorbing - very visually heavy, low on dialogue, and an elusive, absorbing story. I think by the time I left it was becoming a heist movie, but . . . it's going to be more complicated than that.

Marock (feature, Israel?): A teen romance which looked interesting on paper. Still want to see it. Heard good things about it from some other festival-goers.

2006-06-17T22:05:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY FIVE

Film # 11 Workingman's Death
(Documentary, Germany/other)
A mindblowing documentary in five parts about workers in different parts of the world. The visuals are extraordinary - welders in the middle east pulling apart massive tanker ships. Men who work in a slaughterhouse in Africa. Miners in Russia who work in mines less than knee-height high. Workers who collect sulphur desposits.

Amazing. I did walk out during the slaughterhouse scene though to get a coffee (seriously, the live slaughter sequences just got a bit much after a while.)

Film #12 Diameter of the Bomb
(Documentary, Canada/Israel/other)

This doco follows the story of a bomb that blew apart a bus a few years ago in Israel. The title indicates the intent: to meet the survivors, the doctors, the emergency workers, the families of both the victims and the suicide bomber . . . and track the repercussions of that act.

I was sold on this description - but as fascinating as this base material was, this documentary didn't quite deliver. A bit repetitive, and some of the interviews just didn't work as much as they needed to (a lack of chemistry between the subjects and the directors might have been the issue, I think.) Anyway - I still cried, a lot - so they clearly got something right.

Film # 13 Girl Shy
(Silent Feature, USA)
It is always worth seeing silent films when they are performed with a live soundtrack. Always.

The lead actor isn't up there with the Keatons and Chaplins, but this was hilarious all the same. I'd love to have clocked the number of pratfalls per minute. The highlight was a very long chase sequence involving cars, bicycles, motorbikes, the mob (I think), a construction worker line, a tram, and at least one horse. Too much fun.

2006-06-17T22:00:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival
DAY FOUR : Stimulating

Film #9 Rats in the Ranks (10th anniversary viewing)
(Documentary, Australia)

Rats in the Ranks is the first documentary I ever saw at the cinema. I remember thinking it was hilarious and really well done. On seeing it again - it's not only better than I remember, it clearly deserves to be elevated to the status of bona fide Australian classic. I'd forgotten how much fun it was.

For those who haven't seen it (shame!) it concerns the election of the new mayor of Leichardt in Sydney. Councillors of Leichardt are elected by generally ballot of the community. The councillors then meet to vote on which of them is mayor. In 1994, the charismatic Larry Hand was finishing up his second term as mayor . . . and as the mayoral election looms, the wheeling and dealing for votes begins. The main intrigue centres around the four Labor councillors - if they vote together, their four votes combined could potentially decide the result. But two of them have mayoral ambitions - setting off a disatrous chain of intrigue, misdirection and Shakepsearian levels of angst.

For anyone who loves the film as much as I do, the Q&A after the film was nothing short of monumental. Larry Hand was there - still as charming and glib as ever. Anthony Albanese, a current government minister was also present, even though his only presence in the film was a subtitle informing the audience that he'd refused to be filmed. I was sad that Kate from Labour couldn't make it (she's apparently very ill) - but her faithful sidekick Trevor was present, as was a number of women from Larry's ticket, and one elderly former councillor who'd run as an indepdent (he gets one of the films biggest laughs towards the end when on hearing about a particular piece of backstabbing, breaks out with a gloatingly unholy little chuckle.) Bob Connolly the filmmaker was also present (his partner Robin sadly passed away a few years ago).

Just a few of the points I remember from the Q&A:

Lots of discussion about how Larry was an excellent mayor and his council was a leading example in terms of environmental causes, social issues, etc.
General discussion around whether the film caused harm to the reptuation of left leaning / progressive councils. Robert Connolly said of his film that his only regret was that people walked away remembering the humour of the wheeling and dealing, and not grasping how important the councillors actually are to the community.
Anthony Albanese seems to be good mates with Larry Hand. Anthony liked that the film shows that all political parties (including the touchy feely greens and community groups) involve dealmaking and manipulation - whereas the perception of voters is often that only Labour and Liberals play the "political" game.
Whether a film like this could be made today (eg: now that people far more aware of reality tv and the way that editing can tell a story).
A throwaway comment by Anthony Albanese - either he was joking, or he completely doesn't get defamation law. Am interested to know which one.

Film #10 Hard Candy
(Feature, US)

Very young girl meets up with older man in a cafe, after first getting to know him online. There's flirting - and it's uncomfortable. She suggests going back to his place. He agrees. And you think What is she doing? and more accusingly, He must be a pedophile, because if this is a nice guy, why is he agreeing to this?

This is a thriller which exploits your preconceptions and social norms about sexual (and other behaviour) in order to shock you. That's pretty much its modus operendi - and unless you're particularly hardened, it's going to succeed on some level (challenge accepted, I hear you think).

I'd recommend it - because it's a pretty awesome cinematic experience for all that I watched most of it between my fingers. The two lead actors give it their all. But I think it pushed me beyond that subtle point - to "enjoy' this film, you have to just go for the ride. The moment you think to ask "but why?" (or even more damagingly, "but how?"), the film will lose you a bit because it doesn't offer any answers.

2006-06-13T23:56:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY THREE: Distracted

My sister called me late on Sunday night to tell me she had (maybe) started going into labour. So I missed my first scheduled film today as I was busy being an aunt. I was all ready to miss the others, but then as my parents arrived from Canberra, my services were no longer required . . . but it was a weird experience trying to proceed all "business as usual" but waiting for a call from the hospital.

The film I missed was a documentary from Iraq: My Country, My Country, which looked really good. Will have to track it down later.

Film #7 Pusher II
(Feature, Denmark)

I was feeling pretty spaced out [see above], but fortunately for me, Pusher II just required me to sit down and hang on. The second installment of this trilogy was made eight years after the first, but it feels like no time has passed at all. Rather than a conventional sequel, it's a standalone film (in fact, it's tough to pick whether the events in Pusher II happen before or after Pusher I).

The focus is on Tonny - who in the first film, was Tony's sidekick and a relatively minor character. Tonny has just gotten out of jail, and is attempting reestablish himself in the world. But because of the background of the first film, we never buy him as a protagonist, we know from the beginning that we're sidelined with the bit players, the small fry. It's like a sequel to Hamlet starring Rosencrantz or Guildenstern - but imagine a Rosencrantz with a capacity for violence, and what he might do when pushed to the limit over his own ineffectualness . . .

I think this is even better than Pusher - in part because of the lead performance of Mads Mikkelsen as Tonny. Violent, fast moving, oddly affecting (!) at times, and just so much fun to watch.

Verdict: Yet again, loved it.

Film #8 Old Joy
(Feature, USA)

One weekend, two friends go on a camping trip, visit some hot springs and come home. That's seriously all that happens in Old Joy, a cruisy, peaceful 70 minute film. As the men drive, interact, talk - it becomes apparent in small ways that this friendship is on the wane, as the men have clearly grown (and are growing) further from each other's lives. Hardly any of this is explicit - it's mostly in the gestures, the tone, the feel. The pace is slow, peaceful, cruisy - the tone both nostalgic and a little melancholy.

But there's more going in the film than a simple analysis of relationships. In an opening driving sequence, a radio plays talkback about the Bush administration. Both men are left-leaning, and throughout the film discuss ways in which they are confused/saddened/worried about the present and future of America. These men and how they interact with their world can also be read as a comment on how the left in America have lost their sense of direction.

Kelly Reichardt (the director/co-writer) was at the festival, and talked about how she both wanted/didn't want to make a political film. She spoke about how she and many of her friends feels disengaged, or helpless in the face of current American politics. As she described it - amongst the left in America, it's easy to sit around feeling like you've been right all along, but equally easy to let your self-righteousness and your convictions feel like you're taking "action" somehow when you aren't at all. These characters walk that line - they feel but never do . . . watching things they love fade and feeling powerless to change the flow.

Old Joy is based on a short story (which I've just ordered through Amazon). It was filmed in about two weeks with a crew of six people plus the two major cast members. Small and low key as it was, it snuck up on me. Still thinking about it.

Verdict: Really, really loved it. Early contender for the Bright Leaves spot.

2006-06-13T23:52:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

DAY TWO: Enthralled. Eyes holding up well.

Film #4 Adam's Apples
(Feature, Denmark)
Adam is a newly released prisoner - big guy, shaved head, scary as hell, and a neo-Nazi to boot. He is picked by the roadside by Ivan - a priest,with whom he has been placed (presumably for some period of adjustment /parole). Unpacking in his room, Adam takes down the crucifix hanging on the wall and hangs up a picture of Adolf Hitler. Ivan comes in and notices it:
Ivan: Who is that? Your father?
Adam: [coldly, and clearly expecting to make an impression] Adolf Hitler.
Ivan: Really? [peers] No. No it isn't. Hitler had a beard.
Adam: [nonplussed] He had a moustache.
Ivan: No, no. [pause] Wait. Yes, yes you're right. Well then! Hitler! That's nice. [exits]

The opening scenes slyly hint that the film will be an odd couple kind of buddy flick (and/or a redemption narrative where Adam sees the error of his ways) but things rapidly start to go seriously awry. I tried telling some of the jokes from this film - only to be met with blank stares, or comments like "shooting a cat is not funny." Normally, I'd agree -but with all apologies to the RSPCA, it's pretty fucking hilarious. I also liked the religious imagery (apples are never just apples when you're watching a film set in a church). Lots of other nice little touches- like the bible that always fell open at "Job".

The acting was good all round - Mads Mikkelsen is great as the priest (and unrecognisable as the skinhead from the Pusher trilogy - more on this later). It was also cool to see Nickolaj Lie Kaas from Brothers as a minor thug. Ulrich Thomson (Adam) is fabulous, and clearly enjoys getting to beat the crap out of almost everybody.

Verdict: It might be partly the enthusastic festival audience, but I loved it. I think it wanders a bit in the middle third, but overall it's just deliciously wicked.

Film #5 Play
(Feature, Chile)
A man (Tristan) loses his briefcase. The girl (Cristina) who finds it sorts through his belongings, finds out where he lives, and begins to follow him around the streets of Santiago.

The writer/director Alicia Scherson was at the festival. I loved her -her answers and comments about the process of making this film were fascinating. She said that the inspiration for the film came from an experience she had travelling when she lost her wallet - after the annoyance, cancelling credit cards, etc - she wondered about the person who found it, how much information they could find out about her, and what they might do with that knowledge.

For most of us this idea might be scary/unsettling. But in Play, Cristina uses the objects from the briefcase like a series of talismans to try and experience Tristan, to feel out the limits and expanses of his life. The most perfect thing about this film is the title - because it is "play" - this beguiling approach to places, people, objects. Even scenes which in other films might seem creepy or invasive (when Cristina tries on the clothes of Tristan's ex-partner) -it's somehow just explorative.

Verdict: Loved it. It sounds so condescending to describe a film as delightful, but . . . it just is, completely, delightful. Can't wait to see it again. Watch out for Alicia's work in the future.

Film #6 Pusher
(Feature, Denmark)
Part one of a crime trilogy from Denmark first released in 1996. This film centres on Frank (the pusher of the title) who acts as the middleman in a series of drug deals. Over the course of a week, he attempts to stay on top of his mounting debts and obligations. And whilst Frank is clearly not someone you'd want to owe money to . . . some of the sharks higher up the food chain are equally dangerous. You can smell the blood in the water from the opening of the film, it's just going to be a question of who gets it, when, and how.

This film's a kinetic thrill ride which uses a pulsing soundtrack and some electric action sequences. So much fun. And remarkable when you consider that other crime flicks which seem similar to this one are actually more recent (I bet Guy Ritchie saw Pusher before he made Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels).

Verdict: Loved it. I mean, it's not rocket science, and it's essentially a genre action film - but it's a fantastic genre film. So of course, I bought tickets to Pusher II and Pusher III for later in the week . . . stay tuned.

2006-06-13T01:28:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival Rundown

DAY ONE - Enthused.

Film #1 Three Times
(Feature, Taiwan)
Three stories about love/intimacy - with the same actors, but different characters - and set in 1910, 1960 and today.
The 1960s piece is brilliant, set in a pool hall with a young man called off to war and the girl who writes him a letter, complete with a great soundtrack of American popular songs. The 1910 piece is played as a silent film (albiet in colour) - a tale of courtesans and idealogues. Finally, the modern piece - the most obtuse and explicit segment, and also the least tender of the three.

Verdict: Loved the 1960 thread, but the film as a whole is a stylistic (rather than narrative) achievement - and it didn't pull me in as much as I'd hoped. Still, such an interesting idea for an interrogation of a theme.

Film #2 Little Miss Sunshine
(Feature, USA)
Dysfunctional family (headed by Toni Collette and Greg Kinnear) travel interstate to beauty pageant in which their young daughter is competing.
It's hilarious. By which I mean - hilarious. I'm sure there are people out there who might think that this film is over the top / ridiculous / tries too hard, etc. But I don't want to be friends with those people.

Verdict: Loved it. Am considering making viewing this film a pre-requisite to being "friend of Lyn."

#3 La Moustache
(Feature, France)
The opening premise: a man shaves off his moustache, and his wife doesn't notice.

It seems simple and pretty absurdist - but by the end, watching this film feels like living in someone's nightmare. There's a logic at work, but it's just beyond your grasp. Very unsettling.

Verdict: Loved it. Freaky. Lots of people walked out, but I think they missed the point.

2006-04-10T01:03:00.000+10:00

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

A black comedy from the Ealing Studios, about a young man named Louis Mazzini (Dennis Price) who is so far down the list for inheriting the family fortune, he decides to use more "direct" methods to remove a few of the obstacles (namely, relatives) in his path to the title.

This film proves that too much Alec Guinness is barely enough. Not content with playing just one character, Sir Alec plays the entire ill-fated D'Ascoyne family tree (eight different characters at least, ranging from an Admiral to a suffragette.). And although you'd think that it would be tough for any of the other actors to register with the audience given this mini tour-de-force, the three other leads are all equally good - particuarly Price, whose flawless delivery carries off the irony and archness of the film to perfection (think Hugh Grant, but less ineffectual, more ruthless. In fact, if only Grant had the range and inclination to try something this blackly funny - it would have been a much better career decision than his endless, awful romantic comedy retreads).

Bonus points: the millinery. Look out for the black hat about halfway through the film that can only be described as "aggressive turkey".

2006-01-02T23:36:00.000+11:00

Lyn's viewing log 2005
Includes everything I saw in cinemas during 2005.
(Top 5 lists are for the weak!)

Top of the list
Downfall (feature, Germany)
Grizzly Man (documentary, US/Germany)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (feature, US)

Very highly recommended
A State of Mind* (documentary, Nth Korea/UK)
Bad Education (feature, Spain)
Good Night, and Good Luck (feature, US)
I Heart Huckabees (feature, US)
Kinsey (feature, US)
Look Both Ways (feature, Australia)
Maria Full of Grace (feature, Ecuador/US)
Mysterious Skin (feature, US)
Sideways (feature, US)
Tarnation (documentary? US)

Good viewing with trancendent moments
3-Iron* (feature, ?)
Closer (feature, US)
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (documentary, US)
Hotel Rwanda (feature, US)
King Kong (feature, US/NZ)
Little Fish (feature, Australia)
Mad Hot Ballroom (documentary, US)
Million Dollar Baby (feature, US)
Murderball (documentary, US)
The Proposition (feature, Australia)
Serenity (feature, US)
Yesterday (feature, S.Africa)

Solid viewing experience - worth your time
Duck Season* (feature, Mexico)
Finding Neverland (feature, UK)
Howl's Moving Castle (feature, Japan)
In Her Shoes (feature, US)
Kontroll* (feature, Hungary)
Oyster Farmer (feature, Australia)
P.S (feature, US)
Tell Them Who You Are (documentary, US)

Some flaws/limitations but recommendable (with caveats)
36 Quai Des Orfevres (feature, France)
The Aviator (feature, US)
Bombon El Perro (feature, Argentina)
House of Flying Daggers (feature, )
Joyeux Noel (feature, UK/France/Germany)
Mean Creek (feature, US)
Mrs. Henderson Presents (feature, UK)
Peaches (feature, Australia)
Ray (feature, US)
Rize (documentary, US)
Sahara (feature, US)
Sin City (feature, US)
War of the Worlds (feature, US)
The Yes Men (documentary, US)

OK, I guess - some redeeming moments
A Good Woman (feature, UK/US)
Hating Alison Ashley (feature, Australia)
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (feature, UK)
The Take (documentary, US)

*shrug*
5 Seasons (documentary, Australia)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (feature, UK)
Human Touch (feature, Australia)

. . . not really.
Doom (feature, US)
Ring 2 (feature, US)
You and Your Stupid Mate (feature, Australia)

Boooooo!
Fantastic Four (feature, US)
The Extra (feature, Australia

*films asterisked are the ones which I saw at a festival, and may not have recieved a cinematic release.
Entire list subject to re-editing due to a) author forgetfulness, and b) any films which prove to have been released in Australia in 2004.

2005-12-25T23:31:00.000+11:00

Yay Christmas!

I had a great Christmas - nice weather at my parents' place, great food, good company. A highlight was my sister's phonecall about how my niece's second christmas was going: "She opened her first present, which was a set of ducks for the bath. She played with them for ten minutes, got overwhelmed by all the other parcels, cried, and went back to bed for a nap." Awww.

Also good was winning the annual family card game, and being particularly cocky about it. The smart money was always on me, suckers.

But this post is more about how glad I am that I had stuff to do on Christmas day. Because, my god. Have you read the TV guide? Allow me to recap for you the films we didn't watch, because even though we may drink and eat too much on Christmas day, we still have our sanity.

It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas (Christmas Day, 1.30pm, Seven).
Okay, I can't knock the muppets, even though I haven't liked their films since "Muppets Christmas Carol". Hopefully this one followed the "more Gonzo, more Rowlf, more Animal, less disturbing pig/frog fliratation" rule.

A Christmas Carol: The Musical (Christmas Day, 3.30pm, Seven).
Starring Kelsey Grammer. Scrooge = Frasier + singing. Dwell on that for a second.

Secret Santa (Christmas Day 6.30pm, Seven)
"A frustrated small-town newspaper reporter sets out to uncover the identity of the person delivering mysterious gifts to the needy at Christmas." Yes, we must know. Tell us, Jennie Garth, in your eternally fragile yet tenacious manner!

Queen's Christmas Message (Christmas Day, 10.40pm, WIN)
"Hello there, I'm the Queen. Merry Christmas." Somehow this is scheduled to take 10 minutes. She's like one of those people who doesn't just send you a card, she inserts a page of what her family's been doing. And it's double-sided.

A Season for Miracles (Christmas Day, 10.50pm, WIN)
"When a woman takes off with her jailed sister's children, a stranger helps her give them the Christmas they always dreamed of." Manages to sound cutesy, twee, and odd all at the same time. This film would edge into worth seeing for me, provided that the mom was in prison for an interesting crime (eg: killing another mother over a cheerleading dispute).

Jack Frost (Christmas Day, 11am, WIN)
There's no description in the TV guide for this film, which is highly suspicious. I think that's because anything that involves Michael Keaton as an elfy frosty thing just sounds too awful for words, don't you? Also stars Mrs John Travolta.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (Christmas Day, 6.30pm, WIN).
"A man's efforts to creat a traditional fun-filled Christmas for his family result in chaos." As opposed to all those National Lampoon films where everyone gets to the airport on time and remembers to pack a sandwich.

Christmas Eve

I can't be bothered to go through the pap that didn't even make the cut for Christmas Day and got aired on Christmas Eve instead: but the "stars" included:

Tori Spelling (notice how Jennie Garth's film was in prime time on Christmas Day? heh. It's like high school at 90210 all over again, and daddy still can't get Tori a higher profile than Kelly.)
Blinky Bill (with Christina Anu?)
Linda Hamilton
Jim Carrey
An Australian Idol in Africa
Jonathan Taylor Thomas
an ancient talking macaw

Merry Christmas everyone!

2005-12-13T21:48:00.000+11:00

Joyeux Noel

A WWI film about German, French and Scottish soldiers in the trenches fraternizing on Christmas Eve.

The bad: Helen of Troy (Diana Kruger) plays an opera singer in a subplot which would have been better left on the cutting room floor. Opera is used at a couple of junctures to try for big emotional climaxes - but the singing is just not as moving or profound as the film seems to think it is. (By contrast: the carolling is lovely, and the bagpipes best of all. Who needs opera?
)
The film also had an unfortunate tendency to underline (four or five times) the "big" emotional scenes, thorugh camera work, editing, and the musical score. And it just wasn't necessary. The drama and beauty of this story speaks for itself -extra theatrics were totally unnecessary.

The good: mostly everything else. Which is thankfully, most of the movie. Watching the soldiers climb slowly across "no man's land" with its frozen bodies, extending hands, mugs of whiskey, cautious greetings in unfamiliar tongues - I defy you to remain unmoved. And all the actors other than Ms Kruger are excellent, particularly the Germans. Having an international cast play the French/German/Scottish roles makes the film quite unususal, as it's very neatly split between the three languages.

And apparently I cry at everything, ever. I think it's the pollen count. High this year. I can already tell I'm going to be a wreck by the end of King Kong.

2005-11-27T02:02:00.000+11:00

AFI Awards

And the winner of the Best Film AFI is . . . Look Both Ways.

Which I'm pretty happy about, for reasons spelled out below. I think this was the only (sorta, kinda) surprise - all of the other awards went the same way as with the IF Awards, didn't they?

Anyway, what a great year of Oz films. It was a pleasure to vote this year, and a struggle to only pick four to number on my ballot. But a little shout out to all the films I saw:

The much lauded Look Both Ways, Little Fish and The Proposition - which I've discussed a bit below.
Lost Things: the poignant and scary horror film which has a special place in my heart, not least because I'm apparently the only person in Australia who has seen it.
Oyster Farmer: Kerry Armstrong shines, but that's just predictable. The script has issues, but there are moments which really work (the bath, the dock, and especially the taut scenes between the farmer and his estranged wife.)
Peaches: A film that in any other year would have waltzed into best picture contention. Had its flaws but also had charm and a visceralness to it . . . the texture of those peaches.
A Man's Gotta Do: One of those "comedies" that's trying a bit too hard. Dear John Howard (the actor), please stick to television.
Hating Alison Ashley: Saskia Burmeister rocks. If I was a 14 year old girl, I think I would have adored this film, and even so I still found it pretty loveable in its way. However, Delta Goodrem should stick to singing, or better yet, just go away.
Human Touch: Not recommended, not one of Paul Cox's better efforts. But some of the visuals are still with me months later. (One of the characters is an artist who builds a massive installation, an intricate structure made of long wire pipes strung up to represent a cave. The play of light and shadow, like sunlight shafting through from somewhere else. Awesome.)
The Extra: a charmless annoying effort by Jimoen. The only thing that made me sit up was a truly startling monologue by Shaun Micallef. (I miss you Shaun!)
You and Your Stupid Mate: David Stratton gave this zero stars saying that it indicated the dark places where the Australian film industry had reached. I laughed out loud within the first thirty seconds. Sure it wears thin, but thanks to Nathan Philips, this wasn't nearly the endurance effort I thought it was going to be. (cf: The Extra).

And my to rent list is pretty great:
Three Dollars (David Wenham! and I've even read the book already).
The Magician (This film is so my style).
The Illustrated Family Doctor (visually inspired by Jacques Tati's Playtime. I love that movie! Starring Jessica Napier - not so good)
The Bridegroom (part one of this "series" of films was the wonderful One Night the Moon.)
Wolf Creek. (grrr. argh.)
Dreams for Life (the only film I know nothing about, and hence, intriguing!)

And that's it for this year. I swear, the Australian Film Industry should pay me a retainer.

2005-11-26T15:54:00.000+11:00

IF Awards

The Australian film awards scene is on us (again) and the IF Awards were the first cab off the rank. The three most nominated films (as at the AFI Awards) were The Proposition, Look Both Ways, and Little Fish - with other assorted nods towards Oyster Farmer and Wolf Creek.

I have seen all of these except for Wolf Creek (because I'm a scaredy-cat. Okay, more because it sounds like a really unpleasant experience - I prefer my horror with zombies or giant snakes.) And yes, all the stories are true: it was a really strong year for Australian film. To me, it says a lot that other pretty good Australian films (Three Dollars, Peaches) which in other years would probably have been best film contenders, had to scrape for nominations in any category.

For the most part, I think the If Awards got it right, and are a good indicator of where the AFI Awards are likely to go:

Little Fish was an evocative powerful film, but had an uneven script (the heist plot and the Sam Neill character were weak points). It won the lead male/female acting categories for its incredibly strong cast.
Look Both Ways is probably the most satisfying film - I have the most affection for it, and it's my "most likely to see again" of the bunch. It's also the best film of the three as an entire "work" from beginning to end. This fact is reflected in its awards (direction, script, editing). I bet Justine Clarke only missed out to Cate Blanchett's lead actress award by a whisker. Trivia note: I bought the soundtrack, and it's excellent.
The Proposition - the violence is overpowering - but it's also making a strong (and unmissable!) argument about the bloodshed of Australian history. It's also a film that no one has really made before in Australia - a really dark Western. Anyway, the awards here (best film, cinematography, music) capture that even though Look Both Ways was a whole film, and Little Fish was amazingly acted, this film just went further, in tone, in scope, and and in vision - it's the film most likely to be remembered of the three.

The real questions for the AFI Awards: will there be any love for Wolf Creek? and what will happen in the Supporting Actress/Actor categories? My guesses: maybe (an outside shot, might have more luck in the tech categories), Noni Hazelhurst (Little Fish) and I've got no idea, but I'll run with Anthony Hayes (of Look Both Ways because I loved how disgusted he looked in the amateur theatre scene).

In other news, Green Bush which I loved at the Sydney Film festival, got best short again (yay!), continuing its incredible run. This screened on SBS a few months back - but you should keep an eye out for it if it resurfaces. Such a great little film.

2005-11-21T15:22:00.000+11:00

Bad movie double
Doom and The Chronicles of Riddick

Today I'm in a position to answer the big questions.

Q: Which is worse, Doom or Riddick?
A: Doom. No contest.

Q: Is Doom scary?
A: Not remotely.

Q: Come on. I thought the video game was pretty tense.
A: Yeah, it was pretty atmospheric. Pity the film missed this entirely. There's just lots of incredibly lame jargon about mapping the human genome which sounds like it was written by someone who skipped year nine biology to smoke pot in the toilets.

Q: But aren't there monsters galore in the game?
A: Yes. Which was, you know, the entire appeal of the game. Why the guys who made the film didn't figure this out is a complete mystery to me. For 95% of the film, there are no monsters - or if there are monsters, you don't get to see them (due to shadows, weird camera angles, etc). No one buys a ticket to Doom looking for Hitchock-style suggestion and building up of suspense. We want righteous onscreen carnage, god damn it.

Q: So what happens when you finally see the monsters?
A: That kind of explains why they hide them for so long. They're really lame.

