Posted on

Life is dressing up like a hipster

It was Christmas, O went to play with the grandparents and we decided to spend a day outlet shopping. (We love outlet shopping and I am still smitten with the super warm winter boots I got. May they never fall apart like all of my shoes do after awhile since I wear them so often.) For the first time since our move to Singapore, we also got to go to a movie theater! Unfortunately, we could only catch daytime showings since we wanted to be back for dinner, and in all of Savannah there were no early screenings of “La La Land”. Darn. (Pip managed to see “La La Land” on some flight somewhere, while I still haven’t seen it!) After perusing our options (I really did not want to see “Manchester by the Sea”), we ended up with the Christmas classic “It’s a wonderful life”.

As you may remember, some of my best film experiences old films were in movie theaters. I still remember how I saw “The General” on DVD at some point and found it lukewarm, while seeing it on a big screen a few years later made me laugh out loud with the audience many times throughout the film. Now I think the movie is amazing, and I am shocked at how differently I perceived the film the second time around. “It’s a wonderful life” did not have an active audience like that, but we sat in one of these cinemas with super large super comfortable reclining chairs – way more comfortable than any couch could ever be – so that was an experience in itself. (By the way, the movie theater was also completely out there in the deepest burbs, and yet the screening was pretty filled with people. Wow.)

It’s a wonderful life

Those of you who know me will know that I love stories that span a lifetime, or at least many years (decades at least). “Huo Zhe” is one of my favorite films because of this aspect, and it’s the main reason why I think “The Magnificent Ambersons” is great. With that said, I still dislike biographies even though they also span a lifetime, probably because biographies always try to paint an actual person’s life (even if it doesn’t aim for complete veracity, because everybody realizes the impossibility of it). I don’t know why that bothers me, maybe because there is a tendency to almost unmotivatedly jump from one big life event to another. Even “Narcos”, which I love, does that.

But I digress. All of these stories ask the question of how a life should be led (which biographies typically don’t). “It’s a wonderful life” does so very actively, even though the story ends up much like a little fairy tale. But even so, there is much to love in this little film, and I can see why it’s a favorite that stood the test of time. (Personally I am a little less sure about “Casablanca”, where the heck did that cult come from that makes a Berlin movie theater show the film every Saturday?!) Pip astutely observed that George Bailey is a great main character because he seems like a generic good guy but he is not perfect: he doubts himself and questions life, and he lashes out on his wife and children in anger.

More interestingly, I agree with this article that the film is an exercise in nostalgia, and that Pottersville is the future while Bedford Falls is a pretty grim version of small town middle class. Instead of feeling all warm and fuzzy, we should be sad that Bailey forsakes his dreams of building high-rises and traveling the world for the conservative values of his father, his little home town and his family, and there is a reason why the internet is full of articles analyzing American society through “It’s a wonderful life”, like this one. But the film surely doesn’t feel like it has any brains at all, instead it completely made me ignore all of it and simply enjoy the heartwarming aspects of the story. (Though personally I think the best part about Pottersville is the nerdy librarian version of the wife. Too cute.)

As a child, I used to love watching those films that were on TV around Christmas, like “The Muppet’s Christmas Carol” (best Christmas film of all times) or “Home Alone” or “Drei Haselnüsse für Aschenbrödel”, and most likely I would feel about this film that way if I had seen it in my youth. But now it was mostly a nice and sweet experience after almost an entire year of not being able to go somewhere with just the two of us.

Posted on

I keep forgetting how to spell Cate Blanchett’s name

I saw “Carol” right after “Hail, Caesar!” because I wanted to watch something decent and simple, and definitely not a film I had been anticipating to watch (I would never watch “Paterson” on an airplane, for example). And indeed, “Carol” was the exact opposite of “Hail, Caesar!” It has very few characters, a very straight-forward storyline and pretty fashion and interior design.

Carol

I’m very attracted to the idea of writing a diary simply so my children can peruse them one day and discover something they never told me before. Or maybe they won’t even care (but if they take after me even just a little bit, they’d read it out of curiosity hahaha). In a sense, this blog is the closest to a diary that I have, and it makes me feel a little remorseful that I never blogged any of the operas I have seen, most of which were meaningful and emotional experiences for me. I love reading about diaries from people whose literary works I like, and it would have been a shame if they hadn’t kept one like most people nowadays. Of course my diaries would not give such insights (except potentially to those aforementioned children), but I wonder if I will feel motivated to start with it at some point anyways. In Carol’s case, her daughter may feel abandoned by her mother for many years, only to discover one day that she may have been fighting a futile fight and that she had the choice between her child and, well, her deepest self. I wonder how Rindy would have judged on her mother in hindsight. Would she be understanding, or would she find her mother selfish and sick?

