Overlooked
Roger Ebert has assembled his 2006 Overlooked Film Festival, which will run April 26-30 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
On the list... two films that I would have put at the top of my own 2006 overlooked films list:
Junebug (which, after I saw it a second time, jumped up to second place on my Best of 2005 list),
and Millions (which still holds first place).
Ebert says:
Amy Adams, an Academy Award nominee this year for "Junebug," has said she'll appear after the screening of her film, unless a change in her current shooting schedule prevents her. She'll be joined by Scott Wilson, who co-stars in the film as her father-in-law, by the distributor Michael Barker, and by the writer-director, Phil Morrison. Of all the performances I saw last year, hers was the most heart-warming.
...
"Millions" (2005), a family film from the U.K. that was on my 10 best list, will be our Saturday morning family matinee. Directed by Danny Boyle ("28 Days Later") and written by Frank Cottrell Boyce ("Hilary and Jackie," "Tristram Shandy"), it's about two brothers who find loot from a robbery; one of them takes advice from his favorite saints about how to dispose of it.
One thing Wim Wenders said...
My interview with Wim Wenders will be up at Christianity Today Movies in a few days, but I will tell you this now: He praises Terrence Malick's The New World as perhaps the most powerful big screen experience he's enjoyed since 2001: A Space Odyssey.
What's that? It just left the theaters in your neighborhood? You missed it? That's okay. Most of America did.Read more
Mel Gibson: TIME Magazine gets up close to the director of "Apocalypto"
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Mel, as unpredictable and challenging as usual.
This is the larger TIME article, from which that colorful excerpt in a previous post was apparently an early excerpt.Read more
Cafe Lumiere (2004)
The more movies I watch, and the older I get, the more I enjoy a particular sight onscreen — people who are thinking. And Hou Hsiao-Hsien's Cafe Lumiere is full of people thinking. Beautiful pictures of people thinking.
At the same time, it's a tribute to Yasujiro Ozu, which is evident right away, in
- the meditative position of the camera (eye-level to a person kneeling);
- the way a frame reveals not only a space, but a space beyond that, and hints of adjoining spaces, with sound coming from yet other spaces, suggesting a vast and complex world of activity and overlap;
- the way that the camera remains focused on this space without following the people, which has the strange effect of de-emphasizing character and plot and emphasizing spatial relationships, change, and the passage of time through the changing of light;
- the tendency of frames to be divided by vertical lines into a variety of smaller frames that contain different patterns of light, shadow, activity, and stillness;
- the emphasis of an intergenerational world, where times and styles and traditions and expectations clash;
- the emphasis on family;
and I could go on.
Like Ozu's Tokyo Story, the film is mourning the passage of an era and a tradition, and more than a little dismayed at the direction things are heading.
The main character is Yoko (pop star Yo Hitoto), a girl living alone in Tokyo, who is drifting from her parents, scraping the bottom of her bank account, borrowing frequently from her landlord, eating on the run, writing about her favorite composer, and hanging out at a bookshop where she fancies the softspoken shopkeeper Hajime (played by Tadanobu Asano of Last Life in the Universe).
She also has a boyfriend in Taiwan, which has made things difficult in more ways than one, and her parents aren't happy.
It would take me about three or four more lines to finish telling you the story, but the story is just a track for the train of this movie, and what's really important and wonderful about the film are the sights along the way, the flickering marvel of the light through the train windows... if you will.
And trains do figure heavily in the film, signifying, perhaps, the way lives pass each other rapidly and with very little chance of any meaningful connection between them. But the flickering lights and scenes we catch as the cars go by may also represent the flickering frames of celluloid flying past... and the filmmaker's hope that perhaps we will connect with him, if only for fleeting moments, through the images he communicates.
Just as the characters long to find an old cafe beloved by the jazz composer they both enjoy...
...just as the shopkeeper has a preoccupation with recording the sounds of different trains in hope of reaching some kind of enlightenment about the essence of motion and time...
....so the film carries us along in search of some elusive quality, perhaps the mysterious power of Ozu's fimmaking technique.
Hou Hsiao-hsien's film is only for the patient, wide-eyed moviegoer. Its rewards are subtle and mysterious, hard to describe... but that's what makes them special. Because Hou does not tell you what is important in the frame, but lets you explore and decide for yourself, it's likely that you'll see a different movie every time. On this, my first viewing, I was especially moved by Yoko's thoughtfulness in bringing gifts everywhere she goes, by the subtle reminders of time passing in the movement of trains and clocks, by the silence of Yoko's father, and by a faint smile on Hajime's face in the closing scene.
If I could easily explain what it all means, and how Hou does it, then it would be the kind of thing that other filmmakers could easily reproduce. And Hou's work, like Kieslowski's, Bresson's, and, yes, Ozu's, is almost immediately recognizable because his style is so unique and personal. Even though this film and Flowers of Shanghai are set in different periods and focused on entirely different subjects, there's no mistaking that we are seeing through the eyes of the same visionary.
At the end of the film, I find myself feeling calmed... which makes it very valuable to me these days. I also find myself wanting to see it again, even though my sensibilities have been trained by American cinema to demand a lot more activity and pre-packaged interpretations. The more I relax into the rhythms of filmmakers like Hou, Ozu, Bresson, and Edward Yang, the more I find myself interested in the quieter moments of the day that in years past I have considered inconsequential. You could call this "redeeming the time."
Specials: New Ron Sexsmith music! Greydanus flunks V. Walter on Soderbergh.
NEW RON SEXSMITH MUSIC!
My friend Jessica Poundstone, a vigilant Ron Sexsmith fan, send me this today:
Well, you're probably all over this, just haven't gotten around to posting it on your blog yet (where the heck DO you find the time to write so voluminously there??? It's staggering - I don't make it over for a week or two and I have to take 45 minutes to catch up!) but there's a sneak peak of a new song off of the new Ron "Sexy" Sexsmith album up at his site: Also, apparently, according to the "news" on his site, two of his songs were used in pre-packaged Olympic segments: "From Now On," and, of course.....get ready for this one, I'm not making this up...."Gold In Them Hills." Ba dum bum.
Ouch.
The song is from the upcoming Mitchell Froom-produced album Time Being, coming to stores May 16.
Oh, and the secret to relentless blogging, Jessica? It's love. But you know that. That's why you're the most prolific baby-photo blogger I've ever seen.
F FOR FAILURE
Steven D. Greydanus reviews V for Vendetta. He gives it a big fat "F." And Alan Moore has even more to say about why the film has spoiled his original vision.
ANOTHER GREAT FILMMAKER,
ANOTHER NASTY CARICATURE OF CHURCHGOERS?
Adam Walter reviews Steven Soderbergh's Bubble. First, kind words. And then...
Chattaway's Back (and Under Attack!)
Chattaway's back to regular blogging, now that his wife Deanna and the twins are home from the hospital. (Congratulations again, Chattaway family!) Well, in truth, Peter never really stopped blogging, but he's got so much interesting stuff this week, I won't get specific. I'll just send you over there.
Oh, and I should also note another stamp of approval for Chattaway's work. He's must be doing some good work, if he's provoked Ted Baehr to say THIS about him:
It's shocking to find out that reviewers don't have a philosophy of art or knowledge of basic literary criticism. It's even more shocking to find that Christian reviewers don't have a theology of art. But, then, to discover that Christian reviewers don't know the economics of the film industry is beyond the pale of common sense.
How long do you give Baehr before he notices just how "beyond the pale" I've been in my comments about him here? (I suppose it's true... color does tend to drain from my face when I read Baehr's typically outrageous statements about film.)
I look forward to seeing Chattaway's inevitable response...
[UPDATE: Ah, here is the inevitable response.]
Chattaway's Back (and Under Attack!)
Chattaway's back to regular blogging, now that his wife Deanna and the twins are home from the hospital. (Congratulations again, Chattaway family!) Well, in truth, Peter never really stopped blogging, but he's got so much interesting stuff this week, I won't get specific. I'll just send you over there.
Oh, and I should also note another stamp of approval for Chattaway's work. He's must be doing some good work, if he's provoked Ted Baehr to say THIS about him:
It's shocking to find out that reviewers don't have a philosophy of art or knowledge of basic literary criticism. It's even more shocking to find that Christian reviewers don't have a theology of art. But, then, to discover that Christian reviewers don't know the economics of the film industry is beyond the pale of common sense.
How long do you give Baehr before he notices just how "beyond the pale" I've been in my comments about him here? (I suppose it's true... color does tend to drain from my face when I read Baehr's typically outrageous statements about film.)
I look forward to seeing Chattaway's inevitable response...
[UPDATE: Ah, here is the inevitable response.]
An Intelligently Designed Movie?
That Pennsylvania school board court decision against the teaching of Intelligent Design is going to be a movie.
According to Variety, [Paramount] just hired Ronald Harwood to write a screenplay based on last year's court decision ruling that a Pennsylvania school board didn't have the right to force teachers to teach intelligent design. (Interestingly, the film's producer was thinking "movie" from the very start, so much so that she actually sent someone to watch and take notes on the trial - does that show clever foresight or a disturbing tendency to turn every major news story into tomorrow's blockbuster? Both?) In Harwood's eyes, his benchmark is Inherit the Wind, the play and film that told the story of the famous Scopes trial, which allowed evolution into (Tennessee) classrooms in the first place. "Our aspiration is to make a film that powerful...We have a highly emotional case that divided a town right down the middle, and a judge whose summary was spectacular."
Alan Moore on "V for Vendetta"
Thanks to Opus for sharing this link.
In this interview with Alan Moore, who wrote the original graphic novel of V for Vendetta, is absolutely right.
The Wachowskis' film misunderstands the story, and distorts it to be about American liberalism versus American conservatism, instead of about anarchists versus fascists.
Sure, it's takes place in a futuristic, fascistic London and the characters are British. And yes, you could say this is a cartoonish tale about Nazism.
But come on... the figureheads of British politics in this film have been given all kinds of details so that the audience sees them as a variation on the current U.S. administration. Personally, I think our current administration is misguided, but to react to it by portraying them as spit-spewing devils and child-molesting Christians... and then to glorify characters who organize a terrorist uprising... that's downright stupid. And once again, we recognize the villains how? They're the people who think homosexual activity is wrong. Once again, they make things black or white: You either celebrate homosexuality as the pinnacle of human relationship, or you're a hateful bigot. There's no room for anything inbetween.
The film spends so much energy demonizing conservatives and lampooning Christians that it never gives much thought to what we should believe in, what we should stand for. "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people," says V. And his views win out in the end. So, it's still a film encouraging a culture of fear, and it concludes by recommending violent retaliation rather than diplomacy and hatred rather than communication.
Here's a clip from Moore, who had his name removed from the film because he opposed this rewrite of the story:
As far I'm concerned, the two poles of politics were not Left Wing or Right Wing... it seemed to me the two more absolute extremes were anarchy and fascism. This was one of the things I objected to in the recent film, where it seems to be, from the script that I read, sort of recasting it as current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism...
...I tried to be as fair about it as possible. I mean, yes, politically I'm an anarchist; at the same time I didn't want to stick to just moral blacks and whites. I wanted a number of the fascists I portrayed to be real rounded characters. They've got reasons for what they do. They're not necessarily cartoon Nazis. Some of them believe in what they do, some don't believe in it but are doing it any way for practical reasons. As for the central character of the anarchist, V himself, he is for the first two or three episodes cheerfully going around murdering people, and the audience is loving it. They are really keyed into this traditional drama of a romantic anarchist who is going around murdering all the Nazi bad guys.
At which point I decided that that wasn't what I wanted to say. I actually don't think it's right to kill people. So I made it very, very morally ambiguous. And the central question is, is this guy right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution.
V for Very Disappointing
I won't publish my review of V for Vendetta until opening day. But I will say that I managed to make it until the closing credits without walking way in boredom and disgust... but just barely.
I will, however, link to one of those pages where the reviewer (David Denby of The New Yorker) is apparently somehow exempt from the industry standards. And I find myself agreeing with him.
...even if one enjoys the craft of “Vendetta,” and, viewing it as an extravagant pop myth, cuts it as much slack as possible, there’s no getting around the fact that this allegedly antifascist work lusts after fire and death.
...
The country “doesn’t need a building,” V says. “It needs an idea.” Yes, but “Vendetta” doesn’t have any ideas, except for a misbegotten belief in cleansing acts of violence. How strangely doth pop make its murderous way, as V might say. The quarter-century-old disgruntled fantasies of two English comic-book artists, amplified by a powerful movie company, and ambushed by history, wind up yielding a disastrous muddle.