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.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 9 (Ciao Ciao)

I had one hour to get from “gog” to “Ciao Ciao” and afterwards I had to run home to attend a family outing, so this was a pretty stressful day up to that point. Thankfully the rest of the evening was nice (and had good food unlike the Saturday before) so this was actually the most pleasant of the social obligations I had to attend during this Berlinale.

drrt

Ciao Ciao
China/France 2017, Song Chuan, 83′

After returning to her Yunnan hometown from Guangzhou, Ciao Ciao gets stuck in a marriage that quickly bores her while she gets close to hairdresser who claims to be from Guangzhou.

OK let’s get over this quickly. This was the worst movie I have seen this Berlinale, and it may in fact be the worst movie I have seen in all Berlinales I have ever attended. I could tell that the film would piss me off since the first 30 seconds, when you saw an overly saturated landscape (so green that it hurt your eyes, and the exact opposite of the pretty green you see in “Mushishi” or, to keep it within the Berlinale, “Honeygiver among the dogs”) accompanied by amazingly terrible Chinese techno music.

The techno music was present throughout the story, and so was the terribleness. The characters are stupid, their actions are inexplicable, their sex scenes cringe-worthy almost to the point of disgustingness and the storyline is absolutely unengaging. The dialogue contains tidbits like “if you love me, you have to give me big gifts, that’s what a man is supposed to do”, and portrays a despicable lower farming class. If I were a farmer in Yunnan, I’d be utterly pissed at how I was being represented in this film: lazy, greedy, treacherous and sex-crazed.

Loris was more forgiving towards “Ciao Ciao” and essentially said that he didn’t get the film, but in my opinion that the film was just so crappy that whatever was incomprehensible about it (like the characters’s motives) was due to the fact that the film failed to make sense. If anything the film serves as a reminder that the bad Chinese films are out there, and how infuriatingly bad they are.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 9 (gog)

It feels to me like my last few days were crazy and things are finally calming down. If all goes well, I am looking at a fairly relaxed month of March, and it is quite wonderful to think back at the Berlinale fondly, when everything was really stressful yet exciting at the same time.

The screening of “gog” was one of the most special events I have ever experienced at the Berlinale (perhaps not as special as “Calvary” or “Ai no Mukidashi” though), because I had never seen a 3D film at the Berlinale before. Most interestingly, the Berlinale introductory video is in 3D! I had hoped for this, since silent films also come with a silent intro (and the best aspect about that is the joyful anticipation of how Stephen Horne will accompany it this time), and it was just as glorious as I expected. That alone almost made “gog” worthwhile, though of course we need to keep in mind that every screening is 11 euros now. (EDIT: Loris also pointed out that “gog” in particular was 13 euros because of the extra fee for 3D. So that would indeed be a lot of money for 30 seconds of the Berlinale intro in 3D.)

drrt

gog
USA 1954, Herbert L. Strock, 85′

In an elaborate underground research station in New Mexico, two scientists mysteriously die in a cold chamber. Our hero David Sheppard arrives at the research station with the task to find out what happened. While Sheppard and the audience learn more about the research station (including the powerful nuclear control computer NOVAC and two cute robots Gog and Magog), more and more such accidents crop up.

To be honest I was very unsure about this film at first. I was into the looks of the robots, which remind me a lot of the Daleks but look much cuter, but I wasn’t so sure if I wanted to see a low budget American film from the 50s. In the end, “gog” was as B-movie-ish as I expected, but very satisfying at the same time.

My favorite part about the film was definitely the technobabble. Usually I find them exhausting, but in “gog” I enjoyed them because they come with such enthusiasm. The film oozes love for technology and is not afraid to have its characters go in depth when talking about their research. Sometimes we spend minutes hearing about how a certain machinery works, what kind of research they do, what it is all for and the likes.
I have never seen anything like this before, and I am so used to a certain fear of science in art and media that it was very refreshing for me to see a film that spends time just marveling at the possibilities of technology. To go even further, even the resolution of the story is very kind towards artificial intelligence. Instead of having a robot going rogue or malfunctioning, like in “Test Pilota Pirxa”, the threat comes from external human manipulation, so the robots and machines are not only cool, but utterly innocent. (So are all the characters we meet – everybody is in the same boat and a good person.) Wow. Because of its blatant optimism, I think it was the most feel good film I had seen for awhile.

Other than that, I concede the story is absolutely nothing worth writing home about. There is nothing particularly clever or well-made about the film, and its female characters (especially the female lead) are either stock characters or, even worse, damsels in distresses. This is the 50s after all, and for all its love for science, the film doesn’t even try to portray something like an actually smart and competent woman. Of course the film also contains hilarious scene where some woman shrieks in fear and a guy goes up to her, slaps her and says: “Get your act together!” Some people in the audience literally laughed at how bad it was.