Later on, I read up about “Carol” on the internet and was surprised to see that it garnered so many good reviews. My impression of the film was not exactly negative, but to me it was a run of the mill story with run of the mill characters and run of the mill directing. I thought it was an entertaining, pretty period drama starring some of the greatest actresses of our time, but even so, nothing to write home about. I am impressed by Todd Haynes’s knack for stylishness though. “Far from Heaven” was supremely beautiful and “Carol” is too. If anything, I think that his films are romanticizing the 50s a little bit too much, and not even the socio-critical aspects of the films can hide the love they have for the 50s look. (The “there are no black people here” scene from “Far from Heaven” panning onto the faces of the black servants is absolutely brilliant, and I think “Carol” does not have a scene like that.)

I have the suspicion that “Carol” actually works better as a book. In my opinion, when a book is well-written, the most mundane story can easily become something very interesting and special, the difficulty consists in writing well. In a movie, it’s near impossible to ignore a mostly generic love story because you only have so much time to work with (2 hours is not a lot), even when you package it into extraordinarily pretty pictures like Haynes does.

Posted on

Long-distance flights have so many good movies these days

I really, really need to remember to bring my headphones on airplanes. However, the headphones I have are a bit bulky and I now have this tendency to only bring the bare necessities for myself (no more computers on flights, only a phone) so I can carry more things for O. Headphones are far, far low on my list of priorities, and I think this needs to change if I ever want to enjoy a film on a flight again. I don’t watch anything except on flights after all.

The problem with “Hail, Caesar!” is that it had no subtitles, and when there are no subtitles the background noise of the airplane kills my capability of speech recognition. I probably only understood half of the words they were saying and spent a lot of energy and concentration on understanding what was going on, but even so I continued seeing the film because I got really into it. (I remember distinctly that I stopped watching “North by Northwest” 5 minutes into the film when I couldn’t understand what they were saying.) Now, almost half a year later, I must concede that I may not have understood enough, because I have mostly forgotten what happened. (Maybe we should re-watch this one at the PIFF this year, since Pip has also seen the film on another flight.) So blogging this film will be a little different this time because I remember so little of it.

Hail, Caesar!

The aspect I remember best in the show are the random Communist submarine (perhaps because in a film of absurdities, that was the most absurd) and Tilda Swinton’s character(s). It feels like she is in every movie these days and I am so impressed by how versatile she is considering that she, well, has that unusually strange face to start with. “Hail, Caesar!” doesn’t really seem to give her that to work with, even though she appears prominently in the very last scene of the film (as I remember it at least), and fully makes use of that strange face, basically turning it into a caricature. But that is fine, because she was an amusing and very memorable caricature.

Next, it is remarkable that I basically forgot Josh Brolin was the main character in the film. He largely disappears in the sea of the eccentric Hollywoodian characters he is being surrounded by, and it is clear that he is just supposed to give us somebody to relate to, and from whose perspective we can experience the film in a way that makes a little more sense. Speaking of making sense, I am a huge fan of the Coens’ intricate storylines. I think that “Miller’s Crossing” has something like the best plot of all of film history, and “Raising Arizona” only shortly follows. “Hail, Caesar!” goes into a similar direction, but I wasn’t able to enjoy it that much because my brain matter was mostly focused on trying to figure out what they are saying.

Finally, I vividly remember the gay sailormen dance scene. It’s one of those aspects that make the film much fun and gave it its high position in my year end ranking. Most Coen films are more serious even in their humor and the most light-hearted (in my opinion) is actually “True Grit” (which is not a comedy!) I think this is because their humor is so black with tendency to depict the worst in people. (With the exception of “Raising Arizona” maybe.) “Hail, Caesar!” is another one of those mostly light-hearted ones despite having its fill of rather shady characters, and I personally enjoyed that very much. Definitely a re-watchable film, although writing about it made me want to see “Miller’s Crossing” again.

