About Chocolate Parfaits

Now that Pixelmatsch has taken upon the task of finishing the dreadful blog posting, I can now proceed onto our last movie, a Korean one yet again! Harr harr.

This time, we went to the CineStar, which leaves us with only the Urania, the Berlinale Palast and the Friedrichstadtpalast that we did not go to. How sad. The CineStar indeed is not as good as the CUBIX and I agree that original versions should run in the CUBIX instead of the CineStar. Oh well, who knows, maybe one day there will be a good German movie coming up that we can watch in the CUBIX then.

Jangryesigeui member (Members of the Funeral)
South Korea 2008, Baek Seung-Bin, 100′

The critics seem to agree that “My Dear Enemy” is the best Korean movie of this festival. I would agree but add that “Members of the Funeral” comes pretty close. To be exact, the two movies are very difficult to compare – the one is about a perfectly normal love relationship and the other about, well, a completely abnormal family.

The film starts at the funeral of a boy, and a family is introduced as the ‘members of the funeral’. Mother and daughter seem to hate each other and the father is completely alienated from them. Throughout the film, these family members’ backgrounds are shown, and especially their encounters with death. At the same time, the story of the dead boy and the three family members are told: All three of them are fascinated by him in their own way; the father who is gay and tries to become a sugar daddy for the boy, the mother who aspires to become a novelist and takes an interest in his novel (namely “Members of the Funeral”) and the daughter who simply falls in love with him and his weirdness.

Compared to “My Dear Enemy”, I suppose that there is much less identification potential: While I could totally relate to both characters in “My Dear Enemy”, my own family is actually disgustingly sane and normal, and I also do not have a particular relation to death. However, I think that “Members of the Funeral” is more sophisticated in many ways.

First, I think that the techniques of storytelling in “Members of the Funeral” is quite interesting (I only disliked the end). I like how the whole story is a flashback, and there are multiple flashbacks within the flashbacks. Although all the characters only interact with the boy and not with each other, you can see how the story comes together.

Second, I find the novels mentioned in the film quite well chosen. I especially loved how the boy up “Death in Venice” at the bookstore while shopping with the father. While I do not think that Agatha Christie is a great novelist and generally am not a big fan of crime and mystery books, I approve of most of the other choices (except the Koreans which I did not know). Speaking of book selection, I am surprised to see so many foreign titles. I think this is an indication that “Members of the Funeral” is yet another film made to reach a foreign audience. (Would Koreans actually like a movie that uses swearwords and shows penises so much?)

Apart from the characters, the only thing that places “My Dear Enemy” over “Members of the Funeral” is the fact that I was a little disappointed by the end. I didn’t really expect a surprising revelation or anything, but I have hoped for a little more interaction between the family members. Basically, the setting was given from the start and for me, the story ended at the point where the boy died. Especially the story arc with “the fourth family member” was totally unnecessary and did not add anything to the story in my opinion. But why did he exactly do this? What is the aftermath of his death for the family? Are they just going to never talk about it and forget him? Unlikely.

Finally, I am actually not sure whether I would recommend the movie (mainly because I remember that there were parts I have rather disliked), but I surely have found it to be inspirational in some ways. Summa summarum I’d say I recommend it.

Again, too late und “boring” for the Choco Parfait, so kindly accept me as a stand-in.

This was showing in the Arsenal, the cinema attached to the German Film Museum. It is quite interesting, because it’s part of the Sony Center at Potsdamer Platz and was built together with a multiplex that is only seperated by a glass wall, so technically the two halls are part of a multiplex, but they really try to come off as a artsy small cinema. Well, nothing bad about that. Again, queue-avoiding was necessary, this time however I was “innocent” because I placed myself in the (much shorter) line for people with accreditation which looked like the regular queue for me. Only when the other one moved I realised my mistake and silently switched queues, placing myself in front of 300 people who came before me. *hrrrr*

Yanaka boshoku (Deep in the Valley, ????)
Japan 2009, Atsushi Funahashi, 135′

Basically the movie is about the Yanaka district of Taitô ward, Tôkyô. Because of many cemeteries and buddhist temples located there, the district managed to evade the rapid, destructive modernisation of Tôkyô after the war and is one of the few places in the city, with the feel of a classical Japanese city. It was also famous for its Five Story Pagoda, which burned down on July 6th (yay, my birthday) 1957 and is the main theme of the movie.