So yeah, the film is pretty dumb (so dumb in fact that some guy behind me exclaimed “Was für’n Quatsch!” as the end title got shown) and no love for technology could change that it’s not particularly knowledgeable about it, but I don’t care – for me it was a great experience, both because of the 3D gimmick and because the film itself was so strangely enjoyable despite (or maybe because of) its badness.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 8 (Honeygiver among the dogs)

After my biggest source of nervousness (the screening I attended with O) was over, I felt like I had much more energy to devote to my own screenings of the Berlinale, so I decided to go to this horribly late screening which I had been unsure about all week. It started at 10.45pm but at least the trains were running all night on a Friday so I was able to take the train all the way back home and get there by 2am. Could be worse!

Nevertheless, from my previous experiences I knew that by 10.30pm I was typically so tired that I was waiting for the screening to end and be able to get home (which was usually the last half hour of a film). Apart from the unusually late start time, the film was also extraordinarily sleep-inducing! I was half awake and half asleep throughout most of the film, but every time that pretty background music, I felt myself slipping into sleep. It happened so many times that I fell asleep almost on cue. I got the impression that I woke up yet again in time to see most of the important story-related parts (mostly towards the end when the mystery was finally revealed).

drrt

Honeygiver among the dogs
Bhutan 2016, Dechen Roder, 132′

Besides falling asleep, what affects my impression of the film the most is probably the fact that both Loris and I thought the “femme fatale” strangely looks like a former fellow student of ours back in high school. It’s not just her appearance, but also the way she composed herself and especially when she smiled. They both uncannily have the same mouth shape. The actress is arguably very beautiful and did a very good job conveying an air of mysteriousness, but oh boy was that overdone. Within the film it makes sense because she is supposed to be this spiritual figure, but in real life I cannot imagine any man actually falling for this woman who keeps walking through the woods like she’s on a catwalk, except much slower and more respectful towards nature (or whatever that was supposed to be). It is remarkable that the female character in your usual film noir is a male fantasy, whereas here it is clearly a female fantasy. I know I shouldn’t lump all men in this world together, but men, whoever they are, are not into this type of mysterious woman; if I had to describe it, I’d say she is totally not sexy, not in any way.

The look and the style of the main female character reminded me of women’s fashion magazines. They may be hollow and superficial but if you look at them more in depth, they show that the typical woman does not actually try to look like how men want her to look like, but how her peers or she herself wants to look like. That is why you see women caked in make-up, wear huge loose-fitting frumpy clothing, dress up in weird girly styles or starve themselves such that they look more like a super model and less like Marilyn Monroe. Women’s magazines may be backwards, and all these trends may seem horrendous to you, but dressing weirdly like that actually give women a space in which they assert themselves and their womanhood instead of allowing themselves to live in the eye of men. However, this film is all about a man doubting his own world and perception because he’s fallen for a woman, except the woman does not convince me for those reasons above.

For all of you who know me, I also disliked the spirituality of the whole thing. While I like certain flavors of spirituality (perhaps the cute character designs of “Kamichu!” and the likes inspired me to like shintoism), most are strangely disturbing to me. I am really into a yoga these days, and grateful that it has become such a trend that you can easily find material about it that avoids both a strong reverence to its original roots and so much inappropriate ignorance that it borders on cultural appropriation. I admit I know very little about religion in Bhutan, but whatever I saw in the film was rather off-putting. It was beautifully photographed in the film for sure, but the atheist in me was revolting and I cared very little for that “protecting the land” concept.

Now that I spent so much time complaining about the film, it is important to note that if you don’t mind the main character nor the religious aspects, it’s a perfectly good movie. As I mentioned, it looks beautiful and the slow pace is not a problem if you can enjoy the lush greenery (and the associated spirituality), and the story is suspenseful and engaging and leads to a satisfying conclusion with a lovely plot twist. I’m not surprised that the film was popular with the audience, and just like “Bai Ri Yan Huo”, this film is a great hommage to those film noir classics.

PS. I am really into that plot crucial gho that Kinley wore for parts of the film. The traditional outfits are very nicely styled and carefully draped and worn in this film, unlike what you see in most Google image results for “gho”.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 8 (On the beach at night alone)

Sometimes I forget what I have done on a specific Berlinale day other than seeing movies. I think I actually managed to spend an entire morning and afternoon (after the film) with O on day 8, but I just don’t remember. I do know that by the time I got to the film, I was pretty tired and glad that there were only 3 days left, and that I could sleep in on these days. I was looking forward to some (if not all) of these films very much, and it definitely helped that the cinemas were also comparably less packed than the first weekend.

I doubt I missed out on a lot when I fell asleep. The only thing that confused me a little was that I didn’t know whether the film had two or three parts (like “In another country”), but later I learned that part 2 was just much more extensive than part 1. If that is the case, then I suspect I actually didn’t miss out on a lot at all, perhaps just 15 minutes or so.

drrt

Bamui haebyun-eoseo honja (On the beach at night alone)
South Korea 2017, Hong Sang-soo, 101′

To me, parts 1 and 2 are completely different films, though they are both quite typically Hong Sang-soo. It’s good to know that all of his movies are still exactly the same (as I expected and desired), but somehow this one fails to stand out for me.

