Tag: PIFF

3X3D

The internet is actually full of media people reviewing this film, so it can easily give you an idea of what to expect here. As for us, we just wanted to see what Godard is doing with the 3D format and since it was a reasonably short film shown in the same movie theater right after “Nobody’s Daughter Haewon”, we thought it was fine to check it out too. In fact, we had an hour in between, so we strolled around the neighboring shopping mall and bought souvenirs at a supermarket – perfect use of our time.

As for this oddity of a film, it’s basically just propaganda. Guimaraes wanted a film celebrating its city, so they got some directors to make an omnibus film, and they got Godard signed up for it so the movie would at least show on festivals. It certainly drew us in, but unfortunately that also meant that only Godard’s part in the film was actually good. The first part by Greenaway was kind of pretty but looked like an IMAX 3D film from 15 years ago, the second part by Pera was incredibly confusing and headache-inducing and Godard’s part (which they wisely screened last) didn’t really feel like a 3D film. It was just a cool Godard film which also happened to have a few 3D parts. Personally I have only seen Godard’s old films, but apparently now he is obsessed with the history of film and mankind in general, making his films look more like collages of things. Pixelmatsch called it a “spot the film” game. Personally I enjoy finding references to other films I have seen (but why was “Madame de” in there?) and Godard manages to bring it all together in an esthetically pleasing fashion.

With those two other artistically inferior works, I can’t really say that “3x3D” is a must-see even for a Godard fan, but it was certainly interesting enough to make me want to see more of Godard’s late work. I heard that he actually did a lot of great stuff in the 21st century, which is really amazing.

Nobody’s Daughter Haewon

While we were in Lisbon, it was not only the 40th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution, but there also was an international film festival, IndieLisboa. They had a rather large selection of movies, most of which I didn’t know anything about. We wanted to see at least one film at the festival, just for fun. Luckily, all of us are into Hong Sang-soo so the choice for “Nobody’s Daughter Haewon” was quickly made.

In fact, words cannot describe why I am into Hong Sang-soo so much. Maybe I just love his slightly gimmicky nonlinear writing style? The many layers and repetitions of shots, dialogue snippets and characters are something rather unique to him, and I am in love with it. Actually I think that “Nobody’s Daughter Haewon” is even a little bit more mature than that, there is less reality blurring but the nonlinearity mostly serves to tell the story with a higher emotional impact. In this film, there are some parallel storylines which are told sequentially, and it is only at the very end that they merge together and the audience gets the conclusion of it all. Repeated dialogue snippets can confuse the whole thing but sometimes their outfits tell you which day you are on.
Apart from all that, I also thought that “Haewon” was the funniest of the three Hong Sang-soo films I have seen. I almost burst out into laughter a few times, not because it was so ha-ha-funny but rather because the scenes felt so taken out of real life that it makes me laugh. The best scene is perhaps the one where the director starts sobbing by himself on the top of the mountain, closely followed by the other students gossiping about Haewon. “I heard her mother drives a Jaguar!” Priceless.

They gave out voting leaflets on which you could give the film 1 to 5 points. I was the only one amongst us who gave it a 5! XD Well, in the end I think I was just madly in love with the movie. The rule “If you watched one Hong Sang-soo movie, you watched them all” is still true, but this one hit home with the whiny director and the poor girl who ended up becoming his mistress. If at least one of Hong Sang-soo’s other films is just as great as this one, then he might make it pretty high on the list of Korean directors (though Bong Joon-ho and Park Chan-wook can probably never be overtaken). I need to watch “Oki’s movie” and “Night and Day”.

Inland Empire

Now we are in the realms of films I thought were absolutely fantastic. Many years ago, perhaps around 2009, Pixelmatsch and I started watching “Inland Empire” but then gave up after around 30 minutes. In retrospect, we were not ready for it. The PIFF is almost like a movie theater, it forces you to watch a film in its entirety without applying explicit force (you can always walk out of a movie theater too, you know). “Inland Empire” needs such a commitment, it’s a rollercaster of a film which can only be fully experienced if you refrain from making a single pause.

