Posted on

Berlinale 2015, Day 1 (You’re ugly too)

6451 didn’t get into “Jahrgang 45” (good for him, in the end) so Loris kindly gave him his ticket for “You’re ugly too”. He figured we were going to go to see an opera and another movie later that day anyways, which is already a lot for one day. So in the end, another ‘tradition’ continued: I went to the premiere of an Irish film in the Zoopalast and, most surprisingly, got an autograph from the actor of the protagonist. Last year it was Brendan Gleeson, this year it was Aidan Gillen. Just like last year, he was sitting there in front and I just went and asked. Since I was reading “Dead Souls” on my tablet, I did not carry a book with me, but ever since Pip gave me a bunch of notebooks, I always have one with me which came in handy today. Yay! Also, they are doing something with Aidan Gillen’s face. He always plays these rugged, wrinkly characters (“You’re ugly too” is no different) that I was shocked when I stood in front of him. I honestly wondered whether I got the right person because his face was so young and smooth looking, like he’s a 25 year old with gray hair. I was baffled.

drrt

You’re ugly too
Ireland 2014, Mark Noonan, 81′

Stacey is your average 12 year old – kind of pretty, foul-mouthed, sarcastic and a bit of a know-it-all. When she becomes an orphan, her uncle Will gets let out of prison to take care of her. At first, they don’t make a good match. She is suspicious of him and his unwillingness to tell her why he went to prison, and he lives a somewhat shitty life in a trailer park. He has alcohol and drug problems, has trouble finding a job and it’s not easy for him to approach Stacey’s cynical character. They befriend a neighboring family and Will and the wife fall in love. But then Stacey finds out what Will did, and after she runs away, Will’s ability to take care of Stacey is being doubted by the authorities.

To be honest, there is not much to say about the film. It easily reminded me of St. Vincent because you also have a child and an older guy who on the surface seems like a butt but actually is a good person. Thankfully there are a bunch of differences: Stacey is less normal (much more funny and cynical, but also more complicated) and Will is not just some grumpy old dude. On the one hand, he has actual issues, on the other hand, he genuinely loves Stacey. This makes for more genuine human interaction, and while I didn’t always think it was believable how they became closer (there was way more on that with Will and that neighbor), I think they had a lot of great chemistry together. It was ultimately a very funny, enjoyable film.

They had a Q&A afterwards and the kids asked some amazing questions. “Do they get married at the end?” (referring to Will and said neighbor) was one of these. Noonan kept the ending deliberately vague, and you don’t know if Will and Stacey end up living together or not. The kids voiced that their optimism about that, Mark Noonan was vague in his answer but Aidan Gillen (haha) pretty much shot them off and said that he thinks the main character has too many alcohol and drug and depression issues to take care of Stacey and she knows that. Oh it’s so like Aidan Gillen to prefer gloomy characters, but personally I thought that the family bond between the two came through at the end. They may not be able to live together, but there is love. Another question I really liked was: “How did you come up with the idea for the movie?” Noonan said he was chatting with Aidan Gillen’s mom who complained about he’s always evil and his films are always so serious and wanted to see him in a comedy. So here we are, a role basically written for Littlefinger.
With that said, it was Lauren Kinsella’s birthday (coincidence or was the birthday actually 3 days ago?) and I was impressed by how proper she looked and spoke. She is totally a professional and very good with the media, so she is probably actually a very good actress.

Posted on

Berlinale 2015, Day 1 (Jahrgang 45)

As the Berlinale ends, the Berlinale begins! (The blogging, that is.) Have you been looking forward to my our coverage of the Berlinale this year? It was a very split up business. 6451 came to visit and saw a bunch of films that Pixelmatsch and I couldn’t see. I also ended up seeing a lot of films with Loris while Pixelmatsch had a bigger focus on other Japanese films. (Between the two of us, we saw every single movie from this list except for “Wonderful World End” and “Little Forest” which we expect to be able to see later on anyways.) Finally, Pixelmatsch and I went to different screenings of some films (“Koza”, “End of Winter”) because of his work scheduling. All in all, we all went to the Berlinale but sadly didn’t see each other that much. Also, since O was sick and Pixelmatsch and 6451 went to see Lucia di Lammermoor on Friday, technically this Berlinale started on Saturday and will therefore have 9 instead of 10 days.

