They become lovers. They live in the hotel in which François settles his shootings during two weeks, stopping by Carole’s place once in a while.
Number of blog posts: 12
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:36:55 GMTLa Frontiere de l'aube2009Philippe GarrelCarole is a movie star, she lives alone. Her husband works in Hollywood and neglects her. A photograph comes to her place to do a reporting on her. <p> They become lovers. They live in the hotel in which François settles his shootings during two weeks, stopping by Carole’s place once in a while.124http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s370978.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/La_Frontiere_de_l_aube/370978/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/kevynknox/archive/2009/6/29/42862.aspx Post By: KevynKnox
Post To: KevynKnox Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2009 7:36:55 PM
Body: Philippe Garrel, much like fellow Frenchmen Jacques Rivette and Robert Bresson (a pair of auteurs who could very well be the unbeknownst secret parents of Mr. Garrel) is an acquired taste. He may very well not be for everyone, but for those who find and appreciate him, it is a taste that will eventually leave your palette hungry for more. Now the only problem is actually finding him. Though making films since the mid sixties, Garrel is all but unknown in the US. Even among those most knowledgeable in cinema see Garrel as mainly a ghost. A mysterious spirit of the post Nouvelle Vague filmmaking scene that is more spoken of than actually seen. In fact it was just two years ago, with his remarkable three hour masterpiece on the events and shockwaves of May '68, Regular Lovers, that Garrel would even receive a proper US release of any kind. Critics and cinephiles alike were enthralled by the film but it in no way ensured future US screen time. That is why I was both thrilled and a little upset at the tiny, minuscule, almost unmentionable New York release of Frontier of Dawn. Thrilled that this unquestionably lovely, yet morose film, has made it two in a row for Garrel and the US, but a bit mad by the lack of opportunity (and respect perhaps?) it is afforded in its one week only "secret" release at Brooklyn's BAMcinematek. Nonetheless it made it here, so who am I to complain. Plus it is receiving a lengthy run on IFC on Demand, so again, who am I to complain. Storywise, this film is stereotypically Garrel - and I mean that in the most complimentary way. With its grainily vivid black and white photography and melancholy mannerisms - not to mention the melancholy mannerisms of le fils Garrel, Prince Louis - Frontier of Dawn, though much less important than Regular Lovers, is a haunting (and I do not care how cliche such a word may sound, I say it anyway and with an exclamation of pride!) beauty to behold. An art cinema that is post everything that is that kind of art cinema, Garrel's film is a delicate ghost of cinema past. Both beautiful and painful. A precisely ambiguous tale of obsessive (and quite selfish) love, Frontier of Dawn stars Garrel the younger and Laura Smet as a pair of tortured lovers who find they cannot live without each other - an undying fact they find to be true, even from beyond the grave. Garrel, much like the aforementioned Bresson, imbibes his film with a certain sense of despair yet makes his lovers seem all the more enthralling by their strange and subtle enthusiasm for one another. Compared by some to today's Mumblecore scene (rightly or wrongly - a little of both I believe) Frontier of Dawn and its auteur, Philippe Garrel may be a hard pill to swallow for many (and an even harder pill to get your hands on in the first place) but his disconsolate oeuvre is worth the search.
]]>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:36:55 GMTKevynKnoxKevynKnox Blog6/29/2009 7:36:55 PMPhilippe Garrel, much like fellow Frenchmen Jacques Rivette and Robert Bresson (a pair of auteurs who could very well be the unbeknownst secret parents of Mr. Garrel) is an acquired taste. He may very well not be for everyone, but for those who find and appreciate him, it is a taste that will eventually leave your palette hungry for more. Now the only problem is actually finding him. Though making films since the mid sixties, Garrel is all but unknown in the US. Even among those most knowledgeable in cinema see Garrel as mainly a ghost. A mysterious spirit of the post Nouvelle Vague filmmaking scene that is more spoken of than actually seen. In fact it was just two years ago, with his remarkable three hour masterpiece on the events and shockwaves of May '68, Regular Lovers, that Garrel would even receive a proper US release of any kind. Critics and cinephiles alike were enthralled by the film but it in no way ensured future US screen time. That is why I was both thrilled and a little upset at the tiny, minuscule, almost unmentionable New York release of Frontier of Dawn. Thrilled that this unquestionably lovely, yet morose film, has made it two in a row for Garrel and the US, but a bit mad by the lack of opportunity (and respect perhaps?) it is afforded in its one week only "secret" release at Brooklyn's BAMcinematek. Nonetheless it made it here, so who am I to complain. Plus it is receiving a lengthy run on IFC on Demand, so again, who am I to complain. Storywise, this film is stereotypically Garrel - and I mean that in the most complimentary way. With its grainily vivid black and white photography and melancholy mannerisms - not to mention the melancholy mannerisms of le fils Garrel, Prince Louis - Frontier of Dawn, though much less important than Regular Lovers, is a haunting (and I do not care how cliche such a word may sound, I say it anyway and with an exclamation of pride!) beauty to behold. An art cinema that is post everything that is that kind of art cinema, Garrel's film is a delicate ghost of cinema past. Both beautiful and painful. A precisely ambiguous tale of obsessive (and quite selfish) love, Frontier of Dawn stars Garrel the younger and Laura Smet as a pair of tortured lovers who find they cannot live without each other - an undying fact they find to be true, even from beyond the grave. Garrel, much like the aforementioned Bresson, imbibes his film with a certain sense of despair yet makes his lovers seem all the more enthralling by their strange and subtle enthusiasm for one another. Compared by some to today's Mumblecore scene (rightly or wrongly - a little of both I believe) Frontier of Dawn and its auteur, Philippe Garrel may be a hard pill to swallow for many (and an even harder pill to get your hands on in the first place) but his disconsolate oeuvre is worth the search. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2009/3/6/40863.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 3/6/2009 12:00:55 PM