The Director chose a very interesting layered structure: the „base layer“ was a documentary about the people of Yanaka, like buddhist monks, a blind old lady working as a gravekeeper in the Yanaka cemetery and an old man in a wheelchair, who can be seen at the pagoda site all the time. Then he took a few actors and placed a story of the „Yanaka Film Association“ searching for old home movies made by residents of the area, to restore and show them at their little screening room (you can’t call that a cinema, no way). Also, as a bonus: a cute little romance story. As they go around, main guy and girl are acting, but almost all of the locals are not, as they tell them about the district and their history. There is also another layer on top of this: the guy in the wheelchair always reads a book aloud, a Japanese classic written by Kôda Rohan in the 1890s about the rebuilding of said pagoda, which happened in the 1780s, also after a fire. Fragments of the book, which is mainly about a carpenter apprentice who almost single-handedly builds the pagoda, are being shown throughout the movie. Interestingly, main guy plays the carpenter, while main girl plays his wife.

While the movie starts as black and white it gradually becomes more colourful to the point where in  the „past layer“ they celebrate the completion of the pagoda, after which all of the movie is in regular colour.

All in all this is an unusual mix of documentary and fiction, with an interesting topic in the documentary part (Especially if you’re interested in Japan or urban living topic in general) and a simple, entertaining and slightly meaningful fictional coating: There is certain irony, that a pagoda built by a reckless youngster becomes a traditional historic spot and that in the present those who try to preserve the memory of it are also the young ones. Unfortunately it has its flaws. The first part, which is nearly all documentary, drags on, as the director overuses our beloved mood-establishing-shots. After that however, it becomes quite a rewarding experience. If you can dig through the beginning and have no aversion to the topic I recommend it.

Fun Fact: During the Q&A the director said, that when he makes documentaries, his producers always say, that they don’t feel „real“ but more like a movie. Conversely when he makes a movie he gets told, that it feels like a documentary, so he decided to make this movie which is neither, so noone would complain!

It’s the Delphi again and thus, it was a little more of the same: The producers were present, a bunch of people were waiting for getting in (like 40 minutes before the film started), but at least we had no problems getting tickets. We also had rather good seats and I swear I am never going to the Delphi again. It’s old, dirty and snobbish. Oh and the seats are horrible. Maybe I just wished I had seen some more movie theaters this year (Urania, Zoo Palast, the Berlinale Palast! ahhh), that is all.

Treeless Mountain
USA/South Korea 2008, So Yong Kim, 89′

There is not much to say about this movie, because it’s the type of movie where nothing actually happens: The main characters are little girls whose mother leaves them to their aunt one day. She says she’ll come back when the girls have filled up a little piggy with coins. And thus starts the girl’s wait for Godot…

So, what can I say? First of all, it’s like a copy of “Nobody Knows”. The atmosphere, the way the girls acted (although they are much younger of course), the extreme slow pacing, the evil world around them. If you like “Nobody Knows”, you’ll also like “Treeless Mountain”, it’s just as easy. The film is not sad or depressing, it has its little funny scenes and it conveys the girl’s feelings in a very non-sentimental way. It’s just like the press said, and I was prepared to see a movie like that. This is all there is to the movie in my opinion, and I think it does a good job at conveying that.

My favorite part about the film was the point when they climbed the “treeless mountain”, a hill of rocks, while they see their mother go away. It’s the screenshot featured on the posters of the film, and I think that alone tells you everything that the film does.

There is one thing that bugged me about the film personally: In my opinion, this film totally fails to show “childhood” itself. How many children grow up like that, unloved and left alone by their parents? Surely this is a horrible thing, yadda yadda, but the truth is that most children in Asian societies grow up in an environment of overdose of love, or at least expectations. You have to do great in school, have a lot of talents, grow tall and pretty and make it into a Western country, if possible into a good university and then into a large company. Why do people love to make these films about orphans (or at least unloved children)? I guess it’s because it’s easy to do that. Why some kid would shoot around at Virginia Tech – the question is too complex to make a beautiful movie out of it. And a beautiful movie, that’s all “Treeless Mountain” is, but since it is so beautiful, it would also be able to stand out if “Nobody Knows” didn’t come before.

For this movie, we went to the CUBIX, a comparably new and rather large multiplex next to Berlin Alexanderplatz. It’s very comfortable, stylish and good-looking – the movie theater that gives you the impression that it could convert the last multiplex hater. And I am sure it gets a lot of hatred, because I can’t imagine another area in Berlin that is as leftist and alternative as where the Cubix stands.