Q: But how's the Rock?
A: He's okay, I guess.

Q: You sound non committal.
A: You know when you try on a pair of jeans, and they're not great, but you know, they're okay? And you think "well, buying jeans is a pain in the arse, and at least I'll have solved my jeans problem for this year, so I may as well get them." That's the kind of movie star the Rock is. Good enough for situations where you can't be bothered thinking of anyone else better.

Q: Harsh. Well, to move onto Riddick, what do you think of Vin Diesel?
A: He's a bit the male equivalent of Angelina Jolie to me - he's usually in crap films, but it's pretty much just sitting back and admiring that body in motion. And my god, those arms.

Q: Are Vin Diesel's arms merit enough on their own to justify an entire film?
A: Almost, friend. Almost. I mean, holy crap, they're pretty good arms.

Q: So how was Riddick?
A: It was alright as entertainment, but disappointing in that it could have been great. There's a great middle section involving a prison break, and a dash across the surface of a deadly hot plaent. That was fantastic - if it was me, I would have made that the entire film. Instead, there's all this intergalatic war shit going on which is somehow both overexplained and underexplained at the same time. Characters are all sci-fi politics 101 "here's how it is" setting up the origin of the bad guys, but there's too much meaningless detail, and no one takes the time to make the audience care.

Q: Alternately, do you think it's possible that it was all explained pretty well, but you just didn't notice because of the magnetic power of Vin's arms?
A: Uh, yeah. That's maybe possible. Did I mention, good arms?

Q: Isn't Oscar nominated Dame Judi Dench in Riddick?
A: Yes. She must have needed an extension on her house.

2005-07-07T18:29:00.000+10:00

War of the Worlds
The overlong review - part 1

Yeah, fine, it's a "high octane" and relatively satisfying action film that I'd recommend (although yes, the end is a cop-out, and yes, it goes a good way to ruining the aftertaste of the whole film.) Now that's out of the way . . .

Aliens

Spielberg has always given us the aliens we've asked for. In the early 80s, ET reached out that sticklike finger to the tiny blonde girl, and we were all collectively smitten. (Phone home! buy M&Ms! etc.) But today, the aliens he's giving us are very different creatures. These are aliens with weapons of mass destruction. Aliens that kill indiscriminately, bringing down buildings (and a church) into rubble. We see their unexpected strike begin in the middle of busy city streets, surrounded by ordinary American suburbs. In a later scene, a dazed Ray wanders through the scattered debris of a downed aeroplane. Later still, we see crowds of people on the move, dusty and weary, past walls of leaflets covered in the photographs of loved ones: "Have you seen this person?"

Sure, this is a pre-existing story that has been adapted from a story decades old, with its particular story elements (fear from above, death, more death, tripods!) that any film of War of the Worlds would have to include. But the alien fear in this film has been deliberately coded by imagery reminscent of 9/11 footage.

If you like the movie: Spielberg is legitimately tapping into themes / fears which are highly relevant for today.
If you don't like the movie: I guess this answers the question "who was going to be the first filmmaker to cash in on 9/11 paranoia for cheap thrills in an action film", but goddamnit, my money was on Willis or Schwarzenegger.

People

So is this film (arguably) just a problematic "aliens are bad" film (where "aliens" means "everyone who disagrees with current American foreign policy")? Well . . . no. Even the harshest critics would have to concede that there's more than this going on.

At the points of the film when death is pretty fucking nigh (ie: every scene expect maybe the first ten and last three minutes), the question isn't how the aliens treat the humans. No narrrative arc as such there - they kill everything that moves, every time they have a chance. But what is interesting is how the humans treat each other.

Consider these scenes: right at the beginning of the film, Ray invites a friend of his into the car, all "get in or you'll die". (The dude does not take Ray's advice, and is promptly exploded into his component parts.) This general motif of saving /abandoning is repeated throughout the film. There's the journalist at the downed plane, who chats briefly to Ray then slams the car door in his face, no discussion. There's the mob that attacks the car, finally turning on each other. There's the mad rush for the ferry - with many left behind even though there's room. The focus on the guys who rush forward to help the hangers-on get over the rail after the boat pulls out. (Unfortunately, the aliens have seen James Cameron's Titanic and rope in a handy underwater space ship to play the iceberg). The couple who try and save Ray's daughter.

The film is a mad panic from start to finish, which would excuse a lot of otherwise callous behaviour in the populace. But the film takes note of each and every instance of where we help (and where we trample down). It was during one of these scenes that I started seeing this film not as a re-arguing of ET or Close Encounters, but in the context of Schindler's List. Sure, the Nazis / invading aliens are bad - no question - but that doesn't mean we can't strive for something better, despite the shitty cards we're being dealt. Thinking selflessly in this kind of adversity isn't perhaps as much of an imperative as it might otherwise be, but the film notes each occasion as a sign of character or a point of honour, no matter how futile.

People v People

But when you walk out of the cinema thinking about the film from a distance - what are the scenes you remember? These litttle scenes where people helped each other out? Or that scene in the cellar?

It's totally the cellar, isn't it? I mean, what the hell is going on there?

A lot of film reviews have dismissed this scene as "farcical", "badly acted", "a parody of itself", "oddball". Whilst one or more of these may well be true, I think this scene is key, because it boils down all of human behaviour to the ugly side of our instinct to survive. If Ray is prepared to do anything to save his daughter, by most narratives that would make him a hero. In the majority of scenes in this film, he does come across as driven to save his children whatever the cost (although - more on this goal later). But the deliberateness of this murder. The fade-out of the music to silence. The time for reflection. This is no "heat of the moment" decision to slam a car door, or drive past another survivor. The film wants us to think about whether, even if this is understandable, this is right.

[and - I'm probably really stretching now - but on one reading of the film, the conflict in the cellar between Cruise and Robbins is a microcosm of the larger conflict of survival between humans and aliens. Cruise has come into Robbins' house. Two men occupying the same space - and one makes a rational decision that the other must be exterminated. I'm sure that's in part what the aliens might have thought when they thought they needed "breathing space" . . .]

. . . stay tuned for more - but meanwhile, what did you think of the film?

2005-06-27T19:01:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival - The Final Tally

TOTAL: 27 films (not counting shorts or "special event" sessions).

Annual "Bright Leaves" Award:
Me and You and Everyone We Know (feature)
Tarnation (fusion?) (documentary?) (whatever)

Best non-film experience:
The Music of Master and Commander: a 2 hour Q&A session with three of the composers / arrangers of the film's music (including Iva Davies).

Retro-awesomeness:
The Girl Can't Help It (feature, US) - cheesy fun with the hourglass shaped Jayne Mansfield.

Highly recommended documentaries:
A State of Mind (UK/Nth Korea)
Mad Hot Ballroom (US)
Murderball (US)
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (US)
Tell Them Who You Are (US)

Highly recommended features:
Brothers (Denmark)
Kontroll (Hungary)
Green Bush (Australia)
Bombon El Perro (Argentina)
P.S (US)
3-Iron (feature, South Korea)
Howl's Moving Castle (Japan)

Features that are only a whisker below "highly recommended", but it looked stupid to highly recommend everything:
Yesterday (Sth Africa)
A Day Without A Mexican (US)
36 Quai Des Orfevres (France)
Up and Down (feature, Czech Republic)
Mean Creek (US)
Duck Season (Mexico)

Good solid viewing, with some transcendent moments:
Two Great Sheep (feature, China)
In the Battlefields (feature, Lebanon)
Sisters in Law (doco, ?)
Kindergarten (doco, China)

The bottom of the pack for me - but maybe I was just having a bad hair day / whatever:
Five Seasons (doco, Australia)
Story Undone (feature, Iran)

SHORTS
The thing that got me angriest about the festival this year was the decision not to list the short films in the free program (either in hard copy or on the website). You have to buy the $12 souvenier program to find out what the shorts are and where to see them (which . . . as if). Not just annoying for the cinema goers - it totaly sucks for the under-credited filmmakers. So not only can I not list the short films I saw (memory is not that good), even if I'd kept notes, I'd be lucky to get down all the directors names, the country of origin, etc . . . Disgraceful, SFF. Be very ashamed.

Only the titles with no "inverted commas" are the real titles. If anyone knows what the other films are, or where any of these came from, drop me a line - I'm going to do my own sleuthing around over the next few weeks.

Pol Pot's Birthday - hilarious, weird. Asks the question:what would Pol Pot have done on his birthday in the final year of his reign whilst hiding out in bunkers? Answer: the cake was bigger last year.
"Australian film in an elevator" - Australian short starring Kerry Armstrong stuck in a lift. A bit heavy-handed, but the Kerry Armstrong factor pulls it through.
Useless Dog - charming short film from Ireland about a useless dog. Documentary style, lots of footage of a dog lying around sleeping, and the Irish farmer in interview, shrugging his shoulders and saying "well, I'd like it if the dog would work more . . . but what can ye do?" Hilarious.
"Donkey pinata" - Cute, Pixar-like animated short about a little donkey pinata who finds out the hard way what he's actually for. (ouch!)
Monster - Australian short about things that hide in the closet. One really effective shot of a thing coming right at you up a flight of stairs - you could feel the entire cinema around you inhale for a collective "ahhhh!" Hope to see these guys on a fuller length feature sometime soon.
"Creepy French short" about a guy who carefully cuts a hole in an apple,lures in a wasp, closes up the hole, then waits for his son to come home.. . .
"Amusing (probably Irish) short" about an international incident whenBoris Yeltsin's plane landed in Ireland; nearly sparking war. "OurPresident is indisposed." "C'mon. He's drunk, isn't he?" "Are you calling me a liar? You have insulted Mother Russia." etc. Hee.

2005-06-26T17:59:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival

The promo tag line runs something like "16 days, 200 films". I saw 26 feature films at the festival, which sounds crap, but I think they factor short films into the "200" total (which - totally cheating, dude). Anyway, my eyes are tired, but I had a fabulous couple of weeks. I'll post a bit about the highlights over the next few weeks.

The "Bright Leaves" award for coolest film experience is split between two films this year: Tarnation, and Me and You and Everyone Else We Know. They have nothing in common, except that they're both from the US. And they're also both films that even if you hate them, I can guarantee that you will walk out of the cinema, turn to someone and say - "well, I've never seen anything like that before".

Me and You and Everyone Else We Know is a US film and the debut feature from performance artist Miranda July, who performs the triple role of actor/writer/director. Whilst it is hilarious, oddly vulnerable and touching; it also has an edge - of the fifteen or so people around me in the cinema, there was a particular scene where about nine of us were laughing, four fell silent, and two walked out.

It's a film that you could easily find really irritating - as you see from these reviews, there are a number of critics who just couldn't get into the vibe. Whether you do or not rests entirely on whether you like the incredibly strange people which inhabit this film, or whether you find them too unreal, too sketch-like, too "quirky" or cute. The lead female character is a performance artist who becomes obsessed with a shoe-salesman. The lead male character is the single-father shoe salesman who seems perpetually unable to deal with his own life, his kids' lives, his divorce, or his job.

And as the title of the film suggests, the story ripples outwards - to the kids, to the modern art gallery owners, to the elderly users of a mobile car service, to neighbours. You get the feeling that the movie could have gone for another hour, another two - the purpose or angle wouldn't have changed, but the scope is literally infinite. And, as also hinted by the title, it's about the relationships between us and "everyone we know". How do we understand each other? Why do some relationships fall apart, and others flourish? How meaningful is communication? What can we do with images, words, the internet, telephones, face to face dialogue?

This film was championed by influential American critic Roger Ebert - you can see his rave review here, although if at all possible, avoid all the press and reviews and just see it for yourself.

Tarnation was my second top pick. I'm on safer ground with this one - not only does nearly everyone love it, it's been written about as likely to be the most influential film of the last ten years.

The filmmaker Jonathan Caouette has pieced together this film largely from "found footage" - pre-existing material taken by his family's video camera, family photographs, odd archival images, excerpts from films, school videos - it's a magpie like collation of ideas.

At the film's heart is a traumatic event of the past. When Jonathan's mother Renee was about 14, she fell off the roof of the family house and suffered a physical injury. After a questionable diagnosis, she underwent shock therapy for three years. When her mental condition deteriorated, she had more treatment and went in and out of institutions. After this process had finished, as Caoutte's narrative baldly notes, she had lost most of her original personality.

Her son Jonathan was raised mostly by his maternal grandparents, but also went in and out of foster care. He had a horrible childhood. The footage has some occasionally hilarious moments - there's footage of a young 11 year old Jonathan who already self-identifying as gay, is performing a self-penned monologue to the camera as a tortured Southern Belle. But even here, the initial laugh from the audience at the young boy in makeup and fake lashes, disperses when we realise what he's saying . . . it' s a monologue about horrific spousal abuse and obsession. Real footage. You can look into the dark eyes of this 11 year old kid, and think: I don't know what's going on in your head. And also: you are not okay.

The experience of this film is like the skin of this family is being peeled back so that you can see inside - it looks painful, and feels painful to watch - and it's also intrusive in ways that aren't comfortable for an audience, even though you as audience member are being "let in" by a member of the family. But it's ultimately a story about survival - how Jonathan lives past the trauma he inherited as part of his family legacy.

Legend has it this film cost about $215 US to make. It's an example of what you can do with good footage taken on a basic camera, particularly now that the means to edit films are available much more widely, not just to the highly trained and professional studios. And if this is what the future of film-making looks like, I say, bring it on.

2005-04-29T11:52:00.000+10:00

Despite all appearances, not dead

I have every intention of continuing this blog, which I miss so much! Hopefully I'll be a bit better at sporadically posting until I get this internet thing sorted (I'm not even going to be at home for a month or so, but after that, will get my skates on, I swear).

In the meantime, I offer you the list of where my head's at:

#1 Will Tom Cruise start dating toddlers next?

#2 Saw 8 films of a possible 15 at the German film festival. Highest impact moment: when a low life criminal got trussed up and baked into a pie, and then the chick he'd tortured in an earlier scene says "I'm hungry" and whips out a cleaver. Like, woah.

#3 Have finished my film course with David Stratton, who during the course, lent me a video and may in fact know my name. Next course starts September - World Cinema, 1961 - 1963. Bring it on!

#4 Job still rocks.

#5 Reading "Under the Volcano" which is about as full on as I thought it was going to be.

#6 Not talking to Beth nearly as much as I need to be.

#7 Will be back! Rising from the ashes! etc.

[watch this space]

2005-03-02T12:23:00.000+11:00

I miss you blog!

It'll be at least another two weeks before I "get regular" again. Sorry all, but I love my job to death and have no intention of getting fired for net use!

So, I saw all five of the best picture nominees. I would have gone with The Aviator or Sideways ahead of M$B. Sometimes you've got to look past the emotional punch, so to speak, to look at whether anything that original or interesting is going on. M$B is still very good, don't get me wrong. But best picture worthy?

The toughest category in my opinion was best supporting actress. Once again, I'd seen all five films . . . and I would have been happy with any of them winning, they were all great performances. It's cool Blanchett won, and the "doesn't she have an Oscar by now?" sentiment would have helped her along. But any of them would have deserved it just as much - Portman was scorching in Closer, and Linney was her predictably great self in Kinsey. Madsen's scene in Sideways was probably my favourite monologue of the year. And Okenedo deserves props for just being in the harrowing tale which is Hotel Rwanda.

Anyway. Hope you're all well.

2005-02-12T13:03:00.000+11:00

I Heart Huckabees

So, the story is all connected, right? Because everything's connected. But the connections aren't important! Because nothing is important! It's like the blanket theory of the universe. I am exactly the same as Jude Law, and exactly the same as the sound of the espresso machine I can hear in this Internet cafe, and the smell of cut grass, all at once. But does that mean that nothing matters, because it's all the same, or that everything matters?

Like, dude. I don't think I can deal with my infinite nature.

2005-02-05T15:15:00.000+11:00

Watch this space

Sorry about the lack of updates, (yeah, I'm sure you're all really annoyed) but regular updating is a few weeks away. But if you have any suggestions about which provider is the best option for home internet access, drop a comment here . . . I'm looking to pay a low monthly amount, hopefully around $25 per month (I'm not going to download music, movies, etc or anything like that).

I'm also on a run to try and see all the films nominated for the top ten Oscars I have an opinion on (the four acting awards, picture, director, two screenplay awards, cinematography and editing). Scarily, there's not many I need to catch - The Aviator, Vera Drake, Closer and Being Julia are the main ones. But as I was checking the list, it was great to see Two Cars, One Night is nominated in the short live action category - this is a great little New Zealand short film I saw at the Sydney Film Festival, and I'm pretty sure it got my vote as the best film of the bunch. Cool to see it's getting some big award action. I've also seen Birthday Boy, the Aussie short animated film also gunning for an Oscar.

Now if only they start showing short films before features at the cinema again, I'll be happy.

2005-01-24T16:32:00.000+11:00

Down With Love

Maybe I just wasn't in the mood, but this movie was just too cute for me. Many of the component parts seem cool. Wacky visual style? check. Ewan McGregor? check. Pastiche of cinematic style of bygone age? check.

But somehow, the film was just plain annoying. Sure, I generally always hate Renee Zellweger. But the whole thing just didn't mesh. I wandered out of the room about five minutes before the finale.

Let me know if you think this film is cinematic genius. I have a feeling that I was just in a curmudgeonly mood.

2005-01-21T15:28:00.000+11:00

One hour to go

Feeling intensely weird. Everyone's saying goodbye, flowers, exchanging emails, cleaning office, etc - and I still have just this inner conviction that I'll be back here on Monday. I guess that's what force of habit does to your brain.

Or maybe the weird feeling was the wine I've been drinking constantly since about midday. Yeah, it could be that.

2005-01-20T09:49:00.000+11:00

Question

Is Boa vs Python any good? Inquiring minds want to know.

(note the promising IMDB review: "I love snakes and had high hopes for this one. I was only slightly disappointed".)

ETA: well, looks like I'll have to spend my precious $8.50 to answer this question for myself.

2005-01-19T09:50:00.000+11:00

IMDB
more listmania

Rod asks if it makes a difference if you use a different list. Challenge accepted.

IMDB is kind of confusing. I think this is the page for best of 2004 as voted by users of the site. Hee - once again, I score 24/100! but the list of films I counted towards this tally are really different. (Alien v Predator! Sadly, still no Anacondas.)

Best of 2003. I lost track a bit towards the middle, but I think I get 37/100. (who votes for LXG?)

Best of 2002. 36/100? (my improved score in part because of cinematic gems including Crossroads, Ghost Ship, and The Scorpion King.)

Anyway. Insofar as you can compare apples with apples (the RT and IMDB best lists by year) my scores don't actually change all that much. The reason for this? Although the classy but underwatched documentaries I see bulk up my RT score and don't count under IMDB, I see enough dodgy horror films to make up for it.

Anyway, this whole exercise has made me feel like a bit of a freak. Moving on.

2005-01-18T16:29:00.000+11:00

I guess it's all relative
Listmania at www.rottentomatoes.com

Rotten Tomatoes has a great feature where they list the year's top 100 movies as ranked by positive critic reviews. I love these lists. I mean I suck at maths, and would have hated uni statistics, but give me stats on a subject I'm interested in, and I immediately start trying to figure out what they "mean". (How many of the "best" films have I seen? If I break down the films that I've seen in brackets of ten, have I seen more towards the top of the list, or in the middle? Is there an inherent bias towards documentaries? Am I a sad obsessive? Don't answer that last one.)

I have seen 24/100 of the 2004 list. As a comparison, I've seen 34/100 of the 2003 list - which probably works out at about the same, given that many of the 2004 list will be still releasing over here through early 2005. And to answer one of my above questions, the highest proportion of films I've seen is weighted towards the top 10 of each list (I've seen 5/10 of the top films on each). Before you brand me an elitist snob who panders to mainstream critics, I would point out that that sadly, Anacondas: Hunt for the Blood Orchid did nothing to bulk up my stats here.

My tally is much less impressive the further you go back. In 2002 I was less obsessed with films, just coming off being an impoverished uni student, and hadn't yet learned the joys of spending most of my disposable income on cinema tickets. I've only seen a pathetic 20/100 from that year, even after taking into account movies I've caught since then on video or TV.

Mind you, how meaningful the RT stats are is another matter. If every critic gives a film a "good but not great" 3/5 rating, these would be taken as "positive" reviews, and enough to catapult that film to a 100% rating, as I understand the way the site works. And needless to say, there are many examples of misunderstood genius which have relatively low RT rankings. Predictably enough, horror is almost unrepresented. (Exception: 28 Days Later).

Anyway. I'm dying for you all to count up, and tell me if I'm a freak, or if you're a freak, or that the exercise is meaningless, or whatever. Don't exaggerate now. This is scientific stuff.

2005-01-14T16:57:00.000+11:00

Somersault revisited
. . . at the Open Air Cinema on a glorious summer night

Warning: this assumes you’ve seen Somersault. If you haven’t, slap yourself upside the head for not supporting Australian cinema, go away and watch it, then come back.

1. Heidi

There are so many things this film does well. Top of the list is the characterisation of Heidi, and how we feel about her throughout the film. The audience's reactions to her probably include all or some of the following list: irritation / frustration at her bad choices. A kind of helpless anger when we watch her being stripped of options, leading towards said bad choices. Frustration with her inability to empower herself. Frustration with the low value she places on her “self”. Anger at those who exploit her because of this low value. And (I think) at the heart of our frustration with her, the way that she asks Joe at the drop of a hat if he loves her, her guilelessness, her vulnerability . . . is a real empathy. There's a bit of Heidi in all of us, the part that falls in love too easily, the part that will do anything for a bit of affection. We can recognise our own eggshell-ego adolesence. And if we're really honest, we can admit that probably, in some ways nothing much has changed since we grew older and "wiser", except that we probably learnt to be less obvious about it.

On a first viewing, I was annoyed with some of the scenes which show her running around the lake, playing games with the red mittens, etc. Now I actually think these scenes are key. When Heidi is around people, she is always trying to impress, pander to what they want, or seduce. Almost everything she says is inarticulate, ill-judged, and you get the impression doesn’t really nail what she’s trying to say. Example – when someone meanly describes her job at the servo as interesting because it’s a “mixed bag” (referring to the packets of lollies), Heidi doesn’t get the dig, and just smiles says “yeah”. But when they laugh at her, you can see her realise that their intentions aren’t kind. Often, she doesn’t react to dialogue in the film, so much as sense people’s emotions or intentions towards her (the interactions with Bianca who works with her at the BP is another example of this).

But when she is by herself, it’s a different story. Think of the silent scenes where she explores the world around her – the lake, the storeroom, and every environment she finds herself in during the film. Even in the smallest ways of noticing fabric or following her cold breath, she is still exploring, interested, active-minded. These scenes are beautifully filmed, and the music is perfect (clear, crisp, playful, optimistic). Where she doesn’t have to negotiate the minefield of human emotions, she has a real openness to experience. The film implies she has a visual sense, and I think the audience is meant to pick up on this as a kind of untapped potential in her. She is interesting, and interested in things . . . it’s her reactions to people that send her into a destructive pattern.

The film is really Heidi’s story, in the sense that we see the beginning (what makes her run away from home), and the end (her return with her mother). But it’s interesting, isn’t it, that at the end, the film doesn’t punch home her emotional reconciliation with her mother. In a different film, this would have been a big deal – a moment, a pause, running into each other’s arms, etc. In this film, Heidi’s mother doesn’t even get out of the car. The focus in the scene where her mother arrives to take her home is actually on the extended moment between Heidi and Joe. For the first time, he reaches out to touch her, and she pulls away. But it’s not all distance. “I think it’s good we met” Heidi tells him before she gets into the car. And the last shots of the film? Heidi, leaning out the window of the car, watching the trees and the lake from a strange oblique angle, and the reflections as they slide along the car. Although with her mother, it’s like those earlier scenes where she’s solitary. Perhaps the film is saying is that this is what Heidi needs – to stop being something that’s used, to stop “pleasing” people. To start being someone who observes, and absorbs, and learns, somehow.

Geez, this is inarticulate. Does this make any sense? I might have another go at this after the weekend.

2. Joe

Then there’s Joe. We know how to read Heidi, Joe’s story is less contained within the film, less linear. We know he sleeps with a lot of girls (implied particularly by Irene), we know that he’s not happy, we know that his relationship with his father is incredibly uncommunicative (that brilliant scene with Joe drunk in the kitchen and his father impassively eating breakfast). In pretty much every scene where Joe is about to sleep with Heidi, or before any conversation where he says anything important, Joe is drinking. Where Heidi’s problem seems to be a scary lack of direction, Joe’s is the opposite – he’s still living with his parents, working for his father; still getting treated like a boy, unable to travel, stuck in the same rut of drinking with the same mates and sleeping with random girls. And I think Joe’s problem is that he knows that he’s unhappy in his life, but he can’t figure out why, or how, or what to do about it. (Feel free to disagree, but although he feels stifled by his parents and his need to work on the family farm, I doubt he would really be able to articulate this, even to himself.)

Lots of shots place Joe in his parents’ place with its heavy antique style furniture, and Heidi outside exploring the lake and the trees; never vice versa. The other house we see Joe is Richard’s place – it’s a really similar house in terms of style and furniture, but this son is only passing through, he’s selling it, and the furniture, and possibly going back to France. This makes Richard incredibly intriguing to Joe - who you can sense has the inevitable blokey reaction to Richard being gay, but also admires and envies him on other levels.

Joe can admit to Richard something that he can’t confess to a single other person in the film: that there’s something about Heidi he likes. That great little anecdote about how his mother used to spray perfume and walk through it. “She’s like that. You can’t get her out of your skin.” Of course, there’s also that moment when Joe tries to kiss Richard. And the way this scene is acted and played with the direction – there’s no real sexual chemistry here, just Joe confusing his own signals. He doesn’t want to kiss Richard, he wants in some sense to be Richard, and he’s confusing the two. “Mate, you don’t know what you want”, Richard tells him. Mate, you have no idea.

Like Heidi, Joe also has real issues with his self-image. He wants Heidi, but obviously looks down on for sleeping with him so easily. He really seems to approach people on the base assumption that anyone who sees something in him must be worthless, because he also doesn’t value himself that highly. It turns into a sad and awful cycle – he likes Heidi, sleeps with Heidi, despises Heidi for sleeping with him, ignores Heidi, then expects her to fall in his arms every time he turns up (which she does). This culminates in the awful scene with the two boys towards the end of the film. Joe’s reaction is immediately hostile, but he’s also hurt by her “betrayal”. But Worthington is a great actor – hard to articulate how or why, but we know by the end that Joe’s realised that he played some part in bringing Heidi down, rather than making her happy.

3. And generally . . .

This is a film about the difficulty of human relationships – the equally tough tasks of understanding yourself, and understanding others. This point is made most strongly by the character Karl. He’s the young boy with the disorder which means he has no sense of empathy; we see his mother sitting with him in one scene using the cards to try and get him to recognise human emotions. He can’t laugh at jokes until other people do, which signals to him that it’s funny. He’s an obvious reflection of both Heidi and Joe – who even if they don’t have a “disorder” as such, aren’t really that much better at figuring out themselves or each other.