Posted on

I want a blue coat and a red floppy hat

After “Finding Dory”, we decided to watch “Paddington”, or rather I proposed it. Yet again, O wasn’t really into the story but he watched it and liked that “Paddington” was cute and had a red hat on. Unfortunately he has never really gotten into the “Paddington” books we got, and to this day I wonder why because from my perspective, Paddington is absolutely adorable and his antics are fun to read about.

Paddington

When it comes to the film, much unlike “Finding Dory”, this is a pretty straight-forward children’s film. Paddington comes to live with his new family, becomes an accepted member of the community, then finally must face an evil antagonist who tries to abduct him. The film is all about how much you like the characters and how well the simple story is executed. Well, I love Paddington as a character (I love that he loves marmalade! So cutely british!) and I thought his adventures were told in an amusing manner. The world in which Paddington lives is something like a romanticized nostalgic version of London which probably has never existed but it sure looks pretty. Perhaps my favorite is the part where Paddington chases after a thief and finally gets some recognition after he causes one accident after another. The chase scene was mostly inconsequential to the story and merely serves as an amusing interlude, and perhaps that is one of those tiny details that the film pulls off really well. I think “Paddington” is pretty great children’s entertainment, and I wonder if my particular child would ever get into it.

While Nicole Kidman makes a fine evil lady in a children’s film, I was especially amused to see Lord Grantham in the role of the grumpy dad. Reminds me that I actually wanted to finish “Downton Abbey”, another show I love because of its Britishness. I also learned that Ben Whishaw voiced Paddington – how incredibly fitting! As you may remember from my posting on “Spectre”, I have a sweet spot for Ben Whishaw and think that he is as cute as a button.

If they ever make a second “Paddington” film just as good as this one, I’d definitely want to see it.

Posted on

I must have seen “Finding Nemo” over 12 years ago

On the flight back to Singapore from our October visit home, O had yet to develop a liking for actual TV shows. (Now “Paw Patrol” is the favorite, in which case he is Marshall, daddy is Chase – I think? – and I am Everest. Yay, I am my favorite dog! haha) But since he received a few Dory-themed gifts last year, he really loved Dory as a character. However, watching the film was only mildly interesting for O, because he didn’t really get the story. (Today, the TV shows he likes always, always follow the pattern of “team of animals or transportation devices, potentially including some children, get a request for help, then they do the job while solving more or less interesting problems along the way”. For some reason, this episode pattern is ultimately relatable to O at this stage.

Back to “Finding Dory”, even though we saw the entire film on the flight, it was without sound and with many distractions such as food being brought and such. Later on, we were visiting some friends’s house and they also put on the movie. Again, I saw the film while being distracted (aka in conversation with them), so with both times I can puzzle together what exactly happened in the film, so I figured I shall blog about it.

Finding Dory

It’s been so long since I saw “Finding Nemo” that I completely forgot that Nemo was the one who disappeared and that it was Nemo’s father who was the actual protagonist of the film, looking for his son. Worse, I completely forgot Dory’s existence in the film. (Reminds me of “Paris, Texas”, another film with a father and a son, this time looking for his wife, a plot line I completely forgot about by the time I re-watched the film.) I think Dory’s story itself is more memorable than Nemo, at least for me, mostly because Dory’s anxiety about where she is from and who she is appears so lovably coming of age. (No wonder O couldn’t relate to her whatsoever.) I really enjoyed the not-really-plot-twist that she is from a huge aquarium.

I’m not sure if Dory was forgettable in “Finding Nemo” or it was just me being forgetful, but the sidekicks in “Finding Dory” are definitely not forgettable. Even O remembers the beluga whale who helps Dory by making an echo sound (he enjoys imitating that) and the eagle ray whom he calls “the teacher”, and I am especially into the deadpan humor and the brazenness of Hank, the octopus. Maybe it was like this in the original film, but I enjoy the plot device in which Dory encounters all kinds of sea creatures who are all helpful and nice. In the end, Dory even gets to dramatically save them all. (That part is a little contrived but it’s OK.)