I am not sure if I can subscribe to any interpretation theory here, but it is obvious to me that the actress is connected to the prostitute and had to save her from an evil pimp by finding out her connection to the other woman. In order to that, she had to meet her former self as creepy old lady. That’s all I know, but from a single viewing it’s impossible to go into the details. I don’t even think it is possible to bring all these details together into some sort of cohesive picture, but I am happy that the film allows the viewer to accept some interpretation of what happened, giving both closure and a sense of happy end with its last scene. It seems David Lynch intended the film to end on a happy note, and that is exactly how I interpret it.
Apart from that, “Inland Empire” is more creepy than anything I have seen by Lynch, who employs virtually every single technique of psychological horror films successfully. There are those “scary mask in your face – waahhh!” sort of scenes but also the ones that are just dark and moody and creep up on you. I was seriously afraid of having nightmares after the film was over, but luckily I was incredibly tired afterwards and none of the sort happened. I always knew that David Lynch was great at creating a horror atmosphere, but it definitely hit me hardest in this film.
On the other side of the spectrum, “Inland Empire” sports almost “Twin Peaks”-like humor, with random inserts like the dance scene with the prostitutes. You can never take David Lynch too seriously, and it is doubtful that he does it himself, which only adds to the fun. Like most other long films (“Ai no Mukidashi” comes to mind), I think this film is best enjoyed without thinking about it too much, just take it in and enjoy the ride.

“Inland Empire” turned out quite different from what I imagined – for a mindfuck film it was much more understandable than I thought and I am so glad that we chose to watch it at the PIFF. If you are into David Lynch’s style, you must give this film a try too.

Sans Soleil

Personally, I am always impressed by how incredibly lauded some movies are. Except for one idiot who was all like “nothing happens in this movie”, it is probably safe to assume that everybody on Imdb reviewing the film was a movie lover, since only movie lovers would watch “Sans soleil”. Amongst those, the vast majority seems to be in love with the film. I agree that the film is beautiful and there is much to love here in terms of movie-making. Purely from an esthetic standpoint, Chris Marker is an amazing film-maker, and the way he makes connections between his different travels is thoughtful and interesting. However, Chris Marker seems to only look and think, but never actually interact with what he sees. He makes ivory-tower-style statements loaded with clichés because he doesn’t seem to ever even attempt some sort of understanding of these cultures he’s visited. Instead, he puts a layer of artsiness over it all, which may be interesting, but ultimately it’s painfully away from reality. This person pretty much nailed everything I could have said about my “ideological problems” with the film (scroll down a little for her review of “Sans Soleil”).

There was only one thing which I thought was awesome, one of those “oh I never noticed it but it’s so true” moments I love to discover in films. Chris Marker remarked that Japanese poems use adjectives sparingly (and, in conjunction with that, he also reminded me of the fact that Sei Shonagon – whom I prefer over Murasaki Shikibu – loved lists, just like me). I think this is true, and a lot of the beauty in Japanese poetry comes exactly from this fact. I don’t know a lot of those poems but their beauty used to strike me. Now I get why.

With that said, aren’t Sei Shonagon’s lists just marvelous? (Genji Monogatari’s excessive rapes are nothing compared to this.) To me, she is almost as inspiring as Italo Calvino’s “If on a winter’s night a traveler” was. Also, she’s meaner than Gossip Girl.

Besides certain details (cats and the references to “La Jetée” and to “Vertigo” within the film) there is not much worthwhile in this film, and most people are probably better off just seeing “La Jetée”, which is a masterpiece.

Where the wild things are

Almost a month too late: Welcome to 2014! The end of the year 2013 saw me in Austria, where we enjoyed the snow in the Alps (hands down the most beautiful place on earth, if you ask me) and watched “Where the wild things are”. Strictly spoken, we watched it in 2013, but I have a tendency to be very busy at the end of the year and delay blog posts endlessly. Now that the Berlinale is coming up (and many many movies must be blogged), I feel determined to clear the backlog.

To be honest, I never read the book before seeing the film. When I read it, I came to the conclusion that the book really has nothing much to do with the film – they share a few lines and scenes, some of the characters (in the book they don’t really have names, do they) and finally some esthetic principles (everything is kinda beige and gray, huh?). But apart from that, it seems that they just took the book as a reference, and filled in many, many gaps, such as the main character’s family troubles, his relationship with the individual monsters, this whole “let’s all live together” thing. All these elements, which you could characterize as emo and spoiled-like-clichéd-American-kids, are plot points the movie unnecessarily adds to the film.