(and the moment we see Karl at his happiest? Heidi on a walk sees him bouncing on a trampoline on his own. Like Heidi, Karl is happiest outside the mess of human interactions which he literally can’t understand.)

Yeah, there are things the film does badly. I think in depicting a lot of the above, the film tends at times to overplay its hand, and get a little to obvious about some of the themes.

But I’m going to use Joe’s perfume metaphor. There’s something about this film that is still lingering on my skin, and I can still hear the music, and that sense of being in the mountains. The things I like best about Heidi’s character were done with such a light touch – the way she holds her beer, the kind of girl who picks out the bright red gloves, and her eternal hopefulness. That sometimes the film verged into being more heavy handed than this (damn that fricking dream journal) I’m prepared to put up with.

So, kudos to everyone involved in Somersault, particularly Cate "first time feature film director? holy shit" Shortland.

2005-01-13T13:12:00.000+11:00

Steamboat Bill Junior
Buster Keaton festival* – part 2

No steamboat chase. Boo! There was however a father/son reunion, a makeover, a love story between two feuding families, a jailbreak, and a hurricane.

This film contains two of the funniest sequences I’ve seen anywhere. One involved Buster, recently reunited with his father, trying on hats in a hat shop. Brilliant direction placed the camera in the scene as the “mirror”, so that the actors face us straight on. During this scene, the comedy is at the expense of both characters . . . and it’s also a real dig at Buster Keaton’s comic persona (that sort of foppish, ineffectual, hopeful character). I know what you’re thinking (hats = whatever) but this is seriously funny.

In the second, Buster is trying to break his father out of jail and has brought a loaf of bread which contains various implements to be used for his escape. This attempt stymied somewhat when Buster’s father proclaims that he doesn’t want any bread. Buster makes lots of convincing gestures, all – yes! you do want this bread! trust me! it’s really good bread! On his father’s adamant refusal, Buster just sits down, telling the warden that he’ll just wait till his Dad gets hungry. When the warden’s back is turned, Buster starts doing the most hilarious mime routine. Completely deadpan throughout, but making surreptitious little sawing movements, and hammering, and then miming with his fingers a little guy walking out of the jail (down the length of the loaf of bread).

In both scenes, all that effort turns out to be for nothing – the purchased hat is almost immediately lost, and the jailbreak only briefly successful. Part of Buster’s comic appeal in these films is that a lot of the time, he never gets a break. But of course, this changes for the climax, when Buster rises to the occasion. The little idiosyncratic quirks and abilities which brought him to grief earlier in the film, all come together in helping him to save the day. Importantly, he doesn’t become more heroic, or more adept . . . just somehow, more successful.

The final set piece of the film is the hurricane – and it is so inventively filmed. Buildings fall down, people are blown around, trees are going wild. In one particularly well done scene, a guy is hanging off the front of a car which suddenly lurches crazily backwards dragging him with it down the street. Simple to do (I imagine someone was just ducked down behind the dashboard and started reversing), but it looks so effective. Another great moment – Buster is running past a loaded truck, and a gust of wind suddenly tips the truck and buries him under a pile of boxes. The falling building scenes were amazing – sometimes walls would just fall straight down in one piece, but at other times, houses were convincingly reduced to a pile of loose timber in a matter of seconds.

And all this is covered in seventy minutes. When Keaton has the momentum going, it doesn’t matter that his films are silent, or that they’re eighty years old. He is himself an irresistible force of nature.

If anyone else wants to play their own simultaneous festival, next on the programme is College. After which, it kind of depends on my distributor, but I think it’s going to be Sherlock Jr and Our Hospitality (both of which I’ve seen before, but it’s been a while).

Drinking game suggestion: I really didn't need the film to be spiced up that much, but if you really had to do shots, I would recommend drinking every time someone ends up in the water. But remember, drink responsibly.

*Buster Keaton festival: running throughout January and February 2005, in Lyn's loungeroom.

2005-01-12T13:06:00.000+11:00

The Man on the Train (2003)

I first saw this film back when it had an Australian release (at the Dendy, anyway) about a year ago.

It’s a film about two very different men, strangers who develop a strange kind of friendship / envy / kinship. I’m being deliberately obtuse here, but that’s because when I went into the cinema I knew virtually nothing about the film, except that I loved the poster, and when I looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes, this was the feature quote: “It speaks to the quixotic desire to know what it feels like to be someone else, someone utterly different from ourselves – the reason we talk to strangers, the reason we go to the movies.”

Woah, I thought. And after seeing the film – exactly.

What hit me on a second viewing was just how beautiful this film is – every still is an image which would not look out of place hanging on a wall. There's so much imagery, the full meaning of much of the symbolism only really becoming apparent after you finish watching the entire film and you rewind it in your head. The structure is very clever – although this is also something I can’t elaborate on, because it would give away too much. The music is playing a constant game with the viewer, as each of the men has little motifs and tricks which are playfully used as they dabble in each other’s worlds. (I love the pseudo Western film twang that keeps popping up!) But at its heart are the two central performances, which are just a complete pleasure to watch, and are never predictable or easy.

My housemates (and their Scandanavian guests) were having a fairly noisy, happy evening in the kitchen whilst I was watching this (perfect conditions for a film with subtitles). When it reached the mysterious, sad, triumphant ending there were tears rolling off my nose. Then, that moment after a film when you tune back into the other noise going on around you, and realise that your world is still there, and the small village in France is receding. I love that realisation, of just how far I disappeared into the story. Magical.

Directed by Patrice Leconte. My list of directors whose other films I need to start watching is ever lengthening . . . although I’m pretty sure I’ve seen The Girl on the Bridge, if nothing else.

Footnotes:
Apparently Leconte filmed the entire movie in chronological order (as in: production and filming started with scene #1 and ended with the final scene). Which I completely understand for a few reasons, and probably helped with the perfectly realised development of the character interactions.

And if you've seen the film:
There's only a few moments in the film which strike me as oddly discordant. One I remember is the scene where Hallyday's character confronts Rochefort's "friend" (the "he doesn't want to hear about your brat, all he wants is tenderness and sex" scene). This scene really jarred for me, not just because he's being extremely awful. I guess part of the issue is that Hallyday's character doesn't even fully understand why he's attacking her (and I have a theory about why he is attacking her like this). Email me if you've seen it and feel like indulging me with a discussion on this.

I've also still got the "explanation" of the end that I emailed out to people I saw the film with, and I'd love to revive that debate . . .

2005-01-11T15:52:00.000+11:00

For sale: really big tall ship

There’s a few interesting revelations in the extras on the Master and Commander DVD. First, they used the tank built for Titanic to shoot the film. Second, just as they were considering making the film, a tall ship of the type featured in the film was up for sale somewhere in the Maldives. (how did they find this out, sailing classifieds international?) Peter Weir ran out and bought the ship to use it in the glorious long-shot sailing sequences where they actually are all out at sea on a functioning vessel. Most of the close-ups are shot on a second set, which is the ship-like structure built for the film and based in the tank.

But here’s what I was wondering today. What’s happened to the boat they bought, now that filming is over? What does Weir (and/or relevant studio(s)) do with a working tall ship, put it on mothballs? And if they sold it, is there really a market (and/or ascertainable value) for this kind of stuff?

Pet theories:

Sell it to the reality TV show Survivor, for the upcoming: “Survivor: High Seas”, during which the boring tribal ceremonies will be axed in favour of walking the plank.
Use it to host the coolest nautical themed game of poker ever.
Studio to break up ship and sell separately in pieces on ebay. (“Sale item #433498: Surprise, lower mizzen mast, portion”)
Weir uses ship to film his own Tropfest entry, which he puts in under the pseudonym “Gustave Schwartz”. Judges disqualify on the basis that apart from the poorly disguised ship, story involves man both literally and metaphysically separated from society, who comes to question its rules / order whist finding his own distinct moral code. “Must be Weir”, says John Polson. “Screw you Polson”, says Weir, “at least I’m not directing horror teen flicks.”

My lame hilarity aside, I guess this must be a common problem for big fantasy / historical films . . . which end up with big, unwieldy, expensive (unsellable?) props when the film is over . . . except of course when you're Peter Jackson, in which case you can just stick it all in a museum exhibit.

2005-01-10T13:02:00.000+11:00

Louis Nowra weighs in on The Motorcycle Diaries

Louis Nowra has weighed in with a rant in the SMH about the use of Che Guevera's face as a symbol. He also describes The Motorcycle Diaries as a "romanticised portrait of the revolutionary Che Guevara before he became a communist. He is shown as handsome, sensitive and caring. There is no hint of the vicious-minded hoodlum he would become."

Sort of fair enough on some of this - as I said in my longer review (below), the focus on the early life of Che allows the film to sidestep all of the political stuff, and any examination of whether Che's actions were good, bad, whatever. Further, the depiction of Ernesto as a charismatic guy with his heart in the right place does leave room for the audience to infer that Che's later actions are justified. (I don't think this isn't the conclusion that your average informed viewer would necessarily draw, but mileage may vary on this point.)

Generally though, I think the "vicious thug" tag is as unconvincing as the "near-divine hero" mythology that Nowra also rejects.

Where Nowra and I totally agree is in our irritation over the mindless appropriation of symbols. My pet hate on this score is the fricking Playboy bunny, which is available on a wide range of female clothing. I get the feeling that girls who wear it do so because they think the bunny is cute and sexy in a vanilla kind of way. When actually, it's a loaded image - the symbol of a media empire based on men objectifying women. If you wouldn't wear a t-shirt emblazoned with "Penthouse" or "FHM", you shouldn't wear a playboy bunny t-shirt. I have no idea why this irritates me this much, but oh, it really does.

And just to balance up the Che coverage on this website: this more complimentary Time article by a Latin American writer is an interesting read, and looks at both Che as icon and Che as South American hero.

(Irrelevant side note: I got a free review copy of Louis Nowra's autobiography The Twelfth of Never and never managed to get through the first chapter. It's still on the bookshelf at my parent's place somewhere. Maybe I should dust it off and take another look, to see if there are any other quality rants at the young t-shirt wearing public.)

2005-01-06T14:11:00.000+11:00

The General

Who’s cool? Buster Keaton. That’s who.

Buster Keaton’s The General is often described as “the best comedy ever made”. So going into the cinema, it's fair to say I had pretty bloated expectations. But whilst as a good postmodernist, I question whether any film can earn this kind of accolade, it is a pretty amazing film.

This is the tale of Johnny (Keaton) a Southerner during the Civil War which is currently raging around the edges of the film. As the first frame informs us, Johnny has two loves in his life: a girl, and the train called “The General”. Pretty quickly, the dastardly machinations of some Northern spies place both train and girl in danger, and Johnny has to act with alacrity to get them to safety.

Where to start? The action sequences – genius. It’s kind of terrifying watching this and knowing that there was no CGI / special effects wizardry, and Keaton did all his own stunts. (I feel like his mother. Buster? was that safe? because it doesn’t look safe, dear. Are you sure you know what you’re doing?) At various points, the train is going pretty bloody fast; and everyone is just running around, jumping between carriages, blowing things up . . . if no one was hurt, it’s a miracle. And it’s not just good action – unlike many action films, the action flows, it’s all logical, and it furthers (rather than distracts from) the plot. I can see why the early Jackie Chan films have been compared to Keaton’s stuff – there’s a bit of the same flavour about what he does, although Keaton does it better.

The civil war in cinema has never looked this seemingly genuine. There were a couple of times where I was sure I was looking at stock footage – except of course there is no footage of the civil war (duh!), and then Keaton would sprint past in the shot, making it clear that you weren’t watching some documentary style recreation. Before I went to see the film, I read a few reviews quoting film historians who claimed no one got the Civil War as accurately as Keaton – not even Gone With the Wind. Strange, but now I've seen it, I believe it.

Keaton’s eye as director is extraordinary – the seething crowd shots, troop movements, the feel of makeshift camps and so on – all feel so real. There’s one incidental scene when the Southerners are mobilising where we see rows of horses and the soldiers running for their mounts; and the camera angle (from above and to one side) gives it this weird perspective which really works. And of course, Keaton as the lead actor has never been so charming. We cheer him on because he’s the hero – but he’s such a hilariously random hero, his major tactical wins during the train chase are mostly through luck or coincidence. And for all the war which is going on around him, he lacks any idealistic zeal – rather, he wants to save the train and his girl. Saving the Southern army to fight another day is kind of a tacked on bonus. He's the kind of hero we love - kind of talentless, a bit of a loser, but with bulldog tenacity.

Seeing all this on the big screen with a really great score (apparently recorded in Tokyo) was the icing on the proverbial cake. The Valhalla at Glebe runs some weird stuff, but I always love their old movies. I mean, if someone can be stuffed to restore a film from the 1920s, brush it off and get it re-distributed, you can generally guarantee that it will be worth seeing. Predictably inspired, I just invested in a mega-cheap 3 disc Keaton set including The General and some other Keaton greats like Steamboat Bill Junior. Steamboat chase sequence ahoy!

2005-01-05T13:05:00.000+11:00

The Motorcycle Diaries

Rating: 8 ½ out of 10

There’s a moment at around the mid-point of this film where four people are sharing a fire by a lonely road somewhere in South America. Ernesto and Alberto are ex-medical students part way through their trip spanning South America. The couple are a husband and wife they have met en route. “Why do you travel?” the woman asks. “We travel to travel”, Ernesto answers. And it’s an uncomfortable moment: between the travellers for pleasure, and the couple who are dispossessed, impoverished, and on the road looking for work.

The story of the film is simple. Two young men set out on the road trip of a lifetime: a dodgy old motorcycle, meagre provisions, and the goal of travelling up the coast of South America covering thousands of kilometres of bad road. It’s a classic road trip movie, chock full with exhilaration and incredible scenery. It’s also a coming of age film, as Ernesto and Alberto have studied hard and are now clearly at points of decision. Do they become doctors? Do they fulfil family expectations? What happens if or when they return home? Their travels become a formative experience, as both men are affected by the poverty and humanity surrounding them during their journey. Like this, the film keeps a dual focus: outwards on the world through which we’re travelling, and inwards on the travellers, changed and challenged by their surroundings.

Our understanding of the characters is also affected by our knowledge outside the margins of the filmed story, as this is based on autobiographical material. Ernesto Guevera de la Serna is the young man who later in life, becomes known as Che Guevera. And so, the film becomes an unusual (but effective) kind-of biography, ignoring historically important actions in favour of an examination of his youth, the beginnings of his ethics.

For a film about such a leftist hero, this is a surprisingly apolitical film . . . although Ernesto is certainly a likeable figure. But the wisdom of Che’s subsequent actions, his legitimacy as revolutionary hero, his death at the hands of the CIA – these are not within the scope of this story, which is not really about “Che” at all. The focus is Ernesto and Alberto - their potential, their youthful idealism, their developing sense of the injustice of the world, their will to work for change. That one of these men went on to burn so brightly only adds resonance to this tale.

I completely adored this film, although I worry that part of the reason is because I was just travelling around so close to where this picture was made, with much of the same carefree “see the world, forget about responsibility” mantra. And this feeling of being on the road is nailed in this film, which is really for all the darkness and poverty, frequently hilarious and joyous. We should travel the world, examine what we see, and feel impassioned to use our lives for change. Such an end is worthwhile of itself, regardless of how history judges the result.

Footnotes:

Walter Salles directed, and I haven't seen (or heard anything about) any of his other films. If you have, please tell me where I should start. Next up he's doing a US remake of a Japanese horror film. Which is great, because you know, we've never seen anything like that before . . .
Gabriel Garcia Bernal who plays Ernesto is smoking hot. Can't wait to see him in Almadovar's upcoming film Bad Education.
The soundtrack was fantastic and I want it.
Robert Redford executive produced. crazy!

2004-12-31T13:32:00.000+11:00

2004: The year that was
introspection, and some top 5 action

I started this website because at the beginning of 2004, I was feeling depressed about my inability to do anything creative. My job just seemed to be sucking a lot out of me, even though I didn’t feel particularly good at my job, or particularly appreciated by people I work for. I was doing some interesting things, no question, “skilling up” – but without any pleasure. It made good sense to stay where I was for a bit longer (and get over that “two year’s experience” hurdle), but I felt that intellectually, and particularly in terms of skills I actually value, I wasn’t really going anywhere.

And now, it’s just weird to look around and think about how 2004 turned out. So many of my friends and family are in the middle of “interesting times” but in a good way – you know who you all are. 2004 has been a big year for a lot people close to me: having children, buying houses, finishing degrees, moving overseas, changing careers, engagements, marriages, scholarships and travelling of epic proportions. In fact, I can’t think of many people I know who won’t look back on 2004 and think of it as a year of significant change and growth. Good for all of us.

Throughout the year, this website has been great for me – in motivating me to write again, and just getting me interested about something new. Last year, most of my friends would probably have characterised me as a reader. Writing about books was something I knew I could do, but writing about films seemed a bit more interesting. (part of the motivation may also have been that legendary joint essay written by Beth and I on Fight Club back in our english honours year. It’s all about a post-modern crisis of self! Also: Brad Pitt is hot.) Getting to “know” regular bloggers like James and Rod has also been great (I reckon I’ll be down in Melbourne sometime in March or April, and I think there’s a pub crawl with our name on it, guys!)

And now, I am so excited about 2005. My new job which I’ll start in late January is awesome. If I was brainstorming a dream list of ten organisations I’d like to work for, this organisation would be on that list. In fact, I first found out about the job when two good friends, independently of each other, emailed me the job description and told me it would be perfect for me and I should apply. From now on, when someone asks me at a party “what do you do?” and I answer, it’s totally the kind of job where I will immediately seem like a cooler person. (I will also probably seem like a cooler person because of my awesome technicoloured fish necklace that I bought in Cuba, but that’s another story). The only downside: less pay. I can’t tell you how much I don’t care.

Happy New Year, everyone! See you on the other side.

Top 5 ongoing thematic obsessions

1. My niece – baby, three and a half months. I watch her like a television. She’s just getting more amazing each time I see her. You can almost see her awareness and interest of the world expand in gentle concentric circles day by day.

2. McSweeneys – general literary collective. I read their website daily. My subscriptions to The Believer and the Quarterly have lead to picking up novels and stuff by a whole stack of different authors – which in turn has led to a separate but engrossing side-obsession with the legendary Michael Chabon. They’ve also released a number of collections which I’ve picked up copies of including this one, this one, this one and this one – all are great and highly recommended.

3. Cuba – country. The politics, the mythology, the pop culture currency. Such a melting pot. I’m even trying to learn Spanish (badly) so that the next time I go back, I can read more of the poetry.

4. Joyce Carol Oates – author. She’s still writing faster than Stephen King, so I’m having trouble just keeping up, let alone catching up on her back catalogue. She’s a genius.

5. fridaysixpm – website. Whatever Beth is thinking about, is what I’m immediately interested in too. This has saved me a lot of time reading the paper.

Top 5 novels I read in 2004

1. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay – Michael Chabon

2. Bellefleur – Joyce Carol Oates

3. Invisible Cities – Italo Calvino

4. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day– Winifred Watson

5. The House of Sand and Fog – Andrew Dubus III

Top 5 films released in Australia in 2004

(using this page as a guide to when stuff was actually released in 2004, because my memory for release dates sucks).

1. Bright Leaves
I can’t explain it, I can’t rationalise why I love this film so much. But if a film is important when it rearranges your idea of what a film can be or can do, and you start using that film as a standard in approaching other films you watch . . . what other rationale for a #1 film is there?

2. The Station Agent
Alienating yourself from the world is a lot harder than you’d think. This one is a keeper. I hope I like it as much the second time around.

3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Mindbending and in its own way, hopelessly romantic. Jim Carrey has never been better.

4. Collateral
For three weeks after seeing this, I was starting every conversation at work, at home, with strangers on the train with “Have you seen Collateral? You should totally go. Yeah, I don’t like Tom Cruise either, but you should still see it. Look, I’ll pay for the ticket . . .”

5. Somersault
Jindabyne like I’ve never seen it, and the terrible/beautiful path of adolescent sexuality and identity. Flawed, but what a debut – Cate Shortland is the new director to watch.

Honourable mentions:
In America (#6), The Barbarian Invasions (#7), Big Fish (#8), Capturing the Friedmans (#9), The Motorcycle Diaries (#10).
(And then there's . . . Control Room, The Return, Hellboy, Bus 174, Bad Santa, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, The Incredibles, Farenheit 9/11, Monster, 21 Grams, Girl With a Pearl Earring, The Cooler, The Old Man Who Read Love Stories, Lost Things, The Corporation, The Manchurian Candidate, Shaun of the Dead, Supersize Me, Kill Bill Volume 2.)

Festival film honourable mentions (which haven’t really been released here yet)
Witnesses, Maria Full of Grace, The Story of Marie and Julien, The Seduction of Doctor Lewis.

Dishonourable mentions:
One Perfect Day, One Perfect Day. Catwoman. Oh, and One FRICKING Perfect Day.

Disclaimer – the list of films I haven’t seen yet which I’ll almost certainly like:
Hero, Before Sunset, Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, Dirty Pretty Things, I Heart Huckabees, The Triplets of Belleville, Napoleon Dynamite, To Be and To Have, House of Sand and Fog, Spring Summer Fall Winter . . . and Spring, My Life Without Me, Elephant, and . . . believe it or not, The Ladykillers. (If it’s on this list, I’ll get round to it. Don’t hassle me! It’s been a busy year.)

2004-12-30T15:33:00.000+11:00

Bad Santa
The best Christmas movie, ever – unless we’re counting Die Hard.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

Celebrated my first day back at work by handing in my resignation and going to see a matinee of Bad Santa. These were both excellent experiences.

I remember hearing that the record for most swearing per minute of film is held by some Eddie Murphy flick. (Google couldn’t help me find the name of the film. Humble readers: consider yourself challenged.) About forty minutes into Bad Santa, after non-stop wall to wall profanity, it occurred to me that this record might well be under threat. As it turned out, the very next scene had a thirty second silent tracking shot (of the pipe Santa had plugged into the car exhaust and through the window as a part of a suicide attempt); and the absence of a well timed “fuck” at this point probably means that Eddie can rest on his laurels for a little while longer.

I’ve just read a bunch of reviews of this film which were largely positive, but also have various complaints – that the movie starts off slow, how it gets bogged down in its own depravity. Some people think it just isn’t funny. Some think it’s just too crass. All of which makes me ashamed to admit that I laughed myself stupid. Not just a bit, throughout the entire film. Up to and including all the most profane bits of humour. In fact, I think I clapped during one of those moments (for those who’ve seen it: I’m talking that scene in the plus sized department and the subsequent recap by store management).

Director Terry Zwigoff’s films have all celebrated fringe-dwellers: think the outsiders of Ghost World, or the edgy independent comics hero in his documentary Crumb. Whilst there are a lot of people who may appear to make these kind of films, no one is really doing it quite like Zwigoff. He’s not just interested by kooky characters, in the way that some directors make “small town” films peopled with quirky yet benign and unthreatening figures (think Northern Exposure, Seachange, Sweet Home Alabama, Gilmore Girls, Ed, etc, etc.) Nor is this one of those films where the climax reveals that it’s the quirky people with humanity, whilst the “normal” people lack heart (last year’s Elf). In fact, there’s no straight man in this film, no “normal” characters who contrast the extreme personalities of the central cast. At most, there is “weird” and “less weird”. And “less weird” in this film is the woman who has a Santa fetish and insists that Willie leaves his hat on.

On paper, Bad Santa doesn’t have much to laugh at – Willie the Santa, played by Billy Bob Thornton is a sad-sack alcoholic safe-cracker who is filled with self-loathing, and spews venom at everyone around him. You can see the joke inherent in the set-up: a drunk and profane department store santa. But if this was all the film had, it would end up like most modern comedies – a funny first ten minutes, and an incredibly boring last seventy whilst the joke wears thin. Which isn’t what we get here.

The ultimate success of this film has to be attributed to Billy Bob Thornton, who delivers not only a brilliant comic performance, but a believable one. Weirdly, I haven't been this impressed by him since Sling Blade, and it would be hard to think of two more different performances. We laugh at Willie because he’s such a sad-sack idiot, love him for the extent of his depravity – and love him some more because he doesn’t give a shit what we or anyone else think of him.

Most Christmas films about misfits like Willie are structured around a redemptive arc, during which we all discover the joys of Christmas. And whilst there is a redemptive arc of sorts, this is not redemption on the audience’s terms, but on Willie’s. So forget singing christmas carols, and calling your mother, decorating the tree and being filled with goodwill towards humanity. How do you think a violent, alcholic, swearing, santa-masquerading criminal who hates children is likely to discover the spirit of Christmas?

Heh. You'll have to watch the film to find out.

(obsession note: Joel and Ethan Coen executive produced. Maybe they should run with this gig more often . . . ?)

2004-12-22T11:04:00.000+11:00

Pop quiz

I have seen parts of the following films but missed the main titles, so I have no idea what they are. Any guesses?

1. In a hotel room in Havana - a giant shark movie with no name actors, involving huge megladon sharks big enough to swallow small boats whole. This film was hilarious. Highly recommended for anyone who can find it on video.

2. In a bus between Varadero and Santa Clara - a boxing film starring possibly Wesley Snipes and maybe Ving Rhames, set in a prison called Sweetwater.

3. In a bus between Santa Clara and Trinidad - a film about AIDS (I think) with an all star cast including Lily Tomlin and Richard Gere, in a weird docu-drama style.

Assistance much appreciated!

For the record - I have just been in a hot springs resort up in the mountains close to the start of the Amazon rainforest. Mindblowingly beautiful.

2004-12-05T08:25:00.000+11:00

Exorcist photo

The post below this one is the photo of me, dead, on the Exorcist stairs. Much thanks to Jasmine for making this possible!

Currently in Ecuador. The keyboards here are pretty weird. Someone just tried to sell me a bootleg DVD of The Incredibles in Spanish.

2004-12-05T08:23:00.000+11:00

2004-12-03T10:11:00.000+11:00

Sideways

The one film that I really wanted to see whilst in the US was Sideways, the latest film by the director who brought us Election and About Schmidt. Other aspects of its pedigree which intrigued me: it stars Paul Giametti the star of American Splendour. It co-stars Thomas Haden Church who was Ned on the old sitcom Ned and Stacey, which was a guilty pleasure for me a few years back. And the reviews are nothing short of astonishing - it has a rating of 97% on Rotten Romatoes which has it just in front of Pixar's The Incredibles (currently at 96%). People are muttering about the potential for Oscar nominations for the two actors, the director, one of the supporting actresses; as well as possible script and nomination runs as well.

I don't want to write too much about this film becuase it might be months anyway before it comes to Oz. But in a nutshell? Funny (and at times, seriously, funny), poignant, and with such a deft touch. There are dialogue-heavy moments in this film, but none of the most important character moments for me were about the dialogue - they were in the visuals, in cues of expression, in those small non-verbal interactions. Great to see a character focussed film with this kind of light touch.