Body: When Philippe Garrel’s most recent film premiered in competition at Cannes last year, it carried the French title La Frontière de l’aube; that was translated in English in the Cannes guide as Frontier of Dawn, but the subtitle at the beginning of the film read, The Dawn of the Shore. None of these titles give any indication of what this film is: a story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge. I named it as the best undistributed film of 2008; now, IFC is screening it theatrically in series at BAM in Brooklyn (starting tonight) and at Cinefamily in Los Angeles (Saturday, March 14), before it premieres on VOD. When I reviewed the film last May at the festival, after it had been roundly booed at its Cannes press screening, I wondered if those critics who gave a dismissive but hardly as cruel reception to James Gray’s Two Lovers earlier in the festival would bother to grapple with the similarities between that star-studded American production and Garrel’s infinitely cooler, warm-toned black-and-white capital-A work of Art. For the most part, they didn’t, even though on paper, they’re essentially the same film: a Jewish photographer falls for a difficult, substance-dependent blonde; even though that relationship is clearly doomed from the start, it haunts him and prevents him from happily settling into a domestic routine with a still-beautiful but less troubled and exciting brunette. The big difference, at least narratively speaking: in Gray’s film, as the director told Andrew O’Hehir, the protagonist ultimately “does choose life.” Spoiler alert! The resolution to Garrel’s story is the diametric opposite. Movie star Carole (Laura Smet) is living half a world away from her filmmaker husband when she meets Francois (Louis Garrel, son of Phillipe, his eyes dark, as if eye-linered naturally), a photographer who comes to her hotel to take her picture. It’s not clear if Francois is a journalist or an artist or what, but the project seems to take him weeks to complete, and by the second photo shoot, Francois and Carole have fallen into bed. They pledge undying love, but the sharp violin/piano jazz-horror score alerts us right away that things aren’t going to work out. Gin-swilling serial suicide attempter Carole seems destined to go the way of Frances Farmer, and though she seems convinced that Francois can save her from herself, he can’t stop what’s coming for long. After Carole’s husband comes home suddenly and just misses catching Francois in her bed, Francois leaves and, despite Carole’s pleas, stoically refuses to come back. Carole’s heartbreak leads to a swerve into Shock Corridor territory. Meanwhile, Francois takes up with the lovely but fairly normal (and thus comparatively boring) Eve. A year after Carole violently exits the picture, Eve becomes pregnant; just as Francois has accepted that he’s about to become a father, the spectre of Carole comes back to try and drag his happy home life into the grave. Perhaps because there are more than a few members of the press corps who could be described as socially awkward Jewish males, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that in Two Lovers, Gwyneth Paltrow’s character is able to push Joaquin Phoenix’s as far as she does because she embodies his bad girl shiksa fantasy. When in that film, the nice Jewish boy threatens to abandon his family and local community in order to run off with the dangerous blonde instead of settling for the sensible match of his same background and faith, it might be a mistake and it might be a disappointment to his parents, but it’s hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions. Garrel’s film takes the mystical threat of the shiksa far more seriously, literally turning her into something out of a horror-movie as the film morphs from classical, almost slight romance to a serious meditation on love, faith and eternity. Garrel tells us twice that Francois is Jewish––once directly, once implicitly (Francois thinks talk of concentration camp survivors is fit for pillow talk; amazingly, Carole agrees). Taking place in Paris, far outside Two Lovers’ world of Brighton Beach second-and third-generation immigrants, this information only seems significant after the final scene. At the risk of giving away more than I’d like to, the film’s denouement requires its Jewish protagonist to believe in an afterlife. When confessing his bind to a friend, the friend has no sympathy for Francois’ inability to concentrate on his impending nuptials and push Carole out of his head. “Bourgeois happiness,” says the friend, as snarkily as such an ultra-serious French film would allow. “Scary, isn’t it?” Apparently, it is. There are shots in this film’s second half that are spookier than anything I’ve seen in a horror film in recent years –– without the aid of any effect more special than a basic optical print –– and simultaneously, incredibly moving in their invocation of a love that won’t die. Or, at the very least, refuses to abide by traditional boundaries of love and death. This review appeared in slightly different form during the 2008 Cannes Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:00:55 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog3/6/2009 12:00:55 PMWhen Philippe Garrel’s most recent film premiered in competition at Cannes last year, it carried the French title La Frontière de l’aube; that was translated in English in the Cannes guide as Frontier of Dawn, but the subtitle at the beginning of the film read, The Dawn of the Shore. None of these titles give any indication of what this film is: a story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge. I named it as the best undistributed film of 2008; now, IFC is screening it theatrically in series at BAM in Brooklyn (starting tonight) and at Cinefamily in Los Angeles (Saturday, March 14), before it premieres on VOD. When I reviewed the film last May at the festival, after it had been roundly booed at its Cannes press screening, I wondered if those critics who gave a dismissive but hardly as cruel reception to James Gray’s Two Lovers earlier in the festival would bother to grapple with the similarities between that star-studded American production and Garrel’s infinitely cooler, warm-toned black-and-white capital-A work of Art. For the most part, they didn’t, even though on paper, they’re essentially the same film: a Jewish photographer falls for a difficult, substance-dependent blonde; even though that relationship is clearly doomed from the start, it haunts him and prevents him from happily settling into a domestic routine with a still-beautiful but less troubled and exciting brunette. The big difference, at least narratively speaking: in Gray’s film, as the director told Andrew O’Hehir, the protagonist ultimately “does choose life.” Spoiler alert! The resolution