list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Julien Donkey-Boy on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Julien_Donkey_Boy/135308/default.aspx Title: Julien Donkey-Boy
Year: 1999
Director: Harmony Korine
Plot: In his second directorial effort, writer/director Harmony Korine embraces the hyper-realist aesthetic of Lars von Trier's Dogma 95 film movement, which mandates handheld photography using only available lighting, among other restrictions. As in the controversial Gummo (1997), Korine abandons traditional narrative for a series of vignettes about bizarre characters, in this case centered on Julien (Ewen Bremner), a schizophrenic who works in a school for the blind. Julien lives at home with his pregnant sister Pearl (Chloe Sevigny); his brother Chris (Evan Neumann), who wrestles in his spare time; and their violent father (Werner Herzog), who slaps his children around, hoses them down with water, and offers to pay Chris ten dollars to dress up in his late mother's clothes and dance. Eventually Julien escapes from his home and interacts with people on the street (some of whom, reportedly, were not professional actors and had no idea that Bremmer was an actor playing a scene). ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 13
Number of Lists: 9
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 03:49:30 GMTJulien Donkey-Boy1999Harmony KorineIn his second directorial effort, writer/director <a href="/players/P___231470/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harmony Korine</a> embraces the hyper-realist aesthetic of <a href="/players/P___118403/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lars von Trier</a>'s <I>Dogma 95</I> film movement, which mandates handheld photography using only available lighting, among other restrictions. As in the controversial <a href=/films/114538/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Gummo</a> (1997), Korine abandons traditional narrative for a series of vignettes about bizarre characters, in this case centered on Julien (<a href="/players/P___207225/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ewen Bremner</a>), a schizophrenic who works in a school for the blind. Julien lives at home with his pregnant sister Pearl (Chloe Sevigny); his brother Chris (Evan Neumann), who wrestles in his spare time; and their violent father (<a href="/players/P____94214/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Werner Herzog</a>), who slaps his children around, hoses them down with water, and offers to pay Chris ten dollars to dress up in his late mother's clothes and dance. Eventually Julien escapes from his home and interacts with people on the street (some of whom, reportedly, were not professional actors and had no idea that Bremmer was an actor playing a scene). ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide13Tag Target (>10)9533http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t102506k0j8.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Julien_Donkey_Boy/135308/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_film_movments_have_produced_film/657/40557/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 2/19/2009 3:15:26 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] This is out of my league too. I consider myself an average to above average filmgoer/viewer but am not sure if I've seen anything in any category (maybe I have and I didn't know it...but maybe not). Like I said, I saw a lot of French films in college, but who knows if they fall under New Wave or something like that... ...but maybe we could somehow start a discussion somewhere where people schooled in these film schools could make recommendations for beginners. That would be cool, right? Or, maybe it's already somewhere...anyone know? [/quote] Ok, well I'll try to give some insight on what I know about them and any recommendations I may have. Czechoslovakian New Wave may be one of the lesser movements listed here. It kind of started in the 60s. A discription from wikipedia says "Trademarks of the movement contain long unscripted dialogues, dark and absurd humour, and the casting of nonactors." I don't know if I've actually seen any, but some of the more popular ones are available from the Criterion Collection like The Shop on Main Street (which people have mentioned on Spout before), Closely Watched Trains, and lots of Milos Forman's (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Man on the Moon, Amadeus) early work like Loves of a Blonde and The Fireman's Ball. Dogme 95 was an official movement started by Lars Von Trier and a few other Danish filmmakers that had specific rules about it. You could actually submit your film to them to be labeled as an official Dogma 95 film. You can probably find the rules online somewhere, but it involved using only digital film and found locations, props, and costumes. You aren't supposed to add any special effects. The full rules are of course available at good old wikipedia. The most famous of the films would probably The Celebration, The Idiots, and my favorite, Julien Donkey-Boy. The French New Wave is a pretty broad movement usually referring to the iconoclastic filmmakers from France. I think the tail end of the 50s is really when this started to get into full swing. Like Tennenbaums mentioned earlier, Jean Luc-Godard and François Truffaut are often the most identifiable filmmakers with the movement, although there are probably dozens if not more who have been lumped into this movement. SkyPilot mentioned Jean-Pierre Melville's Bob le Flambeur. I have seen that one and was disappointed. I've also seen Godard's Breathless and Truffaut's Jules and Jim both of which I did not enjoy. Truffaut's The 400 Blows I appreciated a bit more, but still not a favorite. Some people throw Éric Rohmer into this category as well, although some