Let’s start with part 2, which actually is special for a Hong Sang-soo film, because it’s unashamedly giving an insight into his own real life relationship with Kim Min-hee. Maybe that makes this film even more autobiographical than his other films, but these autobiographical tidbits actually dampen the art in my opinion. The confrontation between Mim-hee’s character and the director sounds exactly like what it is: Two people shouting their feelings at each other, embarrassing themselves in the process and ultimately not saying anything of interest to anyone else. I couldn’t really relate to any of them during that moment, much unlike in part 1 when things were largely unspoken and therefore more interesting.

Part 1 also wins because it has other little Hong Sang-soo tidbits that I like: a conversation in a pretty cafe, a charming bookstore (in this case with a very charming bookstore owner who also composes children’s music!) and a stroll through the park followed by a cutely awkward meeting with some foreigners. Even a mystery man character appears and gets to do something humorous at the end. I can relate to the main character’s desire to live somewhere else, even though you can strongly feel her cultural and mental disconnect with the place, so I thoroughly enjoyed this part. I liked that the director was physically absent even though he was constantly on her mind.

As it so often happens in Hong Sang-soo films, you don’t know which parts were “real” and how the different parts connect. I like the simple interpretation that parts of the film were a dream, which is honest and goes in line with the unusual amount of wishful thinking (which is a lot even for a Hong Sang-soo film). “On the beach at night alone” was ultimately not bad, but I preferred most of his other films.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 7 (O-bi, o-ba)

This screening was by far the emptiest I have seen during this Berlinale. Even “Himmelskibet” had a full house, and Danish dude was surprised by it. Mostly it can be blamed on the time slot: nobody wants to watch a film at the Zeughauskino from 9.30pm to 11pm, and “O-bi, o-ba” is some obscure Polish science-fiction film without a notable fanbase to speak of. The Japanese films had the weeaboos, “Letters from a Dead Man” had the Russians and Pirx had the Estonians. (In fact, I distinctly remember somebody trying to get into the screening with the argument “I’m an Estonian journalist!”) For a change, I got to the cinema at a good time and enjoyed finding a decent seat with lots of space around me.

drrt

O-bi, o-ba: Koniec cywilizacji (O-Bi, O-Ba: The End of Civilization)
Poland 1985, Piotr Szulkin, 89′

After a nuclear catastrophe, about 2000 humans are left on earth, hiding within a protective “dome” about the collapse. They believe that an Ark will come to save them, and the belief has been propagated by the government to motivate people to survive. As Soft, a public servant, realizes that the dome cannot be repaired because the only engineer alive who could refuses to do so, he tries to look for an airplane and get out of the dome with his girlfriend, the prostitute Gea.

I will forever remember “O-bi, o-ba” as the film that was even more devastating than “Letters from a dead man”, another nuclear winter story and thus very comparable at least when it comes to the premise. Perhaps this is mostly because I expected something very different. Overall I expected more comedy in a film that features Jerzy Stuhr, and indeed the film cannot be completely taken at face value. Many scenes are so grotesque that they are definitely supposed to be funny, apart from your obvious stab at the Bible and the likes. However, the doom and gloom is overwhelming, and the neon colors contribute to the grotesque nature of the world even more.

When I picked the film, I saw Jerzy Stuhr on a screenshot and thought the title was amusing. (It turns out the title is inspired by the babbling of the director’s daughter, which is awesome.) Unfortunately, neither seem to be really able to contribute much to the film. The title is literally nonsense and Jerzy Stuhr may be doing a good job, but he’s essentially an everyman in the film, except with more knowledge and insight than the others.

Until the devastating ending, “O-bi, o-ba” has many interesting aspects to offer. I liked the character of the engineer who refuses to fight a futile fight and the one of Soft’s boss who is slowly going more and more crazy, I enjoyed the part where Soft looks for a Bible only to realize that nobody cares for it, and I was amused to find out that the starving people are fighting over food made out of recycled paper.

But the ending, oh wow. Compared to “O-bi, o-ba” every single dystopian film I have seen has some sort of hopeful ending, or the end itself doesn’t really have that much of an emotional impact (like in “Melancholia”). “O-bi, o-ba” literally ends with humanity dying while the people foolishly believe they are being saved. I also had a soft spot for that young boy who grabbed onto Soft and believed in him, only to be disappointed. I believe Soft was intending to help him judging by the sad look on his face when he found the boy again, and the boy’s demise was much sadder than any other death I have seen at the Berlinale, including the absurd death that Soft’s girlfriend Gea fell into (yes, she literally fell to her death out of her misguided belief in the Ark that will save them all).

For awhile, I wasn’t sure if I could fall asleep after seeing this nightmare of a film, but I was lucky because I got over it quickly after all. I can see why so few people wanted to see this kind of devastating film, but I think it deserves to be brought out of its obscurity even though (or maybe because) it was so uncomfortable for me to watch.