Week #2 -- It's over and I am exhausted!
Films seen recently:
The Edukators (Weingartner, 2005): B
Kontroll (Antal, 2005): C+
Palindromes (Solondz, 2005): C+
Mardi Gras: Made in China (Redmon , 2005): C+
Woman is the Future of Man (Sang-soo, 2005): B+
Me and You and Everyone We Know (July, 2005): B+
The Nomi Song (Horn, 2005): B-
Karaoke Terror (Shinohara, 2005): B-
Lonesome Jim (Buscemi, 2005): C
Survive Style 5+ (Sekiguchi, 2005): B
---
My frantic week at the 14th annual Philadelphia Film Festival continued with pedophilia, an incestuous relationship, and Robin Williams. If the mere mention of those three were enough to make you cringe, perhaps you should cautiously choose which films you attend.
Film festivals often have slots open for “daring cinema” and filling the bill this year was Gregg Araki’s “Mysterious Skin”. More audacious in themes and content than in narrative (which is horribly straightforward), Araki’s amateurish film explores the different reactions two young men have to the molestation they faced as pee-wee baseball playing children. Their coach, who looks eerily similar to the mustached and short-shorts clad Lt. Dangle from “Reno 911”, is the disturbingly friendly man who molests them. As one boy matures, he deludes himself into believing that it was an alien encounter while the other embraces the occasion and becomes a gay male prostitute. The presentation is strangely watchable and not nearly as ridiculous as it sounds (unfortunately, it is completely obvious storytelling). The cast is inconsistent but Joseph-Gordon Levitt grabs onto a meaty role and tries his hardest to look as edgy as he can. The film acts less as a stimulant of the mind and more as a punch in the gut - and that just makes me want to vomit. “Mysterious Skin” thrives on the audiences’ discomfort and relies on their stupidity.
While “Mysterious Skin” seems very unprofessional, the even more provocative “Ma Mère” (“My Mother”) seems so confident that it nearly borders on arrogance. I was extremely mixed on this film when I left the theater, and unfortunately, I still am. Undoubtedly, Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel both turn in courageous performances, but they wallow in the debauchery of the film. The film exposes the duality inherent in women who were once wild-childs but now have become mothers; however, the film would rather physically unclothe the characters than mentally do so. Due to its explicit content and aberrant sex, I witnessed at least 15 walk-outs (weak-bellied prudes!) and I was only sitting in the 7th row. If I attempt to explain anything about this film in detail it will surely be edited out, so I will just leave you with this: It is a love story only Oedipus Rex could truly appreciate.
Equally French but not as depraved, “5 x 2: Five Times Two” explores a failed relationship in reverse - from a couple’s divorce to their first meeting. Despite the complicated structure, the film is actually quite simple. I credit the director, Ozon, for presenting the film with subtlety, but the lack of insight is alarming. The potential for extreme emotion is often squandered which makes for a satisfying, but bland production.
“Woman is the Future of Man” also deals with relationships through a non-linear narrative (due to flashbacks, not a reverse chronology). Similar to a Korean “Closer”, the film is a puzzling dissection of men and women. Although the fickle characters are occasionally frustrating, this acute film is superbly understated and performed.
Two films that deal with fear of failure in life are coincidentally cinematic failures. “House of D” and “Lonesome Jim” both desperately try to be likeable that they become manipulative. Both films frequently tested my eye-rolling capacity, even if they are flawed in different respects. The more maudlin “House of D” is writer/co-star/director David Duchovny’s labor of love. However, if this is his testament to the Greenwich Village, the 70’s, and his childhood, it makes me wonder why his voiceover in the film is so perfunctory. If he is going to subject the audience to his mawkish nostalgia, I expect him to sound passionate about doing so. Duchovny’s contrived production never made me forget that I was watching a film. The mere presence of certain implausible characters is a problem (Erykah Badu’s “guardian angel” who is in solitary confinement for murder), but Robin Williams’ character is too conveniently retarded. He has just the right amount of competence that he can elicit pathos while advancing the plot and delivering a punch line. The woman next to me argued that “House of D” was a pleasant “feel-good” film. I would have agreed, but I tend not to feel pleased when something so artificial is so blatantly forced upon me. Steve Buscemi is such a great actor that it pains me to express my disappointment towards his mediocre directorial feature, “Lonesome Jim”. It coasts on a thin and generic plot about a failed twentysomething writer returning home after failing in the big city (which is, of course, Manhattan). The film relies heavily on its characters but all of them are peculiarly one-note and one-dimensional archetypes. “Lonesome Jim” is really just average Joe.
One film voted in as a festival favorite was the German film, “The Edukators”. Once I overlooked the fact that it is basically a generic Hollywood thriller/drama with a communist twist, I found it to be one of the most enjoyable releases at the festival. The inclusion of some extremely thoughtful and intelligent scenes make me forgive the film for crossing over into lazy-screenwriting-montage territory in the third act.
The greatest advantage to having directors present at the festival is that you are exposed to their disposition. After each introduction and screening of their respective films, I could easily spot each director’s personality in their film. Miranda July was just as insecurely charming as her observant feature film, “Me and You and Everyone We Know”. Probably my favorite of the festival, this observant American indie explores the difficulty many individuals have communicating with others. The genuine characters, which range from eccentric adults to precocious children, are injected with heart and quirk, making them even more identifiable. Even in the most vulgar moments, July is able to find sincerity. Her unique view of humanity is something to cherish.
The stuttering Todd Solondz (“Welcome to the Dollhouse”, “Happiness”), director of the sardonic “Palindromes”, was ever bit as timid, peculiar and squeaky as I expected him to be. He did not disappoint; however -- his film did. The politically-incorrect “Palindromes” is built on an interesting concept and Solondz places it within a wicked, social commentary-dripping fable. The palindromic main character, Aviva, is a 12-year old girl who inexplicably wants to become a mother. This baby-craving character is portrayed by eight different actresses (actually, one is a boy) of all different ages, races and weight classes. The film concludes that similar to palindromes (which are words which remain the same when spelled forward or backward) humans are forever the same and never change, even when they think they do. Despite this clever idea, Solondz once again aims at the easily-targeted suburban family and includes his usual taboos, which render the film rather dull. When I see a controversial Todd Solondz film, “dull” is usually the last adjective I expect to use, and this film is, both forward and backward.
With over 65,000 attendees, this has been a record breaking two weeks for the film festival. I begrudgingly say that I will miss seeing 12 films a week and hearing the festival sponsors for about the 40th time. All I can do now is eagerly anticipate the 15th Philadelphia Film Festival. I only wish I was a more patient person.
The Edukators (Weingartner, 2005): B
Kontroll (Antal, 2005): C+
Palindromes (Solondz, 2005): C+
Mardi Gras: Made in China (Redmon , 2005): C+
Woman is the Future of Man (Sang-soo, 2005): B+
Me and You and Everyone We Know (July, 2005): B+
The Nomi Song (Horn, 2005): B-
Karaoke Terror (Shinohara, 2005): B-
Lonesome Jim (Buscemi, 2005): C
Survive Style 5+ (Sekiguchi, 2005): B
---
My frantic week at the 14th annual Philadelphia Film Festival continued with pedophilia, an incestuous relationship, and Robin Williams. If the mere mention of those three were enough to make you cringe, perhaps you should cautiously choose which films you attend.
Film festivals often have slots open for “daring cinema” and filling the bill this year was Gregg Araki’s “Mysterious Skin”. More audacious in themes and content than in narrative (which is horribly straightforward), Araki’s amateurish film explores the different reactions two young men have to the molestation they faced as pee-wee baseball playing children. Their coach, who looks eerily similar to the mustached and short-shorts clad Lt. Dangle from “Reno 911”, is the disturbingly friendly man who molests them. As one boy matures, he deludes himself into believing that it was an alien encounter while the other embraces the occasion and becomes a gay male prostitute. The presentation is strangely watchable and not nearly as ridiculous as it sounds (unfortunately, it is completely obvious storytelling). The cast is inconsistent but Joseph-Gordon Levitt grabs onto a meaty role and tries his hardest to look as edgy as he can. The film acts less as a stimulant of the mind and more as a punch in the gut - and that just makes me want to vomit. “Mysterious Skin” thrives on the audiences’ discomfort and relies on their stupidity.
While “Mysterious Skin” seems very unprofessional, the even more provocative “Ma Mère” (“My Mother”) seems so confident that it nearly borders on arrogance. I was extremely mixed on this film when I left the theater, and unfortunately, I still am. Undoubtedly, Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel both turn in courageous performances, but they wallow in the debauchery of the film. The film exposes the duality inherent in women who were once wild-childs but now have become mothers; however, the film would rather physically unclothe the characters than mentally do so. Due to its explicit content and aberrant sex, I witnessed at least 15 walk-outs (weak-bellied prudes!) and I was only sitting in the 7th row. If I attempt to explain anything about this film in detail it will surely be edited out, so I will just leave you with this: It is a love story only Oedipus Rex could truly appreciate.