This time, my Berlinale did not start out with an exceptionally good film (it was a decent copy of French Nouvelle Vague at best) nor was it Japanese. That is OK, because it meant the Berlinale only got better afterwards.

drrt

Jahrgang 45
German Democratic Republic 1966/1990, Jürgen Böttcher, 94′

Idle young dude has a boring steady job, got married at 21 and now that he is on vacation from work, he wants to leave his boring wife again. Actually she isn’t even that boring, she just matured and took a genuine interest her profession of being a nurse. The entire world (his mentor, his parents, his friends who also are hot for the wife) advise him against divorcing, even at work his boss meddles into the affair. After a bunch of immature affairs (moving out, trying to seduce his ex-girlfriend, making a jealousy scene at a club and fighting afterwards), dude has a moment of epiphany when seeing another couple being lovey-dovey together and reconciles with his wife.

You can probably tell that I wasn’t particularly enamored with the story nor with its characters. In a relationship movie, I am especially not fond of these stories where clearly one party is in the wrong whereas the other one just deals with it. Antoine Doinel is a prime example for that, and if I think about it, most of those French Nouvelle Vague films have the same problem. In this case, however, the relationship is the main focus of the story and it kind of missed its mark for me. It lacks both the passion and the seductive light-heartedness that I know so well from films like “Jules et Jim” or “Une femme est une femme”. Only the exceedingly pretty ex-girlfriend kind of exuded that air, but she was such a stupidly one-sided character. I am also not much into the portrayal of these people. I don’t have much love for that bored, idle youth of the time, especially from today’s point of view: that is the generation who easily got jobs after lazing around forever, wasted money like crazy and is now making the younger generation pay taxes for their convenient retirement, so no thank you. Nevertheless there is one thing to be said about this film – it’s so darn good-looking! I think I’m just jealous of that generation which was free, politically naive and so effortlessly stylish. I drooled over those 60s hairstyles and dresses, over their lives in their pretty tiny apartments and the fun at their dance clubs. The film may be a shameless copy of Godard and Truffaut’s early work almost a decade earlier down to their camera angles, jump cuts and styling, but it was a good copy. I simply liked how it looked, and the humorous scenes in the film were much fun.

Oh yeah, before the film started the director also held a long-winded, annoyingly sappy speech about how he touched he is and how never thought the movie would ever come out after it failed to pass censorship in 1966 etc. etc. Can’t they save that for after the movie? Younger directors all have the decency to first show the film before going on about themselves. So embarrassing.

Posted on

Berlinale 2014, Afterthoughts and statistics

27 movies in 10 days, thinking of this number makes me think of that one time we watched 12 movies in 24 hours. It was a rather special event and bumped up my movie consumption that year by a whole lot. In fact, we pretty much fell asleep through the last two films and I realize that I could never do it again. I am not even 30 years old but I know of things I could never do anymore! Sad.
I feel similar about the Berlinale, except that I wish I could do this every year now.

About one month after it happened, I look at it with fond memories, but I already see that they are less vivid than when it happened. In retrospect, things always turn out differently. Things we think made a huge emotional impact on our lives ended up not doing so, and vice versa. I thought that having gotten into a near-death car accident would change my life, but it didn’t. I thought that going through the intense pain of giving birth would change my life, but it didn’t. I thought that seeing so many inspiring films at the Berlinale would change my life, but it didn’t. I am Don Draper, I can’t become any better.

Even so, this year’s Berlinale was something I felt very strongly about for awhile. Going to movie theaters with friends is probably my favorite activity in the world, closely followed by discussing those movies right afterwards. For instance, Shii made a good point about how unusual the premise of “Ship Bun” is. I was immensely happy that Shii could come, and even though he missed out on a few good films (Bai Ri Yan Huo, Velvet Terrorists, Kraftidioten, Nymphomaniac, Chiisai Ouchi, The Midnight After) I think the days when Shii was there were definitely the best ones. To me, the smell of movie theaters is only surpassed by the smell of operas, and I love the reactions from the audience, especially the laughter in comedies. It all happened in this year’s Berlinale, and besides the cheap price it’s the reason why I go to the Berlinale in the first place.

The single most exciting event was probably watching “Calvary” in the Zoo Palast. Not only was the movie theater a revelation, we also were absolutely lucky to get in and, well, I got that autograph which made the whole movie theater stare at me for a few minutes. This kind of chain of fortuitous events typically does not happen to me.

The worst aspect of the Berlinale is the lack of sleep. Besides taking care of O at night, there were many nights when we got home at 1am or even later, and there were three days where I had a 9am or 9.30am screening. I can’t believe I survived it all without going crazy, or perhaps I have gone a little crazy, but more like in a drunken kind of way. When I am tired, I feel things more intensely and during the Berlinale those feelings were definitely on the positive side. I definitely think it helped feeling the films more intensely.

