Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 7 (The Other Side of Hope)

This film was heavily anticipated. The old man actually asked me to buy two tickets for this screening for his friends, but I couldn’t do it because I wanted this time slot for Loris and myself. Due to the trains running late (yet again), I made it to the movie theater only 10 minutes or so before the film opened, even though I leave the house 1 1/2 hours early for almost every screening, and afterwards I had to rush to pick up O. In the end, it worked out fine but I didn’t actually meet the old man that day.

Of course it’s not necessary to see a Kaurismäki at the Berlinale, because his films are always available afterwards. But it was hands down the best film in this Thursday morning time slot, and Loris and I felt like seeing it, so there we are.

drrt

Toivon tuolla puolen (The Other Side of Hope)
Finland/Germany 2017, Aki Kaurismäki, 98′

Khaled is a Syrian refugee who more or less by chance ended up in Helsinki. He applies for asylum in Finland but gets rejected, so he decides to flee and stay in the country illegally. Wikström is a merchant and decides to leave his wife, give up on his former business of selling shirts and ties and open up a restaurant instead. While Khaled is homeless on the streets, he is discovered by Wikström behind the garbage bins. With the help of his three employees and their little dog, Wikström takes Khaled in, gives him a place to sleep and a job in the restaurant.

The verdict is pretty clear: How can anyone not like this film? Everybody I know including all the online reviews I read seem to agree that the new Kaurismäki is lovely in every aspect. If that refugee film didn’t win the year before, this one would have definitely gotten the Golden Bear. Much like “Le Havre”, “The Other Side of Hope” is optimistic, funny and has extremely lovable characters. In this case, the degree of lovableness goes through the roof, and everybody of relevance is either simply likable or a genuinely good person who does good things. What’s not to like?

One thing I noticed immediately was that the refugees are all pretty good-looking (the main character, the good friend, the sister) whereas all the locals are pretty ugly and/or old. It makes for an amusing contrast and I believe it also contributes to many comical situations.

Another thing I noted (a little later, of course) was that it took awhile until our main characters finally meet. It said it was 45 minutes in some review, but I had the impression it was more like one hour. In any case they spent at least half of the film not yet knowing about each other’s existence, which also means that you didn’t get to see them together that much. I thought it was the film’s only weakness: except for that scene in which they meet, there is not that much personal interaction between them. Their friendship is largely dependent on what they are (Finnish, Syrian) and much less on who they are, which I had been looking forward to.

Danish dude mentioned to me that the infamous Scandinavian unfriendliness or distance towards people is rooted in their impressively well functioning social welfare system. Just like how in Germany nobody gives you a seat on the subway no matter how much you look like you might need it, people in Denmark don’t make small talk with you, let alone become your friend, because they don’t meddle in other people’s affairs and believe that nobody needs their support, because the system will take care of it. As a result, expats in Copenhagen never meet or befriend any Danes, and leave the city because no social contacts are keeping them there. “The Other Side of Hope” shows a different aspect of Scandinavia… or it’s wishful thinking because in reality Finns don’t talk to each other either.

Finally, and this is so typically me, the dark ending of the film (and the shadow of violence cast upon it) was actually most memorable for me. It is an image that I can still recall very vividly, and it does make me wonder why all the reviewers and even I thought that the film was a feel-good movie. Of course the ending was beautiful, but with just that one violent scene at the end Kaurismäki managed to give a believable and realistic portrayal of a Finland that is not just composed of lovable, helpful people. It didn’t feel that way when I just saw it, but the more I reminisce about the film, the more I am devastated by the sadness of its ending. I think it was a masterpiece move of Kaurismäki’s to include this kind of dichotomy in “The Other Side of Hope”, and it reminds me that I need to see more of his films.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 2 (Algol. Tragödie der Macht)

Whenever the Berlinale shows a silent film, they will have Stephen Horne accompany it with live music and therefore I will try to attend to screening no matter what the film is about. (In this case, though, the appearance of Emil Jannings as main character is another compelling reason to see the film.) If a film is boring or crappy I will just watch Horne play, though “Algol” was actually gripping enough such that I rarely paid attention to how Horne was doing the accompaniment, though I wish I did.

Being the second day of the Berlinale, the cinema was packed but as a single person it’s almost always possible to get a decent seat anyways, because people never completely fill them up, at least not at the CinemaxX 8. This is different at the Zoo Palast; for some reason the middle rows are always completely packed even when you get there reasonably early, and people have a tendency to reserve seats for 2-3 others, which they barely do at any of the other venues. Perhaps it’s because the Zoo Palast is a large and bright cinema? Who knows.