argue his style is considerably different and stems from somewhere other than many other of the French New Wave filmmakers. I have enjoyed what little I've seen of his work. Expressionism was a movement in Europe in the early 20th century. It stressed intense emotion conveyed through exaggerated and distorted style and forms. The Germans took this movement and put it in film. I'm sure you recognize famous directors like F. W. Murnau and Fritz Lang. Some of these films had extremely expressionistic and highly unrealistic visuals like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Some like The Last Laugh were just more more distorted versions of reality. With all the Dracula talk that has happend on Spout at times I'm guessing you've also heard of Nosferatu. Some of Lang's works that came a bit later that are well known might also count like M and Metropolis. When I looked into it, I can't really define Iranian New Wave any better than just saying it's basically films that were made in Iran. I guess the most popular filmmaker is Abbas Kiarostami. Look him up and you may recognize a lot of his films. Maybe not. I have seen two films from Majid Majidi and would recommend The Color of Paradise. It's kind of recent though so I don't really know if it's a good representation of the first wave of the Iranian New Wave. Italian neorealism is what it probably sounds like. Italian films that stressed trying to give a realistic depiction of every day working class people. They did this by shootings things on location and often with non-actors. And a lot of the the "boring" action of normal life that might not find it's way into other films is here. Although I sure don't find it boring. The time frame we are looking at is the later forties. The most famous example is Vittorio De Sica's The Bicycle Thief which I would highly recommend, although De Sica's Shoeshine and Umberto D are also amazing. Other big name directors are Luchino Visconti and Roberto Rossellini. The Japanese New Wave like the French New Wave were a bunch of iconoclastic filmmakers that started with works being released around the end of the 50s through the 70s. You could put Seijun Suzuki in this category who is one of my favorite directors. Tokyo Drifter, Fighting Elegy, Branded to Kill, and Youth of the Beast are all fims of his that I love and are available on the Criterion Collection. Hiroshi Teshigahara also has some of his movies released through Criterion, one of which, Woman in the Dunes, I just saw recently and is amazing. Shohei Imamura also has some of his movies available through Criterion (this is basically just a big Criterion ad). Nagisa Oshima is probably the biggest name from this moment in my mind and I'm rather embarassed to say I still haven't seen any of his films. Mumblecore core is the newest term on this list and has gotten a lot of press on Spout, so maybe you've heard of it. I don't know if I've really seen any movies that would fit this category hardcore, but you probably recognize the trend in independent cinema. I think it has a lot to do with young adults living in big cities. Very low budget. Lots of slang and hip music and culture references with a realistic style. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. Joe Swanberg had a short film series on Spout for a while I think. New French Extremity is the other really new term here. I just came across the name recently to refer to a recent wave of confrontational French films ove the past decade or so. You know how we had a group here on spout called "extreme films"? Well a lot of these would probably fit in nice there. They show you the extreme fifth, cruelty, and violence of humanity often in graphic detail. You may recognize a lot of these names. Gaspar Noé's Irreversible is one of the most well known state side I think. It's the one that runs backwards. I've seen his I Stand Alone and let me say it's pretty striking and depression, very confrontational to the dark and depressing side of the human condition. Other examples are some of Claire Denis' and Leos Carax's recent work, Bruno Dumont (The Life of Jesus, Humanité), Catherine Breillat (Fat Girl). Maybe you have also heard of the infamous Baise-moi (Fuck Me). If you listen to a lot of the horror fans we have on the site too you may hear them rave about many of the violent horror films comming out of France recently. These could probably fit in well too. The most well known now being High Tension. As for New German Cinema, you've heard of Werner Herzog right?? He's one of my favorites (check out The Mystery of Kaspar Hauser, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Stroszek, Fitzcarraldo). Well he and some other German folks such as R. W. Fassbinder (Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, The Marriage of Maria Braun, The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant (the guy made well over fourty films in a span of sixteen years including the fifteen hour long Berlin Alexanderplatz)), Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire, Paris, Texas), Volker Schlöndorff (The Tin Drum) and several others started making the first original movies starting in the late 60s since before the rise of the Nazis (Werner Herzog even made a remake of the classic German film Nosferatu). Finally Germany was a force in the world of Cinema making original and revolutionary films again. Anyone have anything to add?