We were also very lucky, we waited in line for spare tickets and actually got some, yay yay! I wonder if we will be this lucky in the future again…

It might get loud
USA 2008, Davids Guggenheim, 97′

It’s this year’s Berlinale music documentation, I guess. Pixelmatsch said that he watched the “Bananaz” film with similar impressions: It’s all about seeing and listening the music, compiled together in an interesting documentary.

“It might get loud” was no different. Basically, it’s Jimmy Page, this guitarist from U2 and Jack White getting together, talk about playing the electric guitar, and of course, actually playing together. They are the type of musicians that people tend to build legends around, and although you get the feeling of getting very close to them, taking part in tiny details of their lives, the film contributes to this legend-building by inserting the musicians witty jokes. (“It’s gonna be a fist fight.” Haha.)

Speaking of legends, I really thought that Jack and Meg White were actual siblings… So are they not? XD By the way, I think I am a little moe for Meg White, I wonder why?

I’m not a big fan of all this bullshitting about music. Surely they are good musicians, but all of them are those who made it big and whose popularity is more a chain reaction, it’s not like they are the best guitarists out there. Of course all of them were very creative and are serious about their music, but something tells me that making music is not the kind of pseudo-profound blah blah like that. Some details were interesting, some dialogue tidbits made me laugh, and I especially were interested in, erm, the “hardware” – what kind of sound effects they make, how they actually played the guitar. (For example, I loved how Led Zeppelin made a huge effort in recording their drums in this staircase, because the height made a great sound.) Considering how these situations were rather sparse, that was not really what the film was about for me.

It was interesting to see where they grew up, where they see their musical roots in (I died many deaths when I heard the blues song that Jack White considers his favorite), that they all looked horrible and silly when they were young and that they don’t really seem to know anything about music theory at all and have learnt everything by self-experience, and thus would say things that professional musicians who have learnt it would be surprised and shocked at because it’s so trivial. But this is not the reason why I enjoyed the movie.
Although I have never actively listened to Led Zeppelin, U2 or even the White Stripes, I absolutely loved the music they played in the movie. Although movie theaters are not designed to play music, the sound is still much better than speakers at home. I would even go as far to say that rock music only sounds good live and with appropriate equipment. Even though I was not as thrilled as I used to be when listening to rock music, something similar to this intense feeling did come back, and I loved it. Back in the day, I have found Led Zeppelin to be utterly boring and I cannot see how they are references all these punk rockers (whose music is totally simple and brute to me – the Ramones, eek), but in the multiplex, it sounded absolutely great. If anything is my type of music, this is it. If I were younger, this is the type of movie that might would have gotten me into playing the guitar.

Although I am not convinced when millionaires talk about ideology and music ethics, I understand one thing: As much as I seem to like to listen to it, pop is just not “me”. There was a time when I loathed all music except for the stuff I listened to, and while that has completely changed now, I still know what I do not like typically.

Finally, I can see how there were many fans in the audience and since Rock’n’Roll is the type of music that everybody at least pretends to love, I am sure that the movie will gain some good reviews. As for myself, I cannot see myself ever watching this again – unless it’s in a movie theater.

Since it was sold out on Sunday, we went today and got a ticket, yay yay! It’s a little sad because on Sunday it was screening in the nice CineStar while today, we had to go to the Delphi yet again. On a happier side note, however, I have finally seen the top part of the Delphi for the first time – there were even comfortable couches with silly fleur de lys patterns embroidered on them. XD That alone made this screening very interesting for me.

Meotjin Haru (My Dear Enemy)
South Korea 2008, Lee Yoon-Ki, 123′

Okay, the main characters are annoying, this is perhaps what I will remember the best from this film. Then again, this is the very first film I have seen that deals with a relationship of two people who have broken up before. It might sound so trivial and obvious, but who has ever bothered to make a movie out of this? As much as the film might have felt melodramatic and banal at times, it’s my first movie about a normal and simple broken relationship. Compared to that, there are way too many movies about marriages, divorces, new loves yadda yadda. Except for “Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind” (which is way too pretentious and unnatural to compare it with “My Dear Enemy”), people never get together or even simply meet after breaking up.
In the Q&A, the director was asked why he thought of making a movie about a past love, and my initial reaction to that was “Why not?” But now I realize that it might not be as natural and obvious to make a movie like that.