Yes, yes Lyn, I hear you grumble, but what's the film about? Well, the film is essentially a buddy road trip: Giametti and Haden Church play old friends off for a week's holidaying before one of them is married. What happens in the space of that week, from Saturday to Saturday, occupies the length of the film: which is mostly concerned with the dynamic of old friendships, how men age (or don't age) through their relationships, and varying plays on sexual politics. Added to this is a sweet, sad rendition of the old theme of the frustrated author (Giametti) - as the film also works as a sort of hymn to the heroes amongst us who try to write, to create, who put their works out into the world, and are shot down for their trouble. It's also interesting to think about this film in relation to other recent flicks like Adaptation and Wonder Boys which look at writers in crisis.

Although it looks great on paper, the lack of major box office stars and the "independent" tag make it an uncertain candidate for Australian distribution. I mean, we'll probably get it, but god knows when, hey. So watch out for it people, and stay vigilant. It's not the biggest, brightest and best film you'll see; but the humour, the ideas, and the light melancholy will creep up on you whilst you watch.

Such a great film. See it, see it, see it. Tell your local theatre you want to see it, and feign amazement if it's not on their "upcoming features" list. See it.

Off to Ecuador tomorrow, and probably more sporadic email / internet usage. However, I'm expecting the food will be excellent. See y'all later, now.

2004-12-02T07:52:00.000+11:00

The Incredibles

Pixar never disappoints. It's mind-boggling how good every single film this animation studio has created - they have the highest hit rate of any filmmakers currently working today. This film is predictably awesome, striking exactly the right tone in terms of comedy, genuine feeling, whilst never losing sight of the story.

It's definately one of the better Pixar films. I think it ranks just thismuch below Finding Nemo, but I was reliably informed by several people that such an opinion was wrong and blasphemous . . . so there you go.

In other news, I was at the Arlington cemetary today and it was glacial, this icy wind just gusting across the ground making it almost impossible to move around outside. But the cemetery itself is an amazing little cross-section of major themes of US national identity: the Kennedy graves and eternal flame, the tomb of the unknown soliders and the changing of the guard; monuments to those who died in the Challenger and other space disasters, rows upon rows of white markers for those who've died in conflicts right back to the civil war. There was a funeral going on for someone whilst we were there - a small squad of tightly packed men in uniform marching in formation, with a string of cars winding behind them up the hill.

2004-12-01T10:53:00.000+11:00

Sightseeing: The Exorcist

You know that scene at the end of The Exorcist where the priest goes out the window and falls down a flight of stairs, and ends up lying in a lifeless heap at the bottom?

I was at that flight of stairs today, which is in Georgetown, Washington DC, and managed to get a fantastic photo. If you guessed that I featured in this photo stretched out on the ground as if I was a lifeless corpse? You'd be guessing right.

In other news, Washington is great. I've been drinking in a lot of awesome bars where all the political junkies go to get plastered when Congress is in session. I also finally tried Budweiser. Ewwwww.

2004-11-29T01:00:00.000+11:00

Crap movies seen on a plane

#1 Catwoman
I could only bring myself to sporadically watch this trainwreck of a film.

There's an early scene where Halle finds out about the extent of her powers when she attacks a neighbour whose party is too loud. She beats the crap out of him, shorts out the speakers with one of those soda guns, and then says portentously: "You hear that? Silence. It's all I wanted."

Then there's the showdown between Sharon Stone and Halle. They're beating the crap out of each other. And Sharon mocks: "after years, years! of using these facial products, my skin is unbreakable like marble!"

Yeah. I have no words. I knew it was bad. But seriously . . . bad.

In other news, Washington DC is rainy, and a bit cold.

2004-11-25T14:12:00.000+11:00

Lynscreens morphs into Lyntravels

I'm headed to Ecuador and Cuba via Washington DC for a month, starting Saturday.

When I'm hanging out on a beach with a cocktail and Fidel Castro, I doubt updating will be much of a priority. Still, I imagine there's internet cafes and all. I'll try and check in in a week or so to let you know how good it is NOT BEING AT WORK.

yeah!

2004-11-22T18:15:00.000+11:00

Beth D, with the master plan

Sorry everyone - just a post to get onto my friend Beth who is currently overseas - her website has gone down and emails to her account are bouncing. Don't know what's up with that, but here's hoping she still occasionally surfs the net. (And a general observation: since email / mobile phones became en vogue, I'm amazed at how quickly I get irritated when I can't get on to someone, like, right now. Remember when we had to rely on the postal services sometimes, and it would take whole days? Yeah, me either.)

[And - success! Beth contact has been made. Edited to remove my grovelling request that she email me. Those who wish to get in touch with Beth - she's made a few comments to this post, including her spiffy new email address.]

2004-11-20T10:48:00.000+11:00

Lost Things
A dreamy horror film which puts the scary back in the beach

Where are we?
I don’t know. Somewhere bad.

A story my mother never talks about involves a family trip to the beach when she was quite young. It was my mother, her sister and my grandparents; together with another couple who were friends of the family, and honorary aunt and uncle to my mother. I’m not sure which beach, I don’t know anything about the weather or how crowded it was, whether there were lifeguards. But there was a rip. The uncle who I think was a strong swimmer, was pulled out to sea and died there, probably within sight of the shore.

How does my mother feel when she’s on a beach? Is this the reason, or one of the reasons, we never went to the beach much when I was a kid? It’s hard to realise exactly how landscapes, memories, experiences become coded in your head. Our understandings of places, people and things is so malleable, so subtly affected by memory, that it's often hard to tell why your impression of a place suddenly turns from cheerful to something more sinister.

What’s brought on this train of thought, of course, is the film Lost Things, in which two girls and two boys go on an ill-fated trip to the beach. Director Martin Murphy and writer Stephan Sewell never resort to the tired question of what lurks in the dark of the water. In one of the early sequences, we see one of the girls standing motionless on a beautiful, isolated windy beach gazing at the surf. She looks down – already her feet are covered by the shifting grains. So easy, the film suggests, for things to be buried here. And already, you’re wondering what lies beneath . . . or lurks behind . . . these dunes.

The most important thing in this film is mood, and the film is a complete success at times in nailing an atmosphere that just sends chills up your spine. There’s not much blood, guts or action in this film – just a creeping sense of dread. God I love it when films get this right. And how sad is it that this is four, five times scarier, more effective, generally better than either Anacondas or AvP, and yet, I’d bet that most of the crew of Lost Things got paid peanuts for the shoot.

Don’t walk into this film expecting a masterpiece. It’s not entirely successful, and there are story elements that I think could have been pared out, as well as a few things that seem not so much enigmatic as not-thought-out. But this film has a hold on you, an eerie resonance that will linger after the last frame as you walk home. Preferably in the dark.

2004-11-16T14:07:00.000+11:00

Sometimes, I wish Tom Hanks was a Lost Thing

1. Go see Lost Things* - new Australian horror film set on a beach. It's great, very moody - my review probably arriving tomorrow, where I applaud it for being four to five times better than Anacondas and AvP combined. Margaret and David liked it! You can see it at your local Hoyts! And if we don't start supporting badly advertised local films, all the directors are going to move to Europe to smoke pot in Amersterdam.

2. I just read this stupid article. Tom Hanks has landed the lead in the upcoming film of The Da Vinci Code. (I haven't read the book because I veto anything which references the Holy Grail, because, god, enough already.) It's another Howard/Goldsmith film, their first film together being A Beautiful Mind. Is that right? Feel free to mock me if I'm wrong, I haven't looked that up.

Anyway, there's this quote from Ron Howard on Hanks playing the lead character, a professor who unravels some mystery about the Holy Grail: "We probably don't need his status from a box office standpoint, but he gives Langdon instant legitimacy."

Why? Because everyone looks at Hanks and thinks "medieval scholar?" Holy meaningless soundbite, batman.

*just realised that the film is not "Buried Things" as I originally posted, but "Lost Things"; and have edited accordingly. Way to effectively promote the film there, Lyn.

2004-11-10T09:53:00.000+11:00

The Blacklist
Hanging out with David Stratton
. . . oh, and talking about McCarthyism

So it was me, David, and about a hundred other people – the event was a course titled “The Blacklist” run by the centre of continuing education through the University of Sydney. It was a day long film course run by David, consisting of three full length films, a number of short excerpts, commentary, and lunch, coffee and cakes at appropriate intervals. Perfect.

“The Blacklist” refers to the McCarthyist era in the US, a time during the Cold War when a number of anti-communists freaks in the US administration got way too much power and public influence, and used it to stage a witch hunt. They were after people in Hollywood: directors, actors and writers who had “communist” links and were using their power to influence the direction of films or television (and thus polluting the mind of the innocent populace). There's a good general essay about the main players and movements of the time here.

People whose names came up were asked to cooperate with the committee – and cooperating involved blackening the names of friends or acquaintances as potential communists. Many refused. Many acquiesced. It’s easy to applaud the former as heroes (which they were), hard to know how to see the latter (there but for the grace of god, etc). Elia Kazan’s name came up – he was one of the first people named by the committee, and he ended up offering them several names including the actor Zero Mostel. Controversy over Kazan’s conduct re-emerged a few years ago when he was given a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars. A standing ovation is standard for such an accolade, but a fair portion of the room remained seated.

But hey, I knew a lot of this stuff already. What did this day actually teach me? I think there were three main points David was making in his lecture and in the chosen excerpts and films.

First, how films have dealt with the actual historical subject matter. There are a bunch of films (some quite good) which use the blacklist as subject, directly dealing with the events, the personalities and the outcomes of that era. Some of the ones we saw excerpts from are listed here.

Second, the effect that the blacklist had on the talent directly involved. Blacklisted directors, writers and actors were a talented bunch of people who were suddenly forced out of work. Some went to England, others never worked again. It’s like a kind of politically charged brain drain – an immense loss of potential that the US industry really suffered from at the time. The exodus to London also created a really interesting (almost American flavoured) film renaissance over in the UK in the 1970s.

Third, if you look at the work of those directors and writers who did work again, you can pick up persistent themes of persecution, paranoia, redemption, and betrayal which take on layers of meaning once you know their background.

I don’t want to go into David’s extended lecture much more than that – after all, it was probably only fun if you were there. But I will give you a brief rundown of the three films we saw in full, all of which were excellent:

The Front (1976)
A brilliant film starring Woody Allen. The basic plot involves Woody (a loser bartender) starting a new career as a “front” – a name for blacklisted writers to use as an alias so that they could still earn a living. This film is widely regarded as the best of those films "about" the blacklist; its edge is probably because the writer, director, and some of the actors (including Zero Mostel) were actually blacklisted themselves a decade or two earlier. Hilarious, black, and really gives you an idea of the desperation and paranoia of the time. A pivotal line involves the word “fuck”, and is apparently one of the reasons this film never got decent television airplay (which is possibly also why it’s not too well known today).

Never on Sunday (1960)
A film by a blacklisted director set in Greece, which is such an absolute breeze of a film to watch – the cinematic equivalent of being on a really fun holiday. Sunny, light as a soufflé, hilarious, endearing and just such a laugh. David talked about how obvious it was that the crew was having a ball making it – and it’s so true. A description of the plot does not make the film sound as good as it is – but essentially, it’s about a Greek island, the local prostitute who loves her job, and the American tourist who decides it’s his responsibility to educate her out of her life of misery. The central performance of Melina Mercouri as the prostitute is incredible: she’s funny, adorable, dynamic, sexy and she just owns the film.

The Servant (1963)
Another film by a blacklisted director (written by Harold Pinter!), The Servant is incredibly hard to watch – not because it’s bad, but because few films force you to be this uncomfortable, this claustrophobic with the characters for so long. A creepy depiction of British class system and undercurrents of tension and power between a young gentleman and his manservant. There are only four characters, and the film is almost entirely filmed inside a single house. By the end of the film, I wanted to get outside so badly I could almost taste it. Apparently the director and Pinter teamed up on at least one other film project. I want to see it because it will be brilliant, but I also don't want to see it at all. Maybe when I'm already in a horrible mood.

In other news, I was easily the youngest person in the room, with the exception of one girl who had come along with her mother. Dude! where's my demographic?

2004-11-04T17:20:00.000+11:00

Eucalyptus
(comment on pre-production spin)

I've been meaning to snark about this casting news for a while - Nicole Kidman is apparently on board for the Russell Crowe / Geoffrey Rush adaptation of Eucalyptus, the Murray Bail novel. Eucalyptus is notable for three reasons: it's a haunting, oddly funny, romantic Australian novel; it won a lot of awards; and it's one of the two books I've accidently left on the bus. (I had to re-read from page 125 all over again by the time I got around to buying a second copy. Very annoying. And I think Beth spoiled some of the end before I'd read it because she'd assumed I'd finished, which but for the bus incident, I would have . . . man, all that angst just comes flooding back . . .)

So, Nicole Kidman. I love your work most of the time, and I love that you do edgy arthouse projects, but I'm not sure how you can believably portray a character who is meant to be in her early 20s. You're an actress, I dig that, but no amount of acting can make you believably ten years younger, no matter what Luke Perry says.

On the plus side though, I remember writing something recently (possibly this site? possibly Fametracker) where I said words to the effect of "some stars will probably never make another Australian film - like Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman, and probably Cate Blanchett." To be proven wrong on all three counts is pretty awesome, really.

Ah, who knows. Maybe I'm being too close-minded about this. NK will probably rock in this film, and the acting triumvirite of Kidman / Crowe / Rush does have a bit of a thrill, doesn't it? Also, if they cast someone the right age, like Abbie Cornish, the love scenes with Russ would feel a bit jail-baity.

2004-11-02T15:31:00.000+11:00

Lynrants: why media coverage of the AFI Awards sucked

When Return of the King won the largest number of awards ever won by a single film in last year’s Oscar awards, Australian reviews largely concentrated on how terrible the year of film had been that a single film had such dominance. “Oh god”, said all the commentary on the Oscars with perilous voices of doom, “the sweep is indicative of the weakness of this year’s films and the trouble with the industry as a whole.”

Except . . . not. Australian reviewers didn’t do that, because at stage we all loved Peter Jackson and secretly think of his success as kind-of, sort-of like Australia winning, because as John Clarke always says, New Zealand is part of Australia when we’re tallying the success of the entertainment industry. No, Return of the King’s dominance was the jewel on the crown, the just deserts, a sign that Hollywood had finally realised the triumph that is the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the genius that is Peter Jackson. The tone: adulation, the conclusion: finally those tricky Oscar voters have got it right.

But it’s a different story when it comes to Australia’s own sweeping film at the AFI awards last week. According to all of Australia’s newspapers, the story was not about the arrival of Cate Shortland (I mean, oh my god that was a first feature?). Nor was it the coming of age of Abbie Cornish, appropriately enough in a coming of age film (what a debut). Nor was it the leveller of a performance delievered by Sam Worthington (I’ve seen him in two other films and thought he was part of the furniture, and then he walked out in this one and holy crap, Sam, you can act!). No, the story was that the dominance of Somersault, demonstrates the general crapness of the state of the film industry. This despite the fact that it has received almost universally good reviews, and was selected for the Cannes film festival.

Here’s a smattering of stories which illustrate this journalist groupthink. The commentary only ranges in tone - some are snarky asides, others are more nuanced (Gary Maddox is the best of the bunch) but the overall message? Poor competition this year, and Somersault is undeserving. I read some identical stuff in the Daily Telegraph and The Canberra Times as well, but they aren't publishing online.

It’s not that all these people are wrong. Think it’s a bad year? obviously you’re entitled to your opinion. Not everyone likes Somersault [a wave in the direction of the peanut gallery, where some of you are waving placards saying “coming of age films are so 1982”]. But this doesn't feel like a collective majority to me, it feels like a default reached by lazy use of wire service releases. And that's just annoying.

I think Somersault is a great film. I also think that the clean sweep was almost certainly not a given, and on some races was probably extremely close run. Rachel Blake (Tom White) was probably only a few votes from Supporting Actress; likewise Colin Friels (Tom White) from Best Actor. I'd like to think the highly innovative director of The Finished People was in with a chance. The set design and feel of Love's Brother was great, and probably also ranked up there in the relevant technical categories. A Cold Summer should have been a strong contender in the acting categories (although its release was so small, probably not enough people saw it).

So if I was a journalist, what could the story be? I'm glad you asked.

Story #1: The AFI is ready to value newcomers, rather than wait for a track record to make it “safe”. Opening lines: “The AFI Awards delivered a clean sweep last night to Somersault, demonstrating that unlike the US or the UK, the Australian industry voters aren’t afraid to back new talent. This makes the AFI unlike pretty much any other awards organisation worldwide. As industry analyst Lyn commented, “Yay for us! – and you can quote me on that.”

Story #2: The AFI is apparently more willing than just about any other cinema awards group to award both direction and writing awards to women. Opening lines: “The clean sweep to Somersault was an almost unheard of feat by women in film: for the second year in a row, the directing and writing awards went to a female auteur. Last year it was Sue Brooks for Japanese Story; this year, it’s Cate Shortland who has won for writing and directing her feature debut. By contrast, the US Academy Awards are yet to honour a woman for direction, and even awards for writing are few and far between. Industry analyst Lyn was too busy getting off her face on champagne over how huge a deal that is to give us a quote.”

Story #3: - Hello, there’s been a renaissance in documentary making this year, if anyone hadn’t noticed.
Opening lines: “Forget the sweep to Somersault. The real story is that Australian documentary making is taking off, no doubt helped by the international success of Michael Moore. There were four high quality documentaries nominated for “best documentary” this year. The President v David Hicks, the genuinely heartbreaking tale of Terry Hicks’ search for the truth about his son. The Men Who Would Conquer China, a constantly surprising and intriguing take on businessmen trying their moves in the “new age” of China. Lonely Boy Richard, which tells the story of an indigenous family split by the alcoholism of one of its sons. And Helen’s War: Portrait of a Dissident – a take on activism US style and family. AFI voter Lyn who saw all four films, stated: "brilliant, all of them. Especially The Men who would conquer China. Who would have thought that all that shit about foreign investment would be so involving?"

Story #4 - And thank Christ that nothing went to One Perfect Day. "Lyn, a viewer who is still trying grow her eyes back after having scratched them out whilst watching this film, commented 'I admit this isn't a great idea for a story. But imagine if One Perfect Day had managed to get some technical award, like Best Sound. Then it could have put "AFI Award winning film" on its DVD cover. And that, friends, would have been criminal.' "

2004-10-27T14:04:00.000+10:00

Anacondas
a.k.a Attack of the Very Big Snakes, again, for some more

It was 39 degrees in Sydney, and we have no air-conditioning. Only one thing to do: see a movie in a nice cool multiplex with a big mega-cup of coke and ice. But I missed out on the beginning of The Terminal by twenty minutes. The billboard informed me that I’d have to wait an hour and a half for the next session.

Or, I could wait twenty minutes, and see Anacondas: Search for the Blood Orchid.

At moments like this, it’s like I become a cartoon version of myself with good/bad movie angels poised over each shoulder.

Good movie angel: There’s been some interesting reviews about The Terminal – which is an adaptation of a book with post cold-war themes and ideas of self / nation / society.
Bad movie angel: Immediate gratification! The B-grade awesomeness of Really Big Snakes! Spot that cliché! The “who dies first” bonanza!
Lyn: Hmm. You both present compelling arguments. It’s a tough call.
Good movie angel: [sighs] Save it. You’re totally going to see Anacondas.
Lyn: [guiltily] Heh. Uh, yeah. I just wanted to let you down gently.
Good movie angel: [huffily] Yeah, whatever. You lost me a few years ago when you hired Children of the Corn part II . . .
Lyn: Wow. I forgot about that.
Good movie angel: . . . thereby paying actual money to see Children of the Corn part II . . .
Lyn: Yeah, okay.
Good movie angel: . . . during which people were actually impaled through the neck by the corn.
Lyn: Yes. My taste sucks. I think everyone gets the idea.

So, Anacondas. Originally the sequel was going to be titled “Venom”, but then someone remembered that anacondas aren’t actually venomous. (Ha! so stupid, it must be true.)

The plot concerns a bunch of pseudo scientists entering the jungles of Borneo in search of an orchid which only blooms for a brief window each year. Ten or so people assemble to go and get the flowers before it’s too late. It’s not clear why more than half of these people are here. By my count you need two: someone to steer the boat, and someone to pick the damn flowers – and yet, there’s like ten people tagging along. Guess what those extra people are for?

I’m happy to report that despite the fact that this flick has a bigger budget than the original, the snakes are still just as fake, the humans just as ridiculous, and the result still as oddly satisfying. It’s a derivative sequel, but refreshingly, the theft isn’t from the original Anaconda – this is Deep Blue Sea with snakes. I counted around eight plot elements that have been “borrowed”. Maybe in a mega-sequel it’ll be the sharks v the snakes. (Don't laugh. Match-ups are hip right now, yo. In fact, I think I'm gonna write that script proposal right now . . .)

There’s hilarious overuse of Creepy Music Signalling Impending Doom. Inept use of the fake-out (creepy music and tension building only for it to be a mouse / penguin / whatever). My favourite example of this is when someone hears a noise in a tiny cupboard on the ship. The creepy music plays, they’re sidling up to the cupboard – and I’m prepared to hazard a guess that the twenty odd metre anaconda is not going to turn up in a 50 cm wall cupboard. Unsurprisingly, this turns out to be right.

The film also overplays what I call "horror movie Darwinism” – selection of those who survive on the basis of a fairly random moral code of ethics. You do something vaguely heroic? You’ll live. You swindle, cheat and/or lie? You’ll die. Yawn.

Lots of awesome exposition, funny because they try and make it sound so authoritative by using buzz words like "genetics" and "mating season". It's like you become that mean kid at the back of the class who's sensed that the teacher doesn't know the answer to your questions and keeps on pushing to make it obvious. What’s that? the ability to regenerate cells is only contained within the genetic structure of a single obscure orchid which blooms in the wilds of Borneo but only for three weeks every seven years? Of course, Professor! Now tell me more about this "snake orgy" . . .

And oh god, the direction! The direction is so cheesy. It’s like watching a soap opera – whenever someone says something witty, the film has a chain of reaction shots: the blonde chick looks amused, and she looks at the Latino guy who waves expressively with his hand, getting the attention of the ship’s captain, who picks his teeth with a knife and glowers. (These reaction shots also happen every time the Very Big Snakes come out to eat someone, and the last reaction shot is usually the monkey.)

And that’s not even mentioning Snake Vision. You know, those great shots where the camera is off scurrying through the undergrowth, and you can practically hear the director choking on his cocktail and screaming out with a megaphone to the exhausted camera guys working the crane “no! we need smooth movements! Smooth and winding like a snake!” Hee hee.

But, you know. The movie theatre had awesome air conditioning on a too hot day, my soft drink had lots of ice, and the jungle looked pretty. It was a great ridiculous, silly B movie, and didn’t try to sell me a moral (Day After Tomorrow), or impress upon me that Oh My God, The Entire Human Race Is At Stake Here (A v P).

Very Big Snakes. Gotta love 'em. (No?)

2004-10-26T09:15:00.000+10:00

Forgot my homework

Man. I forgot my disk, again. You'll just have to wait for my hard-hitting review of . . . a film I'm too embarassed to own yet that I just paid money to see.

I was going to put up an old post that I never got round to publishing, which was a conversation between a zombie from Dawn of the Dead and a zombie from 28 Days Later. I thought it was hilarious when I wrote it (and you know, it made some pertinent points about the differing depictions of zombies in both films), but then I re-read it, and went - eh. Now I'm looking for it, it's gone.

The only bit I remember is the beginning:

Zombie from 28 Days Later: How's it going?
Zombie from Dawn of the Dead: Oh, can't complain. Walked over there. Hit a wall. Came back.

I'll leave you to imagine the lost genius of the rest of it.

* * * * * * * * * *

So, I feel I should offer you guys something to read.

Check out what Mcsweeneys has to say about zombies. And baseball.

This is so the movie that I would write. (How did I find out about the top-secret government program? Oh, you know. Google.)

And saving the best for last: versions of well known films in which the protagonist has been replaced with Leon Trotsky.

2004-10-22T15:04:00.000+10:00

Can't get it out of my head

Everyooooooooone has had more sex than me! Oooooo!

Everyooooooooone has had more sex than me! *little dance!*

Man, it's so hard to work in these conditions.

And just for something a bit more substantive, here's another rant by Humphrey of TISM that I left off my last post:

[this was right after they played some footage of a song I can't remember, but it involved the lyrics "all my prayers have now been answered / Delta Goodrem has got cancer"]

Humphrey: "You know that band, Jet? They're really hardcore and alternative. They wear thongs onstage at the ARIAs. They swear. And they dis Australian Idol. I mean, how fucking edgy is that?"

(. . . and just watch the clip already. You know you want to.)

2004-10-21T15:54:00.000+10:00

John Safran v TISM

I went to see this Popcorn Taxi special event. Easily the strangest night of my life – TISM interviewed onstage by John Safran. It was supposed to be about this new DVD from TISM, but naturally, the plan went a little awry.

I'm gonna give you a breakdown of the evening. I do this more as a coping mechanism for my own sanity.

I – John Safran
John Safran was introduced as our host. Unexpectedly, he’s a great live onstage presence – engaging, hilarious, and a charming mix of self-deprecation and self-obsession.

A few highlights:

[as soon as John is on stage, some guy rocks up to the front with a placard saying “I wuv Rove”]
John: [blinks] Oh. Is this a happening?

John: I just want you to know, I turned down The Panel to be here tonight. Yeah, sure, The Panel would have got me more national exposure. But I just knew that if I didn't turn up, some lefty pinko would be on the internet talking about how I shafted Popcorn Taxi, and how I’m just becoming a commercial whore.

John: [reading from DVD promotional material] " 'Humphrey B Flaubert and Ron Hitler Barassi will sign autographs and womens’ breasts after the show.’ See, that’s not Safranesque humour. I never make jokes about sex. It just makes people uncomfortable.”

II – DVD, live concert footage, part 1
We get to see a couple of excerpts from the DVD – TISM live in concert. The perfomance of “Greg the Stop Sign” is only marginally hampered by the fact that the singer stagedives into the mosh pit and stays there (without a mike) for most of the song, whilst the audience tears his silver suit to pieces and rips his mask off. The rest of the band seem completely unconcerned about this. When the bouncers finally drag him out, the guy recoups, pauses, and jumps straight back out there again.

III – The video clip competition

Some guy from Madman DVD chats with John about how TISM ran the competition for creating a video clip for their song “Everyone has had more sex than me” because they were too cheap to pay for making one.

John asks the Madman DVD guy about how the TISM sales are going, because, you know, he’s curious to compare it with the sales for Music Jamboree.

Madman guy rolls his eyes, looks at him, and is all - John, I don’t think you need to worry.

We then see a clip reel of the video clips which did not win the TISM competition. Most are crazy, crazy, crazy. One features John Howard, and is disturbing. There’s a really cute 3D one where the song is sung by a chorus of little sperm.