to Garrel’s story is the diametric opposite. Movie star Carole (Laura Smet) is living half a world away from her filmmaker husband when she meets Francois (Louis Garrel, son of Phillipe, his eyes dark, as if eye-linered naturally), a photographer who comes to her hotel to take her picture. It’s not clear if Francois is a journalist or an artist or what, but the project seems to take him weeks to complete, and by the second photo shoot, Francois and Carole have fallen into bed. They pledge undying love, but the sharp violin/piano jazz-horror score alerts us right away that things aren’t going to work out. Gin-swilling serial suicide attempter Carole seems destined to go the way of Frances Farmer, and though she seems convinced that Francois can save her from herself, he can’t stop what’s coming for long. After Carole’s husband comes home suddenly and just misses catching Francois in her bed, Francois leaves and, despite Carole’s pleas, stoically refuses to come back. Carole’s heartbreak leads to a swerve into Shock Corridor territory. Meanwhile, Francois takes up with the lovely but fairly normal (and thus comparatively boring) Eve. A year after Carole violently exits the picture, Eve becomes pregnant; just as Francois has accepted that he’s about to become a father, the spectre of Carole comes back to try and drag his happy home life into the grave. Perhaps because there are more than a few members of the press corps who could be described as socially awkward Jewish males, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that in Two Lovers, Gwyneth Paltrow’s character is able to push Joaquin Phoenix’s as far as she does because she embodies his bad girl shiksa fantasy. When in that film, the nice Jewish boy threatens to abandon his family and local community in order to run off with the dangerous blonde instead of settling for the sensible match of his same background and faith, it might be a mistake and it might be a disappointment to his parents, but it’s hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions. Garrel’s film takes the mystical threat of the shiksa far more seriously, literally turning her into something out of a horror-movie as the film morphs from classical, almost slight romance to a serious meditation on love, faith and eternity. Garrel tells us twice that Francois is Jewish––once directly, once implicitly (Francois thinks talk of concentration camp survivors is fit for pillow talk; amazingly, Carole agrees). Taking place in Paris, far outside Two Lovers’ world of Brighton Beach second-and third-generation immigrants, this information only seems significant after the final scene. At the risk of giving away more than I’d like to, the film’s denouement requires its Jewish protagonist to believe in an afterlife. When confessing his bind to a friend, the friend has no sympathy for Francois’ inability to concentrate on his impending nuptials and push Carole out of his head. “Bourgeois happiness,” says the friend, as snarkily as such an ultra-serious French film would allow. “Scary, isn’t it?” Apparently, it is. There are shots in this film’s second half that are spookier than anything I’ve seen in a horror film in recent years –– without the aid of any effect more special than a basic optical print –– and simultaneously, incredibly moving in their invocation of a love that won’t die. Or, at the very least, refuses to abide by traditional boundaries of love and death. This review appeared in slightly different form during the 2008 Cannes Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/6/40862.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/6/2009 12:00:44 PM
Body: When Philippe Garrel’s most recent film premiered in competition at Cannes last year, it carried the French title La Frontière de l’aube; that was translated in English in the Cannes guide as Frontier of Dawn, but the subtitle at the beginning of the film read, The Dawn of the Shore. None of these titles give any indication of what this film is: a story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge. I named it as the best undistributed film of 2008; now, IFC is screening it theatrically in series at BAM in Brooklyn (starting tonight) and at Cinefamily in Los Angeles (Saturday, March 14), before it premieres on VOD. When I reviewed the film last May at the festival, after it had been roundly booed at its Cannes press screening, I wondered if those critics who gave a dismissive but hardly as cruel reception to James Gray’s Two Lovers earlier in the festival would bother to grapple with the similarities between that star-studded American production and Garrel’s infinitely cooler, warm-toned black-and-white capital-A work of Art. For the most part, they didn’t, even though on paper, they’re essentially the same film: a Jewish photographer falls for a difficult, substance-dependent blonde; even though that relationship is clearly doomed from the start, it haunts him and prevents him from happily settling into a domestic routine with a still-beautiful but less troubled and exciting brunette. The big difference, at least narratively speaking: in Gray’s film, as the director told Andrew O’Hehir, the protagonist ultimately “does choose life.” Spoiler alert! The resolution to Garrel’s story is the diametric opposite. Movie star Carole (Laura Smet) is living half a world away from her filmmaker husband when she meets Francois (Louis Garrel, son of Phillipe, his eyes dark, as if eye-linered naturally), a photographer who comes to her hotel to take her picture. It’s not clear if Francois is a journalist or an artist or what, but the project seems to take him weeks to complete, and by the second photo shoot, Francois and Carole have fallen into bed. They pledge undying love, but the sharp violin/piano jazz-horror score alerts us right away that things aren’t going to work out. Gin-swilling serial suicide attempter Carole seems destined to go the way of Frances Farmer, and though she seems convinced that Francois can save her from herself, he can’t stop what’s coming for long. After Carole’s husband comes home suddenly and just misses catching Francois in her bed, Francois leaves and, despite Carole’s pleas, stoically refuses to come back. Carole’s heartbreak leads to a swerve into Shock Corridor territory. Meanwhile, Francois takes up with the lovely but fairly normal (and thus comparatively boring) Eve. A year after Carole violently exits the picture, Eve becomes pregnant; just as Francois has accepted that he’s about to become a father, the spectre of Carole comes back to try and drag his happy home life into the grave. Perhaps because there are more than a few members of the press corps who could be described as socially awkward Jewish males, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that in Two Lovers, Gwyneth Paltrow’s character is able