In that respect, I have liked how the movie unfolded. As much as I hated both characters at the beginning, I knew that they would be slowly warming up, and although I have expected it, I loved the scene a lot in which they showed that the male character is an outstandingly great person who actually helps out people selflessly. If I remember back, I only know one single person who helps people out of selflessness, not out of weakness – and this person had a room in which you literally couldn’t walk without stepping onto something. I think it was very heart-warming how they showed why this man is actually worth loving and I wished the main characters were better actors so the last scene would have had a bigger impact on me.

So this is what I disliked about the film: the execution. The actors were horrid, the cinematography mediocre at best (in my opinion), the precise execution of the dialogue was not sophisticated enough for me (yes, I admit that my benchmark is Horváth). And oh god, the directing… way too many useless scenes, and the actors were yelling at each other so much it made my head hurt. But the story itself is quite a sweet one. It might not sound like it, but watching this film was actually memorable for me: It has great characters, a nice albeit predictable storyline and would be such a great movie if it lived up to its potential.

The „International“ is a delightfully soviet-communist cinema from the 1960s. With its typical architecture and being one of only two cinemas (the other one is the IMAX) in Berlin with the equipment to show 70mm movies and coming from the same period as the movie it was the destined venue for today’s „epic“.

Powest plamennych let (Story of the flaming years)
USSR 1960/61, Julia Solnzewa, 91′

The only reason we watched this one, was because of it being part of this year’s retrospective which shows old 70mm movies, a film format for which the film roll is twice as wide, which gives you basically three times the space for the same picture. The result is/was a really crisp, stunning picture. As a byproduct the sound was, at least in the period they came up, extraordinarily good.

We were slightly hesitant, as this was a Soviet movie on World War II and this could only mean one thing: loads of propaganda! Most of the time it was bearable, as the director (The scriptwriter’s widow. He was supposed to be the director too but then died.) switched between showing the immensely beautiful Ukrainian countryside (the documentary), depicting war on a really grand scale (the war movie), then again criticizing it (the anti-war movie) and lastly throwing in ridiculous propaganda scenes (the… uhm…) to make the (really big-budget) rest of the movie even possible.

Everything about it was grand: The war scenes used incredible amounts of men, tanks and everything else. There were many shots showing the scenery filled with war, with incredible amounts of extras and stuff moving about. The scenery shots showed the beautiful countryside with endless rolling hills, wide rivers, vast fields… It was just beautiful.

But perhaps the most monumental of it all was our dear soldier Ivan Orlyuk. I think they poured all of the enthusiasm left in the USSR into this one man. We never want to see his smiling, patriotic face again! Main girl wasn’t nearly half as bad although she, too was larger than life being a spirited country school teacher with unshakable belief in the USSR and panties of steel! *hrrr*

As Soviet propaganda is not as bad as Chinese propaganda and because the director tried to minimise the propaganda scenes, the movie was bearable enough to savour the awesome picture quality and the beautful shots, but if you have an aversion towards propaganda you will run out of the theatre. Also, this movie is kind of pointless to watch an a TV, no matter how big. You need a really big screen and 70mm equipment.

PS: To understand the first comments, here’s the original post written by the Choco Parfait:

It’s too difficult to write a posting, and so I will proceed with the further films. Also, I was utterly depressed that we did not get into “Playtime” that day, and so please come back when I’m able to write about the most horrid movie of my life.

Welcome to the next part of “About Chocolate Berlinale”, harr harr. You must have been wondering why there were no films yesterday. Well, the truth is, we didn’t get into any. “Mammoth” was obviously sold out, “My Dear Enemy” was sold out, and this left me so depressed that I wasn’t willing to see to late-night movie that went from 10pm to midnight anymore, because it’s another hour getting back home.

Today, we were much luckier! We had to wait for “Mary and Max”, but aside from the fact that there were a lot of annoying young children who obviously were in a group with school, we easily got into the film. Yet again, I have to complain about the organization though. There was quite a little line queued up (and everybody in front of us looked exponentially more pissed the more you moved forward to the line), and they opened the counter about 30 minutes before the scheduled time, although it is written everywhere – ironically even on the closed counter – that they would open one hour before. Oh, the Babylon, there really is nothing you can do against this cinema.

Yet again, we had the director present, but with the audience (at least 70% children, I guess?), there wasn’t much we could expect from the Q&A, especially since the movie itself was pretty straightforward. It was nice to see that the director was there though – how typical of the Berlinale.