Then, they play the winning clip in full. It is fantastic. It also achieves the impossible – it’s perfectly appropriate for a TISM song, and yet, absolutely adorable. Created in three and a half weeks by an animator who works for Disney.

John interviews the animator, and asks him questions like “will you be fired for this?” and “did you use stuff from work to make this clip?” The audience asks questions like “do people still try and splice porn into animated films?”

V - DVD, live concert footage, part 2

We see more live footage of TISM playing a few songs. Still crazy. In “defecate on my face”, instead of actually singing, someone hands a mike to these guys in the front row, who do a great job of singing (perfectly) all the relevant lyrics. TISM stands around on stage, doing these bizarre dance moves which are a cross between “Can’t get you out of my head” and a Nazi rally.

VI – TISM onstage

Humphrey B Flaubert and Ron Hitler Barassi arrive onstage. Crowd cheers. They are dressed in head to toe silver space suits with these bulges in them which means that if they stand up in a certain way, they each resemble a giant erect silver penis.

Humphrey on arriving on stage walks up to John, touches John's forehead, and immediately starts convulsing around on the stage (a reference to the exorcism episode in the just aired final of John Safran v God). Heh. He then gets up, turns to John and says: “Look. Seriously though, what we all really want to know, is – was it real?”

Surrealness ensues. It’s as if John is being interviewed about the exorcism by a guy who has actually watched the episode very carefully and anaylsed John’s body language, and compared it to stuff John has done in the past in a good exercise of media analysis. But said guy is dressed in a silver space suit penis thing. Ron is bored and starts to wonder around the stage playing with his microphone. He ends up in the front row of the audience next to some girl.

John: Yeah, look. There was a stage when I thought, I don’t want to dick around with this. I don’t want to go into this being clever, I want to go into prepared or ready to accept whatever happens.
Humphrey: so it was real?
John: Either he hypnotised me, or yeah. It was real. One of those.
Humphrey: But did you talk to him or meet him before the exorcism?
John: Only over the phone a few weeks beforehand.
Humphrey: So he couldn’t have hypnotised you over the phone.
John [rueful, but straightforward]: Yeah. I know.
[long pause]
Humphrey: [insert row of expletives]
John: Yeah. I know.

VII – TISM finally start talking about themselves

The scary weird members of the audience ask scary weird questions. TISM successfully make fun of everyone who asks a question, whilst giving away absolutely nothing about anything.

For example:
Audience member: Wherefore now for TISM?
Ron: It’s William fucking Shakespeare!
Humphrey: Yea, verily for you are a wanker.

VIII – DVD - Weird shit

An unreleased video from the DVD. Unreleased, for the TISM song “I may be a c*nt, but I’m not a f*cking c*nt. Involves a stripper.

Then, some random concert footage which essentially involved the humilation of some gig organiser.

Yeah, look. I’d pretty much just started shaking my head and giggling helplessly at everything by this stage.

IX – End

Humphrey hopes that we enjoyed driving out from where we all live – “which must be a long trip from way out west, Parramatta direction”. He hopes he gave us a paradigm shift. “Paradigm. You can all look that up when you get home.”

2004-10-19T10:51:00.000+10:00

Love Actually and other airport scenes

I hated all of Love Actually in about thirty different ways (I made a list somewhere, but I hated the film so much that I don't even want to revisit my reasons for hating it). Anyway, remember that scene in the airport at the beginning? Hugh Grant voiceovers that airports aren't that sad, because they show that love "actually, is all around" - you see people meeting each other or farewelling, and hugging, and so on. And I call bullshit. Airports are depressing as hell. They're grey, impersonal, and vaguely suspicious. People search your luggage and take your nail clippers, and then they serve you bad coffee and don't let you go through to the departure lounge to say goodbye. Love is probably all around at death row executions when the family turns up to farewell the guy getting killed as it's their last chance to reconcile with the black sheep of the family, etc, but that doesn't make a gas chamber a cheerful place.

There's a fantastic Douglas Adams quote on the first page of Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (or perhaps the sequel?) - which talks about how architects must sit around for hours to make airports depressing. It's a good quote, but right now, I'm too depressed to even look it up.

Anyway. Screw you Hugh Grant. Screw you, creator of Love, Actually, that guy I hate so much that I seem to have purposefully forgotten his name. Screw you, makers of airport coffee.

Now I feel better.

2004-10-18T14:57:00.000+10:00

Collateral

Collateral is a great film, and you should totally see it - a superbly rendered two character piece about a hitman, a taxi driver, and a very, very long night. Both the leads – Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise – are excellent. And Mark Ruffalo in a secondary role is superb, in his usual not-wasting-a-gesture way . . . he’s as much of a talent as Edward Norton, but less showy about it.

From here on in are spoilers - none of it is really giving much away, but it’s such a pleasure to watch the action unwind in the film I think you’d be doing yourself a disservice to read on if you haven’t seen the film. Divided into mildish spoilers (for those who already know quite a bit about the film and don't mind having some of the minor stuff spoiled for them) and strong spoilers (where I give the game away).

[Here be mildish spoilers: if I were you, I'd skip these if you haven't seen the film]

Collateral is a tale about Vincent the hitman (Cruise) and Max the taxi driver (Foxx). It’s unusual in an action piece like this one for any depth of character to be established at all beyond the most basic level of motivation and conflict. A lesser film would have started with Vincent getting into Max’s taxi. But this is not a lesser film – and so we see a long introductory section where Max drives other people around. Most importantly, Max meets Annie (Jada Pinkett Smith) when she steps into his taxi and starts to argue about the route. In his interview on At the Movies*, Foxx agreed with Margaret that this section of the film was vital in establishing Max; because these scenes make us care, see how he interacts with people, and what makes him tick.

For Foxx, these early scenes with Max are about “connection” – and I agree. We see Max drifting through the opening scenes until his chemistry and understanding with Annie spark of something significant, a connection, a meeting of minds. When she gets out of the taxi, Max is back on autopilot, not really engaging with what’s going on around him. He picks up Vincent, talks to Vincent without really engaging, or attempting to really engage with Vincent's conversation. And then . . . BANG - that scene from the previews where a body falls from the sky onto the windscreen of the taxi. Vincent’s world is tilted off its axis (in appropriately enough, a fall from the heavens which even he can’t ignore). It’s a terrific moment in the film, and you can see Max suddenly, belatedly dragged into the “now” of “what the fuck is going on”, the realisation that he’s suddenly in over his head. He connects again, with Vincent – beginning the real rapport of this film. A conversation over the course of a night, in which both know that Vincent will kill Max once the job is done.

One way the film suggests you can understand these men is through their respective professions: Max as taxi driver, Vincent as hit man. Vincent is active, someone who makes things happen, who creates chaos. Max is passive – as a cab driver, he drives around people who have things to do, he enables other people to be “active” and yet is never quite active himself. When Vincent moves, he galvanises the world; when Max moves, he is doing it for a fare, to achieve someone else’s destination.

(This certainly reflects both Vincent and Max’s self images at the opening of their conflict as alternately confident and insecure. However, the film certainly erodes both these positions. Isn’t Vincent, after all, also a person for hire, who doesn’t really decide his own destiny? And hasn’t Max’s job given him a range of insights, abilities and strengths?)

Another early hint on the nature of these characters is their brief references to music. One of Max’s first lines in the film is when Annie has climbed into his taxi, and asks him to turn up the radio. “Oh, you like the classics, do you?” he asks.** Max himself, it’s implied, likes the classics – we hear him later play a brief little piece of solo piano music on the radio. When Vincent talks about music, it’s quite different. He likes jazz, bringing it up more than once, and talking about jazz greats with authority. Without too much underlining, this is another means to compare the men: Vincent is all about improvisation, whereas Max is about routine.

(But again – this gets blurred as the movie progresses. Vincent may talk about liking improvisation, but there are a few key moments when Max changes the rules. And here, we find that Vincent doesn’t like improvisation at all, where that improvisation results in his authority or control being contested. Further, a loss of such control doesn’t just annoy him, there’s brief moments each time where he seems almost at a loss, as if he can’t comprehend it.)

[Mega spoilers. Be warned.]

Central to the film is how both Vincent and Max see themselves: as individuals, as part of L.A, as inhabitants of the world, and as humans in the tide of humanity. Vincent makes his position explicit, as at several moments he gives short monologues on his views of life, the universe and everything. We’re all so insignificant, Vincent seems to suggest, that a few deaths here or there don’t matter. Questions like “who is this man” or “why are you killing him” are just irrelevant, and Vincent refuses to consider them simply because we’re all so random, so minor within the scope of time or space. Their deaths will be so insignificant to the world, Vincent argues, so why feel guilt, remorse or responsibility?

Max’s views are not as explicit. When Vincent attacks L.A through his story about a dead man on the subway, Max simply responds with “I live here”: which indicates that he does feel personally challenged by Vincent’s opinions, but is not itself an answer to Vincent’s point. Vincent’s various stories, manifestos and insistence on the cheapness of human life initially meet with little or no rebuttal from Max. It’s not only the gun that’s pointed at his head, it seems that he can’t counter Vincent’s glib self-justifications, possibly because he hasn’t thought about the meaning / status of human interactions - he just lives here. But Max visits his sick mother in hospital every day, and has a personal relationship with the guy who sells him petrol. The simple moral way he acts and expects others to act indicates that he does approach the world with an opposing belief system. It just takes a little longer for Max to figure out how to actually say this: to speak up and assert his opposing ethics.

And this is probably the most compelling arc of the film. Max has moral absolutes in conflict with Vincent's view of the world, but he just won't/can't contradict Vincent and say them. He has dreams, he won’t live them. He has abilities to get out of his rut, he won’t use them . . . in one sense this film is about Max becoming engaged, connected, switched on about his life. As Max’s mother said, [paraphrasing] “it would take a gun at his head to make him do anything”. When she says this in the film it seems at first to just be funny – but it turns out to be true in another sense. It takes a gun at his head for Max to start, finally, doing.

I think this is a great film, but I can pinpoint my moment of greatest disappointment with it: the scene where the identity of the last target is revealed. I remember sinking down in my seat a little and thinking – oh, damn. The conclusion was still satisfying enough – especially the nice symmetry of the ending which somehow managed not to be trite or contrived. And if you must have a shootout showdown on a train (which is frankly, way overused), at least in the hands of a director this good it will still be effective enough to end the film well.

But from the point we saw that photo, I immediately felt the film had shifted gears into being just that touch more Hollywood. Up til that moment, I was living with the horrible certainty that at the end of the film, no matter how much I’d like to convince myself otherwise (like that scene in the jazz bar), Vincent will kill Max. The shift of the film back to Annie meant that I knew Max was going to live; and changed the film into more of a hero quest rather than a dark exploration of human nature.

Still as Jase pointed out to me in our long discussion after our session of the film, coincidence and fate does play a huge part in this film. Vincent nearly doesn’t get into Max’s cab at all. The entire interaction of the two lead characters is based on chance – that Vincent would choose this cab. It’s sort of chaos theory writ large, consequences and reactions stemming from random events. Making the final target not incredibly unrealistic, but just a further intersection of chance / luck / fate. And just like the result of the flurry of bullets traded at the end of the film.

Anyway. With a changed ending, this film could have been genius. As it is, it's merely very very good and still the best action / thriller since forever. Kudos to the Aussie screenwriter for writing so convincingly about L.A that I had to double check this morning that he was actually from Sydney.

[Footnotes]

* This interview, and the nuclear level of chemistry between Margaret and Jamie Foxx made me wish that someone would pitch a script where these two became a buddy team of sleuth / investigators out to solve crimes. I’d watch it.

**And this moment distracted me for almost the next ten minutes – because although the “you’re a fan of the classics” line indicates that you were meant to draw the above conclusions, the piece of music playing at this point of the film is a Groove Armada track off their recent Lovebox album. A song of 2003 can’t be meaningfully referred to as a “classic”. I wonder what happened here – did Mann originally intend to use another song? Was the soundtrack a last second switch? No idea, but damn this was distracting! (Note to Jason: before you ask, just because you made me paranoid, I looked up the Collateral soundtrack, and voila - track #3 is Groove Armada, Hands of Time. And of course, you would be on an aeroplane right now so that I can't gloat about being right.)

2004-10-14T14:24:00.000+10:00

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

The ubiquitous Ben Stiller is fast becoming a tired brand. I loved Zoolander – unpredictable and uneven, but just the funniest weirdest comedy I’d seen in forever. Then, we had a whole stack of boring Ben Stiller comedies, none of which were actually funny. But now? We have Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. And just like that, my love for Mr Stiller is back.

As in Zoolander with its male models, there are many inherently funny things peopling the world of Dodgeball. Dodgeball the game is itself funny. Pirates are funny. Fitness freaks? Funny. Russian women with a unibrow? Funny. Instructional videos from the 50s? Funny. This film had me within the first minute or so, when Stiller's smarmy gym manager says in his promotional ad: "we turn Frankenstein into Franken-fine!"

But what this film does really well is that it both follows and subverts a formula. We have all seen this story so many times – a group of underdogs engage in a tournament to win against the bad guys. It’s the plot of pretty much every sporting film, ever. And Dodgeball uses this formula as its structure, whilst at the same time cracking jokes about how predictable it is. A not-too-spoilerish example: there’s a scene where Stiller’s evil gym owner is intimidating the team from Average Joe’s, with “you’ll never make it!” style threats. But whilst the scene is a standard, it plays hilariously just because Stiller’s character is so, so stupid that his “threats” have the audience in the aisles. There are similar twists on the pre-competition training scenes ("you can dodge a wrench? you can dodge a ball"), the locker room motivational speech, the schtick of commentators at matches, the “we can’t do it without you” eleventh hour moment, and a dozen more clichés than you can poke a stick at. Seriously, very funny.

And because the film follows such a fixed structure as its base, it doesn’t suffer from Zoolander’s problems with focus – this is a much more cohesive film than Zoolander, with less dead air and more purpose to its action. The comedy is still just as weird, but the writers never lose track of the ball, so to speak.

And it’s just funny, really laugh out loud, I-know-that-joke-was-lame-but-screw-it-that-was-hilarious kind of funny. On some level you’d have to be clinically dead not to enjoy this movie.

So Ben, you have regained my affection. I give it three months before you screw it up by starring in another “romantic” “comedy” with Drew Barrymore.

2004-10-11T18:26:00.000+10:00

My Election Day

Cast:
Liberal - an older guy, who was “friendly” to me in a “I’m trying to intimidate you” kind of way.
Lyn - (a.k.a "me") handing out Labor leaflets.
Green - young, sweet guy who looked frequently overwhelmed.
Socialist - Young socialist dude who seriously acting like it was his favourite day of the year.
Democrat - Weedy guy in an akubra hat. Didn’t talk to anyone. Looked depressed.
Crazy Man
Old Lady
Partygoers
Friend at Party
Poodle
with special guest stars Tanya Plibersek, Mark Latham and Kerry O'Brien
and introducing: a baby

SCENE: POLLING BOOTH, day, ext.

I
Liberal: So, are you a student? [the way he says it, this isn't a question].
Lyn: No. I’m a lawyer.
Liberal: Oh.
Lyn: [jokily] Yes, just one of the many highly educated Labor voters.
Liberal: . . . [Editorial note: I totally floored him here. It was glorious]
[five minutes later]
Liberal: Are you a Labor member?
Lyn: No, actually.
Liberal: Ah. A "true believer".
Lyn: [pause] Yeah. I guess I am.

II
Two old ladies rebuff my leaflets, take Liberal guy's stuff, and walk into the booth.
Liberal: [Aiming for funny, but kind of gloating] Well, I guess that’s two votes!
Lyn: Yeah. And you did so much to get those.
Liberal: . . . [Editorial note: Lyn - 2. Liberal guy - o]

III
Crazy Man: [to Green, yelling aggressively] No! I’m not taking your leaflet! I’ll vote for you when you fight bushfires!
Green: Huh?
Crazy Man: You heard me! When you fight bushfires! [walks into booth]
Green: [puzzled, a little freaked] When I fight bushfires? Did he mean, like me personally?
Liberal: Didn't he mean, like, the party policy? or . . .
Lyn: Don't worry about it. He was crazy.
Green: Yeah?
Socialist, Lyn, Liberal: [insert various reassuring forms of "totally dude".]
Green: [relief] oh, man. That was kinda scary.
Socialist: Heh. Fight bushfires, everyone!

IV
Liberal: Anyone got sunscreen?
Socialist: You should be fighting bushfires!
Lyn: My feet are sunburnt.
Socialist: Go fight bushfires!
Lyn: Isn't it time to retire that yet?
Socialist: No.

V
Old Lady: [walks up to Lyn] You have to win this election. You just have to.
Lyn: I know how you feel. After this much John Howard, I think some of us are at breaking point . . .
Old Lady: [takes my hand] But I remember. We used to be compassionate in this country. We used to care about people, not being so greedy. And now, none of those things matter. Australia has changed so much, and I’m starting to feel like we can’t ever change it back.
Lyn: [searching for words] Well . . . it’s important to keep hold of ideals. And to remember our aspirations for our country. And . . . we can beat him, if not today, then next time around.
Old Lady: [almost crying] Well. Good luck to you today.
Lyn: [almost crying] Yeah.

VI
Lyn: Labor? Voting Labor today? Hi, would you like some information about Labor?
Lyn is approached by very familiar looking woman.
Lyn: [looks at woman] [looks at Labor how to vote info with candidate information] [looks at woman] Woah! I don’t think you’ll be needing one of these!
Tanya Plibersek: [laughs] Thanks so much for doing this today.
[insert short dialogue, during which Tanya says such gracious and lovely things, any attempt to script it would be doing her an injustice.]

VII
Random poodle runs past Lyn.
Lyn: [thinks it looks like a conservative voter] [glares]

SCENE: ELECTION PARTY, evening, int.

VIII
Kerry O’Brien: [on TV] [Stating various statistics on crushing Labor defeat]
Lyn: I love you Kerry.
[Someone on the tally room floor holds their baby aloft behind Kerry so that it has a national television debut.]
Lyn: Aw, baby! And the baby holder. I love you, baby holder. That was cool.

IX
[Partygoers are defacing a John Howard campaign poster. A rogue liberal supporter in attendance has written “three more years!” on Howard’s forehead. Lyn draws a small arrow and writes “fucking” between “more” and “years”. She then draws an arrow pointing at Howard’s chin, and writes “weak chin”; not because she feels this is particularly accurate, but because there was a big space down there which needed something snarky to fill it.]
Mark Latham: [concedes]
Lyn: [sigh] I’m going home.
Friend: But there’s still heaps of beer!
Lyn: [sigh] My heart just isn’t in it tonight.
Friend: [impressed pause] Wow. You must really care about your politics.
Lyn: Dude, I know. When Melbourne Bitter can’t ease your pain . . .

SCENE: BALMAIN, night, ext.

X
[Lyn is walking home, singing Billy Bragg under her breath. ]

"Jumble sales are organised and pamphlets have been posted
Even after closing time there’s still parties to be hosted
You can be active with the activists
Or sleep in with the sleepers
While you’re waiting for the great leap forwards . . ."

[Pan upwards to moon in a really quite pretty night sky. Fade to black. ]

[END]

2004-10-08T09:40:00.000+10:00

Alien v Predator

The promotional tagline for this film is "whoever wins, we all lose". Heh. So true.

Like probably most of the "losers" who have seen this film, I feel ripped off, but in that relieved sense of "well, at least that's over with". Because I was always going to see it, so an upcoming dithering video rental moment is now neatly averted. I can walk past A v P straight onto Alligator! or the original Pirahna which I still haven't seen, or any of the other great bad horror films that can at least blame their crapness on their budget.

In most horror movies, there's a often really punchy moment when someone spells out the "why" or "how" or "who" of the monster - depending on which of these is the point of tension with the audience. In the first Alien film, this mostly a "who" kind of a thing - as the nature of the beast is gradually revealed, from the eggs, to the bursting out of the chest, to the sudden growth, the acid for blood, and then finally - when we see it towards the end for the first time. In Predator, I think it's more of a "why" moment - when we figure out that the predator of the title is essentially a bounty hunter collecting skins. Notice that in both these reveals, the suprising or horrific information is shown to the audience as we experience it along with the lead character.

And then we have AvP. Which has a "why" moment, in the sense of "why are aliens and predators both in this film at once?" This is answered in a beautiful moment midway through the film when a character stops in front of some “ancient" mural and exclaims “wait! I’ve read the hieroglyphics! This preposterous and laughably convoluted plot is all becoming clear to me now!” Exposition, complete with a hilarious flashback to ancient times, as we see the Babylonians, or the Sumerians, or whoever (this was never made particularly clear) getting chewed up in the first battle, as the guy voiceovers the story over the top.

And it's just wasted. Okay, not entirely wasted, because I certainly got a laugh out of it. But when will people learn? - you don't need to over explain things in horror, you don't need to come up with elaborate sets, and reasons, and age-old traditions, and conflicts from the dawn of time shit. This does not make something more scary, it just makes it more elaborate and more silly. And if you really have to go down this path, you have to find a better way for your audience to figure this out than just having "exposition guy" tell you the pertinent facts.

There wasn't a defining moment, no set-piece that people would take out of the theatre - just a whole run of action, where scenes blur into each other. There are no "quiet" scenes, no moments when you've got time to get scared. Everyone dies so fast, it's impossible to keep track of the body count. And there's no build up of tension either. The non-stop action approach means that around any corner these people run around, there's going to be an alien and/or predator - without fail. Pinning all the tension on which one it will be this time means that the film isn't that scary. (However, it does mean that the AvP drinking game will be a winner. Alien related death - do a shot! Predator related death - stand up and beat your chest Arnie style, and then do a shot! etc).

The thing that surprised me the most about this film is that it actually could have been good. Leaving aside the setting (several thousand feet below Antarctica), the obligatory tough chick (who does Everest climbs and has set-piece "I watched my father die in agony" story), the recycled concept of the "assembled crack team" a.k.a "cannon fodder" from Aliens, the cheesy shots of space ships moving around that looked straight out of Spaceballs (we brake for no one!) and blah, and whatever. You're left with a few core elements that could have been great - rats in a maze, realising that you're being manipulated, thinking you've figured out one villain and how to beat them, only to suddenly find that you're being hunted by another . . .

My verdict? It was watchable, but it sucked. Not as bad as Ghost Ship, not as cheesily good as Anaconda. Just in that sad, kind of earnest middle ground, where you're alternately impressed by some whizzo special effect, then depressed by how much money people are prepared to spend on films that they know are going to be shit.

2004-09-30T15:33:00.000+10:00

The Village

Here it is, finally. Man, I'm such a tease. It's divided into non-spoilery, then spoiler discussions - so if you haven't seen the film, don't read past part one. (Warning: overall word count in excess of 2,000 words, godamnit. Brevity! must strive for brevity!)

Part one: the non-spoilerish discussion

The best parts of The Village are – as Beth has already discussed - the parts which tap into pre-existing narrative and story ideas. Think Shirley Jackson, The Scarlet Letter, The Crucible. Although I bet the producers would hate this comparison, the filmic strategy used is similar to the one employed in The Blair Witch Project – as it picks myths, monsters, and symbols which seem familiar, making the darkness even more resonant. Like the “yeah, I’ve heard this one” urban myth, except that these are (creepy) pre-urban myths which date to the origins of white America.

An assorted grab-bag of the symbols or stories I found familiar: a small isolated community with strict moral or behavioural codes. A fear unknown, mysterious “forces” outside the cultivated fields (suggestive of the early settlers ongoing fear of the Native Americans ). Lost children in the wilderness. Conflict between the village elders and the younger more adventurous generation. Guarding the perimeter of the village. A village wedding, where the whole town comes out to celebrate with wreathes and bare feet. Use of colour as a device to signal inclusion/exclusion or safety/danger. A schoolroom in a small hall with separate wooden desks. The “simple” or “touched” village idiot as the one closest to God who is safe from harm. A central meeting hall where discussions gather concerning the well-being of the town. Lullabies for comfort. Watchtowers and torches blazing at the perimeter. The immorality of money and the moral good of being a farmer and gathering crops from the soil.

And the abundance of familiar-seeming things isn’t because the scriptwriter is lazy or derivative – it’s all in there for a reason, an exploration of fundamental stories and themes in American pioneer or settler myths. Even if ultimately, the direction of the film irritates you? It's still fascinating stuff.

There’s a big section below where I discuss this film. It’s got spoilers. This film is like The Sixth Sense and other M. Night Shamaylan creations – if you know the twists, it really does wreck the film. So don’t read on unless you’ve seen it.

(From here in on, I'm going to call the director "Night". Apparently that's what his friends do, and it's much easier to spell.)

Part two: Here, ye be spoilers

Have you seen the film? No? Then go away.

Okay, the rest of you can stay.

1. Twisting
So yes, there’s a big twist. In fact there’s two: the revelation by Edward Walker to Ivy of the nature of the beasts, and then the audience’s discovery at the end of Ivy’s journey. And both are expertly done, although I think we were meant to guess a bit at the first twist, and whilst lulled into complacency over our mental victory, be knocked for six by the second.

Once the second “reveal” is made at the end, it made some of the things I found irritating about the film make sense. Of course the villagers are mannered, and have a somehow stilted, affected manner of speech. It’s an affectation or ideal of “olden times” rather than the real thing. As a viewer, the first half invites you to take pleasure in the country wedding, the close-knit community, the simple pleasures, the whole Little Town on the Prairie frontier life. Then, any romanticism or nostalgia that the film evokes is completely undermined, as it is revealed not as a film interrogating the lifestyle of the American early pioneer or farming community; but a film interrogating our constructions of that ideal.

Ahhhh. That sound you hear is my satisfied inner theorist, roasting chestnuts with my new buddy Night by the fire.

2. False worlds and segregation

The film also works as a fable about segregation. In the “false” village, everyone stays within the boundaries because they fear the monsters. The monsters are revealed to be the fictive creations of the elders, who put on the red cloaks and the monster costumes. The flags, watchtowers and fires aren’t keeping anything out; because that enemy is already within the village grounds.

Likewise, the second type of boundary is also false: the village itself as oasis from modern society. The elders withdrew from the world because they were the victims of various violent crimes. They wished to create a place free of the pernicious influence of modern life; seeing money and worldly possessions as the cause of much of the grief and violence they experienced in the “real” world. But their oasis proves inadequate when Lucius is stabbed, setting in motion the second half of the film. Arguably, you can read this as evidence that as humans, they brought the potential for evil into the town with them; it’s not modernity or money that’s the trouble, it’s our own humanity.

But this argument doesn’t quite work. The violence and dissension in the village is created by Noah (Adrien Brody), who is also the village idiot. And this I don’t get - why make the would-be murderer the village idiot? Does violence only happen where people are crazy? Lucius suggests at one point that one of the reasons for venturing out for medicine could be to make Noah well. If Noah is the only person who commits terrible acts and Noah is crazy; does this mean that humanity isn’t necessarily so, modern medicine could have solved all the problems by making Noah more rational and less violent? Is sanity rather than some basic idea about humanity the reason for the violence?

To avoid asking more questions than I’m answering: my guess is that Night is perhaps suggesting that although the segregation from “greed” and “money” allows escape from the immediate, perceptible evils of modern society; it also prevents access to the great good of modern society (education, medicine, general enlightenment). If they were less inflexible with their way of life, Noah could be more able to cope and Ivy would probably be able to see. Also remember that the film begins with a funeral of a young boy – and the more I think about this opening, the more significant it seems. When you first see it, I think you’re meant to assume that “they who must not be named” are somehow responsible. The end of the film makes this oddly accurate – as you could argue that in isolating the community and denying all access to doctors and hospitals, the elders may well be responsible for early, untimely deaths of the younger generation that we see in the film.

3. Dichotomies and ciphers

Oh, there’s heaps of dichotomies in this film. You could probably play dichotomy bingo (Beth, I totally think you should design this. I’d play.). Just for starters, let’s get back onto Noah again. We hear a lot about how Noah is safe from the monsters because he is “touched” and somehow childlike, innocent. Yet he turns out in fact to be the source of the greatest violence in the film (the stabbing of Lucius, the skinning of the animals, the attempt on Ivy’s life, etc). Noah as harmless and child-like, Noah as a calculating killer?

Then there’s Love, with a capital L. Love is meant to be the guiding beacon for Ivy on her quest. Walker gives a great speech about how it moves mountains. Love is also the cause of most of the dissent in the film – most particularly, the stabbing. Further, love (and its flip-side: grief) was a major motivator in the decision to build the village itself. Love is a motivator to discover the truth, and it's also used as the justification for concealing it.

And there's billions more. Why red? Why yellow? What is Night as director getting at by casting himself as the security guard at the guard station in possibly the weirdest director cameo ever? And what was the significance of that whole strange little scene between the two guards?

Oh, you thought I had answers for these?

4. Ivy

Perhaps the biggest dichotomy or cipher of all is Ivy herself. Is her blindness purely a means to pulling off the deception at the end, or is there more to it than that? A few thoughts.

Ivy and Lucius are set up as the younger inheritors of the village – his actions establish him as the most assertive leader, and she is the heir to her father’s secrets – yet the film keeps reminding us that she can’t see, and he hardly ever speaks. Are these carefully selected heirs? “You see more clearly than most other people” says Walker; and tells her half the secret; but he tells her precisely because of all the people in the village, she’s the only one who won’t find out the extent of the deception. And we see her perpetuating this half of the lie (with the “magic rocks” to protect her and the two boys from the village); whilst she remains in the dark on the second greater secret. What kind of leader will Ivy be? The film leaves this ambiguous (annoyingly so, because I thought this was easily the most interesting question of the film). All you can conclude, I guess is that she’ll do anything for love – and that could eventually mean either maintaining the fiction, or crashing it down. I wouldn’t take a bet either way on what Ivy will do.

And her name! Her name! A growing living thing? A plant which grows over and hides what lies beneath in the foliage? Perhaps even the pest or parasite it is in some environments, growing on or using other plants to its own advantage? It could be any of these things – as I think could Ivy herself. She will be the saviour or destroyer of the Village, and the film ends before she decides which one she is going to be.

5. The End?

And here’s the interesting thing about Night’s films. They work thusly: you can see them once, and the concluding twist leads you to mentally re-visit and challenge everything you’ve seen previously. Subsequent viewings will never let you see the film in the same way. Call it “Twist Cinema”. At its most extreme, the film asks you to challenge the actual “reality” of the footage you’ve been seeing – think The Sixth Sense and Fight Club. To my mind, The Village is further down on this scale – everything the film has told you has actually happened – the paradigm shift is entirely about context (specifically, the world of the film).

My first question here: once you’ve seen it once, is that it? Due to their nature, are these “view once, then discard” films?

Leading to the next issue – which I won’t call a problem, but I still think it’s a relevant dilemma for this kind of film-making. Because you’re saving up your Act 1 / Act 2 / Act 3 structure for the big shock at the end, your story has to be crafted to fit the shock. Leaving me to wonder whether the film would have been better if Night hadn’t been trying to disguise his hand the whole time. The Village as “surprise cinema” means that characters have to have ridiculously oblique conversations, or leave silences at key points, where otherwise they might have been more forthcoming.

Imagine if the surprise or twist didn’t have to be saved until Act 3. If he’d gotten it out of the way in Act 2, what then? The focus may become what Ivy does after she returns, knowing what she does about the monsters in the woods. What the villagers do, seeing that it’s possible to go out and come back unscathed. A different film, sure. A more interesting film? Possibly. I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.

6. So, Lyn, I’ve gotten this far. Did you actually like this film, or not?

Yeah, look. It intrigued me – clearly. But to me this film is like a lot of science fiction – the ideas are better than the execution, and I don’t feel moved to re-experience it. The film had real weaknesses – the love triangle was a really lame centre to the film, and I just didn’t really believe it. Adrian Brody as Noah was an abysmal performance (or as Fametracker would call it, a performance worthy of an Oscar Recall).

Perhaps most annoyingly, there's a point where Noah is no longer really a character - he's The Plot Contrivance Which Keeps Things Moving. What were the chances that he'd find a costume under the boards? The sneaky dead animals thing? His behaviour ranged from calculating to stupid as the film required, and to me it seemed just lazy. (We need someone to do something irrational to up the tension, or get things moving? Use Noah! He's crazy! He'd do anything! etc.)

Even so - I'll describe my reaction to this film as positive (if qualified). This movie is food for the brain. And how often do you get to discuss ideas to this kind of level in relation to a mainstream release? And I haven't even mentioned the great cinematography which really brought out the colours, and the (I think) revelatory performance by Bryce Dallas Howard as Ivy. Overall, call it a win for Night. I’m still not gonna see Signs though, because I can’t stand Crazy Mel Gibson.

2004-09-24T16:39:00.000+10:00

Shark Tale

I don't plan to see Shark Tale, the new film from the makers of Shrek. The preview looks horrible - like all the worst bits of Shrek combined. (Yes, and I kick puppies, take their toys away, and then brood about becoming ostracised from society. Discuss.)

But here's what's interesting: Shark Tale isn't even out in the US until early October, and yet it has been released here in Australia.

Has this ever happened before with a major studio pic that anyone can recall? I'm guessing the studio is justifying this by reference to school holidays in Australia or the US, or whatever. But it still seems weird to me.

The Village

I've written about 1,500 words about this, but fortunately for all of you I left the disk at home. I think I'm going to have to post it in installments. Meanwhile, try and see the film. I can't go so far as to give an unqualified recommendation - but even if you're one of the people who is irritated by it, it will irritate you in an interesting way.

2004-09-16T17:04:00.000+10:00

Ten fun facts about Jennifer Lopez in Maid in Manhattan

1. Her hair is really distracting. I'm not sure why.

2. She's a maid with a heart of gold who can sass with the black maids and bond with the white maids.

3. She works hard at a thankless job and is rarely rewarded.

4. She is sweet and caring towards poor alcoholic Bob Hoskins, who is clearly wondering why on earth he is in this film.

5. She is ill-treated by evil white women with British accents.

6. She is a single mother, who realises that one cannot be late to the school play of one's child.

7. Naturally, the father does not realise the importance of this fact, further reinforcing how wonderful J.Lo is as a mother.

8. When nasty shop assistants are mean to her, she is assertive and tough back in ways that lead complete strangers to spontaneously applaud her.

9. All of 1-8 happens in the first thirty minutes of the film.

10. I didn't get past the first thirty minutes.

2004-09-13T10:50:00.000+10:00

I'm an aunt!

And my new little niece is perfect. But as she is not a film*, she's somewhat outside the scope of this site.

But updates are on the way. I've seen 7/10 of the AFI films.** Has One Perfect Day managed to move from its (perhaps pre-emptive) tenth place finish, you may ask?

No. There's been other not-great films, but none of them has tried product placement with Homer.

*If she were a film, she'd be a small and perfectly crafted gem. With perfect feet and little hands. Adorable when it sneezes. Etc.

**If anyone knows a way I can see (in Sydney) or get copies of Thunderstruck or Under the Radar, leave a comment so that I can email you.

2004-09-02T10:45:00.000+10:00

One Perfect Day - part 2
Things I grudgingly concede you might like / admire in One Perfect Day

1. Kerry Armstrong’s performance. She plays the mother. I didn’t mention her at all in my review because her performance is so out of this world good, that it’s as if she’s in another film, reacting to different material.

2. The actor who plays the minion drug dealer is actually pretty fun to watch. Props to him.

3. Some of the visuals of the directing have flair . . . I guess. To be honest, I found it a bit too MTV (there’s split screen fade in/fade out effects at different points, which tends to bug), but you can’t say it’s boring.

4. There are crickets in one scene. Crickets are always cool.

5. The opening scene in the film is pretty good, and involves Tom and a very risky manoeuvre to record the sound of a train. (insert your own joke about how later in the film I was fervently wishing this had had a messy tragic ending).

So there you go. A few positives to go with the negatives.

And one more dig because I just can’t resist
Most of the mainstream press reviews mention that the film’s promotional material hypes it as “loosely based” or a “modern retelling” of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth. In this Greek legend, Orpheus (a musician) goes to Hades to plead for the release his lover / muse Eurydice who has died back into the world of the living. The God of Hell is so impressed with Orpheus' ardent love and his lyre playing, that he agrees to let her go; she will follow Orpheus up to the surface, but if Orpheus turns around on his way out of hell, she will have to return to the world of the dead. Just before he reaches the surface, Orpheus doubts that Eurydice is following him, and thinks he’s been betrayed. He turns around – and realises he’s lost her all over again as she fades from sight.

First point. So there’s a musician, and a girl who dies. For my money, you need a little more to really claim that you’re evoking the spirit of a Greek myth. At least the Coen Brothers were being ironic when they made the Odyssey reference in O Brother; and they actually included quite a few elements from that story. (I am however, grateful that they didn't try and resurrect Elise and/or Kid Sister.)

Second point: But let’s take it seriously for a moment. This means that Tommy (as Orpheus) is journeying into “hell” when he starts exploring the dance scene. Just another telling point about how the director really views the world of dance culture.

Third point. So the copy of the Odyssey that was being read by the Evil Club Owner is most likely a nod at this reading of the film. In which case, it’s even more freaking stupid because the story of Orpheus and Eurydice isn’t in the Odyssey, it’s in Metamorphoses by Ovid. Oh, but I guess all Ancient Greek texts are the same, right? If you're going to wank around with classical references, at least have the courtesy to your audience to get it right.

Okay, I'm done now.

2004-08-31T13:05:00.000+10:00

One Perfect Day
a.k.a My early pick for tenth place (of ten) for AFI Best Picture

(Belated note: this is not so much a review as an assasination attempt. If you want to watch and experience this film for yourself, you shouldn't read any further. Normally I'd try and withhold important plot information, but this film pissed me off so royally that I actually can't concieve why anyone would want to see it . . .)

Tom is a musician from Melbourne who is over in London. He’s forging new musical territory, which involves wandering around with his recording equipment and recording random noises(with the SONY label visible every single time). A good example of how heavy handed this film is - we hear a discussion between two academics about how the music world "needs a genius to bring music to the people", whilst we see footage of Tommy going round and making his recordings. Instead of trying tell us that Tommy is a genius, why not just convince us, show us?

This question in answered in the first musical “highlight”, where Tommy performs an edgy genre breaking music piece. Well it’s supposed to be edgy, but it’s basically spoken word with flashy lights and a couple of violins, and some piano that sounds like something Michelle Branch would play. Of course it gets a standing ovation. Of course his “rebel” attitude gets him kicked out of the music school. And this scene spells out the central disaster in this film - which is a film about a musical genius, but with no actual talent on display. Imagine 8 Mile with Freddie Prinze Jr in the lead, and you've got this film.

Meanwhile, back in Melbourne, Tom’s kid sister is hanging out with Tom’s annoying girlfriend Elise and experimenting in dance culture and drugs. Kid sister dies after snorting some (evil) drugs she’d mistaken for speed. She passes out on a roundabout in a playground, which is a good illustration of how the imagery in this film is never, ever subtle.

So Tom's sister has died. Like most movie characters, Tom realizes that he should Find Out What Happened; and to that end, he goes into the record store where his sister used to play to ask the resident DJ if he knows anything. The guy draws a blank. But then, hypnotized by set of decks, Tom starts getting into the DJ scene. He learns to DJ, incorporating his usual innovative “the world is my instrument” approach to techno. So within the film’s narrative, her death is just the catalyst for his foray into a new musical genre. It’s such a cheap use of character.

And oh, it gets worse. There’s the soap opera of Elise and Tom (the muse and the musician) – he blames her for the death of his sister after she tells him that she bought the (evil) drugs – and breaks up with her. Elise then falls in with a bad crowd, and starts taking more (evil) drugs herself to ease the pain. She starts taking (evil) drugs at work, which we all know is the height of irresponsibility, and passes out on the floor of the hospital where she works.

Then, there’s the bad guy, who gets with Elise. A lot of music films have an Evil Club Owner. Others might have the Evil Drug Overlord. Others still might have the Evil Guy Signing Up Vulnerable Women to his Record Label Just So He Can Seduce Them. Because this is such a top film, it combines all three of these villains into one completely preposterous character. On top of this, the scriptwriter uses the most high school ridiculous character traits to establish his personality. In one scene, you can see that he’s reading the Penguin classic edition of “The Odessey” by Homer – see, he’s an Evil Club Owner with layers. He’s evil because he speaks really ponderously when he’s making a particularly evil point. In the worst scene in the history of cinema ever, we see that he’s evil because he shaves his chest. Honestly, I would believe in Elmer Fudd before I would ever believe in this guy.

And it gets worse, goddamnit. Tommy and Elise get back together. I don’t care. She goes to Club Evil to tell the evil dude, but of course he already knows, and freaks out and starts beating her up. He tries to rape her, but some Evil Minion stops him. The Minion then disappears (where’s the Saving the Girl follow through?) leaving Evil Overlord to rant for a bit about his dreams, and blah, but then stab Elise in the neck with a syringe. She’s high. Tom thinks she’s a junkie, Evil Overlord is like, yeah dude, your girlfriend is totally a wasted drug fucked loser. Those Evil Overlord Club Owners and their wicked clever plots.

Blah. Whatever. Fight. Elise heads up to the roof. She looks like she’s going to jump. Jump Elise! Damn, she decides not to, but throws the bag of drugs she picked up off the roof as this big symbolic gesture. Oh the profundity! She then collapses. As Tommy hugs her to his chest, we get to hear her heartbeat fading, in a way which would be impossible unless Tommy actually had a stethescope. She dies, he looks stricken, but we know he’s really thinking “awesome! Now if only I could mix this fading heartbeat into some cool breaks, Ministry of Sound would totally sign me up!”

So yes, Elise died because of the DRUGS. And the Kid Sister died because of the DRUGS. It’s a preaching, rabid public service announcement gone wrong. And it suggest that the audience draw stupid uninformed parallels between dance music and drugs – which in a film meant to explore or celebrate dance culture is so unbelievably insane, I don’t know where to begin. On top of which, it’s impossible to convey any coherent or constructive message about the risks of recreational drug use into a film with such a ludicrous plot. (“Don’t do drugs kids! Because if you get involved in that scene, you risk some love crazed club owner sticking you with a syringe of heroin to get back at you and your DJ boyfriend!.”)

God, is it over? No, of course not. We need a showdown; which here is Tommy pretending everything is fine with the Evil Club Owner. Tommy goes on stage at Club Evil, but he’s mixing up the evidence! On the big screen, the ravers see newspaper clippings about the deaths, and sound bites are mixed into the music which implicate Evil Club Owner in the deaths of both Elise and Kid Sister! Evil Club Owner rushes down to kill Tommy (yay!), but is dragged off by some guys (boo!). Are we meant to think they’re the cops? If so, I think it’s great that cops are prepared to let people scratch records to important evidence, just so they can pull off a really great set.

And now that they’ve got the bad guy, we get to hear the ”musical” “climax”. Tommy uses samples from recordings by Elise (it’s their song, dude) and it’s meant to be this grand emotional moment, made achingly sad as we see her image projected on the screen and hear her voice soaring above the dancers . . . and, guess what? Worst. Song. Ever. I can’t think of a more fitting end to the film.

Linkage
I couldn't agree more with James in his review, which says a lot of what I've just ranted about, but says it a lot more precisely than I could manage.

By contrast, Margaret and David (four stars each??) were clearly on drugs.

2004-08-30T12:52:00.000+10:00

It's voting time

No, not that kind of voting. Geez. What do you think I am, political?*

The AFI Awards are coming up. As a (relatively) new member, I'm getting all excited about voting this year. It's like, responsibility, dude. I feel all personally invested. As such, I'm racing around trying to see all the films.

So if you're a member, and you're feeling a bit lethargic, here's my plan. You should register to vote online at www.afi.org.au. Then, you should read this site to find out who to vote for. I'm going to rank all the films, and explain my justifications for the rankings - so you'll be able to decide based on the pros and cons of each film which one you'd be likely to vote for, had you seen all the films. Or you could do whatever I tell you. Because, you know, I'm totally right.

For the record, the feature films eligible this year comprise:
A Cold Summer
One Perfect Day
Somersault
The Finished People
The Honourable Wally Norman
Love's Brother
The Old Man Who Read Love Stories
Thunderstruck
Tom White
Under the Radar

And time for a brief poll - how many of these have you seen already? If the box office is any indication, it's not going to be many. Before I got all motivated with the AFI awards, I'd only seen two of these films on my own initiative (Somersault and The Finished People) - and there's two films on this list that I'd never even heard of (Old Man who Read Love Stories and A Cold Summer), despite the fact that I consider myself a pretty active / informed cinema attender. Pretty bad.

The first five listed are the ones I've seen. The others? I'll totally get there over the next few weeks. I have a plan of attack, schedule . . . this AFI voting gig, it's like the military.

*but don't vote for this guy. [/end subliminal message]

2004-08-18T13:21:00.000+10:00

Disability and the movies

This article from the Guardian is just fascinating – it’s triggered by two films being made in the UK which deal with disabled characters. One concerns two characters in wheelchairs and is made by the people behind Notting Hill, the other is about a family including a girl with Downs Syndrome. The former film has a much larger budget, but it has also hired non-disabled actors to play the major roles. The second smaller film has cast a girl who actually has Downs Syndrome in the role of the sister.

I found the whole article really interesting. The points made by the disabled lobby groups (and some of the filmmakers) boil down to two distinct arguments: we need more disabled characters in films or televisions, and we also need more disabled actors getting work. It’s interesting – but completely true – that these two things don’t naturally follow each other. Most of the roles for disabled characters I can think of are snapped up by actors who want something showy to demonstrate their range. Aside from the obvious (American and British) examples the article cites, the only Australian films I can think of with disabled characters are Proof (Hugo Weaving as a blind man), Muriel’s Wedding (Rachel Griffiths in a wheelchair) and The Sum of Us (Jack Thompson is paralysed after a stroke).

And I don’t think this is just an actors equity campaign trying to get more jobs for disabled people. There’s something safer for an audience in identifying with or finding attractive a figure when we know that the person isn’t “really” like that. Perhaps a level of comfort we shouldn’t have – because we know from the publicity or interviews done by those involved that it is on some level an act – after filming is over, the guy gets out of the wheelchair. Giving us a slight space for comfort we wouldn’t ordinarily have.

Sure, there are some things which would be almost impossible to film with disabled actors playing someone with their specific disability. For example – in Rainman, someone with disabilities on the level of Hoffman’s character would probably be unable to “act” or follow script directions. Where the disability is degenerative (such as Griffiths in Muriel’s Wedding), you obviously couldn’t cast someone already in a wheelchair in the role. But what about a character who is blind or in a wheelchair for the entire film? Is it better, or more “true” to cast someone who actually has that disability? My gut says “yes”. My head says a) that this isn’t particularly postmodern of me, and b) we should just be thankful that any of these films are actually getting made; and c) that I should think this through a bit more.

What do you think?

Some assorted kind of relevant, kind of not thoughts: Tom Hanks may have won an Oscar for playing a gay man with AIDS in Philadelphia, but was there really a surge in support or understanding for gay AIDS sufferers, given that Hanks is so identifiably not a part of either group? I wonder.

And more about diversity than disability: one of my favourite films from last year was The Station Agent, a tale about Finbar McBride train enthusiast and dwarf. When they were trying to get funding for the film, the directors kept being asked by possible backers “can’t he just be a really short guy?” Thank god they said no.

2004-08-12T11:23:00.000+10:00

Errol Morris v George W Bush

Documentary maker Errol Morris has joined the long list of directors or film-makers involved in some way or another in getting Bush un-elected. He has created a series of TV ads for www.moveon.org. You can watch the ads here. They're basically pieces direct to camera of "ordinary" people talking about why they won't vote for Bush - all of them are people who voted for Bush last time, but have since become disillusioned. Jeffrey Wells thinks the ads are strong enough that they could make Bush lose the election - a big call. But it's interesting to see Morris getting into this territory. (For Wells' commentary, go here and scroll down to the heading "Brilliant".)

Quoting Wells quoting the ads:

5th grade teacher Anthony Pirro: "In the beginning I thought George Bush
was a pretty likable character...he was very personable and he had a sense of
humor and I thought...you know what?...he seems pretty down to earth. So I voted
for him. Looking back on it, I thoroughly regret it. Fact is, I'm appalled that
I voted for him. I'm embarrassed. He doesn't think things through. We had full
support in 2001 from the world community. And now our country is...a mess."

Financial advisor Kim Mecklenburg: "I've been a lifelong Republican
since I was old enough to vote, and I thought Bush would be a fiscally
conservative individual. I feel betrayed. I don't believe that a government
should be engaged in reckless spending. Recklessly stretching the military to
the point of breaking. Recklessly trying to stretch, alter and amend the
Constitution that this country is based on. And that's why I'm gonna vote for
John Kerry."

Errol Morris is the guy who directed last years Oscar winning documentary the Fog of War. I read a great interview with Morris in the April 2004 issue of the wonderful US magazine The Believer (the article's not available online, but I have been known to read large chunks of it over the phone to friends). In this article, Morris talks about his contraversial use of footage re-creating actual events in his documentaries, including one of his earlier successes The Thin Blue Line. The documentary is about a man wrongly accused of murder, and because no footage of the murder existed, Morris recreates the scene as described by the witnesses. Not only was the film widely seen, it resulted in an acquittal for the man involved.

Critics argued that the use of "created" rather than archival footage problematised the film's status as documentary (rather than, say, a feature film recreating the same events as fiction). Morris responded that what he was trying to do was show the malleability of "perception" - he wanted people to question his recreation, and realise that it was a constructed narrative from necessarily flawed sources - just as the witnesses themselves proved to be inadequate witnesses even though they were actually there.

Morris sees the very distinction between feature film and documentary as a kind of false (or at least unhelpful) dichotomy. "Say I show you footage of a woman walking her dog across the street", he says. "Is it a film, or a documentary?" The interviewer admitted that it would be impossible to tell, just from that amount of footage. "Exactly" said Morris. Thinking about this later, I started to consider that all "documentary" footage is staged anyway. Even if you were filming a documentary about the life of the woman walking the dog, there's every chance that the shot of her walking your dog across the street was staged by the director, who liked the light, and the street - and thought it would add to the film. Normally you'd consider this to be legitimate footage for a documentary, but if it's directed, and it's posed, it's not really real, is it? Or are these distinctions the problem?

Which brings us back to these documentary spots for US TV that Morris has created. Real? Staged? Heartfelt? I'd love to know more about how they were created, but I can't find much on it. I think it's very clever to make it appear as natural as possible, like people just saying exactly what they feel to camera, making a convincing point. I'm sure they're very effective, more convincing that a more stagey ad could be. But as Morris is one of the people who's made me highly conscious of how images can be used, I'm aware of their status as political advertising. When is a ten second segment of footage a documentary? when is it political advertising? Is it just the use of the footage, rather than the inherent nature of the footage itself, that turns it into advertising? Is it the entire nature of the endeavour?

But how interesting, that such intriguing (and highly effective) ads are made by the guy who enjoys blurring distinctions between fact and fiction . . .

(and where's the Australian Errol Morris who's gonna do this to John Howard?)

2004-08-11T17:17:00.000+10:00

Bela Lugosi spectacular #1
Scared to Death
a.k.a the one with the corpse narrating the film from the morgue slab

Regular readers (note optimistic use of the plural) may remember when I scored a whole stack of cheap Bela Lugosi DVDs. I started watching one the other night, the one which is narrated by the corpse from the slab in the morgue. I’m about half way through. It’s quite a film – attempting a number of different out-there tactics that I have never seen before. Unfortunately, the net result is not “edgy” so much as “really shit”.

The film opens in the morgue. How do we know it’s the morgue? A ten second shot of the sign saying “city morgue”. (There’s also a long shot of another sign saying something like “keep out, employees only”, but this seems to be completely irrelevant.) A young woman’s body is on the slab, covered up to the neck in a sheet. The morgue attendees banter about it for a bit, and one of them says a Key Line: “if only there was some way we could know what happened to her.” Yes! If only! (although possibly a little something called forensics could also do the job, but whatever.)

Cue swirly stuff, music and retrospective. We see our corpse lying down – but she’s alive! she’s on a doctor’s examining table. Discerning viewers will immediately realise that this is a flashback. Discussions with the doctor reveal the following: she’s his daughter-in-law. Something vague is wrong with her (signalled by a couple of lines where she seems kind of bitchy, I guess). The doctor’s son (her husband) thinks she’s “changed”, then again he also seems to be a bit of a dick, so it’s hard to see where our sympathies are meant to be. Lots of dialogue, and lots of exposition. There’s also a sassy maid who overacts, and some policeman in a bowler hat who seems to just like hanging around.

Between scenes, the corpse generally butts in with a narrative comment. This is stupid on so many levels:

the sound and visual cues are hilarious. The screen goes swirly (a bit “Outer Limits”) and a high soprano voice does this “creepy” kind of ooooaaahhhooo noise each time we cut to the corpse.
they’re too cheap to include footage of the corpse in the morgue; instead, they just show a static shot of her face on the slab. You can tell that it’s not actual footage, and it looks so very dodgy. (Which makes me wonder whether this whole “narrated by the corpse” thing was tacked on in the editing room.)
all this fanfare for only one line of narration each time, and it's almost always unnecessary. “Then, a mysterious stranger arrived.” “Later that night, I started to feel anxious”, etc. Nothing the audience couldn’t have figured out ourselves.
the corpse often narrates details that the corpse couldn’t have known – people arriving and conversations she wasn’t party to. So we’re not just asked to buy that a corpse can narrate a film, it’s also an omniscient corpse. Whatever.

Eventually, Bela finally arrives. Yay, Bela! He’s wearing a stagey cape, and he’s part of a circus. As always, he immediately adds class to the film – no small feat since he arrives with Inigo (who is a dwarf) in tow, all Dr Evil and Mini-me. Inigo is immediately subjected to a whole range of really awful prejudiced “jokes”. “Oh sorry”, says one guy, “there’s no tree for the monkey”. Inigo stamps on his foot. Yay! Lugosi’s character explains that you shouldn’t insult Inigo because although he is deaf and mute “he can read lips” (missing out the other compelling reason that such behaviour just sucks). Why is Inigio deaf and mute? there's no apparent reason.

It was around this time that I realise I was so distracted by the dwarf, the corpse, a random secret passage, the swirly screen, and the oooooahhhhooo; that I had no idea what was going on. I plan to re-watch tonight, after having a few beers. I suspect it will all start to make sense.

2004-08-10T09:54:00.000+10:00

MIFF round up (part one)

Better late than never.
Final tally:
8 Features.
3 Documentaries.
4 Shorts.

1. One Missed Call.
A malignant presence starts killing people via mobile phone. An ominous message is received by victims, which is . . . from their own phone! with the time stamp . . . giving a day and time in the future! and they hear . . . their own voice screaming as they die! The "logic" is that the next victim is someone whos number is saved in the mobile's phonebook. I enjoyed it both as a "bad cinema" and as a "good cinema" experience. On the good side: there’s a fantastic sequence which brings the film into the realm of reality TV (if people knew the exact time they were going to die, don’t you think A Current Affair would be chasing them to do a live-to-air death special?) Effective and scary: in a few scenes, I totally did that time honoured hand over the eyes, peeking through and looking – no – not yet – oh I can’t look – okay, I have to look – ahhh! Bad, but hilarious: a severed arm dials a mobile phone. Bad and disappointing: the female star never stops just being a passive victim. And just inscrutable: there’s about three different endings tacked on, and the last one makes absolutely no sense. Are they dead, victorious, or just on drugs? you tell me.

This is also a perfect example of what Rod was talking about somewhere in the posts (and I think also on his site somewhere?) - most horror films are at their scariest when they're less explicit. Knowing someone is about to die? scary. Knowing something is about to come around the corner, and being unable to look away, waiting for it? scary. Seeing someone's recently severed head bounce across the floor? Probably horrific in real life, but in a film it just comes off as kind of amusing.

2. The Story of Marie and Julien
A Very Long film about French people falling in love. Those crazy French. They’re just not in a hurry – one of the characters repairs clocks, and the recurring shots of him fixing all these stopped clocks became a bit of a metaphor for how time was really not of the essence. And for all the length of this film (which is Very Long), there are a myriad of details which are left as ciphers for the audience to decode. But the build up means that it’s very satisfying when you start hitting the core of the film as the explanations unravel. There's a moment towards the end of the film which resonates - and is far more scary than anything One Missed Call could offer up. No actual violence, just implication. Imagery you'll dream about later.

3. The Corporation
A Very Long documentary about corporations. But it covers the field, and its satisfying, and it sparks off ideas for the audience to chase further in their own time. I agree with Beth that sometimes the editor got a bit too cute with the excerpts from those cheezy black and white info-mercials from the 1950s; but it still worked for me.

4. The Magnificent Three
The plot had something to do with a village in trouble, the kidnapped daughter of the evil judge, and blah and stuff, and whatever. Who cares - it's a kick ass martial arts film. The men are real men, and the blood is so, so fake. Thirty guys will be fighting one guy, but instead of attacking him all at once, they'll run in one at a time (occasionally, three at a time for a particularly well choregraphed bit). My favourite moment was when a woman is widowed, and falls in love with the guy who killed her husband (in the space of thirty minutes after her husband's death). "But I killed your husband!" the guy protests. "It was an accident!" she answers. Love truly knows no barriers. This director's work was featured at MIFF - I only caught the one film, but I'll be looking out for any of these turning up on SBS or at my local snooty independent video store.

5. Nina
My pick for the worst film of the festival. A film with a lot of style but no heart, and no purpose. James saw it, and is nicer – you should read his review.

Actually, I take it back. Nina is the second worst film. The short that played before it – Beauty Queen – is actually the worst. A film which took the "beauty is skin deep" riff and made it into a ten minute public service announcement with boring direction and pedestrian acting. (I'm being pretty! now, I'm having a sprinkling of self-doubt! Now see me vomiting down a toilet! - this means that beauty has a price. Isn't this profound? Now watch me walk past a mirror, and look less satisfied, and more troubled over my self-image - which is literally, my reflection! woah, this film stuff is deep.)

2004-08-05T15:30:00.000+10:00

Alien v Predator
a.k.a The Care Bears v My Little Pony

That's what Alien v Predator should be called. It's going to have a US PG-13 rating for the cinema release. You can see this on the official site - the rating is towards the bottom of the main screen.

PG-13. When all four Alien films have been rated R, and both Predator films were rated R. Right after several R rated films (Matrix Revolutions, etc) have done fine at the box office. The producers of this film shouldn't be worried about scaring off people who might think it's too violent. It's Alien v Predator, for crying out loud. People who are queasy about violence won't be reassured by a PG-13 rating, they're just going to see the latest Kevin Kline film instead. I think this is a really stupid decision - they're not going to attract new fans to a "watered down" version, and they're certainly not going to thrill those of us who love the genre.

I was already pretty cynical about this project for a number of reasons - I think James said it all here. But now, my anticipation for this project has gone from lukewarm to zero. I couldn't even get excited by this script excerpt that was emailed to me this morning, which appears to belong somewhere in the middle of this soon to be released film.

[Interior. An Alien, Predator, and cowering human are all in some non-descript vault, similar to an airlock. A big neon sign on the vault says "PG-13"]
Alien: I will use the human as an incubator for my spawn! then the human will die!
Predator: But I want to kill the human, and use its skin as a trophy!
Human: [cowers]
Alien: It occurs to me that our goals are not inconsistent.
Predator: True. I can always skin the human after you've finished with it. Human incubates baby alien, human dies, I skin the human. We both win - it' s maximising our villanous potential.
Human: [raises hand] What's in it for me?
[pause]
Predator: Not much, true. But you're helping to meet the needs of the many over the needs of the few. Two of us, one of you. I think you'll agree that on a cost/benefit analysis, this is really the best result.
Alien: And it's very efficient!
Human: [looks puzzled, but can't deny the logic] Oh. Okay. Well I don't really want this to end in violence, so I guess it's curtains for me.
[Director Paul W.S Anderson enters.]
Anderson: Great guys! now, we need the actual cocooning and skinning to happen off-screen. Let's keep it clean, folks!
Predator [whining]: But the gory skinning scenes were the best part of Predator! Well, that and a really muddy, violent Governor of Florida.
Anderson: Hey, I'm the director here. I call the shots, so keep your trap shut, you scaly ruffian!
[The doors suddenly slam shut. The neon sign changes from PG-13 to R.]
Anderson: Fuck.
The alien belts Anderson across the room to the Predator, who slices him open. The alien then impales him on a handy jagged bit of wood, then rips his head off, and bowls it casually across the floor.
Predator: Also? I fucking hated Resident Evil.

[cue heavy metal music. End scene.]

2004-08-04T10:18:00.000+10:00

Not dead, just snowed under

Yesterday was my worst day at work, like, ever. Today is better, but in that ominous way where you feel like the crocodile is just lurking in the reeds, waiting.

So in the meantime, what's the best cinematic / TV depiction of a workplace? BBC's The Office? Office Space? Being John Malkovich?

I guess it depends what "work" actually is for you . . .

2004-07-23T15:33:00.000+10:00

Going on holiday!

I'm going on a road trip with my parents. Ten years ago I would have dragged my feet at the idea, but now, spending time with the folks is one of my greatest pleasures in life. My parents are the greatest. Some day, I may write something about my mother's fantastic taste in cinema - it's strange, but completely independently of each other, we seem to have become interested in film at about the same time.

How many of you have mums that have said things like "Iranian cinema is really happening at the moment." None of you? yeah, I thought so. My mum is the coolest.

Mind you, my dad is pretty awesome too. Over lunch the other day, he came out with: "I really need to read a lot more about Byzantium, my knowledge of it is really deficient." My response was to say seriously; "yeah, I was just thinking that myself last Thursday". It didn't even occur to him that I wasn't serious - because, you know, we ALL need to know more about Byzantium. Aw. My dad rocks.

I totally need to retire. It does amazing things for your social life, free time, and enjoyment of life, if my parents are anything to go by.

Anyway, enough about my parents. I'm off for a week, ending up in Melbourne, where I will hang out with Beth. I expect she will kick my arse (daily) at completing the cryptic crossword. MIFF films I will catch will include the following:

Bright Leaves (yeah!)
The Yes Men
The Corporation
One Missed Call

I also really want to see the animated film on Monday night that's been described as "a cross between David Lynch and Hello Kitty". And there's a zombie flick on Friday! Hopefully I'll catch up with some of you Melbourne bloggers whilst I'm around.

2004-07-21T16:41:00.000+10:00

The Company, Robert Altman

I recently went to see the Bangarra dance company’s latest effort; Clan. It was amazing, but it confirmed to me that on some very basic level, I don’t get ballet. Never have. Stories are compelling to me, and I understand stories in words, spoken, with dialogue. I understand stories on paper. At a stretch – but it’s a step down as far as I’m concerned – I enjoy decoding ideas in paintings or photographs. But ballet, dance, or other pure “movement” forms? Aesthetically admirable, but it leaves me cold; or at least, confused at what I’m meant to draw from it.

A few months ago, I saw Robert Altman’s The Company. It was after I started writing regularly on this site, but the film weirded me out sufficiently that I didn’t write about it. The Company is almost a reality-tv style take on the everyday life of the Joffrey ballet company. It’s fiction – it has a script, is directed by Robert Altman, and stars Neve Campbell (she of Party of Five and the Scream franchise). But it also stars the real life Joffrey dancers, features ballets which the Joffrey company have actually performed, and much of it feels pretty much just like a camera has been propped up in the corner of the studio.

The Company is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. I know this because I’ve been trying to relate it to other types of films I’ve seen, and failing. The first and most obvious is the dance film genre – Dirty Dancing, Centre Stage, Footloose, Save The Last Dance, etc, etc. These films have plots like “exotic dancer / welder falls in love and wants to go to ballet school”. Common themes are the finding of ‘natural’ talent, a love story after intimacy is created through dance, and a focus on dancers who are just developing their skills, or discovering the joy (and/or lots of sex) that dance brings to one’s life. The Company has absolutely zero of these elements. Dance isn’t used as a metaphor for intimacy, and it’s not used in a ‘follow your dreams’ kind of spin. Dance here, is dance. Physical effort, meticulous training, devoting your life to a craft. It’s pretty refreshing.

The second group of films that this film isn’t like, are films which star a "name" actor who has a gift, and the film is obviously meant to showcase that gift. Think Eminem’s 8 Mile, Britney Spears’ Crossroads or Mariah Carey’s Glitter. In these films, the artist is a relative unknown at the beginning, and we see them on the road to discovery. Whilst these films vary wildly in quality and intent, all three have showcase moments when we are meant to recognise the skill of the main protagonist. Again, not so with The Company. Neve Campbell (who plays young dancer Ry) is the producer, co-writer, and star. She is excellent, and clearly the focal character: we see more of her story, more of her home life, and she does have a few impressive solos. But the film stops well short of being her showcase; she's not the star, but the most accessible face in the crowd. This is, you begin to realise, the story of a company, which is using the personal only to illustrate the whole.

The third group of films is the other films by director Robert Altman – Gosford Park, The Player, Pret a Porter. In these films, Altman tends to use big groups of characters (and usually big name actors) and lots of dialogue. Here, there’s a big cast, but with the fleeting exceptions of Ry and Mr A the company director (Malcolm McDowell) the "whole" of the company is unmistakably prioritised by the film over the individual members of the cast. Reactions and consequences are not unpacked on individual levels. If I had not known Altman had directed this film, I never would have guessed. (Strange, since not only do I consider myself an Altman fan, I’d always thought his style was pretty distinctive. Apparently not!)

So now I’ve ruled out everything it’s not like, and I’m still not sure what to think. It didn’t really work as a film for me – and I was confused by the final showcase production (which was just ludicrous, but somehow deliberately ludicrous, in a way that I didn’t get what it was trying to achieve). But it helped me see the art of dancing in a way I never have before. Knowing on every jump or difficult turn how much the dancers are risking if they fall. Being completely committed to an art, in a near religious, monastic sense. The raw committment, the self-denial the punishing lifestyle.

Worth seeing.

2004-07-19T14:33:00.000+10:00

Random stuff

I'm just really scatty at the moment.

#1 I will be attending about five days of the Melbourne Film Festival. It's a complete freaking coincidence, before you ask. But yes, I've already bought tickets. Your derision may commence . . . now.

#2 Did you miss the awesome interview on Enough Rope with Rachel Griffiths? The transcript is here. Highlights: Denton correctly guessing Griffith's depressing reading material; and the cameo appearance by Toni Collette in the audience, who got misty-eyed talking about her friend Rachel, then added inconsequentially whilst wiping away the tears "I've got a hangover".

(They've also got the transcript of the Germaine Greer interview that is just now making the news because she got all annoyed about the way Denton treated her during the interview, or something. I read the transcript, and I just don't see it. Anyone else got a view?)

#3 This lunch time, I was wending back to work after my break of hiding out in a cafe and drinking coffee, whilst attempting to read a political essay. The essay relied on a long analysis of John Updike's Rabbit quartet, which I haven't read. Very annoying. You know when someone is trying to tell you about foreign policy, and says - it's like that film . . . you know, that film? Oh, you haven't seen it? and then instead of changing the example, they explain the entire plot and backstory of Air Force One or which is a film you never wanted to see anyway, thank you very much in order to make a point that ultimately is at best an illustration rather than an actual argument, damn it, and hence it's entire status is at best ancilliary to what you're actually trying to say.

Net result: I am now determined, no matter how hard it is, and how many people throw obstacles in my path, never to read a John Updike novel.

#4 Anyway. My mood was restored when I wandered through the foyer of my work, and I could hear a note perfect whistler executing the creepy little tune made immortal by Elle Driver in Kill Bill. It was awesome (the acoustics in the foyer are, as it turns out, really excellent). I swear I looked around to see who it was, couldn't spot them, turned back. Then felt unaccountably nervous, and looked around again to make sure some statuesque blonde with an eye-patch wasn't about to beat the crap out of me with a sword.

2004-07-19T14:19:00.000+10:00

More thoughts on My Neighbour Totoro

You know you’re turning into a film geek when: early on in the film, I leaned over to my sister and remarked: “these subtitles are different from the last time I saw this film.” My sister looked at me with this “oh god, you are too sad” expression.

But I was right! annoyingly, the subtitles were not just English, they were English for the hearing impaired: so along with translations, the subtitles informed us when there was a chickens clucking noise, or a door opening noise. (best of all: when the kids were laughing, the subtitles said: “Ha ha! ha ha ha! a-ha ha ha! [pause] ha! haaaa!” The kids laugh a lot in this movie, as it turns out.) There were also lines that the subtitles translated when no one was actually speaking in the film, usually when all the characters were off camera. Someone must have decided to pare down the dialogue for the latest release, but not bothered to send a memo to the guys doing the subtitles. Oops!

There were other more substantive differences. When Mei is playing on her own whilst her dad is working, there’s a great moment where he looks down at the side of his desk to find a little row of flowers (that have been pulled off right near the head, the way little kids always do). “You’re the flower shop, daddy” I remember her saying the first time around. In this film, the line was “I’m the flower lady”. Weird. I liked the first line better.

Anyway. The film is still great. Something I really noticed the second time around - Mei is playing at home before she meets Totoro for the first time; staying back with her father whilst her big sister Satsuki is at school. (I have hazy memories of this time in my own life, when my sister was in kindergarten - apparently I got really upset at being left out and developed a nervous stutter. Awww.) Anyway, Mei plays dress-ups and puts on a big hat. "Does this make me look grown-up?" she asks her dad; who responds (without looking up!) that it does. Shortly after, she discovers the spirits in the grass, and chases them to see where they lead. The hat falls off before she enters the Alice-style rabbit hole. A cute but subtle image - you have to be a kid to find Totoro.

2004-07-14T16:44:00.000+10:00

Miyazaki and Brains!

#1 Guess what I'm seeing tonight - again?

#2 If we're out in time, I'm going to make it a double, and see this as well.

#3 I got the most awesome late birthday present EVER: a DVD titled The Brain That Wouldn't Die. Here's the blurb on the back - I only intended to type out a few lines, but it just got better and better:

Dr Cortner has been unsuccessfully experimenting with transplant surgery, as evidenced by the hideous mutilation of his lab assistant. When Cortner's fiance is decapitated in a car accident, he saves her head and rushes it back to his lab. He keeps the head alive with a secret serum that he has developed for his freakish experiments. Through the electrodes and wires, Jan conveys her desire to "please, let me die" in chilling whispers, but the good doctor has better plans. He prowls strip joints for a body to match the head of his girlfriend. She, meanwhile, develops a psychic connection to a horrifying monster that lives in the closet . . .

All this in a mere 82 minutes! Could this possibly the best c-grade schlock film ever?? Stay tuned.

2004-07-12T16:00:00.000+10:00

Shrek 2

Shrek 2 starts off with the honeymoon, where a decidedly amorous Shrek and Fiona are getting it on in a PG, off camera kind of way (perhaps an uncensored version will hit the bootleg circuit later this year). Of course, happy ever after does not a sequel make - and their idyll is interrupted by a royal invitation from Fiona's parents to come and visit them in their kingdom far, far away.

Fiona's parents are predictably unhappy that their son in law is an ogre. Cue tension, and predictable introspection from Shrek. In a sense, it's a retread of the themes of the first film - but instead of whether being yourself will get you the girl, it's about whether being yourself will let you keep the girl.

Shrek 2 is not as good as its predecessor. To say a few nice things about the original Shrek - whilst it wasn't even my favourite animated film of that year, it was still very funny, and was particularly good at parodying that Disney style of story-telling. In Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, the good looking guy gets the girl and the hunchback gets to hang out with the gargoyles; in Beauty and the Beast, the beast only gets a kiss once he's become the handsome prince at the end. Shrek really nailed its attack on this kind of twee storytelling, and I still recall the 'exploding bird' sequence (which was a brilliant parody of a scene from Snow White) with immense fondness. (My second favourite scene? "I'm a talking, flying donkey!" Priceless.)

But this is what Shrek does best - it's a narrative that has resonance when in comparison to other texts - in its function as parody or comment of other films, offering a kind of Disney meta-narrative. As a film with actual characters with narrative depth or drive, it still works, but functions at a lower level of achievement. And in Shrek 2, this level is lower still.

Gone is the novelty of the first film - we just get more of the same. More juxtoposition of modern songs into the narrative, more pop culture jokes, more film references. In the usual strategy of sequels, there are a couple of new characters added to the cast - and Antonio Banderas as Puss 'n' Boots is a very entertaining addition. But somehow, it all adds up to a lesser film, especially when at times, it feels like the narrative is sinking under the weight of its own cleverness.

And it's not that it's impossible that a sequel be equal or outstrip its predecessor - I'm thinking of the fantastic Toy Story and Toy Story 2. The Toy Stories have a lot in common with the Shreks - big name voices, commercially success, pop culture jokes, and the addition of new characters to try and spice up the sequel.

But Toy Story 2 built on its predecessor in a number of ways. Peripheral characters were fleshed out, the friendship between Buzz and Woody had added complexity. Details which seemed insignificant (such as the Buzz Lightyear / Emperor Zurg saga) were developed in hilarious, unexpected directions. Further, the pop culture references in the Toy Story films were actually relevant - the barrel of monkeys, the Speak and Spell, the Star Wars parallels, and Mr Potato Head - it's not just referential in-jokes, it's an exercise in taking the adult audience back to its own childhood. Every pop-culture joke adds to the narrative, rather than being a diversion.

The Disney parodies in the original Shrek make a point about not buying into cliched fairytales which is relevant to the story. But what about the references to the Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, From Here to Eternity, Zorro, or god help us, Flashdance? None of these gags proved or established anything relevant to the actual plot. At times, the narrative bends out of its way to incorporate these gags, which starts to get just plain annoying. And worse still, many of the jokes just aren't even that funny - the references are just dumped into scenes, as if the mere fact that they mimic the Frodo / ring sequence from Lord of the Rings is meant to have you in stitches. And as for all the "Kingdom Far Far Away" jokes about Los Angeles, just how edgy is it to poke fun at Hollywood?

It's not a bad or unwatchable film - it's an entertaining enough way to spend two hours, and I laughed a few times (particularly at the From Here to Eternity beach make-out which ended with the mermaid being thrown to sharks. Ha! still funny.) And it does have a really adult, complicated-yet-simple potrayal on the give and take of relationships. But there's no question that Shrek 2 will date. In ten years, it seem like a film so much as a grab-bag time capsule of jokes circa 2000 - 2004. We'll watch it and think - "that's right. "Living La Vida Loca". I used to dance to that when I was really pissed. What was I thinking?" And then we'll wish we'd rented Finding Nemo instead.

2004-07-09T15:38:00.000+10:00

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
(or the alternate title: Harry Potter and the Director that Could)

The absolute best thing about this film is that whilst the first two Harry Potter films have really been J.K Rowling films, this one is an Alfonso Cuaron film.

Let me explain. I don’t hate the books, as such, I just find the cult that’s grown up around them to be really out of proportion (ie: they’re good, but not that good.) Further, I think that their popularity could well become part of their downfall. Example – J.K Rowling really needs a good editor, but now that she’s wildly popular and the second richest woman in Britain, it’s a bit hard for anyone to tell her to get her shit together. Up til now, the adaptations under Chris Columbus haven’t just been dull and unimaginative, they’ve been cautiously, slavishly accurate. Sure everyone looked the part, but it never came alive (although the adult cast, particularly Rickman’s Snape, did their absolute best).

But now, finally, we have a director who is prepared to do more of a “take” than an adaptation of Rowling’s novel, a director who has enough personality that he’s left his own stamp on the film. A script that’s not afraid to ruthlessly edit down the action. And finally, the book that (in my view) is the best out of the first four books of the series. The result? I finally walk out of a Harry Potter film entertained and satisfied, rather than bored out of my brain. I call it a win.

I don’t want to imply that Rowling’s work is devoid of merit. Her strength is essentially the characters and the world which she has created. Both are feats of imagination, no arguments here. The cast was also a done deal before Cuaron signed on, but as the adult regulars are a dream cast and the kids are improving, that’s no real problem.

But now, the handicaps. Name this film: it starts out at the Dursleys house, where Harry just doesn’t fit in because they’re mean and nasty. He makes his way to Hogwarts in a very exciting mode of transport. On arriving at Hogwarts, there’s a new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher. The kids from Slytherin are mean, especially that Draco Malfoy. But the Griffyndors soon put him in his place. Take that, Draco! The kids play a match or two of Quidditch. A plot is uncovered and Harry is in danger, but the person who seems villainous isn’t, and the actual villain has been hiding innocuously all along in an unexpected form. Voldemort and the death of Harry’s parents are quite significant to the conclusion. Problems are solved through Hermione’s brains, Harry’s bravery and initiative, and Ron not stuffing it up too much.

Okay, I hear you say, sure this happens in every single one of books one through four, but it’s a franchise, there’s nothing wrong with a little repetition. But leaving aside the love you may or may not bear for the books, this is a significant problem for a film director adapting book three. You don’t want an audience experiencing deja-vu, and you don’t want them leaving and reflecting “okay, but a lot like the last one.”

Cuaron’s film solves this problem through sheer audacity. The Hogwarts train journey in the first film, and the flying car of the second were filmed as straight “exciting journey” sequences (shots of scenery, juxtaposed with Harry looking excited). Compare this to the sequence on the bus in the third film, which (with help from the score) feels like an acid trip. The Quidditch match? you hardly see the game at all for the pouring rain and the lightning, and the film pretty much shows the minimum amount of action necessary for the story (none of those awful boring “practice” scenes and “who’s playing and where are they” establishing shots – we just go straight to Harry’s predicament in mid-air.) Time is passing? we know this not because of exposition, but because of the whomping willow (some of my favourite vignettes in the movie). It’s called cutting the crap, and can I say, thank god.

Even better, the world in this book has expanded – we’re outside, we see more of Hogwarts, more of a sense of the layout of the castle. Signposts to Hogsmeade, carriages up from the train – there’s a bigger roadmap of how it all fits together that feels like the gaze of the film is larger – even though this film is significantly shorter than its predecessors.

And the jokes and observations are subtle. The kids are growing into adolescents, and there are few shy sweet suggestions of how this is playing out between the three leads. And how hilarious was that first shot of Harry in bed under the sheets playing with his . . . wand (don’t tell me that joke wasn’t intended!) Another great moment: in the pub in London as Harry walks through to meet Fudge, there’s someone on the far right of the screen reading a copy of Hawking’s Brief History of Time. I thought it was funny but a bit off the wall, it was only later that I realised of course that time and its properties are important to the story. Winks to the audience like this worked because there weren’t too many of them to be clever – subtext never overwhelmed the text.

It’s been a while since I read book three, and I have to say that the action went a little too fast for me. How on earth did Hermione figure out Lupin’s secret? if it was solely Lupin’s reaction to the boggart that tipped her off, she really is the most talented witch of her generation. Also, there was not nearly enough Snape – Rickman is the most fun to watch onscreen, and Snape is my favourite character of the series (moral complexity, yo). But on the whole, an enjoyable film – whilst not genius, it’s light years ahead of the other two. We have about a year to be happy before the next director in line, Mike Newell, fucks it up all over again.**

** Okay, he’s a step above Chris “Bicentennial Man” Columbus, but I really, really hated Love Actually. And all this guy has shown he’s proficient at is large cast English sex romps. Colour me unconvinced.

2004-07-08T11:06:00.000+10:00

Oh, whatever.
General rant, Max Barry, the Olsen twins, and a few token references to films

This? makes me so mad.

Speaking of Australia becoming a US state, this scenario is explored in Max Barry's fantastic novel Jennifer Government, which you should all go read. The rights to film the book have been optioned by Section Eight, the Clooney / Soderbergh production company. If you have some free time, you can read the first chapter here. It'll make a great movie.

Max Barry is awesome. He was interviewed by Beth, my personal litmus test for cool. He has an awesome webpage, and has an opinion on just about everything. I particularly recommend his brilliant review of an Olsen Twins novel which had me in stitches. (Apparently, Ashley is the funny one. Who knew?)

Whilst we're on the subject of the Olsen twins, I recently saw the preview for New York Minute. It went something like this:

[Eugene Levy]
Me: I totally have to see this!
[horrible dialogue with MK]
[horrible dialogue with Ashley]
[small fluffy dog]
[Jack. Osbourne.]
[fake Charlies Angels style smackdown sequence by MK]
Me: actually. You know? I think I'll save my crappy cinema dollar for Garfield.

2004-07-06T15:43:00.000+10:00

Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli
My Neighbour Totoro, Spirited Away

Miyazaki is a director of Japanese animated films, best known for Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke which were both released cinematically here in Oz. I’d only seen Spirited Away, but thanks to the Miyazaki showcase currently on at the Valhalla and Chauvel cinemas in Sydney, I caught My Neighbour Totoro last weekend. Even though these films were created ten years apart, they have common story elements which really highlight the themes Miyazki finds interesting:

• young girls are the major characters: Chihiro in Spirited Away, and the sisters Satsuki and Mei in My Neighbour Totoro.
• the family is moving house (to a green, leafy environment)
• the children encounter a fantastic world of spirits: in Spirited Away, Chihiro is actually ‘taken’ into the spirit world; whilst in Totoro, Satsuki and Mei encounter spirits who inhabit our world, which only children can see.

What to draw from this? There’s a focus in both films on how children’s lives can be stressful. Things are happening that they have no control over; like moving house, and Satsuki and Mei's sick mother in Totoro. But this powerlessness is then undermined in the film, as the narrative empowers the kids in a variety of ways. The children are usually the only ones who can see the spirits – the films suggest that they have a perceptiveness or power that’s lost in adulthood. Further, because the children in these films don’t necessarily jump to conclusions about the spirits being bad or scary, the children often turn out to be better judges of character than the adults.

I’m sure that a lot of how spirits are depicted in these films is linked to mythologies that I’m not informed about. But the narratives in the film still work on the level of someone outside that culture, and the messages are all positive. Don’t be afraid of things you don’t immediately understand. The ugliest looking things shouldn’t be judged by appearance. Don’t be scared of change, and look for new exciting things that change brings you. Also: it's cool to be a kid.

The thing that makes these films really special is the depiction of the children, which is always absolutely real. Throughout Totoro, I got really misty-eyed watching the two sisters interact, which reminded me of how my older sister used to play with me when we were kids. Give a Miyazaki kid an umbrella, a bunch of puddles and gumboots, and the way they play seems exactly right. And that’s an amazing thing – that of all the films I’ve seen recently, these nail childhood the most for me, and yet they’re animated and in Japanese.

Oh, and also? the animation is spectacular. In 1988 when Totoro was released, Disney released Oliver and Company, which was a dog film in more ways than one. More than a decade later at the 2003 Oscars, Spirited Away beat out both Dreamworks’ Ice Age and Disney’s Lilo and Stitch for the best animated film award (the first foreign film to have won this category). You have to feel sorry for Disney – not only has Pixar outstripped its master and then jumped ship, but Studio Ghibli under Miyazaki is both getting better, and winning more mainstream acclaim. Things look grim for Mickey.

2004-07-05T15:47:00.000+10:00

Spiderman 2

I was planning on writing my Spiderman 2 review as lyrics to the spiderman theme song, but that just started looking really awful. (“Tobey Macguire! he’s not bad! / except that he looks perpetually sad!”) Is there a rhyme for “Dunst”? please let me know via the comments function.

Anyway, Spidey 2 rocks, in the sense that it totally delivers on the B-movie action front. It’s a solid 3 ½ stars from me – it would have edged up to four, but for the laughable “Spiderman as Jesus” scene on the train. I was also bugged by the number of scenes that were replicated from the first movie. Mary Jane in peril? tick. A heart-stirring “you want to attack him? you’ll have to go through us” scene from New Yorkers? tick. Depressing under-use of James Franco, who actually seems to be a really good actor? tick.

However, there’s still something just freaking beautiful about the scenes of Spidey, swinging his way through the streets of New York. The absolute freedom of it just strikes a chord, even if you’re scared of heights, have never been to New York, and think that spiders are creepy. That these films also work as morality plays about the use and misuse of power and responsibility is icing on the cake.

It’s funny. It’s exhilarating. And it’s deftly handled - there are moments of dialogue where you can almost here a click of “wheels set in motion”. For those who’ve seen the film, I’m thinking of the scene between Peter and Harry towards the end of the film – Harry makes a statement, and there’s a pause when you feel that a lot is hanging on Peter’s answer. Peter responds (“more important things to worry about”), and I remember just exhaling my held breath and leaning back in my seat. It’s not that Peter gave the wrong answer, but you know that this moment was a turning point, and boy did it resonate. Pulled off without any heavy music cues, obvious underlining or emphasis. This is why I think Sam Raimi is an excellent director.

Finally, minor props to Michael Chabon, one of the three people credited with the script. He's a comic book writer, a McSweeney's regular (he edited the fantastic issue #10 and wrote this awesome little essay about the short story genre), a Pullitzer prize winning author, and my latest literary crush.

Speaking of McSweeneys, I just found this on their website:

"An open letter to the radioactive spider that never bit me".

I could be punching bank robbers and rapists! I could have pectoral muscles! But no, I have to walk to where I want to go, and the only thing I can shoot out of my wrists is blood, and that’s not possible without probably dying afterward.

Dude. I hear you.

2004-07-01T09:54:00.000+10:00

Miranda Devine: film critic

I pretty much invariably hate everything Miranda Devine has to say. And now, I can legitimately talk about her on this site, because she uses The Stepford Wives as a vehicle for her usual ramblings about why feminism sucks. It’s nothing she hasn’t said before, but it’s "new" because she’s using a new film as an example. This for Miranda, is cultural relevancy.

As usual with Miranda, my first problem is the headline. “Yes sister, choose what you want.” First thought: what the fuck does that even mean? Second thought: even her headlines are annoyingly condescending. Third thought: ah, Miranda on choice, again. I predict that when she says “choice”, what she means is “every choice you could make that isn’t my choice, is the wrong choice.” (and . . . bingo!)

This is essentially exactly the same article I’ve read at least three times this year from Miranda. It’s all “new feminism” and “new domesticity” – the apparent deluge of women who are fed up with their meaningless lives, who desperately want to put on aprons, go back to the kitchen, and succumb to their maternal and feminine instincts. There's no analysis of wider social/economic reasons why people might have trouble having children, or taking time off work to look after said children. Or any suggestion of a role that - say - a father/husband/partner could play in all this.

Miranda's "analysis" of The Stepford Wives is realy just an excuse to revisit the same old ground. So to save Miranda some time, I’ve come up with a few suggestions of other recent films she can "review", to ensure that she can continue to write hard-hitting articles about the exact same topic. I've even come up with some suggested opening lines, because that's the kind of generous girl I am.

#1 The Day After Tomorrow: This film is about global warming. Global warming is a big recent thing people have only started to become aware of. And that’s exactly like “new feminism”, the movement that’s going to warm up the nuclear family . . . with love.

#2 Spider Man 2: “With great power, comes great responsibility” is the message at the heart of the spiderman franchise. Clearly, there’s a message here for the womens’ movement. Well, the “responsibility” part, anyway. We’ll just leave “power” to one side, shall we?

#3 Dawn of the Dead: The zombie “virus” spreads rapidly around the population, turning everyone into mindless, aggressive, bloodthirsty automatons. Although this may be unintentional by the filmmakers, this virus could clearly be a metaphor for the feminist movement, and the zombies themselves are the very image of the rabid, bra-burning harpies I clearly have in mind, every time I think of every time I hear the word “feminist”.

#4 Shrek 2: In accepting Shrek’s proposal, Princess Fiona is clearly making a socially unacceptable choice (at least to the “feminist” set), and one must applaud the braveness of the filmmakers in insisting on upholding the values of family and commitment. We should also rejoice in the fact that however misguided the womens’ movement was, it does mean that Fiona has choices, and she should be thankful for that. Whilst having babies and staying home.

2004-06-30T11:44:00.000+10:00

Sydney Film Festival Viewing Log

This took a while to get up. I think I’ve been suffering from post-festival exhaustion. But now I totally miss it. I skulk past the State Theatre and look longingly inside. I’ve still got my pass in my wallet. It’s all a bit sad, y’all.

Final tally:
Features: 14
Shorts: 8
Documentaries: 8

Best documentaries: Bright Leaves, Control Room.
Best features: Witnesses, Take My Eyes, Somersault.
Best short: Two Cars, One Night, The Scree

Thursday – Day 6

#19 Jesus, You Know (documentary, Austria)
A documentary where people sat down and spoke directly to cameras (set up in different churches or places of worship), recording their conversations with Jesus. Intimate and kind of freaky. If I was Jesus, I’d be backing the hell away from some of these people (ie: the middle aged woman who was running past Jesus whether or not she should poison her unfaithful husband, or possibly herself.) Most memorable – the teenage boy who was apologising to Jesus for all the terrible “fantasies” he has about being a brilliant soccer player, because it means that he wants to be better than Jesus has made him and he should be satisfied with who he is. He also apologised for wanting to watch TV shows for the pretty actresses, and for not cleaning his room. I just wanted to give him a hug, and a shake. It was like he was fretful with guilt over being a seventeen year old guy. It wasn’t that great viewing (like the doco Travelling Birds, after a while, flying ducks or people confessing gets a bit the same) but still pretty fascinating for the insight.

#20 How (not) to make a short film (short, UK)
Hilarious. A writer holds a director hostage. Apparently no fish were harmed in the making of this film. It must have been motorised.

#21 Abjad (The First Letter) (feature, Iran)
A “snapshot of life” kind of film which shows a young boy growing up in a very conservative household in Iran. It’s really well made, and you get an intimate view of everyday life that would be just impossible for most of us to see any other way. It’s one of those films where the parts don’t exceed the value of the whole – it’s the details that charmed, rather than any overall story arc or destination. But it was a great film regardless.

#22 Brown Paper Bag (short, UK)
A fairly average short about alcoholism.

#23 Witnesses (feature, Croatia)
This film deserves way more thought than I have time to devote to it here. It’s a feature set in Croatia during the civil war in the late 1990s. It’s wonderfully made – the tracking shots are to die for, and the structure adds so much to the film. And as the story evolves, you start to get an understanding of the tension at its heart – the deep seated violence, the undercurrent of rage and guilt, the need for someone brave enough to step in and stop the cycle. This film is noteworthy amongst the other “serious” or dark films of this festival, in that it has a real energy. Cannot recommend this highly enough.

Friday – Day 7

#24 Born into Brothels (documentary, India/UK)
A British woman who is working as a photographer in the Brothels begins to teach some of the children of the prostitutes photography. The documentary follows a group of eight children – she gives them cameras, advice and encouragement. The kids have a scary world, and their unique view of it as seen through their photos is really compelling stuff. It’s also fantastic that such powerless kids are given a way to comment or show their world to others, a very unusual way of dealing with subjects in a documentary. The photography of the kids is shown and sold in New York, and the proceeds are to be used to try and get the kids into boarding schools away from the brothels. But the sobering reality is that even an influx of money and the terrific energy of the woman involved aren’t enough to break the pervasive cycle the kids are already in.

#25 JoJo in the Stars (short, UK)
A bizarre little animated tale about little creatures, a strange circus, and a little love story.

#26 Ae Fond Kiss (feature, UK)
Feature by director Ken Loach, basically a star-crossed love story between cultures (Irish and Pakistani) set in the UK. A great film – doesn’t add much to other Romeo and Juliet films of its type, but it does come out ahead of this genre because of the well-rounded characters. A very accessible film (the crowd loved it) and a pleasant way to spend a few hours without changing your life.

#27 Right Hook – A Tall Tale (short, Canada)
Heh. The kind of short that always goes down a treat at a film festival – a fisherman out on a river gets a lot more than he bargained for. Very funny – my favourite part though was that it really did nail the atmosphere of fishing programmes, with elevator lite music and a square jawed, blondish Canadian casting his rod and looking all “down with nature”.

#28 Seducing Doctor Lewis (feature, Canada)
One of those eccentric small town films, but done so well that it doesn’t matter that the territory is a bit familiar. A factory has closed down on an island, and in order to get local industry revitalised, the town needs to lure in a doctor, and keep him signed on a contract for five years. This gimmick does allow for some genuinely hilarious moments – it was a great film to close out the subscription season. The writer is a talented guy, and the cast is very adept at lobbing the jokes without getting hammy or over the top. Very watchable little film.

2004-06-24T14:25:00.000+10:00

Film Festival Viewing Log

Score Card
Features: 10
Shorts: 4
Documentaries: 5
My head: only just staying in one piece
Coffee sold at State Theatre: I'm over it, yet it is my life's blood. Sad.
Coffee sold at Gloria Jean's: I've started drinking it here, because it's an all-important walk around the corner, and I am getting no exercise.
Caramel slice sold at State Theatre: Not recommended. They cover it in gladwrap, and everything sticks to it, then you're sticky, then your programme is sticky, then the whole world is sticky and you want to die.
People told to shut the f*ck up: Still just the one. These days, I'm so jittery that if I start yelling at people I won't stop. ("Stop being so noisy! And you over there! stop blowing your nose every five seconds. Guy in the beret - stop breathing so heavily. You should stop being so tall! and you! your scarf / jacket combination hurts my eyes. Did no one ever tell you that pink and red do not mix? and . . . what? you're kicking me out?")
Worst film: still The Fall of the House.
Best documentary: Very probably Bright Leaves.
Best film: Too close to call. Three main contenders, with two really exciting films coming up in the next two nights.
Best short: It's looking pretty good for the Aussies and New Zealanders.

Day Four - Tuesday

#12 Addicted to Acting (documentary, Germany)
A documentary which follows four aspiring actors who apply to a prestigious German drama school. We see their progress over about five or six years – the period they’re at the school, then what happens to them post-graduation. In the Q&A after the film, the director revealed that he got the idea for this project from his own experiences of studying film making, during which “90% of what we did was criticised.” How demoralising is it to have to take this kind of protracted criticism? What kind of person wants to be an actor? A fascinating look at the process of teaching acting, which strips away the glamour, and leaves only the hard work and the dream of furthering “art”.

#13 Two Cars, One Night (short, New Zealand)
It’s evening. Two cars are parked outside an RSL. Both cars have occupants – kids waiting for their parents to come out. They’re very, very bored. This film is just adorable, and beautifully shot. I did have trouble understanding the dialogue at times, but that just made it more believable as “kidspeak”. A top short.

#14 The Return (feature, Russia)
Two sons live with their grandmother and mother. One day, their father returns after twelve years. He takes them on a fishing trip. We don’t know where he’s been, or why he’s come back. And the kids watch him – suspicious, but at the same time, desperately hungry for the father they have never known. Visually stunning, and an emotional knockout. One of those tales that feels far more like fable or parable, but still works as a very human story.

Day Five - Wednesday

#15 The General (short, The Netherlands)
The sound wasn’t working on this short (and although there was no dialogue, I suspect sound was important), so I’m not going to critique it. But as I did sit through it, I want it for my running tally!

#16 Control Room (documentary, USA/Egypt)
Okay, stop the press. This is a documentary you all have to see. It tells the story of the Arab satellite station Al Jazeera. Critcised by the Bush administration as “the mouthpiece of Osama Bin Laden”, this film is mind-opening in all the best ways, making you see how news is slanted and edited. The depiction of Al Jazeera is a positive one, showing them as dedicated, passionate and highly articulate journalists who are firm supporters of open information. Worth seeing, especially given that the very black reputation Al Jazeera has in the Western media is undeserved – they have their slant, but then so does CNN and Fox News. Directed by Jehane Noujaim – who has been added to my list of “documentary makers I will now stalk”. There are frequent moments in the film where she makes intelligent choices rather than dramatic ones. The Americans (both media and soldiers) are not villains, but protagonists in their own right. Look out for Josh Rushing, the press officer for US central command – although he has to toe the party line, by the end of the film I’d really warmed to him, as he had some moments of real honesty. (It would have been so easy for a documentary like this to demonise the US military and US journalists – but it doesn’t.) Exactly what a documentary about current events should be. This is currently screening in Sydney at the Chauvel – so look out for it at an independent cinema near you sometime in the very near future. Check out the official site here.

#17 James’ Journey to Jerusalem (feature film, Israel)
A great film. James is a young idealistic man who is travelling on a pilgrimage from Africa to Jerusalem. He is pulled over by Customs as an illegal immigrant, and although he is quickly removed from jail, the man who saves him has an ulterior motive. We watch James' idealism get worn down by the capitalism which surrounds him in the “Holy Land”. It’s a surprisingly joyous little film. Although it’s all round very capable, the stand out reason to watch it is the lead performance of Siyabonga Melongisi Shibe as James, which deserves to be star-making.

#18 Untold Scandal (feature film, South Korea)
Another version of Dangerous Liaisons - this time, set in eighteenth century South Korea. Worth seeing, just for the “you’re shitting me, right?” value. A lot of fun for all the double entendres and machinations, and everyone looks very, very pretty. I’m not sure how much this re-telling has to add to the previous versions, as the various outcomes and downfalls are all by the book, with only a few minor differences due to the change in setting. Still, the film makes you take an evil pleasure in the machinations of the sexual manipulators, even whilst you’re waiting to cheer their downfall. Costuming and scenery were also gorgeous.

2004-06-22T15:29:00.000+10:00

Film Festival Viewing Log

Score Card:
Features: 7
Shorts: 2
Documentaries: 3
Number of people told to shut the f*ck up: still just the one, although some woman rustling a plastic bag for at least ten godamn minutes was coming close.
I've stopped counting my cups of coffee / cans of coke. It's too depressing.

Day 3 - Monday

#8 Chicken Party (a kind of long short, at 30 mins)
A hilarious little film from the US about a bunch of people forced to do community service. I arrived slightly late and missed the beginning, but was overjoyed to recognised Alison Janney (CJ of TV’s West Wing, amongst too many other things to mention). In one of the film's funnier sequences, Janney’s rich socialite shoplifts from a department store by stashing jewellery in the esky she’d brought to store her face cream. (Well, she started with the esky. Then she stuffed things down her shirt. Pieces of jewellry in her mouth. Random clothes up her skirt and in her pantyhose . . . I was dying.) And that’s only one of the stories – they’re all fantastic. A great series of comic set pieces, tied in to a framing story where the different people are ‘doing their time for the crime’ by picking up rubbish by a highway. Nothing too ground-breaking, but the writer / director Tate Taylor is someone I hope will persevere with the gig.

#9 Anthem
An Australian documentary by Helen Newman and Tahir Cambis about the refugee issue in Australia. It had some good footage but there were quite a few flaws. First, they tried to do too much in a short time, and the result just didn’t work in any coherent way. (But you loved the expansive scope of Bright Leaves, I hear you say! Well, the thing about Bright Leaves is that it didn’t really have an agenda. Anthem is trying to convey several specific messages about the refugee crisis, but because it is just too sprawling, too diffuse, the actual point was obscured.) Another significant problem is the place of the filmmakers themselves in their own documentary. There are too many shots of both Newman and Cambis listening / observing / reacting to things – how upset they are, how interesting they found stuff. By the end of it, I just kept thinking “get out of the damn shot already.” I was very disturbed by the inclusion of a sequence in a public meeting room in Afghanistan where men were celebrating, and we see Helen (the only woman present) dancing on a table to their cheers. Not only did her actions seem profoundly stupid, to me it implied that she's some sort of amazing "free spirit" who can connect with these men. When it’s not that women of Afghanistan aren’t free spirits – they’d be publicly condemned or worse if they tried. Having said that, they had great footage of the centres, great interviews with refugees / detainees / activists. But if you’re really interested in knowing more about refugees and the lies or obfuscations of the Australian government, you should read Robert Manne’s great Quarterly essay “Bringing them Home". I should note that a lot of people at the Theatre thought this was awesome – so maybe it’s just me.

#10 Blue Poles (short)
A brief liason between a farm boy (Sam Worthington) and a hippie, on a road trip to Canberra in the 1970s. Slight and not particularly insightful. I enjoyed it, but wasn’t blown away. It was also distinctly from the male perspective – the girl thinks she knows how the world works, but the farm boy tells her like it is – after which she instantly caves and agrees with him. He has a sensitive side, and she’s awed by it – after which she immediately decides to have sex with him. Hello, male writer’s fantasy!

#11 In Your Hands
Geez. This film. It completely messed with my head. It’s from Denmark, largely set in a women’s prison where a theological student (Anna) has just begun work as a priest. She comes into contact with the world of the prison, including the guards, and the female prisons. One prisoner, Kate, is also a new arrival at the prison, and already there are rumours about her strange abilities and miraculous things happening around her. We also become acquainted with Anna’s home life – her husband, their efforts to have a baby. You’re not quite sure where this film is going, but it becomes quite relentlessly dark, suggesting that both coincidences and human choices can have tragic consequences. At the time I found it frustrating, now I think it’s masterful and pretty impossible to summarise, puzzling and intriguing. Central to the film is the role religion plays in their lives – the film unpacks the concept of “forgiveness” in the context of the jail. Although our society and culture claims to be able to forgive – both in a religious sense (absolving of sins) and in a secular one (serving time at prison); such ideals are found wanting here. A film which re-defines thought-provoking, although it’s definitely not for everyone.

2004-06-22T08:48:00.000+10:00

Greater Union - Not What I Want

Yesterday, a "source" emailed me this (alleged) internal memo from Greater Union Cinemas. (all emphasis added)

Hi All

Just a quick note congratulating you all on the Shrek Belly Bulge sales to date. We are off to a great start and our continued focus should see our results continue to be of the highest level.

. . . For those locations with ticket box separate from Candybar it has been suggested to put some of the Shrek display stands at the ticketbox to create awareness of the Belly Bulge for those patrons who need an incentive to go to the candybar. Nothing like a little kid saying but mum I want one to get another combo sale. Also if you are happy to write a small number of your stock off having ticket sellers and ticket takers playing with the items is another good way of making kids drag their parents to the candybar not that they should need a reason. Just be careful that the staff don't take them home.

If anyone has any other great ideas I am more than happy to take them onboard.

When we all pull in the same direction we are unbeatable.

Kind Regards
[name removed]
National Film Marketing Manager

This is exactly what Super Size Me was talking about when it criticised advertisements for sugary / junk food which targeted children.

2004-06-21T09:46:00.000+10:00

Film Festival viewing log

My eyes are tired.

Score card
Feature films - 5
Documentaries - 2
Shorts - 1
Best film - Bright Leaves, with Somersault as runner up.
Worst film - The Fall of the House. What a waste of time.
Number of caffeinated beverages bought at State Theatre: 7
People I have told to shut the f*ck up: 1

Day 1 – Saturday
#1 Somersault
A bittersweet and perceptive tale of a girl skirting the limits of her sexuality. Set between Canberra and Jindabyne. I was so absorbed at moments, I was leaning forward in my seat to catch every glance and nuance. There’s some unsatisfying elements – I didn’t like the diary that one of the leads carries around with her (lazy shorthand for “deep adolescent”). Sometimes, dizzingly beautiful scenes seemed to be included for no real purpose – as if the film was a bit too much in love with its own reflection. But still an amazing effort from a first time feature director. Both Abbie Cornish (Maxine's daughter from Wildside! who has clearly grown up) and Sam Worthington delivered by far the best performances I’ve seen from either of them. Make sure you catch this when it gets to cinemas later this year.

#2 De-Lovely
This bio-pic tale of Cole Porter stars Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd, and it had both good and bad moments. The Bad – the framing device of the older Cole Porter watching his younger self on a stylized stage really pissed me off. Nothing bugs me more than pretentious stuffing around with timelines / narrators just to be arty. The Good - the intense passion of Porter’s life, a man who loved both men and women and tried to make it work. The real greatness of his music. And how true it is that once you start understanding the balancing act of his love life – a wife he loved, along with various young male lovers – it's impossible not to see all his songs as somehow coded (such as “Anything Goes”, “Experiment”, and “Night and Day” – a song about obsession).

#3 Maria Full of Grace
An amazing story set in Colombia (but filmed in Equador). Young girls are recruited to be “mules” – to carry drugs from Colombia to the USA. Maria’s life is awful – poverty, a terrible job, powerlessness, an unwanted pregnancy. You can see how for her the chance to smuggle the drugs is an opportunity to try for something better, even though you’re screaming for her not to take it. Traveling with Maria becomes a very dark journey, and we are powerless to help her, just as we see that she has no safe options. Not quite as depressing as Lilya 4 Ever (which was about child prostitution in Europe), but up there. I didn’t realise how upset the film made me until the credits were rolling and the people next to me left, and I just started sobbing. Probably it was also being tired and emotional after three films in a row.

Day 2 - Sunday
#4 The Fall of the House
In the 1950s, Eugene Goossens (a renowned and respected director of the Australian Orchestra) was intercepted by Customs with a briefcase full of illegal pornographic photos. Despite his immense contribution to the classical music scene in Sydney, Goossens was run out of the country and died a pauper in disgrace. This is possibly the worst documentary I’ve ever seen. Due to a lack of archival footage, the documentary was bulked up with re-enactments and excerpts from an opera, play and book which are all based on this story. It is not interesting to hear someone read excerpts of a book aloud. Telling the audience about a fact, then showing boringly filmed chunks of a play or opera covering that same fact is nothing more than padding. Sure, it’s interesting that so many people have done adaptations of this compelling story. But the use of the adaptations didn’t add anything substantial. If they’d cut the crap, the documentary could have been tighter and shorter, and maybe it wouldn’t have felt like such a waste of time. Even the name is pointless – I think it’s referring to the Opera House, but as we are constantly reminded throughout the documentary, it wasn’t even built yet at the time of the scandal. Whatever.

#5 Take My Eyes
A Spanish film about domestic violence. Most of the films about this subject matter that I’ve seen have been kind of ‘hero’ quests: Julia Roberts getting beaten by her husband, in a conventional thriller leading up to shit-kicking tables-are-turned finale. Hollywood isn’t brave enough to portray domestic violence more like it really is – an ongoing struggle of a relationship that is difficult to shed, layered with love and memory. The abusive relationship between Pilar and Antonio is complicated. Antonio is an angry insecure man, and Pilar is convinced that love is enough, that he can change, that it would be an unforgivable failure to "give up" on the marriage and be a woman alone. Mixed up in this is Pilar’s sister – shocked and grieved to find out the extent of the abuse. Her mother – who has her own agenda and wants Pilar to stay with her marriage. Her son – caught between his demanding father and his mother. Even though the relationships and personalities of those involved are complicated, the right and wrong of the situation is clear. A real slow burner of a film that stays with you.

#6 The Scree (short)
Paul McDermott’s creepy short tale – an epic poem about five friends stranded on a strange island, who start being eliminated one by one, read by Ruth Cracknell over a fantastic animation and live action sequence. Beautifully done, very creepy and dark. The imagery is the stuff of nightmares. I loved both the poem and the execution of the whole in the film. Paul (who wrote, directed, acted, and I'm sure I heard his voice singing in the closing credits music) appeared on stage briefly after the film to say thanks. It was cool to see him. I miss the early days of Good News Week.

#7 The Green Butchers
I knew cannibalism was the theme du jour. I knew it! This Danish black comedy involves butchers, a freezer door that doesn’t open from this inside, an untimely accident, and a sudden decision to serve up a new kind of meat to a Rotary meeting. “It was an accident.” “So why is his leg missing?” – etc. A funny, very odd film with a tone that oddly hovers around serious, even when it’s completely ridiculous. I’m not entirely sure it was successful – but it was strangely endearing.