With that said, I will never get over the fact that the main character monster ripped off another monster’s arm without getting any consequences. From what I can see, that arm was permanently lost, but instead of getting angry or anything, the now arm-less monster puts his arm around the guy who ripped his arm off, essentially saying “aww, don’t be sad – it’s OK if you get angry and unreasonable, we still love you”. That just annoys the heck out of please. Children need to learn that they and their hurt feelings are not the center of the world, and that no hurt feelings in the world can make it alright that you rip off someone else’s arm. This is how criminals are born into our society, ladies and gentlemen.
The other thing I couldn’t get over with is the fact that the kid just divided the group of monsters into “good” and “bad”, obviously claiming that he himself is good. Ewww. It’s not as bad as the arm thing, but almost just as icky.

According to Wikipedia, the book was revolutionary in the sense that it shows a mischievous, angry child with a dark side. Well, I can see where they are coming from, and I definitely see the appeal of the book about how even a child just wants to vent and go all crazy, but I don’t quite understand why it is so incredibly popular. It’s a mostly gray and ugly book whose story is not about friendship, and I am pretty sure that I would not have liked it as a child. Even worse than that, the movie turns the generally interesting book into a painful emo-fest. I am not sure if I ever will watch another Spike Jonze film.

Mean Girls

It’s like Superbad for girls with the big difference that the Plastics are not nerdy. With that, the greatest identification potential of “Superbad” could not be found in this film, and so I saw “Mean Girls” like I am watching – to say it in the words of the film – a big zoo with cats fighting. So, if I ignore the last 15 minutes of the film, I’d say it’s pretty brilliant. It’s like a more bitchier “Clueless” (which holds the title of my favorite teenie chick flick), and a million times funnier than about every chick flick I have ever seen. Girls are just like that and to be honest, I love it. (At least on screen.) Even Lindsay Lohan was pretty good; maybe it’s because she mainly played herself, maybe it’s because her natural look actually used to be very cute, but in all honesty, at least she could act. I’m not so sure if I could say that about any of the other characters, except Regina of course. I have a love-hate relationship with “The Notebook”, and now I can say for sure that Rachel McAdams suits the role of the shiny, horrible bitch more than anything else.

Sadly the film ends on the most ridiculous let’s-all-love-each-other-again note in the world. It made me want to cringe and throw dishes at the screen. (It was my computer though!) Apart from that though, “Mean Girls” is the best example of a chick flick that guys would like, and we all know what rarity that is.

Repulsion

She also seems to like rape victim type characters, with Jacques Démy’s films being the big exception. “Les parapluies de Cherbourg” is the only film in which she was the protagonist and played a normal woman. I understand though. Playing these very scared or crazy women enables her to show off her acting talent, Isabelle Huppert seems to be doing the same thing. The whole film works because La Deneuve is the damsel in distress here, except nobody comes to her rescue. The film doesn’t really have any specialties and it’s a little bit obscure. Even people who know Polanski’s work a little bit might not necessarily watch the film, but those people who do watch the film tend to be those who are usually interested in this type of film – slightly artsy psychological thrillers.

What surprised about the film was how incredibly French the film looked. It had a Nouvelle Vague style to it, Catherine Deneuve never tried to hide her Frenchness, the interior of the apartment she lived in looked remotely French as well, and that the film was shot in black and white also helped this impression. Even the imagery of the woman who fantasizes about being raped feels… somewhat French. All in all, focusing on the slow descent into delusion and craziness of one single character is a little bit one-sided, but I was fascinated by it. One cannot complain that the film is not suspenseful enough.

In the end, I too thought that the film was a classic. It’s completely different from “The Fearless Vampire Killers” and it made me wish Polanski had done more of these kinds of films, but instead he seems to have entirely become a mediocre Hollywood director.

Superbad

I’m eating at great restaurants, meeting friends to a coffee or a drink, walking through art museums, taking a stroll in the park or in the woods, seeing new cities, watching things such as movies, TV shows, anime or operas. (What a combination really.) All in all, this is possibly the best time of my life. But, somehow this is all not comparable to the time when we were still kids who never ate out, drank alcohol, or went to museums. Heck I didn’t even watch that many good movies or TV shows at the time. Yet, at the same time, life felt very intense and colorful and if I believe Superbad, it might just as well be because we were obsessed with sex, wahahaha.

I have described the film to a few people afterwards, including another non-PIFF friend I saw in Vienna, by calling it the “best teenie film out there”. It’s too bad I didn’t see it back in the day, but then again, I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed the homoerotic jokes as much back then. Now, with enough healthy and amused distance towards my teenage years, I can heartily laugh at how we used to be like that and appreciate how well “Superbad” complies with every cliché of teenie films yet manages to surpass them with its characters, random twists and downright good jokes. This film is deep social commentary, that’s what it is. (Hoho.) Or, in the words of Mr. Ebert, “I’m McLovin’ it”. I could now point out scenes that I liked, or try to give an overview of the story (actually it would be a shame), but that is all impossible. “Superbad” needs to be watched and if you don’t like it, well, you probably were never a teenager then.

Irma Vep
France 1996, Olivier Assayas, 99′

Olivier Assayas’ “Summer Hours” are supposed to be rather good. I am also pretty sure I have seen a few of his short films (like for “Chacun son cinéma”), but that is it. More than anything else, “Irma Vep” is a meta film. It features Maggie Cheung wonderfully playing her confused self and everybody else, even Jean-Paul Léard, seems to be playing themselves.

At first, I didn’t even realize that this was a meta film, and was waiting for more overt jokes. Little did I know that it was all about cultural misunderstandings and the French film industry, which is rather satirical in itself, especially when looking at how badly organized Maggie’s “welcoming committee” was or how the costume designer got her costume fitted in a sex shop.

More than anything else, “Irma Vep” actually also made me want to watch “Les Vampires”. It’s probably a rather pointless vampire series, but somehow I am intrigued by the character of Irma Vep myself. I think Maggie Cheung would have made a wonderful Irma, and it’s quite lovely how the whole world falls in love with her even though she did nothing. There was some sort of understanding and chemistry between her and Léaud’s character though, and I liked how she defended his artistic cinema in front of this “I like Vin Diesel” journalist – so beautiful and subtly funny! Even more amusing are perhaps the episodes with the desperate lesbian and her mother, where misunderstandings clash the most.

“Irma Vep” wins the award for the perhaps weirdest and unexpected movie I have ever seen, its characteristic flowing somewhere between documentary and satire are very difficult to pinpoint. Even the anticlimactic end seemed wonderful yet surprising to me, and I find this movie impossible to recommend unless you are a connoisseur of both French movies and, uh, Chinese mannerisms.

The Night of the Hunter
USA 1955, Charles Laughton, 89′

Oh my God, Lilian Gish looks so different from how I expected her! In “Intolerance”, she was mostly a symbol and you could barely see her face, and here she is this strong old lady who incorporates justice and goodness. While I loved her character and how she contributes to the story’s rather peaceful end, she also kind of feels like an intruding item that makes the film somewhat less expressionist.

The expressionism – Robert Mitchum’s cruel and scary looks, atmospheric shots of the night, a hunt filled with terror – is perhaps what makes this movie so incredibly great. As much as I dislike the horror genre and most German movies in general, the expressionist style was perfect. For me, it’s one of the grandest and most beautiful film genre of all times, and in this kind of setting, Lilian Gish’s character is a little too realistic and mind-soothing to fit into the horror-inspiring picture. Nevertheless, the film was greatly executed, and even the children were doing pretty great in their roles. Actually I wouldn’t change a thing about this film, and I find it sad that it was too modern and unusual to be successful at the box office. This film definitely didn’t deserve that treatment.

A History of Violence
USA 2005, David Cronenberg, 92′

Perhaps the PIFF movies are always the highlight in my life. It’s a hen and egg question: Do we happen to only watch great movies at the PIFF (thanks to Prog) or is it the atmosphere of the PIFF that makes these movies so incredibly great?

Despite its incredible greatness, I must call “A History of Violence” a relatively weak film. Today, I only had to peak for awhile at the movies on the airplane (without sound!) to get a feeling for how incredibly horrible bad direction can be. In comparison to that, “A History of Violence”, along with every other film we saw at the PIFF, can be considered the pinnacle of civilization.

By the way, I think that the female main character looks a lot like the girl from “L’Atalante”.

The strongest point of “A History of Violence” is the execution of the seemingly simple story line. There is one conflict (the violence!) that goes through the whole film, it’s a psychological study of a family blessed with the fact that every actor, even the children, is doing a great job. This converges in the end of the film, where Tom is silently welcomed back to the family. It’s too grave of a situation for anybody to speak and perhaps things won’t be like before anymore, but I think the cuteness with which his little girl puts a plate onto the table for him can be interpreted as a sign of hope.

All in all, this is one of those special films that seem like completely out of the place in the large movie world, and are great just for that reason. It’s the better “Road to Perdition” (which I personally disliked for its cheap morals).

Sunrise – A song of two humans
USA 1927, F.W. Murnau, 91′

For the longest time in my life, I thought “Sunrise” would be a tragedy. How silly of me. Mentioned as ‘favorite movie’ by so many people I know and heard of, I have always been curious of this film, especially after seeing “The Last Laugh”, one of my favorite silents.

In many ways, I think “Sunrise” is quite a bit like “L’Atalante”, except it’s much less, uh, French. I have the impression that French directors love their femme fatales too much, with a few exceptions most women in French films seem to be either utterly boring or capricious to the point of cheating ruthlessly (Christiane Doinel being a big exception). “Sunrise” is much more romantic, where the change of heart of the guy makes him a loving man again, and the girl is completely immersed in love towards him and would not think badly of anybody. Also, it is ironic and beautiful when he fears that she mighty have drowned when at first he wanted to drown her himself. Like “L’Atalante”, “Sunrise” also features a romantic storyline that feels clichéd at first. Both films are about showing the relationship of the characters towards each other, “Sunrise” especially. However, the first similarity that came to mind was how both couples end up enjoying themselves in the city. In “Sunrise”, it’s the unexpected trip to the city that made their love bloom anew like a second honeymoon, and of course, the romantic girlish part of myself loved it.

When a film is very highly acclaimed (say among the 50 best films of all times) I typically find them overrated, but “Sunrise” is not. It really is that great. Sad, suspenseful, happy, wonderfully directed and produced, where Murnau could show off all of his skills in a brighter style than he did in “The Last Laugh”. I was amazed when I saw the film, and now I don’t even remember why it specifically was, but hey, it’s definitely worth a re-watch.

Death Proof
USA 2007, Quentin Tarantino, 109′

I would personally never have suggested watching something like “Death Proof” at the PIFF. While I liked “Kill Bill” and loved “Inglorious Basterds”, I never thought Tarantino films are something I could easily watch in ‘public’. “Death Proof” is different, it turned out to be exactly the right thing, where the company of others acts as a catalyst for even more fun and amusement while watching the film. The next day, Prog’s father commented how he heard laughter multiple times in the middle of the night. Even though he stressed how much he liked it, I can’t help but feeling sorry that we couldn’t hold ourselves. “Death Proof” is indeed so much better that way, and I am so glad for the experience.

Somehow I happen to know a lot of Tarantino fans. In fact, among non-movie-buffs Tarantino is perhaps the only director who actually has a rather large fanbase among your ‘average’ student. It so happens that these Tarantino fans either love or hate “Death Proof”. As somebody who loves “Death Proof”, I think I understand what makes it so different from his other movies. One appeal about the film is how, for a change, the dialogue is immensely un-manly. Tough women talk and act different than tough men, and besides the main character, the girls are the actual stars of the story. That makes the film much less funny when you can’t enjoy these girl’s craziness (especially in the second part) – and oh my God, Rosario Dawson! She was just so amusing. Ahahaha.

Putting next to the epic “Inglorious Basterds” and especially “Kill Bill”, “Death Proof” seems like a small project with not much content, but it was a lot of fun and perhaps the most pointlessly cruel yet enjoyable and sexy Tarantino I have seen.