to push Joaquin Phoenix’s as far as she does because she embodies his bad girl shiksa fantasy. When in that film, the nice Jewish boy threatens to abandon his family and local community in order to run off with the dangerous blonde instead of settling for the sensible match of his same background and faith, it might be a mistake and it might be a disappointment to his parents, but it’s hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions. Garrel’s film takes the mystical threat of the shiksa far more seriously, literally turning her into something out of a horror-movie as the film morphs from classical, almost slight romance to a serious meditation on love, faith and eternity. Garrel tells us twice that Francois is Jewish––once directly, once implicitly (Francois thinks talk of concentration camp survivors is fit for pillow talk; amazingly, Carole agrees). Taking place in Paris, far outside Two Lovers’ world of Brighton Beach second-and third-generation immigrants, this information only seems significant after the final scene. At the risk of giving away more than I’d like to, the film’s denouement requires its Jewish protagonist to believe in an afterlife. When confessing his bind to a friend, the friend has no sympathy for Francois’ inability to concentrate on his impending nuptials and push Carole out of his head. “Bourgeois happiness,” says the friend, as snarkily as such an ultra-serious French film would allow. “Scary, isn’t it?” Apparently, it is. There are shots in this film’s second half that are spookier than anything I’ve seen in a horror film in recent years –– without the aid of any effect more special than a basic optical print –– and simultaneously, incredibly moving in their invocation of a love that won’t die. Or, at the very least, refuses to abide by traditional boundaries of love and death. This review appeared in slightly different form during the 2008 Cannes Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/6/2009 12:00:44 PMWhen Philippe Garrel’s most recent film premiered in competition at Cannes last year, it carried the French title La Frontière de l’aube; that was translated in English in the Cannes guide as Frontier of Dawn, but the subtitle at the beginning of the film read, The Dawn of the Shore. None of these titles give any indication of what this film is: a story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge. I named it as the best undistributed film of 2008; now, IFC is screening it theatrically in series at BAM in Brooklyn (starting tonight) and at Cinefamily in Los Angeles (Saturday, March 14), before it premieres on VOD. When I reviewed the film last May at the festival, after it had been roundly booed at its Cannes press screening, I wondered if those critics who gave a dismissive but hardly as cruel reception to James Gray’s Two Lovers earlier in the festival would bother to grapple with the similarities between that star-studded American production and Garrel’s infinitely cooler, warm-toned black-and-white capital-A work of Art. For the most part, they didn’t, even though on paper, they’re essentially the same film: a Jewish photographer falls for a difficult, substance-dependent blonde; even though that relationship is clearly doomed from the start, it haunts him and prevents him from happily settling into a domestic routine with a still-beautiful but less troubled and exciting brunette. The big difference, at least narratively speaking: in Gray’s film, as the director told Andrew O’Hehir, the protagonist ultimately “does choose life.” Spoiler alert! The resolution to Garrel’s story is the diametric opposite. Movie star Carole (Laura Smet) is living half a world away from her filmmaker husband when she meets Francois (Louis Garrel, son of Phillipe, his eyes dark, as if eye-linered naturally), a photographer who comes to her hotel to take her picture. It’s not clear if Francois is a journalist or an artist or what, but the project seems to take him weeks to complete, and by the second photo shoot, Francois and Carole have fallen into bed. They pledge undying love, but the sharp violin/piano jazz-horror score alerts us right away that things aren’t going to work out. Gin-swilling serial suicide attempter Carole seems destined to go the way of Frances Farmer, and though she seems convinced that Francois can save her from herself, he can’t stop what’s coming for long. After Carole’s husband comes home suddenly and just misses catching Francois in her bed, Francois leaves and, despite Carole’s pleas, stoically refuses to come back. Carole’s heartbreak leads to a swerve into Shock Corridor territory. Meanwhile, Francois takes up with the lovely but fairly normal (and thus comparatively boring) Eve. A year after Carole violently exits the picture, Eve becomes pregnant; just as Francois has accepted that he’s about to become a father, the spectre of Carole comes back to try and drag his happy home life into the grave. Perhaps because there are more than a few members of the press corps who could be described as socially awkward Jewish males, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that in Two Lovers, Gwyneth Paltrow’s character is able to push Joaquin Phoenix’s as far as she does because she embodies his bad girl shiksa fantasy. When in that film, the nice Jewish boy threatens to abandon his family and local community in order to run off with the dangerous blonde instead of settling for the sensible match of his same background and faith, it might be a mistake and it might be a disappointment to his parents, but it’s hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions. Garrel’s film takes the mystical threat of the shiksa far more seriously, literally turning her into something out of a horror-movie as the film morphs from classical, almost slight romance to a serious meditation on love, faith and eternity. Garrel tells us twice that Francois is Jewish––once directly, once implicitly (Francois thinks talk of concentration camp survivors is fit for pillow talk; amazingly, Carole agrees). Taking place in Paris, far outside Two Lovers’ world of Brighton Beach second-and third-generation immigrants, this information only seems significant after the final scene. At the risk of giving away more than I’d like to, the film’s denouement requires its Jewish protagonist to believe in an afterlife. When confessing his bind to a friend, the friend has no sympathy for Francois’ inability to concentrate on his impending nuptials and push Carole out of his head. “Bourgeois happiness,” says the friend, as snarkily as such an ultra-serious French film would allow. “Scary, isn’t it?” Apparently, it is. There are shots in this film’s second half that are spookier than anything I’ve seen in a horror film in recent years –– without the aid of any effect more special than a basic optical print –– and simultaneously, incredibly moving in their invocation of a love that won’t die. Or, at the very least, refuses to abide by traditional boundaries of love and death. This review appeared in slightly different form during the 2008 Cannes Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/12/16/38464.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 12/16/2008 4:01:21 PM
