Filmbrain catches up - Part 1

Here it is, nearly the end of October, and Filmbrain is sitting on a huge pile of unfinished pieces. Between traveling, film festivals, social functions, work (ack!), and trying to get his short film into production, there hasn't been a whole lot of spare time to dedicate to the blog. (Not to mention how he's fallen behind on his blog reading -- Aaron, Marleigh, Cinetrix, Cinecultist, Cynthia, Jonathan, and all the rest -- Filmbrain humbly apologizes and promises to be a better citizen of the blogosphere going forward.)

What follows is a sampling of these pieces, including comments on other NYFF films that just never turned into full-fledged reviews.

First off -- a coda to the Palindromes review. In the last few days, Filmbrain has received an alarming number of angry emails from rabid Todd Solondz fans, none of whom have actually seen the film. While some argue (rather eloquently, in cases) that Filmbrain might not be hip enough to get the director's "vision", others simply choose to spew invective. To all of you, Filmbrain offers the following -- see the film first before mounting your defense. (Unfortunately, the film is not slated to be released until April 2005.) Sure, it's hard to see a director you admire fall from grace, but it happens to all of us. (i.e., The Million Dollar Hotel, Prêt-à-Porter, Jack, etc.)

The return of adult cinema: No, not a paean to porn, but a celebration of some recent (wonderful) studio films targeted to people outside the all-important eighteen-to-whatever demographic. Not the small feel-good piffle that shows up in tiny theaters and appeals to Filmbrain's mother (i.e., anything with Joan Plowright and/or Americans traipsing around some exotic European locale), but rather beautifully written, acted and directed films that address the post-thirty human condition. Two films that exemplify this are We Don't Live Here Anymore and Sideways. The former, a strong contender for Filmbrain's top ten of 2004, is an adaptation of two stories by Andre Dubus that focuses on a pair of married couples and the complex dynamics between the four of them. Rarely has a (recent) American film addressing this subject been so brutally honest while at the same time avoiding any and all moral clichés (Unfaithful), and without becoming larger than life (again, Unfaithful). The film's greatest strength is its actors -- all four of them are superb, especially Laura Dern (so good to have her back) and Mark Ruffalo, who Filmbrain considers one of the best American actors working right now.

Sideways, while significantly lighter than We Don't... provides further proof of Filmbrain's belief that Alexander Payne is one of the most important writer/directors working today. With an extremely well honed screenplay (co-written with regular partner Jim Taylor) and some fine performances, this is dramedy (Filmbrain can't believe he just used that word) at its finest. With the success and recognition of About Schmidt, it's a testament to Mr. Payne's character that he chose to do something this small, and with a cast devoid of any A-list names. The film is a sheer pleasure to watch, and it seems to be a role custom-made for Paul Giamatti, who is even better here than he was in American Splendor. The film also heralds the triumphant return of Virginia Madsen, an actress who (sadly) has been under utilized for too many years. Filmbrain needn't go into a description of the film -- it's been getting blanket coverage everywhere else.

Though the tone, subject matter, and approach of the two films are entirely different, both We Don't Live Here Anymore and Sideways are centered around relationships between two men and two women. While the former is about four people who were forced to grow up sooner than they would have liked, the latter finds characters of the same age who have yet to do so. Filmbrain highly recommends seeing both films -- you don't even have to be over thirty.

Miike's best?: Some months back, Filmbrain thankfully caught Takashi Miike's Gozu before it disappeared from New York, and he's very eager to see it again. A bizarre film (even by Miike's standards), its surreal absurdity has a Beckett-like quality to it (Waiting for Gozu?). It's not as violent as his other films, though it is as disturbing. Once again we have excessively lactating women, Yakuza zombies, and odd sexual practices. What begins as a simple Yakuza tale quickly turns into a twisted ghost story that words cannot describe. A much slower film than the hyperkinetic Dead or Alive or Ichi the Killer, its punchline (for lack of a better word) is well worth the wait. At the moment, Gozu has surpassed Audition as Filmbrain's favorite Miike film, though he really wants to take a second look to be sure.

Tomorrow - Filmbrain's (belated) reviews and final thoughts from the New York Film Festival.

Comments

[phyrephox]

I'm mad as heck I missed Gozu over the summer, but it would certainly be hard to pass Audition. I'm thinking the only Miike that has that potential is the upcoming Izo with Takeshi Kitano and out of place samurai. Hopefully it will get US distribution.

[Mikko Pihkoluoma]

I saw Gozu twice on film --once without subtitles and the second time around with them. It is an incredible film. By far the best Miike I've seen. Nice production values, great imagery, surrealistic ideas... And the silliest comedic episodes imaginable! (Oh yes, even sillier than Happiness of Katakuris...) In comparison, Audition seems like an awfully dull and uninspired.

[Aaron H.]

For those who didn't see it (and I agree, Filmbrain, it also trumped Audition as my favorite Miike film), there will be a DVD out on November 23rd, courtesy of the good folks at Pathfinder Pictures.

Does anyone know anything about these minor (less well-known, anyway) Miike flicks coming out on DVD? Some look interesting, but I'd hate to shell out for sub-par product. Bird People in China? Young Thugs Innocent Blood? Andromedia?

[Aaron H.]

For those who didn't see it (and I agree, Filmbrain, it also trumped Audition as my favorite Miike film), there will be a DVD out on November 23rd, courtesy of the good folks at Pathfinder Pictures.

Does anyone know anything about these minor (less well-known, anyway) Miike flicks coming out on DVD? Some look interesting, but I'd hate to shell out for sub-par product. Bird People in China? Young Thugs Innocent Blood? Andromedia?

[Aaron]

Well here we are on opposite sides again. While I wouldn't call We Don't Live Here Anymore an awful film, I was immensely disappointed with it. I agree with you that the acting is by far the best part of the movie. All four main actors are fantastic, particularly Ruffalo and Dern. And I thought the screenplay was above average. But I really found the entire production to be so overdirected. The worst part for me was the overbearing and often unnecessary score, which was nearly omnipresent and often distracting. I often found the camera movements and editing also intruding on scenes that had the potential for such tremendous emotional power thanks primarily to the actors. Not one of my worst films of the year, but nowhere near one of the best either.

[cynthia]

i have to agree with aaron here, i was disappointed in we don't live here anymore. actually i hated it. it was a bunch of nothing. i'd go even further to say that the acting wasn't so great, especially naomi, who was AWFUL. the others were great, esp. mark ruffalo and laura dern, but she was so bad she sunk the whole project.

[Filmbrain]

Aaron -- I have the same questions about those Miike films as well. I checked out the Black Society Trilogy and I was completely under whelmed by them.

[Filmbrain]

Cynthia -- what do you mean by a bunch of nothing? Two couples, each cheating with the other's spouse, is hardly what I would call nothing. Or was it the handling of it you disapproved of?

[cynthia]

hmmm...hard to describe...the film just felt like it was trying too hard to be difficult or thorny or mature etc and was so transparent that it ended up (for me) being completely lifeless. except for the laura dern scenes. there was zero chemistry between naomi watts and mark ruffalo, which was the biggest problem because that's everything in this film.

[Nick]

"see the film first before mounting your defense"

Come on Filmbrain, don't tell me you never actually attacked (or defended) a movie you hadn't seen. See what I mean?

[Nick]

For those who wants to listen to it, I found an interesting link on an solondz mp3 interview about Palindromes (bad quality though)
http://www.movie-times.net/INTERVIEWS/PALINDROMES/TODD_SOLONDZ.mp3

Again I didn't have a chance to watch the movie. But given the way Filbrain decided to slam the movie, I thought it would be useful material.

At the end of the interview, Solondz is mentioning the innocence of the character, which has been questioned by Filmbrain. In his movie's critic, Filmbrain asks "how can [Solondz] proclaim simple adolescent innocence on a girl who encourages and assists in a murder?". You may have been outraged by what you consider Palindromes lack of subtlety, but what kind of simplistic statement is that? I know that in America it's a very popular idea to prosecute children who committed murder as if they were adults . But in some other countries, children who commit or assist a crime are considered "not responsible" for their acts. In other words, committing a crime doesn't necessary make you guilty before the people.

Filmbrain, I understand that you have a bias against Solondz, and again I haven't seen the movie, which I may not like eventually. But I think the critic you wrote was not really fair with M. Solondz. I had the feeling [when reading the critic] that it was motivated by your own set of ethics, not really a film critic anymore [the way you talk about the movie is actually very close to the way we talked about Ken Park, an other film that you deeply hate]. In the "comments" you actually state the following: "Nobody loves a bit of misanthropy more than Filmbrain, but there are limits".

A message for you Filmbrain: NO, THERE ARE NO LIMITS.

[Filmbrain]

Defending a film solely on the basis of liking the director's previous films is pointless. I realize you are unhappy with my review, but as you can clearly see from the comments, I'm not alone in my belief. Scour the net for reviews -- I've not found much in the way of critical acclaim.

I believe you told me a few weeks ago (I could be mistaken) that the critical reception in France was mostly positive. If so, then this is another case like Ken Park. A foreign critic is obviously going to look at this film differently then somebody from the US -- and I think that there's a certain fascination (in France, at least) with films such as this -- especially when the subject matter is kids. (Perhaps fascination is the wrong word -- I just can't think of anything better at the moment.) They see Palindromes as a great piece of social criticism, and how it takes pleasure in attacking American values. (http://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18365909.html) Those of us that live here, however, can see through its semblance.

You accuse me of having a bias against Solondz -- I don't. As I said, I think Happiness is one of the best American films of the 90's. The question about innocence has nothing to do with legality and/or punishment -- it's simply that people in the audience weren't buying his argument.

I don't agree with you that my review was unfair. It has nothing to do with my own ethical beliefs (which, as you well know, are hardly conservative) but rather a genuine dislike for the film. I believe he failed to achieve what he set out to do, and hearing him speak about it just made it worse. As for the limits of misanthropy -- what I meant is that there is only so much I can take. Solondz can continue making films such as this, but I think he'll find he's alienating a good portion of his audience. Read the comment left by Girish under the original review -- he sums it up best. (And he too is a Solondz fan.)

[Vadim]

Gozu was incredible. One of the strangest films I have ever seen, but also one of the most satisfying. I'm very glad I saw it in the theater during it's very short run here. This movie deserves to be experienced on a big screen, it was truly surreal! I can't wait to see what Miike does next, his films seem to be getting better and better.

[nick]

Dear Filmbrain,

I was not so much defending the film (which I have'nt seen). My comment was rather about the way your review (but this is more a public execution rather than a review) was written.

Anyway, you have the righ to be biased, and you have the right to hate Soldonz {and you do, remember: since he inserted "red frames" in Storytelling, so it could pass censorship - I mean R rating, he fell in complete disgrace). It's your blog after all. But at least admit it, and don't give me your favorite alibi: "I think Happiness is one of the best movie of the 90's".

Nevertheless, the very few [serious] critics I could find in France are rather very good, or rather very bad [pretty much the same as here by the way]. I don't know where this idea of French people / critics "fascinated" by "films such as this" come from? "Especially when the subject matter is kids"? Are you suggesting that the people / critics who praised "Ken Park", or who would praise "Palindromes" are just a bunch of voyeurists who enjoy to see "art" movies involving kids, sex and pedophilia? Are you actually suggesting that French critics are just a bunch of frustrated pedophiles who would find that the film is a great "social criticism" as a way to redeem themselves?

Here's the link to "Liberation"'s paper on Palindromes:
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=237519
I couldn't find "Le Monde"'s critic on the web.

That will give you a different point of view (allocine is not a review website, and if you had read more carefully, the writer says that half of the audience left during the screening at the Deauville Festival).