Finally, a few statistics, detailing how often we went to a certain venue, how many films we saw from each country and each section. The saddest thing is that we couldn’t see a single film at the International, but maybe we will catch “The Grand Budapest Hotel” there! That would be great.

Continue reading “Berlinale 2014, Afterthoughts and statistics”

Posted on

Berlinale 2014, Day 10 (Nymphomaniac, Vol. 1)

A month after the Berlinale started, I am finally blogging about the last film. I had a feeling this would happen and I was a little afraid about it. Luckily I have a very vivid memory of “Nymphomaniac, Vol. 1” which ended up making quite an impact on me, I think.

Fittingly for the Berlinale, we were in the Berlinale Palast for the last film, sitting upstairs in the first row in the very middle. Lucky! As you can imagine, it actually provided a great view onto the screen and considering that the film was almost 2 1/2 hours long, this definitely helped.

drrt

Nymphomaniac, Vol. 1 (long version)
Denmark/Germany/France/Belgium/Sweden 2013, Lars von Trier, 145’

On his way home, the old bachelor Seligman finds a woman beaten up and brings her to his home. When she gets better, she tells him the story of her life and how she became a nymphomaniac, as she diagnoses herself. Volume 1 covers the first five chapters, which detail her youth in which she competes with her best friend about who can get the most men to sleep with them; her first meeting with Jerome, the love of her life, an incident; her father’s death and finally how she meets Jerome again.
Death count: 1.

I read up on what happens in part 2, and I’m not liking it, especially the parts concerning Seligman. However, I haven’t seen it and if I see it I may change my mind, we’ll see. Here, we only saw the first part, and I have to say, I liked it. If you look beyond those explicit sex scenes (yeah yeah, they’re provocative etc., get over it, there’s not even that many of them), the characters in the story make a lot of sense. I don’t think Joe’s character is very common or typical or even “human”, if you want, but she must be seen as an individual. Most people in this world are not nymphomaniacs or anything like her, but her character is well-fleshed out, and so it is possible to relate to her. As somebody who is almost uncontrollably obsessed with sex and who seems to have an incredibly built-in desire for it, she is quite aware of what she is doing and what it means. The story is detailed as one in which she made her own choices – she may not have been very good at controlling her desires, but she had full control of her actions. My favorite part was the one with the crazy wife who intrudes into her life with her children and goes on a crying rampage. It was so damn realistic and I loved how Joe ends the story with the fact that it did not faze her emotionally at all. That part was just so fascinatingly realistic, and shows in a striking fashion what consequences her actions have on other people. The matter-of-fact way she talks about her “sins” is nice because honestly, if there is something people are usually absolutely cold about, it’s what happens to other people who sleep with the same person as you, most often those husbands or wives. It’s not even that psychopathic of her, it’s perfectly normal if we were honest about it. I think I am usually a rather compassionate person, but if some guy’s wife did that in my apartment, the only thing I would want to say to that would be “Get out.”
The realism and the subtle feminism (quite typical for Lars von Trier) are this film’s best aspects really. People are getting it wrong, he doesn’t hate women, he loves them.

My second favorite part of the story was the last one, in which she compares her lovers to different voices of an organ. One of them is Jerome, the love of her life. The film’s main quote is probably “The secret ingredient to sex is love”, but even though Jerome may be the only man amongst whom she loves, he is still only one of them, only a part of the “big picture”. It reminded me of analyses of the Don Juan character who I was extremely fascinated with when I was younger, and she is something like a reverse Don Juan with a psychology just as complex.

I really enjoyed seeing Stellan Skarsgard after “Kraftidioten”, especially since he is in such a different role here. Charlotte Gainsbourg not so much, but I don’t think there is any film in this world which could make me feel better about her. Her adoration of Lars von Trier’s dark side also creeps me out.

After disliking “Antichrist” and dropping “Melancholia” like 10 minutes into the film, I had surprisingly high expectations for “Nymphomaniac”, perhaps because of its premise and because I enjoy Lars von Trier’s provocations. I enjoyed the film and thought that it was rather interesting in the way it handled its heroine. At least in parts, Lars von Trier is in parts regaining the depths he has shown in his older films, like “Dogville” and “Idioterne”, and I am glad that he finally did after almost 10 years of dabbling when only his comedies (“Occupations” and “The boss of it all”) were good.