Body: I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties 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.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:21 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog12/16/2008 4:01:21 PM I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties 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.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/16/38463.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/16/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties 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.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/16/2008 4:01:08 PM I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties 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.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/30/30171.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/30/2008 9:01:04 AM
Body: Interview with Chris Bell who made Bigger, Stronger, Faster –opening tonight. A doc going way beyond body building into the essence of an unspoken American pastime: Cheating. Karina reports back on Cannes and everything the media missed that it shouldn’t have: Tyson, Frontier of Dawn and Everything is Fine. (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store or to our RSS feed and an episode will download each Friday) FilmCouch #72 - Karina on Cannes, Kevin on steroids Bigger, Stronger, Faster; Tyson; Frontier of Dawn; Everything is Fine Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 30 May 2008 13:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/30/2008 9:01:04 AM Interview with Chris Bell who made Bigger, Stronger, Faster –opening tonight. A doc going way beyond body building into the essence of an unspoken American pastime: Cheating. Karina reports back on Cannes and everything the media missed that it shouldn’t have: Tyson, Frontier of Dawn and Everything is Fine. (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store or to our RSS feed and an episode will download each Friday) FilmCouch #72 - Karina on Cannes, Kevin on steroids Bigger, Stronger, Faster; Tyson; Frontier of Dawn; Everything is Fine Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2008/5/30/30170.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 5/30/2008 9:00:41 AM
Body: Interview with Chris Bell who made Bigger, Stronger, Faster –opening tonight. A doc going way beyond body building into the essence of an unspoken American pastime: Cheating. Karina reports back on Cannes and everything the media missed that it shouldn’t have: Tyson, Frontier of Dawn and Everything is Fine. (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store or to our RSS feed and an episode will download each Friday) FilmCouch #72 - Karina on Cannes, Kevin on steroids Bigger, Stronger, Faster; Tyson; Frontier of Dawn; Everything is Fine Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul Moore
]]>Fri, 30 May 2008 13:00:41 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com5/30/2008 9:00:41 AM Interview with Chris Bell who made Bigger, Stronger, Faster –opening tonight. A doc going way beyond body building into the essence of an unspoken American pastime: Cheating. Karina reports back on Cannes and everything the media missed that it shouldn’t have: Tyson, Frontier of Dawn and Everything is Fine. (Subscribe to FilmCouch–Spout’s weekly movie podcast–in the iTunes store or to our RSS feed and an episode will download each Friday) FilmCouch #72 - Karina on Cannes, Kevin on steroids Bigger, Stronger, Faster; Tyson; Frontier of Dawn; Everything is Fine Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul Moore http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/5/23/29847.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 5/23/2008 3:01:20 PM
Body: Who would have thought, in 2006, when Old Joy spent a year slowly gathering critical steam after having been all but ignored at Sundance, that Kelly Reichardt’s next film would occasion an item in PEOPLE Magazine? “Michelle Williams Dazzles at Cannes Film Festival,” goes the headline of the story by Brenda Rodriguez. Last night’s Wendy & Lucy red carpet was the first that the actress walked since the death of former partner Heath Ledger, and for the tabloids that’s a major hook. Looking down from the balcony last night at the Debussy, it was a trip to watch the Chanel-clad former Dawson’s Creek star stand on the stage at one end of a line that included Reichardt, Old Joy/Wendy & Lucy producer Anish Savjani, and filmmaker/Wendy & Lucy producer and co-star Larry Fessenden. When a film this small gets thrust under a spotlight this bright, you worry about that the movie itself will be overwhelmed. I do hope this unlikely attention helps Wendy & Lucy get seen, but coming in with high expectations(Old Joy was one of my favorite films of its year), I was a bit underwhelmed. Here, as in Old Joy, Reichardt is concerned with a “normal” person’s collision with life on the margins of society. Williams plays Wendy, a young woman driving with her dog Lucy to Alaska to try to find work at a canning factory. When the film begins, she’s low on cash but at least she has a plan, and her run-in around a bonfire with an apparent bunch of hippie vagrants (including Joy star Will Oldham) suggests that permanent rootlessness is not part of it. But Wendy’s car breaks down before she can get out of town, and over a series of days one thing goes wrong after another, ultimately forcing Wendy to abandon all plans in order to survive. Anti-costumed as an unassuming hipster (short brown hair, sneakers, hoodie), Williams slips seamlessly into the Reichardt’s familiar naturalism, to the point where even when the story requires hysterics, they seem real. And the bleakness of the film’s suburban Pacific Northwest locations effectively heightens Wendy’s increasing anxiety and hopelessness. But there was a hypnotic quality to Old Joy that’s missing here, sparked by the central relationship’s constantly complex combination of tension, melancholy, frustration, set in a climate of transcendent beauty. Wendy & Lucy has the bleak, but it never explores the light. It hits its single tone perfectly, but it’s still a single tone. Philippe Garrel’s La Frontière de l’aube may be falling to the same fate. This is the first Garrel film to make it to Cannes since 1983, and his presence here was apparently not welcome. As you know, I think the movie is great; many, many people do not, The premiere crowd gave the virtually de rigueur standing ovation, but the press screening ended with boos. Variety trashed it, with Leslie Felperin’s brashly dismissive review teaching us that using the word “bitch” to describe a female protagonist is apparently compatible with the publication’s patented Slanguage. It’s that old double-edged sword: if all goes well, a festival like Cannes can be the platform of an independent filmmaker’s dreams, but a single press screening-gone-bad can make for a crippling comedown. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 23 May 2008 19:01:20 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog5/23/2008 3:01:20 PM Who would have thought, in 2006, when Old Joy spent a year slowly gathering critical steam after having been all but ignored at Sundance, that Kelly Reichardt’s next film would occasion an item in PEOPLE Magazine? “Michelle Williams Dazzles at Cannes Film Festival,” goes the headline of the story by Brenda Rodriguez. Last night’s Wendy & Lucy red carpet was the first that the actress walked since the death of former partner Heath Ledger, and for the tabloids that’s a major hook. Looking down from the balcony last night at the Debussy, it was a trip to watch the Chanel-clad former Dawson’s Creek star stand on the stage at one end of a line that included Reichardt, Old Joy/Wendy & Lucy producer Anish Savjani, and filmmaker/Wendy & Lucy producer and co-star Larry Fessenden. When a film this small gets thrust under a spotlight this bright, you worry about that the movie itself will be overwhelmed. I do hope this unlikely attention helps Wendy & Lucy get seen, but coming in with high expectations(Old Joy was one of my favorite films of its year), I was a bit underwhelmed. Here, as in Old Joy, Reichardt is concerned with a “normal” person’s collision with life on the margins of society. Williams plays Wendy, a young woman driving with her dog Lucy to Alaska to try to find work at a canning factory. When the film begins, she’s low on cash but at least she has a plan, and her run-in around a bonfire with an apparent bunch of hippie vagrants (including Joy star Will Oldham) suggests that permanent rootlessness is not part of it. But Wendy’s car breaks down before she can get out of town, and over a series of days one thing goes wrong after another, ultimately forcing Wendy to abandon all plans in order to survive. Anti-costumed as an unassuming hipster (short brown hair, sneakers, hoodie), Williams slips seamlessly into the Reichardt’s familiar naturalism, to the point where even when the story requires hysterics, they seem real. And the bleakness of the film’s suburban Pacific Northwest locations effectively heightens Wendy’s increasing anxiety and hopelessness. But there was a hypnotic quality to Old Joy that’s missing here, sparked by the central relationship’s constantly complex combination of tension, melancholy, frustration, set in a climate of transcendent beauty. Wendy & Lucy has the bleak, but it never explores the light. It hits its single tone perfectly, but it’s still a single tone. Philippe Garrel’s La Frontière de l’aube may be falling to the same fate. This is the first Garrel film to make it to Cannes since 1983, and his presence here was apparently not welcome. As you know, I think the movie is great; many, many people do not, The premiere crowd gave the virtually de rigueur standing ovation, but the press screening ended with boos. Variety trashed it, with Leslie Felperin’s brashly dismissive review teaching us that using the word “bitch” to describe a female protagonist is apparently compatible with the publication’s patented Slanguage. It’s that old double-edged sword: if all goes well, a festival like Cannes can be the platform of an independent filmmaker’s dreams, but a single press screening-gone-bad can make for a crippling comedown. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/23/29846.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/23/2008 3:01:12 PM
Body: Who would have thought, in 2006, when Old Joy spent a year slowly gathering critical steam after having been all but ignored at Sundance, that Kelly Reichardt’s next film would occasion an item in PEOPLE Magazine? “Michelle Williams Dazzles at Cannes Film Festival,” goes the headline of the story by Brenda Rodriguez. Last night’s Wendy & Lucy red carpet was the first that the actress walked since the death of former partner Heath Ledger, and for the tabloids that’s a major hook. Looking down from the balcony last night at the Debussy, it was a trip to watch the Chanel-clad former Dawson’s Creek star stand on the stage at one end of a line that included Reichardt, Old Joy/Wendy & Lucy producer Anish Savjani, and filmmaker/Wendy & Lucy producer and co-star Larry Fessenden. When a film this small gets thrust under a spotlight this bright, you worry about that the movie itself will be overwhelmed. I do hope this unlikely attention helps Wendy & Lucy get seen, but coming in with high expectations(Old Joy was one of my favorite films of its year), I was a bit underwhelmed. Here, as in Old Joy, Reichardt is concerned with a “normal” person’s collision with life on the margins of society. Williams plays Wendy, a young woman driving with her dog Lucy to Alaska to try to find work at a canning factory. When the film begins, she’s low on cash but at least she has a plan, and her run-in around a bonfire with an apparent bunch of hippie vagrants (including Joy star Will Oldham) suggests that permanent rootlessness is not part of it. But Wendy’s car breaks down before she can get out of town, and over a series of days one thing goes wrong after another, ultimately forcing Wendy to abandon all plans in order to survive. Anti-costumed as an unassuming hipster (short brown hair, sneakers, hoodie), Williams slips seamlessly into the Reichardt’s familiar naturalism, to the point where even when the story requires hysterics, they seem real. And the bleakness of the film’s suburban Pacific Northwest locations effectively heightens Wendy’s increasing anxiety and hopelessness. But there was a hypnotic quality to Old Joy that’s missing here, sparked by the central relationship’s constantly complex combination of tension, melancholy, frustration, set in a climate of transcendent beauty. Wendy & Lucy has the bleak, but it never explores the light. It hits its single tone perfectly, but it’s still a single tone. Philippe Garrel’s La Frontière de l’aube may be falling to the same fate. This is the first Garrel film to make it to Cannes since 1983, and his presence here was apparently not welcome. As you know, I think the movie is great; many, many people do not, The premiere crowd gave the virtually de rigueur standing ovation, but the press screening ended with boos. Variety trashed it, with Leslie Felperin’s brashly dismissive review teaching us that using the word “bitch” to describe a female protagonist is apparently compatible with the publication’s patented Slanguage. It’s that old double-edged sword: if all goes well, a festival like Cannes can be the platform of an independent filmmaker’s dreams, but a single press screening-gone-bad can make for a crippling comedown. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 23 May 2008 19:01:12 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/23/2008 3:01:12 PM Who would have thought, in 2006, when Old Joy spent a year slowly gathering critical steam after having been all but ignored at Sundance, that Kelly Reichardt’s next film would occasion an item in PEOPLE Magazine? “Michelle Williams Dazzles at Cannes Film Festival,” goes the headline of the story by Brenda Rodriguez. Last night’s Wendy & Lucy red carpet was the first that the actress walked since the death of former partner Heath Ledger, and for the tabloids that’s a major hook. Looking down from the balcony last night at the Debussy, it was a trip to watch the Chanel-clad former Dawson’s Creek star stand on the stage at one end of a line that included Reichardt, Old Joy/Wendy & Lucy producer Anish Savjani, and filmmaker/Wendy & Lucy producer and co-star Larry Fessenden. When a film this small gets thrust under a spotlight this bright, you worry about that the movie itself will be overwhelmed. I do hope this unlikely attention helps Wendy & Lucy get seen, but coming in with high expectations(Old Joy was one of my favorite films of its year), I was a bit underwhelmed. Here, as in Old Joy, Reichardt is concerned with a “normal” person’s collision with life on the margins of society. Williams plays Wendy, a young woman driving with her dog Lucy to Alaska to try to find work at a canning factory. When the film begins, she’s low on cash but at least she has a plan, and her run-in around a bonfire with an apparent bunch of hippie vagrants (including Joy star Will Oldham) suggests that permanent rootlessness is not part of it. But Wendy’s car breaks down before she can get out of town, and over a series of days one thing goes wrong after another, ultimately forcing Wendy to abandon all plans in order to survive. Anti-costumed as an unassuming hipster (short brown hair, sneakers, hoodie), Williams slips seamlessly into the Reichardt’s familiar naturalism, to the point where even when the story requires hysterics, they seem real. And the bleakness of the film’s suburban Pacific Northwest locations effectively heightens Wendy’s increasing anxiety and hopelessness. But there was a hypnotic quality to Old Joy that’s missing here, sparked by the central relationship’s constantly complex combination of tension, melancholy, frustration, set in a climate of transcendent beauty. Wendy & Lucy has the bleak, but it never explores the light. It hits its single tone perfectly, but it’s still a single tone. Philippe Garrel’s La Frontière de l’aube may be falling to the same fate. This is the first Garrel film to make it to Cannes since 1983, and his presence here was apparently not welcome. As you know, I think the movie is great; many, many people do not, The premiere crowd gave the virtually de rigueur standing ovation, but the press screening ended with boos. Variety trashed it, with Leslie Felperin’s brashly dismissive review teaching us that using the word “bitch” to describe a female protagonist is apparently compatible with the publication’s patented Slanguage. It’s that old double-edged sword: if all goes well, a festival like Cannes can be the platform of an independent filmmaker’s dreams, but a single press screening-gone-bad can make for a crippling comedown. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/5/22/29756.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 5/22/2008 3:00:59 PM
Body: The French title of Philippe Garrel’s film in competition here is La Frontière de l’aube; the English translation in the Cannes guide is Frontier of Dawn, but the subtitle at the beginning of the film read, The Dawn of the Shore. Neither title gives any indication of what this film is: a story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge. I have to wonder if those critics who dismissed James Gray’s Two Lovers earlier in week will bother to grapple will the similarities between that star-studded American production and Garrel’s infinitely cooler, warm-toned black-and-white capital-A work of Art. On paper, they’re essentially the same film: a Jewish photographer falls for a difficult, substance-dependent blonde; even though that relationship is clearly doomed from the start, it haunts him and prevents him from happily settling into a domestic routine with a still-beautiful but less troubled and exciting brunette. The big difference, at least narratively speaking: in Gray’s film, as the director told Andrew O’Hehir, the protagonist ultimately “does choose life.” Spoiler alert! The resolution to Garrel’s story is the diametric opposite. Movie star Carole (Laura Smet) is living half a world away from her filmmaker husband when she meets Francois (Garrel’s son Louis, his eyes dark, as if eyelinered naturally), a photographer who comes to her hotel to take her picture. It’s not clear if Francois is a journalist or an artist or what, but the project seems to take him weeks to complete, and by the second photo shoot, Francois and Carole have fallen into bed. They pledge undying love, but the sharp violin/piano jazz-horror score alerts us right away that things aren’t going to work out. Gin-swilling serial suicide attempter Carole seems destined to go the way of Frances Farmer, and though she seems convinced that Francois can save her from herself, he can’t stop what’s coming for long. After Carole’s husband comes home suddenly and just misses catching Francois in her bed, Francois leaves and, despite Carole’s pleas, stoically refuses to come back. Carole’s heartbreak leads to a swerve into Shock Corridor territory. Meanwhile, Francois takes up with the lovely but fairly normal (and thus comparatively boring) Eve. A year after Carole violently exits the picture, Eve becomes pregnant; just as Francois has accepted that he’s about to become a father, the spectre of Carole comes back to try and drag his happy home life into the grave. Perhaps because there are more than a few members of the press corps who could be described as socially awkward Jewish males, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that in Two Lovers, Gwyneth Paltrow’s character is able to push Joaquin Phoenix’s as far as she does because she embodies his bad girl shiksa fantasy. When in that film, the nice Jewish boy threatens to abandon his family and local community in order to run off with the dangerous blonde instead of settling for the sensible match of