One thing I noticed pretty strongly at this year’s Berlinale Retrospektive was that almost every film was preceded by an introduction in which somebody will reference Trump, and how “Future Imperfect”, the topic of this year’s Retrospektive, was relevant to the political developments in the world. With “Algol”, the restaurateur mentioned how all of a sudden everybody wants to screen the film because its main character was so Trump-like. I thought that was amusing yet a bit silly. Is an old film really only interesting when it is somehow comparable to today’s situation?

drrt

Algol. Tragödie der Macht (Algol. Tragedy of Power)
Germany 1920, Hans Werckmeister, 104′

Algol, an alien from the planet Algol, disguises himself as coal miner and gives his fellow comrade Robert Herne a perpetuum mobile with which he takes over the entire world. He makes his own country incredibly rich by selling energy from his machine to other countries who in turn must work like crazy to be able to afford it. Only his former girlfriend and a handful of others are able to resist his take-over.

Much like “Metropolis”, I remember that I thought “Algol” was very stylish yet a bit naive. But then I saw “Himmelskibet” and realized that there are many levels of naivety when it comes to the story of a science-fiction film. Of course all of these films come from a different time when the typical science-fiction topics have just barely been explored. As a result, “Algol” has pretty cookie-cutter characters: The main character who goes from hard-working factory worker to evil dictator, the useless son who just wants power, the kind-hearted women (former girlfriend, wife, daughter) trying to stop him and finally Algol, the evil alien who always walks with a hunched back and hunches similarly over his books. (Oh yeah, the film really loves workers and seems to hate intellectuals, which makes “Algol” one of the less likable Retrospektive films in terms of its message.)

What attracted me towards the film was definitely its style and partially also its execution. I thought it was pretty well-made for a film from 1920, and the expressionist style interior spaces are downright amazing looking. Even though there were components of the story I was not into and from today’s perspective the story itself is predictable and straight-forward, the story-telling itself was actually quite compelling. I enjoyed Herne’s development from mere worker to world dictator, probably thanks to Janning’s apt portrayal of this character. With that in mind, I am certainly glad that the film has been restored, though sometimes I wonder what other gems there are in this world that are lying around, possibly lost forever.

Posted on

Berlinale 2017, Day 1 (Eolomea)

“As the Berlinale ends, the Berlinale begins!” I like this sentence I used two years ago, because it describes this effect of my lingering thoughts about the Berlinale exactly. It’s like for awhile the Berlinale hasn’t really ended because I am still thinking about the films.

Attending this year’s Berlinale was something of a little miracle, and I didn’t expect I would only skip one Berlinale (last year’s) before being able to attend another one. The miracle is called life, because I am back in Berlin to bring a new one into the world. (It’s a crazy world right now, and when I stumbled upon the baby book entry “The president is…”, I got doubts about whether it’s a good idea given the circumstances, but there is always hope!) So here we are, another 10 days of film watching! One day, the goal is to catch an average of 4 movies per day, as opposed to 2.

This year, my Berlinale actually starts with the opening film of the Retrospektive, which came with a lovely introduction with the director and cameraman who enjoy telling funny anecdotes and some curator person from the MoMA who participated in choosing the films (tall, well-spoken Indian-looking guy who probably gave the best introduction to anything I have ever heard at the Berlinale). It took place at the always fantastic International (where they screened the film in its 70mm original!), and for the first time I intensely felt like the Berlinale was starting thanks to the great atmosphere in it. Perhaps lining up for several days for tickets also made me anticipate the Berlinale more, hurr hurr. This year I absolutely wanted to make sure I get to see the films I want to see, and getting up early and queueing for tickets actually allowed me to do that.

drrt

Eolomea
Deutsche Demokratische Republik 1972, Herrmann Zschoche, 82′

In far future where space travel is more advanced, several ships are disappearing close to the space station “Margot”. Our heroes are a blonde and exceedingly pretty female scientist trying to figure out the real reason behind the disappearances, and her lover, a very working class astronaut delivery boy with a good dose of sarcasm, who happens to be stranded on a little planet close to “Margot”. Both of them get involved in a trip to the “Margot” space station and happily meet there briefly, before finding out that it all relates to an old dream of finding alien life on a legendary planet Eolomea.

It was something like the perfect movie to start with. First of all, I am into its positive message and how much it values science. (I will definitely come back to this aspect when reviewing “gog” later on.) Back in the day, space travel and exploration was actually something people truly desired and were willing to sacrifice a whole lot for, wow! Nowadays people are just complaining why one would spend money on Curiosity when they could spend it on combatting poverty. (Nobody seems to ask that question about “normal” military spending though.)

Besides the question of how much dreams are worth sacrificing for, the film also injects some other typical questions about technology of the time, like the little robot who follows orders but has a conscience and is not sure if he should follow these orders if they are potentially putting humans in jeopardy. At the same time, the most unusual aspect about the film was its humor. Maybe it was a little silly and over the top (I’m thinking of a tense scene where they enter the space station and find it surpringly empty, but then a guy says “I need to pee” and someone else responds “Just deal with it”), but I enjoyed these small humorous scenes, probably because science-fiction films have a tendency to be much more serious, even the light-hearted ones. This one is totally not ashamed of its silliness and the fanservice-y outfits they put their main actress into, and I really liked the film for it. It’s especially nice to have a male main character who doesn’t take himself too seriously and cracks jokes all the time.

Apparently “Eolomea” did not garner very many good reviews back in the day (nor today it seems), but for me it was an enjoyable gem.

Posted on

Berlinale 2015, Day 5 (60 Jahre DEFA-Studio für Trickfilme)

Every Berlinale, I have to see a short film collection. Last year it was the retrospective, this year I am watching children’s films: There are the 60 year DEFA celebration films and on Sunday, I also picked up some short films in the Generation competition. I am a sucker for old so it was a given for me that I would be seeing these. It was early in the day and the cinema was packed with huge groups of children – I have not seen this many children ever since “Mary & Max” back in the Babylon.

drrt

Die Flucht zu den Pinguinen
GDR 1984, Günter Rätz, 9′

In retrospect, this one was my favorite. Is this movie available somewhere? It was beautifully drawn, had an adorable story and is generally the kind of film that makes me love animated films so much. The moderator announced to the children about how all these films were made by hand and stressed what impressive artistic work it all was – and it was indeed. This film was its best example.

Die Suche nach dem Vogel Turlipan
GDR 1976, Kurt Weiler, 13′

A professor looks for a specific species of bird, Turlipan, while all other professor say such a bird does not exist. In the end the professor did not find Turlipan but he went through a beautiful adventure. Sadly I really had to go to the restroom so I couldn’t see all of this film, but in terms of visuals I thought it was stunning, and it’s the kind of beautiful message I would want to impart to children. This is “Millennium Actress” as a short film.

Pünktchen
GDR 1964, Bruno J. Böttge, 7′

This is just a short little film with moving dots and lines, chasing each other and recollecting. It was cute and I enjoyed it.

Alarm im Kasperletheater
GDR 1960, Lothar Barke, 16′

I showed this film to O once and ever since he has been loving it. He cries because he is only allowed to watch it once, and he wants to watch it pretty much everyday. I doubt he understands all of the story (and I try to explain it to him), but he likes the colorful characters, the chases and – especially – the kind grandma haha.

Meta Morfoss
GDR 1978, Monika Anderson, 15′

Girl can turn into all kinds of objects and does much mischief with it. I had mixed feelings about this story. The idea and the execution of all those different things Meta changes into are really awesome, but the story itself was strangely silly. I am not sure I liked how carefree and ultimately troublesome this little girl was.

Vom Fröschlein und seinem Reifen
GDR 1964, Heinz Nagel, 4′

A very short, straightforward little black and white film – I barely remember it but I know that I enjoyed it.

Urwaldmärchen
GDR 1977, Katja Georgi, 15′

OK actually I didn’t like this one. Set in an “exotic” country which looks mildly racist from today’s standards, the story was basically about a dude his newfound dragon friend who is just sweet and naive to woo a princess. Then the whole thing was 15 minutes long. Goodness.

Gegner nach Maß
GDR 1963, Bruno J. Böttge, 5 ‘

This little short story made me laugh, and I really liked the way it was made. The main character was a paper cut-out and he was given a pair of scissors to “create” his own antagonist. The slightly sarcastic wordplay on how the protagonist was just a lame “paper hero” at the end was simply lovely. In terms of concept and execution, this was probably the most creative film.

Posted on

Berlinale 2015, Day 4 (Neun Leben hat die Katze)

It’s 6451’s last day at the Berlinale. This evening, we decided to only watch one film, such that we can finish the day early-ish and spend the rest of the time eating foods and reliving the Berlinale up until now. Can you believe that 6451 saw 13 movies in just 4 days? That is amazing efficacy. As expected, it was a nice evening with take-out food and good conversation at Pixelmatsch’s cozy place. Needless to say, I immensely enjoyed 6451’s ranking of Berlinale films. Incidentally, “Neun Leben hat die Katze” was pretty much the worst film up until now, which is kind of unfortunate because all three of us got tickets for it beforehand.