]]>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:15:26 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls2/19/2009 3:15:26 PM[quote user="pippin06"] This is out of my league too. I consider myself an average to above average filmgoer/viewer but am not sure if I've seen anything in any category (maybe I have and I didn't know it...but maybe not). Like I said, I saw a lot of French films in college, but who knows if they fall under New Wave or something like that... ...but maybe we could somehow start a discussion somewhere where people schooled in these film schools could make recommendations for beginners. That would be cool, right? Or, maybe it's already somewhere...anyone know? [/quote] Ok, well I'll try to give some insight on what I know about them and any recommendations I may have. Czechoslovakian New Wave may be one of the lesser movements listed here. It kind of started in the 60s. A discription from wikipedia says "Trademarks of the movement contain long unscripted dialogues, dark and absurd humour, and the casting of nonactors." I don't know if I've actually seen any, but some of the more popular ones are available from the Criterion Collection like The Shop on Main Street (which people have mentioned on Spout before), Closely Watched Trains, and lots of Milos Forman's (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Man on the Moon, Amadeus) early work like Loves of a Blonde and The Fireman's Ball. Dogme 95 was an official movement started by Lars Von Trier and a few other Danish filmmakers that had specific rules about it. You could actually submit your film to them to be labeled as an official Dogma 95 film. You can probably find the rules online somewhere, but it involved using only digital film and found locations, props, and costumes. You aren't supposed to add any special effects. The full rules are of course available at good old wikipedia. The most famous of the films would probably The Celebration, The Idiots, and my favorite, Julien Donkey-Boy. The French New Wave is a pretty broad movement usually referring to the iconoclastic filmmakers from France. I think the tail end of the 50s is really when this started to get into full swing. Like Tennenbaums mentioned earlier, Jean Luc-Godard and Fran&ccedil;ois Truffaut are often the most identifiable filmmakers with the movement, although there are probably dozens if not more who have been lumped into this movement. SkyPilot mentioned Jean-Pierre Melville's Bob le Flambeur. I have seen that one and was disappointed. I've also seen Godard's Breathless and Truffaut's Jules and Jim both of which I did not enjoy. Truffaut's The 400 Blows I appreciated a bit more, but still not a favorite. Some people throw &Eacute;ric Rohmer into this category as well, although some argue his style is considerably different and stems from somewhere other than many other of the French New Wave filmmakers. I have enjoyed what little I've seen of his work. Expressionism was a movement in Europe in the early 20th century. It stressed intense emotion conveyed through exaggerated and distorted style and forms. The Germans took this movement and put it in film. I'm sure you recognize famous directors like F. W. Murnau and Fritz Lang. Some of these films had extremely expressionistic and highly unrealistic visuals like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Some like The Last Laugh were just more more distorted versions of reality. With all the Dracula talk that has happend on Spout at times I'm guessing you've also heard of Nosferatu. Some of Lang's works that came a bit later that are well known might also count like M and Metropolis. When I looked into it, I can't really define Iranian New Wave any better than just saying it's basically films that were made in Iran. I guess the most popular filmmaker is Abbas Kiarostami. Look him up and you may recognize a lot of his films. Maybe not. I have seen two films from Majid Majidi and would recommend The Color of Paradise. It's kind of recent though so I don't really know if it's a good representation of the first wave of the Iranian New Wave. Italian neorealism is what it probably sounds like. Italian films that stressed trying to give a realistic depiction of every day working class people. They did this by shootings things on location and often with non-actors. And a lot of the the "boring" action of normal life that might not find it's way into other films is here. Although I sure don't find it boring. The time frame we are looking at is the later forties. The most famous example is Vittorio De Sica's The Bicycle Thief which I would highly recommend, although De Sica's Shoeshine and Umberto D are also amazing. Other big name directors are Luchino Visconti and Roberto Rossellini. The Japanese New Wave like the French New Wave were a bunch of iconoclastic filmmakers that started with works being released around the end of the 50s through the 70s. You could put Seijun Suzuki in this category who is one of my favorite directors. Tokyo Drifter, Fighting Elegy, Branded to Kill, and Youth of the Beast are all fims of his that I love and are available on the Criterion Collection. Hiroshi Teshigahara also has some of his movies released through Criterion, one of which, Woman in the Dunes, I just saw recently and is amazing. Shohei Imamura also has some of his movies available through Criterion (this is basically just a big Criterion ad). Nagisa Oshima is probably the biggest name from this moment in my mind and I'm rather embarassed to say I still haven't seen any of his films. Mumblecore core is the newest term on this list and has gotten a lot of press on Spout, so maybe you've heard of it. I don't know if I've really seen any movies that would fit this category hardcore, but you probably recognize the trend in independent cinema. I think it has a lot to do with young adults living in big cities. Very low budget. Lots of slang and hip music and culture references with a realistic style. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. Joe Swanberg had a short film series on Spout for a while I think. New French Extremity is the other really new term here. I just came across the name recently to refer to a recent wave of confrontational French films ove the past decade or so. You know how we had a group here on spout called "extreme films"? Well a lot of these would probably fit in nice there. They show you the extreme fifth, cruelty, and violence of humanity often in graphic detail. You may recognize a lot of these names. Gaspar No&eacute;'s Irreversible is one of the most well known state side I think. It's the one that runs backwards. I've seen his I Stand Alone and let me say it's pretty striking and depression, very confrontational to the dark and depressing side of the human condition. Other examples are some of Claire Denis' and Leos Carax's recent work, Bruno Dumont (The Life of Jesus, Humanit&eacute;), Catherine Breillat (Fat Girl). Maybe you have also heard of the infamous Baise-moi (Fuck Me). If you listen to a lot of the horror fans we have on the site too you may hear them rave about many of the violent horror films comming out of France recently. These could probably fit in well too. The most well known now being High Tension. As for New German Cinema, you've heard of Werner Herzog right?? He's one of my favorites (check out The Mystery of Kaspar Hauser, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Stroszek, Fitzcarraldo). Well he and some other German folks such as R. W. Fassbinder (Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, The Marriage of Maria Braun, The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant (the guy made well over fourty films in a span of sixteen years including the fifteen hour long Berlin Alexanderplatz)), Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire, Paris, Texas), Volker Schl&ouml;ndorff (The Tin Drum) and several others started making the first original movies starting in the late 60s since before the rise of the Nazis (Werner Herzog even made a remake of the classic German film Nosferatu). Finally Germany was a force in the world of Cinema making original and revolutionary films again. Anyone have anything to add? http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_weirdest_movies/190/39189/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 1/7/2009 9:54:03 AM
Body: [quote user="tmoney"] Weird movies huh? I must be so desenitized to weird films because all the time i recommend movies to people that i think are fantastic and they say "um it was weird." So some genuinely strange films: 1. Julien Donkey Boy - A Dogme 95 film by Harmony Korine (sp?). Really strange. 2. Grey Gardens - A great cinema verite documentary about a mother and daughter who live alone as recluses in a crumbling mansion in the hamptons. I almost couldn't believe what i was seeing was real. Very eerie and bizzarre lives. Not a strange movie i guess just a bizzare story? 3. Un Chien Andalou - already mentioned 4. Meet The Feebles - Peter Jackson's R Rated muppets movie. A bunny with aids, a coke snorting walrus boss, a whore siamese kitten, a rat porn director (staring pornographic insects, etc), and hippopotamus nudity. Weird. 5. Palindromes - What? Todd Solandz making a wierd movie? Its phenomenal though. [/quote] Hey tmoney! Long time no see. Good to hear from you. If you think Julian Donkey-Boy is strange I'm wondering if you've seen Korine's Gummo. I think that one is even a bit stranger.
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:54:03 GMTRisseladaTop 51/7/2009 9:54:03 AM[quote user="tmoney"] Weird movies huh? I must be so desenitized to weird films because all the time i recommend movies to people that i think are fantastic and they say "um it was weird." So some genuinely strange films: 1. Julien Donkey Boy - A Dogme 95 film by Harmony Korine (sp?). Really strange. 2. Grey Gardens - A great cinema verite documentary about a mother and daughter who live alone as recluses in a crumbling mansion in the hamptons. I almost couldn't believe what i was seeing was real. Very eerie and bizzarre lives. Not a strange movie i guess just a bizzare story? 3. Un Chien Andalou - already mentioned 4. Meet The Feebles - Peter Jackson's R Rated muppets movie. A bunny with aids, a coke snorting walrus boss, a whore siamese kitten, a rat porn director (staring pornographic insects, etc), and hippopotamus nudity. Weird. 5. Palindromes - What? Todd Solandz making a wierd movie? Its phenomenal though. [/quote] Hey tmoney! Long time no see. Good to hear from you. If you think Julian Donkey-Boy is strange I'm wondering if you've seen Korine's Gummo. I think that one is even a bit stranger. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_weirdest_movies/190/39136/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tmoney
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 1/5/2009 10:55:39 PM
Body: Weird movies huh? I must be so desenitized to weird films because all the time i recommend movies to people that i think are fantastic and they say "um it was weird." So some genuinely strange films: 1. Julien Donkey Boy - A Dogme 95 film by Harmony Korine (sp?). Really strange. 2. Grey Gardens - A great cinema verite documentary about a mother and daughter who live alone as recluses in a crumbling mansion in the hamptons. I almost couldn't believe what i was seeing was real. Very eerie and bizzarre lives. Not a strange movie i guess just a bizzare story? 3. Un Chien Andalou - already mentioned 4. Meet The Feebles - Peter Jackson's R Rated muppets movie. A bunny with aids, a coke snorting walrus boss, a whore siamese kitten, a rat porn director (staring pornographic insects, etc), and hippopotamus nudity. Weird. 5. Palindromes - What? Todd Solandz making a wierd movie? Its phenomenal though.