his same background and faith, it might be a mistake and it might be a dissapointment to his parents, but it’s hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions. Garrel’s film takes the mystical threat of the shiksa far more seriously, literally turning her into something out of a horror-movie as the film morphs from classical, almost slight romance to a serious meditation on love, faith and eternity. Garell tells us twice that Francois is Jewish––once directly, once implicitly (Francois thinks talk of concentration camp survivors if fit for pillow talk; amazingly, Carole agrees). Taking place in Paris, far outside Two Lovers’ world of Brighton Beach second-and third-generation immigrants, this information only seems significant after the final scene. At the risk of giving away more than I’d like to, the film’s denouement requires its Jewish protagonist to believe in an afterlife. When confessing his bind to a friend, the friend has no sympathy for Francois’ inability to concentrate on his impending nuptials and push Carole out of his head. “Bourgeois happiness,” says the friend. “Scary, isn’t it?” Apparently, it is–it’s such a prominent fear that it’s become the subject of two films in competition at Cannes in the same year. I like both but they’re such stylistic polar opposites that I imagine that most critics will champion one and bash the other. For me, the borderline-genre elements of the Garrel film make it the more interesting specimen. There are shots in this film’s second half that are scarier than anything I’ve seen in a horror film in recent years––without the aid of any effect more special than a basic optical print––and simultaneously, incredibly moving in their invocation of a love that won’t die. Or, at the very least, refuses to abide by traditional boundaries of love and death. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Thu, 22 May 2008 19:00:59 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog5/22/2008 3:00:59 PM The French title of Philippe Garrel’s film in competition here is La Frontière de l’aube; the English translation in the Cannes guide is Frontier of Dawn, but the subtitle at the beginning of the film read, The Dawn of the Shore. Neither title gives any indication of what this film is: a story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge. I have to wonder if those critics who dismissed James Gray’s Two Lovers earlier in week will bother to grapple will the similarities between that star-studded American production and Garrel’s infinitely cooler, warm-toned black-and-white capital-A work of Art. On paper, they’re essentially the same film: a Jewish photographer falls for a difficult, substance-dependent blonde; even though that relationship is clearly doomed from the start, it haunts him and prevents him from happily settling into a domestic routine with a still-beautiful but less troubled and exciting brunette. The big difference, at least narratively speaking: in Gray’s film, as the director told Andrew O’Hehir, the protagonist ultimately “does choose life.” Spoiler alert! The resolution to Garrel’s story is the diametric opposite. Movie star Carole (Laura Smet) is living half a world away from her filmmaker husband when she meets Francois (Garrel’s son Louis, his eyes dark, as if eyelinered naturally), a photographer who comes to her hotel to take her picture. It’s not clear if Francois is a journalist or an artist or what, but the project seems to take him weeks to complete, and by the second photo shoot, Francois and Carole have fallen into bed. They pledge undying love, but the sharp violin/piano jazz-horror score alerts us right away that things aren’t going to work out. Gin-swilling serial suicide attempter Carole seems destined to go the way of Frances Farmer, and though she seems convinced that Francois can save her from herself, he can’t stop what’s coming for long. After Carole’s husband comes home suddenly and just misses catching Francois in her bed, Francois leaves and, despite Carole’s pleas, stoically refuses to come back. Carole’s heartbreak leads to a swerve into Shock Corridor territory. Meanwhile, Francois takes up with the lovely but fairly normal (and thus comparatively boring) Eve. A year after Carole violently exits the picture, Eve becomes pregnant; just as Francois has accepted that he’s about to become a father, the spectre of Carole comes back to try and drag his happy home life into the grave. Perhaps because there are more than a few members of the press corps who could be described as socially awkward Jewish males, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that in Two Lovers, Gwyneth Paltrow’s character is able to push Joaquin Phoenix’s as far as she does because she embodies his bad girl shiksa fantasy. When in that film, the nice Jewish boy threatens to abandon his family and local community in order to run off with the dangerous blonde instead of settling for the sensible match of his same background and faith, it might be a mistake and it might be a dissapointment to his parents, but it’s hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions. Garrel’s film takes the mystical threat of the shiksa far more seriously, literally turning her into something out of a horror-movie as the film morphs from classical, almost slight romance to a serious meditation on love, faith and eternity. Garell tells us twice that Francois is Jewish––once directly, once implicitly (Francois thinks talk of concentration camp survivors if fit for pillow talk; amazingly, Carole agrees). Taking place in Paris, far outside Two Lovers’ world of Brighton Beach second-and third-generation immigrants, this information only seems significant after the final scene. At the risk of giving away more than I’d like to, the film’s denouement requires its Jewish protagonist to believe in an afterlife. When confessing his bind to a friend, the friend has no sympathy for Francois’ inability to concentrate on his impending nuptials and push Carole out of his head. “Bourgeois happiness,” says the friend. “Scary, isn’t it?” Apparently, it is–it’s such a prominent fear that it’s become the subject of two films in competition at Cannes in the same year. I like both but they’re such stylistic polar opposites that I imagine that most critics will champion one and bash the other. For me, the borderline-genre elements of the Garrel film make it the more interesting specimen. There are shots in this film’s second half that are scarier than anything I’ve seen in a horror film in recent years––without the aid of any effect more special than a basic optical print––and simultaneously, incredibly moving in their invocation of a love that won’t die. Or, at the very least, refuses to abide by traditional boundaries of love and death. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth