Saint Louis International Film Festival

This is going to be a bit late, but I think it's important to point out that this week has been a troubling, existential emotional roller coaster where both time, money, and other important grips on reality began slipping through my fingers. When you spend multiple days sitting in your car either eating or just staring up, waiting for the next thing to happen, you start questioning your worth.

Yesterday I ate almost a whole bag of Snickers unwrapped, and that was not the only candy I had that night. I then went to Burger King in an irrational attempt to "even things out" in my stomach.

I saw some movies, too, at SLIFF. This was a part of my strange week, but not all of it. It mostly had to do with being in the Loop all the time, smelling lots of garbage, being approached by homeless people, and seeing some very interesting but not all too amazing movies (bar a few).

The first thing I saw (after the tragic events described in my last post) was Computer Chess (2013).

 This is the latest work from Andrew Buljaski, who has been dubbed "godfather of mumblecore". Mumblecore is a fairly recent sub-genre of independent movies that is known for "naturalistic dialogue" "amateur actors" and "low key production design". I put quotes on these phrases, because I think mumblecore would be more appropriately described as overly quirky and peculiar for the purpose of being quirky and peculiar, and stupid dickhat crap. 

Luckily, this movie didn't have that problem. Andrew Bujalski doesn't endorse his nickname, and is right not to, because he can obviously make a movie with substance, like Computer Chess. 

That isn't to say I loved Computer Chess. There were several scenes that I found hilarious and brilliant. Overall, the film was shot really well in terms of composition, yet also intentionally shot terribly on a glitchy and archaic video camcorder from the 80's. It's a dry humor, absurdo-surrealist (I made that term up) period movie about computer nerds, but it's really about weird people who are weirdly passionate about weird things, and the mixture of deadpan, absurdism, and avante garde styles makes the movie something both grotesque and beautiful. Still not sure what think. Definitely want to see it again.

Then I saw The Blue Tiger (2013)

And...Oh whatever. It had a blue tiger in it and it was from the Czech Republic. That's all you need to know.

Things started to get better after that. I attended a screening of Alfred Hitchcock's Blackmail (1929). It's one of his early silent features, only this time it was accompanied by live music from the Rats and the People Motion Picture Orchestra.

They do these crazy amazing and beautiful scores for older movies and it is one of the coolest things ever. 

If you ever get a chance to see a silent film with live music, do it. It's fascinating.
I also saw Eric Von Stroheim's Greed (1924) accompanied by a RATP score. In this case, the movie often out shined the music.

Unfortunately, there was yet another shitty theater experience. I went to see a former professor's newly finished documentary, and thought if I sat in the back row, in the corner, I would be alone. I thought wrong.

Four hefty men filled out the rest of the row, trapping me. My professor (the producer, writer, director, and editor of the film) was right at the end. I couldn't even move or I would be spotted. Nevertheless, I thought if I just accepted that I couldn't move, and got comfortable, things would be okay. I thought wrong. It was at that moment that Lou Ferigno decided to sit right in front of me.

The documentary was in Spanish.

So for the majority of the movie, I just looked at pictures and was able to read the first and last few words of dialogue. This was my experience for the next 90 minutes, and that's all I want to say about that. I'm just gonna wrap things up.

Movies I Also Saw This Week
His Girl Friday (1940), Stagecoach (1939)  

Lamentations

Yesterday, I experienced something that almost everyone can relate to, almost everyone has experienced- and yet, it was such a shocking blow that I felt it down to my very core. It seemed to suck the life and joy out of me. When this thing happened, I heard those words that still cry and scream in my ears, and my stomach fell a thousand feet and collided with the hot and bubbling Earth's core, igniting a tide of despair that has yet to subside in me.

The movie I wanted to see was sold out.

SLIFF (Saint Louis International Film Festival) started this week, so I was super pumped to see one of the starting films, Nebraska (2013) by Alexander Payne. It's by an award winning director who has never made a negatively recieved film (I've had the pleasure of seeing Sideways [2004] and The Descendants [2011]). It has an intriguing cast, the typical comedy actor Will Forte in a dramatic role and the award winning Bruce Dern, who won the best actor award at Cannes for this. Even the poster looks pretty dope. 