Mary and Max
Australia 2008, Adam Elliot, 92′

The film was apparently opening Sundance last year, and I can totally see why. Although this is clearly a story geared towards children, it is so full of sexual jokes and adult wittiness that you can easily say that this is the type of ‘family movie’ that everybody would enjoy. And I did, with a few exceptions.

Story-wise, it had a simple premise. When 8-year-old Mary accidentally opened a phonebook, she decided to write to a random person and by chance stumbled upon Max Horowitz, a 44 year old lonesome Jew who later would be diagnosed with Aspergers. They then exchange letters, and over the years, their friendship grows stronger, but also encounters difficulties: They would get angry at each other, lose touch of each other etc. But in the end, they remained each other’s best and only friends.

In many respects, I have found this film to be really beautiful. What made it so great lied primarily in the way this unusual friendship was told – both of them were depicted in such detail and they really felt ‘alive’. Ironically, the best character descriptions I have found in literature were German and Russian, but the Germans felt so much more dense. It is amazing how such in depth characterization can be made in just 100 – or 92 minutes in the case of this movie.

Aside from the wonderful but perhaps a little kitsch friendship, the film’s biggest strength was its humour. There were comical situations very suitable for children – and others that totally were not. Now, I cannot remember all of them exactly (there were too many anyways), but a lot of them made me laugh out loud. For example, one subtle joke were the signs of the beggar next to Max’ house. First, it said “Hug 50c”, then it said “Financial advice” and finally at some point, it said “Keep your money, I want change.” Or how Mary asked whether in America, children also come out of the bottom of beer glasses. Max then replied: “In America, children come out of eggs hatched by rabbis. Or if you are catholic, by nuns. But if you are atheist, by a prostitute.”

I was also quite impressed and saddened at the same time how the film dealt with Max’ Aspergers syndrome. First of all, it was described in detail (and in this way, was also quite educational, because I am sure that many people do not exactly know what Aspergers is). I too think that one should not “cure” them, but I guess I just found it very depressing when their friendship was on the verge of break up because of this.
What was great, however, was how the film was so full of sexual jokes, but the relationship between Max and Mary stayed very pure. Perhaps I am just too wicked, but normally “OMG lolicon” would be the first thing I would think when I see such a story. But here, we have a deep friendship without any innuendo.

At the end of the film, they quoted “God gave us relatives – luckily we can choose our friends ourselves.” Perhaps that sums up the story the best. And oh by the way, the film made me cry even though one would think that the end was predictable and cheesy. That must mean that I truly liked it.

As the reigning choco parfait has less time than me, I will, being the “other naruhodou person” (search the blogroll), try to blog the movies she didn’t have time or motivation to watch.

This one was shown on a Saturday at 10 pm, so I was shocked to see, that 20 minutes before the screening there was a monstrous queue forming in front of the cinema hall. Being the good “Berliner” I am, I heartily ignored the people queueing up and placed myself somewhere in the front, which really paid off, as the cinema was packed. (In Berlin it really is perfectly alright to have a rather free interpretation on the concept of queueing up.)

The Cubix and especially its hall No. 9 is a great cinema. The screen is huge, there is abundant leg room and the ridiculously comfortable seats recline! You also have a great view from the waiting areas, especially the one in front of No. 9, as it’s on the (very high) 4th(BE) floor and you can see the television tower and the Alexanderplatz station. Too bad it only shows German language versions, I’d really like our original-language-only-multiplex to move there, it even is the same chain of cinemas! Also, they only let us in 10 minutes after the official starting time of projection. Berlin is not a German city, when it comes to organisation…

Seishin (Mental)
Japan 2008, Soda Kazuhiro, 135′

This was a screening with the director present. He was very happy to see so many people so late to watch his movie and wondered how many would stay until the end. Click here for a very interesting interview about him and the movie, it also covers the relevant points asked in the Q&A.

It started on a very dark note, with a heavily crying, suicidal woman visiting Dr. Yamamoto (the one in the picture), who is the founder of Chorale, a mental clinic in Okayama, Japan. The first impression of the doctor is really bad however, as he doesn’t really seem to care about what the woman has to say and at the end there is this great scene where you see him reaching for a tissue. Not to give it to woman, mind you. Just to clean his own nose! The whole cinema was torn between laughter and exasperation. It goes on in a similar tone, presenting 2 other women with depressions and similar problems which makes them unstable to the point of being suicidal. This part was really uncomfortable und depressing, so actually there were many people leaving the cinema, although maybe they just got headaches from the shaky handheld digital camera, although fortunately the director used a tripod wherever possible.

After you made it through this, the movie portrayed the institution’s projects: “Pastel”, a milk delivery service and “Mini-Chora”, a really cute little restaurant, where all the staff are patients from Chorale. Of course, money in the form of government grants and quarreling for payments from public health services is a dominant theme through the whole movie. At one point, a woman you wouldn’t expect to understand or be interested in politics talks about the situation for people with disabilities and says “Thank you, Mr. Koizumi”, which is one of the moments where you see how “normal” the patients actually are.

There are also examples of a more uplifting nature, if you can call it that. There was one person (Sugano, if you read the interview. If not, do it.) who said many intelligent things and was really good at taking photos and writing poems. A really charming fellow, who said “OK, cut!” every time after he delivered one of his speeches, of course the director ignored it. From his history, you could see that his life could have been really good if he didn’t have this one big mental problem: every time he had to work or study for something he put in a ridiculous amount of effort (e.g. spending 18 hours of his high-school days on school or studying) and every time, after a few weeks or months of doing this, he would completely break down and lose everything he worked for.

Through the movie, with every patient, it became more apparent that Dr. Yamamoto, a really silent and inconspicuos person, was actually the very heart of the whole clinic and a very good, dedicated psychologist, who devoted his whole life to these people. For example, until recently he didn’t get any money for his work and even now he gets only 100,000¥ (around 850€ or US$1100 and the costs of living in Japan are roughly twice as much as in the USA and maybe 1.5 times as much as in Western Europe), much less than his (great and also dedicated) assistants, so he also receives some form of social security. He also speaks at events that are so low budget, noone else would accept. Also, one person tells about how the Dr. traveled a few hundred kilometers just to help him, a former patient. You also gradually see, how he really cares for and interacts with his patients.

All in all this documentary is neither beautiful (although the director has a good feel for the camera) nor very funny or classically entertaining, but it really gives a heart-warming portrait of Dr. Yamamoto, his workers and their patients. If you have any interest in the subject, I wholeheartedly recommend it to you. Shame on the rude people who left. You really could have known beforehand, that it woldn’t be “fun”.

While yesterday, I wanted to be somebody from the press so that I don’t have to run into all these people, I now realize that apparently, the Berlinale gets too much press anyways and they seem to treat press people very harshly. You have to pay 60 euro to get your press card, after sending in proof of why you would deserve this card (of course), and in some movies, you are last to enter, oh my.
What is even more depressing is that major newspapers really don’t talk about much else aside from the competition entries. Why can they not write about some less interesting movies from time to time? Hmm.

So, today we were actually first to enter and, yet again, sat at some very good places. The cinema, albeit smaller than yesterday, was packed. I can’t believe so many people would go to a movie that I would have considered not so interesting. What are these people doing there? Why are cinemas typically empty – especially for a documentary like this – and suddenly get incredibly full when it’s the Berlinale? I cannot believe this.

Araya
France/Venezuela 1959, Margot Benacerraf, 82′

It really was no interesting movie. In many respects, this film was like listening to a class at university.

Basically it’s a documentary about the fishermen and salineros, people who work at the salt evaporation sites at Araya, a beautiful, but barren beach in Venezuela. The workers there are obviously very poor and have to spend their whole life working on the same thing. This is accompanied by a calm narrator voice from the off, recounting sentences such as “Nothing grows.” to emphasize on the atmosphere of beauty and repetition.

Of course it is not surprising that I actually took my 5 minute nap in the middle of the movie (just like in class, by the way). The whole thing felt like 3 hours to me (very much unlike Ai no Mukidashi one day before), and even though it made perfect sense and I have found the movie to be very good technically, I could not stand the slow pacing. Sure it’s poetic and sad and beautiful, but it’s also boring.
It’s not that I didn’t care about the lives of the people there, the film even shows a little bit how that life is going to come to an end because machines will be replacing the workers. I have also been wondering whether the fishermen or the salt workers are comparably well off – my theory is that the salt workers always have money, they can get their salt every day while the fishermen have to take a certain risk. Furthermore, the fishermen can never make more than what the salt workers can pay them; on the other hand, the salt workers are dependent on the fishermen to, well, get fish. If the fishermen don’t happen to catch enough fish, they will keep what they have to themselves and the salt workers will have to starve with cornbread for awhile.

All in all, it was very interesting to have seen a movie like this. But since I have nothing more to say, I devised a new poll, hoho. Also, feel free to comment about your experiences with film festivals. I’d love to hear them. :3