But not sure you'll be interested anyway, since that's a "foreign" critic (worse than that it's French!), and apparently only American critics can fairly appreciate if this American movie is good or bad: because... they live here!!! That's the best joke I ever heard!!!

Long life to foreign (and American) audience, no you're not pedophile when you like Ken Park, and yes, foreign reviews can be as good as American reviews.

Am really looking forward to see "Palindromes" (who knows, I may not like it, I actually thought that Storytelling was half good).

[FIlmbrain]

Nick --

I spent a fair amount of time thinking about your last comment. What I can't work out is this -- are you cleverly twisting my words/thoughts around in order to put me on the defensive, or do you truly not understand what I was getting at?

No, I don't think all French critics are closet pedophiles, nor do I think that a foreign critic is unable to appreciate or judge an American film. My problem is this: Palindromes is a bitter, nasty, film full of self-centered characters that are little more than ugly caricatures. It's a series of stereotypes, no matter how you look at it. It's hardly the brave work of social criticism that some critics refer to it as. It annoys me when critics (from ANYWHERE) toss around words like "daring" or "dangerous" or "scathing attack", when in fact the targets in the film are like shooting fish in a barrel. Films like Palindromes and Ken Park simply show things -- but that's all. They are pretentious and empty, and there is a reason that these films receive a greater critical reception overseas -- they play into certain beliefs and stereotypes about America without offering any kind of critical discourse. They just scream, "look at me!" You know me well enough to know that I don't like these kinds of films, wherever they hail from. (For example, you and I are in total agreement about the films of Catherine Breillat -- another director I would lump into that group.)

I had a look at the review from Liberation, and if my reading of it is correct, he is more impressed with how non-Hollywood (or TV) the film is -- there's surprisingly little said about the film itself. However, at the end we find the following:

". . .Solondz, fort habilement, aura visité pas mal des grandes énigmes sociales et humaines du monde moderne."

This just sort of goes and proves my point. I feel that Solondz (and the film) does nothing of the sort. It's very easy to throw out a statement such as the above -- but without any further discussion (he provides none), it's as empty as the film itself.

For some reason, my dislike of the film has really irked you. Though you and I are friends, you have more faith in M. Seguret's opinion than you do mine. Why is that? You are clinging to this idea that this I have a vendetta against Solondz, and that's also ridiculous. I don't judge a film by its filmmaker -- if I did, I certainly wouldn't have loved Buffalo 66 or The Brown Bunny. Granted -- I was upset with his caving in to pressure and allowing Storytelling to be censored. (A decision rooted in greed, as per his explanation at the NYFF that year.) However, that did not pre-taint my opinion about Palindromes. The statement about Happiness is not an alibi -- I do hope you realize that.

Really looking forward to discussing the film with you once you've actually seen it.

[Nick]

Dear Filmbrain,

I apologize if I offended you, I am sometimes to excessive, I guess I was unreasonably upset - though you know I like to provocate sometimes. Again, I can't speak about the movie, and as you pointed out, the review from Liberation is far from satisfying but I just wanted to show you that most of the guy's review was not about the "social comment", rather about cinema itself, and how this critic felt that Solondz was innovative. I don't think that the review "proves your point", I think that the review proves that this guy and you strongly disagree or have opposite opinions about this movie. You're arguing about this guy not supporting his final point, and I agree with you about that. But the fact that he doesn't live in America doesn't make him wrong, and it doesn't make you right. For instance, I think it's quite amazing that in order to support your points, you actually use the audience, instead of yourself, as if to say: if the audience felt the same way, then believe me please, I am right. Since when do you need the audience to justify your own feelings and support your opinion?

You maybe right, Filmbrain, the movie maybe bad, but I don't really subscribe to public lynching, and by including the audience into your (very harsh) review, in a blog which has become so popular, don't you think that's a little too much?

Sorry to contribute only when I disagree, my English is not as good when I have a positive approach. But I like it so much better when you defend a movie you like, rather than destroying a movie you don't.