drrt

Neun Leben hat die Katze
Germany 1968, Ula Stöckl, 92′

The screenshot is quite indicative of what is going on in this story: It’s some sort of crazy 60s artsy collection of vignettes of the love lives of a few young women living in Munich. There are the two protagonists who are being courted by the same guy, one of them is French and talks about love a lot, the other one is in love with some good-looking dude who has a wife and cute children. The wife wants to kill him (I think?) when she hears about his infidelities. Then, a few other female characters also come into play and slowly, the film descends into surreal madness, from which the screenshot. At the point where aforementioned dude is surrounded by bare-breasted girls in dirndls, I completely lost hope in the film. This is unfortunate, because I enjoyed the first 40 minutes or so of the film immensely. Some of the dialogue was absolutely spot-on, pretty much everything involving the ugly dude who does the weirdest things in the attempts of seducing a girl. He tries to convince protagonist 1 that if she is nice to him then she must promise him to do it only with him, and when protagonist 2 tells him about her life problems, he proposes that a relationship with him would be the solution to all of her problems. The movie has interesting characters and looks effortlessly stylish – if only it had actually bothered to construct a proper story instead of doing this unnecessary artsy stuff. Much like “Jahrgang 45”, I thought the movie was a pale imitation of the Nouvelle Vague. For a feminist film (which I think it tries to be), I think it absolutely fails the Bechdel test: Much like in “The Women”, there are tons of women on screen, but they only talk about men. The movie is only recommendable for its small amount of Munichporn.

Posted on

Berlinale 2015, Day 3 (Tokyo-ga)

At the Berlinale, there is almost nothing as great as being able to stay seated in a cinema for two movies in a row. I know it sounds silly but I absolutely love this. Sadly, they threw us out for a moment to do some testing (on the last day at another “staying seated” situation, I saw them do these tests and there really was no reason to throw us out for that), but at least we were able to save ourselves the best seats and get back in again first.
With that said, when we were standing in front of the line, all three of us left the line at some point to go to the restroom, and all of us walked through the line to get back in front without anyone complaining. 6451 says this must be the confident “I belong to the front of the line” face we were making.
By the way, every single time I managed to schedule myself to be able to stay seated in the cinema, it was in CinemaxX 8. Seems like that one is like my Berlinale movie theater.

drrt

Tokyo-ga
Germany/USA 1985, Wim Wenders, 93′

Wim Wenders goes to Japan trying to walk in Ozu’s footsteps. He gets to interview Chishu Ryu and Ozu’s longtime cameraman, and he films Japan with the eyes of someone who, well, has never seen Japan before. Oh and he makes Werner Herzog say a few deprecating words on Tokyo and gets a super short shot of Chris Marker too, which is very telling because “Tokyo-ga” looks like a better “Sans soleil” rather than a documentary on Ozu.

I think 6451 was mostly bored in the film, and I am not actually sure if he has seen any Ozu films. As a fan of Ozu’s late films (most of the material is actually about “Tokyo Monogatari” and his later stuff), having seen all but two of his colour films, I was excited to see how his collaborators view his work. Simply put, they treat him like a God or something, and Chishu Ryu, who seems like an awesome actor and a genuinely soft person, talks about how he only learned from Ozu and how they had a father-son relationship despite being basically the same age. His cameraman was similar: Ozu had full control about how the camera had to look and how the shot had to be made, so for most of the film I thought all he did was to set up the camera and carry it around. Then he finally mentioned how he had control over the lighting, which I thought was pretty nice, and I think Ozu is gravely overlooking the importance of that. The way everybody spoke about him like he was an authoritative, beloved boss of all was rather weird. I know that directors have a lot of power (and heard that Mankiewicz slept with his actresses, Bergman had relationships with them, Cukor talked to them and Preminger essentially enslaved them), but this reverence in front of Ozu disturbed me a little.
Nevertheless, I was elated to get to know more about the way Ozu worked and have to conclude again that he was simply a genius. I am a huge fan of the posed calmness of his films and hearing all these people talking about film-making technicalities makes me want to make a movie.

Other than the Ozu parts, most of “Tokyo-ga” was about what a shitty place Tokyo turned into. Wenders really got into studying the weirdest aspects of Japan, like its pachinko parlors, the young folk in Harajuku and so on. Much more than Chris Marker, he seems to have a good eye for these weirdnesses, but to me it was actually rather off-putting. This really is the perspective of an outsider who looks at Japanese people like they are zoo animals and acts like a little kid who says “Look mommy, the big panda just moved!” I think 6451 was rather excited to see Werner Herzog in the film, but the stuff he talked about was confusing at best. There was one aspect that I really liked, which is how Wenders visited a factory for restaurant display food. I liked learning about how these little models are made, and I enjoyed his comment about how their lunch break consists of the workers sitting together at a table in their workshop, eating food that looks just like all the fake food surrounding them. I laughed a little at that one.

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, 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 (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.