Heck I suspect that “Finding Dory” is better than “Finding Nemo”, and I never thought any bigshot movie company could still pull that off.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Afterthoughts and statistics

I tried my best this year to blog the Berlinale before March came along such that it wouldn’t be yet another month before I write this “afterthoughts” posting, but then again I am perhaps a little hard on myself. After all, the Berlinale itself lasts for 10 days, which means there are only 9 days after the last Berlinale day for me to reach that goal. Instead, I should say this is the Sunday exactly 2 weeks after the last Berlinale Sunday, and my memories of those days are reasonably fresh. (I made myself blog 4 films per evening whenever I could, and hey – I am doing 5-7 days better than last year at least, despite not blogging for days because lots of things happened.)

One could say that I have grown older this year. While my first Berlinale 2009 was full of mistakes and ultimately rather disappointing (I’d say almost every film 2009 was worse than every film from 2017), the second (in 2014) was a full-blown love story and the third (in 2015) the first inkling of a true relationship – still passionate, but a little less crazy. This year, the relationship solidified, I want to be in full control and play everything very safe.

I was also comparably less tired than the years before, though this was due to mostly non-Berlinale related reasons: O is sleeping through very well and did not get sick (and neither did I), I spent much less time with activities outside the Berlinale (and eating out) because I had no visitors and I watched less films than 2014 (though just as many as 2015), and I was careful not to overdo it because my body needs more rest than usual. With less tiredness, my reaction is also more subdued. I fondly look back at the greatness of the films I have seen, but by design it’s been a less ecstatic feeling than the years before. The Berlinale still blows my mind and is a highlight of my year, but it has less of an impact on me now.

Maybe I will forever dream of a year where I can afford to plunge myself completely into the Berlinale experience (50 films in 10 days, that’s the goal!), but who knows when that will come. It’s also important for the program to be good, of course, and this year I was just particularly lucky. This is Pixelmatsch’s first Berlinale since 2009 without really seeing anything at all, and he says he wants to actively take days off for it next year because work has been so tiring lately. We will see. Seems like we are all growing older.

Lacking its usual outside activities and visitors, this Berlinale was also pretty lonely, even though Loris kindly accompanied me to some of the films. Ironically I spent most of my social Berlinale time with the old man and Danish dude this year, whom I both met standing in line the Berlinale. It would be amusing if I actually end up keeping contact with them over time.

The statistics this year look quite similar to last year’s, except that I watched much less Asian and US movies. I still spend most of my time at the Retrospektive films, but most shockingly I ended up without a single Forum film this year. It makes sense: Forum films are mostly hit or miss, and I was too risk-averse this year to give them a proper chance, even though I secretly dream of seeing another “Koza” or “Ship bun”. As always, I went to the CinemaxX the most often by far, and I managed to get into the Zoo Palast, the Cubix and the International, my favorite venues. (Heck, maybe “Ciao Ciao” was worth it for the cushion-y seats at the Cubix 9!) I am just a little sad not to have been to the Delphi, even though I don’t even like it that much (it’s just so terribly organized), but I have fond memories of lovely Q&As in it (“Velvet Terrorists”, “Ai no Mukidashi”).

Continue reading “Berlinale 2017, Afterthoughts and statistics”

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Films we did not see

This year, I was extremely careful with my film choices. With very few exceptions, I saw every single film I really wanted to see, and there are other reasons why I have not seen any of these at the Berlinale. It is remarkable, however, that this Berlinale not only had a lot of great films I ended up seeing, but also a fairly large number of interesting films I decided not to see (largely due to a great Retrospektive selection). All of you who didn’t come, you missed out!

First of all, we have the competition and Berlinale special films that I did not want to see at the Berlinale because it’s not really worth it to me:

  • Acht Stunden sind kein Tag – Well it’s very long because it’s essentially a TV show, but I like the title and the premise.
  • Django – On the first day I queued up for tickets, some people were talking about “Django” and how they really wanted to see it. I had never heard of the guy before, but now I’m intrigued.
  • El bar – The old man said the film was good, and now that I look at it, the premise sounds interesting.
  • Have a nice day – Danish dude saw this film and really liked it. He told me it was very entertaining and funny. As for me, I avoided it because it ran in the competition and because I was totally not into its animation style.
  • Le jeune Karl Marx – The film is already in theaters, so there is really no reason to see it at the Berlinale. With that said, I am amused imagining August Diehl als Karl Marx.
  • The Party – The old man didn’t like it, but the critics loved the film. It sounds exactly like the kind of thing I like, and it features Patricia Clarkson, Emily Mortimer and Kristin Scott Thomas. What’s not to love?
  • Pokot – I have never seen a film by Agnieszka Holland before, so why would I start at the Berlinale? I am intrigued by this film nevertheless.
  • La Reina de Espana – Danish dude saw the film, but I failed to ask him how he liked it. I think Penelope Cruz looks pretty awesome in this.
  • Una mujer fantastica – The premise sounds interesting, but it could have been a terrible film. Apparently people like it.
  • Sage femme – I have seen more Catherine Deneuve films from when she was older than when she was younger, but usually I don’t dislike her. This film has a particularly nice premise (I like that she is a mid-wife here).
  • Wilde Maus – I don’t know anything by Josef Hader, but I’m intrigued when Shii told me about him

There also were more Retrospektive and Homage films of interest this year, because science-fiction is awesome and I could have watched them all. But I didn’t want to spend my entire Berlinale at the Retrospektive, so these were kicked out:

  • 1984 – I was actually planning to see this one, but then I decided to attend all those family outings after all (as pissed as I was that they were all during the Berlinale)
  • Chariots of Fire – Danish dude said he had this film on his bucket list, and it’s definitely a worthy classic that I also have not yet seen
  • Dark City – This one sounds interesting (Jennifer Connelly and Kiefer Sutherland!) but I tend to not watch films that are somewhere between 2 and 20 years old when it comes to the Berlinale – old but not old enough.
  • Invasion of the Body Snatchers – Another classic I have not seen!
  • On the Silver Globe – I think I was a little taken aback by the strangeness of the film’s aesthetics, and that the description didn’t really make any sense to me.
  • On the Beach – This film has quite an interesting star-studded cast considering its somewhat wacky premise.
  • Strange Days – Similarly to “Dark City”, it’s old but not old enough, and even though I like the premise of this one a lot
  • THX 1138 – Another classic that has been on my Netflix queue forever.
  • Le tunnel – I like Jean Gabin, but the film didn’t sound particularly sci-fi to me and it wasn’t a silent film.

Finally, there are plenty of random films I find somewhat interesting, yet not interesting enough to spend the time and money at the Berlinale. If I had more time though, I would have wanted to see these too:

  • 1945 – I have to admit that the title is off-putting instantly. A Holocaust film at the Berlinale? That’s almost as bad as a gay film at the Berlinale. On second thought, though, Loris was probably right that this film’s premise is quite great.
  • At Elske Pia – The film caught my eye, because I like films about old people, but I never seriously considered until Danish dude told me he thought it was good.
  • Ceux qui font les révolutions à moitié n’ont fait que se creuser un tombeau – I simply thought the title is cool, but perhaps the film is terrible
  • The Last Witness – Loris said the film was so absurd that it was unintentionally comical, yet I am still intrigued by the film.
  • Como Nossos Pais – A serious potentially feminist film with Captain Nascimento’s wife as protagonist
  • Droles d’oiseaux – I wanted to see the film but didn’t get tickets, but then again, it was OK
  • From the Balcony – This film wins best premise of the Berlinale, but it could have ended up as bad as the “Geldkomplex” two years ago
  • Insyriated – The old man said the film was really good, and it probably won the Panorama audience prize for a reason
  • Three Lights – There were no good screening times for this film, but other than that I liked the premise and found the characters instantly likable from their description
  • Richard the Stork – I would not watch this film by myself, but when I went to see “Up in the sky”, I started chatting with a school teacher about children’s films and she told me this one was lovely
  • Selbstkritik eines bürgerlichen Hundes – It’s such a great title, and this screenshot from a museum is pure brilliance, but the film could be very wacky
Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Ranking

This year I’ll start off the meta posts with my ranking since I have it readily available. Pixelmatsch only saw one film (we saw “Close-Knit” together), so there is only mine this year:

  1. On body and soul
  2. Close-Knit
  3. Up in the Sky
  4. The Other Side of Hope
  5. Test Pilota Pirxa
  6. Eolomea
  7. Letters from a Dead Man
  8. Ropaci
  9. Algol
  10. Call me by your name
  11. Hyakunan-go no aruhi
  12. O-bi, o-ba: The End of Civilization
  13. Kaisa’s Enchanted Forest
  14. Ikarie XB1
  15. On the beach at night alone
  16. Himmelskibet
  17. Uchujin Tokyo ni arawaru
  18. Requiem for Mrs. J
  19. Honeygiver among the dogs
  20. Bitthos
  21. Ciao Ciao