]]>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:55:39 GMTtmoneyTop 51/5/2009 10:55:39 PMWeird movies huh? I must be so desenitized to weird films because all the time i recommend movies to people that i think are fantastic and they say "um it was weird." So some genuinely strange films: 1. Julien Donkey Boy - A Dogme 95 film by Harmony Korine (sp?). Really strange. 2. Grey Gardens - A great cinema verite documentary about a mother and daughter who live alone as recluses in a crumbling mansion in the hamptons. I almost couldn't believe what i was seeing was real. Very eerie and bizzarre lives. Not a strange movie i guess just a bizzare story? 3. Un Chien Andalou - already mentioned 4. Meet The Feebles - Peter Jackson's R Rated muppets movie. A bunny with aids, a coke snorting walrus boss, a whore siamese kitten, a rat porn director (staring pornographic insects, etc), and hippopotamus nudity. Weird. 5. Palindromes - What? Todd Solandz making a wierd movie? Its phenomenal though. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/6/15/31257.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:01:19 PM
Body: FINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:19 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog6/15/2008 9:01:19 PMFINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/15/31256.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:01:11 PM
Body: FINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:11 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/15/2008 9:01:11 PMFINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/3/23/26536.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 3/23/2008 7:48:50 PM
Body: Despite my aversion to Korine's first film, Gummo, I found this sixth dogma 95 film heart wrenching and beautiful, hardly the depraved fantasy of Gummo. I hear that this film stretches the rules of the manifesto at nearly every step, to my relief. I am glad that the deaths on screen did not actually occur... Regardless, this is a sincere look at dysfunctional family life done masterfully in a comedic-tragic way. Werner Herzog as the hick father vicariously living through his son never ceases to entertain (and this is not just because I find him the most entertaining man alive). The film oddly encourages the pursuit of ones dreams. Herzog tends to be cruelly honest, abrasive, and abusive to encourage his son to be a wrestling champion. Chloe Sevigny, the mother, sister, or lover (the truth was obscured), represents an innocence and becomes a pure symbol of goodness. She is strong and creates an inseparable bond among the family. There is a beautiful part when she dances in the street with an umbrella intercut with the daughter dancing on the ice, a true moment of cinema magic. Julien is believable as a schizophrenic boy. He does not fall prey to the cliches as hipness of the disorder as seen in Ron Howards A Beautiful Mind (2001), David Cronenbergs Spider (2002), and Richard Kellys Donnie Darko (2001). Julien holds the audiences interest while at the same time is sympathetic but not lovable, which makes him an interesting, well-developed character with a life unique unto itself. One shot exquisitely captures Juliens puerile retrogression. The movie itself has some very interesting techniques. First, the grainy look adds to the roughness of the film. Second, the snapshots tell a story without revealing the entire sequence. Third, the effect on the last shot creates a dazzling moment of beauty. Fourth, the occasional slow shutter speed reflects on the way life trails on at times. Fifth, the handheld camera shots add an immediacy. The combination of these techniques creates a unique world and experience.Moments of joy intertwine with engulfing sadness. This sincere and beautiful film does capture life in a unique way for which I will give it a very high recommendation.
]]>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:48:50 GMTkristenkristen Blog3/23/2008 7:48:50 PMDespite my aversion to Korine&#39;s first film, Gummo, I found this sixth dogma 95 film heart wrenching and beautiful, hardly the depraved fantasy of Gummo. I hear that this film stretches the rules of the manifesto at nearly every step, to my relief. I am glad that the deaths on screen did not actually occur... Regardless, this is a sincere look at dysfunctional family life done masterfully in a comedic-tragic way. Werner Herzog as the hick father vicariously living through his son never ceases to entertain (and this is not just because I find him the most entertaining man alive). The film oddly encourages the pursuit of ones dreams. Herzog tends to be cruelly honest, abrasive, and abusive to encourage his son to be a wrestling champion. Chloe Sevigny, the mother, sister, or lover (the truth was obscured), represents an innocence and becomes a pure symbol of goodness. She is strong and creates an inseparable bond among the family. There is a beautiful part when she dances in the street with an umbrella intercut with the daughter dancing on the ice, a true moment of cinema magic. Julien is believable as a schizophrenic boy. He does not fall prey to the cliches as hipness of the disorder as seen in Ron Howards A Beautiful Mind (2001), David Cronenbergs Spider (2002), and Richard Kellys Donnie Darko (2001). Julien holds the audiences interest while at the same time is sympathetic but not lovable, which makes him an interesting, well-developed character with a life unique unto itself. One shot exquisitely captures Juliens puerile retrogression. The movie itself has some very interesting techniques. First, the grainy look adds to the roughness of the film. Second, the snapshots tell a story without revealing the entire sequence. Third, the effect on the last shot creates a dazzling moment of beauty. Fourth, the occasional slow shutter speed reflects on the way life trails on at times. Fifth, the handheld camera shots add an immediacy. The combination of these techniques creates a unique world and experience.Moments of joy intertwine with engulfing sadness. This sincere and beautiful film does capture life in a unique way for which I will give it a very high recommendation. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/10/18/20918.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/18/2007 3:37:24 PM