I think the worst part was the guys face when he said it was sold out. Completely cold and emotionless. I hate that guy. He's the one who gave me a weird look when I asked if Blue Is the Warmest Color was full.

I had driven thirty minutes in the shittiest traffic and had a pretty lackluster day beforehand. I was in a rush, desperate, a little hungry, my head hurt a little, and I badly had to urinate. Finding a spot was a nightmare, the walk from the Fitz's parking lot to the Tivoli was like being in an action movie. Each passing moment standing in line was like watching a lepers arm slowly detach from his wretched torso. And the guy's face. Like stone, like Mount Rushmore telling you to fuck off. He looked like Anton Chigur.

Sold out.

 I should be working there. At my job, when I have to let a customer down, I always apologize for their inconvenience and let them know I understand their situation.

I decided maybe I should just go see 12 Years a Slave (2013) at another theater, but I just couldn't bring myself to.

So there's pretty much no review for this week. I did see a few movies, but they were all older.

But since I don't want to skimp on you guys, I did see something I want to talk about, but it wasn't a movie. It was a musical by Stephen Sondheim.

This musical was something else. I guess its something you guys should know about me. I love musicals. My favorite is actually another by Sondheim, Sweeney Todd. I also like Into the Woods, Cabaret, Little Shop of Horrors, Annie, some of Disney's stuff, and what have you. *

I was bored yesterday and decided to check out the televised version of Passion on YouTube. It's kind of considered Sondheim's last great work. He's still alive and all, but he's only done one musical after Passion and it flopped pretty hard.

I try not to talk too much about music and theater, because I don't think I'm as adept to analyze that kind of stuff. I'll take a crack at this one in the most humble way I can. It had a really romantic score and a very operatic story, but underneath all of that was something very newly dark and unsettling. The antagonism and vices seen in this musical seem more complex and subtle than what you see in a large scale opera. Sometimes the music was (probably intentionally) saccharine, other times really sinister, and not in a scary movie way. I mean in a deep and disturbing, psychologically unsound way.

It's about a soldier named Giorgio in a relationship with the beautiful Clara in 19th century Italy. The play begins with them in a loving embrace, which is soon ended when he reveals he is being transferred to another military outpost. In this outpost is a group of obnoxious and petty soldiers, a dignified major, and a stern doctor. The major's deranged cousin, Fosca, resides there too. She screams at night, goes into convulsions, and is terribly sickly and unattractive, and she grows obsessed with Giorgio during his stay, testing his patience and, ultimately, his devotions.

The play is extremely sad and also kind of creepy. It's unnerving. It kind of makes you squirm, because Giorgio is a really good guy, actually, and Fosca is terribly unhinged and manipulative, but there are many times when you just feel bad for her and completely understand why Giorgio keeps leading her on despite how crazy that sounds.

I don't want to spoil it, but it has the most intense and expressive endings I've seen in musical theater. It was very calm, it ended in a whisper, but it's so brutal.

If you're into musicals, you've got a glowing recommendation from me.   

Movies I Saw This Week
Monty Python's the Meaning of Life (1983)**, Gone With the Wind (1939)

*I would like to stress that I like the stage versions of these musicals. I don't think stage musicals translate into film at all, and I prefer to keep the two genres separate. The film version of Sweeney Todd was especially disappointing to me. I don't fucking understand why people are putting Helena Bonham Carter in musicals now. It needs to stop, her voice is pathetic.

**rewatch. I find Monty Python pretty hit and miss. Holy Grail is the best thing they ever did, I think. 

Blue Is the Warmest Colour (2013) dir. Abdellatif Kechiche

I recently watched a movie called Hard Eight (1996), that had a strangely balding yet still young Samuel L. Jackson. 

If you look hard enough in Hollywood, you can find pieces of Samuel's sheddings

This movie suffered from pretty bad projecting. They placed it on the bottom third of the screen. What the fuck? 

It seemed that this was the beginning of a pattern in shitty projection practices, as the movie I saw the very next day was too low on the screen, and it was a foreign film with subtitles, effectively obscuring everything everyone was saying in the black bar below where the actual screen was.

Thankfully, the good people at the Tivoli fixed the error after a couple of minutes, and I was able to forget about it and start watching the movie without distraction.

It was, what one might call, a quality film.

Since it's a critically acclaimed, Palme D'or  and FIPRESCI winning, three hour long epic romance (don't know if that's the right term), I should probably say "sublime" or "magnificent". 

But I was very excited to see that it was playing near me, because it's well known, new, and leads to so much discussion. I was gonna be a real badass and watch 12 Years a Slave and The Butler and then compare them in this review, but I thought this was a better choice.

And with SLIFF (Saint Louis International Film Festival) rearing its head, I need to save my money...

More On the Director
Abdellatif Kechiche is just as hard to work with as it is to pronounce his name (allegedly). Normally I'd start by going over some of his previous work, but I thought I'd zing you guys first. 

It's probably the most important thing (and by that I mean interesting) I can say about him to provide background to this movie. You don't need to look hard at all to see that the film went through a very troubled production and that most of the crew hated Kechiche, accusing him of harassment and labor law violations. Even the two main actresses said they would never work with him again. Ouch.

This reminds me a lot of Last Tango in Paris (1972). It too, went through a tense production, and people involved with the film, notably Maria Schneider, have spoken out against its director, Bernardo Bertolucci. The difference here is you can totally see that reflected in the film. 

It's a much, much darker film than Blue Is the Warmest Colour, and far more unsettling. It's interesting that Kechiche's film is garnering controversy for its nudity and graphic sex scenes in the same way that Last Tango In Paris did, which had sex scenes that approached rape. And by interesting, I mean fucking stupid. 

So to badly segue from that, Abdellatif has directed a few other films before this, his first being La Faute à Voltaire (2000) and another, The Secret of the Grain (2007) which also won the FIPRESCI. For those wondering, the FIPRESCI is an award given out at many film festivals like the one in Venice as well as Cannes. 

The Movie
Like I said, I thought this movie was amazing. I think the first thing I want to mention is that there is a beloved movie-going practice that I believe is starting to fade away and it shouldn't. Remember how at the end of a movie, instead of going straight into what to do next, we asked each other what our favorite parts were? Let's do that now. 

One of my favorite parts of the movie was near the beginning. It's probably best to do a little premise summary here. 

The movie is about a young girl named Adele (as evidenced from its french title, La Vie D'Adele - Chapitres 1 & 2). She's a junior in high school, just approaching the time when many girls her age discover their sexuality, and it is at this time that she starts feeling attraction to the same sex. She has many experiences with both sexes as both friends and lovers, particularly with a blue-haired girl named Emma who she gets into a lesbian relationship with, and all the while desperately tries to find herself. In that description, I kind of made it sound like a feel-good, teen coming-of-age movie. This isn't really true, the film is too heavy and dramatic to be a feel good movie and transcends the coming of age genre.

But back to my favorite part.

There's a scene near the beginning, where after being led on by a classmate, she tries coming on to her in the bathroom. She is let down very nicely and thoughtfully by her friend, and yet the scene is so heartbreaking. It's the first girl she's made an attempt at romance with, having struggled so hard with coming to terms with her feelings for women, and when she accepts it  and goes for a girl who shows interest in her, she is painfully rejected. It's a really sad moment, but in some ways it's kind of sweet. On one level it's light, a rejection scene we can all identify with; but on a deeper level it's really traumatic, because it's one more thing adding to Adele's insecurity. 

These scenes of disappointment and insecurity are something we see a lot in the movie, especially in the first half, and it flows well into the latter half of the movie. A lot of the themes of this movie change in their presentation and nature as Adele grows as a character. One of the big symbols in the movie seems to constantly be re-evaluated. As evidenced by the title, blue is a huge thing in the movie. That sounded pretty rough. Blue is a strong, reoccurring visual motif and symbol in the film. How's that? 

It's not just about Adele's love interest, Emma, having blue hair, it's about blue having an overwhelming presence in the color palette. It can be difficult in a movie to try to discern the meaning of repeated images, colors, or symbols. The role of blue here is less of "blue is a symbol for x" but more that blue attaches itself to people, places, or things that represent the desires of Adele (that's a really rough explanation). The color blue places itself wherever Adele goes to look for comfort, reinforcement, love, security, etc. So what's really happening is that blue is a tangible, visual means to make an emotion or concept physical. It makes for a physically beautiful and stunning film and an intriguing and well developed message.

There were better examples, but I didn't want to spoil one of the best images in the film

Another thing I wanted to talk about was controversy surrounding the amount of sex scenes in the film. Some people are questioning the merit of the lesbian sex sequences, which are admittedly graphic, not simulated, and long. Some people are even throwing the word "pornography" around. Let me just say that, regardless of whether the sex scenes were necessary or not, it's fucking dumb to call it pornography. Pornography, by definition, appeals mainly to prurient interests and has no explicitly artistic merit*. The sex scenes certainly are drawn out, and to a certain audiences, can even be titillating. But it has astouding relevance to the story. The length and explicitness depicted in them is simply a directorial choice on a scene that definitely has a place in the film. I think it's important to note that the 3 or 4 sex scenes in this three hour film amount to about 20% or less of the total run time, while a 90 minute, low budget horror film today can have up to 50% sexual or nude scenes  (which have less relevance to the story). 

Looking at you

So let's be a little more lax on the p-word when we see a scene in a movie that might, god forbid, give us a boner. The story around the sex scenes was more interesting anyway. 

Some more things the film draws on is the transition from childhood to adulthood, the shock that is felt when you're suddenly an adult, and many decisions you make can have serious repercussions. 

There's a lot of discussion between characters over how to view and understand art. There's a really great scene with Adele and a boy trying to date her where they talk about books, and whether it's better to analyze and dissect the fine details and purposes of an authors work, or let it be up to your imagination. There's some sneaky hints to the director's opinion on this debate in the film as well.

There's also a lot of questions posed in the movie about destiny and finding one's life purpose. The latter concept is actually examined frequently in the film. There are so many themes and ideas that it's hardly just a love story about lesbians like the posters would have you believe. 

It's got a little something something for everyone. 

And by a little I mean a lot. 

Movies I Also Saw This Week
Hard Eight (1996)**, King Kong*** (1933), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

*I tried being as vague as possible in this. I think the person shooting, directing, or editing that porno considers it his or her art. It wouldn't be fair to say it has no merit at all, just like it isn't fair to say a movie is pornographic for having sex scenes. 

**First film by Paul Thomas Anderson, last one I got around to seeing. It was...okay.

***re-watch



 

Earth (1930) dir. Alexander Dovzhenko, Baby Face (1933) dir. Alfred E. Green, Duck Soup (1933) dir. Leo McCarey

This week I watched a lot of movies. Thing is, none of them were new and few them I enjoyed. I don't have a lot to say about them, so I have decided to do three little mini reviews on some of the movies I saw this week. Funny thing is, none of them were made after 1935. 

I think I'll start off with the film I liked the most. 

Earth

 

Earth is one of the big classics from the Soviet propaganda/formalist film era. When this film is mentioned, it's usually along with the film Battleship Potemkin (1925) directed by the hugely famous and significant filmmaker/theorist Sergei Eisenstein. Dovzhenko, Eisenstein, and Vsevelod Pudovkin are the three pioneers of soviet montage, the movement that pretty much elevated editing beyond just putting the movie together to the intricate and invisible art form that it is today. Although I'd say Alexander Dovzhenko is the underdog in this trio. His films, Earth in particular, aren't as heavy handed with the propaganda, although the agenda is still present in this one.

Alexander Dovzhenko

Dovzhenko, along with his contemporaries, were often accused of formalism (placing the style of the film over the communist content) by the Soviet Government, but his movie was one of the few to actually be considered treason. From what I can gather from watching the film, the guys upstairs didn't take too kindly to the fact that the movie was about the Ukrainian Farmers, the people they were conquering at the time, and the fact that the "rich famers" who represented the bourgeoisie were slightly sympathetic. It makes sense, because Dovzhenko was Ukrainian born. Another big difference between this film and the other formalists works, is that it goes much farther than simply prioritizing the craft of the film. He goes as far as neglecting the communist agenda for large parts of the film to explore themes of life and death, emotion, and resilience.


 The  movie is about the confrontation with independent, landowning famers (kulaks) and the communist minded groups who get a new tractor and wish to take over the farm. A young man, Basil, leads this group of revolutionaries but is killed by an unknown kulak. His father, at first unsure of which side to take, joins his son's friends and marches on the land. 

The climactic march scene

 I will admit that this was a difficult movie. It was slow paced and could even be quite cerebral. There are a few striking and dramatic shots, but overall the movie is really compelling because of the editing, which not only elevates the content tonally but creates symbolic relationships. It's very interesting, and the most poetic story I've seen from the Russian formalists (and I've seen all of three, mind you!)

Now onto a movie I had mixed feelings about...

Baby Face

Baby Face is either really misogynistic or really feminist. I can't tell which. It's about a rough around the edges girl named Lily who realizes she can use her womanly power over men to her greatest advantage. And she does, several times, in offices, bathrooms, sketchy apartments, railroad cars, etc. 

It was directed by Alfred E. Green, a very prolific but not very notable director. This is probably his most recognizable work because of how controversial it was at the time for all of its sexual content, albeit implied. 

The movie was perfectly entertaining and enjoyable to watch. Barbara Stanwyck was not only drop dead gorgeous, but an amazing actress with the power to draw us into any character. 

Hummina hummina hummina

Where the movie starts to lose me is the overall point. Are we supposed to sympathize with Lily? She was a pretty terrible person until literally the last five minutes of the movie. If she's just a terrible person, then isn't that saying something bad about women and their sexuality? Or was it a positive image of the power a woman can have over a man, while still being a good person by learning the error or her ways? 

Here's what would have saved it.

Lily goes through her whole journey alongside her friend and maid, Chico, played by Theresa Harris. 

Like I said, this movie was really controversial and racy for its time. But even so, there is a limit. It's disappointing, because I swear to god, the whole movie, I wanted them to end up together.

A woman using her sexuality to succeed, to empower herself and control men, instead of ending up with the handsome everyman (which happens at the end of the movie), ends up with her maid in a homosexual, interracial relationship. How cool would that have been? 

And here is where I drop the bomb...

Duck Soup

Duck Soup is arguably the most famous and beloved of the Marx Brothers films. Concerning the unstable and fictional country of Freedonia and it's fast talking, smartass president (Groucho), this film is held as a staple of classic, slapstick comedy that has inspired comedians ever since. 


And I hated it.

Yeah. Pretty much despised the entire thing. And I feel bad for hating it, believe me. 

I watched it in my film class and my professor said we were in for a treat. I was looking forward to it because of its status as a masterpiece. About 15 minutes in I wanted it to be over. The movie came off to me as an incoherent mess and I began to slump further and further into my seat in misery with each passing moment. 

Unlike with previous comedy classics I have watched, such as City Lights (1931) or The General (1926), directed by Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, repectively, I didn't laugh, scoff, chuckle, or even grin approvingly the entire movie. 

I did, however, like the famous mirror sequence, and the musical number towards the end, but I'm a sucker for showtunes. 

Boy oh boy. I need to go to the theater. 

Movies I Also Saw This Week
Welcome to the Dollhouse (1996)*, The Stepford Wives (1975) The Jazz Singer (1927), Dracula (1931)**

*After mentioning it in my previous review, I just had to watch it again. Still just as good as before. I highly recommend it. It not only perfectly and convincingly writes the most pitiful and sad character ever, but takes the common coming-of-age setting of high school and moves it to a place even more sick and hellish- middle school.

**The only actual Halloween movie I watched in October. I've lost all my childlike wonder.