Overall I would say 1-4 were fantastic, 5-7 were great, 8-13 were very good, 14-17 were good, 18-20 were fine and 21 is rock bottom awful. Overall, it was an amazing Berlinale where I enjoyed almost every single film.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 10 (Close-Knit)

Despite containing the worst movie of the Berlinale (and the only bad one), this last weekend were definitely the best days in my book. The venues were relaxed, all those business-y people were gone and I saw the best and most enjoyable films on these days. That is largely due to this extremely successful Sunday!

When I was lining up with the old man the Sunday before, some girl from Hongkong came up to me and asked me if I could buy tickets for the Wednesday screening of “Close-Knit” (preceded by the question if I was Chinese yadda yadda). Since I figured the screening was not particularly hard to get anyways, I agreed. She was so happy it worked out that she didn’t want any change from the 25 euros she gave me. Well, I hope she and her friend enjoyed the film was much as I did.

Since the tickets were so cheap, I also bought some for Pixelmatsch and wife-cousin so we can go together, and for awhile I wasn’t sure if they were going to come. So I asked around and shockingly none of my friends/acquaintances were interested in seeing the film! Pixelmatsch and Co. ended up coming, and the others definitely missed out, hurr hurr.

drrt

Karera ga Honki de Amu toki wa (Close-Knit)
Japan 2017, Naoko Ogigami, 127′

I called the film “Rent-a-neko 2” when I told Pixelmatsch about it, but in reality I sensed that this film would be different from the other Ogigami films I have seen. Before the screening, I thought it would be similar to a Banana Yoshimoto adaptation with more of a feel-good feeling, but I was utterly wrong. “Close-Knit” did have a lot of feel-good scenes, but unlike Ogigami’s other films, it lives much less in an ideal dream world and confronts its characters’s real life problems with more realism and allows them to feel actual sadness. At the same time, the general tone of the film is utterly optimistic and the exact opposite of the melancholy pervading most of Yoshimoto’s books.

For me this direct confrontation actually made the film good. For the first hour or so, I was a little unsure about what to think. It seemed like a generic Japanese film to me, and so utterly predictable: There was Tomo’s first slightly awkward meeting with Rinko, a trans-woman who enjoys having large breasts, Rinko’s characterization as very very feminine woman who makes cute chara-ben and takes care of elderly, a flashback about Rinko’s past and how she opened up to her mother etc. etc. I guess I largely found Rinko a little clichéd. Yes, I know that it means a lot to trans-people to look like their gender, but from my own experience you can look and feel womanly with small breasts too – after all you don’t have to be biologically a man to lack a decolleté. (Though I do realize that this wisdom is nearly impossible to achieve at teenage age.) And of course Rinko’s sheer amazingness and caring personality makes Tomo slowly reconsider what is “normal” or what it means to be a woman or a mother. As a result, for awhile I found myself significantly more bored than watching “On body and soul”, and I remembered that all of Ogigami’s films feel a little slow.

But then the storyline took a turn and became more dramatic in a good way. We see what it actually means to live in a society that has so much trouble accepting anything outside the norm, with some spiteful anonymous person calling the police to come to their house and check whether Tomo is being abused, or Rinko being forced to stay overnight in a hospital room with men because they wouldn’t recognize her as a woman. I was touched when Tomo sprayed her friend’s mother’s face with dish detergent out of anger when she called Rinko a freak, which made Tomo’s transformation into a more open-minded person very satisfying to watch. (People in the audience loudly cheered when she did that, by the way.) I also liked the rest of the revelations (much unlike the first flashback), where Tomo’s mother’s side is slowly being revealed. At the same time, the second part still focuses strongly on Rinko’s coming to terms with her sex change (and parting with her manly body parts) and the knitting of 108 woolen penises (with tax!) made it very heartwarming. Oh and I loved the end in which Tomo, of course, ended up going back to her mother’s who may or may not have a change of heart.
On a side note: True to Ogigami fashion, there are still idyllic aspects. Tomo’s new family essentially has no internal conflicts (only external), and Rinko’s mother is amazingly accepting and supportive of her daughter’s transsexuality. I think this is fine, because it gives the film its sweet atmosphere, and it’s not wholly unrealistic either: When you are an unusual person, you will over time find your little island of relationships with people who will accept you as you are, no matter how hostile the larger environment is.