Body: Where has Harmony Korine been in the eight years between his 1999 Dogme 95 effort Julien Donkey-Boy, and his IFC-acquired, Cannes/Toronto entry Mister Lonely? It has something to do with a fire, a screenplay about pigs, and a cult of Amazonian fishermen called The Malingerers. He talks all about all of that, and also why he’ll never make “genre films”, in this video interview (which doesn’t seem to be embeddable, but if you can figure it out, let me know). Is it truth, or some kind of Herzogian fantasy? You decide. [Via Movie City Indie] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog's blog
]]>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:37:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/18/2007 3:37:24 PMWhere has Harmony Korine been in the eight years between his 1999 Dogme 95 effort Julien Donkey-Boy, and his IFC-acquired, Cannes/Toronto entry Mister Lonely? It has something to do with a fire, a screenplay about pigs, and a cult of Amazonian fishermen called The Malingerers. He talks all about all of that, and also why he’ll never make “genre films”, in this video interview (which doesn’t seem to be embeddable, but if you can figure it out, let me know). Is it truth, or some kind of Herzogian fantasy? You decide. [Via Movie City Indie] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog's blog http://www.spout.com/blogs/puhnner/archive/2006/11/15/3693.aspx Post By: Puhnner
Post To: Puhnner Blog
Post Date: 11/15/2006 10:57:00 AM
Body: Gerard Manley Hopkins ‘THE CHILD is father to the man.’ How can he be? The words are wild. Suck any sense from that who can: ‘The child is father to the man.’ No; what the poet did write ran, 5 ‘The man is father to the child.’ ‘The child is father to the man!’ How can he be? The words are wild. But then, I would hardly call Julien Donkey-Boy 'wild'. I realize, and it is most probably unfortunate for me and my psychic and emotional development, that I don't mind horror movies at all ( well except for 'slasher' movies where the chief victim is almost always a woman, I loathe these ). I think of this film as nothing short of horror. I cannot bear films where children are mistreated. I am sickened. In this film ( can I make this statement???), 'everyone is crazy as a loon' ( in fact, I think the dog is too ). The director, Harmony Korinem, in one of the accompanying features, states emphatically that he wanted to make a film showing what living with or what a schizophrenic is really like (interesting, slides of brain tissue from schizophrenics, show huge holes in the tissue, unlike 'normal' brain tissue which appears consistent and without holes). His desire is, of course, fine by me and laudable. The abuse was horrible to watch. I just could not stand seeing Herzog's father character ( equally sick in the heart himself ) bully and abuse the children (ok, adolescents ) and wondered who Herzog's child to the man was. If you have read the Vachss, Burke novels or even Red Dragon, an inevitable progression from child abuse to the creation of the abused into a 'monster' seems to take place; the abused becomes the next in line abuser. Herzog's father character was one and the damage done him was all too apparent. All that said, I liked the film, not so much for the story or subject matter or narrative, but for the grainy, jiggly, gauzy, character POV visual experience which I found oddly beautiful. I appreciated the visual structure. Perhaps, compartmentalizing is a good to be able to do or not.
]]>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:57:00 GMTPuhnnerPuhnner Blog11/15/2006 10:57:00 AMGerard Manley Hopkins ‘THE CHILD is father to the man.’ How can he be? The words are wild. Suck any sense from that who can: ‘The child is father to the man.’ No; what the poet did write ran, 5 ‘The man is father to the child.’ ‘The child is father to the man!’ How can he be? The words are wild. But then, I would hardly call Julien Donkey-Boy 'wild'. I realize, and it is most probably unfortunate for me and my psychic and emotional development, that I don't mind horror movies at all ( well except for 'slasher' movies where the chief victim is almost always a woman, I loathe these ). I think of this film as nothing short of horror. I cannot bear films where children are mistreated. I am sickened. In this film ( can I make this statement???), 'everyone is crazy as a loon' ( in fact, I think the dog is too ). The director, Harmony Korinem, in one of the accompanying features, states emphatically that he wanted to make a film showing what living with or what a schizophrenic is really like (interesting, slides of brain tissue from schizophrenics, show huge holes in the tissue, unlike 'normal' brain tissue which appears consistent and without holes). His desire is, of course, fine by me and laudable. The abuse was horrible to watch. I just could not stand seeing Herzog's father character ( equally sick in the heart himself ) bully and abuse the children (ok, adolescents ) and wondered who Herzog's child to the man was. If you have read the Vachss, Burke novels or even Red Dragon, an inevitable progression from child abuse to the creation of the abused into a 'monster' seems to take place; the abused becomes the next in line abuser. Herzog's father character was one and the damage done him was all too apparent. All that said, I liked the film, not so much for the story or subject matter or narrative, but for the grainy, jiggly, gauzy, character POV visual experience which I found oddly beautiful. I appreciated the visual structure. Perhaps, compartmentalizing is a good to be able to do or not. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT62892271140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 831