Equally French but not as depraved, “5 x 2: Five Times Two” explores a failed relationship in reverse - from a couple’s divorce to their first meeting. Despite the complicated structure, the film is actually quite simple. I credit the director, Ozon, for presenting the film with subtlety, but the lack of insight is alarming. The potential for extreme emotion is often squandered which makes for a satisfying, but bland production.
“Woman is the Future of Man” also deals with relationships through a non-linear narrative (due to flashbacks, not a reverse chronology). Similar to a Korean “Closer”, the film is a puzzling dissection of men and women. Although the fickle characters are occasionally frustrating, this acute film is superbly understated and performed.
Two films that deal with fear of failure in life are coincidentally cinematic failures. “House of D” and “Lonesome Jim” both desperately try to be likeable that they become manipulative. Both films frequently tested my eye-rolling capacity, even if they are flawed in different respects. The more maudlin “House of D” is writer/co-star/director David Duchovny’s labor of love. However, if this is his testament to the Greenwich Village, the 70’s, and his childhood, it makes me wonder why his voiceover in the film is so perfunctory. If he is going to subject the audience to his mawkish nostalgia, I expect him to sound passionate about doing so. Duchovny’s contrived production never made me forget that I was watching a film. The mere presence of certain implausible characters is a problem (Erykah Badu’s “guardian angel” who is in solitary confinement for murder), but Robin Williams’ character is too conveniently retarded. He has just the right amount of competence that he can elicit pathos while advancing the plot and delivering a punch line. The woman next to me argued that “House of D” was a pleasant “feel-good” film. I would have agreed, but I tend not to feel pleased when something so artificial is so blatantly forced upon me. Steve Buscemi is such a great actor that it pains me to express my disappointment towards his mediocre directorial feature, “Lonesome Jim”. It coasts on a thin and generic plot about a failed twentysomething writer returning home after failing in the big city (which is, of course, Manhattan). The film relies heavily on its characters but all of them are peculiarly one-note and one-dimensional archetypes. “Lonesome Jim” is really just average Joe.
One film voted in as a festival favorite was the German film, “The Edukators”. Once I overlooked the fact that it is basically a generic Hollywood thriller/drama with a communist twist, I found it to be one of the most enjoyable releases at the festival. The inclusion of some extremely thoughtful and intelligent scenes make me forgive the film for crossing over into lazy-screenwriting-montage territory in the third act.
The greatest advantage to having directors present at the festival is that you are exposed to their disposition. After each introduction and screening of their respective films, I could easily spot each director’s personality in their film. Miranda July was just as insecurely charming as her observant feature film, “Me and You and Everyone We Know”. Probably my favorite of the festival, this observant American indie explores the difficulty many individuals have communicating with others. The genuine characters, which range from eccentric adults to precocious children, are injected with heart and quirk, making them even more identifiable. Even in the most vulgar moments, July is able to find sincerity. Her unique view of humanity is something to cherish.
The stuttering Todd Solondz (“Welcome to the Dollhouse”, “Happiness”), director of the sardonic “Palindromes”, was ever bit as timid, peculiar and squeaky as I expected him to be. He did not disappoint; however -- his film did. The politically-incorrect “Palindromes” is built on an interesting concept and Solondz places it within a wicked, social commentary-dripping fable. The palindromic main character, Aviva, is a 12-year old girl who inexplicably wants to become a mother. This baby-craving character is portrayed by eight different actresses (actually, one is a boy) of all different ages, races and weight classes. The film concludes that similar to palindromes (which are words which remain the same when spelled forward or backward) humans are forever the same and never change, even when they think they do. Despite this clever idea, Solondz once again aims at the easily-targeted suburban family and includes his usual taboos, which render the film rather dull. When I see a controversial Todd Solondz film, “dull” is usually the last adjective I expect to use, and this film is, both forward and backward.
With over 65,000 attendees, this has been a record breaking two weeks for the film festival. I begrudgingly say that I will miss seeing 12 films a week and hearing the festival sponsors for about the 40th time. All I can do now is eagerly anticipate the 15th Philadelphia Film Festival. I only wish I was a more patient person.