Posted on

Berlinale 2014, Day 10 (Kraftidioten)

Pixelmatsch is a huge fan of Hans Petter Moland ever since he saw “En ganske snill man” at the Berlinale. I always thought that his Tarantino-like qualities were enticing, so “Kraftidioten” was a must for us to see, hence we got the Sunday tickets just to make sure.

I was already in the Friedrichstadtpalast for “La belle et la bete” right before, so I had the opportunity to secure pretty ideal seats for us. Yay!

drrt

Kraftidioten (In Order of Disappearance)
Norway/Sweden/Denmark 2013, Hans Petter Moland, 115’

When Nils hears that his son supposedly died of a drug overdose, he doesn’t believe in it and vows to get behind what happened and take revenge. Behind everybody’s backs, he finds out about the mafia deals his son got into, and starts killing the people involved one by one until he finds Greven, the boss of the organization, a megalomaniac, organic-food-and-pink-cupcakes-obsessed eccentric who is not afraid of random killing. Greven mistakenly thinks the Serbian mafia are responsible for the murders of his men, who are now plotting his son’s kidnapping.
Death count: Hehe, if I could remember. If I had to guess, 15.

I recently read a comment from somebody saying that the Scandinavian culture is rooted in violence and sadism, as can be seen in films like Lars von Trier’s. If you add in all the death metal scene, I can easily why someone would think that way. But then again, by that logic all of Japan is made up of pedophiles and Koreans are just as into violence too. I would be careful making such assumptions, even if they seem to make sense at first glance. But the truth is that the majority of Japanese people probably has nothing to do with pedophilia, as manga and anime give a skewed view of the country. I suspect this is the same thing for Scandinavia’s supposed propensity for violence. It just so happens that the kinds of Lars von Trier and Hans Petter Moland make it to the Berlinale, and perhaps they do make better films than their colleagues, but more than anything they just make for better headlines. It’s just like what Park Chan-wook’s films do for Korean cinema, even though many others (Bong Joon-ho, Hong Sang-soo, Lee Chang-dong) are at least just as great.

Actually “Kraftidioten” is not even that violent. Sure there is a lot of death, and it’s part of the film’s title. But it’s a black comedy, and as such, “Kraftidioten” is even funnier than “The Midnight After”. The violence comes from the amount of people dying (a lot) and the circumstances they die in (pretty random), but it’s not like you see a lot of blood or anything. “Kraftidioten” draws a thin line between film noir, Scandinavian deadpan comedy and revenge film, so death is almost inevitable. On top of that, almost every death case is important to the plot or at least has been foreshadowed. It’s a very well-crafted, stringent plot in which nothing happens just randomly, even though I just said that people die in random fashion. I blame the English language – people die in this film almost without any reason (which makes it a little shocking and perhaps hard to watch), but within this story everything has its place and every single “disappearance” advances the plot. (Except at the end where I am glad that they all got wiped out.)

One of my favorite aspects of the film is its use of snow and the stunning Norwegian landscapes. There is so incredibly much of it, and Nils’s profession (plowing the snow to clear the streets) has something very fitting for the film. It’s like the snow is another comedic character in this film’s ensemble.

I want to see “En Ganske Snill Mann”, and my high expectations for “Kraftidioten” were fully met. I don’t think I have laughed this much in awhile.

Posted on

Berlinale 2014, Day 10 (La belle et a bete)

My original plan was to see this film and Cocteau’s “La belle et la bête” in direct comparison, both of which were shown at the Berlinale. I had scheduled for Cocteau’s version too but then ended up not seeing it. I don’t really feel as motivated to watch easily available old films at the Berlinale, especially when it’s not a silent film with live piano. But since I already had tickets for the newer film, I couldn’t let it go to waste.

drrt

La belle et la bête
France/Germany 2014, Christophe Gans, 112′

Belle’s father is an impoverished merchant with six children to take care of and but only one responsible child, Belle herself. The rest are troublemakers or comic relief. With some variations to the classical Beauty and the Beast tale, Belle starts living at the castle of the Beast after her father takes a rose from his garden, and slowly comes to love the Beast, ultimately saving him.
Death count: As many as there were in the group of thugs, plus a forest spirit.

I have never really understood why people are so into Léa Seydoux. I think she is pretty but she’s just not my type. Other than that, she also doesn’t strike me as a great actress and kind of reminds me of Mia Wasikowska in that respect. That is unfortunate, I think the film would have been quite different with, say, Virginie Ledoyen as the main character.