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:29 GMT8748157831Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/religion/MemberTagFilms.aspxreligion
Number of films tagged: 1123

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 176

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:31:00 GMT112367176Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pregnancy/MemberTagFilms.aspxpregnancy
Number of films tagged: 1306

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 110

]]>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 05:22:12 GMT130644110Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/incest/MemberTagFilms.aspxincest
Number of films tagged: 238

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 58

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:56:44 GMT2384058Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tragedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxtragedy
Number of films tagged: 93

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 48

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT933148Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ambition/MemberTagFilms.aspxambition
Number of films tagged: 429

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 39

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:42 GMT4292239Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/schizophrenia/MemberTagFilms.aspxschizophrenia
Number of films tagged: 131

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 26

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:18:54 GMT1312126Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/reality/MemberTagFilms.aspxreality
Number of films tagged: 612

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 33

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT6122033Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Pretentious/MemberTagFilms.aspxPretentious
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 22

]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:48:00 GMT161722Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mentalillness/MemberTagFilms.aspxmentalillness
Number of films tagged: 728

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 33

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT7281633Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sadistic/MemberTagFilms.aspxsadistic
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 8

]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:25:43 GMT688Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dogma/MemberTagFilms.aspxdogma
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:40:16 GMT233Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dogme95/MemberTagFilms.aspxdogme95
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 7

]]>Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:59:43 GMT537Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/95/MemberTagFilms.aspx95
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:26:44 GMT222Tag