OK so this posting contained big spoilers and I apologize for that, but I am sure that the film is enjoyable even when you know the entire story already. I think this is Ogigami’s strongest film to date (amongst the ones I have seen), and I know that people cried during it (I certainly could not imagine that happening for any of her other films).

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 10 (On body and soul)

On this last day, tickets are “only” 8 euros vs. the usual 11 euros. “Close-knit”, the only film I had originally bought for this day, was only 4 euros because it was a cross-section screening with Generation (unlike the other screenings of the film which were in the Panorama and therefore 11 euros). Usually I make use of this and watch a lot of films on Sunday, but this time I had another family dinner evening. At first I couldn’t find any films I wanted to see in the morning, but then I heard that “On body and soul” was really good. When Danish dude told me on Wednesday that tickets for this screening were still available and I realized it was the perfect time slot, I decided I should go for it even though it plays in the Friedrichstadtpalast (which I thoroughly dislike). Danish dude also kindly bought the ticket for me, how nice!

Before the screening, I actually got there almost 1 1/2 hours early and was amongst the first people to get in to secure some of the rare good seats in the venue. I had no idea you also had to stand in the cold while waiting, so I warmed up inside the ticket vending area to watch the people trying to get tickets for the screening. It’s so amusing to see that the film was not yet sold out till Wednesday at least, but then people queued up like crazy after “On body and soul” won the Golden Bear. I probably managed to see the three best competition films of the year, which was pure coincidence.

About 5 minutes before the end, an incident happened. (It even made it to the news it seems!) Apparently people fainted and had to be brought to the hospital. They stopped the screening for these people to get care, and after waiting for a few minutes I decided to leave since I really didn’t want to get too late to “Close-knit”. It seems I didn’t miss out on too much, and this is a good excuse for me to see the film again, so I can watch it in its entirety at some point.

drrt

Testrol és lélekrol (On body and soul)
Hungary 2017, Ildikó Enyedi, 116′

Maria is a new quality manager working at a beef slaughterhouse where Endre is the financial manager (amongst others, if I am not mistaken). He is a slightly awkward person with an arm he cannot use and who has children Maria’s age, but whom he doesn’t seem to have a particular connection to. She shows multiple signs on the spectrum: She has trouble socializing with her co-workers, she has perfect recall and she lives in a world of logic and strict rules. At some point, they realize that they have the same dream every night, they dream of being deers roaming the woods in winter together. This supernatural coincidence inspires them to carefully and slowly approach each other emotionally, and they try to meet in their dreams.

This film is so good that I don’t know where to start. After seeing the worst film of the Berlinale, I ended up seeing the best one. The first most notable aspect of the film was how enjoyable it was even though we all felt that its pacing was, overall, pretty slow. This was the first impression Danish dude conveyed when we chatted about the film, and I was surprised to see how entertained I was throughout its entire course (with almost 2 hours, it’s relatively long for a Berlinale film!). If I had to tell anyone about the film, my first comment probably would be: “They are so adorable!” It’s unusual to say this about grown people, but in this case, “adorable” describes them perfectly, and they go so darn well together.

Individually, however, I took me awhile to warm up to Endre’s character (he’s not bad, just not that interesting either) and was a little taken aback by how they paired an old man with a young lady yet again. However, I was thoroughly impressed by Maria’s characterization. She is so beautifully on the spectrum (highly functional autistic is probably what you would call her today) and characterized in a realistic and sympathetic way. The audience was particularly smitten with how she sits at home recalling the conversations she’s had and imagining how she wishes the next conversation to go. Obviously the conversation does not end up going the way she planned and her awkward attempts at sticking to her script are positively hilarious. It’s just the kind of thing you’d expect a lovable slightly autistic person in a film like this to do, and I am not surprised by how popular this film became.

It appears that the director of the film has been in the business for a really long time, and yet I have never heard of her. I wonder if her older films are as good (and a part of me is afraid of being disappointed). Most likely I just want to watch this film again instead, I think it sounds like a good option for the next PIFF.