The film’s biggest appeal is definitely its looks. The scenes in and around the castle are of almost unparalleled beauty, with a clear nod to the Lord of the Rings franchise. Personally, I prefer its fairytale style over the Lord of the Rings, and that means something. It’s just so damn pretty. Belle’s dresses are similarly awesome and prettier than anything Tim Burton has ever designed. The story is fine (apart from the part with the princess) and can be described as lovely most of the time. The biggest problem probably lies with the source material itself – it’s all about Stockholm Syndrome after all. I felt a little uncomfortable when I realized that the women in the story more or less sell their body to men in order to get what they want (“I will dance with you if you let me see my family”, “If you give me a son, I will do as you ask and stop hunting”), which not only means that they are engaging in some sort of prostitution but that in this story, women are ultimately powerless apart from their beauty. That makes this film a little questionable to show to little children (but so does Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” for its glory to colonization ending).

In the end, I had a lot of fun watching the film and reveled in the pretty visuals and fun action effects. I just wouldn’t recommend the film, and I think that the money spent on the film would have been better somewhere else. Film-makers especially in French cinema need to stop rehashing old, out-dated stories over and over again.

Posted on

Berlinale 2014, Day 10 (Praia do futuro)

It’s possible to buy all the tickets for the very last day of the Berlinale at a special price (6 euros) at the first day of ticket sales. As a result, I ended up getting tickets only competition films (which are otherwise difficult to get) for the last day and made sure we could watch the good ones together (Kraftidioten and Nymphomaniac). That leaves the kind of films I want to see but I doubt anyone else would. “Praia do future” is one of these films because of Wagner Moura.

drrt

Praia do futuro
Brazil/Germany 2013, Karim Ainouz, 106’

Donato is a lifeguard at Future Beach when he fails to rescue a man for the first time. While he tries to cope with what happened, he meets and falls in love with the friend of the man, a tourist from Germany. When Konrad goes back to Berlin, Donato decides to follow him. After Konrad convinces Donato to stay, he realizes that he has a hard time adjusting to the cold city without a beach. Years later, when Donato’s brother comes to Berlin to find him, a lot of things have changed.
Death count: 1.

I will forever remember this movie as the one where you can see Wagner Moura’s penis, and I enjoyed the shots of Berlin in the film. Other than that, everything else was rather unsatisfying. I didn’t care much for the main characters’s story, I don’t really understand how and why Donato had the money to go to Germany but his brother had to save money for years to do the same thing. Sounds like Donato ran away with his family’s money. When I came out of the theater, I overheard a couple of women dissing the film – terrible dialogue, unrealistic etc. I didn’t think it was that bad. Au contraire, I thought the film had many sweet aspects and most of its moodiness made a lot of sense. I even thought that the end of the film, where the trio goes to the sea, was thoughtful and done very nicely. But in general, it’s your standard artsy gay film where nothing is explained (it cuts directly from the hospital scene “why don’t I give you a ride back?” to sex in the car) and everything happens incredibly slowly. In that respect, I think it’s a little sad for Wagner Moura to go from “Tropa de Elite” or even the small role in “Elysium” to a film like this.

Posted on

Berlinale 2014, Day 9 (Ieji)

A new tradition is to watch at least one Tohoku Earthquake/Fukushima movie at the Berlinale. I wonder when this wave will ebb out (please excuse this incredibly horrible pun.)

drrt

Ieji (Homeland, ??)
Japan 2014, Nao Kubota, 118?

After several years in Tokyo, Jiro comes home and starts working the family farm again. It’s just that the village is completely empty because it’s in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone. Randomly, an old friend from school comes by fleeing the police and starts to live with him. Meanwhile his older half-brother Soichi with his wife, little daughter and mother-in-law live or rather vegetate in temporary housing outside the zone. The housing is so nondescript and anonymous that mother-in-law even loses her way in the rows of identical dwellings.  Initially they are not aware of Jiro’s return but someday they learn about it and Soichi wonders what happened, especially because Soichi’s stepmother, Jiro’s actual mother never got over his departure while she was still alive.

I have a shitton of respect for Sakura Ando. Besides her being a great actress she is not ashamed to look ugly, crazy or incredibly mediocre and boring, as in this movie.  The cinematography is your typical slow indie movie from Japan, so nothing to write home about (please excuse the punfest in this post!) however the pacing, relatively sparse dialogue and the general dynamic of the movie create a very interesting mood. The absolute carelessness and “slow suicide” (as his friend describes it) of Jiro feel weirdly compelling and nicely contrast the aimlessness and lack of hope in the temporary housing which feels highly suffocating. In the end it is a very nice and calm movie about how hard it is to completely lose your roots, to never be able to return to your home as it is just gone.